Dwarfs

[yagyujubei]

Using science to disprove science?

 

[tickle]

I don't think its wrong it would take to long and cost to much

---

I believe in evolution

 

[ra94131]

Using science to disprove science?

Correction: Using bad "science" to disprove actual science.

I know the evolution/creation debate doesn't really belong here, but nothing gets under my skin more than anyone that pretends there is any science supporting Creation or Intelligent Design. If you believe in those things through faith, I'll never argue with you. If you pretend that any respected part of the scientific community has a better theory than (or significantly disagrees with) evolution, that is just incorrect.

As for the dwarfs, I agree with the logistic issues mentioned above, but don't have any moral qualms if someone (and their descendants) wants to give it a shot. Most dwarfs in existence (excluding dogs) were already dwarf due to locality (or similar) and were simple fostered by humans.

 

[RedfootsRule]

Using science to disprove science?

Correction: Using bad "science" to disprove actual science.

I know the evolution/creation debate doesn't really belong here, but nothing gets under my skin more than anyone that pretends there is any science supporting Creation or Intelligent Design. If you believe in those things through faith, I'll never argue with you. If you pretend that any respected part of the scientific community has a better theory than (or significantly disagrees with) evolution, that is just incorrect.

As for the dwarfs, I agree with the logistic issues mentioned above, but don't have any moral qualms if someone (and their descendants) wants to give it a shot. Most dwarfs in existence (excluding dogs) were already dwarf due to locality (or similar) and were simple fostered by humans.

Ahem..."A discusson about evolution belongs in the debate section." If someone wishes to start a thread there, I would be happy to debate all day about it...Many things in your post that I would love to discuss. But lets not hi-jack the thread about dwarfs.

 

[yagyujubei]

Seems to me, the only person "debating" is you. I have no desire to change your opinion. Why do you find it necessary to attempt to change ours?

 

[RedfootsRule]

Seems to me, the only person "debating" is you. I have no desire to change your opinion. Why do you find it necessary to attempt to change ours?

I am not debating. In the beginning, I merely pointed out facts...The debate was started by others.

I wish I could change your opinion, because you would find the actual truth in science. Exclude religion from it entirely, and take a look at the facts...you will be surprised.

 

[ra94131]

I am not debating. In the beginning, I merely pointed out facts...The debate was started by others.

I wish I could change your opinion, because you would find the actual truth in science. Exclude religion from it entirely, and take a look at the facts...you will be surprised.

You posted an obviously contentious view point and used your disbelief in evolutionary theory to explain your thoughts on the original post. You followed this up with "facts" that can be found in the publications of hundreds of "scientific institutes" who employ more politicians and reverends than scientists. There is little need to debate this topic though as I'm sure nobody will be changing their mind.

As far as it relates to the original post, I think between the few of us arguing we've made it clear that some people may disagree with breeding dwarfs on the basis of whether the natural world is framed by God's plan/creationism or evolutionary theory/science. Both are legitimate viewpoints and commonly held.