Replies

Play nice. Other wise it will be a pasta fight.

Natural Selection is a crappy theory because:

They know mergers occur but have no way of accounting for them, especially in the fossil record.

They use changeable definition for their terms, like the basic term "species".

They use evolution as a fact interchangeably with the Theories of Evolution, obfuscating their own arguments and then blaming others for their own poor arguments.

NS has been around for a LONG TIME. They have FEW practical applications compared with other theories that have around a LONG TIME.

ID exists. We are doing it currently. How well? We'll get better. But we KNOW ID exists.

DK

Natural Selection is a crappy theory because:

Natural selection isn't a theory, it's a process.

They know mergers occur but have no way of accounting for them, especially in the fossil record.

Example of a merger with no accounting?

They use changeable definition for their terms, like the basic term "species".

It's not our fault that in reality the division between the properties of populations of life forms is sometimes so blurred that it's impossible to make exact specifications of terms.

They use evolution as a fact interchangeably with the Theories of Evolution, obfuscating their own arguments and then blaming others for their own poor arguments.

This is a semantic argument. I agree that sometimes people are ambiguous when saying that "evolution is a fact" by not clarifying that they're referring to the specific event called "evolution" and not the theory, but this in no way weaknes the theory of evolution or natural selection.

NS has been around for a LONG TIME. They have FEW practical applications compared with other theories that have around a LONG TIME.

1) Natural Selection is not a "theory", it is a process.

2) Natural selection does have useful application in the biotech industry.

ID exists. We are doing it currently. How well? We'll get better. But we KNOW ID exists.

Which is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for the claim that ID is responsible for life or the universe itself. Gravity exists, but that's not evidence that gravity is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.

Thanks for the advice. I forgot that I was arguing with a stump. It is pointless, just like the debate. People that are convinced will not be swayed in either direction. If I am right then it will not be pleasant for them. If they are right, then we are all dead and nothing more. I am extremely doubtful of the latter.