Why believe in evolution? Why not just call it adaptation? All the so called "evidenvce" is just evidence for adaptation!

I choose not to believe in evolution for the fact it is illogical at the moment! Before i believe in evolution you must provide a medium! There is no evidence to a medium, and all the ones so far has turned out to be hoaxes so it pretty much discredits everyone but owell!

And i dont know we havnt changed since Toba 75,000 years ago? The timeline is messed up, if we did evolve it supposably took a long time and that means we would have to evolved perfectly in 1,000,000 years and then not change for over a mill and something odd years! Doesnt seem practicle. I mean if we havnt changed in thousands of years over what it took to evolve then it is illogical to believe we did!!!


ps. please no flames!

Well, I'm convinced.

Adaptation is when someone changes their enviroment to better suit them, evolution is when someone changes themselves to suit their enviroment. The reason that humans are no longer thought to evolve is because of the fact that we change our society to suit ourselves as we are know rather than for us to change over generations to what we need to be know.

Adaptation is when someone changes their enviroment to better suit them, evolution is when someone changes themselves to suit their enviroment. The reason that humans are no longer thought to evolve is because of the fact that we change our society to suit ourselves as we are know rather than for us to change over generations to what we need to be know.

Adaptation is changing(adapting) to your enviroment???

example:

If you were to move to Alaska when you live in Florida, then you would have to adapt to the cold weather!

or

If i was to have to live in the forest all alone then i must adapt to the forest to survive!

I'm saying that the method in which man adapts currently is by changing his enviroment rather than himself. If I were to say he would evolve, in your example moving to alaska, I would say he grey a thick lair of fur to keep himself warm. By adapting it would be like; the man adapted to his enviroment by building a house with heating equipment.

Adaptation is when someone changes their enviroment to better suit them, evolution is when someone changes themselves to suit their enviroment. The reason that humans are no longer thought to evolve is because of the fact that we change our society to suit ourselves as we are know rather than for us to change over generations to what we need to be know.

Interesting evolution allowed something that can no longer advance and/or evolve.

Now thats a not right. Evolution just doesn't stop happening. It continues every time a new organism is created. Humans are evolving but since we are the top species on the planet fast change will never happen because nothing is killing off the less fit.

Also I hate to use wikipedia mabey someone else can come up with something better but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

I'm saying that the method in which man adapts currently is by changing his enviroment rather than himself. If I were to say he would evolve, in your example moving to alaska, I would say he grey a thick lair of fur to keep himself warm. By adapting it would be like; the man adapted to his enviroment by building a house with heating equipment.

I dont know, the line between evolution and adaptation seems pretty thin if it the way you say!

but i think growing a new color of fur and thickness to suit the enviroment is considered adaptation!?!

Interesting evolution allowed something that can no longer advance and/or evolve.

Good point!

And to Badger of Doom, even if it does go slower we still would have changed in over a million and something odd years, when it took a million to evolve in the first place!

Now thats a not right. Evolution just doesn't stop happening. It continues every time a new organism is created. Humans are evolving but since we are the top species on the planet fast change will never happen because nothing is killing off the less fit.

1.Please define "organism".

2.hmmm maybe Hitler was on to something.....

If you want to talk about the less fit of mutations dieing i will.

Masta, there is a huge difference between biological evolution and mechanical adaptation.

Your arms and legs growing to 40 times their current size and developing a different bone structure to allow you to travel 200 MPH because that's how fast your prey moves isn't quite the same as building a car that can travel 200 MPH so you can get to work on time and feed your bastard children.

Evolution is our biology changing to suit and thrive in the environment. Adaptation is creating environmental change to allow our biology to thrive. Once we figured out how to adapt, evolution died off in our species. Give us some major radiation and some global epidemics and I'm sure we'll start branching off again. :)

And since you're pretty much retarded, I'm assuming you won't understand the contrast and comparison, nor will you get the humor, and you will come up with some ignorant ass response based on unfaltering faith in a bunch of mad men's poems and family fairy tales...not to mention centuries of politically sanctioned brainwashing that led you to the very idiocy you believe this day.

Your timelines are all fucked up.

For what we know right now, our common ancestor to all other humanoid species, Lived 4.5 million years ago. Our species homo sapiens can be trased back 200, 000 years. These timelines are debatable, but this one is the most widely accepted. And NO, the other side of the arguments isnt creation.

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

Masta, there is a huge difference between biological evolution and mechanical adaptation.

Your arms and legs growing to 40 times their current size and developing a different bone structure to allow you to travel 200 MPH because that's how fast your prey moves isn't quite the same as building a car that can travel 200 MPH so you can get to work on time and feed your bastard children.

Evolution is our biology changing to suit and thrive in the environment. Adaptation is creating environmental change to allow our biology to thrive. Once we figured out how to adapt, evolution died off in our species. Give us some major radiation and some global epidemics and I'm sure we'll start branching off again. :)

And since you're pretty much retarded, I'm assuming you won't understand the contrast and comparison, nor will you get the humor, and you will come up with some ignorant ass response based on unfaltering faith in a bunch of mad men's poems and family fairy tales...not to mention centuries of politically sanctioned brainwashing that led you to the very idiocy you believe this day.

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

hhmm? appears i was right according to wiki! Now you were saying?

we havent changed because we have do not discriminate birth wise


dumb people fuck, weak people fuck...its not survival of the fittest in our society, its survival of everyone. So the human species is going to stay relatively the same and not change as much.

Think about it, dumb, weak people dont die anymore than smart stong people...you are a fucking idiot and dont deserve to be here

Think about it, dumb, weak people dont die anymore than smart stong people...you are a fucking idiot and dont deserve to be here

But I am does that disprove evolution?

Your timelines are all fucked up.

For what we know right now, our common ancestor to all other humanoid species, Lived 4.5 million years ago. Our species homo sapiens can be trased back 200, 000 years. These timelines are debatable, but this one is the most widely accepted. And NO, the other side of the arguments isnt creation.

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

maybe i should clarify i was using the other guys oppinion the one that said 2,000,000!

What im getting at is we havnt evolved in for ever! actually there is no eviednce proving we did in the first place but for arguements sake it still seems pretty wack!

ps. im sorry i may have worded it wrong in my original statement but i think you can grasp what im trying to say yourself!

Your timelines are all fucked up.

For what we know right now, our common ancestor to all other humanoid species, Lived 4.5 million years ago. Our species homo sapiens can be trased back 200, 000 years. These timelines are debatable, but this one is the most widely accepted. And NO, the other side of the arguments isnt creation.

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

Lawl at homo erectus picture.

BTW some of that is complete crap others are blatant pure speculation(using that they "know" evolution "had" to happen) some they just put more hair on a nigger to make it look less evolved.

maybe i should clarify i was using the other guys oppinion the one that said 2,000,000!

What im getting at is we havnt evolved in for ever! actually there is no eviednce proving we did in the first place but for arguements sake it still seems pretty wack!

ps. im sorry i may have worded it wrong in my original statement but i think you can grasp what im trying to say yourself!

Well that guy considers the other "species" as the same as us. The process of calling something a new species isnt clearly written. I agree with the more common times. The difference of walking like a half monkey and us is worth a new species name.

ow and if you consider adaption to what evolution is then theres no point debating that. It really doesnt matter. But when you learn species adapts to further itself, your being told the same thing as grade 6 students when they spend a week doing an evolution project. It gets 1000times more complicated then that once you move on.

Ok. Check it. The Influenza Virus. People have been getting the flu for as long as anyone can remember. Well over time, people created a vaccine for the flu, to help prevent it. But now there are reports of the flu becoming intolerant to vaccination. The Virus is evolving. The virus is changing itself to survive in an environment it is not supposed to be able to live in. Its evolution. It changed itself for the good of the species. Its not only evident in the flu, but any other virus that is no longer affected by vaccines.

Lawl at homo erectus picture.

BTW some of that is complete crap others are blatant pure speculation(using that they "know" evolution "had" to happen) some they just put more hair on a nigger to make it look less evolved.

I also consider chimpanzees as niggers with hair. But if you actually looked into the differences theres lots.

For the stuff I've been able to research , the most clear cut evidence for evolution (ignoring everything else of the tangled web of scientific evidence) is retro virus's and DNA.

Retro virus's are just a small sequence of DNA that get into our bodies and infect our DNA. They go in and change our own sequence. We can see this when looking at our DNA. Sometimes nothing happens though, very rarely. Our DNA changes, but we dont die, or get sick or nothing. After doing a complete mapping of human and chimpanzee genomes we can line up the millions of DNA sequences of both and compare them. What we found was the exact number of retro virus's that we both share, and the ones that each species got after we split from our common ancestor.

Now we know right away when we look at our DNA and see an altered strain due to a retro virus. We can also use this to help with the retro virus evolution timeline comparing them to new ones like HIV.

THeres is no explination to this using god. Other then god planted the genetic information to test our faith.

hers a video i found for you, and any other troll for that matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKb1LXxKNHY

Ok. Check it. The Influenza Virus. People have been getting the flu for as long as anyone can remember. Well over time, people created a vaccine for the flu, to help prevent it. But now there are reports of the flu becoming intolerant to vaccination. The Virus is evolving. The virus is changing itself to survive in an environment it is not supposed to be able to live in. Its evolution. It changed itself for the good of the species. Its not only evident in the flu, but any other virus that is no longer affected by vaccines.

Yes but there are limits that virus is still guess what a virus it will never grow legs and walk out your asshole.

Yes but there are limits that virus is still guess what a virus it will never grow legs and walk out your asshole.

Thats not what a virus is intended to do. A virus is a simple organism, and its only real purpose is to find a suitable host and reproduce. the virus is only trying to find a more efficient way to live, by making itself resistant to vaccines and allowing for more hosts by doing so.

Thats not what a virus is intended to do. A virus is a simple organism, and its only real purpose is to find a suitable host and reproduce. the virus is only trying to find a more efficient way to live, by making itself resistant to vaccines and allowing for more hosts by doing so.

You missed my point i was simply saying it cant go past a certain point and that point is it turning into something completely different.

Yes but there are limits that virus is still guess what a virus it will never grow legs and walk out your asshole.

You see and thats where you run into trouble when trying to understand evolution with an elementery school teachings look on it. Kids are taught completly different then somebody in there senior year of high school and college/university.

YOung kids are taught that species adapt to better the species because its easy for them to understand at that age. Its not that simple though. DNA changes constantly, something like 70 mutations in our life time for us humans. (this is another fact giving us a timeline that matches up with the fossil record). It appears that the dna is somehow adapting to suit its envirnment, buts its naturel selection enabling the ones who have happend to change for the better live on. Why else do you think homo erectus died out? We fucked them up, they were to small and retarded, sapiens took over the world.

We have no idea what event gave a virus like chunk of DNA the advatage to start changing the way it did. The earth back then would have been fucked up compared to now. But obviosly it would have been something unique. Because Virus's and bacteria of today are ALOT closer to that original then we are. They have changed alot, the equivelent of growing legs and walking out your asshole, but not when you compare it to us.

You missed my point i was simply saying it cant go past a certain point and that point is it turning into something completely different.

If it is already efficiantly doing what it is supposed to do, then what point is there in evolving to a different organism? If it's not broken, don't fix it.

"that matches up with the fossil record"

Please elaborate on this record because it is a myth and myths have no place in our schools.

"It appears that the dna is somehow adapting to suit its envirnment,"

"If it is already efficiantly doing what it is supposed to do, then what point is there in evolving to a different organism? If it's not broken, don't fix it."

Somehow i see this as contradictory why would a monkey evolve to a human?

"that matches up with the fossil record"

Please elaborate on this record because it is a myth and myths have no place in our schools.



Chimp generation - 15 years
Human generation - 20 years

In 1 year the chimp pupulation will have 5 new mutations
And the human population will have 3.75 new mutations

Total of 8.75 mutations per year.

so in 1 million years a total of 8.75 million mutations will build up between chimps and humans.

Just recently we have now found out there are roughly 40 million mutations seperating our two species.

We reach 40 million mutations in 4.57 million years.

Now the oldest humanoid fossil we have found Ardipithecus ramidus "also included wood, seed and vertebrate specimens, were found entirely within a single interval overlying the basal Gaala Tuff complex, and beneath the Daam Aatu Basaltic Tuff (these volcanic strata have produced dates of 4.389 and 4.388 million years, respectively)" quoted form that site I posted earlier

Matched up pretty damn close.

Small changes over short period of times, leads to large changes over large periods of time. Something that sounds simple but creationists just dont get.

There is no reason for a monkey to evolve to a human it is just a side affect of the natural selection process. There is no driven force that controls evolution its just a process where random genetic alterations occur. When these mutations are beneficial to the new organism its more likely to survive and when there not its less likely to. This is all what adaptation is. A side effect.

Organisms do not change quickly sometimes because the unfit in their species survive just as well as their fit ones do. When this happens their less adaptive genes stay in the gene pool and slows the process down by bringing up the same characteristics in the new offspring they produce. The more adapted a species is the less likely it is to change.

Chimp generation - 15 years
Human generation - 20 years

In 1 year the chimp pupulation will have 5 new mutations
And the human population will have 3.75 new mutations

Total of 8.75 mutations per year.

so in 1 million years a total of 8.75 million mutations will build up between chimps and humans.

Just recently we have now found out there are roughly 40 million mutations seperating our two species.

We reach 40 million mutations in 4.57 million years.

Now the oldest humanoid fossil we have found Ardipithecus ramidus "also included wood, seed and vertebrate specimens, were found entirely within a single interval overlying the basal Gaala Tuff complex, and beneath the Daam Aatu Basaltic Tuff (these volcanic strata have produced dates of 4.389 and 4.388 million years, respectively)" quoted form that site I posted earlier

Matched up pretty damn close.

Small changes over short period of times, leads to large changes over large periods of time. Something that sounds simple but creationists just dont get.

I guess i shouldve said by fossil record i meant geological column all around the world but it seems you knew exactly what i was talking about the fact is you may find it like that in one place but more then likely not find it in another place.It wont be the same anywhere else but if it matches evolutionary theories they except it as fact and completely ignore all the other fucked up placement of the fossils.I heard someone say "Creationism is based on coincidental evidence" but it looks to me that it is actually evolution doing that.And on top of that they dated the bones by the rock as you just said(you said the rock was that old implying the fossils were that old) but need i remind you of volcanic rock made around 100 years ago and was dated to be millions of years.(that is a different subject all together we shouldnt get off on i just felt i needed to add that.

I guess i shouldve said by fossil record i meant geological column all around the world but it seems you knew exactly what i was talking about the fact is you may find it like that in one place but more then likely not find it in another place.It wont be the same anywhere else but if it matches evolutionary theories they except it as fact and completely ignore all the other fucked up placement of the fossils.I heard someone say "Creationism is based on coincidental evidence" but it looks to me that it is actually evolution doing that.And on top of that they dated the bones by the rock as you just said(you said the rock was that old implying the fossils were that old) but need i remind you of volcanic rock made around 100 years ago and was dated to be millions of years.(that is a different subject all together we shouldnt get off on i just felt i needed to add that.

Sammy,

Creationists assume they know the answer, and are forever trying to prove it.

Evolutionists find evidence, and gradually build up a picture given the available evidence. As evidence is uncovered, the current picture is either confirmed, or changed accordingly.

There is a huge difference between the two.... One of the group thinks they are so smart they don't need to look at evidence, as other people have done the thinking for them, and have provided the answers for them - the other group actually use their intelligence to come to an answer........

I guess i shouldve said by fossil record i meant geological column all around the world

ya like I can, and have the time to try and learn and explain all that to you on a text based chat. We somebody ses fossil record, it doesnt mean there talking about every fossil discovered. Fuck im not even shur if a text book has been written outlining EVERY fossil, in its geological timeline, explaining each method of dating used for every find. I can guarantee you it would be one big ass text book. University biology probably covers it i'm guessing. But even they wont go into complete detail, they have other things to learn aswell.

All I said was the rate of mutations, and the amount seperating us with chimps matches up with the fossil record of the earliest humanoid we have found. Yes they date the rock, thats how its done. Your example of 100 year old volcanic rock that dated at over a million years. If that is actually true its probably the dating of an element thats not used. Each element has a differnet amount and type of radioactive decay, some are completly random, and some are like clock work. The ones that are like clock work are the ones we use. Good job on ignoring all the other stuff Ive said in this thread.

I guess its all just genetic information planted by satan.

Ow ya, your just a troll, almost forgot.

Sammy,

Creationists assume they know the answer, and are forever trying to prove it.

Evolutionists find evidence, and gradually build up a picture given the available evidence. As evidence is uncovered, the current picture is either confirmed, or changed accordingly.



Yes thats what they want you to believe congrats on buying into it.

"Your example of 100 year old volcanic rock that dated at over a million years. If that is actually true its probably the dating of an element thats not used. Each element has a differnet amount and type of radioactive decay, some are completly random, and some are like clock work. The ones that are like clock work are the ones we use. Good job on ignoring all the other stuff Ive said in this thread."

Yes im very aware of how its done but i can not site my source (because its not exactly easy to find a specific case where dating methods fuck up) that being said you can not say what method they used to get the date.

"All I said was the rate of mutations, and the amount seperating us with chimps matches up with the fossil record of the earliest humanoid we have found."

"Good job on ignoring all the other stuff Ive said in this thread."

Hey I can discredit what you said with something you said :D

BTW Thanks on the -3 reputation points i loled :)

Yes thats what they want you to believe congrats on buying into it.

Yes im very aware of how its done but i can not site my source (because its not exactly easy to find a specific case where dating methods fuck up) that being said you can not say what method they used to get the date.

Hey I can discredit what you said with something you said :D

Umm yes i could, if you actually wanted to learn you would search "Ardipithecus ramidus radiometric dating" Thats the species name I was talking about, and one of the methods used to date the fossil.

You missed my post about retro virus's

Yes thats what they want you to believe congrats on buying into it.

You assume you are not the deluded one?

I'd laugh, but I think you actually believe what you type.... and thats just sad....

You assume you are not the deluded one?


The same can be said for you this is just pointless when we can say the exact same thing.

"You missed my post about retro virus's"

No I didnt.

The same can be said for you this is just pointless when we can say the exact same thing.

"You missed my post about retro virus's"

No I didnt.

maybe you should learn how to quote properly and you would realise you didnt. Top of page 3. I was talking about the Retro virus "fossil record" in our DNA

Why do people still even post in MT and sammy threads? no matter how much evidence you put infront of them somehow they think they are smarter...know more....and they will NEVER change their oppinion so why do people still try?

You could show them a housefull of evidence on the subject versus their fairytales book and they will still keep "faith"

I could post hundreds of links and research papers and none of them would be read just called "fake" or some shit.....so dont bother.

Sammy, it is not pointless.

How do you know you are not being deluded by religious fanatics?

I know how evolution works, and I can see examples. I can see proof in books, in nature and on the internet.

All your proof relies on faith, nit picking scientific tests (that give a spurious result once out of the last 10,000 tests performed).

If you are too weak minded to even consider that, then you are a very sad individual, and worthy of your title of troll.....

Why do people still even post in MT and sammy threads? no matter how much evidence you put infront of them somehow they think they are smarter...know more....and they will NEVER change their oppinion so why do people still try?

You could show them a housefull of evidence on the subject versus their fairytales book and they will still keep "faith"

I could post hundreds of links and research papers and none of them would be read just called "fake" or some shit.....so dont bother.

I'm rapidly learning that. Just give me a couple more jabs at him.

Sorry, I'm relatively new in this area.

maybe you should learn how to quote properly and you would realise you didnt. Top of page 3. I was talking about the Retro virus "fossil record" in our DNA

Your right i do need to learn but im too stupid. :(

I did see it im not blind remember im a troll i wait for food(posts of the opposing view point)

Ok.......whats your point.

Sammy, it is not pointless.

How do you know you are not being deluded by religious fanatics?

I know how evolution works, and I can see examples. I can see proof in books, in nature and on the internet.


Ive seen the same shit and i am underwhelmed.

Ive seen the same shit and i am underwhelmed.

It doesn't matter how under or overwhealmed you are about it. The fact is, it's real.

It would be rather delusional to try and think up a much more exciting reality, just because you are underwhealmed by the facts. Oh, hang on....

lol - OWNED!!!!

Ok, first of all viruses are not living organisms and let's leave it at that.

Evidence supporting evolution:
Transitional fossils
Homologous structures
Population distribution
Vestigial structures
DNA similarities
Endosymbiosis
not to mention the fact that it simply makes sense

I guess I shouldve said what i meant by underwhelmed because i expected an idiotic comment like your(although i never guessed you would throw in an "owned" there like you had a good point). What i meant when i said that is it is all coincidental stuff that they twist to fit there agenda.

Let me list the coincidential "evidence" that they have twisted.

"Transitional fossils"
"Homologous structures"
"Population distribution"
"Vestigial structures"
"DNA similarities"
"Endosymbiosis"

All of this just dont mean shit and it is not proof of anything it is just spoon feed garbage that you choose to eat up so you can use it to not believe there is a God.

I guess I shouldve said what i meant by underwhelmed because i expected an idiotic comment like your(although i never guessed you would throw in an "owned" there like you had a good point). What i meant when i said that is it is all coincidental stuff that they twist to fit there agenda.

Let me list the coincidential "evidence" that they have twisted.

"Transitional fossils"
"Homologous structures"
"Population distribution"
"Vestigial structures"
"DNA similarities"
"Endosymbiosis"

All of this just dont mean shit and it is not proof of anything it is just spoon feed garbage that you choose to eat up so you can use it to not believe there is a God.

Ive notice this about you sammy....MT does it too.

You quote, or, repy to a thread or post made and then do this

"This is all bullshit, it has been twisted to fit your agenda!"


Then you put factual phrasing inside " marks to try to bring it down.


So heres my attempt

Sammy: Your book has been so misquoted and misread so many times by "Christians" that you honestly dont know that its all based upon older folklore for example mithras.

These hardened facts that L made ARE facts and no matter how much you wanna piss and cry like a little baby and read from your book of old fairytales wont change that.

Ive notice this about you sammy....MT does it too.

You quote, or, repy to a thread or post made and then do this

"This is all bullshit, it has been twisted to fit your agenda!"


Then you put factual phrasing inside " marks to try to bring it down.


So heres my attempt

Sammy: Your book has been so misquoted and misread so many times by "Christians" that you honestly dont know that its all based upon older folklore for example mithras.

These hardened facts that L made ARE facts and no matter how much you wanna piss and cry like a little baby and read from your book of old fairytales wont change that.

First off I'm not questioning those things you consider facts. I assume the majority of scientists agree with them ...whatever they are, cos what i know about these things you could write on a postage stamp... me, I freely admit to thinking that the Periodic Table is something catholic use to help plan her infertile days.

Sammy is indeed irritating and wrong when he claims you simply refuse to believe simply because you can't accept the existence of a 'god'.

But on one point he isn't totally wrong. The indoctrination in science runs as deep as that in religion. There are as many dubious 'articles of faith' in the scientific world as in any church.

The corruption, nepotism and vested interest in academia would make a borgia pope blush.

There are as many dubious 'articles of faith' in the scientific world as in any church.

I don't disagree with you, because I have my own problems with science (one of them being the problem of induction), but I'm just curious as to what 'articles of faith' you're talking about because you've provided no examples.

The point about scientific faith is that it isnt absolute.

Science can be tested and observed, however, those which can nt be are theorised about based on current knowlege where as religion simple blankets everything under its fals claims and shouts of completely bias faith.

The point about scientific faith is that it isnt absolute.

Science can be tested and observed, however, those which can nt be are theorised about based on current knowlege where as religion simple blankets everything under its fals claims and shouts of completely bias faith.

Eppur si muove

However...

My point remains that blind faith in 'their' own theories and their interpretations of what they perceive as the 'facts' is as common among scientists as it is among theologians.

Biased faith is not the sole preserve of the church.

Anyone who has followed the current debate about global Warming will have seen that.

Reputable scientists on both sides have sounded more like soap box preachers than Billy Graham ever managed.

There is a major difference between the "indoctrination of science" and the indoctrination of religious principles.

The "indoctrination" into science doesn't require a permanent set of blinders to be worn. Scientific Academia is an ongoing process. New discoveries are made every day. New theories are offered up, new "truths" are established as we discover new findings, and the students are encouraged to refute old evidence. Everyone understands that science is a discipline that will easily replace the Old with the New.

Religion, on the other hand - adheres to texts written thousands of years ago at a time when people had such little knowledge about how the Universe works. To attempt to refute or undermine these existing "truths" is not only discouraged, but considered blasphemy. Those who adhere to it are to count on faith, and faith alone when it comes to examining evidence.

I, too, would be curious to learn which 'articles of faith' jack was referring to.

I don't disagree with you, because I have my own problems with science (one of them being the problem of induction), but I'm just curious as to what 'articles of faith' you're talking about because you've provided no examples.

AS I said in my reply to among_the_living, as a simple member of Joe Public I only have to turn on my radio (BBC Radio 4 for those who are interested) to hear world class scientists talk with all the scientific objectivity of Torquemada.

Personally I couldn't give a rat's arse if Global Warming exists or not but it has become very clear that anyone who dares question it is a FACT will be savaged by his peers...no matter how many letters he has after his name.

There is a major difference between the "indoctrination of science" and the indoctrination of religious principles.

The "indoctrination" into science doesn't require a permanent set of blinders to be worn. Scientific Academia is an ongoing process. New discoveries are made every day. New theories are offered up, new "truths" are established as we discover new findings, and the students are encouraged to refute old evidence. Everyone understands that science is a discipline that will easily replace the Old with the New.

Religion, on the other hand - adheres to texts written thousands of years ago at a time when people had such little knowledge about how the Universe works. To attempt to refute or undermine these existing "truths" is not only discouraged, but considered blasphemy. Those who adhere to it are to count on faith, and faith alone when it comes to examining evidence.

I, too, would be curious to learn which 'articles of faith' jack was referring to.

Ah but the bible knew things before science! Thousands of years before, like the amount of stars(which is said as acountable but back then science thought only thousands!), or that the world spun and that it was hung on nothing. Also in the bible it states that the earth is round contrary to what most people think that christians believed in flat earth!!! Many other things as well that was unheard of like nuclear meltdown and such. All this stuff and many more the Bible knew thousands of years before science!

this is just a random thought but doesnt it seem wierd how the bible always offers a contrary conclusion based on what science has said? the fact that in it holds arguements about things that were unknown to that time? idk just a random thought!

Ah but the bible knew things before science! Thousands of years before, like the amount of stars(which is said as acountable but back then science thought only thousands!), or that the world spun and that it was hung on nothing. Also in the bible it states that the earth is round contrary to what most people think that christians believed in flat earth!!! Many other things as well that was unheard of like nuclear meltdown and such. All this stuff and many more the Bible knew thousands of years before science!

this is just a random thought but doesnt it seem wierd how the bible always offers a contrary conclusion based on what science has said? the fact that in it holds arguements about things that were unknown to that time? idk just a random thought!

Actually Sumerian/babylonian preists(scientists) worked out most of these facts about the visible universe a long time before the bible.

No godly or divine inspiration was required by the biblical authors there.

If I recall aright the babylonians had calculated the length of a year to within 6 minutes(?) a feat we in the west didn't manage until a couple of hundred years ago.

and the students are encouraged to refute old evidence. .

sorry if I sound overly cynical but have I only two words for that statement of yours...

RESEARCH GRANT

I may not have much of a scientific understanding but i sure as hell understand money/power politics.

:P

Many other things as well that was unheard of like nuclear meltdown and such.



Quote me the part of the bible where it talks about nuclear melt downs.

This should be good.

And he taketh twice equal parts of Uranium. And he bringeth them together. And createth a mass, and the lord said "It is critical"

And much fire and brimstone bore down upon the world.

Perosnally I couldn't give a rat's arse if Global Warming exists or not but it has become very clear that anyone who dares question it is a FACT will be savaged by his peers...no matter how many letters he has after his name.

I'd bet my left tit that if you fast forwarded 20, even 10 years into the future - there will be a new "vibe" going on concerning global warming by the very same people who were so vigilant to defend it. I could be wrong about that. Just a hunch.

Also, Global Warming ITSELF (as a 'science') does not require it's adherents to defend it so vehemently. It's the people themselves who choose to latch onto an idea and refuse to hear any other ideas to the contrary.

Science ITSELF doesn't require it's adherents to stick to one discipline or method and never let it go. Sure, there may be a few crazies scattered about that will bend their favorite strains of science into something they choose to latch onto no matter what - but it's not science itself that forces their hand.

Religion, on the other hand ... well, we all know what the golden rule of thumb is for it's followers: Adhere to the faith, don't dare contradict it's principles, and if you can't figure out why it doesn't make any sense - don't dare try to prove it wrong! Accept that it's God's will ... or else!

Quote me the part of the bible where it talks about nuclear melt downs.

This should be good.

And he taketh twice equal parts of Uranium. And he bringeth them together. And createth a mass, and the lord said "It is critical"

And much fire and brimstone bore down upon the world.

You Sir , are responisble for any damage that half cup of coffee I just snorted out onto my laptop monitor may have caused!

It's the people themselves who choose to latch onto an idea and refuse to hear any other ideas to the contrary.


Sounds like any religion I've ever encountered.

sorry if I sound overly cynical but have I only two words for that statement of yours...

RESEARCH GRANT

I may not have much of a scientific understanding but i sure as hell understand money/power politics.

:P

I see where you're getting at on the RESEARCH GRANTS, jack - but I think you misunderstood my point.

It's not the science professors or schools of science that does the encouraging - it is the very method of being "scientific" that REQUIRES those very things.

From wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena and acquiring new knowledge, as well as for correcting and integrating previous knowledge. It is based on gathering observable, empirical, measurable evidence, subject to specific principles of reasoning.[1]

Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, there are identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of developing knowledge. Scientific researchers propose specific hypotheses as explanations of natural phenomena, and design experimental studies that test these predictions for accuracy. These steps are repeated in order to make increasingly dependable predictions of future results. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry serve to bind more specific hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn aids in the formation of new hypotheses, as well as in placing groups of specific hypotheses into a broader context of understanding.

Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process must be objective to reduce a biased interpretation of the results. Another basic expectation is to document all data and methodology so it is available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established.

(I added the emphasis)

______________

Does religion go to such extreme measures? No. You believe it, you accept it, and you don't attempt to contradict it ... or else you're labeled a blasphemer or heretic.

You Sir , are responisble for any damage that half cup of coffee I just snorted out onto my laptop monitor may have caused!

:D

You should see my keyboard at work! Disssssgusting!

Quote me the part of the bible where it talks about nuclear melt downs.

This should be good.

And he taketh twice equal parts of Uranium. And he bringeth them together. And createth a mass, and the lord said "It is critical"

And much fire and brimstone bore down upon the world.

na it just gives accurate descpiptions to the melting of elements!

I

Does religion go to such extreme measures? No. You believe it, you accept it, and you don't attempt to contradict it ... or else you're labeled a blasphemer or heretic.

And scientists never describe their opponents as 'practicing pseudoscience' or 'making assumptions based on erroneous data'?

But what's the deciding factor with the scientists/pseudo-scientist's arguments?

DATA! Hard, observable, testable, examinable data. Not faith.

Still - it's not science ITSELF that is fostering these beliefs. It's the individual viewpoint.

Individual viewpoints can vary from person to person. The scientific method in itself doesn't support, nor does it encourage such beliefs.

But what's the deciding factor with the scientists/pseudo-scientist's arguments?

DATA! Hard, observable, testable, examinable data. Not faith.

Still - it's not science ITSELF that is fostering these beliefs. It's the individual viewpoint.

Individual viewpoints can vary from person to person. The scientific method in itself doesn't support, nor does it encourage such beliefs.

The scientific method has but one major flaw...the humans who use it.

Much the same as religion.

The scientific method has but one major flaw...the humans who use it.

Much the same as religion.

Right on.

Except -
(you know I couldn't NOT go here...)

Religion in itself, by practice and by scripture and by rule of thumb - encourages this behaviour. The scientific method does not.

:)

Right on.

Except -
(you know I couldn't NOT go here...)

Religion in itself, by practice and by scripture and by rule of thumb - encourages this behaviour. The scientific method does not.

:)

Riiight..next time i go drinking with a bunch of scientists i will try and remember that its NOT the scientific method's fault that they are the way they are...

(And anyone who has been out with top University research fellows will 'feel' me on this one)

:P

In that case ...

it's the BEER'S FAULT!

:p

OhHellFury

In that case ...

it's the BEER'S FAULT!

:p

OhHellFury

Trust me on this, going drinking with theologians and priests is much more fun.

You think gentle debate over half a glass of rose, about how many candles are allowed over the high Altar on the third sunday after Lent ?

No its more Pogues like

"Father Mc Greer buys an ice cold beer and a short for Father Ignola. Father John's got the clap again, he's drinking coca-cola"

O jack - I implore you!

Tell us some more about the drunken priest exploits!

O jack - I implore you!

Tell us some more about the drunken priest exploits!

Methinks we have hijacked this thread enough:P

And I save those sort of titillating things for S&A.

na it just gives accurate descpiptions to the melting of elements!

ow ya, something along the lines of the rocks will melt. To bad blacksmiths melt rocks all fucken day long back then.

genetic evidence for evolution blows your creationist, young earth cunt out of the water.

The "theory" of evolution has a vast amount of evidence behind it, and it does seem to fit with "common sense"...

That said, I don't think anyone's arguing that current evolutionary theory is the be-all and end-all of the evolution of species debate, and the orogins of human life and consciousness... cos it clearly aint!

Just because evolution is not some sort of divinely approved and infalible dogma does not however mean that "creationism" in it's various forms is automatically correct.

These things are not as simple as black vs white, it's slightly more complex than that.

Ever heard of the anthropic principal either, much?

na it just gives accurate descpiptions to the melting of elements!

Where?

Give us quotes!

Also.....the bible also says that clean beasts were to be taken onto the arc in 7s.......presumably three pairs and one left over to watch huh?

Jst because something that is real is written in a book dosnt make the whole book true :D i think that is your fatal flaw.

I guess I shouldve said what i meant by underwhelmed because i expected an idiotic comment like your(although i never guessed you would throw in an "owned" there like you had a good point). What i meant when i said that is it is all coincidental stuff that they twist to fit there agenda.

Let me list the coincidential "evidence" that they have twisted.

"Transitional fossils"
"Homologous structures"
"Population distribution"
"Vestigial structures"
"DNA similarities"
"Endosymbiosis"

All of this just dont mean shit and it is not proof of anything it is just spoon feed garbage that you choose to eat up so you can use it to not believe there is a God.

First of all I never threw in an "owned" there. Second how is this comment idiotic? I presented evidence and you just ignore it completely. You don't make an attempt at explaining it. Let see if this is coincidental.

Transitional fossils show a linear progression from one species to another, is this a coincidence?

Homologous structures provide for common similarities. Evolution is about the adaptations of existing structures for new purposes. If these beings were designed it's quite unexplainable. You don't see remnants of wheels on a ship.
Population distribution coupled with transitional fossils clearly shows that there was a transition from one specie to another based on the environment as a driving force for natural selection.

Vestigial structures are just like homologous structures and show the fact that species share a common ancestor. I've heard arguments that vestigial structures are not really vestigial and they serve a purpose, but that is a weak one. The evolution theory makes a prediction (unlike ID) that structures that are not necessary will either dissipate or become adapted for a new purpose. Yes the appendix serves as an immune system booster, but that is clearly an adaptation of a structure. If we were designed, wouldn't it make more sense to make a lymph node or some extra marrow that would perform the same action thousands of times better, not to mention that the risk (circa 7% i believe) of appendicitis greatly outweighs the benefits of immunity booster.

DNA similarities show the fact that we use the same genes as other species. You'd expect a genome of a mouse or a fruit fly to be vastly smaller than the human genome or at least different but that is not the case. This, by the way, addresses the claim that mutation's don't add information. Mutations can change the expression of existing genes, and such expression of existing genes is all that is necessary to make a significant change in species. The difference between closely related species is not in the genes but the expression of them.

Mitochondria and Chloroplasts both undergo their own binary fission, both have their own bacteria-like circle DNA and both have their own ribosomes, but don't have other organelles that are not part of their membrane. Prokaryotic bacteria likewise have all these features such as ribosomes, absence of other organelles, DNA. Endosymbiosis clearly shows that eukaryotes arose from the engulfing and symbiosis of different prokaryotic cells to create eukaryotic cells.


How is any of this irrelevant? How is this "spoon fed garbage"? And this has nothing to do with believing or disbelieving the existence of god, it is simply believing or disbelieving in the factual correctness of the bible or the scientific merit of the theory of evolution. All you do is ad hominem without actually replying. Please try to prove me wrong here

Please do a point by point rebuttal to this "twisted" evidence. Remember, most of it was discovered *AFTER* the theory of evolution. Thus the predictions made by evolutionists came true. If you do in fact step up to the plate and start providing a reasonable argument then make sure that you are not making a separate assumption for every single piece of evidence. I made one assumption - evolution is true. It all fits. Occam's razer still exists

I'm rather suprised at alot of peoples idea of what evolution actually is. As far as I have been taught, evolution occurs because of the mutation of genes in our DNA. These can be good mutations, like longer sight, or not so good mutations, like missing a thumb on your left hand. ( massively simplified, but whatever).

Now genes are passed from parent to child, and as such, so are the mutated genes. The reason that humans may not seem to be 'evolving' any further, is that instead of the 'bad' mutations of the genes dying out with the original person they mutated in, they are passed on due to the fact that a person has to be incredibly disadvantaged somehow to not be able to reproduce in our times. So even though they had a couple of bad mutations, they were able to survive where as many years ago, chances are they wouldnt have been able to.

Sorry if this post wasn't all that clear. I tried and this is just off the top of my head from what I remember. I'll probably edit it to make more sense later.

-sir_bob-

Stoopid people *tut* (http://img.7chan.org/b/src/117659851436.jpg)

Yes but there are limits that virus is still guess what a virus it will never grow legs and walk out your asshole.

Why the hell would it want to do that? If the aim of the virus is to have many more little viruses made, then it would be much easier to splice itself into the hosts genome and let the host make copies of it. This is so much easier and energy efficent than sprouting legs and wandering off and out of your rectum.

Some of these retroviruses end up being incorperated into our DNA permently and passed onto the organism's offspring, like parasites. At this point the virus is, guess what, no longer a virus!
This is how transposons (AKA 'Jumping Genes') came to be. They are so numerous that we now belive that close to 50% of our genome has originated from these incorperated bits of DNA (One of the many results of the Human Genome Project)

Congratulations, Sammy!
By carelessly mouthing off at ABnSW's post, you showed to us you have no fucking idea what a retrovirus does. Or how evolution works - again! Mind you, thats a pretty damn common occurance these days.
(ABnSW is right - some of the very best examples of evolution come from diseases. Anyone who has ever worked at a hospital will verify this)


What you and Masta Thief don't seem to realise when you accuse everyone here to be deluded and indoctrinated with the evils of evolution, that you are not dealing with a couple of kids who sit, slack-jawed, in front of a teacher every day who spoon feeds us evils about dinosaurs. Some of us may even have real world experiance... *shock and horror*

Like I said, sammy and master, please look at my previous post and refute it with facts rather than "its all bullshit lulz".

(ABnSW is right - some of the very best examples of evolution come from diseases. Anyone who has ever worked at a hospital will verify this)


I know a couple of people who work at hospitals and one is working her way up to becoming a doctor soooooo.....your wrong.

BTW i stopped posting because i am tired of your bullshit no matter what proof is infront of you at the end of the day its not about science its about you wanting any excuse to not believe there is a God.

Exactly. Once confronted with evidence you pack your shit and leave. You cannot argue through proof rather through bullshit copy and paste.

Exactly. Once confronted with evidence you pack your shit and leave. You cannot argue through proof rather through bullshit copy and paste.

ya both ignored my retro virus post aswell. I used that example because not a single creationist website out there that i could find has an explanation for it. So no copy and paste.

Before i believe in evolution you must provide a medium! There is no evidence to a medium, and all the ones so far has turned out to be hoaxes so it pretty much discredits everyone but owell!

I vote for Edgar Cayce. Definately the medium who channels evolution through the fifth astral plane of the zargadu.

Now, Masta Theif... are you saying - among other things, but one at a time - are you saying that sexual reproduction does not occur on the planet?

Homeschooled much?

I know a couple of people who work at hospitals and one is working her way up to becoming a doctor soooooo.....your wrong.

BTW i stopped posting because i am tired of your bullshit no matter what proof is infront of you at the end of the day its not about science its about you wanting any excuse to not believe there is a God.

Even if that was your last post, it wouldn't have hurted to address the rest of what I had written. Y'know, the real important points
I think with your failure to do that, I'm going to openly declare victory for this side. (That'll rile him) Who's with me?


(I'd also encourage him not to post here again unless he can start arguing like a man, but I've actually come to enjoy writing back to some of his posts... kind of like squeezing a stress ball or something... Sorry if it annoys anyone)

We win!!!!!

Now, let us pray...

(I kid, I kid)

Exactly. Once confronted with evidence you pack your shit and leave. You cannot argue through proof rather through bullshit copy and paste.

Oops i forgot about this topic! Oh no your "evidence" doesnt change my mind a bit! Why you may ask, because the other conclusion that can be made is adaption! Personaly i think evolution is a childish excusein an attempt to deny God!As i said before every bit of science that is suppose to disprove God the bible has the alternat answer as to why that is! Such as the dinasours and the flood, im not going to go on in detail but im pretty sure you get my drift!

Oops i forgot about this topic! Oh no your "evidence" doesnt change my mind a bit!
Why am I not surprised?
Why you may ask, because the other conclusion that can be made is adaption!
So how exactly are all of those adaptation? Eukaryotic cells adapted from prokaryotes? Vestigial structures adapted to come to existence? Animals adapted so their DNA is similar? That makes no sense any way you spin it. Personaly i think evolution is a childish excusein an attempt to deny God!As i said before every bit of science that is suppose to disprove God the bible has the alternat answer as to why that is!
Ok use the bible to explain all of my, as you put it, "evidence.
Such as the dinasours and the flood, im not going to go on in detail but im pretty sure you get my drift!
Exactly, you can't go into detail because the men who wrote the bible did not know about DNA, eukaryotes, vestigial and homologous structures etc.


Edit: Oh yeah, evolution is adaptation. It is the grand adaptation of species that has a cumulative effect and results in speciation. The word 'adaptation' by itself implies changes in the living organism DURING ITS LIFETIME. "Adaptation" over several generation is refered to by us fools as "evolution". Please use that word if you are referring to multigenerational "adaptation"

Personaly i think evolution is a childish excusein an attempt to deny God!

Funny. Nowhere in The Origin of the Species does the phrase "and that is how we know there is no God" show up.

...maybe I'm senile. Can you point me to the chapter in Darwin's treatise where it says "and that is how we know there is no God?"

...or... are you just making bullshit ascribations to randomly-selected theories, before perverting the crap out of science just because you're desperate to knock down a man of straw?

In fact...

As i said before every bit of science that is suppose to disprove God...

...I challenge you to find me one mainstream, well-accepted scientific theory that even has the word "God" in it at all.

Of course, from prior experience, I know you'll just post something that has nothing to do with anything in the message, much like when you said the black panther party for self-defense was an example of marxist/socialist agitators trying to implement gun control, - but we're all hoping that one day you'll outgrow it.

There is no "scientific theory which tried to disprove God." No "scientific theory" that even mentions God, except the one about T rex having coconut-opening teeth.

It's not even a topic in science, and nobody fucking cares. Get over yourself.

Funny. Nowhere in The


...I challenge you to find me [i]one mainstream, well-accepted scientific theory that even has the word "God" in it at all.

Of course, from prior experience, I know you'll just post something that has nothing to do with anything in the message, much like when you said the black panther party for self-defense was an example of marxist/socialist agitators trying to implement gun control, - but we're all hoping that one day you'll outgrow it.

There is no "scientific theory which tried to disprove God." No "scientific theory" that even mentions God, except the one about T rex having coconut-opening teeth.

It's not even a topic in science, and nobody fucking cares. Get over yourself.

I believe hawkings latest theory is an attempt to disprove the deistic god dealing with the origins of the universe, cause of the big bang etc. I've seen one clip where he ses the pope asked him to stop his research lol. But that is completly different then evolution. Evolution just offers a real explination to how we as a species came to be.

Now thats a not right. Evolution just doesn't stop happening. It continues every time a new organism is created. Humans are evolving but since we are the top species on the planet fast change will never happen because nothing is killing off the less fit.

Also I hate to use wikipedia mabey someone else can come up with something better but: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

this dudes right
we cant evolve if the inferior arent killed off (scientifically speaking)
this is not a racial comment by the way so all you racist cocks can suck a fat

Funny. Nowhere in The Origin of the Species does the phrase "and that is how we know there is no God" show up.

...maybe I'm senile. Can you point me to the chapter in Darwin's treatise where it says "and that is how we know there is no God?"

...or... are you just making bullshit ascribations to randomly-selected theories, before perverting the crap out of science just because you're desperate to knock down a man of straw?

In fact...



...I challenge you to find me one mainstream, well-accepted scientific theory that even has the word "God" in it at all.

Of course, from prior experience, I know you'll just post something that has nothing to do with anything in the message, much like when you said the black panther party for self-defense was an example of marxist/socialist agitators trying to implement gun control, - but we're all hoping that one day you'll outgrow it.

There is no "scientific theory which tried to disprove God." No "scientific theory" that even mentions God, except the one about T rex having coconut-opening teeth.

It's not even a topic in science, and nobody fucking cares. Get over yourself.

One i never said shit about the black panther not marxism!!! but i did read it!

I do believe science has a bias now, do you know why? Because science is no longer science its a census! No questions just votes(metaphoricly speaking)! The fact that they throw out any major or minor implications as mere coincedences! You can see this in two things

one you can agree with more the other you'll prob spout shit but owell

When people argue the bible using "science" thier minds are so intent on proving you wrong they disregard any evidence you can provide, and then call you the ignorant one, when you actually looked at what they had to say!

another is global warming! When they argue global warming they do the same thing as when they argue religion! they throw out evidence such as

Thier arguement " Carbon dioxide is causing global warming and were goin to die if we keep going at this rate!"

Other " carbon dioxide only acounts for 4% of any damage done by green house gasses" (theres differ interpertations on what that 4% really is, i use the scientists example)

Thier arguemet " Well the carbon dioxide level way higher than its ever been"

Other " Actually during the mini-ice age (before or after maybe) it was 10 times higher! and its been higher than that before too"


My point is it doesnt matter who is right or who is wrong, the mere fact that you discounted the others evidence makes it clear there is a bias and that your bieng unscientific!!!!!

Anyways no evolution and adaption arnt the same, they are two differ conclusions to a piece of evidence! if you would read some you'd figure out that why the person who thought up adaptation did it, to counter Darwins conclsuion of evolution!!! So you are wrong on that one!

When people argue the bible using "science" thier minds are so intent on proving you wrong they disregard any evidence you can provide, and then call you the ignorant one, when you actually looked at what they had to say!

I've never seen you provide ANYTHING that could be categorised as "evidence"

In fact......All I've ever seen you do is talk about shit from the bible.

And if I hear one more person try and pass off that dusty tome as "evidence" for anything I'll scream.



another is global warming! When they argue global warming they do the same thing as when they argue religion! they throw out evidence such as

Thier arguement " Carbon dioxide is causing global warming and were goin to die if we keep going at this rate!"



What's wrong with that statement? Carbon dioxide is a major greenhouse gas component and if current projections are correct then we're going to see some serious moral implications soon.

I'm talking about widespread famine and drought in countries that are least equipped to compensate for it.

That may not equate to any MAJOR changes in your developed world...Technology acts as a buffer against environment change.

But for those who have NOTHING but a scrap of land for their emaciated cattle to graze on...This is life and death.



Other " carbon dioxide only acounts for 4% of any damage done by green house gasses" (theres differ interpertations on what that 4% really is, i use the scientists example)

God. Damn. Source.

This what you're renowned for Masta. Pulling figures out your ass with absolutely no source whatsoever. Perhaps this is why the majority of your so called "evidence" gets discounted.

4% seems ridiculously low to me, I'd like to see your source for this.

Even lowly wikipedia lists carbon dioxide as responsible for 9-26% of the greenhouse effect.



Thier arguemet " Well the carbon dioxide level way higher than its ever been"

Other " Actually during the mini-ice age (before or after maybe) it was 10 times higher! and its been higher than that before too"


Source.

And it's not the current level we're worried about...It's the RATE of increase.

Which at the moment is close to exponential.


My point is it doesnt matter who is right or who is wrong, the mere fact that you discounted the others evidence makes it clear there is a bias and that your bieng unscientific!!!!!


The only reason I discount your evidence is because it is badly explained, never sourced and your understanding of what you are even trying to argue is always extremely poor.

Ressotami you are wrong you have been fooled by Al Gore into believing global warming so i will formulate an argument that will fit your beliefs. Please do your best.

1.How did the ice melt in the previous ice ages when there were no cars.

2.Why does the ice in Greenland(i think) show that every 1500 years it gets hotter then goes back to normal.

Conclusion:ITS A NORMAL CYCLE!!!!!!!!

BTW Those questions were formed to fit your stance on evolution not mine.

Anyways no evolution and adaption arnt the same, they are two differ conclusions to a piece of evidence! if you would read some you'd figure out that why the person who thought up adaptation did it, to counter Darwins conclsuion of evolution!!! So you are wrong on that one!

They are different but they are both products of each other. Evolution may lead to new characteristics in an animal that may help it survive and with it surviving its genes will pass on leading to evolution. Its a chain of Adaptation -> Evolution -> Adaptation -> Evolution and so on until one species is completely different then another.

What I think your confusing is the difference of adaptation and the theory of adaptation. What your talking about is the theory written by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inheritance_of_acquired_traits ) This is wrong. Under this theory a baby with english speaking parents could know english even when it was raised by french speaking parents thousands of miles away from anyone who could speak english. Language is an aquired human trait so it should be passed on and slowly humans should be born with fluent english if it was true. Of course that was very exagerated but it makes sense under that theory.

Sammy and Masta,

I doubt anyone could be bothered answering any of your questions any more, because you flat out refuse to answer anything anyone asks either of you.

Why not go back through this thread and answer some questions. Then mabey someone will listen to you.

As it stands now, I wouldn't be surprised if most people have added you to their ignore list, just because you don't know how to debate properly, and it is just painful trying to talk to either of you.

When will you realise your way of thinking is just wrong. You have picked an answer based on zero evidence, and spend the rest of your life trying to find the evidence to back up your answer. It's a lot like a perpetual motion machine. You know what you want it to do, but no matter how hard you try, it just ain't going to work.

An old book published and modified by the church that follows that exact book is not any sort of evidence. Any one that truely believes that is either deluded, or just weak minded.

Scientists don't know the final answer. They spend their life gathering little pieces of information, and given all that information try to come up with answers. There is a huge difference between telling everyone you know the answer and telling everyone you don't know the answer, but heres my theory based on evidence.......

Just think about it before you post next.

Ressotami you are wrong you have been fooled by Al Gore into believing global warming so i will formulate an argument that will fit your beliefs. Please do your best.

Al Gore is perceived to present the issue in popular culture. But he is hardly my only source on the matter :rolleyes:

That you assume that all my information on the matter comes from "An Inconvenient Truth" is rather telling in itself. Just how much research have you done yourself on this topic other than watching that movie?



1.How did the ice melt in the previous ice ages when there were no cars.

Glacial periods occur as part of a feedback loop, As glaciation becomes more extensive, processes which actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere are slowed and halted. Which allows CO2 to build up and eventually thaw the snow sheet. So on ad infinitum.

Research the carbon cycle and how CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and locked up as marine carbonates by the process of weathering.

This process is mitigated during ice ages when snow sheets slow or stop the weathering of rocks beneath them.



2.Why does the ice in Greenland(i think) show that every 1500 years it gets hotter then goes back to normal.

Conclusion:ITS A NORMAL CYCLE!!!!!!!!

BTW Those questions were formed to fit your stance on evolution not mine.

It's a well known fact that the average temperature of the Earth varies slightly. This does not however indicate that the current warming we are seeing is a natural occurrence. The RATE at which the CO2 is increasing is higher than anything we've seen before and the associated rise in temperature is also off the records.

Again we're not talking about ACTUAL temperature levels, only rate. If this IS a natural cycle then it's happening faster than we've ever seen it happen "naturally" before.

And how were these questioned "formed to fit my stance on evolution"??? This thread has totally been hijacked and I'm having trouble seeing how this discussion on global warming etc can be linked back to the original topic. Just so you know, as far as i'm concerned we are now discussing global warming. Evolution went out the window a couple of pages back.

If you want to drag us back onto the original topic of evolution however then be my guest.

Anyways no evolution and adaption arnt the same, they are two differ conclusions to a piece of evidence! if you would read some you'd figure out that why the person who thought up adaptation did it, to counter Darwins conclsuion of evolution!!! So you are wrong on that one!

Your idea of adaptation is a species adapting to better itself. Well how come we have evidence of "adaptation" of genes that kill of the species. Evolution explains that, because its a natural process and theres no intelligence guiding it.

Now if you wouldnt mind trying to give a creation explination for my post way back on page 3?

Al Gore is perceived to present the issue in popular culture. But he is hardly my only source on the matter :rolleyes:

That you assume that all my information on the matter comes from "An Inconvenient Truth" is rather telling in itself. Just how much research have you done yourself on this topic other than watching that movie?




Glacial periods occur as part of a feedback loop, As glaciation becomes more extensive, processes which actively remove CO2 from the atmosphere are slowed and halted. Which allows CO2 to build up and eventually thaw the snow sheet. So on ad infinitum.

Research the carbon cycle and how CO2 is removed from the atmosphere and locked up as marine carbonates by the process of weathering.

This process is mitigated during ice ages when snow sheets slow or stop the weathering of rocks beneath them.




It's a well known fact that the average temperature of the Earth varies slightly. This does not however indicate that the current warming we are seeing is a natural occurrence. The RATE at which the CO2 is increasing is higher than anything we've seen before and the associated rise in temperature is also off the records.

Again we're not talking about ACTUAL temperature levels, only rate. If this IS a natural cycle then it's happening faster than we've ever seen it happen "naturally" before.

And how were these questioned "formed to fit my stance on evolution"??? This thread has totally been hijacked and I'm having trouble seeing how this discussion on global warming etc can be linked back to the original topic. Just so you know, as far as i'm concerned we are now discussing global warming. Evolution went out the window a couple of pages back.

If you want to drag us back onto the original topic of evolution however then be my guest.

Wow kid, my fucking source is the fucking meteorologists who laugh at the idea of global warming!!! Where did i hear? well lets tune in to Savage, Riely, Beck, or Hanntity when they argueing global warming, thats one of thier big arguements!!! But theres differ spins on the what exaclty is 4% but a scientist came on to hannity and cleared all that up! carbon dioxide accounts for only a mere 4% of the damage!


And if you use any evidence from Al Gore's movie then your fucking retarded! ima caps this because this is important!


IN "AN INCONVIENANT TRUTH" AL GORE (OR WHO EVER THE HELL NARATES IT) STATES THAT THE TRADE WINDS WILL STOP AS A RESULT OF GLOBAL WARMING, AND WE WONT BE ABLE TO FLY!!!


THE TRADE WINDS ARE CAUSED BY EARTHS ROTATION!!! HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATMOSPHERE!!! THUS PROVING AL GORE IS A JACK ASS!!!

THE TRADE WINDS ARE CAUSED BY EARTHS ROTATION!!! HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATMOSPHERE!!! THUS PROVING AL GORE IS A JACK ASS!!!

I think there is a bit more to it than that......

Lack of education/ understanding on your part does not mean something isn't true. It just means it is beyond your comprehesion without more study. And I am not calling you stupid - I'm just saying you need to realise you need to do more research.

I think there is a bit more to it than that......

Lack of education/ understanding on your part does not mean something isn't true. It just means it is beyond your comprehesion without more study. And I am not calling you stupid - I'm just saying you need to realise you need to do more research.

No i dont!!! on that subject anyways! the trade winds is a result from Earths rotation and it can only be stopped if the Earth quites spinning! i highly doubt global warming will cause the Earth to stop spinning!!!

ps. thanks for not flaming like a little bitch as these other homosexuals do!

No i dont!!! on that subject anyways! the trade winds is a result from Earths rotation and it can only be stopped if the Earth quites spinning! i highly doubt global warming will cause the Earth to stop spinning!!!

ps. thanks for not flaming like a little bitch as these other homosexuals do!

If trade winds relied soley on the earths rotation, how come they change from time to time? Wouldn't they be constant all the time, or at least constant at the same time each year? Why would they be strong one year, and weak the next?

I was led to believe the Sun heating the earth affected it, as do differing ocean temperatures in different areas.

There are more factors affecting them than just rotation is all I am saying.

What does global warming have to do with any of this? The truth is nobody know whats causing global warming or even if its happening at all. Its just another issue forced on us heavily by politicians. Truth is there is evidence pointing in both directions on it. If you were using it as an example on how science flip flops then good because its supposed to. However with the media the way it is today things that are very little disputed become huge issues. I mean look at how the media shows the threat of terrorism.

Your doing exactly what they do by bringing up this issue and then when you run out of things to say you point and say "hey look at this while your here." *points to science* "Look at what those scientists with their learnid minds are doing. That doesn't agree with my 2000 year old book so it must be the devil!"

Science doesn't disprove a god in any way.

No i dont!!! on that subject anyways! the trade winds is a result from Earths rotation and it can only be stopped if the Earth quites spinning! i highly doubt global warming will cause the Earth to stop spinning!!!!

Can you post a source that states that the wind is caused by Earth's rotation? I thought it was caused by changes in air pressure caused by uneven heating over the earth's surface. (Hence all the emphasis on pressure systems when you watch the weather on the nightly news)
Oh, if it's not too hard, could you give me an explanation to why thinking wind is caused by air pressure is wrong? Thanks.


SAMMY: Thought you weren't coming back to argue with us? If you pop your head back in again, can you give proper responces responces to the earlier, biology related posts in this thread. Its not very nice for you to ignore some of us in that way.

Can you post a source that states that the wind is caused by Earth's rotation? I thought it was caused by changes in air pressure caused by uneven heating over the earth's surface. (Hence all the emphasis on pressure systems when you watch the weather on the nightly news)
Oh, if it's not too hard, could you give me an explanation to why thinking wind is caused by air pressure is wrong? Thanks.


Actually tradewinds really are caused by the earth's spin as well as uneven heating of the earth and pressure systems. What global warming believers fear is not issues with tradewinds, but problems with ocean currents. During el nino ocean currents fuck up and shit gets ruined. A global temperature change might alter currents. But back on the subject, none of the antievolutionists ever addressed my claims, I proclaim myself the victor.

Wow kid, my fucking source is the fucking meteorologists who laugh at the idea of global warming!!!

Don't call me a Kid please. Everyone on this board knows that you're 14.


Where did i hear? well lets tune in to Savage, Riely, Beck, or Hanntity when they argueing global warming, thats one of thier big arguements!!! But theres differ spins on the what exaclty is 4% but a scientist came on to hannity and cleared all that up! carbon dioxide accounts for only a mere 4% of the damage!

So basically you're admitting that your entire argument comes from listening to a Radio Show that had a "scientist" on it.

By research I meant READING. You know...a journal or something....Something that's not morons chattering away on shortwave.


And if you use any evidence from Al Gore's movie then your fucking retarded!

I didn't. I explained the scientific process by which glaciation slows or halts CO2 removal from the atmosphere by weathering. That's not even in the Gore movie as far as i can remember.


IN "AN INCONVIENANT TRUTH" AL GORE (OR WHO EVER THE HELL NARATES IT) STATES THAT THE TRADE WINDS WILL STOP AS A RESULT OF GLOBAL WARMING, AND WE WONT BE ABLE TO FLY!!!


THE TRADE WINDS ARE CAUSED BY EARTHS ROTATION!!! HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ATMOSPHERE!!! THUS PROVING AL GORE IS A JACK ASS!!!

Source? Oh wait...heard that on the radio again?

Firstly I'd like to call UTTER bullshit on the first claim that "we won't be able to fly"

If you can explain to me how losing an equatorial wind is going to somehow impair the function of your jets then please do.

If you can't? Then stop spouting your made up bullshit.

Winds are caused primarily by the difference in high and low pressures. In this case warm air from the equatorial regions rises and cool air from the higher latitudes is sucked in to replace it.

As global warming effects the higher latitudes more than the equatorial regions, we would expect to see the poles rise by as much as 12 degrees and the equator to rise by around 1-2 degrees.

This obviously makes the temperature gradient between the two much smaller. And retards the process by which the trade winds are formed.

Any further questions?

Don't call me a Kid please. Everyone on this board knows that you're 14.




So basically you're admitting that your entire argument comes from listening to a Radio Show that had a "scientist" on it.

By research I meant READING. You know...a journal or something....Something that's not morons chattering away on shortwave.



I didn't. I explained the scientific process by which glaciation slows or halts CO2 removal from the atmosphere by weathering. That's not even in the Gore movie as far as i can remember.




Source? Oh wait...heard that on the radio again?

Firstly I'd like to call UTTER bullshit on the first claim that "we won't be able to fly"

If you can explain to me how losing an equatorial wind is going to somehow impair the function of your jets then please do.

If you can't? Then stop spouting your made up bullshit.

Winds are caused primarily by the difference in high and low pressures. In this case warm air from the equatorial regions rises and cool air from the higher latitudes is sucked in to replace it.

As global warming effects the higher latitudes more than the equatorial regions, we would expect to see the poles rise by as much as 12 degrees and the equator to rise by around 1-2 degrees.

This obviously makes the temperature gradient between the two much smaller. And retards the process by which the trade winds are formed.

Any further questions?


Beats me how we cant fly im not a fucking scientist! well none that scientific anyways(pollitical)! i think its something to do with you cant fly to cali or something like that! IDK person thats just what i heard!

Wind and trade winds are differ. just to let you in on that little secret there!

Look Ressotami, your one of the few people i like on here so i'm just going to end this arguement here for it has nothing to do with the topic at hand! I was just using that merely as an example of how science was biased today!!!

Beats me how we cant fly im not a fucking scientist! well none that scientific anyways(pollitical)! i think its something to do with you cant fly to cali or something like that! IDK person thats just what i heard!

Wind and trade winds are differ. just to let you in on that little secret there!

Look Ressotami, your one of the few people i like on here so i'm just going to end this arguement here for it has nothing to do with the topic at hand! I was just using that merely as an example of how science was biased today!!!

You guys are hilarious. Trade winds is air rushing to the equator. Which is high pressure going to low pressure. Its nothing to do with the fucking earth spinning. And yes gore is an idiot when he ses the trade winds are going to stop. If thats what he said, I've never seen the movie. But the climate will most likely rabidly shift into a mini ice age. Just like what happend in the middle ages. In that case the trade winds would most likely increase.

Ow and FYI. Planes use the trade winds to increase speed and fuel economy on long trips. But they can fly without the wind pushing them too.

Trade winds is air rushing to the equator. Which is high pressure going to low pressure. Its nothing to do with the fucking earth spinning.
Yes, it does.

Trade winds are caused as a result of the earth's rotation. Winds run parallel in the northern and southern hemispheres along either side of the equator, blowing west simultaneously. The rotational velocity of the earth varies with latitude, increasing from the poles toward the equator and matter not rigidly attached to the earth's surface, such as air and water, undergoes an apparent deflection known as the Coriolis effect. Consequently, objects that move freely relative to the planet appear to drift to the right of their intended path, or clockwise in the Northern Hemisphere and to the left of their intended path, or counter clockwise in the Southern Hemisphere.

http://www.pbs.org/odyssey/odyssey/20031027_log_transcript.html

Yeah, tradewinds are created by both the cell circulation due to the uneven heating and the earth's spin.

Back on topic: Masta, so why can't you actually address my claims?

Yeah, tradewinds are created by both the cell circulation due to the uneven heating and the earth's spin.

Back on topic: Masta, so why can't you actually address my claims?

what fucking claims are you talking about?

what fucking claims are you talking about?

you missed mine too. Page 3, retro virus fossil record.

Interesting evolution allowed something that can no longer advance and/or evolve.

People People People.

We continue to evolve, it's not something that can just "Stop".

Good point!

And to Badger of Doom, even if it does go slower we still would have changed in over a million and something odd years, when it took a million to evolve in the first place!



Itll take a longer time for us to evolve now, were more complex and theres a fuck load of population. evolution is quicker in smaller populations, so to speak.

Evolution is driven by selective pressures.

The stronger the pressure the faster and the more extreme evolution becomes.

In modern times of medicine and technology even the most retarded, fucked up down syndrome child can survive long enough to reproduce. It has no longer become "survival of the fittest" but survival of all.


The selective pressures of our environment have effectively been removed or at least buffered extensively by the power we wield over technology.

Evolution is driven by selective pressures.

The stronger the pressure the faster and the more extreme evolution becomes.

In modern times of medicine and technology even the most retarded, fucked up down syndrome child can survive long enough to reproduce. It has no longer become "survival of the fittest" but survival of all.


The selective pressures of our environment have effectively been removed or at least buffered extensively by the power we wield over technology.

The only way the amount of natural selection happening would speed up evolution, is by decreasing the population.

Us humans are still mutating at the same rate, in alot of cases our genetic mutations are actually increasing. Polution etc. Thats all evolution is. Mutations, breeding, natural selection.

The only way the amount of natural selection happening would speed up evolution, is by decreasing the population.

Us humans are still mutating at the same rate, in alot of cases our genetic mutations are actually increasing. Polution etc. Thats all evolution is. Mutations, breeding, natural selection.

So why havnt we changed in 2million years? or if you choose the other theory then why havnt we changed in 250thousand years?

I also consider chimpanzees as niggers with hair. But if you actually looked into the differences theres lots.

For the stuff I've been able to research , the most clear cut evidence for evolution (ignoring everything else of the tangled web of scientific evidence) is retro virus's and DNA.

Retro virus's are just a small sequence of DNA that get into our bodies and infect our DNA. They go in and change our own sequence. We can see this when looking at our DNA. Sometimes nothing happens though, very rarely. Our DNA changes, but we dont die, or get sick or nothing. After doing a complete mapping of human and chimpanzee genomes we can line up the millions of DNA sequences of both and compare them. What we found was the exact number of retro virus's that we both share, and the ones that each species got after we split from our common ancestor.

Now we know right away when we look at our DNA and see an altered strain due to a retro virus. We can also use this to help with the retro virus evolution timeline comparing them to new ones like HIV.

THeres is no explination to this using god. Other then god planted the genetic information to test our faith.

hers a video i found for you, and any other troll for that matter.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKb1LXxKNHY

ok you wanted me to answer this for you so i will! Honestly i'm not a fucking scientists so i'm not going to act like i know the answer to it! I'm not a troll so please people quite calling me one just because i present the opposite of the arguement and you dont want to hear it!

ok you wanted me to answer this for you so i will! Honestly i'm not a fucking scientists so i'm not going to act like i know the answer to it! I'm not a troll so please people quite calling me one just because i present the opposite of the arguement and you dont want to hear it!

Don't! Put! An! Exclamation! Mark! After! Every! Fucking! Sentence! Your! Statements! Do! Not! Denote! Excitement! Jesus! Christ!


But anyway, you are right. You're not a fucking scientist, and neither are any of the people you get your information from.

The fact is, whether you deny it or not, evolution has been accepted by the scientific community for quite some time.

Everyone who needs to believe in evolution, does. You, and other incredibly stupid people, do not, but it doesn't matter, because you are not scientists. You have no input into any theories, you will not help to further our knowledge, and the scientific community could care less if you want to be laughably backwards (while simultaneously calling muslim sexism backwards).

If one day we reach the stars, travelling the galaxy, even finding new life forms, while we are studying and conversing with these new aliens, and exploring the frontiers of existence, and examining the thresholds of everything, learning, learning the exciting science of how the universe works, the ultimate infinite void...

...You will be left behind, desperately rewriting ad-hoc theories to cling to your god, trying to write in or deny the aliens to fit your ancient dogma. Then, you will die into nothingness, and never know not only was there no god, but you were never able to discover all the new science and knowledge and expansive horizons of existence because you never tried to learn them.

Actually, wait. I do care what you believe. You know why?

Because fucking idiots like you are wasting the time of brilliant people like Richard Dawkins.

You know, REAL SCIENTISTS.

People who, uh, do research. And find information. Instead of pulling it out of their ass.

Dawkins has to write books explaining evolution to the below average intelligence, fundamentalist, easily manipulated portions of the population. This is a real waste of his time. His intelligence could be much better used to solve real problems we face and to further develop various sciences.

Ultimately, it comes down to this.

You believe that there is no possible way that the writers of the bible could have made up all there stories in the exact same way you claim that all other religions made up there stories, BUT all the scientists in the world all made up evolution and the fossils and the millions of verifiable physical pieces of evidence that all contradict your bible, some which are not even fucking related to evolution at all.

Please, please, please, do not have children.

Don't! Put! An! Exclamation! Mark! After! Every! Fucking! Sentence! Your! Statements! Do! Not! Denote! Excitement! Jesus! Christ!


But anyway, you are right. You're not a fucking scientist, and neither are any of the people you get your information from.

The fact is, whether you deny it or not, evolution has been accepted by the scientific community for quite some time.

Everyone who needs to believe in evolution, does. You, and other incredibly stupid people, do not, but it doesn't matter, because you are not scientists. You have no input into any theories, you will not help to further our knowledge, and the scientific community could care less if you want to be laughably backwards (while simultaneously calling muslim sexism backwards).

Actually, wait. I do care what you believe. You know why?

Because fucking idiots like you are wasting the time of brilliant people like Richard Dawkins.

You know, REAL SCIENTISTS.

People who, uh, do research. And find information. Instead of pulling it out of their ass.

Dawkins has to write books explaining evolution to the below average intelligence, fundamentalist, easily manipulated portions of the population. This is a real waste of his time. His intelligence could be much better used to solve real problems we face and to further develop various sciences.

Ultimately, it comes down to this.

You believe that there is no possible way that the writers of the bible could have made up all there stories in the exact same way you claim that all other religions made up there stories, BUT all the scientists in the world all made up evolution and the fossils and the millions of verifiable physical pieces of evidence that all contradict your bible, some which are not even fucking related to evolution at all.

Please, please, please, do not have children.

ok lets be a bitch even after i didnt do nothing! didnt say nothing didnt argue nothing and still i get these queers who wont shut the fuck up!!!

Other than evolution nothing contradicts, well none that i cant explain! Evolution of live organisms i dont see it happening, first of all theres no medium or missing link what ever the hell you want to call it! Secondly No animal that exists today have changed any(other than a few adaptations but isnt evolution) since we've been here! And there is no mediums for any of them either! So i dont believe in it! Even if i was an athiest i wouldnt believe in it! i'd believe somehting like we were created by energy doing wierd things or somehting like that!

ok lets be a bitch even after i didnt do nothing! didnt say nothing didnt argue nothing and still i get these queers who wont shut the fuck up!!!

Other than evolution nothing contradicts, well none that i cant explain! Evolution of live organisms i dont see it happening, first of all theres no medium or missing link what ever the hell you want to call it! Secondly No animal that exists today have changed any(other than a few adaptations but isnt evolution) since we've been here! And there is no mediums for any of them either! So i dont believe in it! Even if i was an athiest i wouldnt believe in it! i'd believe somehting like we were created by energy doing wierd things or somehting like that!

You are a very VERY ignorant person. You are well deservant of all the bitching you recieve. We gave you all the evidence to answer all these questions yourself but you still continue and only oppose evolution because your religion generally disaproves of it.

All you ever do is ask a question and ignore any answers that dont agree with you. Even if there is a huge ammount of evidence to support it.

Here is an example of what you do. Somebody stabs you on a subway train without you seeing who. You turn around and see two people. One has a bloody knife and the other does not. The first thing you would do is completely ignore the man with the knife and go directly after the knifeless man. For no reason and no evidence what so ever. Even if the man with the knife said he did it right in your face. Id love to be that man with the knife but id fortunately never do that no matter how deservant they were.

Honestly the only reason you attack Evolution is because you think everyone here is out to get you. What the fuck does science have to do with religion. I dont see scientists go to churches and yelling things like "the whole reason im alive is to prove you wrong." That is generally done in the opposite way.

How about we do this the opposite way and ask of you to bring up actual evidence for anything that you support. Evidence for your version of adaptation, creation, and how humans have never been monkeys.

ok you wanted me to answer this for you so i will! Honestly i'm not a fucking scientists so i'm not going to act like i know the answer to it! I'm not a troll so please people quite calling me one just because i present the opposite of the arguement and you dont want to hear it!

What part dont you understand. I'm not a scientist either, but I understand. Its pretty simple, There are shared DNA sequences of retro virus's in our DNA with other animals. These ones we share, happend to the common ancestor of both species. DNA is like a timeline, if it was written out like an essay, you couldnt take the conclusion and make it the opening paragraph. Its not just us and chimpanzees. We've found DNA retro virus matches in whales and cows aswell. Its easy to understand, maybe your intelligence is just farrrrrrrrrr to lacking to understand evolution, a fundemental difference.

Thats clear cut evidence showing you evolution. No luck of the draw fossil record (most highly advanced form of evolution study 80 years ago).

If it took us 200,000 years to get from A - B. B being homosapien. Which wasnt that many changes. We got taller, brain size changed. Then 200,000 - Present should show similer changes. Well we have, we continue to get taller on the average. We know have asians, blacks, and whites. All this with a population 50 times greater then it was 200,000 years ago. With a smaller population the breeding stock gets mixed and genetic differences advance alot faster.

Adaptation as you call it IS evolution. Its not just species adapting, like a god would make happen. Adapt to different envirnment. Because species can adapt genetic defects that fucking kill them. So if your talking about adaptation with natural selection. Thats evolution.

Small changes over small periods of time, lead to large changes over long periods of time.

Why believe in evolution? Why not just call it adaptation? All the so called "evidenvce" is just evidence for adaptation!

I choose not to believe in evolution for the fact it is illogical at the moment! Before i believe in evolution you must provide a medium! There is no evidence to a medium, and all the ones so far has turned out to be hoaxes so it pretty much discredits everyone but owell!

And i dont know we havnt changed since Toba 75,000 years ago? The timeline is messed up, if we did evolve it supposably took a long time and that means we would have to evolved perfectly in 1,000,000 years and then not change for over a mill and something odd years! Doesnt seem practicle. I mean if we havnt changed in thousands of years over what it took to evolve then it is illogical to believe we did!!!


ps. please no flames!

The only time line wrong is yours.

The only time line wrong is yours.

We established this already moron! thanks for showing up late! oh and technicaly i used another actual timeline theory for evolution but i guess its less acepted! plus i misworded stuff before because i wasnt paying attention!

evolution is the end result of a 'survival of the fittest' process over millions of years. there is no concious decision on the part of the organisms themselves to adapt....(ur retarded)

Why do you mess up this forum masta thief?
Every thread of yours I see, you fail to understand the basics of what you are discussing. Tons of people tell you, explains it as simple as possible and shows immense fucking patience. And still, you refuse to believe anything but your flawed original idea.
Discussing the damn definition of words, while ignoring that your motivation for being here is justifying a belief you cannot hold true without defecating on the knowledge of the world around you...

i'm not sure the author of this topic has fully evolved.

When will people realize Masta Thief is a troll and ignore him?

When will people realize Masta Thief is a troll and ignore him?

its good practice for debating the real fundies. Although its never really a debate. Its just the atheist trying to educate the retards. The fundies are always on the defense.

When will people realize Masta Thief is a troll and ignore him?

Unfortunately its my job NOT to ignore him. But one day he will go too far and then he'll find his arse back under the bridge.

Like I said, there is a point when trolling, unintelligent trolling , gets classed as spam and spam, as we all know, brings its own reward.

adaption? how the fuck does a monkey adapt into a human? jackass... monkeys and primates > humans. in terms of arrival, anyway. in any case, brain sizes do not adapt... jackass.

lol ignorance

this thread fails.