#16 – My point is that some people reject all that is know about the origin of life in favor of the view that is was created as it is today. How it came to be and where it is going is fascinating. To insist that birds did not come from dinosaurs because “that is not how God did it” seems – ignorant.

God setting a process in motion and even guiding it is easily in concert with Darwin’s work and his views. The ideas that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, or that life is not in a constant state of adaptation and refinement fly in the face of the evidence.

All life is in a “transitional” form. Billions of years are at work. To insist that ducks only could have been created by intervention – an inordinate act – makes God seem like an amateur. Yes – The evidence suggests that all life came from the simplest forms. Even simpler than single celled organisms.

Now – someone out there is thinking “he’s saying man came from monkeys”. And that is where the stupid part comes in . . . .

yawn,,,

#22 – And then even bigger boobs evolved – and then, God created silicone . . . . .

Fuzz, you better help this guy, or gal. He/she doesn't seem to be very good at this sort of thing.

#19 – “Is evolution the same as Darwinism?”

Rodger that, pretty much the same. Not to be confused with Social Darwinism – which is not the same.

And Leo, thanks for the vote of confidence.

birds DID NOT COME FROM dinosaurs.

They came from eggs, and I will entertain no other theorys on this issue

Boobs are great but.... I like big butts and I cannot lie.

Just think, if we track back about 4 million years we would find our cousins were chimpanzees and bonobos. Or if we go back just a mere 200,000 years we would find that we all had the same mother (Mitochondrial Eve).

-JT

20. Author: FuzzNJ

"16: Lmao, like Darwin was a prophet who set down gospel for all of us mere mortals to follow."

Dude how you leapt to that conclusion I'll never know...oh yah, you're FuzzNJ.

"...some people reject all that is know about the origin of life..."

I think we know very little, because we have yet to know what we don't know.

It is a theory. My issue is that a theory is all too often being presented as fact, which flies in the face of the Scientific Method.

And if correlation is not causation, why should we accept as fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs?

imo

you gotta be some kinda Neanderfirk not to know Darwin was FSM's son sent here to edumicate us!

^

Ra-men to that!

#26 – How do you know birds did not come from dinosaurs?

#29 – Granted, they are theories and like the body of science, they are subject to questioning and revision. Newton was proven wrong by Einstein. And yet we still build aircraft base on Newton’s theories of motion.

The “facts” being presented are in the light of “this is what is logical to assume based on the evidence”. That is scientific method.

We agree (people studied in the science) that it is reasonable to assume that birds came from dinosaurs because of the evidence.

#22 - “Gonzo, the lead guitar player, placed his mutated member in her slithering slit . . . “

Robert, because Darwin never said life evolved from a single cell organism. Also it's science. It also evolves from more knowledge, more testing, more peer review, more discoveries. It's much different from 'God did it'.

more about Gonzo please.

#32

Actually, Newton wasn't proven wrong by Einstein. Newton's laws are a special case of Einstein's, so think of Newton's laws as a subset of Einstein's laws, which are more general.

Sorry, the physicist in me had to clear that up.

-JT

"The “facts” being presented are in the light of “this is what is logical to assume based on the evidence”. That is scientific method."

assumption is not logical

JTokash – Point taken. Sorry to over simplify. I was speaking to the broader topic of how theories “evolve”. Seems some are discounting theories because they are . . .well theories.

So where does the physicist weigh in? Seen any Flying Spaghetti Monsters lately?

Lluvia – Your proof is elegant and subtle. And also unintelligible. Of what assumption do you write?

no, not discounted because theories are theories...read it again

theory ? fact

a theory should be acknowledged as a theory

when a statement is made, for example, in a classroom science resource...it should be acknowledge as a theory, not stated as fact

for example, "birds evolved from dinosaurs" is stated as fact

"according to evolution theory, birds evolved from dinosaurs" is a statement acknowledging the assumption is based on a theory...a theory that has room to EVOLVE

there is a difference

39: Gravity is still defined as a theory.