Darwin's Black Box

[beelzebub]

In Darwin's Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex", that in order to evolve, multiple systems would have to arise simultaneously. He claims that such systems exist in biology and that the existence of "irreducible complexity" argues for an intelligent designer. Behe describes in detail several biochemial systems and alludes to others, claiming that they are "irreducibly complex."

Most science books for popular audiences focus on the frontiers of knowledge: what do we know, what does it suggest, and where is it likely to take us. In contrast, I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.

He is a joke and his book was a "hard read"

[REPTILE]

Yes, Yes, I agree.

[MrBirdy]

Anything that includes the all-mighty "inteligent designer" isnt for me... I haven't read the book, if (which i doubt) do read the book, it will only be becouse i was either forced to, or to make fun of those non-left-non-right-winged-people who go for for evolution but many times claim it was god's idea, i dont know what i just said, well thanks for the review

[freakazoid]

In Darwin's Black Box, biochemist Michael Behe claims that many biological systems are "irreducibly complex", that in order to evolve, multiple systems would have to arise simultaneously. He claims that such systems exist in biology and that the existence of "irreducible complexity" argues for an intelligent designer. Behe describes in detail several biochemial systems and alludes to others, claiming that they are "irreducibly complex."

Most science books for popular audiences focus on the frontiers of knowledge: what do we know, what does it suggest, and where is it likely to take us. In contrast, I would characterize Behe's book as an exposition of the Frontiers of Ignorance: what do we not know, and how can we blind ourselves with that lack of knowledge.

He is a joke and his book was a "hard read"

Ah yes, but you have to admit that he does bring up a BIG problem for the hypothesis of evolution and those that preach it given the fact that "many biological systems are irreducibly complex, that [I]in order to evolve, multiple systems would have to arise simultaneously" ...and...

...no one has proven him wrong with any hard facts. Ouch! :eek:

[Ape-Shit]

It Happens!

[beelzebub]

......problem for the hypothesis of evolution and those that preach it given the fact that "many biological systems are irreducibly complex, that [I]in order to evolve, multiple systems would have to arise simultaneously" ...and...
...no one has proven him wrong with any hard facts. Ouch! :eek:

By the way we in the scientific community get to define our THEORIES not you.
Evolution is backed up with TONS of facts. It happened no matter how much you wish it did not little man.

You must be ignorant of his arguments. His arguments state that irreducibly complex biochemical systems could not have evolved because the components that make up these biochemical systems are too specific to have evolved separately.

Its Paley's watch argument (a fallacy) and it neglects the understanding of how these systems were supported by compounds in their environment. It also neglects to understand how systems of simplicity can got to be complex and as they grow the supports that enabled them to grow complex can fall away. As the supports all away new systems evolve to take their place.

His book as been refuted successfuly buy Gould as well as many other notable biologists. (This means that he was proved wrong)

Behe sheds light on some areas that we don't fully comprehend but his notations do not disprove the THEORY of EVOLUTION.

[General Septem]

Evolution is backed up with TONS of facts.

What facts, they found a monkey from 30,000 years ago, a half monkey a few thousand years after that, and a human a few years later, and you consider this proof? Wtf?

[beelzebub]

What facts, they found a monkey from 30,000 years ago, a half monkey a few thousand years after that, and a human a few years later, and you consider this proof? Wtf?

GS - I see this posting as a PRIME example of why you need to go to school.

Tell me

Why does a whale have a femur and a pelvis bone?
Why does the protein cytochrome C have similarity between closely related organisms and dissimilarity between distantly related organisms?
Why does a Whale, Frog Horse Human, Lion Bat and Bird all have the same body plan for an arm? (e.g. humerus, ulna, radius and carples).
Why does a blind cave fish have eyes?
Where in the bible did it discuss the rise and fall of the Insects (Devonian Period) the Dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic & Carboniferous )
How is it that bacteria adapt to new medications?

Whats sad is you think the sole purpose of evolution is to prove that humans evolved from the apes. It is nothing further from the truth.

I think it is sad that you reject logic and reasoning in favor of myth and opinion.

[General Septem]

Whats sad is you think the sole purpose of evolution is to prove that humans evolved from the apes. It is nothing further from the truth.

I think it is sad that you reject logic and reasoning in favor of myth and opinion.

What's sad is you think my argument against evolution extends to all realms of life. It is onthing further from the truth; I only believe humans did not evolve from apes.

I think it is sad that you regect reasonability in favor of judgment and jumping to conclusions.

[beelzebub]

What's sad is you think my argument against evolution extends to all realms of life. It is onthing further from the truth; I only believe humans did not evolve from apes.
I think it is sad that you regect reasonability in favor of judgment and jumping to conclusions.

You are the one that started drawing distinctions. I said evolution and all of a suddent you start talking about monkey skeletons. You are the cause of this.

Humans are not any different from any of other living thing on this planet. We all evolve.

[General Septem]

You are the one that started drawing distinctions. I said evolution and all of a suddent you start talking about monkey skeletons. You are the cause of this.

Humans are not any different from any of other living thing on this planet. We all evolve.

You said evolution and all I said was that humans didn't evolve.

You claim humans are no different than any other living thing. Allow me to point out that human intelligence has invented every piece of technology we use, and that we are inarguably the driving force of the planet. The same cannot be said of animals. This makes us very different from any other living thing on the planet. I win.

[beelzebub]

You said evolution and all I said was that humans didn't evolve.

No GS you said "
What facts, they found a monkey from 30,000 years ago, a half monkey a few thousand years after that, and a human a few years later, and you consider this proof? Wtf?

and you quoted this from me "Evolution is backed up with TONS of facts."

Its all there. you made the distinctions get over it. You made a mistake. It's ok for someone of your limited education.

[freakazoid]

By the way we in the scientific community get to define our THEORIES not you.
Evolution is backed up with TONS of facts. It happened no matter how much you wish it did not little man.

You must be ignorant of his arguments. His arguments state that irreducibly complex biochemical systems could not have evolved because the components that make up these biochemical systems are too specific to have evolved separately.

Its Paley's watch argument (a fallacy) and it neglects the understanding of how these systems were supported by compounds in their environment. It also neglects to understand how systems of simplicity can got to be complex and as they grow the supports that enabled them to grow complex can fall away. As the supports all away new systems evolve to take their place.

His book as been refuted successfuly buy Gould as well as many other notable biologists. (This means that he was proved wrong)

Behe sheds light on some areas that we don't fully comprehend but his notations do not disprove the THEORY of EVOLUTION.

beelzebub...

RE: "By the way we in the scientific community get to define our THEORIES not you."

We? Who is "we?" Do you have a mouse in your pocket? Does that "community" include the thousands of scientists who DO NOT except the unproven hypothesis of evolution? Unproven...case in point; to be a valid scientific hypothesis, it must be observed (in the laboratory), evolution has NEVER been observed. NEVER. Does your "community" include these scientists, beelzebub??...

Does your "community" include ...

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith:

A.E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England. He received his first doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry at Reading University, England, 1941. During World War II, he joined the Research department of ICI in England. After the war, he became Countess of Lisburne Memorial Fellow at the University of London. Subsequently, Dr. Wilder-Smith was appointed Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. Later he was elected to teach Chemotherapy and Pharmacology at the Medical School of the University of Geneva for which position he received his "habitation" (the senior examination required for professorial appointments to European continental universities). At Geneva, he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zurich.
In 1957-1958 Wilder-Smith was Visiting Assistant Professor at the Medical Centre of the University of Illinois, 1959-1961 Visting Full Professor of Pharmacology of the University of Bergen Medical School in Norway. After a further two years at the University of Geneva, he was appointed Full Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois Medical Centre. Here he received in three succeeding years - three ``Golden Apple Awards" for the best course of lectures, together with four senior lecturer awards for the best series of year lectures.
Dr. Wilder-Smith's last Golden Apple award was inscribed, ``He made us not only better scientists, but also better men."
Creationist, Chemist, & Lecturer
Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
NATO three-star general
Deceased
Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film and video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Behttp://www.wildersmith.org/

:: Does it include -

Institute for Creation Research
10946 Woodside Ave., Santee, CA 92071
(619) 448-0900
http://www.icr.org

Does it include these scientists...

http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_faculty/


:: How about...

http://www.creationism.org/
http://www.creationscience.com
http://www.drdino.com/
http://www.scienceprovesit.com/ proves evolution is a lie.
http://www.sciencefindsgod.com/
http://www.creationdesign.org/
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c010.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flood-myths.html
http://www.creationevidence.org
http://www.evolutionisimpossible.com/
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
http://www.doesgodexist.org/


RE: "Evolution is backed up with TONS of facts. It happened no matter how much you wish it did not little man."

Wrong...VERY WRONG...Evolution is backed up with TONS of interpretation and manipulation of facts by people who have already decided that there is no creator and that "evolution is a fact." NO true scientist approaches a question or theory having already decided what the so-called "truth" is or will be. They are NOT looking for truth; they are looking for and interpreting facts in an attempt to prove what they already a priori believe. That is NOT science. It is superstition at best.


RE: "His book as been refuted successfuly buy Gould as well as many other notable biologists. (This means that he was proved wrong)"

Wrong again, beelzebub, Gould merely points out some problems (based on Gould's own interpretations of Behe's theories), not any form of definitive proof that Behe’s theories are wrong.

"Little man?" Who would that be, beelzebub?

Clearly, beelzebub, you have no idea of what you are talking about...very "Mensa" of you. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif



PS, want to learn something, beelzebub? Try this...

http://www.wildersmith.org/library.htm

[beelzebub]

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

[beelzebub]

Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith:[/B]

Sounds like an egotist to me.

Guess what? He is wrong! HAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!! I guess to err is human.

[ajk]

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.


God created them that way then. Is it true some beings are different from others? Sure it is. Some look different then others, or have things that others may not. Dioesn't mean they don't all have one divine creator however.

[freakazoid]

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

And your point here is what, beelzebub? Enlighten us.

[freakazoid]

Sounds like an egotist to me.

Guess what? He is wrong! HAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!! I guess to err is human.

Prove him wrong, beelzebub. We'll be waiting...in the community.

[beelzebub]

Prove him wrong, beelzebub. We'll be waiting...in the community.

Freak... do you want to have a debate on evolution? No problem. Why don't you start. Propose 2 or 3 things and I will give a rebuttal.

However sitting back and pretending to have a match between Behe an myself is not realistic. Wanting me to have a match and Behe is not realistic because I don't know him (nor do you probably) and I don't debate with books. Since you are such an expert why don't YOU pick up the gauntlet and get to work?

[freakazoid]

Freak... do you want to have a debate on evolution? No problem. Why don't you start. Propose 2 or 3 things and I will give a rebuttal.

However sitting back and pretending to have a match between Behe an myself is not realistic. Wanting me to have a match and Behe is not realistic because I don't know him (nor do you probably) and I don't debate with books. Since you are such an expert why don't YOU pick up the gauntlet and get to work?

OK, beelzebub, here you go...

1. Document the "evolution" of Corn from inanimate matter to Corn as we see it today. I want to see undeniable proof that Corn did in FACT evolve from inanimate matter on Earth. It is a plant life form. Prove that it, in its present day form, did in fact evolve. I want to see the exact steps from dead chemicals to Corn, every step documented.

2. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex, beelzebub. Explain how it happened. If evolution has been established as a fact, as you claim, explain how the origin of life began from dead chemicals. I want exact and documented facts, not a hypothesis given that you claim that “evolution” is a fact. If it is a fact; than it should be sustained by verifiable facts. And, I want a list of the same as observed in the laboratory. Key words - observed in the laboratory.

3. The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms (they simply do not exist), and all life form types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best and the claims are filled with documented fraud as seen in the so-called "Piltdown Man." And, so-called "pre-man fossils" always turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or, as noted, historical frauds.

I await your answers, beelzebub. Enjoy!

http://img77.imageshack.us/img77/2831/cartoonevolutionjs1.gif (http://imageshack.us)

PS, relative to the Corn (or plant problem), you might want to read this, beelzebub...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0406mutation_fixing.asp

:: Foot note...

How Can All Those Scientists Be Wrong?

The idea that evolution may be false is a difficult idea for many people to accept, particularly when a lot of well-educated, smart people, and well-respected organizations say it is true. How can it be that so many people are so wrong?
Most people are taught in school, and from television shows and museums, that evolution explains our universe and all living things, and that evolution is a proven fact. They have not been told about the problems with the theory of evolution, nor have they been given the opportunity to study the concept of "special creation" as a legitimate alternative.
Much of the confusion around the concept of "evolution" is that this word is commonly used to describe two very different things:
Micro-evolution refers to the fact that living things have a built-in variability which allows them to adapt to small changes in the environment. When scientists say that evolution is a proven fact, they mean that micro-evolution is a proven fact. No creation scientist disputes this. Indeed, this ability to adapt would be expected as a part of "good design". Textbook examples of "evolution in action" almost always describe this type of small change, such as the "peppered moth" story, or the development of resistance to pesticides. What is happening in these cases is not the creation of something new, but merely the emphasis of an already existing trait.
Macro-evolution refers to the type of change which has created people from hydrogen gas. Evolutionists say that large scale change is possible because we have seen small scale change in action. However, the flaw in this reasoning is that living systems have limits beyond which no further change can take place.
Some other considerations include:
Much of day to day scientific activity ("practical science") does not directly depend upon evolutionary assumptions, and so progress is made.
Scientific fields of study have become very narrow. A scientist can believe that the evidence for evolution is found in "some other field", even if it is not obviously seen in his own.
Since scientists know that other scientists believe in evolution, they believe it also, even though they may not know much about the details themselves.
Scientists want to have an answer for everything, and so the "best" theory is the accepted theory, regardless of its absolute merits.
Non-naturalistic ideas (like special creation) are regarded as outside the scope of scientific study. Can we equate "what is true" only with "what can be seen and measured"? Is the physical dimension "all there is"? Many scientists have been taught to believe that religious and scientific beliefs are separate things which should be kept separate. However, many of the well-known scientists of the past (such as Louis Pasteur, Issac Newton, and Michael Faraday, among many others) operated with their religious and scientific ideas working together.

[freakazoid]

GS - I see this posting as a PRIME example of why you need to go to school.

Tell me

Why does a whale have a femur and a pelvis bone?
Why does the protein cytochrome C have similarity between closely related organisms and dissimilarity between distantly related organisms?
Why does a Whale, Frog Horse Human, Lion Bat and Bird all have the same body plan for an arm? (e.g. humerus, ulna, radius and carples).
Why does a blind cave fish have eyes?
Where in the bible did it discuss the rise and fall of the Insects (Devonian Period) the Dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic & Carboniferous )
How is it that bacteria adapt to new medications?

Whats sad is you think the sole purpose of evolution is to prove that humans evolved from the apes. It is nothing further from the truth.

I think it is sad that you reject logic and reasoning in favor of myth and opinion.
Here are a few answers for you...

Why does a whale have a femur and a pelvis bone?

Don't know, why do you ask? Are you claiming that this proves so-called “evolution?”

Why does the protein cytochrome C have similarity between closely related organisms and dissimilarity between distantly related organisms?

Why not? What is your point?

Why does a Whale, Frog Horse Human, Lion Bat and Bird all have the same body plan for an arm? (e.g. humerus, ulna, radius and carples).

Easy, same creator. Why do all automobiles, generally speaking, have the same body plan (4 wheels, a motor, brakes, seats, etc.)? Simple; same basic creator.

Why does a blind cave fish have eyes?

Simple, the Bible describes the "natural world" as fallen and corrupt and NOT in the same state (perfect) as created.

Where in the bible did it discuss the rise and fall of the Insects (Devonian Period) the Dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic & Carboniferous )

Why would it? It also leaves out the history of the Chinese, Incan and Myan civilizations. The Bible is a revelation of God's truth to man, not a history of everything that has happened on Earth. Sorry to say this, but that is a stupid question with an obvious answer.

How is it that bacteria adapt to new medications?

Adaptation is no proof of species transmutation (i.e. so-called evolution) from one species to another. It simply does not offer proof of evolution. Species are seen to adapt, but within their own kind. It has NEVER been proven to be an engine of so-called "evolution."

[freakazoid]

GS - I see this posting as a PRIME example of why you need to go to school.

Tell me

Why does a whale have a femur and a pelvis bone?
Why does the protein cytochrome C have similarity between closely related organisms and dissimilarity between distantly related organisms?
Why does a Whale, Frog Horse Human, Lion Bat and Bird all have the same body plan for an arm? (e.g. humerus, ulna, radius and carples).
Why does a blind cave fish have eyes?
Where in the bible did it discuss the rise and fall of the Insects (Devonian Period) the Dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic & Carboniferous )
How is it that bacteria adapt to new medications?

Whats sad is you think the sole purpose of evolution is to prove that humans evolved from the apes. It is nothing further from the truth.

I think it is sad that you reject logic and reasoning in favor of myth and opinion.
Hey, beelzebub, Tell me why...

- There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

- Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

- Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

- The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

- Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

- The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

- Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

- Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

- The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.


Oh oh, its not looking good for beelzebub and his evolution friends from "Mensa!" LOL!! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Ahhh, maybe you people in "Mensa" are more highly evolved than us! LOL

You know what, beelzebub, I think it is really sad that you reject logic and reasoning in favor of myth and opinion.

[freakazoid]

Many ...believe in evolution for the simple reason that they think science has proven it to be a `fact' and, therefore, it must be accepted... In recent years, a great many people...having finally been persuaded to make a real examination of the problem of evolution, have become convinced of its fallacy and are now convinced anti-evolutionists."

-- Henry Morris, former evolutionist.

[beelzebub]

Here are a few answers for you...
Why does a whale have a femur and a pelvis bone?

Don't know, why do you ask? Are you claiming that this proves so-called “evolution?”

Is THIS what you call an answer? You evade the question because you have no answer.

WHY THE FUCK DOES A WHALE HAVE A LEG BONE AND PELVIS?


Why does the protein cytochrome C have similarity between closely related organisms and dissimilarity between distantly related organisms?

Why not? What is your point?

You ask "Whats your point" because you are clueless as to its importance. Do us a favor. Go learn before you debate.


Why does a Whale, Frog Horse Human, Lion Bat and Bird all have the same body plan for an arm? (e.g. humerus, ulna, radius and carples).


Easy, same creator. Why do all automobiles, generally speaking, have the same body plan (4 wheels, a motor, brakes, seats, etc.)? Simple; same basic creator.

Then we created in the image of god are not so unique? God then used the same body plan for everything else?


Why does a blind cave fish have eyes?

Simple, the Bible describes the "natural world" as fallen and corrupt and NOT in the same state (perfect) as created.

So that ancestral blind fish pissed god off and got jesus pissed? Give me a break or at least try to give yourself an education.


Where in the bible did it discuss the rise and fall of the Insects (Devonian Period) the Dinosaurs (Triassic, Jurassic & Carboniferous )

Why would it? It also leaves out the history of the Chinese, Incan and Myan civilizations. The Bible is a revelation of God's truth to man, not a history of everything that has happened on Earth. Sorry to say this, but that is a stupid question with an obvious answer.

EXACTLY - The bible leaves out everything. All kinds of information and truths. Therefore it should be reguarded as a old book and nothing more. Definatly not the ultimate book of wisdom.


How is it that bacteria adapt to new medications?
Adaptation is no proof of species transmutation (i.e. so-called evolution) from one species to another.

Of course it is.

It simply does not offer proof of evolution. Species are seen to adapt, but within their own kind. It has NEVER been proven to be an engine of so-called "evolution."
[/QUOTE]

Yes it does you just choose to not believe. You hang on to your MYTH like a bum to his bottle.

[beelzebub]

- There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

There are. They do exist but anti-evolutionisis like yourself deny their authenticity.


- Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Foolish idle talk. Natural selection eliminated the unfavorable traits. The remaining species advance themselves.


- Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Impossible? no.. Rare? Yes but stranger things happen.


- The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Sounds like more chatter from people who desperately want to disprove evolution. I have studied it extensively and dont see any correlation that you imply.


- Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

You are right! They are not human they are hominids. They were not in the Genus "Homo" or in the species "sapiens". These are your missing links you want proof of.


- The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Who the fuck said anything about monkey? We are apes. Even modern humas have these ape like characteristics.


- Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Rubbish


- Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Rubbish


- The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Yes, and the world is still flat! Go back to your farie tales Freak!
Oh oh, its looking good for beelzebub and his evolution friends from "Mensa!" LOL!! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Ahhh, maybe you people in "Mensa" are more highly evolved than us! LOL


You know what, beelzebub, I think it is really sad that you reject logic and reasoning in favor of myth and opinion.

I feel the same way about you. I see you as a pitiful little man clinging desperatly to your myth. If you had not been polluted by religon you would see logic and reason.

[General Septem]

EXACTLY - The bible leaves out everything. All kinds of information and truths. Therefore it should be reguarded as a old book and nothing more. Definatly not the ultimate book of wisdom.

Your biology books all leave out all kinds of information and truths regarding astronomy either. The purpose of the Bible was not to answer every single question you'd ever want to ask. The purpose of the Bible is to make known the existence of God and to tell us exactly how to avoid the mistakes that lead to Hell, whether on earth or in the afterlife.

[beelzebub]

Your biology books all leave out all kinds of information and truths regarding astronomy either. The purpose of the Bible was not to answer every single question you'd ever want to ask. The purpose of the Bible is to make known the existence of God and to tell us exactly how to avoid the mistakes that lead to Hell, whether on earth or in the afterlife.

We never claim to look at anything BUT biology. Whereas the bible is supposed to be the word of god and details everything. But it falls very short of its goal.

If the bible isn't supposed to answer everything then why do people who love the old book hate evolution? Why could you god not have created everything through evolution?

[freakazoid]

There are. They do exist but anti-evolutionisis like yourself deny their authenticity.



Foolish idle talk. Natural selection eliminated the unfavorable traits. The remaining species advance themselves.



Impossible? no.. Rare? Yes but stranger things happen.



Sounds like more chatter from people who desperately want to disprove evolution. I have studied it extensively and dont see any correlation that you imply.



You are right! They are not human they are hominids. They were not in the Genus "Homo" or in the species "sapiens". These are your missing links you want proof of.



Who the fuck said anything about monkey? We are apes. Even modern humas have these ape like characteristics.



Rubbish



Rubbish



Yes, and the world is still flat! Go back to your farie tales Freak!
[b]Oh oh, its looking good for beelzebub and his evolution friends from "Mensa!" LOL!! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon10.gif Ahhh, maybe you people in "Mensa" are more highly evolved than us! LOL



I feel the same way about you. I see you as a pitiful little man clinging desperatly to your myth. If you had not been polluted by religon you would see logic and reason.
LMAO!! Typical evolutionist! Call ANYTHING that does not lead to evolution "rubbish." Sorry, beelzebub...not going for it. I want FACTS, not opinions. Show me facts...

I ask again per your request...

1. Document the "evolution" of Corn from inanimate matter to Corn as we see it today. I want to see undeniable proof that Corn did in FACT evolve from inanimate matter on Earth. It is a plant life form. Prove that it, in its present day form, did in fact evolve. I want to see the exact steps from dead chemicals to Corn, every step documented.

2. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex, beelzebub. Explain how it happened. If evolution has been established as a fact, as you claim, explain how the origin of life began from dead chemicals. I want exact and documented facts, not a hypothesis given that you claim that “evolution” is a fact. If it is a fact; than it should be sustained by verifiable facts. And, I want a list of the same as observed in the laboratory. Key words - observed in the laboratory.

3. The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms (they simply do not exist), and all life form types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best and the claims are filled with documented fraud as seen in the so-called "Piltdown Man." And, so-called "pre-man fossils" always turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or, as noted, historical frauds.

I await your answers, beelzebub. Enjoy!

[General Septem]

We never claim to look at anything BUT biology. Whereas the bible is supposed to be the word of god and details everything. But it falls very short of its goal.

The Bible never claims or even attempts to claim to be a biology book or anything else. Just because it is the word of God does not mean it details everything God has to say. There are some things we won't know until we see God face to face, and there are some things we will uncover through other means. Expecting the Bible to detail every moment in spacetime is like expecting a biology book to talk about astronomy, that's all I'm saying.


If the bible isn't supposed to answer everything then why do people who love the old book hate evolution? Why could you god not have created everything through evolution?

Simple answer, it's possible that all other animals evolved. However, the notion that man evolved is inconsistent with Genesis's account of how God created the earth.

[freakazoid]

We never claim to look at anything BUT biology. Whereas the bible is supposed to be the word of god and details everything. But it falls very short of its goal.

If the bible isn't supposed to answer everything then why do people who love the old book hate evolution? Why could you god not have created everything through evolution?

He didn't say that it does not "answer anything." It does answers a lot, not everything. God is not in the business of answering all of our questions right now, God will in time...the Bible states that "all that is hidden will be revealed." God reveals enough about Himself and His plan that we need to know at this time.

[freakazoid]

RE: "Who the fuck said anything about monkey? We are apes. Even modern humas have these ape like characteristics."

beelzebub, I agree...you are an ape. :D

[Ape-Shit]

Gentlemen, Gentlemen, Please...!

As we are all brothers and the possible descendents of Apes. Let us not fight amongst ourselfs.

The Bible was written by man, therefore has many falts and much fiction. If you are dumb enough to believe such bull-shit, shame on you.

On the other hand, look at the little tad pole...., from where did it come and where did it go.....?

Evolving (or evolution) is only the natural thing which assist mankind in proceeding forward in life. The ability of adaptation and change is evident throughout our existence.

It is also to be noted that the Chimp is the closest of all primates towards the human.:p

[thememan]

LMAO!! Typical evolutionist! Call ANYTHING that does not lead to evolution "rubbish." Sorry, beelzebub...not going for it. I want FACTS, not opinions. Show me facts...

I ask again per your request...

1. Document the "evolution" of Corn from inanimate matter to Corn as we see it today. I want to see undeniable proof that Corn did in FACT evolve from inanimate matter on Earth. It is a plant life form. Prove that it, in its present day form, did in fact evolve. I want to see the exact steps from dead chemicals to Corn, every step documented.

2. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex, beelzebub. Explain how it happened. If evolution has been established as a fact, as you claim, explain how the origin of life began from dead chemicals. I want exact and documented facts, not a hypothesis given that you claim that “evolution” is a fact. If it is a fact; than it should be sustained by verifiable facts. And, I want a list of the same as observed in the laboratory. Key words - observed in the laboratory.

3. The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms (they simply do not exist), and all life form types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best and the claims are filled with documented fraud as seen in the so-called "Piltdown Man." And, so-called "pre-man fossils" always turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or, as noted, historical frauds.

I await your answers, beelzebub. Enjoy!


Alright, fun time!

1. We don't have to! You see, the magical thing about Evolution is:

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW LIFE BEGAN.

All evolution worries about is how life changed after it began. Proving or disproving a method of how life began neither proves nor disproves evolution, and vice versa. Any argument which involves how life began is irrelevant, as evolution does not worry about it. Also, as for Corn, it has changed quite a bit in only a few thousand. For an image of corn's ancestor:

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitdna/images/dna/crops02.jpg

The corn on the left is the ancestor of modern corn, on the right. Through natural selection, farmers were able to produce corn which is in its current state. This happened only rather recently.

2. See above. You are confusing Ambiogenesis with Evolution, two very different theories.

3. Transitional forms DO exist. Let's say you have three Specimens, A, B, and C. A is the oldest, B is the middle, C is the youngest. Now, A has more "primitive" traits, and C has more derived. B has a mix of both.

Thus, Specimen B has traits from both Specimen A and Speciment C. Thus, B is a possible transitional specimen.

Alright, you bring out Piltdown Man, I'm going to bring out the tens of thousands of nails that were supposedly from Christ's Cross. Obviously, because there is one instance of a hoax in Christianity is proof against Christianity. Or any other religious hoax. Listen, Piltdown Man was a very poor hoax, done by someone who wanted to get famous, and bring fame to Britain. There are PLENTY of other finds which are well grounded, and are NOT hoaxed. Just because one WAS disproves nothing. To say so would mean that every thing in the world is a hoax, and that all religions are hoaxes.

So really, your arguments are not even sophmoric. They are blatantly stupid and ignorant.

[freakazoid]

Alright, fun time!

1. We don't have to! You see, the magical thing about Evolution is:

IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW LIFE BEGAN.

All evolution worries about is how life changed after it began. Proving or disproving a method of how life began neither proves nor disproves evolution, and vice versa. Any argument which involves how life began is irrelevant, as evolution does not worry about it. Also, as for Corn, it has changed quite a bit in only a few thousand. For an image of corn's ancestor:

http://www.koshland-science-museum.org/exhibitdna/images/dna/crops02.jpg

The corn on the left is the ancestor of modern corn, on the right. Through natural selection, farmers were able to produce corn which is in its current state. This happened only rather recently.

2. See above. You are confusing Ambiogenesis with Evolution, two very different theories.

3. Transitional forms DO exist. Let's say you have three Specimens, A, B, and C. A is the oldest, B is the middle, C is the youngest. Now, A has more "primitive" traits, and C has more derived. B has a mix of both.

Thus, Specimen B has traits from both Specimen A and Speciment C. Thus, B is a possible transitional specimen.

Alright, you bring out Piltdown Man, I'm going to bring out the tens of thousands of nails that were supposedly from Christ's Cross. Obviously, because there is one instance of a hoax in Christianity is proof against Christianity. Or any other religious hoax. Listen, Piltdown Man was a very poor hoax, done by someone who wanted to get famous, and bring fame to Britain. There are PLENTY of other finds which are well grounded, and are NOT hoaxed. Just because one WAS disproves nothing. To say so would mean that every thing in the world is a hoax, and that all religions are hoaxes.

So really, your arguments are not even sophmoric. They are blatantly stupid and ignorant.

You make a good point; evolution as a scientific theory does not address how life began per se', BUT, the "popular notion" (which I am seeing here in this thread) does as claimed by those who believe in so-called evolution. In regards to your example of corn; the pictures you posted make my point...corn may have changed and diversified within it's species, but it is still corn and has yet, ipso facto, to "evolve" into tulips, cabbage or apes. Q.E.D. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

RE: "You are confusing Ambiogenesis with Evolution, two very different theories."

No, I understand the difference or what can be called either "macro-evolution" or species "trans-mutation” into another species, as opposed to "micro-evolution" or changes within and limited to the bounders of a species.

[thememan]

You make a good point; evolution as a scientific theory does not address how life began per se', BUT, the "popular notion" (which I am seeing here in this thread) does as claimed by those who believe in so-called evolution. In regards to your example of corn; the pictures you posted make my point...corn may have changed and diversified within it's species, but it is still corn and has yet, ipso facto, to "evolve" into tulips, cabbage or apes. Q.E.D. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif


And the popular notion of Evolution is often quite wrong, even among those whom agree with evolution. Evolution simply means that certain traits which are more favorable to a certain environment have a more likely chance to be passed on than those that are non-beneficial and those that are neutral. That is also why what is perceived as non-beneficial traits still exist, as the possibility still remains that these traits may be passed on, just in a lesser frequency.

As to maize, or corn, the thing is they are two different species of plant. They are not the same, but instead have changed from Teosinte(The First image, corn's ancestor) into present day Maize. Both still exist, and both are different species, the only thing is Maize is the derived form of Teosinte.



RE: "You are confusing Ambiogenesis with Evolution, two very different theories."

No, I understand the difference or what can be called either "macro-evolution" or species "trans-mutation” into another species, as opposed to "micro-evolution" or changes within and limited to the bounders of a species.
[/quote]

Now, here's the problem. Micro and Macro evolution are exactly the same thing. How do I get at this, you may ask? Well, first, I must explain something. The term "species" in biology is very ambigous. Some times, we do find that two animals of different species share enough genetic material that they can mate, and they can produce viable young. However, they are genetically different enough to remain as seperate species. Species is not a static term, as a certain population in a species changes over time, new lines occur, old ones die.

Now then, onto the point:

Evolution is the aquisition of more favorable traits through natural selection, as those traits which are more favorable give the individual a higher chance of survival, and thus a higher chance of reproduction. Now then, over time, a certain trait will eventually become more dominant in a given population of a certain animal, as those with the more favorable traits continue to have a higher chance of reproduction. Now then, what are traits caused by? Genetics, and more specific genomes in said genetic code. Now then, a given population of a certain animal has a generalized DNA structure, which is quite similar throughout(with only minor differences), and with the beneficial traits being more frequent.

Now, as we all know, traits are not gained one at a time. For a basic example, let's take rabbits in the arctic. Let's begin with Parent Group, with three specific traits: Earlength, Hair Color, and Foot size.

Now then, in the Parent Group, there are two extremes: Big Feet and Small Feet, Short Hair Ears and Long Ears, and Dark Hair and Ligh Hair, and the group has a population of individuals with these traits being falling somewhere between the group.

Alright, so let's start, and remember, this is the arctic.

Parent Group: More or less random foot size, hair color, and ear size. Since this is the arctic, smaller ears are more beneficial, as they save body heat. Light hair is more beneficial as it is good for camoflauge against predators. Big feet is more beneficial because it is easier to walk on snow due to larger surface area. Now then, rabbits with at least one these traits have a higher frequency of reproduction than those without. These means that a higher frequency of births will occur where at least one trait occurs. We'll call this next generation Generation 2.

Generation 2: Light hair, short ears, and large feet are slightly more frequent than in Parent Group. There is still quite a few without these treats, but they are not as frequent as those with at least one trait. Now then, like before, the environment favors those with at least one trait, thus it is more frequent that those with at least one trait have a higher chance of reproduction than those without. This means that a much higher frequency of births will occur where at least one trait is involved.

Generation 3: Light hair, short ears, and large feet are predominant, and those without any of these traits are more or less non-existant in this generation. We now have a population that has at least one of these seven possibilities:

1.Light hair, long ears, small feet.
2.Light Hair, long ears, large feet.
3.Light Hair, short ears, large feet.
4.Light Hair, short ears, small feet.
5.Dark Hair, long ears, large feet.
6.Dark hair, short ears, large feet.
7.Dark Hair, short ears, small feet.

Now then, in this generation, Group 1, 5, and 7 have fewer favorable traits than Group 2, 4, and 6, which in turn have less favorable traits than group 3. Now then, because of this, Group 1, 5, 7, and 3 all have a more frequent chance of spreading their traits.

Generation 4: A higher frequency of individuals with at least 2 of the three traits exists. Those with only one are the clear minority. Now then, in this, those with at least two traits have a much higher frequency of reproduction than those with only one, and those with all three have a fairly decent reproduction rate.

Generation 5: The frequency of those with one trait has diminished to non-existant, those with two and three traits are equally frequent. Now then, natural selection favors those with three traits over two, and thus those have a higher reproduction frequency.

Generation 6: The population as a whole is mostly comprised of those with all three traits.

This was done simply to demonstrate the aquisition of traits is not singular, and that it occurs many at once. This is highly condensed, and takes dozens of generations for traits to be aquired in a given population.

Now then, let's break this down:

1.Traits are obviously aquired. Nobody debates this. Favorable traits are gained in a given population.

2.Traits are caused directly by genetics. Once again, nobody debates this.

3.As several traits are gained, several pieces of the genetic code changes in a population. This is a logical step from 1. Once again, this is undebatable.

4.When two populations have different enough genetic structures, they can be considered new species. This is also a given.

5.Let's put this together: As traits are aquired, they change the genetic code of a given population. As several traits are aquired, several pieces of the genetic code are changed in this population. When enough traits are aquired, and the genetic code has changed drastically enough, the population will be at a point where it may no longer be considered the same species as the group from which it derived, as the difference in genetics is far to different to be the same. They may still breed, as often times we find out that two obviously different species can, but they are genetically different enough to be a new species. Now, as traits continue to be aquired, eventually there will be a point in time when the Parent Group and the eventual derived group will not be able to breed, as the genetics is far to different.

And that is the jist of it, believe it or not.

[freakazoid]

As to maize, or corn, the thing is they are two different species of plant. They are not the same, but instead have changed from Teosinte(The First image, corn's ancestor) into present day Maize. Both still exist, and both are different species, the only thing is Maize is the derived form of Teosinte.



But what proof is there that one in fact "evolved" from the other? None. It is an assumption based on some observations that can easily lead to many other conclusions. The same can be said concerning other conclusions of evolution. I.e., observations that lead to (and are claimed to "prove") claims of evolution that can and do have other meaning and "prove" other ideas.

…have to run, will write more later.

[thememan]

But what proof is there that one in fact "evolved" from the other? None. It is an assumption based on some observations that can easily lead to many other conclusions. The same can be said concerning other conclusions of evolution. I.e., observations that lead to (and are claimed to "prove") claims of evolution that can and do have other meaning and "prove" other ideas.

…have to run, will write more later.

Ho-boy, unless you completely ignore all science, there is no reason not to understand how Teosinte evolved into Maize.

The first archaelogical evidence of Teosinte domestication began in Mexico around 4200 B.C. Before this time, there is no evidence of Maize at all. This would not make any sense at all if Maize existed at this point in time, as Maize is easier to grow, and it produces a higher caloric intake than Teosinte. So, if the two existed at a single point in time naturally, one would rightfully assume that Maize would be the crop of choice, not Teosinte. There is also the fact that there is no evidence of Maize existing at all at this point, but considerable evidence of Teosinte. One would think that if Maize existed, we would find traces of it: Seeds, kernals, and the like. We have found none.

The first evidence of modern day Maize does not occur until around 3500 B.C. Now, in this seven hundred years span, we find progressive changes in the Teosinte, moving away from Teosinte, and towards Maize. Lastly, Maize CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT survive naturally. It requires cultivation in order for it's seeds to disperse. If it could not survive naturally, it could not exist before cultivation. Through selective breeding, Maize was produced, as that is the ONLY explanation for it's existance, quite frankly. It has no record of existing past 3500 years ago(Unlike other plants, which we know existed through archaelogical records), we have transitional specimens from this between time, we have archaelogical evidence of the domestication of Teosinte, and in the same areas later cultivation of transitional specimens and Maize, and most importantly Maize cannot occur nature, thus it did not exist. The only explanation for it's existance is evolution.

Now with that, I'd also like to say we HAVE observed speciation in recent years. Several insect species, for example, have evolved from one species into another in our lifespan. It has been observed, it has been seen. And there is the smoking gun, my friend.

[freakazoid]

Ho-boy, unless you completely ignore all science, there is no reason not to understand how Teosinte evolved into Maize.

The first archaelogical evidence of Teosinte domestication began in Mexico around 4200 B.C. Before this time, there is no evidence of Maize at all. This would not make any sense at all if Maize existed at this point in time, as Maize is easier to grow, and it produces a higher caloric intake than Teosinte. So, if the two existed at a single point in time naturally, one would rightfully assume that Maize would be the crop of choice, not Teosinte. There is also the fact that there is no evidence of Maize existing at all at this point, but considerable evidence of Teosinte. One would think that if Maize existed, we would find traces of it: Seeds, kernals, and the like. We have found none.

The first evidence of modern day Maize does not occur until around 3500 B.C. Now, in this seven hundred years span, we find progressive changes in the Teosinte, moving away from Teosinte, and towards Maize. Lastly, Maize CANNOT, I repeat, CANNOT survive naturally. It requires cultivation in order for it's seeds to disperse. If it could not survive naturally, it could not exist before cultivation. Through selective breeding, Maize was produced, as that is the ONLY explanation for it's existance, quite frankly. It has no record of existing past 3500 years ago(Unlike other plants, which we know existed through archaelogical records), we have transitional specimens from this between time, we have archaelogical evidence of the domestication of Teosinte, and in the same areas later cultivation of transitional specimens and Maize, and most importantly Maize cannot occur nature, thus it did not exist. The only explanation for it's existance is evolution.

Now with that, I'd also like to say we HAVE observed speciation in recent years. Several insect species, for example, have evolved from one species into another in our lifespan. It has been observed, it has been seen. And there is the smoking gun, my friend.

RE: "Now with that, I'd also like to say we HAVE observed speciation in recent years. Several insect species, for example, have evolved from one species into another in our lifespan. It has been observed, it has been seen. And there is the smoking gun, my friend."

Requesting a referrence please. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif Thanks.

[thememan]

[I]

Requesting a referrence please. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif Thanks.

No problem:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Scroll down to 5.0 for this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

And for a quick run-over of a couple:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/observd3.htm

I'd do more, but the first two are quite comprehensive.

[death2chikins]

How life began is an important issue with regards to evolution simply because it has to be considered the start of evolution. Also transitional species must also be considered since they are an important part of said evolution. Also the post about the rabbits was an interesting read but still doens't prove anything in regards to evolution either only goes to show adaption. Your definition of species is also alil confussing to me. Could you please give me an example of two animals that are and are not in the same speicies. The corn argument is not an example of natrual selection but of selective breeding simpler priciple perhaps but the difference is man's interferance. Without the influence of people corn would not be corn. This sounds more like intelligent design than evolution to me.

[freakazoid]

No problem:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Scroll down to 5.0 for this.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html

And for a quick run-over of a couple:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/evolut/observd3.htm

I'd do more, but the first two are quite comprehensive.

Cool, checking it out. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon3.gif

[thememan]

How life began is an important issue with regards to evolution simply because it has to be considered the start of evolution. Also transitional species must also be considered since they are an important part of said evolution. Also the post about the rabbits was an interesting read but still doens't prove anything in regards to evolution either only goes to show adaption. Your definition of species is also alil confussing to me. Could you please give me an example of two animals that are and are not in the same speicies. The corn argument is not an example of natrual selection but of selective breeding simpler priciple perhaps but the difference is man's interferance. Without the influence of people corn would not be corn. This sounds more like intelligent design than evolution to me.

All very good questions.

How life began is important, but not in a specific sense. We need not worry about ambiogenesis, for example, as that is a seperate case all together. It is entirely possible that a higher being created life, for example, and evolution took over from there. What I mean is, Evolution really only concerns adaption of life, not origins. It can explain origins of species, but it cannot explain origins of life in and of itself, because it is not designed to.

As to adaption: That is what evolution is. It is adaption. Speciation occurs when enough traits are gained so that the genetic code in the derived group is quite different than in the parent group. Over time, as these traits build up, you will eventually have a derived group which looks very little like the parent group. Traits build up, are lost, new ones gained, etc and so forth.

As to the species, that's a bit difficult to explain. Let's take the Orangutan, for example. There are currently two species: P. pygmaeus(Borneo) and P. abeli(Sumatran). These two were actually classified as the same species up until very recently, and were actually considered two subspecies of Orangutans. They look almost exactly the same, and share many similarities. However, many zoos whom tried to breed the two together ran into several problems, and often viable young were not produced. Genetic analysis reveals that the genetic code for the two species is very different, different enough to consider them new species.

Also, with species, there is "Ring Species". Let me explain in fairly simple terms. You have five groups, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Now, with each group, 1-2 are genetically similar enough to reproduce, as are 1-5, 2-3, 3-4, 4-5. However, in groups of 1-3, 1-4, 2-4, 2-5, and 3-5, the genetic differences is to great for them to reproduce. Each one is a different species, but they can reproduce in a "ring" patern in you will, going one way or the other by only one group. This has been observed in the various species of the Larus gulls:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

Species is a very difficult term to apply. Infact, it is almost entirely subjective at times. What one person may consider a new species, other may consider merely a subspecies, or just a slightly different genetic group than the other.

As to Maize, I would like to point out the most simple explanation of evolution:

Those with more desirable traits for an environment have a higher chance of reproduction.

With that said, Humans are a part of the environment. The more desirable traits in Teosinte plants were chosen, and through time evolution allowed it to change into Maize. It is a different way of evolution to take hold.

Even at that, the only way we could have produced maize is through evolution. We used this system to artificially produce it, yes, but if the system did not exist, it never could have occurred. This is wholy different than ID, as ID has a supernatural force, whereas in this, humans are a part of the environment. You must not forget that we humans are not removed from "nature" or environmental effects.

[beelzebub]

All very good questions. How life began is important, but not in a specific sense. We need not worry about ambiogenesis, for example, as that is a seperate case all together. It is entirely possible that a higher being created life, for example, and evolution took over from there. What I mean is, Evolution really only concerns adaption of life, not origins. It can explain origins of species, but it cannot explain origins of life in and of itself, because it is not designed to.

As to adaption: ......bla bla bla Even at that, the only way we could have produced maize is through evolution. We used this system to artificially produce it, yes, but if the system did not exist, it never could have occurred. This is wholy different than ID, as ID has a supernatural force, whereas in this, humans are a part of the environment. You must not forget that we humans are not removed from "nature" or environmental effects.

Hey! This was supposed to be my debate. I step away for a few weeks and look what happens!?! You win my debate for me!

I have to say I really appreciate you taking the time to show Freak the truth! You are very knowledgeable on evolutionary theory and examples. I also noticed how patient you were. Do you teach Biology for a living?

Thanks! I think that this is more that I would have done with Freak.

[freakazoid]

Hey! This was supposed to be my debate. I step away for a few weeks and look what happens!?! You win my debate for me!

I have to say I really appreciate you taking the time to show Freak the truth! You are very knowledgeable on evolutionary theory and examples. I also noticed how patient you were. Do you teach Biology for a living?

Thanks! I think that this is more that I would have done with Freak.
RE: "You win my debate for me!"

Ha ha!! NOT...not even close!!! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

You totally failed to answer the question of how dead matter came to life. This being the popular claim of evolution. Every debate I have ever heard (or read) on evolution finds evolutionists finally admitting that the myth of evolution cannot and does not even come close to answering that question. How did dead matter "evolve" to living organisms?

* Evolutionists claim that lower life forms (and dead matter), generally speaking, "evolved" to higher living life forms, but...

* Have to admit that evolution cannot explain how this happens and retreat to a claim that the theory merely describes random changes that are claimed to cause organisms to "evolve up."

This, we are told, is a "fact"...but without scientifically verified proof.

So, if the so-called “forces of evolution” do not have the answer of the origins of life, where did life come from? How did dead matter become living beings?

Again...

The two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:

1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
2. The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

[thememan]

Hey! This was supposed to be my debate. I step away for a few weeks and look what happens!?! You win my debate for me!

I have to say I really appreciate you taking the time to show Freak the truth! You are very knowledgeable on evolutionary theory and examples. I also noticed how patient you were. Do you teach Biology for a living?

Thanks! I think that this is more that I would have done with Freak.

I'm an anthropology student, so I need to know a bit about evolution in order to be in my field. :D

[thememan]

RE: "You win my debate for me!"

Ha ha!! NOT...not even close!!! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

You totally failed to answer the question of how dead matter came to life. This being the popular claim of evolution. Every debate I have ever heard (or read) on evolution finds evolutionists finally admitting that the myth of evolution cannot and does not even come close to answering that question. How did dead matter "evolve" to living organisms?

* Evolutionists claim that lower life forms (and dead matter), generally speaking, "evolved" to higher living life forms, but...

* Have to admit that evolution cannot explain how this happens and retreat to a claim that the theory merely describes random changes that are claimed to cause organisms to "evolve up."


I ask you exactly where evolution states that life emerged from dead matter. Neither Darwin's Theory, nor any subsequent theory claims such. It is an entirely seperate idea all together. People whom subscribe to evolution TEND to be in agreeance that organisms came from dead matter, however they are not the same. There are many Christians, for example, whom believe God created life, and allowed that life to evolve.



This, we are told, is a "fact"...but without scientifically verified proof.


Who told you that ambiogenesis was a fact? Whomever told you this is no true scientists, as scientists do not work in what "is" the answer, only what "probably is" the answer, based on research, experimentation, and observation. Even so, people often come to different hypothesis' about a given observation, and testing and experiment often weed out those less suitable. The Theory of Evolution has undergone hundreds, if not thousands, of tests, and has yet to be disproven by any. Does this mean it solid fact? No, however, it APPEARS to be what is happen, and is mearly an explanation.


So, if the so-called “forces of evolution” do not have the answer of the origins of life, where did life come from? How did dead matter become living beings?

As I stated, no form of the Theory of Evolution has ever stated life arose from dead matter. That is a moot point, as it is an entirely different subject than evolution itself.



Again...

The two of the biggest weaknesses of evolutionary theory are:

1. There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.


Irrelevant to evolution. Evolution has never concerned itself with origin of life, but instead origin of species.



2. The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds.

Uh... no. There are plenty. Australopithecenes are a transitional genus that are more derived than their proto-primate ancestors(Contrary to popular belief, evolution has never stated that we evolved from Apes-Apes are modern day primates), and are less so from early humans(Homo habilis being the first known Homo species). Homo Habilis is a transitional between Australopithecenes and later Homos(Homo Erectus more than likely, and it's various forms). Homo erectus is a transitional species between Habilis and early archaic Homo sapiens.

Also, the entire idea of "species" is ill-defined. A given population is slightly genetically different than the population one generation before, and is slightly genetically different than subsequent generations. Evolution is a generational process, with species always changing. One generation is ever so slightly different than the next, and the one before.

And let me ask you: Which specimens are:

Apes
Extinct Apes
Fully Man
Frauds(be trepeditious here-if you use a fraud to disprove Evolution, I can easily turn it around and use a fraud to disprove Christianity, or any other religion)

[General Septem]

What he's saying is that they find a Homo erectus (that's a funny name :D) from one time period, and a Homo bumfuckus or whatever in some other time period, there's nothing connecting the two. They're two distinct species that we assume one to have evolved from another.

[freakazoid]

I ask you exactly where evolution states that life emerged from dead matter. Neither Darwin's Theory, nor any subsequent theory claims such. It is an entirely seperate idea all together. People whom subscribe to evolution TEND to be in agreeance that organisms came from dead matter, however they are not the same. There are many Christians, for example, whom believe God created life, and allowed that life to evolve.



Who told you that ambiogenesis was a fact? Whomever told you this is no true scientists, as scientists do not work in what "is" the answer, only what "probably is" the answer, based on research, experimentation, and observation. Even so, people often come to different hypothesis' about a given observation, and testing and experiment often weed out those less suitable. The Theory of Evolution has undergone hundreds, if not thousands, of tests, and has yet to be disproven by any. Does this mean it solid fact? No, however, it APPEARS to be what is happen, and is mearly an explanation.


As I stated, no form of the Theory of Evolution has ever stated life arose from dead matter. That is a moot point, as it is an entirely different subject than evolution itself.



Irrelevant to evolution. Evolution has never concerned itself with origin of life, but instead origin of species.



Uh... no. There are plenty. Australopithecenes are a transitional genus that are more derived than their proto-primate ancestors(Contrary to popular belief, evolution has never stated that we evolved from Apes-Apes are modern day primates), and are less so from early humans(Homo habilis being the first known Homo species). Homo Habilis is a transitional between Australopithecenes and later Homos(Homo Erectus more than likely, and it's various forms). Homo erectus is a transitional species between Habilis and early archaic Homo sapiens.

Also, the entire idea of "species" is ill-defined. A given population is slightly genetically different than the population one generation before, and is slightly genetically different than subsequent generations. Evolution is a generational process, with species always changing. One generation is ever so slightly different than the next, and the one before.

And let me ask you: Which specimens are:

Apes
Extinct Apes
Fully Man
Frauds(be trepeditious here-if you use a fraud to disprove Evolution, I can easily turn it around and use a fraud to disprove Christianity, or any other religion)
RE: "Irrelevant to evolution. Evolution has never concerned itself with origin of life, but instead origin of species."

That is pure gut rot bullshit and an out right LIE! Even the name of the quintessential book on evolution is called the Origins of the Species! In the last few decades, evolutionists have been claiming that their so-called "theory of evolution" has "never concerned itself with the origins of life.” BULLSHIT!!! Evolutionists have lead the public to believe that their little theory answers the questions as to where life came from even though many Evolutionsts knew better.

Let me correct that statement and post a true account of what happened...

Now that our theory of the Origins of Life (how life began) have been completely discredited and proven to lack any scientific proof what so ever, lets now tell the gullible public that our little theory "never said anything about how life began," even though the most widely read book on the idea is in fact called THE ORIGINS OF THE SPEICIES and even though it has been taught for a couple of centuries that our leader, Darwin, had most, if not all, of the answers to how life got its start.

Tell me…just what does the word “origins” mean…try “beginnings, where and how something started, why something is here, how it got here…etc.”

Ha ha !!! Try again, dude. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

RE: "A given population is slightly genetically different than the population one generation before, and is slightly genetically different than subsequent generations."

That is correct, and, there is no evidence that these changes, sometimes referred to as “transmutation” cause one species to “evolve” into another...AT ALL. PERIOD. Evidence of this “macro-evolution” or transmutation simply does not exist. Dream on, dude.

RE: "Homo erectus is a transitional species between Habilis and early archaic Homo sapiens."

Oh, really, and what scientific proof do you offer to your substantiate claim? Monkey bones? Give us a break, man!

I’ll post more later and destroy your other lies.

[thememan]

RE: "Irrelevant to evolution. Evolution has never concerned itself with origin of life, but instead origin of species."

That is pure gut rot bullshit and an out right LIE! Even the name of the quintessential book on evolution is called the Origins of the Species! In the last few decades, evolutionists have been claiming that their so-called "theory of evolution" has "never concerned itself with the origins of life.” BULLSHIT!!! Evolutionists have lead the public to believe that their little theory answers the questions as to where life came from even though many Evolutionsts knew better.


No, no it is not. "Origin of Species" and "Origin of Life" are two SEPERATE matters. Have you ever even touched anything written by Darwin, let alone read it? There has never been a theory of evolution that has EVER stated life arose. This is fact. There are those who subscribe to evolution, and to ambiogenesis, but the two are not, nor have they ever been, the same thing. Never once. The two ideas have always been two seperate issues. You, my friend, have either been lied to, misinformed, or know nothing of which you talk about.



Let me correct that statement and post a true account of what happened...

Now that our theory of the Origins of Life (how life began) have been completely discredited and proven to lack any scientific proof what so ever, lets now tell the gullible public that our little theory "never said anything about how life began," even though the most widely read book on the idea is in fact called THE ORIGINS OF THE SPEICIES and even though it has been taught for a couple of centuries that our leader, Darwin, had most, if not all, of the answers to how life got its start.


Evolution and ambiogenesis are two VERY different theories, and are seperate in every shape, way, and form. I ask you this: Where in Origin of Species does Darwin claim that ambiogenesis and evolution are necessary to one another? Infact, where does he claim anything about ambiogenesis?

There is a simple, one word answer to this question, beginning in "n", and ending in "owhere".





Tell me…just what does the word “origins” mean…try “beginnings, where and how something started, why something is here, how it got here…etc.”

Ha ha !!! Try again, dude. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif



Oh for the love of god, semantic bullshit. Darwin was not referring to the first origin of all life, infact his title didn't say that. Darwin said "origin of Species", which would be referring to the idea that there is a lifeform that all lifeform originated, or even several which could be the origin of all species. Really, your wrestling with semantic does not flatter your argument.



RE: "A given population is slightly genetically different than the population one generation before, and is slightly genetically different than subsequent generations."

That is correct, and, there is no evidence that these changes, sometimes referred to as “transmutation” cause one species to “evolve” into another...AT ALL. PERIOD. Evidence of this “macro-evolution” or transmutation simply does not exist. Dream on, dude.


Huh. Well, I guessed I missed the last 150 years of experimentation, which have shown that one species can infact change into another, and that adaption does happen. Nope, no evidence at all, other than massive amounts of research, experimentation, observation...

Oh wait. What do you know.



RE: "Homo erectus is a transitional species between Habilis and early archaic Homo sapiens."

Oh, really, and what scientific proof do you offer to your substantiate claim? Monkey bones? Give us a break, man!

I’ll post more later and destroy your other lies.

What proof? Well fine, if you want to go down that road, it is CONJECTURE, of course. HOWEVER, as Erectus appears in the fossil bed between Habilis, and before Sapiens, as it is more derived than Habilis, but less so than Sapiens, as it is apparent that it shares some social qualities of Habilis, and some of Sapiens, it does APPEAR so. Is it fact? No. There COULD have been another evolutionary line, of course, but with what we have, this seems the most likely.

[thememan]

What he's saying is that they find a Homo erectus (that's a funny name :D) from one time period, and a Homo bumfuckus or whatever in some other time period, there's nothing connecting the two. They're two distinct species that we assume one to have evolved from another.

Well, the thing is, we find more derived specimens of Homo erectus, and less derived. Usually, it does appear that the more derived specimens are younger, whereas the less derived are older. It is a rather odd misconception that all individuals look exactly the same, as infact the oldest and the youngest(Not to mention the three regional subspecies) look quite different, and follow a path that makes them appear more modern in later years.

[freakazoid]

No, no it is not. "Origin of Species" and "Origin of Life" are two SEPERATE matters. Have you ever even touched anything written by Darwin, let alone read it? There has never been a theory of evolution that has EVER stated life arose. This is fact. There are those who subscribe to evolution, and to ambiogenesis, but the two are not, nor have they ever been, the same thing. Never once. The two ideas have always been two seperate issues. You, my friend, have either been lied to, misinformed, or know nothing of which you talk about.



Evolution and ambiogenesis are two VERY different theories, and are seperate in every shape, way, and form. I ask you this: Where in Origin of Species does Darwin claim that ambiogenesis and evolution are necessary to one another? Infact, where does he claim anything about ambiogenesis?

There is a simple, one word answer to this question, beginning in "n", and ending in "owhere".





Oh for the love of god, semantic bullshit. Darwin was not referring to the first origin of all life, infact his title didn't say that. Darwin said "origin of Species", which would be referring to the idea that there is a lifeform that all lifeform originated, or even several which could be the origin of all species. Really, your wrestling with semantic does not flatter your argument.



Huh. Well, I guessed I missed the last 150 years of experimentation, which have shown that one species can infact change into another, and that adaption does happen. Nope, no evidence at all, other than massive amounts of research, experimentation, observation...

Oh wait. What do you know.



What proof? Well fine, if you want to go down that road, it is CONJECTURE, of course. HOWEVER, as Erectus appears in the fossil bed between Habilis, and before Sapiens, as it is more derived than Habilis, but less so than Sapiens, as it is apparent that it shares some social qualities of Habilis, and some of Sapiens, it does APPEAR so. Is it fact? No. There COULD have been another evolutionary line, of course, but with what we have, this seems the most likely.
Sounds to me like you are admitting that evolution has nothing to offer but a pile of opinions (that we somehow transformed from the goo through the zoo to you). If you are admitting so, I completely agree. And, it (evolution) is of no use to me. If all it can do is claim (notice claim) that I am here because I "evolved" from some kind of monkey (without any evidence that is in any way solid - which is the condition evolution is in), it is worthless. You evolutionists have simply failed to prove anything and have no right to claim the evolution is a scientific fact. It is an idea, nothing more. You say 'it is CONJECTURE, of course" ...well, at least some truth is coming from an evolutionist at last. Funny, I have heard evolutionists claim that evolution (monkey to man) is a fact, not conjecture.

RE: "Evolution and ambiogenesis are two VERY different theories"

Answer me this...when did life come from?

Bottom line - Evolution is a idea, not a proven fact by any decent and scientific standard.

PS...RE: "Huh. Well, I guessed I missed the last 150 years of experimentation, which have shown that one species can infact change into another, and that adaption does happen. Nope, no evidence at all, other than massive amounts of research, experimentation, observation..."

Really? Now which species would that be?

[thememan]

Sounds to me like you are admitting that evolution has nothing to offer but a pile of opinions (that we somehow transformed from the goo through the zoo to you). If you are admitting so, I completely agree. And, it (evolution) is of no use to me. If all it can do is claim (notice claim) that I am here because I "evolved" from some kind of monkey (without any evidence that is in any way solid - which is the condition evolution is in), it is worthless. You evolutionists have simply failed to prove anything and have no right to claim the evolution is a scientific fact. It is an idea, nothing more. You say 'it is CONJECTURE, of course" ...well, at least some truth is coming from an evolutionist at last. Funny, I have heard evolutionists claim that evolution (monkey to man) is a fact, not conjecture.


Alright, let's make this overly clear, let's do a 1-5 step process, quoted from me earlier:

"

1.Traits are obviously aquired. Nobody debates this. Favorable traits are gained in a given population.

2.Traits are caused directly by genetics. Once again, nobody debates this.

3.As several traits are gained, several pieces of the genetic code changes in a population. This is a logical step from 1. Once again, this is undebatable.

4.When two populations have different enough genetic structures, they can be considered new species. This is also a given.

5.Let's put this together: As traits are aquired, they change the genetic code of a given population. As several traits are aquired, several pieces of the genetic code are changed in this population. When enough traits are aquired, and the genetic code has changed drastically enough, the population will be at a point where it may no longer be considered the same species as the group from which it derived, as the difference in genetics is far to different to be the same. They may still breed, as often times we find out that two obviously different species can, but they are genetically different enough to be a new species. Now, as traits continue to be aquired, eventually there will be a point in time when the Parent Group and the eventual derived group will not be able to breed, as the genetics is far to different."

Due to the fact we can OBSERVE evolution occurring today, and making an assumption that the process existed long ago, as it did today, it is a scientifically well established conjecture to assume that we evolved from "monkey"(Proto-primates are more accurate-modern monkeys are quite a bit more derived than those of the past).

So basically:

Evolution is about as true in scientific terms as true can get.
We make the conjecture that by using the rules of evolution, we evolved from proto-primate, and pre-humans(As the evidence appears to support this idea). It is POSSIBLE that it happened another way, and nobody should claim it is as 100% true, as science NEVER works in 100%'s, however, using the evidence and the observations we have TODAY we make a conjecture of what is most likely with the evidence we currently have.

Infact, the the Theory of Evolution doesn't even state we evolved from proto-primates. That is a conjecture stemming from the theory. Instead, the Theory simply states:

Those with more favorable traits to a given environment have a higher chance passing on those traits than those without that trait.

That is all evolution states. Period, end of story. "Human Evolution" is a CONJECTURE based on EVIDENCE and OBSERVATION, but it is not necessarily 100% fact. HOWEVER, the evidence does seem to INDICATE that the process occurred in such a way, and claiming there is no evidence is completely false. There is a wealth of evidence.




RE: "Evolution and ambiogenesis are two VERY different theories"

Answer me this...when did life come from?


I'm assuming you mean "where", and to that, I have no answer. Nobody does. Even if one were to actually show that ambiogenesis is possible, it does not prove that it is how it happened. All such an experiment would say is that is a possibility. HOWEVER evolution makes no statement about how life began, nor has it ever. There are a great a many ideas and conjectures of how life began, but none is necessarily true or false, even if they are proven to be possible. Everything in the past is left to conjecture-however we use the processes we note today to try and explain the most likely way.



Bottom line - Evolution is a idea, not a proven fact by any decent and scientific standard.


Actually, evolution is not an idea, per se, but is about as close to scientific fact as one can possibly get. We use evolution to EXPLAIN how life MAY have changed, however this is the part of evolution that is open to interpretation and opinion. However, as far as the mechanics, the ideas, and the the processes of evolution are concerned, as well as even evolution itself, are about as solid as science gets. The various evolutionary lines are left to conjecture, but we can OBSERVE evolution occurring.



PS...RE: "Huh. Well, I guessed I missed the last 150 years of experimentation, which have shown that one species can infact change into another, and that adaption does happen. Nope, no evidence at all, other than massive amounts of research, experimentation, observation..."

Really? Now which species would that be?

Oy. Alright.

In 1905, de Vries observed that his Oenothera lamarckiana had a variant within his population of the plant. Now, all of the original plants were of the Oenothera lamarckiana species when originally introduced. The variant was genetically different, and could not breed, with other Oenothera lamarckiana.

Thus the species Oenothera gigas had evolved from O. lamarckiana, as the population was originally lamarckiana, with only lamarckiana, and there was a later variant population, there is no other explanation.

Next, consider the Nylon Bug(Actually, it is a bacteria). Now, nylon is a synthetic material not found naturally. Not even the subunits which connect the bonds occurs in nature. It is entirely man-made.

It was noted in the 1970's that there was a bacteria capable of breaking down nylon bonds, which was discovered in the waste waters of Nylon Plants. As it is impossible for this bacteria to have existed prior to the invention of Nylon, and it had to have come from somewhere, one must ask then, where?

Well, it turns out that the bacteria were able to adapt in a way so as to produce an enzyme that could break down Nylon.

Not only this, but further studies produced something astounding:

Scientists were able to "create" another Nylon eating bacteria after introducing the species Psuedomonas into the same water as the original Nylon-bacterias. What happened? Well, amazingly, the population produced a new species which was able to break down ONLY the Nylon.

The Nylon bacteria is the single most impressive, and greates proof, that evolution exists. Not only have a species of bacteria which could not have existed prior to the introduction of Nylon, we have actually witnessed the evolution of a different species into a new species.

From Talkorigins:

"In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations."

The two lines were derived from the same parent group. However, later generation from each of the lines was incapable to reproduce. It is apparent that the two lines have speciated from one another.

The Faero Island house mouse has speciated in less than 250 years. This is apparent, as the house mouse was only introduced to the island 250 years ago, and did not exist. Now, the current population of the house mouse cannot reproduce with those that are from where the original population came from.

Isolation of a population has produced a new species of mouse.

Need more? There are plenty.

[beelzebub]

What he's saying is that they find a Homo erectus (that's a funny name :D) from one time period, and a Homo bumfuckus or whatever in some other time period, there's nothing connecting the two. They're two distinct species that we assume one to have evolved from another.

Thats where you are wrong and where you have been brainwashed by people against evolution.

If every transitional species is determined by you to be a separate species then I will never be able to prove evolution to you. You are lost in your own delusion.

[General Septem]

Thats where you are wrong and where you have been brainwashed by people against evolution.

If every transitional species is determined by you to be a separate species then I will never be able to prove evolution to you. You are lost in your own delusion.

I'm just saying, you haven't found a path from one species to another, just random markers in between them. That doesn't count as proof.

[thememan]

I'm just saying, you haven't found a path from one species to another, just random markers in between them. That doesn't count as proof.

Well, the problem is, we would need a specimen from every single generation to construct such a line. Even at that, we would need every individual whom contributed to the gene pool to do so perfectly. This is a wholy unreasonable demand.

It is not proof, however it is pretty good evidence. We find that as the ages progress, the various humans and sub-humans become more derived, and more modern in appearance. This tendancy towards more derived and more modern traits is what is used as evidence to support this conjecture.

[beelzebub]

I'm just saying, you haven't found a path from one species to another, just random markers in between them. That doesn't count as proof.

Thats just it! We have found the path for some organisms. They are photo-snaps of the evolutionary path and you reject these as separate species.

[General Septem]

Thats just it! We have found the path for some organisms. They are photo-snaps of the evolutionary path and you reject these as separate species.

I don't reject them as separate species, I reject them as proof. Just because you see a big dot here and a big dot there doesn't mean there's a line between the two.

[beelzebub]

I don't reject them as separate species, I reject them as proof. Just because you see a big dot here and a big dot there doesn't mean there's a line between the two.

The reason that you dont want to connect the dots is because you are clinging to the idea of creation and won't give evolution an unbiased consideration. You look for faults everywhere because YOU refuse to accept anything contrary to your faith.

[General Septem]

The reason that you dont want to connect the dots is because you are clinging to the idea of creation and won't give evolution an unbiased consideration. You look for faults everywhere because YOU refuse to accept anything contrary to your faith.

I'm just trying to burst some of those nice comfy bubbles you may have in your head about evolution being all but 100% proven. Evolution would not necessarily be contrary to my faith.

[Ausinus]

Ah but it would. One of the core ideas of christianity is that humans were made as we are now ("in gods image"), but the idea we evolved from more primitive species contradicts that.

[General Septem]

Ah but it would. One of the core ideas of christianity is that humans were made as we are now ("in gods image"), but the idea we evolved from more primitive species contradicts that.

All Catholics are required to believe is that everything was made by God, that Gods created man in His image and likeness, that God created Woman from Man, and that Adam and Eve fell by disobeying God, causing humanity to be cast away from the Garden of Eden.

[thememan]

I'm just trying to burst some of those nice comfy bubbles you may have in your head about evolution being all but 100% proven. Evolution would not necessarily be contrary to my faith.

Well, evolution itself is all but proven(In other words, it is as close to scientific fact as scientific fact gets).

We apply the concept of evolution to make a conjecture about how humans evolved, using the evidence and observations we have gathered. Does it "prove" we evolved from pre-humans and proto-primates? No, but it is based on solid evidence. When we look at the evidence it does seem to appear that we did, but it is not necessarily completely true. It is just the most likely explanation with the evidence at hand.

[thememan]

Ah but it would. One of the core ideas of christianity is that humans were made as we are now ("in gods image"), but the idea we evolved from more primitive species contradicts that.

No, not necessarily. All it says in the bible, really, is that God created man. It doesn't explicity say how, in a sense, and is open widely to interretation. This is why there are actually many Christians whom both believe that evolution is true, and that the Bible is true.

The Catholic Church, for example, neither endorses nor denies evolution, instead leaving the individual to decide. The only thing that must be held as true is that when Man(in it's current form) was created, he was given a soul. So, through evolution, when man arose, God gave him a soul.

That's the basics, anyway.

[freakazoid]

Well, evolution itself is all but proven(In other words, it is as close to scientific fact as scientific fact gets).

We apply the concept of evolution to make a conjecture about how humans evolved, using the evidence and observations we have gathered. Does it "prove" we evolved from pre-humans and proto-primates? No, but it is based on solid evidence. When we look at the evidence it does seem to appear that we did, but it is not necessarily completely true. It is just the most likely explanation with the evidence at hand.

RE: " Well, evolution itself is all but proven(In other words, it is as close to scientific fact as scientific fact gets)."

Bullshit, and I get tired of evolutionists claiming that nonsense.

They are now claiming that their little pet theory "never involved itself with the actual origins of life." That is bullshit, consider...

Evolution basically claims that lower life forms "evolved" upward to higher ones because of gradual genectic mutations caused by many factors. Well, if that is the claim, if you run the clock backwards all the way, inanimate matter must have been the beginning and, as the source of the basic building blocks that evolved into life, where all life began; hense "the origins of life" which the theory of evolution cannot divorce itself from no matter who hard it tries. And, what caused inanimate dead matter to "evolve" to animate life? Are you understanding my point? The theory of evolution cannot separate itself, even with the lies of evolutionists telling us that they "are not supporting a theory concerned with the origins of life, just it's change," no matter how hard it tries.

So, I ask all of you evolutionists again; how did dead matter "evolve" into you? Do tell. If you can't tell us, then admit that your pet theory is unproven to this day.

[Ausinus]

Essentially, first there was matter, then that matter grouped together into monomers (basic organic chemical structures) such as Amino Acids. These group together into RNA and DNA which forms the basis for life. Then, unicellular organisms (archaebacteria in particular) begin upon the process of evolution into larger organisms.

In fact, British scientists have been able to reproduce amino acids in a laboratory, which is part of their experiment to see if life can be created artificially from scratch.

[freakazoid]

Essentially, first there was matter, then that matter grouped together into monomers (basic organic chemical structures) such as Amino Acids. These group together into RNA and DNA which forms the basis for life.

In fact, British scientists have been able to reproduce amino acids in a laboratory, which is part of their experiment to see if life can be created artificially from scratch. They have gotten as far as amino acids so far.

That is no proof of anything. There were no "British scientists" to cause these events to happen and this is no proof that this actually did happened. It is pure speculation, nothing more.

[Ausinus]

At least its more logical than that "god made the earth in seven days" bullshit.

As for no proof, ever heard of myxomatosis? How the rabbits in Australia are now immune to it is proof that evolution exists.

[freakazoid]

At least its more logical than that "god made the earth in seven days" bullshit.

As for no proof, ever heard of myxomatosis? How the rabbits in Australia are now immune to it is proof that evolution exists.

RE: " As for no proof, ever heard of myxomatosis? How the rabbits in Australia are now immune to it is proof that evolution exists."

No, that is evidence of changes within species, not evidence of one species mutating into another.

[Ausinus]

It is proof of natural selection which, mind you, is the evolutionary mechanism.

Then what do you call the fossils? Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Erectus, Neandertalensis?

[freakazoid]

It is proof of natural selection which, mind you, is the evolutionary mechanism.

Then what do you call the fossils? Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Erectus, Neandertalensis?

RE: "It is proof of natural selection which, mind you, is the evolutionary mechanism."

That is a claim, not a proven fact that "of natural selection which, mind you, is the evolutionary mechanism."

[Ausinus]

It is evidence for Natural Selection.

May I ask, what is your IQ?

[freakazoid]

It is evidence for Natural Selection.

May I ask, what is your IQ?

High enough to understand that dead matter does not "evolve" into living beings. What is yours?

[Ausinus]

One hundred and thirty.

[thememan]

RE: " Well, evolution itself is all but proven(In other words, it is as close to scientific fact as scientific fact gets)."

Bullshit, and I get tired of evolutionists claiming that nonsense.

They are now claiming that their little pet theory "never involved itself with the actual origins of life." That is bullshit, consider...

Evolution basically claims that lower life forms "evolved" upward to higher ones because of gradual genectic mutations caused by many factors. Well, if that is the claim, if you run the clock backwards all the way, inanimate matter must have been the beginning and, as the source of the basic building blocks that evolved into life, where all life began; hense "the origins of life" which the theory of evolution cannot divorce itself from no matter who hard it tries. And, what caused inanimate dead matter to "evolve" to animate life? Are you understanding my point? The theory of evolution cannot separate itself, even with the lies of evolutionists telling us that they "are not supporting a theory concerned with the origins of life, just it's change," no matter how hard it tries.



Alright. Where, might I ask, WHERE in ANY evolutionary theory will find that that evolution states we evolved from dead matter. Until you answer this point, I refuse to debate you any further because obviously you have no concept of the evolutionary theory. Use resources. Please.



So, I ask all of you evolutionists again; how did dead matter "evolve" into you? Do tell. If you can't tell us, then admit that your pet theory is unproven to this day.

Answer my question, and I shall answer yours. Let me make this abundantly clear:

The Theory of Evolution Never stated we evolved from dead matter. Never.

[thememan]

High enough to understand that dead matter does not "evolve" into living beings. What is yours?

But apparently not high enough to understand the Theory of Evolution, and what it states, exactly.

I'm sorry, but some thing I need to be as brutally honest as possible.

Note-We have witnessed evolution. How is it that something we witness is not real? It is on the EXACT same grounds as, say, the Theory of Gravity(And in some cases, is actually on better grounds-Gravity tends to work in ways we do not expect. Think Relativity).

[Ausinus]

thememan, whats your IQ?

[thememan]

thememan, whats your IQ?

Well, IQ test are rarely accurate, however the average score I receive on the ones I have taken are in the high 130's to mid 140's. I would say, on this, about 140-ish, on average.

[Ausinus]

Cool.:) I admire (most) intelligent people.

[thememan]

Cool.:) I admire (most) intelligent people.

Well, the problem with many "intelligent" people is that they are pretentious assholes who talk out their ass. Which is why I don't apply to MENSA(I have passed their IQ test in the past), don't tend to consort with "intelligent" people(I.E. Highest in the class, Higher than normal IQs, etc), nor do I put much relevance on IQ. IQ test are very much culturally biased, and one finds out that even those with "low" IQs tend to be quite intelligent. The mark of true intelligence is not what you know, but how you apply what you know to what you do, so to speak. That, and a willingness to learn, of course.

[Ausinus]

haha. true true.:D

[Ausinus]

I also hold the veiw people are intelligent in different ways. Some are good at, say, mathematics, others are good in humanities etc.

[thememan]

I also hold the veiw people are intelligent in different ways. Some are good at, say, mathematics, others are good in humanities etc.

Indeed. All intelligencre really is, can be broken down into two criteria:

1.How one is able to use the knowledge they have.
2.How one is willing to learn new knowledge.

[Ausinus]

I wholeheartedly agree.

[General Septem]

Essentially, first there was matter, then that matter grouped together into monomers (basic organic chemical structures) such as Amino Acids. These group together into RNA and DNA which forms the basis for life. Then, unicellular organisms (archaebacteria in particular) begin upon the process of evolution into larger organisms.

In fact, British scientists have been able to reproduce amino acids in a laboratory, which is part of their experiment to see if life can be created artificially from scratch.

The odds of that happening in nature are 1:10^100,000. Just for comparison, there isn't 10^100,000 particles in the entire universe, and there isn't even 10^100 particles in the known universe.

[thememan]

The odds of that happening in nature are 1:10^100,000. Just for comparison, there isn't 10^100,000 particles in the entire universe, and there isn't even 10^100 particles in the known universe.

Those numbers, as calculated by Hoyle, are so incredibly inflated and so incredibly rebuked, that it is not wise to use them

The largest reason why, is that Hoyle calculated his number considering that everything forms randomly, and that all processes are seperate from one another.

So, in the future, it would not be wise to use Hoyle. He was a hack, whom did not know how chemistry works in reality.

[Ausinus]

Some information on the probability of Abiogenesis

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

The odds of that happening in nature are 1:10^100,000. Just for comparison, there isn't 10^100,000 particles in the entire universe, and there isn't even 10^100 particles in the known universe.


Let's assume that those numbers are accurate. Could this simply be strong evidence that God initiated the beginning of evolution? And maybe He even initiated the factors that led into the evolution of us!

[Ausinus]

If that is what you want to believe, be my guest (As a side note, those numbers are not accurate). Just dont deny evolution and we'll get along just fine:D

The major problem fundies have with evolution is that it contradicts their idea of humans being created as they are.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

I've believed in evolution for a long time. Our only ABSOLUTE proof of it may only be the evolution of one species into a BETTER species, but this supports our evidence of further evolution. What is so bad about the idea that God did not make things the way they are today? So the ideas about how God worked weren't perfect when the religions were created....is that so horrible?

[Ausinus]

Because we have evidence to the contrary. Humans were not created as they are, they evolved. Same with horses, and other species besides.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Because we have evidence to the contrary. Humans were not created as they are, they evolved. Same with horses, and other species besides.


I'm not refuting you.....read my post again, I'm simply stating that I believe in evolution but believe that there is no reason to believe that this is evidence against the existance of God.

[Ausinus]

No the existence of the babel fish is disproof for the existence of god:D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Just as much as the proof of my left fist is proof against your beliefs!:D :eek:

[Ausinus]

Hahaha:D :eek: Im shocked:eek:

[thememan]

Let's assume that those numbers are accurate. Could this simply be strong evidence that God initiated the beginning of evolution? And maybe He even initiated the factors that led into the evolution of us!

Well, if those arguments are accurate, then yes, I suppose. However, as I stated, those numbers are not, and when one takes into consideration that very few of the pieces of the calculation occur totally at random(As Hoyle assumed-Remember, he was an astronomer, not a Chemist or Biologist, and quite frankly it shows), the number is not only dramatically reduced, but the odds become quite possible, to the point of almost being probable, considering how the number of planets and celestial bodies cabaple of holding the necessary "ingredient, correlating with this.

[freakazoid]

One hundred and thirty.
Tisk tisk, alas, my I.Q. (recently tested, by the way, with three different types of tests) is officially recorded at 139. Have you beat by 9 points, slick.http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

And you know what...I am firmly convinced that the current conclusions concerning their (Evolutionists') pet theory is bullshit and a disgrace to science. And, I am tired of their lies claiming that their theory "never concerned itself with the origins of life" as I have pointed out in this thread, THAT IS A LIE...PERIOD! I have no time for their outright frauds and lies. If we evolved, then we must have in the beginning evolved from dead (inanimate) matter to begin with...i.e., concepts of the origins of life are inseparable from the claims of evolution if you simply run the clock back to the beginning. Dead matter came to life? Pure BULLSHIT and the belief of fools and idiots that except superstition and folly. I have no time for it.


"The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

- King David


:: And I say again...

Bullshit, and I get tired of evolutionists claiming that nonsense.

They are now claiming that their little pet theory "never involved itself with the actual origins of life." That is bullshit, consider...

Evolution basically claims that lower life forms "evolved" upward to higher ones because of gradual genectic mutations caused by many factors. Well, if that is the claim, if you run the clock backwards all the way, inanimate matter must have been the beginning and, as the source of the basic building blocks that evolved into life, where all life began; hense "the origins of life" which the theory of evolution cannot divorce itself from no matter who hard it tries. And, what caused inanimate dead matter to "evolve" to animate life? Are you understanding my point? The theory of evolution cannot separate itself, even with the lies of evolutionists telling us that they "are not supporting a theory concerned with the origins of life, just it's change," no matter how hard it tries.

So, I ask all of you evolutionists again; how did dead matter "evolve" into you? Do tell. If you can't tell us, then admit that your pet theory is unproven to this day.

[hkdbadreligion]

Wait, what? I thought the black box thing was the radiation/cat scenario?

[thememan]

Tisk tisk, alas, my I.Q. (recently tested, by the way, with three different types of tests) is officially recorded at 139. Have you beat by 9 points, slick.http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

And you know what...I am firmly convinced that the current conclusions concerning their (Evolutionists') pet theory is bullshit and a disgrace to science. And, I am tired of their lies claiming that their theory "never concerned itself with the origins of life" as I have pointed out in this thread, THAT IS A LIE...PERIOD! I have no time for their outright frauds and lies. If we evolved, then we must have in the beginning evolved from dead (inanimate) matter to begin with...i.e., concepts of the origins of life are inseparable from the claims of evolution if you simply run the clock back to the beginning. Dead matter came to life? Pure BULLSHIT and the belief of fools and idiots that except superstition and folly. I have no time for it.


You are the one full of Bullshit.

Find one theory of Evolution, from any time, that was a scientifically accepted fact, that states we arose from dead matter, and use resources. Until you do, you are the one full of bullshit, because you obviously have absolutely no knowledge of the material, et al.



"The fool has said in his heart there is no God."

- King David


:: And I say again...

Bullshit, and I get tired of evolutionists claiming that nonsense.

They are now claiming that their little pet theory "never involved itself with the actual origins of life." That is bullshit, consider...

Evolution basically claims that lower life forms "evolved" upward to higher ones because of gradual genectic mutations caused by many factors. Well, if that is the claim, if you run the clock backwards all the way, inanimate matter must have been the beginning and, as the source of the basic building blocks that evolved into life, where all life began; hense "the origins of life" which the theory of evolution cannot divorce itself from no matter who hard it tries. And, what caused inanimate dead matter to "evolve" to animate life? Are you understanding my point? The theory of evolution cannot separate itself, even with the lies of evolutionists telling us that they "are not supporting a theory concerned with the origins of life, just it's change," no matter how hard it tries.


No, the Theory of Evolution does not state that. Once again, you spew out ignorant bullshit. We use the Theory of Evolution to make this assumption, but that is NOT, I repeat NOT, one more time for good measure NOT, the Theory of Evolution.



So, I ask all of you evolutionists again; how did dead matter "evolve" into you? Do tell. If you can't tell us, then admit that your pet theory is unproven to this day.

You tell me where, in ANY Theory of Evolution, in any form, in any time, by anyone, that has ever been scientifically accepted, that it states that we did. Until you do, you are an ignorant prick who has made it abundantly obvious you have no idea what the hell you are talking about, have no debating skills, and spew out the same garbage repeatedly with no intelligent thought behind your posts.

I REALLY do not like being this much of an asshole, but some people deserve it.

[freakazoid]

You are the one full of Bullshit.

Find one theory of Evolution, from any time, that was a scientifically accepted fact, that states we arose from dead matter, and use resources. Until you do, you are the one full of bullshit, because you obviously have absolutely no knowledge of the material, et al.

No, the Theory of Evolution does not state that. Once again, you spew out ignorant bullshit. We use the Theory of Evolution to make this assumption, but that is NOT, I repeat NOT, one more time for good measure NOT, the Theory of Evolution.

You tell me where, in ANY Theory of Evolution, in any form, in any time, by anyone, that has ever been scientifically accepted, that it states that we did. Until you do, you are an ignorant prick who has made it abundantly obvious you have no idea what the hell you are talking about, have no debating skills, and spew out the same garbage repeatedly with no intelligent thought behind your posts.

I REALLY do not like being this much of an asshole, but some people deserve it.
I can't believe that you are that dumb. You CANNOT separate the so-called theory of evolution from evolving from dead matter. We are told that we evolved from lower life forms that "evolved" from what? A puff of air? NO, DEAD MATTER if you run the so-called theory back to where you would have to run it back to. You can't just stop going backwards anywhere you want and simple declare "that far back and no further." Sorry, your pet theory simply dies a natural death of improvable claims if you follow it back all the way to inanimate matter. At what point do you decide to "stop the reverse time line of evolution?" Who says where it is to stop? Sorry, dude, evolution is folly and totally unproven. Evolutionists simple do not want to go back that far because their pet theory simply and totally falls apart. So, they avoid it. This is science? I think not.

We, so they claim, evolved from some monkey, which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...DEAD MATTER.

Oh, we don't want to go back that far because our little theory cannot explain how dead matter came to life, how it "evolved into living organisms...so, we just stop before that embarrassing little problem and nicely claim that our pet theory "has nothing to do with origins of life"...THIS IS BULLSHIT! Sorry, dude, if you believe them I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[thememan]

I can't believe that you are that dumb. You CANNOT separate the so-called theory of evolution from evolving from dead matter. We are told that we evolved from lower life forms that "evolved" from what? A puff of air? NO, DEAD MATTER if you run the so-called theory back to where you would have to run it back to. You can't just stop going backwards anywhere you want and simple declare "that far back and no further." Sorry, your pet theory simply dies a natural death of improvable claims if you follow it back all the way to inanimate matter. At what point do you decide to "stop the reverse time line of evolution?" Who says where it is to stop? Sorry, dude, evolution is folly and totally unproven. Evolutionists simple do not want to go back that far because their pet theory simply and totally falls apart. So, they avoid it. This is science? I think not.


Tell me what the Theory of Evolution states. I'm not going to debate you until you answer my questions. You are trying to detract from the question I have asked, either because you do not know the answer to them, or do not want to admit the answers.




We, so they claim, evolved from some monkey, which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...which evolved from...DEAD MATTER.


No. Not the Theory of Evolution at all. Keep trying though.



Oh, we don't want to go back that far because our little theory cannot explain how dead matter came to life, how it "evolved into living organisms...so, we just stop before that embarrassing little problem and nicely claim that our pet theory "has nothing to do with origins of life"...THIS IS BULLSHIT! Sorry, dude, if you believe them I have some swamp land in Florida to sell you.http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

You are full of bullshit. Answer my two questions:

1.What is the Theory of Evolution?
2.In which thoery of Evolution, that has been scientifically accepted, did it state we evolved from dead matter. No silly assumptions, I want you to tell which one specifically said it.

Answer these two questions, and the debate will continue.

[freakazoid]

1.What is the Theory of Evolution?

I have already touched on that, if you don't know, then read up on it. In the mean time...

Charles Darwin's theory developed in AD 1859, in his book Origin of the Species. Darwin theorized that humans evolved from a lower order of animals, such as primates.

Where did the lower primates come from, where did the lower lower primates come from, where did the lower lower lower primates come from, etc, ad infinitum...?

2.In which thoery of Evolution, that has been scientifically accepted, did it state we evolved from dead matter. No silly assumptions, I want you to tell which one specifically said it.

If not from dead matter, than from where or what did we "evolve from?" Tell me, answer that question, and the we will continue.

Come on, man...use your head!! Think outside the box and LEARN to think for yourself and not merely parrot what you are told.

[freakazoid]

One last point...

Question...What is a species? Is it not a life form? If so, could we not call Darwin's book...

"The Origins of Life?" As in his idea of where life came from?

So damn simple!


Enjoy your ignorance.

[thememan]

1.What is the Theory of Evolution?

I have already touched on that, if you don't know, then read up on it. In the mean time...

Charles Darwin's theory developed in AD 1859, in his book Origin of Species. Darwin theorized that humans evolved from a lower order of animals, such as primates.

Where did the lower primates come from, where did the lower lower primates come from, where did the lower lower lower primates come from, etc, ad infinitum...?



Alright, to make this easier on both me and you, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Specifically the first sentence.



2.In which thoery of Evolution, that has been scientifically accepted, did it state we evolved from dead matter. No silly assumptions, I want you to tell which one specifically said it.

If not from dead matter, than from where or what did we "evolve from?" Tell me, answer that question, and the we will continue.

Come on, man...use your head!! Think outside the box and LEARN to think for yourself and not merely parrot what you are told.

Tell me this:

Why is it impossible that God created life, then allowed it to evolve? Is this possibility so complex, that you cannot rap it around your tiny little head? How do you knwo that there are not millions of other systems which may have allowed life to have begun, which did not require dead matter to "evolve" into living matter(Likewise, what is so hard to comprehend the mere possiblity of life coming from dead matter? This idea has neither been proven nor disproven).

And I'm the parrot... RIIIIIGHT... coming from the man whom has spewed the same crap I have heard from every single creationist ignorant prick whom I have ever met. Alright. I'm the prick. Let me guess: You love the work of Jack Chick, don't you?

[thememan]

One last point...

Question...What is a species? Is it not a life form? If so, could we not call Darwin's book...

"The Origins of Life?" As in his idea of where life came from?

So damn simple!


Enjoy your ignorance.

No, because Darwin was attempting to explain why the different species were so different from one another, not how life itself arose.

Also, the term "species", as stated before, is not static, is often illy defined, and is an abstract of the human mind which attempts to categorize life into different constructs. Often times, categorization of different species is questionable, and contravercial, and it is difficult to get a consense on how to classify certain species. In is not hard and fast-it is in merely an abstract idea. You are arguing semantics instead of intent. You are not arguing Darwin's work in the least, but instead arguing a minor semantic point, which you have twisted to detract from the actual debate. If you are going to debate Darwin, find a particular part of what he wrote. Do not debate semantics on the meaning of his title, especially when you twist the meaning to what you want it to mean, not what he meant to say.

And no, it is not that simple.

[freakazoid]

No, because Darwin was attempting to explain why the different species were so different from one another, not how life itself arose.

Also, the term "species", as stated before, is not static, is often illy defined, and is an abstract of the human mind which attempts to categorize life into different constructs. Often times, categorization of different species is questionable, and contravercial, and it is difficult to get a consense on how to classify certain species. In is not hard and fast-it is in merely an abstract idea. You are arguing semantics instead of intent. You are not arguing Darwin's work in the least, but instead arguing a minor semantic point, which you have twisted to detract from the actual debate. If you are going to debate Darwin, find a particular part of what he wrote. Do not debate semantics on the meaning of his title, especially when you twist the meaning to what you want it to mean, not what he meant to say.

And no, it is not that simple.

RE: "No, because Darwin was attempting to explain why the different species were so different from one another, not how life itself arose."

Perhaps, but you and I both know that Evolutionists' believe (and often preach) that their pet theory and ideas that extend from it are the last word on how life came to be. The strict "science" of evolution might restrict and concern itself with only "attempting to explain why the different species were so different from one another" but you and I both know that this is bullshit and that they believe that evolution (in some form or another) is, in fact, how it all happened. I have never debated Evolutionists that did not admit to me that he or she believed that we "evolved" from inanimate matter at some point in the past. So, I agree, to hell with semantics; we all know that the goal here is to convince the public that we, shall we say "arrived" spontaneously from inanimate dead matter apart from a creator.

[freakazoid]

Alright, to make this easier on both me and you, read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Specifically the first sentence.



Tell me this:

Why is it impossible that God created life, then allowed it to evolve? Is this possibility so complex, that you cannot rap it around your tiny little head? How do you knwo that there are not millions of other systems which may have allowed life to have begun, which did not require dead matter to "evolve" into living matter(Likewise, what is so hard to comprehend the mere possiblity of life coming from dead matter? This idea has neither been proven nor disproven).

And I'm the parrot... RIIIIIGHT... coming from the man whom has spewed the same crap I have heard from every single creationist ignorant prick whom I have ever met. Alright. I'm the prick. Let me guess: You love the work of Jack Chick, don't you?

RE: " Why is it impossible that God created life, then allowed it to evolve?"

Anything is possible, by why is it impossible that so-called "evidence of evolution" cannot be seen as evidence of creation (which can be demonstrated)? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

[thememan]

RE: "No, because Darwin was attempting to explain why the different species were so different from one another, not how life itself arose."

Perhaps, but you and I both know that Evolutionists' believe (and often preach) that their pet theory and ideas that extend from it are the last word on how life came to be. The strict "science" of evolution might restrict and concern itself with only "attempting to explain why the different species were so different from one another" but you and I both know that this is bullshit and that they believe that evolution (in some form or another) is, in fact, how it all happened


I dont believe that is necessarily how it happened, nor do I discredit it's possibility. As we have neither the evidence to support it fully, nor evidence to discredit it, it is merely a hypothesis, and nothing more. I tend to lean to this idea, however I do not expect others to, nor do I truly believe it is the only answer. Nor do I expect, or try to convince, people that is more than likely. Evolution, on the other hand, has been observed, it has been tested, and it has shown about as true as science gets. We(And Darwin) used observations on evolution to make an assumption on how current life came to being as it did today. That is really the only thing the Theory of Evolution is trying to do: Nothing more. Nothing less.



I have never debated Evolutionists that did not admit to me that he or she believed that we "evolved" from inanimate matter at some point in the past. So, I agree, to hell with semantics; we all know that the goal here is to convince the public that we, shall we say "arrived" spontaneously from inanimate dead matter apart from a creator.

That most definately is not the goal, and it truly never has been. There have been those whom "appeared" to understand the evolutionary theory(And even believed it true) whom bungled it up with ambiogenesis, however once one actually studies evolutionary theory, one finds that the two are not only different, but one does not require the other. I have debated several "evolutionists" on many issues. I don't just debate those against Evolution, but also those for, as there are those in both groups whom don't know what they hell they are talking about. The reason why is simple: If you don't believe something to be true, at the very least understand why others do. If you do believe in something, at the very least try to understand it, and what it actually encompasses. Otherwise, you are just talking out of your ass.

[thememan]

RE: " Why is it impossible that God created life, then allowed it to evolve?"

Anything is possible, by why is it impossible that so-called "evidence of evolution" cannot be seen as evidence of creation (which can be demonstrated)? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

Evolution deals with how organisms change. Creation deals with how life arose.

Also, Evolution in terms of Darwin is Biology, ambiogenesis moreso with chemistry. Evolution can be used in almost anything that changes, indeed, however in Biology Evolution deals solely with how organism change, not how the various chemicals themselves changed.

[freakazoid]

Evolution deals with how organisms change. Creation deals with how life arose.

Also, Evolution in terms of Darwin is Biology, ambiogenesis moreso with chemistry. Evolution can be used in almost anything that changes, indeed, however in Biology Evolution deals solely with how organism change, not how the various chemicals themselves changed.

RE: "
Evolution deals with how organisms change. Creation deals with how life arose."

You are still missing the point...

If Evolution deals with how organisms change (granted that), then it must deal with and address (based on it's own claims) how dead matter "changed" (i.e., evolved) from being inanimate to living. Or, does the theory simply decide "this further back, and no further?" If so, it is incomplete and without proof of it's claims. And...those that claim it answers the question (which many do say) of how life arrived here, are full of it.

[Ausinus]

No YOU are missing the point.

Evolution covers how organism evolves. Its not a bloody history of the universe. Just like the theory of gravity doesnt explain why objects resist to change in velocity.

Abiogenesis covers how life was created from simple chemicals.

[freakazoid]

No YOU are missing the point.

Evolution covers how organism evolves. Its not a bloody history of the universe. Just like the theory of gravity doesnt explain why objects resist to change in velocity.

Abiogenesis covers how life was created from simple chemicals.

I never said it was a history of the universe. I said it cannot be divorced from a process of "dead matter to living organisms." By it's very nature, it must address the question of how this happened. Evolutionsist doen't want to deal with that question in the context of evolution because the entire theory falls apart at that point...so they avoid it.

[thememan]

RE: "
Evolution deals with how organisms change. Creation deals with how life arose."

You are still missing the point...

If Evolution deals with how organisms change (granted that), then it must deal with and address (based on it's own claims) how dead matter "changed" (i.e., evolved) from being inanimate to living. Or, does the theory simply decide "this further back, and no further?" If so, it is incomplete and without proof of it's claims. And...those that claim it answers the question (which many do say) of how life arrived here, are full of it.

Why? Evolution in biology deals solely with the change of living organisms.

Why just this?

Traits are caused by the genetic code.

Non-living material does not have DNA.

Thus, as the process of evolution is caused by the DNA structure, and non-living material does not have DNA, then Biological evolution needs not worry about whether or not life arose from dead material.

My god, this is actually getting easier as I continue.

[thememan]

I never said it was a history of the universe. I said it cannot be divorced from a process of "dead matter to living organisms." By it's very nature, it must address the question of how this happened. Evolutionsist doen't want to deal with that question in the context of evolution because the entire theory falls apart at that point...so they avoid it.

Alright, yes it can. Evolution is caused by reproduction. Non-living materials do not reproduce. Thus evolution need not worry about about non-living materials.

[freakazoid]

Alright, yes it can. Evolution is caused by reproduction. Non-living materials do not reproduce. Thus evolution need not worry about about non-living materials.
Need not worry about it? OK, then it should not claim that it has the answer to how life began. Oh, I forgot, you say it does not deal with that subject. But it looks like the so-called scientific community does not agree with you...

RE: "My god, this is actually getting easier as I continue."

__________________________________________________ ________________________
:: Beginning of life on Earth

"Author: beatnik
Text: I am twelve years old and want to know how life began on earth.

Response #: 1 of 1
Author: profbill (Professor Bill)
Text: I am 43 years old and so would I! Scientists believe that
lightning striking the atmosphere of the earth long ago caused certain simple
chemicals like ammonia to form into more complicated chemicals that could lead
to living cells. These chemicals then could hook together in chains to form
molecules that direct life, such as RNA and DNA. One theory also says that
fats in the primitive ocean acted on by waves, formed large globules enclosing
these life directing chemicals, and that these structures eventually formed
primitive cells. Then inside the cells, conditions could evolve to allow the
chemistry of life to work better and better, and so on. "

Funny, that sounds to me like a theory based on and part of evolution that is claiming an idea of how life EVOLVED (got started) from dead matter to living organisms as a part of the overall theory of so-called "evolution." It couldn't be plainer.

See - http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1993/biology/bio091.htm

__________________________________________________ ________________________

Opps, it looks like you were wrong...which you are about a lot of things. Guess it isn't getting any easier after all, eh.

[thememan]

Need not worry about it? OK, then it should not claim that it has the answer to how life began. Oh, I forgot, you say it does not deal with that subject. But it looks like the so-called scientific community does not agree with you...

RE: [I]"My god, this is actually getting easier as I continue."



You are one hell of an idiot.

Your basic argument is:

"Evolution should not state that life began spontaneously, and it claims that it does because I say that it does".

Note that nobody has ever claimed that, and that you are putting words in others mouths.

You fail at debating as the only problems you find in an argument are the ones you manufacture.

I'm done with you. You are childish, show no ability to reason, manufacture arguments to suit what you want to portray, and quite frankly do not know what the hell you are talking about, will not ever know what the hell you are talking about, never answer pertinent questions, etc and so forth.

I wash my hands of this bullshit of yours, and am off. If you can't conduct yourself intelligently, you are not worth debating with.

[freakazoid]

You are one hell of an idiot.

Your basic argument is:

"Evolution should not state that life began spontaneously, and it claims that it does because I say that it does".

Note that nobody has ever claimed that, and that you are putting words in others mouths.

You fail at debating as the only problems you find in an argument are the ones you manufacture.

I'm done with you. You are childish, show no ability to reason, manufacture arguments to suit what you want to portray, and quite frankly do not know what the hell you are talking about, will not ever know what the hell you are talking about, never answer pertinent questions, etc and so forth.

I wash my hands of this bullshit of yours, and am off. If you can't conduct yourself intelligently, you are not worth debating with.

Your basic argument is:

"Evolution should not state that life began spontaneously, and it claims that it does because I say that it does".

They say it does, did you read the statement of good ole' Prof Bill? Guess not.

Note that nobody has ever claimed that, and that you are putting words in others mouths.

Wrong, see my answer above.

You fail at debating as the only problems you find in an argument are the ones you manufacture.

Wrong, I manufactured nothing, I have said that evolution is not, and will probably never be, a proven fact. Evolutionists consistently claim that it is and that THEY alone have the authority to do so based on their own interpretations of so-called “evidence.”

I'm done with you. You are childish, show no ability to reason, manufacture arguments to suit what you want to portray, and quite frankly do not know what the hell you are talking about, will not ever know what the hell you are talking about, never answer pertinent questions, etc and so forth.

I wash my hands of this bullshit of yours, and am off. If you can't conduct yourself intelligently, you are not worth debating with.

Good, I grow bored debating with a person who can't understand and/or admit a few simple and obvious points. You are relying on the authority of a section of "science" you seem incapable of questioning and doubting. You seem totally incapable of thinking for yourself. Sad. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[thememan]

Your basic argument is:

"Evolution should not state that life began spontaneously, and it claims that it does because I say that it does".

They say it does, did you read the statement of good ole' Prof Bill? Guess not.

Note that nobody has ever claimed that, and that you are putting words in others mouths.

Wrong, see my answer above.

You fail at debating as the only problems you find in an argument are the ones you manufacture.

Wrong, I manufactured nothing, I have said that evolution is not, and will probably never be, a proven fact. Evolutionists consistently claim that it is and that THEY alone have the authority to do so based on their own interpretations of so-called “evidence.”

I'm done with you. You are childish, show no ability to reason, manufacture arguments to suit what you want to portray, and quite frankly do not know what the hell you are talking about, will not ever know what the hell you are talking about, never answer pertinent questions, etc and so forth.

I wash my hands of this bullshit of yours, and am off. If you can't conduct yourself intelligently, you are not worth debating with.

Good, I grow bored debating with a person who can't understand and/or admit a few simple and obvious points. You are relying on the authority of a section of "science" you seem incapable of questioning and doubting. You seem totally incapable of thinking for yourself. Sad. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif


You are arguing semantics. "Evolve" means change. It has more uses than purely in biology.

There are many uses for "EVOLVE" that have NOTHING to do with biology.

At all.

Period.

You are twisting the words to make them say what you want it to say.

[freakazoid]

You are arguing semantics. "Evolve" means change. It has more uses than purely in biology.

There are many uses for "EVOLVE" that have NOTHING to do with biology.

At all.

Period.

You are twisting the words to make them say what you want it to say.

Thought you were done? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif Yes, Evolve does mean "change." and evolutionists claim that dead matter "changed" into living. Many of them include that claim into the so-called "theory of evolution." ...Period.

[thememan]

Thought you were done? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif Yes, Evolve does mean "change." and evolutionists claim that dead matter "changed" into living. Many of them include that claim into the so-called "theory of evolution." ...Period.

As I side, no they most assuredly do not.

But hey, I'm going to let you go in your delusional little world. If the only argument you set forth are semantics and what YOU think people say, I highly suggest never going into law.

Or wait, you'd make a brilliant attorney, as they tend to be quite full of shit, especially in civil suits.

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Freak, why does life have to begin from dead matter?

Let's consider the widely accepted fact that energy is constant, it never grows or shrinks in total size across the entire universe, but only changes its composition. Therefor the evolution theory needs to accept that just as much energy as there is now was so at the beginning.

Since we cannot theorize a beginning point in time to all things, we must conclude that energy has ALWAYS been. With this conclusion can we not also agree that it is possible that some form of living matter has ALWAYS existed? From this beginning form of living matter we can then say is where evolution started, evolving into all the things that we observe today. Could God have created this initial form of living matter or at least started it into its initial evolution? Definately, and this is direct support both for a God and for the theory of evolution.

[theicidal maniac]

actually, "evolve" comes from the latin term meaning "unfolding"...Darwin was a deeply religious man prior to the full development of his theory, and he thought evolution represented the "unfolding" of a PLAN. He was wrong of course, about there being a plan, and realized it late in his life...NOT THE POINT, though...

Freakazoid...the theory of evolution is on the same scientific grounding as Einsteins theory of relativity. It is scientific fact, which, as far as facts go, is as close to proof as ANYONE CAN EVER GET, EVER. It has been proven that it DOES HAPPEN NOW, there is a HUGE database called the fossil record with literally BILLIONS of pieces of evidence to show that it HAS HAPPENED, and we found the "missing link,"...australopithicus in the 1920's to show that it has happened to humans, meaning either God did not create in his image, or else god is a caveman. In terms of the things I just mentioned, they are scientific fact, although in Darwins day it was just an educated guess...either way it beats religions FLAT-OUT HANDS-IN-THE-AIR-GUESS any day.

[theicidal maniac]

Freak, why does life have to begin from dead matter?

Let's consider the widely accepted fact that energy is constant, it never grows or shrinks in total size across the entire universe, but only changes its composition. Therefor the evolution theory needs to accept that just as much energy as there is now was so at the beginning.

Since we cannot theorize a beginning point in time to all things, we must conclude that energy has ALWAYS been. With this conclusion can we not also agree that it is possible that some form of living matter has ALWAYS existed? From this beginning form of living matter we can then say is where evolution started, evolving into all the things that we observe today. Could God have created this initial form of living matter or at least started it into its initial evolution? Definately, and this is direct support both for a God and for the theory of evolution.

Funny, though, how we've found evidence to support all of the theory EXCEPT THE GOD PART...hmmmmmmm....so think of the earth. It's HUGE. at least to us it is. compared to our solar system's OTHER planets, though, it's tiny. A tiny planet in a solar system that is a speck on the map of the milky way galaxy. In the milky way we are nothing more than a single grain of sand is to the entire planet of earth. INSIGNIFICANT! And of course, the Milky way is just one of NUMBERLESS galaxies...some MUCH, MUCH larger than ours. MUCH LARGER. Looking at the universe, you could ERASE earth and it would have nearly ZERO effect on the universe. And I am supposed to believe that ALL OF THAT was created so that I could accept Jesus?
I
DON'T
FUCKING
THINK
SO
!

[freakazoid]

Funny, though, how we've found evidence to support all of the theory EXCEPT THE GOD PART...hmmmmmmm....so think of the earth. It's HUGE. at least to us it is. compared to our solar system's OTHER planets, though, it's tiny. A tiny planet in a solar system that is a speck on the map of the milky way galaxy. In the milky way we are nothing more than a single grain of sand is to the entire planet of earth. INSIGNIFICANT! And of course, the Milky way is just one of NUMBERLESS galaxies...some MUCH, MUCH larger than ours. MUCH LARGER. Looking at the universe, you could ERASE earth and it would have nearly ZERO effect on the universe. And I am supposed to believe that ALL OF THAT was created so that I could accept Jesus?
I
DON'T
FUCKING
THINK
SO
!

Except God? LMAO!! Not hardly; try reading the following...

http://www.doesgodexist.org/

http://www.philosopher.org.uk/god.htm

http://www.allaboutcreation.org/proof-of-god.htm

Enjoy! :D

[Ausinus]

Some problems

Website 1
- The author makes his argument on the assumption atheists have yet to come up with an alternative theory. WRONG. The altervative theory is the big bang.
-Additionally, the second law of thermodynamics does not in any way debunk evolution.

Website 2
-This website does not prove the existence of god. It does not state - all of these are reasons for god - it just details various statements in philosophical history.

Website 3
-This website argues that you cant have something complex coming from something simple. I beg to differ, look at how spermatozoa join with ova, two simple cells, and become you.
-Also, if eveything was so complex it needed a creator, wouldnt the creator also need a creator?

[thememan]

=
-Additionally, the second law of thermodynamics does not in any way debunk evolution.


Indeed, most creationists whom site the Second Law of Thermodynamics don't even know what it entails, let alone what it states.

But meh, whatever. I guess they call it Creationism because they like to create thier own evidence.

[Ausinus]

Indeed. I wonder how that myth about the 2nd Law not permitting evolution started?

[freakazoid]

Indeed, most creationists whom site the Second Law of Thermodynamics don't even know what it entails, let alone what it states.

But meh, whatever. I guess they call it Creationism because they like to create thier own evidence.

Tell us why it permits / promotes dead matter to animate. Details please. :eek:

[Ausinus]

Let me make this clear. The theory of evolution covers how organisms evolve through natural selection. The theory of abiogenesis covers how simple organisms were formed from basic chemicals. Abiogenesis leads to evolution.

Additionally, the second law doesnt say 'order cannot come from disorder'. It states 'the entropy of a closed system not in equilibrium tends to increase approaching equilibrium'. It says nothing about complexity or order.

[freakazoid]

Let me make this clear. The theory of evolution covers how organisms evolve through natural selection. The theory of abiogenesis covers how simple organisms were formed from basic chemicals. Abiogenesis leads to evolution.

Additionally, the second law doesnt say 'order cannot come from disorder'. It states 'the entropy of a closed system not in equilibrium tends to increase approaching equilibrium'. It says nothing about complexity or order.
Ahhh, but, there seems to be a little problem with that idea...

Abiogenesis is speculative without evidence. Since it has not been observed in the laboratory, it is not science.

...part of scientific testing is falsification. Abiogenesis and theories thereof are not falsifiable since a negative result may just mean that the right conditions were not used. Simply put, there is no experimental or observational failure that would make the supporters of abiogenesis conclude that it is impossible. In fact scientific problems arising from areas like Thermodynamics and Information theory are dismissed as not applying to abiogenesis. This is because abiogenesis is a philosophical necessity of absolute naturalism, rather than a scientific concept...

Oops.


:: Try reading...

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/p_tree.shtml

[Ausinus]

We have observed DNA being made from basic chemicals, and forming into basic bacteria, so its not speculation.

[freakazoid]

We have observed DNA being made from basic chemicals, and forming into basic bacteria, so its not speculation.

In the lab, NOT, repeat, NOT spontaneously. By the way, check out...

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

[Ausinus]

yes spontaneously. How do you think the body creates DNA hmm? It doesnt get it from nowhere.

Perhaps you should check out this website

www.talkorigins.org

[freakazoid]

yes spontaneously. How do you think the body creates DNA hmm? It doesnt get it from nowhere.

Perhaps you should check out this website

www.talkorigins.org (http://www.talkorigins.org)

RE: "How do you think the body creates DNA hmm? It doesnt get it from nowhere."

And your point is...?

[Ausinus]

That the conversion of simple chemicals to genetic material does occur in nature.

[freakazoid]

That the conversion of simple chemicals to genetic material does occur in nature.

RE: "That the conversion of simple chemicals to genetic material does occur in nature."


Evidence requested AND observatoin in the lab.

[Ausinus]

What? I dont understand?

[freakazoid]

What? I dont understand?
Oh course it occurs in nature, it occurs in all living organisms in one form or another, but there is no proof that it has happened as claimed in the idea of abiogenesis, i.e., spontaneously from and through dead inanimate matter.

[Ausinus]

Ok, your veiw of abiogenesis is somewhat altered. It doesnt say that organism suddenly came together from dead matter. It goes like this

Simple chemicals>Monomers>Polymers>Replicating Polymers>Hypercycles>Protobiont>Simple Bacteria

Abiogenesis is just a theory, ok, just like creationism is just a theory. I put my trust in the former.

[freakazoid]

Ok, your veiw of abiogenesis is somewhat altered. It doesnt say that organism suddenly came together from dead matter. It goes like this

Simple chemicals>Monomers>Polymers>Replicating Polymers>Hypercycles>Protobiont>Simple Bacteria

Abiogenesis is just a theory, ok, just like creationism is just a theory. I put my trust in the former.

RE: " Abiogenesis is just a theory, ok, just like creationism is just a theory. I put my trust in the former."

Fair enough.

[Ausinus]

Or you could take the Cult of Bill Gates theory.

In the beginning, there was Bill, and Bill said "let there be windows 95" and so there was windows 95.:D

[Brains_Behind_Operation]

Or you could take the Cult of Bill Gates theory.

In the beginning, there was Bill, and Bill said "let there be windows 95" and so there was windows 95.



Well now there's proof of evolution right there! It actually began with DOS though, (as far back as I can remember anyways) and DOS evolved for a while until it eventually evolved into a new species, a sub-form of a GUI OS known as Windows 95. Then it evolved into 98, which split off into 2000 and ME and then it finally became a REAL GUI OS as Windows XP. It has been evolving from there and continues to evolve today. I think that they are planning to name a new species of the Windows family in the next few months...

And we can see how it all began AND was influenced by the creator: Bill Gates :D

[Ausinus]

All hail Bill Gates!:D

The new one is called Windows Vista.

"you will be assimilated"

[freakazoid]

Or you could take the Cult of Bill Gates theory.

In the beginning, there was Bill, and Bill said "let there be windows 95" and so there was windows 95.:D

...and I foolishly thought Steve Jobs said that. :D My bad.

[General Septem]

Or you could take the Cult of Bill Gates theory.

In the beginning, there was Bill, and Bill said "let there be windows 95" and so there was windows 95.:D

And then he said "let there be Windows ME", and there was Windows ME, and he saw that it was bad. :D

[beelzebub]

I will if I get some time. Bottomline is that all of the evidence for evolution can just as easily prove creation...it is just how you view it.


I don't see the "proof" of creation. Creationists only try to destroy evolution as their "proof" of creation. That’s not proving it to me.


RE: " Well, evolution itself is all but proven(In other words, it is as close to scientific fact as scientific fact gets)."
Bullshit, and I get tired of evolutionists claiming that nonsense.

Once again, you are deflecting my point.



They are now claiming that their little pet theory "never involved itself with the actual origins of life." That is bullshit, consider...

Evolution basically claims that lower life forms "evolved" upward to higher ones because of gradual genectic mutations caused by many factors. Well, if that is the claim, if you run the clock backwards all the way, inanimate matter must have been the beginning and, as the source of the basic building blocks that evolved into life, where all life began; hense "the origins of life" which the theory of evolution cannot divorce itself from no matter who hard it tries. And, what caused inanimate dead matter to "evolve" to animate life? Are you understanding my point? The theory of evolution cannot separate itself, even with the lies of evolutionists telling us that they "are not supporting a theory concerned with the origins of life, just it's change," no matter how hard it tries.

I don't think that evolution stops at the origin of life but I do not believe that we have to prove the origins of life to prove that evolution is reality. The other evolutionist has shown you conclusively with several examples that prove: Evolution is Reality.

So, I ask all of you evolutionists again; how did dead matter "evolve" into you? Do tell. If you can't tell us, then admit that your pet theory is unproven to this day.

How about if I ask you this: If you get rid of your supernatural explanations of life what are you left with?

You believe some god created the entire world 6,000 years ago and created all the living things according to the bible. You believe that some god spoke and it was so............

Yet you refuse to believe that living things evolved from inorganic substances?

I have to say you are biased.

[freakazoid]

Once again, you are deflecting my point.




How about if I ask you this: If you get rid of your supernatural explanations of life what are you left with?

You believe some god created the entire world 6,000 years ago and created all the living things according to the bible. You believe that some god spoke and it was so............

Yet you refuse to believe that living things evolved from inorganic substances?

I have to say you are biased.
We are all biased to some degree, including you.

RE: " How about if I ask you this: If you get rid of your supernatural explanations of life what are you left with?"

If you are referring to how it began, nothing. And neither, by the way, are you if what you are relying on is the flimsy claims of evolutionists who demand that life arises from dead matter by itself, beelzebub.

Curious; why do we not see new life rising from dead matter today?

RE: "You believe some god created the entire world 6,000 years ago and created all the living things according to the bible. You believe that some god spoke and it was so............"

Where did I say that I believe that God created the entire world 6,000 years ago?

RE: " Yet you refuse to believe that living things evolved from inorganic substances?"

I refuse to believe superstitious claims that have no proof. You believe it without proof because you are incapable of thinking outside your box which tells you that there is no other way life could have arrived. That is one dimensional thinking at best and foolish. It is not an attitude of real science. It is low "status quo" thinking at best.


"Believing themselves to be wise, they have become fools."

[thememan]

RE: " Yet you refuse to believe that living things evolved from inorganic substances?"

I refuse to believe superstitious claims that have no proof. You believe it without proof because you are incapable of thinking outside your box which tells you that there is no other way life could have arrived. That is one dimensional thinking at best and foolish. It is not an attitude of real science. It is low "status quo" thinking at best.


Now I see where you are getting the misconception that evolution has claimed ambiogenesis in the past.

You are slightly forgiven.

[freakazoid]

Now I see where you are getting the misconception that evolution has claimed ambiogenesis in the past.

You are slightly forgiven.

Explain yourself, oh naïve one. :cool:

[Ausinus]

And creationism is a far less superstitious claim? At least we can replicate abiogenesis to an extent.

In fact, we may even get to observe it in action provided we look for long enough.

[thememan]

Explain yourself, oh naïve one. :cool:

His wording, mostly, could be seen as confusing to some, especially those whom think that the only way "Evolve" can be used is in the biologic sense.

[theicidal maniac]

Ok, your veiw of abiogenesis is somewhat altered. It doesnt say that organism suddenly came together from dead matter. It goes like this

Simple chemicals>Monomers>Polymers>Replicating Polymers>Hypercycles>Protobiont>Simple Bacteria

Abiogenesis is just a theory, ok, just like creationism is just a theory. I put my trust in the former.

let's becareful with our use of the word "theory." There are THEORIES, like Einsteins Theory of Relativity and Darwins Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which have been hypothesized, tested by experiment, reviewed by peers who would love nothing more than to win the nobel prize for being the guy who disproved evolution or relativity. The stuff that surfaces is given the title of scientific theory.

And then there are "theories" like your uncle bob's theory that his son Zeke is the cause for his hair loss, or your neigbors theory about why the grass don't grow good in that one part of his yard, or Creation Theory...these are all false...and any testing that can be done would only damage their reputation as credible ideas.

[theicidal maniac]

On the subject of "Darwins Black Box," written by Mr Behe, there is nothing in the scientific community but disdain for this book. The "scientific" claims made in the book are based on obsolete science. In the book "intelligent thought" you can find todays TOP scientific minds all harmoniously pissing on Behe's claims for their blatant untruth. Behe himself admits major flaws in his claims, and swore that he would perfect the argument to make it hold up to scrutiny...that was 15 years ago...nothing from Mr. Behe so far.

Life doesn't need to come from dead matter. If you think about the vast expanse of the universe, all the pieces all the distance, and the TRILLIONS of years (because we know the universe is AT LEAST that old) it was bound to happen eventually that something would form a processor of some sorts, that would eventually become life, and later, consciousness. It is in fact, VERY LIKELY that this would happen.

Conversely, most mathematicians and scientist agree (real ones, not the ones on forums, or the ones in your philosophy class) that it is extremely mathematically UNLIKELY that a creator is a possible explaination of the universe

Linguists are currently attempting to set the environment for spontaneous intelligence...we should see it happen in our lifetimes


Ah yes, but you have to admit that he does bring up a BIG problem for the hypothesis of evolution and those that preach it given the fact that "many biological systems are irreducibly complex, that [I]in order to evolve, multiple systems would have to arise simultaneously" ...and...

...no one has proven him wrong with any hard facts. Ouch! :eek:

unfortunately for Michael Behe, this is not true...the systems DO NOT have to arise simultaneously, because they may not have arisen for their CURRENT function. For instance the human lung evolved in fish...not for breathing but as a swim bladder that helped the fish control it's buoyancy...it LATER evolved into a breathing apparatus for folk like us. And actually Behe HAS been proven wrong on this topic. His main examples are the human eyeball (which by the way is quite UNINTELLIGENTLY designed; the lens is inverted) and bacterial flagellum...again the book "intelligent thought" destroys that argument with CURRENT provable methods and theory

[beelzebub]

We are all biased to some degree, including you.

I agree Freak but look what you are biased with. I look at the world without the religious goggles that you put on. I take things as they are in this natural world and I don't add supernatural bias. Your hand is of ghosts, gods and scripture while mine is of tests, fossils and critical thinking open to debate. I see supernatural claims founded by untestable and illogical claims.

I would support supernatural causes if they were not so difficult to prove or examine or test or even query BUT they are. It does not make sense biologically speaking.


RE: " How about if I ask you this: If you get rid of your supernatural explanations of life what are you left with?"
If you are referring to how it began, nothing. And neither, by the way, are you if what you are relying on is the flimsy claims of evolutionists who demand that life arises from dead matter by itself, beelzebub.

Why is it so absurd to believe that we arose out of this planet? That this 3rd rock orbiting the sun is not the mother of all creation! Does not every life lead from the same origin? Is not our very existence tied to this planet? If we are just passengers on this earth then why are we intrinsically tied to it? Why view the earth as just a holding ground instead of the originator of all life? All you need to understand this is to look at the origin of your nourishment of your existence.

Isn't it more of a mystery when you view life this way? I ABSOLUTELY see life as a grand mystery; wonderful and full of awe. I see the christian view as confining and limiting: Labels and judgments everywhere and box, box, box..........


Curious; why do we not see new life rising from dead matter today?

That’s a good question. Perhaps there is life evolving in parts of the world that we are unaware of. The model for ambiogenesis (in summary) that we have is that in an oxygen free environment the basic building blocks of life did not decompose (oxygen is known as the great decomposer). Since the production of an oxygen rich environment (by cyanobacteria) these compounds are not able to exist. This may explain why we don't have any data on new life originating on earth.


Where did I say that I believe that God created the entire world 6,000 years ago?

I assumed you are christian. My mistake (or generalization).


RE: " Yet you refuse to believe that living things evolved from inorganic substances?"
I refuse to believe superstitious claims that have no proof. You believe it without proof because you are incapable of thinking outside your box which tells you that there is no other way life could have arrived. That is one dimensional thinking at best and foolish. It is not an attitude of real science. It is low "status quo" thinking at best.

I disagree while recognizing that some in the scientific community would agree with you. I accept the research and tests that have led to the models that are currently in place. I don't consider any other explanation because (you are correct) I am closed to supernatural models. I need something that is tangible and logical according to this Earth that we live on. I don't accept things that cannot be proved or tested.

Not knowing the precise mechanisms behind ambiogenesis does not mean that it is flawed or incorrect. If you see a car arriving at a destination are you not able to summarize its prior travel from a given origin? Jumping to supernatural conclusions about the origins of life IS flawed and incorrect. I believe this because the tools we use to understand are testable and open for discussion. Creationisim is not testable or open for discussion. Furthermore there are no hard facts to support it.

This model is the best model that we have at this time. I am pleased with it.


"Believing themselves to be wise, they have become fools."

This is applied to you and your stance as well.

[freakazoid]

I agree Freak but look what you are biased with. I look at the world without the religious goggles that you put on. I take things as they are in this natural world and I don't add supernatural bias. Your hand is of ghosts, gods and scripture while mine is of tests, fossils and critical thinking open to debate. I see supernatural claims founded by untestable and illogical claims.

I would support supernatural causes if they were not so difficult to prove or examine or test or even query BUT they are. It does not make sense biologically speaking.



Why is it so absurd to believe that we arose out of this planet? That this 3rd rock orbiting the sun is not the mother of all creation! Does not every life lead from the same origin? Is not our very existence tied to this planet? If we are just passengers on this earth then why are we intrinsically tied to it? Why view the earth as just a holding ground instead of the originator of all life? All you need to understand this is to look at the origin of your nourishment of your existence.

Isn't it more of a mystery when you view life this way? I ABSOLUTELY see life as a grand mystery; wonderful and full of awe. I see the christian view as confining and limiting: Labels and judgments everywhere and box, box, box..........



That’s a good question. Perhaps there is life evolving in parts of the world that we are unaware of. The model for ambiogenesis (in summary) that we have is that in an oxygen free environment the basic building blocks of life did not decompose (oxygen is known as the great decomposer). Since the production of an oxygen rich environment (by cyanobacteria) these compounds are not able to exist. This may explain why we don't have any data on new life originating on earth.



I assumed you are christian. My mistake (or generalization).



I disagree while recognizing that some in the scientific community would agree with you. I accept the research and tests that have led to the models that are currently in place. I don't consider any other explanation because (you are correct) I am closed to supernatural models. I need something that is tangible and logical according to this Earth that we live on. I don't accept things that cannot be proved or tested.

Not knowing the precise mechanisms behind ambiogenesis does not mean that it is flawed or incorrect. If you see a car arriving at a destination are you not able to summarize its prior travel from a given origin? Jumping to supernatural conclusions about the origins of life IS flawed and incorrect. I believe this because the tools we use to understand are testable and open for discussion. Creationisim is not testable or open for discussion. Furthermore there are no hard facts to support it.

This model is the best model that we have at this time. I am pleased with it.



This is applied to you and your stance as well.
RE: "Your hand is of ghosts, gods and scripture while mine is of tests, fossils and critical thinking open to debate."

Tests? Fossils? Critical thinking? "This model is the best model that we have at this time. I am pleased with it." You mean like...

"In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China (http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html#anchorArchaeoraptor) in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic"

Is this what you are referring to, beelzebub? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif Are you really interested in critical thinking? Try reading...

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=589 (I STRONGLY suggest that you read this article)

See also - http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html

:: Try also reading...

Evolution Is A Farce, A Fraud, A Fake And A Faith!

Sample of this article...

Science means "to know" and "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc." It is based on observation and experimentation. Evolutionists don't "know" anything about man's origins. They guess, suppose, etc. but they don't "know." Honest scientists have become weary and embarrassed at the confusing, convoluted and contradictory claptrap that often passes as science. They have watched their colleagues rushing to protect Darwin rather than putting him to rigorous tests.

http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html

[Ausinus]

Oh come off it evolution is virtually proven. If you dont believe complex organisms arise from simple ones then you are fucked up.

As for how it arose from chemicals or the supposed lack thereof, thats left up to "opinion".

Now lets all be happy.:D

[thememan]

Oh come off it evolution is virtually proven. If you dont believe complex organisms arise from simple ones then you are fucked up.

As for how it arose from chemicals or the supposed lack thereof, thats left up to "opinion".

Now lets all be happy.:D

Eh, the process of Evolution is about as true as true gets(The term "Law" in science is rather outdated these days, most things in Science are theories. By saying that Evolution is "just a theory", thinking it somehow demotes it from scientific fact would also mean that Gravity-or pretty much anything else science claims as true- is demoted).

But meh. That's another debate for another time.

[thememan]

RE:
"[FONT=Georgia]In an attempt to further their careers and justify the claims that evolution is a legitimate theory, many scientists have fraudulently deceived the world by planting or reconstructing fossils which they would claim to be authentic finds. The most widely published evolution fraud was committed in China (http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html#anchorArchaeoraptor) in 1999, and published in in the National Geographic"


1. Hoax's do not disprove the existance of something a process. They disprove nothing of Evolution. I'm assuming you are Christian. If I find a Christian hoax, does it disprove Christianity?

2. All of those are very poor examples of someone trying to disprove it. Let's examine:

A.Piltdown man. A poor hoax that used a very old human skull with an ape jaw. This disproves nothing, as dozens, if not hundreds, of other finds are authentic, and impossible to hoax. Like I said, I can name a number of hoax's in Christianity. Hoax's do not disprove anything as far as Evolution is concerned-only that particular find.

B.Nebraska Man. This is an example of a person jumping the gun. If I remember correctly, very few people took this seriously, and it was disproven to be human. The man whom found it was not an anthropologist, or even a biologist, but instead was a Rancher and a geologist. Osborn, the very man whom tried to classify it, said that an illustration done by it, and I quote "a figment of the imagination of no scientific value, and undoubtedly inaccurate."

In other words, Osborn conjectured it was human, thought it was, but made no assertion as to whether it was or not, and did not accept any attempt at restructuring a specimen from a singal tooth alone.

Also, might I re-assert this point: Nebraska man never gained academic acceptance as a whole. Only a very few people thought it was human, and infact it was retracted just five years after the claim.

And, back to Christianity: What of all those people who have claimed that the world is ending, citing their "evidence"? These people jumped the gun, showed to be false. Thus, Christianity is false.

C. Misidentification. It happens. However, once again, we have hundreds of specimens which ARE authentic, stand the test of time, and are not misidentified.

D.Neanderthal. They were MOSTLY human. HOWEVER, there are several differences between neanderthals and humans. The early conception of them was quite false, for one very good reason: The first specimen found was an old man, probably in mid-40's to early 60's, and suffered from arthritus. This meant that a recontruction of the skeleton would make appear hunched over, and more ape-like.

However, Neanderthals are very different from modern humans. The biggest, and most notable, difference are the large brow ridges, which ARE NOT found in modern humans, especially to that extent.

Another important difference is the lack of a chin in ANY neanderthal specimen. Humans have a protruding bone on the bottom of their jaw which creates the chin. Neanderthals had flat mandibles, and no such protrusion. No specimen has been shown to have one.

Let's not forget the brain case shape of Neanderthal skulls, which is vastly different than that of modern man. Modern man's brain case is rounder, is taller, and is not as long as that of Neanderthals. Think of it like this: Modern human brain cases look like small volleyballs, Neanderthal's brain cases looked like footballs. They are vastly different.

Next, Modern Humans have a high, more vertical forhead than those of Neanderthals, which had a lower forehead with more of a slope.

Before I move away from the skulls, there is another important factor in Neanderthal skulls, that being the Occipital bun, which is located on the back of the skull. This is NOT present in modern humans, at all.

The differences are not even confined to the skulls themselves. For starters, Neanderthals were considerably more robust than modern humans(Modern humans meaning for as long as humans have been the way they are-not just in today's sense). They were quite a bit larger, had larger muscles, largers bone structures, and were quite frankly bigger than modern humans.

They had shorter and more bowed shoulder blades than modern humans.

They had longer collar bones than modern humans.

They had a barrel shaped rib-cage which is quite different than that found in modern humans.

Their thigh bones were thicker, and were quite a bit more bowed than that in modern humans.

They had shorter shin bones and calf bones than modern humans.

They had longer, somewhat more gracile pelvic pubis.

This is just a few of the most notable differences between Neanderthals and modern man. They were not, in any way, modern man. To claim such is to be so completely and totally ignorant, uneducated in the matter, and frankly idiotic beyond all comprehension.

And while I'm at it, I'm going to make a point here:

Have you ever seen any Neanderthal remains at all? I'm guessing not. THe differences are not even that difficult to see, and most of these can easily be seen by an untrained eye. For instance, look at these pictures:

http://www.bio-itworld.com/newsitems/2006/july/Neander_Human-Compare.jpg-Neanderthal on left, modern man on right

http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060515/images/441260b.jpgman on left, Neanderthal on right.

Not the greatest picture, but there are quite obvious differences between the two.

[freakazoid]

Eh, the process of Evolution is about as true as true gets(The term "Law" in science is rather outdated these days, most things in Science are theories. By saying that Evolution is "just a theory", thinking it somehow demotes it from scientific fact would also mean that Gravity-or pretty much anything else science claims as true- is demoted).

But meh. That's another debate for another time.
I have noticed that the more the previous and historic claims of "evolution" and evolutionists are found to be without scientific evidence and reasonable proof, the claims of "evolution" and evolutionists become narrower and narrower as they retreat away from the more broader and older claims of this so-called "theory" which used to claim how life began. In other words; the more the claims of evolution are discredited due to a lack of any basis in fact, evolutionists simply redefine this "theory" to NOT include those previous elements that have been shown to be incorrect. Upon doing so, they then begin a campaign claiming that the elements that have been disproved "were never a part of our beloved theory." "Not us, we never said that." How very convenient. When your theory has been proven to be bullshit, simply change it and declare that you don't know and have nothing to do with any claim of the past. Sad, it's an old story. I.e. "evolution has nothing to do with how life began" even though the very book this idea has largely been based on is title The ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, and other works that used to claim that evolution was and is the mechanism of how life began. Why do we as evolutionist's now say this...simple; we used to make that claim, but our claim has now been proven to be utter nonsense, so we have to eliminate that embarrassing part and try to convince everyone that we never said it.

You say Darwin's little idea had nothing to do with how life began? LIE! ABSOLUTE LIE!! ...

...in an oft quoted letter, written in 1871, Darwin suggested that life arose in a "warm little pond" where a rich brew of organic chemicals, over eons of time, might have given rise to the first simple organisms. For the next century, Darwin's agreeable hypothesis, expanded upon by other theorists, dominated thinking on the subject. Researchers decided that the "pond" was really the ocean and began trying to figure out where the building blocks of life could have come from.

...Meanwhile, older and older fossils have all but proved that life did not evolve at the leisurely pace Darwin envisioned.

See - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979365-3,00.html


http://www.bible-codes.org/images/atbash-charles-darwin-ape.jpg (http://www.bible-codes.org)


Give us a break man! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[theicidal maniac]

I have noticed that the more the previous and historic claims of "evolution" and evolutionists are found to be without scientific evidence and reasonable proof, the claims of "evolution" and evolutionists become narrower and narrower as they retreat away from the more broader and older claims of this so-called "theory" which used to claim how life began. In other words; the more the claims of evolution are discredited due to a lack of any basis in fact, evolutionists simply redefine this "theory" to NOT include those previous elements that have been shown to be incorrect. Upon doing so, they then begin a campaign claiming that the elements that have been disproved "were never a part of our beloved theory." "Not us, we never said that." How very convenient. When your theory has been proven to be bullshit, simply change it and declare that you don't know and have nothing to do with any claim of the past. Sad, it's an old story. I.e. "evolution has nothing to do with how life began" even though the very book this idea has largely been based on is title The ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, and other works that used to claim that evolution was and is the mechanism of how life began. Why do we as evolutionist's now say this...simple; we used to make that claim, but our claim has now been proven to be utter nonsense, so we have to eliminate that embarrassing part and try to convince everyone that we never said it.

science is willing to redefine itself based on new evidence, however in this case you are either wrong or you are lying; the theory's fundamental principles remain the same. Otherwise, yes, they would be redefined. And if we find out a part of it is false, we cut it out, so if you can show each and every part of it to be false, you could conceivably reduce it's status from scientific theory to obsolete garbage...but YOU CAN'T, cuz you're too dumb. And because the top scientific thinkers can't even do it.


You say Darwin's little idea had nothing to do with how life began? LIE! ABSOLUTE LIE!! ...

[I]...in an oft quoted letter, written in 1871, Darwin suggested that life arose in a "warm little pond" where a rich brew of organic chemicals, over eons of time, might have given rise to the first simple organisms. For the next century, Darwin's agreeable hypothesis, expanded upon by other theorists, dominated thinking on the subject. [B]Researchers decided that the "pond" was really the ocean and began trying to figure out[SIZE=4] where the building blocks of life could have come from.

Darwin would have been the first to admit that he may have been wrong about certain aspects like that, that's why they weren't included in his theory. His letters were not part of his theory, they are hypotheses. EVOLUTION NEVER WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN EXPLANATION OF THE BEGINNINGS OF LIFE, and you are complete DUMBASS...it is call "origin of species" because it talks about how NEW SPECIES are formed, not because it talks about the origin of life.

IDIOT

[thememan]

I have noticed that the more the previous and historic claims of "evolution" and evolutionists are found to be without scientific evidence and reasonable proof, the claims of "evolution" and evolutionists become narrower and narrower as they retreat away from the more broader and older claims of this so-called "theory" which used to claim how life began. In other words; the more the claims of evolution are discredited due to a lack of any basis in fact, evolutionists simply redefine this "theory" to NOT include those previous elements that have been shown to be incorrect. Upon doing so, they then begin a campaign claiming that the elements that have been disproved "were never a part of our beloved theory." "Not us, we never said that." How very convenient. When your theory has been proven to be bullshit, simply change it and declare that you don't know and have nothing to do with any claim of the past. Sad, it's an old story. I.e. "evolution has nothing to do with how life began" even though the very book this idea has largely been based on is title The ORIGIN OF THE SPECIES, and other works that used to claim that evolution was and is the mechanism of how life began. Why do we as evolutionist's now say this...simple; we used to make that claim, but our claim has now been proven to be utter nonsense, so we have to eliminate that embarrassing part and try to convince everyone that we never said it.

You say Darwin's little idea had nothing to do with how life began? LIE! ABSOLUTE LIE!! ...

...in an oft quoted letter, written in 1871, Darwin suggested that life arose in a "warm little pond" where a rich brew of organic chemicals, over eons of time, might have given rise to the first simple organisms. For the next century, Darwin's agreeable hypothesis, expanded upon by other theorists, dominated thinking on the subject. Researchers decided that the "pond" was really the ocean and began trying to figure out where the building blocks of life could have come from.

...Meanwhile, older and older fossils have all but proved that life did not evolve at the leisurely pace Darwin envisioned.

See - http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,979365-3,00.html


http://www.bible-codes.org/images/atbash-charles-darwin-ape.jpg (http://www.bible-codes.org)


Give us a break man! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

Once again you argue pure semantics, reverting back to your same-old tired garbage that is complete nonsense, instead of adressing what I had said. Instead of trying to dispute that which I stated, you are ignoring it, skirting around the issue, and decide not to address it. Really, if this is how you debate, do you ever win any debates at all in real life? I would assume not.

Answer my points in the rest of the post, and stop debating semantics.

[theicidal maniac]

Once again you argue pure semantics, reverting back to your same-old tired garbage that is complete nonsense, instead of adressing what I had said. Instead of trying to dispute that which I stated, you are ignoring it, skirting around the issue, and decide not to address it. Really, if this is how you debate, do you ever win any debates at all in real life? I would assume not.

Answer my points in the rest of the post, and stop debating semantics.

I 2nd that.

[freakazoid]

Once again you argue pure semantics, reverting back to your same-old tired garbage that is complete nonsense, instead of adressing what I had said. Instead of trying to dispute that which I stated, you are ignoring it, skirting around the issue, and decide not to address it. Really, if this is how you debate, do you ever win any debates at all in real life? I would assume not.

Answer my points in the rest of the post, and stop debating semantics.

Semantics seem to be at the heart of the debate. You conclude that the fossil record (as an example) proves the theory evolution to be valid, other scientists (creationists) can examine the exact same fossil evidence and conclude for valid reasons that they are proof of a universal flood. Who are you to decide that either is right or wrong? Yup, semantics. I believe that a person who's thinking is like yours (predisposed to believe something) simply cannot think outside of your evolutionary little box for several reasons including that your little unproven "theory" gives you the "answers" you feel secure in. Seems to me that I just answered all of your posts. You believe what you do because you can't believe anything else.

[Ausinus]

And viola, theme's point has been proven.

[thememan]

And viola, theme's point has been proven.

Indeed. Not only did he not dispute anything I had said, but he in turn made up a new argument to distract from counterpoint my point against his. Infact, this is only one of several times in which he has done so. He has never infact disputed a single statement of mine, and instead twists and cherry picks what I say, removing it from context. Instead of addressing the actual points and facts, he addresses minor details and such, and creates argument which were never stated that he in turn disputes(remember-his assumption and assertions of what he disputes are rarely true).

And when a good argument IS presented, he ignores it.

As a side note, freakazoid, do you know what semantics means? Judging by what you said... you don't.

[thememan]

Semantics seem to be at the heart of the debate. You conclude that the fossil record (as an example) proves the theory evolution to be valid, other scientists (creationists) can examine the exact same fossil evidence and conclude for valid reasons that they are proof of a universal flood. Who are you to decide that either is right or wrong? Yup, semantics. I believe that a person who's thinking is like yours (predisposed to believe something) simply cannot think outside of your evolutionary little box for several reasons including that your little unproven "theory" gives you the "answers" you feel secure in. Seems to me that I just answered all of your posts. You believe what you do because you can't believe anything else.

No, that is not it at all.

Those "scientists" more often than not have absolutely no credentials, training, or degrees to make their assumptions on the evidence. And infact, their "explanations" make NO sense WHATSOEVER when critically examined. I make this challenge to you: Show me the "proof" of the flood, given by someone whom has the credentials(Geologist would be a start) to make a valid interpretation of the evidence, that is scientifically sound. I think I'll be waiting until the day I die for that.

Do you have any idea how much criticism ANYTHING that arises receives by the scientific community? NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING is EVER accepted right out. It goes through RIGOROUS testing, to try and DISPROVE the hypothesis. So far, evolution HAS NOT failed the test. You CANNOT realize this, because you believe there is some massive science conspiracy to destroy religion. For that, I give you this FACT:

There are many Christians whom both believe the Bible is true, and that Evolution is true. Dispute.

Also, I am most definately NOT predisposed to this. My family are devout Christians, whom do not believe in evolution at all, believe in the 6,000 year old earth nonsense, and are rather like you at times. Hell, for half my life I believed such fairytales. Until I critically examined it... and lo-and-behold here I am today. 7 years later, always learning new ideas and new discoveries. You think my idea of what evolution is has never changed? If so, you are false. As I learn new material, and see more evidence, I change what my previous idea of it was, and come to better and better understanding of it. Likewise, as new evidence, yes that is evidence, of evolution arises, so does the idea of evolution change with new evidence. EVERY SINGLE THEORY THAT HAS ARISEN HAS DONE THIS. Science is not static, but always changing. You do not see this, and cannot understand this, because it is you who are predisposed to not believe it.

[thememan]

Also, because this requires special attention, freakazoid, you have NEVER said anything about this point I made 10 pages back, and once again 3-ish pages ago.

This is what Evolution entails:


1.Traits are obviously aquired. Nobody debates this. Favorable traits are gained in a given population.

2.Traits are caused directly by genetics. Once again, nobody debates this.

3.As several traits are gained, several pieces of the genetic code changes in a population. This is a logical step from 1. Once again, this is undebatable.

4.When two populations have different enough genetic structures, they can be considered new species. This is also a given.

5.Let's put this together: As traits are aquired, they change the genetic code of a given population. As several traits are aquired, several pieces of the genetic code are changed in this population. When enough traits are aquired, and the genetic code has changed drastically enough, the population will be at a point where it may no longer be considered the same species as the group from which it derived, as the difference in genetics is far to different to be the same. They may still breed, as often times we find out that two obviously different species can, but they are genetically different enough to be a new species. Now, as traits continue to be aquired, eventually there will be a point in time when the Parent Group and the eventual derived group will not be able to breed, as the genetics is far to different.

You have yet to dispute any of this. Is it because it is so damn logical that you realize that you cannot refute this? Is it because you want to ignore actual points for minor details in posts? Is it because you would rather fabricate an argument which nobody has ever claimed so that you may dispute this fabricated argument?

[Ausinus]

Freak, you are being an idiot, confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Each of these theories describe their respective subjects, just like a math teacher doesnt teach geology.

[thememan]

Freak, you are being an idiot, confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Each of these theories describe their respective subjects, just like a math teacher doesnt teach geology.

You do know that he is going to use his idiotic rhetoric to say that "Well if you go back far enough... blah blah blah". But hey, ambiogenesis has more to do with chemistry than biology, really, but don't tell him that. He can't comprehend such advanced topics as being able to tell the difference between two totally different ideas.

[theicidal maniac]

yes...typically any scientist who doesn't believe in evolution turns out to not actually be a scientist. Usually they are theologians with axes to grind. In fact some of the biggest "creation scientists" have openly admitted that there only goal is to use science to disprove evolution, which in 30 years they have not done. Again, these are only pseudo-scientists.

You should also understand that if, as a scientist, you were actually able to scientifically DISPROVE a theory like evolution, you'd win a nobel prize for sure...so why wouldn't scientists be trying to debunk evolution if it is so weak...why wouldn't they be going after the highest honor in their profession? BECAUSE IT IS A SOUND THEORY, THAT'S WHY!

[freakazoid]

And viola, theme's point has been proven.
Doesn't look like that to me. Nope. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[freakazoid]

yes...typically any scientist who doesn't believe in evolution turns out to not actually be a scientist. Usually they are theologians with axes to grind. In fact some of the biggest "creation scientists" have openly admitted that there only goal is to use science to disprove evolution, which in 30 years they have not done. Again, these are only pseudo-scientists.

You should also understand that if, as a scientist, you were actually able to scientifically DISPROVE a theory like evolution, you'd win a nobel prize for sure...so why wouldn't scientists be trying to debunk evolution if it is so weak...why wouldn't they be going after the highest honor in their profession? BECAUSE IT IS A SOUND THEORY, THAT'S WHY!

RE: "yes...typically any scientist who doesn't believe in evolution turns out to not actually be a scientist."

You mean like these guys (all creationists)...

:: Austin, Steven A. - Professor of Geology
B.S., University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S., San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

:: Cumming, Kenneth B. - Professor of Biology
B.S., Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1956
M.A., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1959
Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1965

:: DeYoung, Donald B. - Professor of Astrophysics
B.S., Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml, 1966
M.S., Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml, 1968
Ph.D., Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1972

:: Franks, Robert H. - Associate Professor of Biology
B.A., San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1956
M.D., University of California Los Angeles, CA, 1960

:: Gish, Duane T. - Professor of Biochemistry
B.S., University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 1949
Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1953

:: Morris, Henry M. - Professor of Hydrogeology
B.S., Rice University, Houston, TX, 1939
M.S., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1948
Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1950

:: Morris, John D. - Professor of Geology
B.S., Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA, 1969
M.S., University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1977
Ph.D.. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1980

:: Snelling, Andrew - Professor of Geology
B.Sc., University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 1975
Ph.D., University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 1982

:: Vardiman, Larry - Professor of Atmospheric Science
B.S., University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, 1965
B.S., St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, 1967
M.S., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1972
Ph.D., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1974

http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_faculty/

And, this guy (Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith)...

http://www.wildersmith.org/

Were you talking about these guys? Just curious.

What ever, man...http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[thememan]

Doesn't look like tha tto me. Nope. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

Actually, yes it was. I said that all you can do is argue semantics and minor details that really do not pertain to anything, as well as ignoring the majority of my post for one tiny little bit, which you took out of context mind you, and twisted it around, all whilst not actually debating a single point I had made.

I had said you would do such, and you did. Thus, my point is proven.

[theicidal maniac]

RE: "yes...typically any scientist who doesn't believe in evolution turns out to not actually be a scientist."

You mean like these guys (all creationists)...

:: Austin, Steven A. - Professor of Geology
B.S., University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S., San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

:: Cumming, Kenneth B. - Professor of Biology
B.S., Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1956
M.A., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1959
Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1965

:: DeYoung, Donald B. - Professor of Astrophysics
B.S., Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml, 1966
M.S., Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml, 1968
Ph.D., Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1972

:: Franks, Robert H. - Associate Professor of Biology
B.A., San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1956
M.D., University of California Los Angeles, CA, 1960

:: Gish, Duane T. - Professor of Biochemistry
B.S., University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 1949
Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1953

:: Morris, Henry M. - Professor of Hydrogeology
B.S., Rice University, Houston, TX, 1939
M.S., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1948
Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1950

:: Morris, John D. - Professor of Geology
B.S., Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA, 1969
M.S., University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1977
Ph.D.. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1980

:: Snelling, Andrew - Professor of Geology
B.Sc., University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 1975
Ph.D., University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 1982

:: Vardiman, Larry - Professor of Atmospheric Science
B.S., University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, 1965
B.S., St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, 1967
M.S., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1972
Ph.D., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1974

http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_faculty/

WELL WHAT DO YOU KNOW...THESE GUYS ARE FACULTY at Institute for Creation Research IN Santee, CA
!!!NOT A RECOGNIZED SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTE!!!
If you look at the curriculum they are studying nothing but how to refute evolution...this isn't a center for learning, they hold classes in VERY SPECIFIC FIELDS OF STUDY, the few that are left to exploit


And, this guy (Dr. A. E. Wilder-Smith)...

http://www.wildersmith.org/

HERE'S A QUOTE FROM THAT WEBSITE.
"Universally popular with his audiences--students, scientists, laymen, and military alike", and it turns out that Duane Gish, Vice-president, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, California is one of his biggest fans, even offering a testimonial on the website ...wow impressive and relevant audience!....NOT


Were you talking about these guys? Just curious.

What ever, man...http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

Whoa...10 whole guys...crazy....my bad...that's the thing about the word I used, "typically"...it does allow for a few nutjobs here and there.

Their beliefs and methods are embarassing to science, and their numbers are embarassing to creationinsts.

[theicidal maniac]

Here's a great quote from Prof. Steve Verhey of Central Washington University, who routinely criticizes evolutionary theory;

"I don’t know what to say about high school evolution education. I don’t think my approach would work there. Perhaps it could work, but it would take too much time. Evolution can’t be avoided in HS biology classes, and creationism/[Intelligent Design] can’t be presented as even vaguely valid alternatives, so we are where we are."

[freakazoid]

WELL WHAT DO YOU KNOW...THESE GUYS ARE FACULTY at Institute for Creation Research IN Santee, CA
!!!NOT A RECOGNIZED SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTE!!!
If you look at the curriculum they are studying nothing but how to refute evolution...this isn't a center for learning, they hold classes in VERY SPECIFIC FIELDS OF STUDY, the few that are left to exploit



HERE'S A QUOTE FROM THAT WEBSITE.
"Universally popular with his audiences--students, scientists, laymen, and military alike", and it turns out that Duane Gish, Vice-president, Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, California is one of his biggest fans, even offering a testimonial on the website ...wow impressive and relevant audience!....NOT



Whoa...10 whole guys...crazy....my bad...that's the thing about the word I used, "typically"...it does allow for a few nutjobs here and there.

Their beliefs and methods are embarassing to science, and their numbers are embarassing to creationinsts.

Ahhhh, I see; if you can't prove them wrong, pour worthless insults on them. OK, have it your way. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[freakazoid]

I 2nd that.

Answer mine first...why, if evolution (transmutation from a lower species to a higher one) is true, tell us why (I'll be waiting) ...

- There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

- Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

- Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

- The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

- Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

- The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

- Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

- Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

- The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.


It might all seem "bias" to you, but who says your interpretation of the fasts lead to evolution?

[theicidal maniac]

Ahhhh, I see; if you can't prove them wrong, pour worthless insults on them. OK, have it your way.

It's called QUESTIONING CREDENTIALS and it goes to MOTIVE. IDIOT.


Answer mine first...why, if evolution (transmutation from a lower species to a higher one) is true, tell us why (I'll be waiting) ...

- There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

You're wrong. There are. In fact every fossil ever found is an intermediate between some ancient, instinct species and a current living one...and there are BILLIONS of fossils in the fossil record so there are billions of examples.


- Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Wrong again. Peter and Rosemary Grant are professors at Princeton. They have been studying finches in the Galapagos for several decades. They have recorded actual natural selection in progress and have clear, undeniable results. Many of the grad students who worked in the field with the grants have gone on to conduct there own observation and experiments with similar, concrete results.

see "The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time (ISBN 0-679-40003-6)", a Pulitzer Prize winning book on evolutionary biology written for the layperson by Jonathan Weiner in 1994, who also edited "the best Science and Nature Writing 2005," in which you read some great essays by todays top thinkers on the rediculosity (my word, but you can use it) of creation science


- Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Some scientists state this. But it is not part of the theory of Evolution, because that theory doesn't have a concise answer for the origins of life. The debate here has gone right over your head...the creationists versus the evolutionists are at odds because evolution proves that the Genesis creation story could not have happened, but it does not include an alternate theory, it only rules out certain other possibilities.


- The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

I don't know what web site you are cutting and pasting this from, but the author is BADLY misinformed. Holes in the fossil record occur ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DUG UP THE WHOLE PLANET YET. But the patterns are unmistakable, but then again...you'd actually have to bother to look at them to know that.


- Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

there's the intermediary example you requested earlier


- The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Incorrect...look at them. Also, the deeper you dig, the older the dirt you find the fossils in, the less they look like MODERN humans...explain that

oh wait..evolution already did!


- Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Such as...???


- Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Such as...???


- The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Or the Pangaea theory, but whatever.


It might all seem "bias" to you, but who says your interpretation of the fasts lead to evolution?

Science does.

[Ausinus]

- There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

We have a complete transitional record for the evolution of the horse, and man, and many other species besides. Unless you dont believe in carbon dating and DNA testing.


- Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Citation needed, by a qualified and agnostic scientist.


- Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Evolutionist do not state that. Abiogenesists state that.

Life is basically just chemicals. how is it an impossibiliy that it could have arisen from somewhere.

Matter resulted from energy. This is proved by Einsteins equation e=mc2. Where the energy cam from, no one know, but there are theories such as a collision between two dimensions, and the release of onergy from one to the other etc.

Humans resulted from animals, specifically smilodectes and pleisidapis.


- The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

They are thorough and revealing, only an ignorant person would state the contrary.


- Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

How do you explain the genetic similatiry between humans and primates then? We evolved from a common ancestor, namely the proconsul.


- The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Okay, the fossil records show the progression of common ancestor to humans. They didnt turn into Homo Sapiens Sapiens overnight. Idiot


- Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Social and practial? State these, and dont simply allide to them. True, it has been an excuse for eugenetisists.


- Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Point these out. Mutations existant in an organism that allow it to better survive in its environment. It has been selected.


- The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

No they arent. There is no evidence for a great flood, or esle there would be one strata with a huge amount of dinosaur, modern human and animal fossils. Additionally, such geological formations such as the Rocky Mountains would not exist.


It might all seem "bias" to you, but who says your interpretation of the fasts lead to evolution?

Once again, you have proved your ignorance about the concept of evolution and how it is different from abiogenesis. If you are incapable of making a logical debate then dont make one at all.

[freakazoid]

We have a complete transitional record for the evolution of the horse, and man, and many other species besides. Unless you dont believe in carbon dating and DNA testing.



Citation needed, by a qualified and agnostic scientist.



Evolutionist do not state that. Abiogenesists state that.

Life is basically just chemicals. how is it an impossibiliy that it could have arisen from somewhere.

Matter resulted from energy. This is proved by Einsteins equation e=mc2. Where the energy cam from, no one know, but there are theories such as a collision between two dimensions, and the release of onergy from one to the other etc.

Humans resulted from animals, specifically smilodectes and pleisidapis.



They are thorough and revealing, only an ignorant person would state the contrary.



How do you explain the genetic similatiry between humans and primates then? We evolved from a common ancestor, namely the proconsul.



Okay, the fossil records show the progression of common ancestor to humans. They didnt turn into Homo Sapiens Sapiens overnight. Idiot



Social and practial? State these, and dont simply allide to them. True, it has been an excuse for eugenetisists.



Point these out. Mutations existant in an organism that allow it to better survive in its environment. It has been selected.



No they arent. There is no evidence for a great flood, or esle there would be one strata with a huge amount of dinosaur, modern human and animal fossils. Additionally, such geological formations such as the Rocky Mountains would not exist.



Once again, you have proved your ignorance about the concept of evolution and how it is different from abiogenesis. If you are incapable of making a logical debate then dont make one at all.
RE: "Once again, you have proved your ignorance about the concept of evolution and how it is different from abiogenesis. If you are incapable of making a logical debate then dont make one at all."

Once again you have proven your ignorance (and the fact that you seemed brainwashed) of the fact that you simply cannot divorce the so-called theory of evolution from the event of the beginning of life on Earth. You can make up terms like "abiogenesis" all you want, but that does not relieve evolutionists from having to face the fact that their pet theory, when traced back as far as it can, attempts to describe the origins of life no matter if it is admitted or not. There is no way out of that logical conclusion. You can't get out of it simply by claiming that evolution has nothing to do with the way life began. Evolutionist's claim this because their theory has failed to live up to the available evidence. You, my friend, are the ignorant one.

[Ausinus]

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, it does in no way attempt to explain it, Abiogenesis explains it. One can lead to the other, but evolution in itself does not deal with the origins of life. You are deliberatley refusing to see this in a futile attempt to disprove evolution/

[freakazoid]

YOU ARE FULL OF SHIT.

Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life, it does in no way attempt to explain it, Abiogenesis explains it. One can lead to the other, but evolution in itself does not deal with the origins of life. You are deliberatley refusing to see this in a futile attempt to disprove evolution/

RE: "Abiogenesis explains it."

Abiogenesis explains nothing and there is no evidence to prove it. Anyway, have it your way, dude.

[Ausinus]

Its a theory, asshole, just like Creationism is a theory. At least we in the realm of science will change our theorys provided enough evidence is given. Your theories have remained the same for nigh on two millennia.

[theicidal maniac]

Again...

Let's becareful with our use of the word "theory." There are THEORIES, like Einsteins Theory of Relativity and Darwins Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which have been hypothesized, tested by experiment, reviewed by peers who would love nothing more than to win the nobel prize for being the guy who disproved evolution or relativity. The stuff that surfaces is given the title of scientific theory.

And then there are "theories" like your uncle bob's theory that his son Zeke is the cause for his hair loss, or your neigbors theory about why the grass don't grow good in that one part of his yard, or Creation Theory...these are all false...and any testing that can be done would only damage their reputation as credible ideas.

[Ausinus]

Sorry. Its just that freak is not currying my favour at the moment.

Freak-dobe wa baka to atama ga warui desu yo.

[theicidal maniac]

and you finally stated your point in a coherent fashion, freakazoid, about following evolution back to the origins of life...unfortunately you are imagining links where there are none, and using an idea that is not even affiliated with the Theory of Evolution to try to debunk the theory. Evolution describes how NEW SPECIES are formed from EXISTING SPECIES and NEVER is the origin of life included in the theory, because for the evolution to happen, there must e something for it to evolve FROM.

[freakazoid]

Its a theory, asshole, just like Creationism is a theory. At least we in the realm of science will change our theorys provided enough evidence is given. Your theories have remained the same for nigh on two millennia.

RE: "Your theories have remained the same for nigh on two millennia."

Untrue, recent scientific finds have shed a lot of light on creationism. I have posted a lot of that material in this thread and it has been largely ignored. True science does not ignore good information.

[freakazoid]

and you finally stated your point in a coherent fashion, freakazoid, about following evolution back to the origins of life...unfortunately you are imagining links where there are none, and using an idea that is not even affiliated with the Theory of Evolution to try to debunk the theory. Evolution describes how NEW SPECIES are formed from EXISTING SPECIES and NEVER is the origin of life included in the theory, because for the evolution to happen, there must e something for it to evolve FROM.

You are almost comical!! And what, pray tell, was "the first thing life evolved FROM?" Do tell. Previous life? And just where did that "evolve from?" More previous life? Older previous life? Previous life? Previous life?... At what point did life "evolve" from dead matter? OH, I'm sorry, Evolutionists decide to stop just before the "dead matter" part of their story. Why? Simple...because that historical part of their theory has been totally disproved due to the lack of evidence. Very embarrassing situation for a “theory” that once claimed, as part of it’s content, how life began by “evolving from dead matter.”

You, my friend, simply will not admit that evolution once claimed to know how life began and due to the fact that part of the theory lacked any evidence, was simply removed and those that used to claim it now claim that the theory “never really stated how life began, not us, we would NEVER claim such a thing.” What did they do next, easy…made up another pet theory called “Abiogenesis.” And, we are all supposed to believe it. Sorry, I don’t believe in fairy stories with no evidence or proof.

[thememan]

Answer mine first...why, if evolution (transmutation from a lower species to a higher one) is true, tell us why (I'll be waiting) ...


Well, I already have for most of these, but you ignored them... but here we go...



- There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

I have already given a great deal of explanations for these. You have ignored them. I see no reason why I should brign them up once more, because I'm sure if you did not address them in the past, you will not address them now. If you want to, look back over the thread for my explanations and examples, but I see no need to bring them up AGAIN.



- Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".


I don't understand what you mean by "higher-order". You'll need to explain this idea a bit more thouroughly, because there is no such thing in biology, once you get into it.



- Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.


Well, I already explained why this statement is false. You have blatantly ignored most of my posts, going for minor details. Second, nothing is a scientific impossibility. Only improbability.



- The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.


Once again, you have ignored what I have said in the past. Look back at my previous statements on this, and address those for once, and then we can start talking. Until then, you are just an ignorant asshole who cannot debate worth a shit.



- Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.


Name them, how they were extinct monkeys, what made them extinct monkeys, including all disputing all evidence that points to more advanced cultures. Secret words: Look up Olduwan and Acheulean industries.



- The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Name them, their physical traits, how they are "fully" human, what makes them "fully human". This should be fun.



- Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Such as? Really, what are you talking about here? It is all fine and dandy to talk in generals, not citing anything specific, but to actually get into specific cases seems to be a fault which is rather consistent with you.



- Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

Name them. Really, I would love to hear them. Get specific, please.



- The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

That's because evolution cannot explain them. However, a universal flood is not a better explanation of strata than an old world. If you don't know why, you know nothing at all about geology, whatsoever. Let me ask you: What are strata?



It might all seem "bias" to you, but who says your interpretation of the fasts lead to evolution?

Have you ever thought the same of your own? I may be bias, however, I have come to these conclusions through years of research and trying to understand the evidence. You seem to be only a parrot to mimic exactly that which you have been preached to, with half truths and full lies.

[thememan]

You are almost comical!! And what, pray tell, was "the first thing life evolved FROM?" Do tell. Previous life? And just where did that "evolve from?" More previous life? Older previous life? Previous life? Previous life?... At what point did life "evolve" from dead matter? OH, I'm sorry, Evolutionists decide to stop just before the "dead matter" part of their story. Why? Simple...because that historical part of their theory has been totally disproved due to the lack of evidence. Very embarrassing situation for a “theory” that once claimed, as part of it’s content, how life began by “evolving from dead matter.”


The theory of Evolution, as stated by Darwin, pertains solely to biology. The word "Evolution" can be used in a number of ways, such as the evolution of languages, the evolution of ideas, the evolution of matter, etc and so forth. As we have told you, time and time again, the Theory of Evolution, as stated by Darwin, was solely an explanation to try and explain the diversity of life, and how life changes to the environment. It had nothing, whatsoever, to do with how life began. Evolution, in and of itself, is based on scientific fact. We use this basis to make the assertion that since the process appears to be happening today, and that there is no reason to believe that it hasn't in the past, we use Evolution to make a theory as to how life has changed as the earth ages.

No one theory ever tries to explain everything and anything. What you are saying is in the same league as saying that Gravity does not exist because it does not explain how life began. It is that simple.

Also, let me give you this nice tidbit:

Evolution is on the same scientific grounds, and in many cases lies on better grounds, than Gravity. Yep. You heard me. Evolution is just as sound as Gravity. Of course, if you had any training in science, you would easily understand this, but I doubt you can, as you have likely a very low training on Scientific method.



You, my friend, simply will not admit that evolution once claimed to know how life began and due to the fact that part of the theory lacked any evidence, was simply removed and those that used to claim it now claim that the theory “never really stated how life began, not us, we would NEVER claim such a thing.” What did they do next, easy…made up another pet theory called “Abiogenesis.” And, we are all supposed to believe it. Sorry, I don’t believe in fairy stories with no evidence or proof.

Let me ask you again, the question which you have never answered, every time I have asked:

Which scientifically excepted theory of Evolution ever stated anything about how life began.

I am not talking about what a certain scientist said in an interview, here, but a scientifically accepted theory.

If, that is, you know what a Scientific Theory actually is.

[thememan]

RE: "Your theories have remained the same for nigh on two millennia."

Untrue, recent scientific finds have shed a lot of light on creationism. I have posted a lot of that material in this thread and it has been largely ignored. True science does not ignore good information.

Well, goddammit, I went through every freaking link you have posted, disputed them all, and accidentally "x"'ed out the window. I'll have to post it again, later, when I have more time.

Anywho-

Theories are not based solely on scientific finds. Testing and experimentation must be done, must be repeatable, and must show consistent results for a theory to even have a chance in hell to stand. So far, evolution has. Creationism on the other hand... not so much.

And what, pray tell, are these "new finds"? I'm really quite interested. Everything I have seen is complete and total bullshit, made up information, and stretching at straws.

[freakazoid]

Well, goddammit, I went through every freaking link you have posted, disputed them all, and accidentally "x"'ed out the window. I'll have to post it again, later, when I have more time.

Anywho-

Theories are not based solely on scientific finds. Testing and experimentation must be done, must be repeatable, and must show consistent results for a theory to even have a chance in hell to stand. So far, evolution has. Creationism on the other hand... not so much.

And what, pray tell, are these "new finds"? I'm really quite interested. Everything I have seen is complete and total bullshit, made up information, and stretching at straws.
RE: "Everything I have seen is complete and total bullshit, made up information, and stretching at straws."

thememan, if you think "everything...is total bullshit" (and I must ask what your qualifications are to make such a statement), then there is no point in continuing. I can assure you that men like Dr. A..E. Wilder-Smith (see below) do not suffer "bullshit" or for that matter, waste their time with people who do. Do you really think a man with the credentials of Wilder-Smith would conclude that there is substantial evidence for creation because he (along with many other of his caliber) are fools? I seriously doubt it. Anyone can be wrong, but this is not a man who is not to be taken seriously. Read his qualifications closely and tell me if you think he is a fool.

Dr. A..E. Wilder-Smith...

A..E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England. He received his first doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry at Reading University, England, 1941. During World War II, he joined the Research department of ICI in England. After the war, he became Countess of Lisburne Memorial Fellow at the University of London. Subsequently, Dr. Wilder-Smith was appointed Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. Later he was elected to teach Chemotherapy and Pharmacology at the Medical School of the University of Geneva for which position he received his "habitation" (the senior examination required for professorial appointments to European continental universities). At Geneva, he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zurich.

In 1957-1958 Wilder-Smith was Visiting Assistant Professor at the Medical Centre of the University of Illinois, 1959-1961 Visting Full Professor of Pharmacology of the University of Bergen Medical School in Norway. After a further two years at the University of Geneva, he was appointed Full Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois Medical Centre. Here he received in three succeeding years - three ``Golden Apple Awards" for the best course of lectures, together with four senior lecturer awards for the best series of year lectures.

Dr. Wilder-Smith's last Golden Apple award was inscribed, ``He made us not only better scientists, but also better men."

Creationist, Chemist, & Lecturer
Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
NATO three-star general
Deceased
Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film and video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be

[theicidal maniac]

RE: "Everything I have seen is complete and total bullshit, made up information, and stretching at straws."

thememan, if you think "everything...is total bullshit" (and I must ask what your qualifications are to make such a statement), then there is no point in continuing. I can assure you that men like Dr. A..E. Wilder-Smith (see below) do not suffer "bullshit" or for that matter, waste their time with people who do. Do you really think a man with the credentials of Wilder-Smith would conclude that there is substantial evidence for creation because he (along with many other of his caliber) are fools? I seriously doubt it. Anyone can be wrong, but this is not a man who is not to be taken seriously. Read his qualifications closely and tell me if you think he is a fool.

Dr. A..E. Wilder-Smith...

A..E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England. He received his first doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry at Reading University, England, 1941. During World War II, he joined the Research department of ICI in England. After the war, he became Countess of Lisburne Memorial Fellow at the University of London. Subsequently, Dr. Wilder-Smith was appointed Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. Later he was elected to teach Chemotherapy and Pharmacology at the Medical School of the University of Geneva for which position he received his "habitation" (the senior examination required for professorial appointments to European continental universities). At Geneva, he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zurich.

In 1957-1958 Wilder-Smith was Visiting Assistant Professor at the Medical Centre of the University of Illinois, 1959-1961 Visting Full Professor of Pharmacology of the University of Bergen Medical School in Norway. After a further two years at the University of Geneva, he was appointed Full Professor of Pharmacology at the University of Illinois Medical Centre. Here he received in three succeeding years - three ``Golden Apple Awards" for the best course of lectures, together with four senior lecturer awards for the best series of year lectures.

Dr. Wilder-Smith's last Golden Apple award was inscribed, ``He made us not only better scientists, but also better men."

Creationist, Chemist, & Lecturer
Ph.D. in physical organic chemistry at University of Reading, England (1941)
Dr.es.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from Eidgenossische Technische Hochschule (Swiss Federal Institute of Technology) in Zurich
D.Sc. in pharmacological sciences from University of Geneva (1964)
F.R.I.C. (Fellow of the Royal Institute of Chemistry) Professorships held at numerous institutions including: University of Illinois Medical School Center (Visiting Full Professor of Pharmacology, 1959-61, received 3 "Golden Apple" awards for the best course of lectures), University of Geneva School of Medicine, University of Bergen (Norway) School of Medicine, Hacettepe University (Ankara, Turkey) Medical School, etc.
Former Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company
Presented the 1986 Huxley Memorial Lecture at the invitation of the University of Oxford
Author or co-author of over 70 scientific publications and more than 30 books published in 17 languages
NATO three-star general
Deceased
Dr. Wilder-Smith was featured in an award-winning film and video series called ORIGINS: How the World Came to Be

Funny...there are actually MANY OTHER PEOPLE with credentials as extensive as Wilder-Smith's, and they have concluded that evolution is a scientifically valid explanation of biodiversty...so if you want to say credentials alone equal correctness, then you and your friend Dr. A E Wilder-Smith are grossly outnumbered and therefore (by your own thinking) incorrect.

[theicidal maniac]

You are almost comical!! And what, pray tell, was "the first thing life evolved FROM?" Do tell. Previous life? And just where did that "evolve from?" More previous life? Older previous life? Previous life? Previous life?... At what point did life "evolve" from dead matter?

You love that Abiogenesis, but I have never argued for it's validity, and it is not part of the evolutionary theory, as we have already established. Also, there is ABSOLUTELY NO REASON to assume that things had to start at some point...SHOW ME ONE EXAMPLE OF A LIVING THING WHERE YOU CAN PINPOINT THE BEGINNING OF IT'S EXISTENCE; each tree began as a seed, which began as a growth on a tree which itself grew from a seed..etc etc ad infinitum...nothing in the biosphere has a clear cut beginning. NOTHING.


OH, I'm sorry, Evolutionists decide to stop just before the "dead matter" part of their story. Why? Simple...because that historical part of their theory has been totally disproved due to the lack of evidence. Very embarrassing situation for a “theory” that once claimed, as part of it’s content, how life began by “evolving from dead matter.”

Yeah, that's what science is, idiot. If somebody proposes an idea, other scientists get a chance to shoot it down when it is published in a peer review journal. When it gets shot down, it is because it is BAD SCIENCE...that's why "CREATION SCIENCE" gets shot down constantly. When an idea can't be shot down, and it is testable and other scientists can duplicate predictable results, you have science...like the THEORY OF EVOLUTION


You, my friend, simply will not admit that evolution once claimed to know how life began and due to the fact that part of the theory lacked any evidence, was simply removed and those that used to claim it now claim that the theory “never really stated how life began, not us, we would NEVER claim such a thing.” What did they do next, easy…made up another pet theory called “Abiogenesis.” And, we are all supposed to believe it. Sorry, I don’t believe in fairy stories with no evidence or proof.

Well I will say that Charles Darwin once claimed to know how life began; he was a deeply religious fellow before he saw scientific evidence to the contrary. But no...the origin of life itself was NEVER part of his theory....EVER. Show me something to prove me wrong and I'll believe you...until then your claim is nothing more than BULLSHIT

[thememan]

RE: "Everything I have seen is complete and total bullshit, made up information, and stretching at straws."

thememan, if you think "everything...is total bullshit" (and I must ask what your qualifications are to make such a statement), then there is no point in continuing. I can assure you that men like Dr. A..E. Wilder-Smith (see below) do not suffer "bullshit" or for that matter, waste their time with people who do. Do you really think a man with the credentials of Wilder-Smith would conclude that there is substantial evidence for creation because he (along with many other of his caliber) are fools? I seriously doubt it. Anyone can be wrong, but this is not a man who is not to be taken seriously. Read his qualifications closely and tell me if you think he is a fool.

Dr. A..E. Wilder-Smith...

A..E. Wilder-Smith studied natural sciences at Oxford, England. He received his first doctorate in Physical Organic Chemistry at Reading University, England, 1941. During World War II, he joined the Research department of ICI in England. After the war, he became Countess of Lisburne Memorial Fellow at the University of London. Subsequently, Dr. Wilder-Smith was appointed Director of Research for a Swiss pharmaceutical company. Later he was elected to teach Chemotherapy and Pharmacology at the Medical School of the University of Geneva for which position he received his "habitation" (the senior examination required for professorial appointments to European continental universities). At Geneva, he earned his second doctorate, followed by a third doctorate from the ETH (a senior university in Switzerland) in Zurich.


Hey, I said everything I have seen. Also, I am a student of Anthropology, and have a background in Geology, as well as biology. Everything I have seen has infact been complete and utter bullshit, and anybody with even a minimal amount of training can point out massive flaws and faulty methodology used.

Also, great. You named one guy. What did he do, what were his experiments, and what were his observations made? Like I said: It's all well and good to say something, you need evidence to back it. And in order for something be an actual theory, it must present a testable hypothesis, and one must use experimentation and observation(as well other evidence) that are repeatable, and show consistent results. I have yet to see any of this from Creationists, and I have seen plenty of examples from evolutionists. Show me one test, one experiment, which is repeatable and shows consistent results, that "proves" Creationism.

Also, I would really love for you to debate the points I made, for once, instead of bitching about minor points. Dispute what I said, if you are serious about what you say. If you don't, you obviously are full of shit, grasping at straws, and don't a damn thing about which you speak.

[theicidal maniac]

Hey, I said everything I have seen. Also, I am a student of Anthropology, and have a background in Geology, as well as biology. Everything I have seen has infact been complete and utter bullshit, and anybody with even a minimal amount of training can point out massive flaws and faulty methodology used.

Also, great. You named one guy. What did he do, what were his experiments, and what were his observations made? Like I said: It's all well and good to say something, you need evidence to back it. And in order for something be an actual theory, it must present a testable hypothesis, and one must use experimentation and observation(as well other evidence) that are repeatable, and show consistent results. I have yet to see any of this from Creationists, and I have seen plenty of examples from evolutionists. Show me one test, one experiment, which is repeatable and shows consistent results, that "proves" Creationism.

Also, I would really love for you to debate the points I made, for once, instead of bitching about minor points. Dispute what I said, if you are serious about what you say. If you don't, you obviously are full of shit, grasping at straws, and don't a damn thing about which you speak.

Hey, ya know...freakazoid was just cutting and pasting...he never heard of that guy until about 5 seconds before he posted about him. He seems to be a smart lad, this Dr., apparently he even put up a good fight against Richard Dawkins at the Huxley Memorial at Oxford in the 80's although oddly enough I can't find a record of the debate and also the audience voted in FAVOR of dawkins by 197 to 115. Still it's impressive that a creationist got a vote like that. Unfortunately...NO ONE IN SIMILAR FIELDS SUPPORTS HIS CONCLUSIONS, except for the whack jobs at the "creation science Institute"

[thememan]

Hey, ya know...freakazoid was just cutting and pasting...he never heard of that guy until about 5 seconds before he posted about him. He seems to be a smart lad, this Dr., apparently he even put up a good fight against Richard Dawkins at the Huxley Memorial at Oxford in the 80's although oddly enough I can't find a record of the debate and also the audience voted in FAVOR of dawkins by 197 to 115. Still it's impressive that a creationist got a vote like that. Unfortunately...NO ONE IN SIMILAR FIELDS SUPPORTS HIS CONCLUSIONS, except for the whack jobs at the "creation science Institute"


That is impressive, I will admit. To hold your own against Dawkins defending an unpopular(As in not accepted by the scientific community for various reason) position is quite the feat.

That being said, a debate like that is moreso defending your opinion than actually having your position scientifically accepted. Depending on how it was set up, a vote against Dawkins wouldn't even mean that evolution is false, just that Wilder-Smith put up a better argument for his stance than Dawkins did. Really, quite interesting though.

That being said, there is still quite a difference between giving your opinion and scientific fact and theory. Opinions don't need to be tested, facts and theories do.

[beelzebub]

You are almost comical!! And what, pray tell, was "the first thing life evolved FROM?" Do tell.

It evolved from the non-living materials on earth.


Evolutionists decide to stop just before the "dead matter" part of their story. Why? Simple...because that historical part of their theory has been totally disproved due to the lack of evidence.

You cannot disprove from the lack of evidence! Thats silly! Thats in your top 10 stupid comments! It is like looking at a big tree and saying "Since no one saw the seed that forms this big ass tree the tree did not come from a seed." Obviously it did. And the seeds of life are found on the nonliving primordial earth.


made up another pet theory called “Abiogenesis.” And, we are all supposed to believe it. Sorry, I don’t believe in fairy stories with no evidence or proof.

HAHAHAHA this comming from someone who WILL believe that a god had sex with a human virgin who gave birth to the son of a god, angels and satan. You believe in fairy tales that are far more unsubstantiated than evolution. HYPOCRITE

[freakazoid]

It evolved from the non-living materials on earth.



You cannot disprove from the lack of evidence! Thats silly! Thats in your top 10 stupid comments! It is like looking at a big tree and saying "Since no one saw the seed that forms this big ass tree the tree did not come from a seed." Obviously it did. And the seeds of life are found on the nonliving primordial earth.



HAHAHAHA this comming from someone who WILL believe that a god had sex with a human virgin who gave birth to the son of a god, angels and satan. You believe in fairy tales that are far more unsubstantiated than evolution. HYPOCRITE

beelzebub...case in point, i.e., your deep ignorance...

The Bible in NO MANNER AT ALL declares that "that a god had sex with a human virgin who gave birth to the son," That is pure ignorance and stupid. It simply states that...

"The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God."

Notice, beelzeDUMB, NO mention of sex is recorded...and...

"Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."

a virgin shall be with child, i.e., both a virgin and with child at the same time, hence NO SEX. Get it, dumb dumb?

How could she have been a virgin and conceive as one if she had had sexual relations, dumb dumb? Hence...THE VIRGIN BIRTH. VIRGIN BIRTH..Do you know what the word "virgin" means?


beelzeDUMB; Before you make such ignorant statements, try and get your facts straight. I don't care if you believe it or not, just get your facts together before you make further ignorant statements (as you have concerning evolution) before posting your comments, please. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

Thank you.

[freakazoid]

Also, because this requires special attention, freakazoid, you have NEVER said anything about this point I made 10 pages back, and once again 3-ish pages ago.

This is what Evolution entails:


1.Traits are obviously aquired. Nobody debates this. Favorable traits are gained in a given population.

2.Traits are caused directly by genetics. Once again, nobody debates this.

3.As several traits are gained, several pieces of the genetic code changes in a population. This is a logical step from 1. Once again, this is undebatable.

4.When two populations have different enough genetic structures, they can be considered new species. This is also a given.

5.Let's put this together: As traits are aquired, they change the genetic code of a given population. As several traits are aquired, several pieces of the genetic code are changed in this population. When enough traits are aquired, and the genetic code has changed drastically enough, the population will be at a point where it may no longer be considered the same species as the group from which it derived, as the difference in genetics is far to different to be the same. They may still breed, as often times we find out that two obviously different species can, but they are genetically different enough to be a new species. Now, as traits continue to be aquired, eventually there will be a point in time when the Parent Group and the eventual derived group will not be able to breed, as the genetics is far to different.

You have yet to dispute any of this. Is it because it is so damn logical that you realize that you cannot refute this? Is it because you want to ignore actual points for minor details in posts? Is it because you would rather fabricate an argument which nobody has ever claimed so that you may dispute this fabricated argument?

None, I REPEAT, NONE of the above proves transmutation of the species (i.e., one species changing into another). Change withing species, yes, transmutation into another...NO, NADA, NOPE.

[freakazoid]

"‘How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?'" (Luke 1:34, NIV)

YOU FUCKING DUMBASS

I repeat, I don't care what you believe, just get your facts straight. You grossly misquoted the Bible into a load of madeup nonsense. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gifhttp://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[beelzebub]

beelzebub...case in point, i.e., your deep ignorance...

The Bible in NO MANNER AT ALL declares that "that a god had sex with a human virgin who gave birth to the son," That is pure ignorance and stupid. It simply states that...

beelzeDUMB; Before you make such ignorant statements, try and get your facts straight. I don't care if you believe it or not, just get your facts together before you make further ignorant statements (as you have concerning evolution) before posting your comments, please. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif Thank you.


"‘How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?'" (Luke 1:34, NIV)

The virgin birth is also foretold in Isaiah 7:14:
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (KJV).

YOU FUCKING DUMBASS

[freakazoid]

Hey, I said everything I have seen. Also, I am a student of Anthropology, and have a background in Geology, as well as biology. Everything I have seen has infact been complete and utter bullshit, and anybody with even a minimal amount of training can point out massive flaws and faulty methodology used.

Also, great. You named one guy. What did he do, what were his experiments, and what were his observations made? Like I said: It's all well and good to say something, you need evidence to back it. And in order for something be an actual theory, it must present a testable hypothesis, and one must use experimentation and observation(as well other evidence) that are repeatable, and show consistent results. I have yet to see any of this from Creationists, and I have seen plenty of examples from evolutionists. Show me one test, one experiment, which is repeatable and shows consistent results, that "proves" Creationism.

Also, I would really love for you to debate the points I made, for once, instead of bitching about minor points. Dispute what I said, if you are serious about what you say. If you don't, you obviously are full of shit, grasping at straws, and don't a damn thing about which you speak.
RE: " Also, great. You named one guy."

Wrong, I named a nice brief list, but believe me, their are thousands of people in the scientific community that DO NOT believe in the current and popular myth of evolution. This is the list I posted...

:: Austin, Steven A. - Professor of Geology
B.S., University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S., San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

:: Cumming, Kenneth B. - Professor of Biology
B.S., Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1956
M.A., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1959
Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1965

:: DeYoung, Donald B. - Professor of Astrophysics
B.S., Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml, 1966
M.S., Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml, 1968
Ph.D., Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1972

:: Franks, Robert H. - Associate Professor of Biology
B.A., San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1956
M.D., University of California Los Angeles, CA, 1960

:: Gish, Duane T. - Professor of Biochemistry
B.S., University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 1949
Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1953

:: Morris, Henry M. - Professor of Hydrogeology
B.S., Rice University, Houston, TX, 1939
M.S., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1948
Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1950

:: Morris, John D. - Professor of Geology
B.S., Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA, 1969
M.S., University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1977
Ph.D.. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1980

:: Snelling, Andrew - Professor of Geology
B.Sc., University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 1975
Ph.D., University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 1982

:: Vardiman, Larry - Professor of Atmospheric Science
B.S., University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, 1965
B.S., St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, 1967
M.S., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1972
Ph.D., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1974

http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_faculty/

[beelzebub]

I repeat, I don't care what you believe, just get your facts straight. You grossly misquoted the Bible into a load of madeup nonsense. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gifhttp://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif


No YOU ASS you said I was dumb because the bible DID NOT sat that Mary was a goddam virgin and that I should think before I say shit like that! Are you DRUNK?

You are wrong. You call yourself a christain and I (an atheist) know more about your pathetic religion than you do and you DARE insult me when I am correct. You pathetic asshole!

[freakazoid]

"‘How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?'" (Luke 1:34, NIV)

The virgin birth is also foretold in Isaiah 7:14:
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (KJV).

YOU FUCKING DUMBASS

What is your problem, beelzebub? If the women had sex she would not be a virgin any longer. Believe in the virgin birth or not, I could care less what you believe, but the CLEAR declaration of the Bible is that she was a virgin when Jesus Christ was born. Come on, dumb dumb, at least get your facts straight. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[freakazoid]

No YOU ASS you said I was dumb because the bible DID NOT sat that Mary was a goddam virgin and that I should think before I say shit like that! Are you DRUNK?

You are wrong. You call yourself a christain and I (an atheist) know more about your pathetic religion than you do and you DARE insult me when I am correct. You pathetic asshole!

You stated that she had had sex with a god. I pointed out that you are wrong and that the clear declaration of the Bible was that she conceived in a NON SEXUAL manner. Are YOU drunk? Go back and read your post and then read it again. Looks like to me that you forgot what you posted. And, stop swearing so much, no need for it.

[beelzebub]

What is your problem, beelzebub? If the women had sex she would not be a virgin any longer. Believe in the virgin birth or not, I could care less what you believe, but the CLEAR declaration of the Bible is that she was a virgin when Jesus Christ was born. Come on, dumb dumb, at least get your facts straight. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

ARE YOU DENSE? Mary said: "‘How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?'" (Luke 1:34, NIV) when she was told that she was with child. THEREFORE she was a virgin after god fucked her?

Perhaps god had anal sex with Mary and punched his holy dick into her womb from the backside? Would that make you happier?

[beelzebub]

What is your problem, beelzebub? If the women had sex she would not be a virgin any longer. Believe in the virgin birth or not, I could care less what you believe, but the CLEAR declaration of the Bible is that she was a virgin when Jesus Christ was born. Come on, dumb dumb, at least get your facts straight. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif


Whats my problem? You called me dumb when I was clearly RIGHT and you still insist on sticking to your story. I stated that Mary was pregnant with gods child. Humans only have children after sex. I didn't say anything on how his holy sperm got there. But when humans produce living children they are the result of sex.

Sounds like you have a problem with that idea - not me.

[thememan]

None, I REPEAT, NONE of the above proves transmutation of the species (i.e., one species changing into another). Change withing species, yes, transmutation into another...NO, NADA, NOPE.

Wow. You do understand that the term "species" is an abstract term that we apply to animals to classify them, right? It really has no value in the material world, once you get down to it.

And once again, on transmutation of species:

As more traits are aquired, more pieces of the genetic code are changed. If enough pieces are changed, the population will no longer be able to breed with other, related, populations. Once this point is reached... bing! New species.

Dumbass. We have witnessed speciation. We have seen it.

[thememan]

RE: " Also, great. You named one guy."

Wrong, I named a nice brief list, but believe me, their are thousands of people in the scientific community that DO NOT believe in the current and popular myth of evolution. This is the list I posted...

:: Austin, Steven A. - Professor of Geology
B.S., University of Washington, Seattle, WA,1970
M.S., San Jose State University, San Jose, CA, 1971
Ph.D., Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 1979

:: Cumming, Kenneth B. - Professor of Biology
B.S., Tufts University, Medford, MA, 1956
M.A., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1959
Ph.D., Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 1965

:: DeYoung, Donald B. - Professor of Astrophysics
B.S., Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml, 1966
M.S., Michigan Technological University, Houghton, Ml, 1968
Ph.D., Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 1972

:: Franks, Robert H. - Associate Professor of Biology
B.A., San Diego State University, San Diego, CA, 1956
M.D., University of California Los Angeles, CA, 1960

:: Gish, Duane T. - Professor of Biochemistry
B.S., University of California, Los Angeles, CA, 1949
Ph.D., University of California, Berkeley, CA, 1953

:: Morris, Henry M. - Professor of Hydrogeology
B.S., Rice University, Houston, TX, 1939
M.S., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1948
Ph.D., University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 1950

:: Morris, John D. - Professor of Geology
B.S., Virginia Tech., Blacksburg, VA, 1969
M.S., University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1977
Ph.D.. University of Oklahoma, Norman, OK, 1980

:: Snelling, Andrew - Professor of Geology
B.Sc., University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia, 1975
Ph.D., University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia, 1982

:: Vardiman, Larry - Professor of Atmospheric Science
B.S., University of Missouri, Rolla, MO, 1965
B.S., St. Louis University, St. Louis, MO, 1967
M.S., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1972
Ph.D., Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, 1974

http://www.icr.org/discover/index/discover_faculty/

Alright, I misread. However, 10 people is hardly that many. And of course, you did not answer this:

What experiments have they done, and observations have they made, to make these claims.

All I ever ask from you, it seems, is proof of what you claim. And yet... you never have. You skirt around the issue. So, bold as day, clear as night:

What repeatable, consistent experiment have disproven evolution.

Or better yet:

What repeatable, consistent experiments have proven Creationism

And surely, don't go into the whole bullshit "IT HASN'T BEEN TESTED!!!!111!!!One!" that I know you will: It has been tested, the experiment are and have been repeatable, and they are consistent.

[freakazoid]

ARE YOU DENSE? Mary said: "‘How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?'" (Luke 1:34, NIV) when she was told that she was with child. THEREFORE she was a virgin after god fucked her?

Perhaps god had anal sex with Mary and punched his holy dick into her womb from the backside? Would that make you happier?

That is sick stuff, beelzebub. So I will just say have it your way, man. I'm not interested in a childish argument with you. Believe what you will, that is your right. Later.

[freakazoid]

Alright, I misread. However, 10 people is hardly that many. And of course, you did not answer this:

What experiments have they done, and observations have they made, to make these claims.

All I ever ask from you, it seems, is proof of what you claim. And yet... you never have. You skirt around the issue. So, bold as day, clear as night:

What repeatable, consistent experiment have disproven evolution.

Or better yet:

What repeatable, consistent experiments have proven Creationism

And surely, don't go into the whole bullshit "IT HASN'T BEEN TESTED!!!!111!!!One!" that I know you will: It has been tested, the experiment are and have been repeatable, and they are consistent.
RE: "What repeatable, consistent experiment have disproven evolution."

You know as well as I do, that you cannot prove a negative. I do not disbelieve in evolution because it has been disproven. I do not believe in the popular claims of evolution/transmutation simple and only because it lacks the evidence to call it a fact. It's that simple. There is NO evidence to prove transmutation of one species into another. Period. It simply does not exist to the degree to conclude evolution/transmutation as a fact. And, the so-called evidence that is available can and often is wrong and/or can be interpreted in many other ways supporting many other concepts besides evolution such as creationism.

[thememan]

RE: "What repeatable, consistent experiment have disproven evolution."

You know as well as I do, that you cannot prove a negative. I do not disbelieve in evolution because it has been disproven. I do not believe in the popular claims of evolution/transmutation simple and only because it lacks the evidence to call it a fact. It's that simple. There is NO evidence to prove transmutation of one species into another. Period. It simply does not exist to the degree to conclude evolution/transmutation as a fact. And, the so-called evidence that is available can and often is wrong and/or can be interpreted in many other ways supporting many other concepts besides evolution such as creationism.

Two things:

1. They key to science is falsifiability. If something cannot be falsified, that is allow the possibility of a contrary case, then it is not science. Creationism, for this reason, is not science.

2. I realized my poor wording, which is why I stated the second. Answer that.

3. There is no evidence to prove anything in science. All science can ever state is this:

According to the evidence at hand, this is what appears to be happening.

For example, the Theory of Gravity is not proven(And Relativity), just the most likely explanation with the information we have.

HOWEVER, the Evidence gathered has produced the Theory of Evolution, which to date is the best explanation we have, with the evidence. It CAN be another method, however as no other reasonable, nor scientific, explanation has arisen, that is based on sound scientific principle, Evolution is regarded as the best explanation to date.

Simple. As. That.

[theicidal maniac]

beelzebub...case in point, i.e., your deep ignorance...

The Bible in NO MANNER AT ALL declares that "that a god had sex with a human virgin who gave birth to the son," That is pure ignorance and stupid. It simply states that...

[I]"[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=2]The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God."




So I think I get it...Lemme see, The holy spirit came upon her...NOT INSIDE HER...so that means she was still a virgin, right? Is that correct?

[theicidal maniac]

RE: "What repeatable, consistent experiment have disproven evolution."

You know as well as I do, that you cannot prove a negative.

You are WAY out of your league here. Cuz you just don't GET science. You can't prove that something DOESN'T EXIST! But you can very EASILY disprove the validity of an idea if you are able to rule out fundamental elements of the idea. For instance the possibility that life on Earth was created abruptly has been ruled out, and effectively disproven.


I do not disbelieve in evolution because it has been disproven.

This is not correct, however if you can supply an example we can debate and you may possibly win some cred here.


I do not believe in the popular claims of evolution/transmutation simple and only because it lacks the evidence to call it a fact. It's that simple. There is NO evidence to prove transmutation of one species into another. Period. It simply does not exist to the degree to conclude evolution/transmutation as a fact. And, the so-called evidence that is available can and often is wrong and/or can be interpreted in many other ways supporting many other concepts besides evolution such as creationism.

There are some really great studies that show evolution in progress. You are wrong. AGAIN check out the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant on Daphne Major in the Galapagos islands for undeniable evidence of new species BEING FORMED over only a few decades completely naturally, or see the book "the beak of the finch" by Johnathan weiner or any of the countless findings that actually document evolution in progress. It doesn't have to take thousands of years, as it turns out, it can happen in a few generations of the species involved.

That you would even claim that "There is NO evidence to prove transmutation of one species into another. Period" only illustrates what was obvious to me from the beginning; YOU DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ISSUE, YOU ARE MOST LIKELY CUTTING AND PASTING FROM VERY BAD WEBSITES, because the simple, verifiable fact is that there is PLENTY of evidence.

It's interesting to see Intelligent Design proponents embrace the scientific findings that they think support their argument, and then any scientific finding that does not support their superstitions is just a trick from Satan.

"Yer outta yer fuckin element, Donny"

[theicidal maniac]

The virgin birth is also foretold in Isaiah 7:14:
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and shall call his name Immanuel" (KJV).

What is your problem, beelzebub? If the women had sex she would not be a virgin any longer. Believe in the virgin birth or not, I could care less what you believe, but the CLEAR declaration of the Bible is that she was a virgin when Jesus Christ was born. Come on, dumb dumb, at least get your facts straight. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

Actually it says that a YOUNG WOMAN would give birth in Hebrew. The monks who attempted to translate the ancient Hebrew into Greek didn't speak Hebrew; it was a dead language at that time and it has only been revived in the last hundred years with the establishment of Israel. They mistranslated, cuz that's what they expected to see. But ask any Jew who SPEAKS HEBREW...the Tanakh DOES NOT SAY "VIRGIN"...and it also says she would name him Immanuel, huh?...lessee now, I don't think that was Jesus's name. I guess that's why the Jews had to kill that fraud, cuz he wasn't what the scriptures said the messiah would be.

[General Septem]

ARE YOU DENSE? Mary said: "‘How will this be,' Mary asked the angel, ‘since I am a virgin?'" (Luke 1:34, NIV) when she was told that she was with child. THEREFORE she was a virgin after god fucked her?

You're being ignorant again. You're claiming that just because she said she was a virgin then all of a sudden means that's the only mention of Mary being a virgin that there is. The Bible mentions Mary having been a virgin several times, as well as Jesus having been "born of a virgin". I can't give you exact quotes because I'm not one of those memorization people.

[theicidal maniac]

You're being ignorant again. You're claiming that just because she said she was a virgin then all of a sudden means that's the only mention of Mary being a virgin that there is. The Bible mentions Mary having been a virgin several times, as well as Jesus having been "born of a virgin". I can't give you exact quotes because I'm not one of those memorization people.

Oh YEAH and it is so difficult to search online for Bible Entries with the word "virgin" appearing in them. The mother of the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin, that was not a jewish prophecy

[freakazoid]

Oh YEAH and it is so difficult to search online for Bible Entries with the word "virgin" appearing in them. The mother of the messiah was never supposed to be a virgin, that was not a jewish prophecy

What would be the purpose, GS made a valid point. What more is there to look up? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

[beelzebub]

That is sick stuff, beelzebub. So I will just say have it your way, man. I'm not interested in a childish argument with you. Believe what you will, that is your right. Later.

Sick? The reason that I get sick is because you wont listen and learn. You have a very amiable debate with thememan in which several examples of evolution were presented and you were unsuccessful in refuting them. You are still using asinine comments to support your argument and have learned nothing. Since you did not respond well to that I thought that you would respond better to my way of doing things. (Which can be harsh at times)

This is exactly what Gould was talking about when he said:

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science-or of any honest intellectual inquiry."

You, in the face of overwhelming evidence, refuse to believe in Evolution and have the nerve to say its a "fairy tale". You who believe in the judeo-christian myth with all its supernatural events?

Another important quote by Gould:

"Fundamentalism is rigorously and systematically used to indoctrinate and subjugate young minds. It is a contraception designed to prevent intellectual fertilization."

[theicidal maniac]

What would be the purpose, GS made a valid point. What more is there to look up? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon5.gif

Maybe THIS...
Actually it says that a YOUNG WOMAN would give birth in Hebrew. The monks who attempted to translate the ancient Hebrew into Greek didn't speak Hebrew; it was a dead language at that time and it has only been revived in the last hundred years with the establishment of Israel. They mistranslated, cuz that's what they expected to see. But ask any Jew who SPEAKS HEBREW...the Tanakh DOES NOT SAY "VIRGIN"...and it also says she would name him Immanuel, huh?...lessee now, I don't think that was Jesus's name. I guess that's why the Jews had to kill that fraud, cuz he wasn't what the scriptures said the messiah would be.

[theicidal maniac]

Sick? The reason that I get sick is because you wont listen and learn. You have a very amiable debate with *** in which several examples of evolution were presented and you were unsuccessful in refuting them. You are still using asinine comments to support your argument and have learned nothing. Since you did not respond well to that I thought that you would respond better to my way of doing things. (Which can be harsh at times)

This is exactly what Gould was talking about when he said:

"The fundamentalists, by 'knowing' the answers before they start, and then forcing nature into the straitjacket of their discredited preconceptions, lie outside the domain of science-or of any honest intellectual inquiry."

You, in the face of overwhelming evidence, refuse to believe in Evolution and have the nerve to say its a "fairy tale". You who believe in the judeo-christian myth with all its supernatural events?

Another important quote by Gould:

"Fundamentalism is rigorously and systematically used to indoctrinate and subjugate young minds. It is a contraception designed to prevent intellectual fertilization."

God Damnit I love S.J. Gould

[thememan]

Declaring victory for Evolution in T-minus 24 hours.

This is quite possibly the most idiotic debate I have ever been in on the subject. I've been in good debates, but this has got to be the worst, as far as the opposition is concerned.

[beelzebub]

Declaring victory for Evolution in T-minus 24 hours.

This is quite possibly the most idiotic debate I have ever been in on the subject. I've been in good debates, but this has got to be the worst, as far as the opposition is concerned.

I concur: Victory for EVOLUTION! (in t-24 hours)

[theicidal maniac]

Declaring victory for Evolution in T-minus 24 hours.

This is quite possibly the most idiotic debate I have ever been in on the subject. I've been in good debates, but this has got to be the worst, as far as the opposition is concerned.

No shit, between Genital Speculum's complete self-righteous Lunacy, Chigun's incoherent ramblings-on, and ajk's absolute refusal to face reality in any recognizable form, I'd say this is really going nowhere

[thememan]

No shit, between Genital Speculum's complete self-righteous Lunacy, Chigun's incoherent ramblings-on, and ajk's absolute refusal to face reality in any recognizable form, I'd say this is really going nowhere

Let us not forget freak's complete ignorance in biology and parrot-talking, irgnoring the vast majority of everyone's points, and copy-pasting without actually understanding the material he presents.

Man, this was fun around page 5. Not so at page 7 and thereafter.

[Ausinus]

I remember this one debating match, and someone actually tried to quote Hitler because the topic was on Eugenics.:D

[thememan]

I remember this one debating match, and someone actually tried to quote Hitler because the topic was on Eugenics.:D

Well, that's not inconceivable. However, Eugenics is actually the exact opposite of what one wants in evolution(That being genetic diversity), so the argument falls short there.

[Ausinus]

I agree, however, I do think that evolution is coming to a bit of a standstill in humans due to you know, the unift being allowed to survive and perpetuate their recessive traits etc.

[thememan]

I agree, however, I do think that evolution is coming to a bit of a standstill in humans due to you know, the unift being allowed to survive and perpetuate their recessive traits etc.

Eh, thing is some "bad" genes can be good, in the right environment. For example, take Sickle-cell anemia in malaria-dense regions, or Color-blindness and hte ability to distinguish camoflauge. Not everything that is considered "bad" is really truly and completely bad.

However, humans are living quite a deal longer than we naturally should these days.

[Ausinus]

Yes. In fact, we may be able to artificially extend our lifespans even further soon. *fingers crossed*:D

[thememan]

Yes. In fact, we may be able to artificially extend our lifespans even further soon. *fingers crossed*:D

I would consider that not-so-good, really. We already are having population problems, and increased lifespans into the 80's, 90's, and even 100's isn't going to help matters much.

[Ausinus]

Well it really depends on the situation, personally I think the issue isnt how long we are living but how many children we have.

[theicidal maniac]

Isn't it almost time for the victory party?

[thememan]

T-Minus 2 hours, 54 minutes until victory is official.

*Starts setting up decorations*

[freakazoid]

God Damnit I love S.J. Gould

RE: "Fundamentalism is rigorously and systematically used to indoctrinate and subjugate young minds. It is a contraception designed to prevent intellectual fertilization."

I LIKE THAT!! It sounds exactly like what Evolutionists are doing. Perfect analogy! I would say it like this...

Evolutionist Fundamentalism is rigorously and systematically used to indoctrinate and subjugate young minds. It is a contraception designed to prevent intellectual fertilization and cover the lies, frauds and unproven ideas of evolution from the public.

PERFECT!!! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

[freakazoid]

Isn't it almost time for the victory party?

Not hardly. Still no reasonable proof of Species Transmutation posted. Until then, evolution/transmutation remains an unproven concept. There is evidence of change within species, but little if any real evidence to sustain transmutation. I have read closely most of the posted material and see no proof of transmutation. Sorry. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[theicidal maniac]

Not hardly. Still no reasonable proof of Species Transmutation posted. Until then, evolution/transmutation remains an unproven concept. There is evidence of change within species, but little if any real evidence to sustain transmutation. I have read closely most of the posted material and see no proof of transmutation. Sorry. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

I already posted it 3 times on this thread, but you didn't read it cuz you are scared

[theicidal maniac]

RE: "Fundamentalism is rigorously and systematically used to indoctrinate and subjugate young minds. It is a contraception designed to prevent intellectual fertilization."

I LIKE THAT!! It sounds exactly like what Evolutionists are doing. Perfect analogy! I would say it like this...

Evolutionist Fundamentalism is rigorously and systematically used to indoctrinate and subjugate young minds. It is a contraception designed to prevent intellectual fertilization and cover the lies, frauds and unproven ideas of evolution from the public.

PERFECT!!! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

Evolutionary theory isn't taught to 4 year olds at church...it's taught to high school students, dumbass

[freakazoid]

I already posted it 3 times on this thread, but you didn't read it cuz you are scared

Nonsense, you posted evidence of change within species, NOT proof of transmutation. Nothing more. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[freakazoid]

Evolutionary theory isn't taught to 4 year olds at church...it's taught to high school students, dumbass

I was taught basic concepts of evolution in first grade (5 years old), what school system did you go to, dumbass? The one for the educationally challenged? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

[General Septem]

Maybe THIS...
Actually it says that a YOUNG WOMAN would give birth in Hebrew. The monks who attempted to translate the ancient Hebrew into Greek didn't speak Hebrew; it was a dead language at that time and it has only been revived in the last hundred years with the establishment of Israel. They mistranslated, cuz that's what they expected to see. But ask any Jew who SPEAKS HEBREW...the Tanakh DOES NOT SAY "VIRGIN"...and it also says she would name him Immanuel, huh?...lessee now, I don't think that was Jesus's name. I guess that's why the Jews had to kill that fraud, cuz he wasn't what the scriptures said the messiah would be.

Any Jew that speaks Hebrew today. If, like you said, Hebrew's been a dead language for at least a thousand years, who the hell's to say the Hebrew-speaking people nowadays speak the same Hebrew they spoke when the Bible was written, or that they'd even be understood back then?

[theicidal maniac]

Nonsense, you posted evidence of change within species, NOT proof of transmutation. Nothing more. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

No i posted a a roadmap of where to look to where it HAS been proved to happen. There is not enough space on here to post Dr. Grants 40 years of research just for your dumbass to disregard. Besides, I wouldn't expect you to take my word for it anyway, that's why i pointed you in the right direction, but you are too atavistic to be bothered with facts and studies.

[theicidal maniac]

Any Jew that speaks Hebrew today. If, like you said, Hebrew's been a dead language for at least a thousand years, who the hell's to say the Hebrew-speaking people nowadays speak the same Hebrew they spoke when the Bible was written, or that they'd even be understood back then?

They CERTAINLY DON'T speak the same language, but it's a hell of a lot closer than what a GREEK MONK would know...because they have turned it back into a living language. Besides...Woman is a word that EVERY language has, because EVERY culture has a concept of WOMAN, so I'm pretty sure they would have gotten THAT word correct. Moron

[thememan]

Not hardly. Still no reasonable proof of Species Transmutation posted. Until then, evolution/transmutation remains an unproven concept. There is evidence of change within species, but little if any real evidence to sustain transmutation. I have read closely most of the posted material and see no proof of transmutation. Sorry. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

We have witnessed new species arise.

That is all that needs be said.

*brings out cake*

Really, you need some new material, because the shit your spewing has be debunked so many times, it's not even funny, really.

[thememan]

I was taught basic concepts of evolution in first grade (5 years old), what school system did you go to, dumbass? The one for the educationally challenged? http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

The basics? Hardly. What they basically said is that we arose from monkeys, which is so incredibly false, and misleading, that it is terrible.

The "basics" of evolution are not something you can go over in a mere day or week, but instead takes many months, with a well-trained person teaching it, whom knows what they are talking about, and have the materials to teach it properly. What you have likely been "taught" is the crappified and stupified version of evolution, which is often misleading and full of faulty information.

Go to college, take a biology course, and come back. You may be enlightened.

[General Septem]

They CERTAINLY DON'T speak the same language, but it's a hell of a lot closer than what a GREEK MONK would know...because they have turned it back into a living language. Besides...Woman is a word that EVERY language has, because EVERY culture has a concept of WOMAN, so I'm pretty sure they would have gotten THAT word correct. Moron

Seeing as how little is known of Hebrew, it's not that far fetched that what the original Jews read as "virgin" is now read as "young woman". You can't prove anything.

[theicidal maniac]

Nonsense, you posted evidence of change within species, NOT proof of transmutation. Nothing more. http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon13.gif

It was not change within species that they documented...it was full blown SPECIATION; new species formed

[theicidal maniac]

Seeing as how little is known of Hebrew, it's not that far fetched that what the original Jews read as "virgin" is now read as "young woman". You can't prove anything.

A LOT is known about hebrew...just not by you. And actually, it is VERY UNLIKELY that this would have happened, but you aren't a linguist so you wouldn't get it.

[thememan]

RE: "Fundamentalism is rigorously and systematically used to indoctrinate and subjugate young minds. It is a contraception designed to prevent intellectual fertilization."

I LIKE THAT!! It sounds exactly like what Evolutionists are doing. Perfect analogy! I would say it like this...

Evolutionist Fundamentalism is rigorously and systematically used to indoctrinate and subjugate young minds. It is a contraception designed to prevent intellectual fertilization and cover the lies, frauds and unproven ideas of evolution from the public.

PERFECT!!! http://forum.bullshit.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

I would tend to agree with those whom stick to the idea that Evolution is the only possible answer. HOWEVER, the VAST majority of scienticists do not see it as such and only as this:

The best explanation we have with the information available

For this reason, evolution is far better than creationism in scientific terms. Evoltuion allows other explanations, Creationism does not.

[thememan]

It was not change within species that they documented...it was full blown SPECIATION; new species formed

I think the confusion in him arises because he seems to believe that "Species classification" is a natural fact, instead of a more or less abstract idea that was created in order to classify and create relationships among various animals.