The fact that you end the statement here as a singular point proves you do not know or understand evolution or science itself. Evolution is BOTH a Fact AND a Theory.
There has not been enough time to show that mutation occurs.
BTW, I am an atheist/agnostic.
It may not matter to YOU but it does matter. If this were the turn of the 20th century I would agree with you. But not to accept Evolution in 2008 is to live in ignorance and deny reality.
Substanceless paragraph.
And if you deny evolution knowing what little you apparently know about it while believing you know more than you do you're not being open minded, you're uneducated.
I know alot abotu evolution. I used ot be a hardcore atheist crusader.... like yourself. Believe me, I know plenty.
The child would be mistaken. A bat is not a bird, and if you think that the child would be right then you're just as mistaken.
Its just a system of classification. If scientists had decided first and formeost, birds flew, a bat would be a bird, instead, they chose that first and foremost, mammals have to ween with milk, so it's a mammal.
The sad part about this is that you think that just because there are differing ideas about those things that this somehow makes evolution less likely. Again, you are more and more proving to me that you do not understand science or evolution.
I got A's in my college physics, astronomy, psychology, sociology... lots of other stuff to. Actually, I hear Christians can get A's in these fields, even biology... hmm....
Evolution doesn't have a 'first premise'. This again shows how mistaken you are about what evolution is and what it is not. Evolution has nothing whatsoever do say about the origins of life itself. Evolution is only about what happened to life once it became life and the theory does not hinge upon how life became life in of itself.
Did you know there was a model, that perfectly could predict the positon of the planets and moon... but rotated everything around the earth?
It was probably some kind of singularity.
science?
Evolution doesn't attempt to explain how life became life so now that you know that are you saying you DO believe in Evolution? Have you ever studied the different ideas about modern abiogenesis origins of life?
I have read a couple. Space spores and electrified primordial ooze. There si lots of evidence for evolution, but that doesn't mean that is how it happened. It could be survival of the fittest.... it could be deliberate DNA reprogramming. It is hard to find fossils that are in between states of species.
All the evidence says that our minds are created by our brain. That is its function. There is a TON of evidence to support that. We actually know more about the brain and the mind than many people believe we do. I have no use for a soul and I can't imagine why anyone else needs one either.
I am merely one biological computer linking with another, both of us quite sure there is no world beyond what we know. Equus14 has solved the ancient mystery of the ghost in the shell.
We aren't talking about computers. We're talking about people.
see above
It's true that people can be rational and still have beliefs but that does not automatically make their beliefs rational.
OK. So Ron Paul can be rational, and still have a belief, an irrational belief. How does that affect the way he has voted?
He believes in a creator, so he should have voted irrationally;
*he voted against the Iraq war
*he voted against the USA PATRIOT Act
*he has never voted to raise taxes
*he has never voted for an unbalanced budget
*He voted against the Military commissions Act, the Rave act, and repeatedly has brought bills to the floor of the house that would end the drug war
Are any of these positions irrational? Were any of these spurned on by his belief in a creator?
Actually we do know the properties of time. Time as we experience it is an illusion.
Time is not a part of reality?
Both gravity and evolution are facts but HOW they are happening is what the theory attempts to explain.
They are still theories. The Sun and planets around the earth model worked perfectly fine... but it was wrong.
That's true they did, and they also were the architects of the separation of church and state. They had no problem keeping them separate. That seems to be a great difficulty to many candidates today.
Ron Paul talks like a Christian about many things, but if you look at his record, he votes very much in line with the constitution. He voted against giving Rosa Parks a medal, because the constitution does not say you can spend money to give medals and rewards. (He also voted against giving his good friend Ronald Reagan a medal). If you listen to the man, and look at his record, you will see, he follows the constitution. the worst that could happen under him, for almost any issue, would be the power would be returned to the states, since he beleives the interstate commerce clause has been abused.
I don't know enough about him to say.
Do you know anything abotu buddhism? They believe some mystical things, liek reincarnation. Do you think a Buddhist would be a terrible president?
