I read the definition the first time.

You fail to see the irony of calling organic food organic. Either all food is organic or none of it is because it is produced with water.

Water is an inorganic substance.

You got that right cyber.

Xaeon

You have a wiley habit of taking my quotes out of context. Please stop doing that.

My first two quotes in your rebuttal refer to your statement...

You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up

You see lot's of them. You're wrong

"We are constantly bombarded with Einstein was right articles. I entered exactly that phrase and got 507,000 hits."

So what? I entered "evolution is right" and got 144,000,000 hits.

So what...reference above. This is an example of you taking my quote out of context and replying to something I never said.

The point is not, who has the most quotes, the point is that you made a statement that is wrong. That statement is...

You don't see "Turns out, Einstien was right" articles popping up

You do.

In the next two quotes of mine you do the exact same thing again. Please read my post.

Xaeon says

What money is there to be made by evolution being a fact? The money is understanding HOW evolution works and being able to take advantage of this (which, by the way, we already do with the domestication of animals).

Please tell my you're not serious? The more discoveries you make the more funding you get. It's not a difficult concept.

But once again you take a quote of mine out of context. We were refering to Nat. Geo., Smithsonian and other mainstream "publications" you switched my wording to "science" and for some reason I went with that. Maybe I was trying to communicate with you on your level?

It is this sentence here that shows your misunderstandings the best. Evolution is what happens. Natural selection is HOW it happens. Evolution, as I've said so many times, is an observed fact. Science isn't in some kind of struggle with this as you are making out. Science knows this is a fact and that is that:

Believe it or not I agree.

The problem for me is that I assumed fact meant absolute certainty. It doesn't. The whole time I should have said evolution is not an absolute cerntainty.

Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dusted. You don't see "Turns out, Einstein was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's true.

Whoa...this is so wrong on so many levels.

You don't see "Turns out, Einstein was right" articles popping up, because we've been there, done that, and we know it's true

Einstein’s “Blunder” is Right, After All; Journal of Young Scientist © 2007 Falishia Sloan, Science Journalist

We are constantly bombarded with Einstein was right articles. I entered exactly that phrase and got 507,000 hits.

Mainstream science isn't touting it as it is pretty much considered done and dusted

Are you serious? Look at the debate here. Mainstream science can make a lot of money on this subject and has made a lot of money on this subject. You don't think they would make a big deal about a definitive evolution 'smoking gun'?

Just look at how much attention is paid to the numerous specimens vying for 'missing link' status since Lucy's discovery. I may not be the most science savvy guy but I do know what makes money and this subject is one of the few, in science, that captures the passion of the layman. This is a 'crossover' over subject if there ever was one.

I'll say it again. Evolution is fact. The process by which it takes place (natural selection) is what may be up for debate.

You have it backwards. Natural selection is a fact...your pepper moth article proves that. Hell the current size of an NFL lineman probably proves that. The theory of Evolution is not a fact.

"I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too."

Wrong. Find a scientist who doesn't believe in evolution AND isn't affected by his decision due to his religious convictions. You won't find a single one.

Xaeon...don't mess with what I was saying...that's not nice. I stated earlier in this debate I believe in evolution.

I was referring to the pepper moth article. The article itself said scientist don't agree on a lot of the points the author was making in that article.

Made

I read the article what does that have to do with what I said?

No where in the wikipedia article does it say food grown without water. There is no such thing as organic food.

Or you could say all food is organic. Choices?

With so many adjectives why chose to call it call it 'organic' when the major growing medium is inorganic? You might as well call the Titanic unsinkable.

Made I hope I get more then just water for breakfast.

Peppered Moth is observational proof of genetic drift.

I'm not saying anyone is wrong or right.

I read the article and I don't see evolution taking place but I'm not a scientist. I would also think that a lot of other scientist would agree with me too.

It goes back to the smoking gun post I left earlier. None of the mainstream science is touting this...wikipedia puh-lease.

There is no such thing as organic food

All food is grown in water. Water is not an organic substance.

Shunted

I figured someone would bring this up. Mormans carry a Bible with them. They believe Christ is the son of God. They just don't have the same views of God that most traditional Christians have.

So what? Do they have to interperet everything the exact same way as everyone else? Is there no room for a little leeway?

Toe-may-toe...toe-ma-toe get over it.

I agree that generations apply to the species. I've been reading some of your examples from earlier posts.

I'm not enough of a scientist to be able to discern the subtleties pointed out in plants for instance. Is it truly a new species if it's a hybrid?

The thing I do know is that there is still enough disagreement amongst scientist that the smoking gun hasn't been found.

It could be a matter of promotion/ignorance but if the smoking gun had been found Nat. Geo. would have had blazing headlines. The Smithsonian, Scientific American any number of mainstream publications would be clamoring for definitive proof.

Think about it. Big headlines for life on Mars. Lucy. Hype sells and evolution is one of the biggest mysteries in science.

The article, from you, "Observed Instances of Speciation" doesn't come right out and say evolution has been proved. The scientist, Joseph Boxhorn, who wrote the article begins with all kinds of caveats.

That's wrong. You can only give the title "proof" to a mathmatical formula.

I just looked up proof in "The Merriam-Webster Dictionary" ©1997 and it didn't say anything about a 'mathematical formula'.

I believe in evolution but it is impossible to ever prove it now. Eventually we will be able to document the evolutionary processes of current species but until then it's a theory.

The key phrase in the theory of evolution is, "...over many generations..." it's barely been many generations since it was even proposed.

As an example...Einstein said light could bend. The majority of physicist in the world showed calculation after calculation explaining exactly why light could, would and should bend but until the proper instruments were invented and the proper situation occured it couldn't be proven. We now know it's a fact.

All the lab work, DNA results and field studies mean nothing until the process, taking 'many generations' is documented.