you realize evolution is the foundation for all of modern biology, right?
you realise a flat earth was the foundation of all classical sciences, right? regardless i'm pretty sure GENETICS was more important than RELATION TO THE DINOS and genetics is the foundation of all evolution (which is why lamarckian stuff isn't used today). either way i don't think evolution is REQUIRED for all biology or even most biology in the same way that the theory of phlogiston isn't necessary for baking
because you're so smart that you've transcended above all of us racists who believe in evolution because it is far superior in terms of scientific data than any hypothesis put forth by mythologies such as the one you believe in?
i don't see how this related to anything, this whole discussion came from Dada saying evolution doesn't need support anymore, it's already proven, stop looking. i don't even understand this at all, i never said i was smart, i said it didn't mean a lot ryan calling me dumb.
why don't people get this i'm not saying it's WRONG i'm saying LOGICALLY IT DOES NOT FOLLOW. on top of that i said it's not very useful and so far people have called me dumb for this because:
chronological from my first post (Click to reveal)-there isn't anything missing in evolution, evidence is just a piece of an already complete puzzle
-fossils are rare
-there will always be more things to find [that support evolution]
-evolution doesn't need evidence
-evolution has been around for a long time
-a lot of people believe in evolution
-other theories aren't as logical
-evolution doesn't need evidence
-you don't understand how science works
-you don't understand evolution
-you can't distinguish between a theory and what the theory supports?
-christianity supports worse things than evolution
-the bible isn't logical
-evolution isn't just a theory it's also a fact!
-you don't understand evolution
-evolutionary theory doesn't support racism because race differences can also be explained in terms of cultural differences
-you're gay
-evolution is an observation and a theory that explains the observation
-evolution is validated by the presence of animals
-evolution does have predictive value, bacteria in an experiment developed the ability to metabolise citrate.
-if you don't acknowledge microevolution you're insane
-not everyone that believes in evolution believes all biological differences are caused by evolution
-you don't understand evolution because you don't read
-hypothetical examples don't work because they're not real
-following scientists blindly is better than following a fairytale
-you don't understand evolution, all of your arguments against it are stereotypical
-you weren't reasoned into your criticisms
-you don't know about evolution
-you can't criticise the logic of evolution without knowing what evolution is arguing
-you don't understand evolution because you haven't read enough
-you can't criticise the logic of evolution without knowing basic science
-evolution sounds more accurate than creation
-you don't understand highschool biology
-evolution underscores modern day biology
i skipped omcifers post and i realised half way though i was using "you" rather than "i" but it doesn't matter. the only thing that came near to addressing any point i made was dada's citrate example. honestly read through that, it's like a youtube commentary. none of those address the logic or usefulness of evolution. i guess usefulness is implied in relation to the foundation of modern day biology, but how or why isn't given and i have a feeling you wouldn't be able to without drawing on the same arguments i criticised for unverifiability and disgusting conclusions.
for being dumb as hell it sure looks like i can argue better, and if you don't believe me then you just don't understand logic
Gaming World Forums
Missing link found???