..,,Is Evolution slowly dying?

[mouse]

I was watching a Natural geographic special about Ancient aliens and proof Intelligent life was here 1000s of years ago and they even mentioned the Bible of proof scriptures talk about flaming chariots in the sky. Talked about how scientist now know there are other galaxy's with life forms. And how we could be descendants of ancient aliens.

Funny thing they never brought up Darwin and how this may have an effect on evolution as a whole I found that intriguing.

Is Evolution slowly dying?



ck54u5ZH6x0

[DoubtingThomas]

I watched that show and it is not PROOF that Intelligent life was here 1000s of years ago but rather a theory so that is still plenty of doubt. Now I see why you feel so strongly that man has never landed on the moon.

[Saved By Zero]

I wish that apollo mission thread would die.

[mouse]

I watched that show and it is not PROOF that Intelligent life was here 1000s of years ago

Isn't that up to the the viewers to decide for themselves? or shall I say the "intelligent" viewers?

one thing is for sure,reading your comment proves Intelligent life is not norm around here.


I see why you feel so strongly that man has never landed on the moon.


Thank you for understanding.

The truth is all the Darwin supporters (the smart ones) not many...are laying low they don't want to look foolish they want to see how this plays out.

Unfortunately there are others who are stubborn like that old drunk out of work pot smoking loud mouth war veteran from Vietnam that doesn't know when enough beer is enough until he puked over the 42 year old stripper at his local VFW club / bingo hall.

and there are those who will go down with the ship and will once again Support Darwin and by doing so will only place that online foot deeper in that wet drooling down syndrome mouth of theirs.

As displayed already in this topic.

[mouse]

I wish that apollo mission thread would die.


It will if you can prove Apollo 11 landed on the moon.

o6l1CsqZtnk

[BlackSwordsMan]

We've evolved into celeb fanatic obese shut-ins.

[TDMVPDPOY]

for human life we are at the end of the spectrum for evolution...unless we get mutant powers....or become super humans resistant to deceases and shit...

lol evolution, how come todays primeups still dont look like a human being besides showing the same features....even if you give todays monkeys and shit another 1000 years i dont see it happening, have they tried havin a human mate with a monkey and see the outcome...

[Ef-man]

Mouse,

There is a program series called Ancient Aliens on the History Channel. Looks more like SyFy Channel material than something one should put on an educational network.

Just saying.

[BanditHiro]

for human life we are at the end of the spectrum for evolution...unless we get mutant powers....or become super humans resistant to deceases and shit...

lol evolution, how come todays primeups still dont look like a human being besides showing the same features....even if you give todays monkeys and shit another 1000 years i dont see it happening, have they tried havin a human mate with a monkey and see the outcome...

no we are not at the end of the spectrum there is never an end we will continue to evolve by natural selection until our species becomes extinct.

we haven't become super humans but we have build up resistant to some disease by mutations. Malaria no longer is a concern if you have the alleles for sickle cells (all though their is the concern that if you have two recessive alleles for sickel cells you will obtain sickle cell anemia)

okay your a bit mislead if you think monkeys will become humans...we had a common ancestor that took different evolutionary paths that lead to the formation of humans and primates. So in other words we can't just become gorillas and vice versa gorillas can't become human

[redzero]

So, man flying to the moon is some ridiculous lie, but aliens flying all the way to earth thousands of years ago is not?

[JoeChalupa]

I'm evolving into a dying man.

[Jacob1983]

Isn't evolution a theory?

[mouse]

Not only is it a theory but many countries don't even acknowledge it or Darwin himself.


I think the reason Evolution became so popular it took away the guilt people had if they didn't obey the ten commandments with Darwin's theory you are free from having to believe in a God and thus have no one to answer to when you die.

Sorta like being a modern day Catholic. After all they get to sin and enjoy the earth like the Atheist, only difference they have to say a few hail Marys one a week.

I know the scientific community must be split on these type of shows being aired since finding new life outside earth and being able to someday fertilize these planets with animals and humans they now have become the very thing they set out to disprove all these years.

They ultimately become God themselves.



http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vv9.jpg

[JoeChalupa]

Sorta like being a modern day Catholic. After all they get to sin and enjoy the earth like the Atheist, only difference they have to say a few hail Marys one a week.



Well, there you go again.....You know damn well you have to throw a few Our Fathers in there as well and it aint' one a week.

[boutons_deux]

"took away the guilt people had if they didn't obey the ten commandments"

What about Religions and authentically, deeply spiritual people who don't GAFF about the Christian, guilt-ridden simpletons' 10 Commandments but accept biological evolution as at least plausible if not the most probable?

btw, evolution is occurring in single generations, from diseased parents' epigenome to their kids' genomes. Diseased, unhealthy parents mess up their own epigenome and pass on permanently damaged genes to their offspring, that dispose the offspring to the same diseases and weaknesses.

[Wild Cobra]

I watched that show and it is not PROOF that Intelligent life was here 1000s of years ago but rather a theory so that is still plenty of doubt. Now I see why you feel so strongly that man has never landed on the moon.

The ancient astronaut theory isn't anything new. It's very old. Several theories over the years as well. As for being extra terrestrial, I would say it's possible, but more likely stories to the nature of Atlantis have merit. That there was once a more advance civilization that evolved here, and was wiped out by some natural disaster.

Now if we are to believe the extra terrestrial origins, there are Sumerian texts have explain some rather interesting things.

Don't ask me to find a link on it. Google terms like Sumerian, slave, gods, soul, etc. What I remember of it, the extraterrestrials came here, enslaved man to mine the resources, and said they were gods. The text appears to describe genetic alteration to make a better worker, which would give mankind a soul as well, the ET's debated this and were mixed about it. If there is merit to this, it could explain the "missing link." It is also grounds for "intelligent design."

[Wild Cobra]

It will if you can prove Apollo 11 landed on the moon.

How about you proving it didn't.

You cannot. All evidence supports they did go, and any evidence used to say otherwise has been busted. Even Myth Busters did a thing on it. They did good too!

[Wild Cobra]

if evolution is dying it's because humans are killing it with global warming
It's hard to believe in evolution when people can devolve like Mouse has!

[Wild Cobra]

Isn't evolution a theory?
Yep, just a theory.

[Wild Cobra]

They ultimately become God themselves.

Fundamental and mainstream Christians must really hate that idea. That's what the Mormon scriptures say, that someday, we will be Gods.

[TDMVPDPOY]

IF ET came and settled on earth and enslaved whatever, so how come theres not traces of their civilization or city aka atlantis

[ALVAREZ6]

lol

[Nathan Explosion]

When you get a flu shot, aka, a dead flu virus, don't you develop (evolve) and immunity.

Haven't "bugs" developed immunities to various antibiotics that humans developed?

Isn't this just evolution at its most basic form, life forms adapting to surroundings and developing mutations to thrive?

[DMX7]

..,,Is Evolution slowly dying?

No.

[ALVAREZ6]

mouse lol

[mouse]

When you get a flu shot, aka, a dead flu virus, don't you develop (evolve) and immunity.

Haven't "bugs" developed immunities to various antibiotics that humans developed?

Isn't this just evolution at its most basic form, life forms adapting to surroundings and developing mutations to thrive?

No one is saying things don't evolve. Caterpillar will evolve into a butterfly, an egg will evolve into a chicken. Those both have something in common they originated from their species and they still evolve today.

Ape to man does not evolve today and there is "no" evidence that proves that it ever did.

I personally don't care if man was once a turtle just don't put it in the text books unless you have real proof and don't rule out other possibilities how man got on this planet. That is exactly what Darwin and scientist do everyday.


They know not only when the earth was formed, they know how, and yet theses same scientist can't even tell you shit about the pyramids in Egypt or Stonehenge?

They can tell you what bacteria is on one of Jupiter's moons but can't even tell your where at least one WMD is in Iraq?

They want to tell you what took place 400 Billion years ago....

and yet they still can't figure out what happened 48 years ago on Jun 7, 1963?

http://obrag.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/kennedys-assass-dallas.jpg

Were the cameras better 25 million years ago?
http://www.treehugger.com/animal-planet-armageddon-tv01.jpg

[mouse]

VLix8mrKTtg

[Muser]

:lmao

[ALVAREZ6]

Ape to man does not evolve today and there is "no" evidence that proves that it ever did.



Evidence:
Humans are part of the ape species, they look pretty damn similar to the great ape monkeys, much like many other species have evolved from similar forms.

Evidence for creationism:
None

[mouse]

Evidence:
Humans are part of the ape species, they look pretty damn similar to the great ape monkeys, much like many other species have evolved from similar forms.

show me the proof.


Evidence for creationism:
None


I don't support creationism. I support AD (alternative design)

we don't quote the Bible,support flawed carbon dating, and we don't narrow our minds to only think we evolved from some hairy animal that can't figure out how to use toilet paper or start a fire and has been in our zoos for how many years?


AD is a concept I created back in 1999 when I was accused of being a Bible thumper because I often disagree with Science and the laws of Darwin.

You can still not believe in God and still believe you did not evolve from an ape. And I can prove it.

[redzero]

You can still not believe in God and still believe you did not evolve from an ape. And I can prove it.

I think you should get your findings published in a scientific journal, as soon as possible. The world needs to see your ground breaking proofs.

[boutons_deux]

"I can prove it"

I call your bluff, do it.

Also provide links to peer reviews of your proof. Obviously, you have those, right?

[mouse]

I think you should get your findings published in a scientific journal,

I leave that up to young writers who went to collage and are trying to recover some of that money they and their parents paid for their future, let them cash in on something hot. If any of them is looking for a good story for skeptic magazine or the next big reality TV special they can Google themselves. My time is occupied already trying to make some deadline I put myself into, go register the name Alternative Deign.com and cash in later. Sincerely: Mark Cuban 1995



The world needs to see your ground breaking proofs.

And they will.

[mouse]

"I can prove it"

I call your bluff, do it.

Also provide links to peer reviews of your proof. Obviously, you have those, right?

You only believe in Darwin?

[redzero]

Nonsense.

You have proof that man and ape do not share ancestors, but you don't want the world to see it? You'd be famous. You'd be rich.

I'm sure scientists are dying to see your proof.

[Wild Cobra]

IF ET came and settled on earth and enslaved whatever, so how come theres not traces of their civilization or city aka atlantis
On the assumption the myths are real, it would be covered by ocean debris.

[mouse]

Nonsense.

You have proof that man and ape do not share ancestors, but you don't want the world to see it? You'd be famous. You'd be rich.

I'm sure scientists are dying to see your proof.

This is not new, it was not my original idea!

I only said i had proof I didn't say I was the "discover" of this find.

The said part is you already have it at your place you live and don't even know it.

[mouse]

dying to see your proof.

why wait?

[redzero]

The said part is you already have it at your place you live and don't even know it.

Really? Tell me where, so I can become a rich for discovering the evidence that disproves science's standpoint on human evolution.

[Fabbs]

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vv9.jpg
nice pic.

[Jacob1983]

You won't know for sure until you die.

[MiamiHeat]

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/296/athlol.jpg

[Blake]

I personally don't care if man was once a turtle just don't put it in the text books unless you have real proof and don't rule out other possibilities how man got on this planet. That is exactly what Darwin and scientist do everyday.


When was the last time you read a science text book?

[JoeChalupa]

That is a pretty cool show and I watch it. I just find it interesting. Not so sure on the whole evolution theory dying though.

[RandomGuy]

No one is saying things don't evolve. Caterpillar will evolve into a butterfly, an egg will evolve into a chicken.

Actually, they don't.

They develop into those things. They do not "evolve" into those things.

If you can't even define or explain what it is you are attempting to criticize, what makes you think you are right about it?

Define evolution.

[Nathan Explosion]

http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/296/athlol.jpg

Not true at all. I've come across plenty of atheist who don't know a damn thing about Christianity besides talking points. And they talk to me like I'm stupid.

And I'm not even christian, more of an agnostic. I don't think that God does or doesn't exist. I just don't think we know enough about our world, solar system, galaxy and universe to say we absolutely know for sure.

What makes atheists angry with me is that I say that they're like the religious in that they have faith that god doesn't exist, but no true, indisputable knowledge.

[RandomGuy]

show me the proof.




I don't support creationism. I support AD (alternative design)

we don't quote the Bible,support flawed carbon dating, and we don't narrow our minds to only think we evolved from some hairy animal that can't figure out how to use toilet paper or start a fire and has been in our zoos for how many years?


AD is a concept I created back in 1999 when I was accused of being a Bible thumper because I often disagree with Science and the laws of Darwin.

You can still not believe in God and still believe you did not evolve from an ape. And I can prove it.

You mean "intelligent design"?

Isn't that the theory that a judge found to be pretty blatantly motivated entirely by people pushing a literal interpretation of Christian Biblical creation?

[Nathan Explosion]

No one is saying things don't evolve. Caterpillar will evolve into a butterfly, an egg will evolve into a chicken. Those both have something in common they originated from their species and they still evolve today.

Ape to man does not evolve today and there is "no" evidence that proves that it ever did.

Um, caterpillars don't "evolve" into butterfly. That's called metamorphosis. There's a difference.

And chickens don't evolve from eggs, they "hatch" from eggs. It just so happens that this takes place outside the body. Humans have eggs too from which we come. But we're mammals, so that "hatching" takes place inside the womb.

And man didn't come from the apes we see today. Those apes, along with man, have a common ancestor. DNA studies have shown this to be true. It's not that hard.

Anyway, this is the last I'm posting in this thread, because this trolling attempt is just not worth the effort anymore. Not sure it ever really was worth the effort.

[Spurminator]

Caterpillar will evolve into a butterfly, an egg will evolve into a chicken.

:lmao

[redzero]

I just don't think we know enough about our world, solar system, galaxy and universe to say we absolutely know for sure.

Since we are going on absolute certainty here, can you say without a doubt that Santa Claus doesn't exist?


What makes atheists angry with me is that I say that they're like the religious in that they have faith that god doesn't exist, but no true, indisputable knowledge.

Faith is belief without evidence. Why exactly would one need faith to not believe in something he or she--or anybody else--has never seen?

[tlongII]

God used to exist, but the CIA abducted him.

[ALVAREZ6]

show me the proof.

you said evidence... do you know what evidence is?

[JoeChalupa]

Faith is belief without evidence. Why exactly would one need faith to not believe in something he or she--or anybody else--has never seen?

I concur. :tu

[Wild Cobra]

And I'm not even christian, more of an agnostic. I don't think that God does or doesn't exist. I just don't think we know enough about our world, solar system, galaxy and universe to say we absolutely know for sure.
I'm the same way, except I trust we have some type of afterlife. I am absolutely certain that we have a soul/spirit. Had some interesting experiences during my life.

What makes atheists angry with me is that I say that they're like the religious in that they have faith that god doesn't exist, but no true, indisputable knowledge.
No shit. They have as strong of faith, or stronger, than Christians, and the like.

[Blake]

No shit. They have as strong of faith, or stronger, than Christians, and the like.

how does it take faith to not believe something unseen actually exists?

Is this the same type of faith it takes to not believe in Santa Claus?

[Wild Cobra]

how does it take faith to not believe something unseen actually exists?

Because the belief is solid, without exception, therefor it is faith.

I don't see individual atoms, but I believe they exist. Is that faith? I say no. I trust the work of others that have the equipment to tell me what their experiments reveal. How can you make an acceptable scientific experiment to show the Gods don't exist? Until then, it's faith that they don't.

[RandomGuy]

No one is saying things don't evolve. Caterpillar will evolve into a butterfly, an egg will evolve into a chicken. Those both have something in common they originated from their species and they still evolve today.

Ape to man does not evolve today and there is "no" evidence that proves that it ever did.

I personally don't care if man was once a turtle just don't put it in the text books unless you have real proof and don't rule out other possibilities how man got on this planet. That is exactly what Darwin and scientist do everyday.


They know not only when the earth was formed, they know how, and yet theses same scientist can't even tell you shit about the pyramids in Egypt or Stonehenge?

They can tell you what bacteria is on one of Jupiter's moons but can't even tell your where at least one WMD is in Iraq?

They want to tell you what took place 400 Billion years ago....

and yet they still can't figure out what happened 48 years ago on Jun 7, 1963?


(winces)

That is just a hodge podge of bad logic.

I can tell you for certain what I had for breakfast today, but can't tell you what my co-worker had for breakfast.

Does that mean I am wrong about what I had for breakfast?

This is the structure of mouse's "logic".

A scientist can tell you X, but can't tell you Y, therefore they must be wrong about X.

This is, by the way a textbook ad hominem logical fallacy (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html).

The truth about what I had for breakfast is completely independent on whether I can tell you what my co-worker had for breakfast.

[RandomGuy]

Because the belief is solid, without exception, therefor it is faith.

I don't see individual atoms, but I believe they exist. Is that faith? I say no. I trust the work of others that have the equipment to tell me what their experiments reveal. How can you make an acceptable scientific experiment to show the Gods don't exist? Until then, it's faith that they don't.

The difference is that one can make solid, verifiable, and reproducible predictions as to the existance and functions of atoms. Hell, we've even gained the ability to *see* atoms.

Do you have a laboratory experiment confirming the existance of your soul or "Gods" that I could reproduce?

[Wild Cobra]

The difference is that one can make solid, verifiable, and reproducible predictions as to the existance and functions of atoms. Hell, we've even gained the ability to *see* atoms.

Do you have a laboratory experiment confirming the existance of your soul or "Gods" that I could reproduce?
I'm not saying believing in a higher power isn't faith. I agree it is. I'm saying that the belief there is no God is also faith, as there is no proof they don't exist, and no way to prove they don't.

To lack faith in this department means being open minded to either possibility. That if you include risk mitigation, it's best if you believe!

[redzero]

I'm not saying believing in a higher power isn't faith. I agree it is. I'm saying that the belief there is no God is also faith, as there is no proof they don't exist, and no way to prove they don't.

To lack faith in this department means being open minded to either possibility. That if you include risk mitigation, it's best if you believe!

Again, it doesn't take faith to not believe in something that has no evidence. The initial position is that something doesn't exist until proven otherwise. Using your way of thinking, there is no limit to what one should believe in.

I know you don't believe in unicorns or the tooth fairy, and yet they are just as likely to exist as a god.

[RandomGuy]

I'm not saying believing in a higher power isn't faith. I agree it is. I'm saying that the belief there is no God is also faith, as there is no proof they don't exist, and no way to prove they don't.

To lack faith in this department means being open minded to either possibility. That if you include risk mitigation, it's best if you believe!

Faith is to believe in something without proof.

We both agree believing in God without proof is faith.

You say NOT believing in God is faith.

I have no proof in the existance of purple unicorns. By your double standard, this is faith too.

Do you have faith that purple unicorns don't exist?

[RandomGuy]

Again, it doesn't take faith to not believe in something that has no evidence. The initial position is that something doesn't exist until proven otherwise. Using your way of thinking, there is no limit to what one should believe in.

I know you don't believe in unicorns or the tooth fairy, and yet they are just as likely to exist as a god.

You beat me to it. :depressed

[lebomb]

This thread has become Inception II.

:huh

[Phenomanul]

Faith is to believe in something without proof.

We both agree believing in God without proof is faith.

You say NOT believing in God is faith.

I have no proof in the existance of purple unicorns. By your double standard, this is faith too.

Do you have faith that purple unicorns don't exist?

Concerning athiests... faith is most certainly interjected when speaking in absolute/or near-absolute terms about the origins of the universe/life [and the claim that natural processes are solely and unquestionably involved].

Not a single person [scientist or other] sitting on that side of the fence has the scientific evidence required to claim that only natural processes were involved. Again, I'll say this: no study surrounding the subject of origins can satisfy the three immutable elements of the scientific method - observation, measurement and repeatability. And yet we find ourselves having this discussion over and over, ad infinitum...

Like it or not... Athiests have placed their faith in the notion that our universe came into existence without any sentient driving force (not necessary placed in the disbelief of GOD - or specifically, the GOD of the Bible)... that the complexity and beauty of life was a numerical happenstance and nothing more. Either way you dice it... your camp's semantical protest to the term is nothing more than that... The steadfast way that athiests hold on to their beliefs, without the scientific evidence to undisputedly back their perspective, is as "religious" as the next guy who believes in a sentient Creator [of some sort].

But the denial that faith is being employed by athiests will continue no matter what those who see it and recognize it may say...

-Peace out.

[redzero]

:lol

He wants the supernatural to be taken into consideration, even though there is no evidence that it even exists.

:rollin

[Drachen]

Concerning athiests... faith is most certainly interjected when speaking in absolute/or near-absolute terms about the origins of the universe/life [and the claim that natural processes are solely and unquestionably involved].

Not a single person [scientist or other] sitting on that side of the fence has the scientific evidence required to claim that only natural processes were involved. Again, I'll say this: no study surrounding the subject of origins can satisfy the three immutable elements of the scientific method - observation, measurement and repeatability. And yet we find ourselves having this discussion over and over, ad infinitum...

Like it or not... Athiests have placed their faith in the notion that our universe came into existence without any sentient driving force (not necessary placed in the disbelief of GOD - or specifically, the GOD of the Bible)... that the complexity and beauty of life was a numerical happenstance and nothing more. Either way you dice it... your camp's semantical protest to the term is nothing more than that... The steadfast way that athiests hold on to their beliefs, without the scientific evidence to undisputedly back their perspective, is as "religious" as the next guy who believes in a sentient Creator [of some sort].

But the denial that faith is being employed by athiests will continue no matter what those who see it and recognize it may say...

-Peace out.

I don't understand why atheists have such a problem with the term faith. I also think that there are two camps here arguing two different things. The "atheist" side is arguing that they do not employ faith because they don't need faith to not believe in something for which there is no proof. I agree. The non-athiest side seems to be arguing that atheists do employ faith because they are believing in something for which they don't have complete evidence. I agree.

I have no problem saying that atheists use faith as a tool because we have very little idea of what happened to jump start the universe.
The reason that I choose science and reason over religion is that the former is actively seeking to understand what happened at that time (eg. LHC). Once they have this evidence, scientists all over the world will seek to disprove it. If it withstands these tests only then will it become accepted, and even then there will be those who will seek to disprove it (although with less ferocity than the original onslaught).

[Blake]

The steadfast way that athiests hold on to their beliefs, without the scientific evidence to undisputedly back their perspective, is as "religious" as the next guy who believes in a sentient Creator [of some sort].


No, it's really not.

I believe you are confusing zeal with faith. It doesn't take hard faith to not believe in something that we can't see. If it is considered faith in this sense, it is a very very loose use of the word.

There is no need to disprove a god. The notion of a creator was apparently made by man. It is up to that man to prove the creator exists.....it's not for another man to prove the creator doesn't.

No matter how many times this argument fallacy has been explained to you, you still continue using it. Very chucklesome. :tu

[JoeChalupa]

No, it's really not.

You are confusing zeal with faith.

There is no need to disprove a god. The notion of a creator was apparently made by man. It is up to that man to prove the creator exists.....it's not for another man to prove the creator doesn't.

No matter how many times this argument fallacy has been explained to you, you still continue using it. Very chucklesome. :tu

God gave that notion to man.

[redzero]

:cry Why won't they take the supernatural seriously? Only natural explanations should require proof. :cry

[RandomGuy]

Concerning athiests... faith is most certainly interjected when speaking in absolute/or near-absolute terms about the origins of the universe/life [and the claim that natural processes are solely and unquestionably involved].

Not a single person [scientist or other] sitting on that side of the fence has the scientific evidence required to claim that only natural processes were involved. Again, I'll say this: no study surrounding the subject of origins can satisfy the three immutable elements of the scientific method - observation, measurement and repeatability. And yet we find ourselves having this discussion over and over, ad infinitum...

Like it or not... Athiests have placed their faith in the notion that our universe came into existence without any sentient driving force (not necessary placed in the disbelief of GOD - or specifically, the GOD of the Bible)... that the complexity and beauty of life was a numerical happenstance and nothing more. Either way you dice it... your camp's semantical protest to the term is nothing more than that... The steadfast way that athiests hold on to their beliefs, without the scientific evidence to undisputedly back their perspective, is as "religious" as the next guy who believes in a sentient Creator [of some sort].

But the denial that faith is being employed by athiests will continue no matter what those who see it and recognize it may say...

-Peace out.

It only becomes "faith" if one tries to insert an emotional "you-too" argument into a logical discussion. The need of theists to somehow claim some minor schoolyard victory causes them to imply, against logic and reason, that atheists MUST have faith too, in order to drag down what is a logical conclusion into the muck of belief in order to beat it to death with a shovel.

Our current understanding of evolution, life on our planet, and the physical processes of the universe's creation don't really require the existance of God/Gods whatever to work.

One can't logically exclude them, but it looks increasingly improbable.

As for there is no "scientific evidence required to claim that only natural processes were involved", that is pretty much empty hand-waving.

"I see your evidence and say unto you: BAH!".

Not really a rebuttal.

All of which covers and distracts from the total absence of any evidence that God really exists, which is I suppose what the ultimate aim of such arguments are.

[Blake]

God gave that notion to man.

That belief takes faith.

It does not, however, take an equal amount of faith to not believe you.

[RandomGuy]

I don't understand why atheists have such a problem with the term faith. I also think that there are two camps here arguing two different things. The "atheist" side is arguing that they do not employ faith because they don't need faith to not believe in something for which there is no proof. I agree. The non-athiest side seems to be arguing that atheists do employ faith because they are believing in something for which they don't have complete evidence. I agree.

I have no problem saying that atheists use faith as a tool because we have very little idea of what happened to jump start the universe.
The reason that I choose science and reason over religion is that the former is actively seeking to understand what happened at that time (eg. LHC). Once they have this evidence, scientists all over the world will seek to disprove it. If it withstands these tests only then will it become accepted, and even then there will be those who will seek to disprove it (although with less ferocity than the original onslaught).

I would tend to agree for the most part.

One cannot exclusively rule out Gods existance, merely conclude that it seems highly improbable that the Bible is the literal word of God.

Who is to say what happened on the other side of the naked singularity...?

[redzero]

All of which covers and distracts from the total absence of any evidence that God really exists, which is I suppose what the ultimate aim of such arguments are.

Exactly. This guy will go on an on for paragraphs about how evolution and the big bang theory are impossible from a scientific standpoint, but when he's asked to prove that a god had something to do with our existence, he either shuts up or claims that skeptics just don't want to accept his evidence.

[JoeChalupa]

That belief takes faith.

It does not, however, take an equal amount of faith to not believe you.

:tu But you do have faith, in a sense, that you are correct. No?

[redzero]

:tu But you do have faith, in a sense, that you are correct. No?

They are not the same thing, regardless of how much you try to equate them with each other.

[MannyIsGod]

LOL @ all the people arguing with mouse on evolution. You might as well debate a rock.

[JoeChalupa]

LOL @ all the people arguing with mouse on evolution. You might as well debate a rock.

But how old is said rock and look what it has evolved into.

[redzero]

LOL @ all the people arguing with mouse on evolution. You might as well debate a rock.

This isn't even about evolution specifically anymore.

And most people here know it is futile to argue with mouse about anything, since he simply doesn't care about facts.

[JoeChalupa]

They are not the same thing, regardless of how much you try to equate them with each other.

Faith is faith no matter how much you try to say it is not.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't think you know what faith means. Believing in something is not faith.

[Blake]

:tu But you do have faith, in a sense, that you are correct. No?

define faith

[Blake]

LOL @ all the people arguing with mouse on evolution. You might as well debate a rock.


But how old is said rock and look what it has evolved into.

mouse has evolved?

I don't see much evidence of it.

[Nathan Explosion]

how does it take faith to not believe something unseen actually exists?

Is this the same type of faith it takes to not believe in Santa Claus?

I always use this analogy. If I went back to the 17-1800s and said, "There are these waves of light, and we can't see them, but they're there. They're invisible to the naked eye, but believe me, they're there. I don't have any proof, but they're there."

People would say I was wrong, and firmly believe it because, there's no way to prove it exists. The burden of proof falls on me, right?

Well, many, many years later, we come to learn that our eyes cannot see the entire spectrum of light, just a small portion of it. But we developed the knowledge and technology to prove I was right.

How long ago did we actually learn that there are these micro-organisms called bacteria that can kill us if we get the "wrong" ones in our system? But without a microscope, I'd have no way to prove definitively that bacteria exist. It would have taken "faith" to believe what I believed, but eventually we developed the technology to figure out that I was right.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Again, I don't believe god exists, nor doesn't exist. But we know so little about our world, and the universe, that there is plenty of room for growth in knowledge. Maybe god does exist, we just don't have the intellect or technology to comprehend that. Or maybe god doesn't exist, and the moment we know 100% about everything in our world and universe (if it is indeed A universe and not one of many), then we can rule him out.

I'm just saying, it's foolish one way or the other to rule out all possibilities with "definite" knowledge despite the fact that our knowledge is anything but. One should NEVER rule out the chance to learn and grow. To do so based on already "knowing" is just plain faith.

And many, many atheists that I encounter are just as stubborn and righteous as a fundamentalist christians in that their belief is 100% correct and they can't be swayed otherwise.

Sad really, to shut yourself off to the possibility of knowledge like that.

[redzero]

I always use this analogy. If I went back to the 17-1800s and said, "There are these waves of light, and we can't see them, but they're there. They're invisible to the naked eye, but believe me, they're there. I don't have any proof, but they're there."

People would say I was wrong, and firmly believe it because, there's no way to prove it exists. The burden of proof falls on me, right?

Well, many, many years later, we come to learn that our eyes cannot see the entire spectrum of light, just a small portion of it. But we developed the knowledge and technology to prove I was right.

How long ago did we actually learn that there are these micro-organisms called bacteria that can kill us if we get the "wrong" ones in our system? But without a microscope, I'd have no way to prove definitively that bacteria exist. It would have taken "faith" to believe what I believed, but eventually we developed the technology to figure out that I was right.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Again, I don't believe god exists, nor doesn't exist. But we know so little about our world, and the universe, that there is plenty of room for growth in knowledge. Maybe god does exist, we just don't have the intellect or technology to comprehend that. Or maybe god doesn't exist, and the moment we know 100% about everything in our world and universe (if it is indeed A universe and not one of many), then we can rule him out.

I'm just saying, it's foolish one way or the other to rule out all possibilities with "definite" knowledge despite the fact that our knowledge is anything but. One should NEVER rule out the chance to learn and grow. To do so based on already "knowing" is just plain faith.

And many, many atheists that I encounter are just as stubborn and righteous as a fundamentalist christians in that their belief is 100% correct and they can't be swayed otherwise.

Sad really, to shut yourself off to the possibility of knowledge like that.

Okay, then the invisible pink unicorn might exist.

We can't detect it with the technology we currently have, but sometime in the future there might be a breakthrough.

[Nathan Explosion]

There is no need to disprove a god. The notion of a creator was apparently made by man. It is up to that man to prove the creator exists.....it's not for another man to prove the creator doesn't.


The one thing that science has trouble explaining is how different cultures in vastly different parts of the world tend to share stories with the same themes, gods, creation, floods, the wipeout of civilization and rebirth of an advanced civilization following some sort of rules.

I find it interesting how the Myans, Jews/Christians (Old Testament), Hindu, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Far East religions, the aborigines, and many other ancient cultures not only tell the same type of stories, but have very similar accounts of them.

Some are obviously influenced by others (like the Bible/Babylonian which are from the same area), but how can the aborigines have so much in common as the Babylonians and the Central America cultures?

Again, not proof, but food for thought.

This (http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html) is a neat little chart showing all the different flood stories and similarities between them.

[redzero]

Again, not proof

Well, there you go.

[Nathan Explosion]

Okay, then the invisible pink unicorn might exist.

We can't detect it with the technology we currently have, but sometime in the future there might be a breakthrough.

I don't think a pink unicorn exists, but if we do find out that one exist in the Congo, then I wouldn't be too shocked. After all, as recently as 1997, there were sites claiming that the Congo still wasn't fully explored. I don't know how true that is now, but the mere fact that we still have lands on this Earth that we don't know about just goes to show how little we know about the universe.

Having said that, how would you have reacted as a non believer in the stories I posted earlier? In the end, I was proven right by science.

Atheist claim to believe in science but many don't even show a desire to let science try and prove them wrong.

[Nathan Explosion]

Well, there you go.

I'm not the one who firmly believes one way or the other without 100% knowledge. I don't have a problem with the absence of proof in any regard. I just say keep an open mind.

Atheist sound so butthurt whenever you challenge their faith and zeal in their beliefs.

[redzero]

Having said that, how would you have reacted as a non believer in the stories I posted earlier? In the end, I was proven right by science.

I'm sorry, how can science--something that is used to explain natural phenomena--ever be able to prove the existence of a supernatural being such as God? You brought up bacteria and waves of light, which are both natural and detectable. The Congo is also natural.

Where does science making the jump from natural to supernatural come in?

[redzero]

I just say keep an open mind.

If something hasn't met the burden of proof, why? There are an infinite amount of things that could exist. Does that mean that we should take all of them into consideration?


Atheist sound so butthurt whenever you challenge their faith and zeal in their beliefs.

It doesn't take faith and zeal to not believe in something that has no evidence.

[Nathan Explosion]

I'm sorry, how can science--something that is used to explain natural phenomena--ever be able to prove the existence of a supernatural being such as God? You brought up bacteria and waves of light, which are both natural and detectable. The Congo is also natural.

Where does science making the jump from natural to supernatural come in?

It may only take the evolution (sorry Mouse :lol) of our brain capacity, or it may be that it's not a supernatural occurrence, only a natural process we fail to understand.

Again, if god is the one who set these occurrences into motion, how can he be above what we deem "natural.

Again, I fail to see why ANYONE would shut of the possibility to further our knowledge. My issue is not what they believe, but their steadfast belief that they are indisputably right.

Science can prove lots of things, but even those things aren't truly absolute. Fact, the freezing temperature of water is 32F, unless it's salt water. Hmmm, variable leads to different outcome. Not so absolute when you have to make a distinction.

The only absolutes we have are mathematical, and even math has theories.

Again, I believe in science, hence why I want science to further my knowledge of our world and universe instead of shutting off certain things because "we don't like them."

[Nathan Explosion]

If something hasn't met the burden of proof, why? There are an infinite amount of things that could exist. Does that mean that we should take all of them into consideration?

Yeah. One should always have a thirst for knowledge. It's the only way our species will grow and evolve (there's that word again) into something better.


It doesn't take faith and zeal to not believe in something that has no evidence.

No, but it takes faith and zeal to defend it as absolute truth.

[Phenomanul]

No, it's really not.

I believe you are confusing zeal with faith. It doesn't take hard faith to not believe in something that we can't see. If it is considered faith in this sense, it is a very very loose use of the word.

There is no need to disprove a god. The notion of a creator was apparently made by man. It is up to that man to prove the creator exists.....it's not for another man to prove the creator doesn't.

No matter how many times this argument fallacy has been explained to you, you still continue using it. Very chucklesome. :tu

yes... your semantic-based rebuttal is chucklesome... zeal is an element of faith...

Logical fallacy explained...??? when? I don't remember someone having obtained scientific evidence from the origin of time and space [or life for that matter]. All naturalists can do is speculate on the probable mechanisms... speculation which is clearly devoid of absolute truth in the context of KNOWING that x, y or ___ [take your pick] theory is the correct one.

[Hipster]

Meh, these religious idiots remind me of this meathead I knew in high school who smoked Marlboro's, ate beef, and didn't know who Neutral Milk Hotel was. I need my scarf if I'm going to put down my ukelele and join in this conversation.

[Hipster]

yes... your semantic-based rebuttal is chucklesome... zeal is an element of faith...

Logical fallacy explained...??? when? I don't remember someone having obtained scientific evidence from the origin of time and space [or life for that matter]. All naturalists can do is speculate on the probable mechanisms... speculation which is clearly devoid of absolute truth in the context of KNOWING that x, y or ___ [take your pick] theory is the correct one.

You sound like the kind of guy who thinks Nirvana is better than Pavement.

[Hipster]

It may only take the evolution (sorry Mouse :lol) of our brain capacity, or it may be that it's not a supernatural occurrence, only a natural process we fail to understand.

Again, if god is the one who set these occurrences into motion, how can he be above what we deem "natural.

Again, I fail to see why ANYONE would shut of the possibility to further our knowledge. My issue is not what they believe, but their steadfast belief that they are indisputably right.

Science can prove lots of things, but even those things aren't truly absolute. Fact, the freezing temperature of water is 32F, unless it's salt water. Hmmm, variable leads to different outcome. Not so absolute when you have to make a distinction.

The only absolutes we have are mathematical, and even math has theories.

Again, I believe in science, hence why I want science to further my knowledge of our world and universe instead of shutting off certain things because "we don't like them."

Oh, sorry, I was too busy adjusting my sunglasses while sitting inside this dimly lit coffee shop to bother with reading your post.

[redzero]

Again, if god is the one who set these occurrences into motion, how can he be above what we deem "natural.

The supernatural is above what is natural, correct? Do natural rules apply to God?


Again, I fail to see why ANYONE would shut of the possibility to further our knowledge. How is that furthering knowledge? "God did it" is the beginning and the end of it. How God did it is unknowable. Why God did it is unknowable. There is no furthering of knowledge.


Science can prove lots of things, but even those things aren't truly absolute. Fact, the freezing temperature of water is 32F, unless it's salt water. Hmmm, variable leads to different outcome. Not so absolute when you have to make a distinction.Why are you bringing up absolutes? Yes, there are variables, and they are taken into account.


Again, I believe in science, hence why I want science to further my knowledge of our world and universe instead of shutting off certain things because "we don't like them."Again, you keep misinterpreting my position. And again, you have failed to explain how science could possibly deal with the supernatural.


Yeah. One should always have a thirst for knowledge. It's the only way our species will grow and evolve (there's that word again) into something better.

And yet again, how does "God did it" quench anybody's thirst for knowledge?


No, but it takes faith and zeal to defend it as absolute truth.And yet again, you bring up absolute truth.

I see mono viewing this thread. He's probably dying to tell us about the Warren Commission.

[monosylab1k]

I see mono viewing this thread. He's probably dying to tell us about the Warren Commission.

I was thinking Communist Manifesto, but the atheist side might take that as a victory.

[JoeChalupa]

I don't think you know what faith means. Believing in something is not faith.

True, but I know what faith means to me and without believing there cannot be faith. But I hear ya.

[JoeChalupa]

Here we go!!

[Nathan Explosion]

I bring up absolute truth because militant atheist treat their belief as such, same as a fundamentalist christian.

There's nothing absolute about it.

I said this in a facism thread once and I'll say it again, when you far enough to either side, you come around on the other side.

Those atheists who defend their beliefs as "the truth" as the same as fundamentalist christians. No one will believe otherwise, and therefore treat it as absolute truth.

Instead of saying why science can't prove this and that, how asking how science can prove something.

You may not be able to explain how something came about, but I bet you can expain the mechanics of such a thing. A mechanic may be able to tell you how a car runs, but I bet he can't explain the assembly line process involved.

Or you have the watchmaker analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watchmaker_analogy) you can contend with.

Having said that, I always said if Christians wanted, they could have an easy out. The theory goes that the big bang happened, and all other process came about. But what caused the big bang? Insert god here.

Well, how do you explain evolution. New christians can say that our animals have always existed if false, plain and simple. It's okay to admit mistakes. Having said that, god could have set the entire mechanism into order and let it take it's course (the watchmaker). Just add god to the reason that our natural processes take place and there you go.

You see, the problem is that while science can explain how things work, it can't explain why or how those processes began.

Again, not my belief, but it is something.

Oh, and before you bring in the bible saying this and that about time and creation, the bible is not the literal word of god. Most christians will tell you that.

And anyhow, can you explain the similar flood stories I posted earlier?

[MannyIsGod]

In truth many cultures having flood stories is very difficult to explain. Floods are isolated events not experienced across the entire globe and it is very hard to believe that every culture on earth has experienced floods and incorporated stories of floods into their culture.

Let me know when every culture has a burning bush story.

[JoeChalupa]

define faith For me it is believing in something one has no proof of to show others but it can have different meanings of course. Let's say you at the plate and you believe you are going to hit a homer..that is faith. Going up to a woman who is way out of your league and believing she is going to say yes when asked out is faith. Blind faith perhaps but faith none the less.
But yeah, believing in something is not actually faith I guess.

[MannyIsGod]

How would Native American (and Egyptians and Chinese and Mesopotamians near large rivers) view the flooding of the Mississippi?

How would people around the Indian and Pacific oceans have viewed tsunamis?

Is it really that hard to understand why so many cultures have a flood story?

[MannyIsGod]

And for the record, I agree with your take on hardcore atheists with a closed mind. Thats very similar to fundamentalist members of any religion.

[Blake]

zeal is an element of faith...

says who?


Logical fallacy explained...??? when? I don't remember someone having obtained scientific evidence from the origin of time and space [or life for that matter]. All naturalists can do is speculate on the probable mechanisms... speculation which is clearly devoid of absolute truth in the context of KNOWING that x, y or ___ [take your pick] theory is the correct one.

Nobody previously mentioned naturalists here.

more fallacy on your part.

I have faith there is more fallacy to come.

[Blake]

Oh, and before you bring in the bible saying this and that about time and creation, the bible is not the literal word of god. Most christians will tell you that.

And anyhow, can you explain the similar flood stories I posted earlier?

so which religion is correct?

[Blake]

For me it is believing in something one has no proof of to show others but it can have different meanings of course. Let's say you at the plate and you believe you are going to hit a homer..that is faith. Going up to a woman who is way out of your league and believing she is going to say yes when asked out is faith. Blind faith perhaps but faith none the less.

those examples are testable to find out if true or not.


But yeah, believing in something is not actually faith I guess.

believing in something you can't see is faith.

if you want to say that it's faith that people don't believe in God, then we are just playing around with definitions of faith.

[Phenomanul]

says who?



Nobody previously mentioned naturalists here.

more fallacy on your part.

I have faith there is more fallacy to come.

:lol

just continue playing around with the words... you just LOVE those sarcastic digs.

The post you segmented was a response to RG. I pointed out that belief in a notion [one most athiests share] in which random chance, and natural processes are solely responsible for the origins of the universe and life still requires faith due to the lack of scientific evidence to positively back such a claim... AND seeing how that was the central focus of my post, the only fallacy here was your own ability to read.

My only error was engaging you in discourse... [yet again].

But go on... get the last word. You've always had it.

[JoeChalupa]

those examples are testable to find out if true or not.



believing in something you can't see is faith.

if you want to say that it's faith that people don't believe in God, then we are just playing around with definitions of faith.

That is a correct statement.

[ALVAREZ6]

The one thing that science has trouble explaining is how different cultures in vastly different parts of the world tend to share stories with the same themes, gods, creation, floods, the wipeout of civilization and rebirth of an advanced civilization following some sort of rules.

I find it interesting how the Myans, Jews/Christians (Old Testament), Hindu, Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, Far East religions, the aborigines, and many other ancient cultures not only tell the same type of stories, but have very similar accounts of them.

Some are obviously influenced by others (like the Bible/Babylonian which are from the same area), but how can the aborigines have so much in common as the Babylonians and the Central America cultures?

Again, not proof, but food for thought.

This (http://www.nwcreation.net/noahlegends.html) is a neat little chart showing all the different flood stories and similarities between them.
Maybe because all of those fuckers were selling the same story in a slightly different way.

I take these types of similarities and do the opposite with them. Same thing with the story of Jesus...lol there have been a ton of "Jesuses" in different cultures throughout the world with identical life stories. They all support a different religion, and either one or none of the above have complete accuracy/truth throughout all of the scriptures (no other outcomes).

The fact that the 3 major religions have some similarity yet are radically different in many areas with each other...to the Muslims' eyes all Christians are going to hell, and vice versa, but they're using some of the same basic principles to sell themselves to followers... my bet is everyone's wrong.

[Drachen]

I'm not the one who firmly believes one way or the other without 100% knowledge. I don't have a problem with the absence of proof in any regard. I just say keep an open mind.

Atheist sound so butthurt whenever you challenge their faith and zeal in their beliefs.

Have you read "Demon Haunted World, Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan? I think you would like it. Plus, while it doesn't specifically mention an invisible pink unicorn, it does mention an invisible dragon with heatless fire breath whose skin does not "hold onto" any flour thrown on it and can anticipate your moves to avoid your hands trying to touch it. LOL

If you have read the book, you will get that, if you haven't it will seem crazy, until you know the context.
It is hands down my favorite book and if you read it, you will find that it seemingly follows your arguments here (and much more).

[mouse]

you said evidence... do you know what evidence is?

Show me what you have.

[mouse]

(winces)

That is just a hodge podge of bad logic.

Just because you can't seem to comprehend something doesn't make it hodge podge of bad logic


I can tell you for certain what I had for breakfast today, but can't tell you what my co-worker had for breakfast.

But you do know its a type of food.


Does that mean I am wrong about what I had for breakfast?

It just means your not the right person to go around writing books on the subject.



This is the structure of mouse's "logic".

Before or after the hodge podge of bad logic?


A scientist can tell you X, but can't tell you Y, therefore they must be wrong about X.

Then how do you call yourself a scientist if you don't know shit?



The truth about what I had for breakfast is completely independent on whether I can tell you what my co-worker had for breakfast.

As long as you don't tell kids in the school books what man had for breakfast 20 million years ago your not really the problem.

Your mini rant adds nothing much to the topic. yes you and others like Manny focus on the topic starter and LOL at mouse, mouse is a retard,etc...


I think we get it. Anyone who still needs updates on me is either to new to make judgments themselves, or they are lacking in brain matter since they constantly need the immature reminders.

Do people who quote MLK have to remind people he was black?

Does Bill gates have to remind people what he accomplished before he orders Pizza over the www?

I honestly think I intimidate many for them to take the time to have to address me and my style of expressing myself before they can reply to any subject matter I present.

[mouse]

You mean "intelligent design"?

I would have said ID I said AD if you have problems reading then this topic may not be the place for you. (responding to your semi insults on page three)
see how immature you sound?




Isn't that the theory that a judge found

A judge may find OJ and Robert Blake to be innocent does that mean they are?




to be pretty blatantly motivated entirely by people pushing a literal interpretation of Christian Biblical creation?

Like I said before I don't support creationist please try and keep up.

[mouse]

LOL @ all the people arguing with mouse

That's quite a few people who do it on a daily basis you must do allot of LoL'ng.

[mouse]

How would Native American (and Egyptians and Chinese and Mesopotamians near large rivers) view the flooding of the Mississippi?

How would people around the Indian and Pacific oceans have viewed tsunamis?

Is it really that hard to understand why so many cultures have a flood story?


There is scientific evidence the "earth" as a whole was flooded at one time around 6,000 years ago. Fossils that were known to be buried deep in the earth have been found on may mountain tops. So either there was a hug flood or else those fossils are not as old as the scientist claim them to be.


As for the original topic subject my point was I notice on many programs about the earth and space Darwin is not mentioned anymore, thus the reason for the Evolution may be slowing dying in many circles.

[Fpoonsie]

There is scientific evidence the "earth" as a whole was flooded at one time around 6,000 years ago.

Were scientists simply trying to be ironic when they put "earth" in quotes?

[Blake]

:=The post you segmented was a response to RG.

If it was a response to RG, it was not clear......mainly because you very directly quoted me over that particular segment. Let me know if you need the link back to that post.


I pointed out that belief in a notion [one most athiests share] in which random chance, and natural processes are solely responsible for the origins of the universe and life still requires faith due to the lack of scientific evidence to positively back such a claim... AND seeing how that was the central focus of my post, the only fallacy here was your own ability to read.

true or false: it takes faith to not believe in Santa Claus.


My only error was engaging you in discourse... [yet again].

That wasn't your only error. The only one who thinks you are free from error in these threads is you.


But go on... get the last word. You've always had it.

Pretty much, but I have faith you'll try again to get it.

[Blake]

There is scientific evidence the "earth" as a whole was flooded at one time around 6,000 years ago.

How do you know? Were you there to see with your own eyes? Did they have cameras?

/mouse

[Blake]

That's quite a few people who do it on a daily basis you must do allot of LoL'ng.

I know I do a lot of LoLing at you.

[Blake]

I would have said ID I said AD if you have problems reading then this topic may not be the place for you.

Oddly enough, I dont think we have ever fully heard your alternative design theory. Please share.

[mouse]

AD is what it says. Alternative Design.


It gives many the alternative from the bible,creationism.Intelligent design, and Evolution.


We don't believe in the Ape to man theory.

We don't totally believe in the Bible. (the bible does has some historical facts)

We don't support creation.

We keep away from Intelligent design after they screwed up and used the word creation which domed them from the start and thus they lost in court.

Alternative Design allows for open minded people to consider alien beings or unknown powerful energy sources, and other creative thinking that we may not be able to mentally comprehend as a reason we may be on this planet but have the freedom to explore all possibilities.

We can't be labeled Evolutionist, bible thumper's, or Intelligent design supporters.

And we like to keep it that way.

I personaly back in 1978-79 and in 81 experienced a rare event that not only changed my life but my way of thinking about the universe and mankinds exzistance on this planet.
Its not fare I don't share this with others and time is getting near when I will have to reveal my given knowledge to those who deserve it.

[mouse]

I know I do a lot of LoLing at you.


Glad to be part of your everyday life experience.

[Blake]

AD is what it says. Alternative Design.

We don't support creation.


Main Entry: create

Synonyms: actualize, author, beget, bring into being, bring into existence, bring to pass, build, cause to be, coin, compose, conceive, concoct, constitute, construct, contrive, design

creation is what it says


We keep away from Intelligent design after they screwed up and used the word creation which domed them from the start and thus they lost in court.

Alternative Design allows for open minded people to consider alien beings or unknown powerful energy sources, and other creative thinking that we may not be able to mentally comprehend as a reason we may be on this planet but have the freedom to explore all possibilities.

So you are saying you are against Intelligent Design but still consider the idea that we are here by the design of intelligent alien beings.


lol

Your AD theory isn't really a theory.

It's a support group (apparently of one member) that doesn't know what it's supporting.

[Blake]

Glad to be part of your everyday life experience.

LoL

[TimothyLeary]

I personaly back in 1978-79 and in 81 experienced a rare event that not only changed my life but my way of thinking about the universe and mankinds exzistance on this planet.
Its not fare I don't share this with others and time is getting near when I will have to reveal my given knowledge to those who deserve it.

Good acid?

[RandomGuy]

many, many atheists that I encounter are just as stubborn and righteous as a fundamentalist christians in that their belief is 100% correct and they can't be swayed otherwise.

I agree with that totally.

Fundamentalist aethist is not quite a contradiction in terms.

It is one thing to have formulated a worldview, it is quite another to be a total jackass about it.

[RandomGuy]

It may only take the evolution (sorry Mouse :lol) of our brain capacity, or it may be that it's not a supernatural occurrence, only a natural process we fail to understand.

Again, if god is the one who set these occurrences into motion, how can he be above what we deem "natural.

Again, I fail to see why ANYONE would shut of the possibility to further our knowledge. My issue is not what they believe, but their steadfast belief that they are indisputably right.

Science can prove lots of things, but even those things aren't truly absolute. Fact, the freezing temperature of water is 32F, unless it's salt water. Hmmm, variable leads to different outcome. Not so absolute when you have to make a distinction.

The only absolutes we have are mathematical, and even math has theories.

Again, I believe in science, hence why I want science to further my knowledge of our world and universe instead of shutting off certain things because "we don't like them."

We have come to understand the nature of the development of the human brain fairly well.

It is simply a combination of traits that provided a reproductive edge over populations of hominids that didn't have them.

Human beings, even before the industrial revolution, had spread to every climate and area of the globe.

Communication, tool usage, and the ability to reason abstractly seemed to have been an explosive combination.

[RandomGuy]

AD is what it says. Alternative Design.


It gives many the alternative from the bible,creationism.Intelligent design, and Evolution.


We don't believe in the Ape to man theory.

We don't totally believe in the Bible. (the bible does has some historical facts)

We don't support creation.

We keep away from Intelligent design after they screwed up and used the word creation which domed them from the start and thus they lost in court.

Alternative Design allows for open minded people to consider alien beings or unknown powerful energy sources, and other creative thinking that we may not be able to mentally comprehend as a reason we may be on this planet but have the freedom to explore all possibilities.

We can't be labeled Evolutionist, bible thumper's, or Intelligent design supporters.

And we like to keep it that way.

I personaly back in 1978-79 and in 81 experienced a rare event that not only changed my life but my way of thinking about the universe and mankinds exzistance on this planet.
Its not fare I don't share this with others and time is getting near when I will have to reveal my given knowledge to those who deserve it.

Fair enough. AD wasn't a simple typo/misspelling of ID.

My apologies for making an incorrect assumption in that regard.

That said, it still draws massively from ID in both form and substance.

Same bad logic, same lies, same distortions of science.

If you have to lie to people to make your case, your case isn't worth listening to.

[Zelophehad]

lmao religious people who get all insecure and butthurt about evolution. If you believe you have to make a leap of faith. Not a leap of ignorance, which ignores science.

[RandomGuy]

I have no proof in the existance of purple unicorns. By your double standard, this is faith too.

Do you have faith that purple unicorns don't exist?


Concerning athiests... faith is most certainly interjected when speaking in absolute/or near-absolute terms about the origins of the universe/life [and the claim that natural processes are solely and unquestionably involved].

Not a single person [scientist or other] sitting on that side of the fence has the scientific evidence required to claim that only natural processes were involved. Again, I'll say this: no study surrounding the subject of origins can satisfy the three immutable elements of the scientific method - observation, measurement and repeatability. And yet we find ourselves having this discussion over and over, ad infinitum...

Like it or not... Athiests have placed their faith in the notion that our universe came into existence without any sentient driving force (not necessary placed in the disbelief of GOD - or specifically, the GOD of the Bible)... that the complexity and beauty of life was a numerical happenstance and nothing more. Either way you dice it... your camp's semantical protest to the term is nothing more than that... The steadfast way that athiests hold on to their beliefs, without the scientific evidence to undisputedly back their perspective, is as "religious" as the next guy who believes in a sentient Creator [of some sort].

But the denial that faith is being employed by athiests will continue no matter what those who see it and recognize it may say...

-Peace out.

You did not answer my question. It was not rhetorical.

I think the application of the word "faith" in this manner constitutes little more than a strawman fallacy.

Do you have faith that purple unicorns do not exist?

[RandomGuy]

I was watching a Natural geographic special about Ancient aliens and proof Intelligent life was here 1000s of years ago and they even mentioned the Bible of proof scriptures talk about flaming chariots in the sky. Talked about how scientist now know there are other galaxy's with life forms. And how we could be descendants of ancient aliens.

Funny thing they never brought up Darwin and how this may have an effect on evolution as a whole I found that intriguing.

Is Evolution slowly dying?

They have hundreds of scientific papers every year published in the field of biology, genetics, and physics. The theory of evolution makes verifiable, testible hypotheses that have been borne out time and time again, much to the consternation of creationists of any stripe, ID/AD etc.

We have observed new species being formed in nature, have observed the natural formation of new species in tightly controlled lab experiments, constructed down to the exact genetic level the precise mechanisms of evolution and speciation, and increase our cumulative knowledge with each passing year.

Against this there is what? A mildly interesting documentary detailing a few theories that you find emotionally appealing?

That's what you are going with? Really?

To my knowledge you have never completed a college level physics, chemistry, algebra, trigonometry, statistics, genetics, biology class.

It is as if you are attempting literary criticism of another languages classic works after being taught by the friend of a friend how to ask where the toilet is.

Do you really think you understand the science well enough to state conclusively that the theory of evolution is being discredited?

[Blake]

Do you have faith that purple unicorns do not exist?

I don't understand why persons like this can't answer a simple question.

[mouse]

To my knowledge you have never completed a college level physics, chemistry, algebra, trigonometry, statistics, genetics, biology class.



So then I take it you don't want to hear anymore I have to say and have no further comments to add. I did get a merit badge three days before my Cub scout master's son back in 1974 does that count for anything?

[mouse]

I don't understand why persons like this can't answer a simple question.


It's simple according to RamdomLie he's not qualified to answer.



To my knowledge you have never completed a college level physics, chemistry, algebra, trigonometry, statistics, genetics, biology class.

[RandomGuy]

So then I take it you don't want to hear anymore I have to say and have no further comments to add. I did get a merit badge three days before my Cub scout master's son back in 1974 does that count for anything?

If you want to claim that a theory "is slowly dying", but you lack the background to understand the theory, much less explain it to anyone, you open yourself up to such questions.

Define the theory of evolution then.

Show me you understand it, because you continually make statements that directly go against modern understanding of the process.

[mouse]

.

That said, it still draws massively from ID in both form and substance.

Evolution draws from Beauty and the beast so what's your point?
If your going to split hairs and compare each word this closely then your 9/11 debate replies in the politics forum will have to be modified as September 11th draws from pear harbor.



Same bad logic, same lies, same distortions of science.

Isn't that just your personal opinion? Same could be said about Evolution and other subjects. If your so against alien life and think the history Chanel is so full of shit shouldn't you be E-mailing them instead of wasting your time with an uneducated person as myself?


If you have to lie to people to make your case, your case isn't worth listening to.

Proof of such lies?

[RandomGuy]

It's simple according to RamdomLie he's not qualified to answer.

A discussion of faith does not hinge on much education.

A discussion on the scientific merits of a theory and whether it "is dying"... does.

Nice try, but no banana.

[mouse]

Nice try, but no banana.


Save your banana for your Ape ancestors.

And why are you responding to an uneducated liar?

[Drachen]

whoops.

[JoeChalupa]

Did plantains evolve into the banana? Or vice versa?

[Drachen]

Did plantains evolve into the banana? Or vice versa?

Probably a common ancestor, much like apes/chimps/humans. Honestly, I don't know though.

[ALVAREZ6]

Save your banana for your Ape ancestors.

And why are you responding to an uneducated liar?
:lmao

As if you can cause any intelligent person to feel shameful for having a common ancestor with monkeys....a fuckload of time ago.

In fact, we are apes, mouse. Wikipedia is a great tool, you should honestly be on it hours a day to educate yourself for free. Very organized information.

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

The Hominidae (anglicized hominids, also known as great apes[notes 1] or humans and great apes), as the term is used here, form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and orangutans.[1] In the past, the term was used in the more restricted sense of humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees.

You humiliated?

Mouse, you're an ape!!!! What are you gonna do about it, :cry ? OR you can just not give a fuck, being a human is pretty damn great.

[redzero]

You humiliated?

Mouse, you're an ape!!!! What are you gonna do about it, :cry ? OR you can just not give a fuck, being a human is pretty damn great.

You do know that mouse will ignore your response and bring up the same exact thing again, right?

[RandomGuy]

Did plantains evolve into the banana? Or vice versa?

Banana trees are sterile hybrids, like mules. They are propagated by splicing sections of a tree off and planting the spice.

This makes them uniquely vulnerable to diseases and insects. Since they can't be evolved to develop resistance.

The current global supply of these sterile hybrids is being ravaged by both, and is currently estimated to be commercially unviable within 20 years or so.

I read this somewhere in an Economist artile (NPR maybe?), but the wiki article backs this up.

It also states that this happened to at least one previous early variety.


While in no danger of outright extinction, the most common edible banana cultivar Cavendish (extremely popular in Europe and the Americas) could become unviable for large-scale cultivation in the next 10–20 years. Its predecessor 'Gros Michel', discovered in the 1820s, suffered this fate. Like almost all bananas, Cavendish lacks genetic diversity, which makes it vulnerable to diseases, threatening both commercial cultivation and small-scale subsistence farming.[47][48] Some commentators remarked that those variants which could replace what much of the world considers a "typical banana" are so different that most people would not consider them the same fruit, and blame the decline of the banana on monogenetic cultivation driven by short-term commercial motives.

To answer your question, current bananas were cross bred by very adept farmers over a hundred years ago.

[RandomGuy]

Save your banana for your Ape ancestors.

And why are you responding to an uneducated liar?

You wanted me to point out a lie on your part and there it is.

Humans did not evolve from apes. No one has ever claimed otherwise.

Want to claim we evolved from snails next?

As I said before, you can't even get the theory you are attempting to debunk right, how are we to take your word that it is "dying"?

[RandomGuy]

Same bad logic, same lies, same distortions of science.



Isn't that just your personal opinion? Same could be said about Evolution and other subjects. If your so against alien life and think the history Chanel is so full of shit shouldn't you be E-mailing them instead of wasting your time with an uneducated person as myself?

Proof of such lies?


Up is not down, left is not right, and blue is not red no matter what my opinion.

Logic follows certain rules and can be easily, readily determined. It does not matter what my opinion is, but what does matter is the circular logic, and provable logical fallacies you use continually to support your irrational belief system.

I feel little need to catalogue them for you again at this point.

It generally boils down to cicular logic and ad hominem for the most part, both specific terms within the study of logic. I would say look them up, but I have given you the definitions and explanations time after time after time.

I'm not "against" alien life. I am sure it exists.

I don't think aliens had a hand in our evolution though. There is little to no evidence of it.

There is even less evidence that our planet is 6000-10000 years old.

As for the History Channel, I love 'em. History, Science, and Discovery channels are my idea of a good time.

That doesn't mean I am going to believe everything I see on the History channel is outright gospel. They do occasionally supply a platform for interesting stuff like the ancient alien show, but one has to take such stuff with a grain of salt.

There is some intriguing, unexplained stuff out there, but it hardly rises to any level of certainty by any scientific metric.

[mouse]

:lmao

As if you can cause any intelligent person to feel shameful for having a common ancestor with monkeys....a fuckload of time ago.


So if you found out your mom had sex with Koriwhat would it be ok as long as it was a fucklaod of time ago?

Or would it still matter, think about it you knowing your part of Koriwhat's sperm? to be honest it creeps me out and i am not in your shoes.

also.....all the info your used to believing in is changing daily..even the most ignorant evolutionist will admit science is always learning and changing.

example one day sunlight is goo for you the next year its bad for you. At one time tobacco was good for you science backed it up.

So why would you be so hard headed to change and new discovers is that a problem you have processing information?




In fact, we are apes, mouse. Wikipedia is a great tool, you should honestly be on it hours a day to educate yourself for free. Very organized information.

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

Your who life evolves around Wikipedia?

Do I need to post the millions of Wikipedia posting that had to be removed due to no proof?


http://www.wikipedia-is-wrong.com/





Mouse, you're an ape!!!! What are you gonna do about it

Find out who removed my tail and sue them.





:cry ? OR you can just not give a fuck, being a human is pretty damn great.

I used to respect your input.

[RandomGuy]

Find out who removed my tail and sue them.


One of the things that differentiates apes from monkeys is the lack of a tail, FYI.

[ALVAREZ6]

You do know that mouse will ignore your response and bring up the same exact thing again, right?

lol, of course, that's why I wasted very little effort and time in this thread. It's been a while since I've decided to partially retire from religion threads, because it's having the same argument over and over. If the debate gets interesting I may join in from time to time, but god no will I carry out another back-and-forth debate with mouse ever again.

[RandomGuy]

also.....all the info your used to believing in is changing daily..even the most ignorant evolutionist will admit science is always learning and changing.

example one day sunlight is goo for you the next year its bad for you. At one time tobacco was good for you science backed it up.

Yet another example of ad hominem.

"Science was wrong about X, therefore how can you believe they are right about Y?"



An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:


Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Science does indeed get things wrong.

That does not logically do anything to refute the theory of evolution specifically.

It is either valid and useful or not based on the strength of the evidence.

Evidence you don't bother to read or attempt to understand.

It isn't "cool" and "anti-establishment" enough, I guess.

[redzero]

And mouse just showed that he doesn't know what a citation is.

PROTIP: If you don't believe something you read on Wikipedia, check the source. If there is no source, remain skeptical. Those numbers next to phrases exist for a reason.

[RandomGuy]

All your fallacies belong to us.

[RandomGuy]

Your who life evolves around Wikipedia?

Do I need to post the millions of Wikipedia posting that had to be removed due to no proof?


http://www.wikipedia-is-wrong.com/

It shows there is a healthy weeding out of unsupported BS.

I have little doubt there is still a good deal of incorrect information in wikipedia.

That said, it has a vast amount of correct information that far outweighs this. On that balance that makes it a tool that provides for a good start in research.

One should approach it as one should approach anything online. Look for outside verification, and wider context.

[ALVAREZ6]

So if you found out your mom had sex with Koriwhat would it be ok as long as it was a fucklaod of time ago?
I'll bring up a key aspect, why this isn't a good response, mouse. My mom having sex with koriwhat is something I would never approve of, doesn't matter when. Me learning that I share a common ancestor with chimps and the like, however long ago us humans evolved away, does not phase me one bit. Hell, I could have been born a gorilla and morphed into a human 2 years later, and I would not look back and say, "Fuck, I'm some piece of shit for having been a monkey."


[quote]
also.....all the info your used to believing in is changing daily..even the most ignorant evolutionist will admit science is always learning and changing.
Bold: correct
Red: incorrect, particularly focusing on the underline


example one day sunlight is goo for you the next year its bad for you. At one time tobacco was good for you science backed it up.
These are some examples, mouse, but they're not everything we know. And, they're not even completely correct. The sunlight issue is not black and white, like so much of our world. Moderation is the key. Some sunlight is good for you, way too much is not. Just like no sunlight at all, ever, is not too good.

[mouse]

I'll bring up a key aspect mouse, not everything we know. And, they're not even completely correct. The sunlight issue is not black and white, like so much of our world. Moderation is the key. Some sunlight is good for you, way too much is not. Just like no sunlight at all, ever, is not too good.


Sunlight: Good


http://hubpages.com/hub/Sunlight-Good-versus-Bad

sunlight : Bad
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/diseases/skin_cancer.html

[ALVAREZ6]

Sunlight: Good


http://hubpages.com/hub/Sunlight-Good-versus-Bad

sunlight : Bad
http://www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/diseases/skin_cancer.html

Well, you clearly didn't actually read AND understand what I said, so let's try again:


The sunlight issue is not black and white, like so much of our world. Moderation is the key. Some sunlight is good for you, way too much is not. Just like no sunlight at all, ever, is not too good.

Even my mother, who has survived stage 4 melanoma (the deadliest stage of the deadliest type of skin cancer), will tell you that some sun is good for you. She isn't a brilliant scientist or anything, just educated enough to know how to read, and understand.

[mouse]

One of the things that differentiates apes from monkeys is the lack of a tail, FYI.

How would they not have a tail wouldn't you want to let others know your life story?


Pssssst! I hate to break it to you but we all have tails.

Some are long like a Greyhound others are short like rabbit and ours are under the skin.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/1111111-1.jpg


But if you did your homework you would know that already. And I am the "uneducated" one?

I think not. how many people you know changed our live today and didn't finish collage or high school?

For you lame one's who couldn't wait until page 5 to pull out the "where is your certificate of graduation" card tells me a lot about the gene pool in this topic.

Darwin teaches us Evolution changes to better itself in time that is why ape went to be a man but if that was true, why would we lose our tails?

how is losing tail helping us evolve for the better?


After all how many times have you wished you had one?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-266276.png

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-264855.png

[ALVAREZ6]

LMAO, humans have no use for a tail, mouse.

They do help many 4-legged animals for balance, though.

[redzero]

Mouse posts so much stupid shit. The worst part is that I really want to correct him, but I know he won't pay attention to anything.

[mouse]

LMAO, humans have no use for a tail, mouse.

They do help many 4-legged animals for balance, though.

W/O the tailbone you couldn't take a crap which might explain why your so full of..................

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-263524.png

[ALVAREZ6]

I'm sorry, what was that, was that mouse posting some more nonsense instead of accepting and learning from his mistakes in logic?

[RandomGuy]

Mouse posts so much stupid shit. The worst part is that I really want to correct him, but I know he won't pay attention to anything.

Yup.

Pretty much the same stupid shit over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...

That is why I am fairly sure that even he doesn't believe a good chunk of it, on a level deep down that he won't admit to.

[RandomGuy]

How would they not have a tail wouldn't you want to let others know your life story?


Pssssst! I hate to break it to you but we all have tails.

Some are long like a Greyhound others are short like rabbit and ours are under the skin.


http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/1111111-1.jpg


But if you did your homework you would know that already. And I am the "uneducated" one?

I think not. how many people you know changed our live today and didn't finish collage or high school?

For you lame one's who couldn't wait until page 5 to pull out the "where is your certificate of graduation" card tells me a lot about the gene pool in this topic.

Darwin teaches us Evolution changes to better itself in time that is why ape went to be a man but if that was true, why would we lose our tails?

how is losing tail helping us evolve for the better?


After all how many times have you wished you had one?

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-266276.png

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-264855.png

This entire post is simply a mischaractorization of the theory of evolution, yet again.

The person who orginally made that lie is either ignorant of the theory in its current form, or deliberately leaving things out. I think the majority of the creationist stuff you latch on to is mostly ignorant, with a touch of deliberate half-truths.

Your problem is that you don't know enough about the theory you are criticizing to be able to figure that out for yourself.

[RandomGuy]

W/O the tailbone you couldn't take a crap which might explain why your so full of..................

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-263524.png

Not sure what the purpose of your 17 year old magazine clip is, but here an interesting recent development in our understanding of the evolution of whales:

Whales Descended From Tiny Deer-Like Ancestors (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071220220241.htm)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/images/2007/12/071220220241.jpg

Evolutionary theory predicts that between the ancient and the new we will find distinct intermediary species. This prediction is borne out in the field.

Will we find EVERY intermediary species? No. Geology determines what is preserved and found, and it is simply not possible to re-contruct 100% of the fossil record. We don't need to do so.

Will some very ancient species still be around? Yes.

This does not contradict evolutionary theory. We would expect to see successful, wide-ranging species that are well adapted to stick around.

Neither bit stops creationists from saying that the lack of finding every intermediary species and the existance of very old species disproves the theory of evolution. Both assertions are based on a misunderstanding of the theory itself. In this, they are simply lies, since they misstate what the theory of evolution is, then attempt to disprove a distortion of the real theory.

Biologist:
"2 + 2 = 4"

Creationist:
"The biologist says that 2 + 2 = 5, what an idiot. Everybody knows that's wrong. See, you can disprove his theory right off the bat!"

I don't think the lying is really deliberate for the most part. A lot of it is simple ignorance, and the very human tendency towards confirmation bias.

[RandomGuy]

For those interested in the case I think mouse was trying to make about whales:

Scientific Roadblocks to Whale Evolution (http://www.icr.org/article/scientific-roadblocks-whale-evolution/) (from a Christian creationist website)

Seems to be a fairly old article, as none of the citations are newer than 1997.

It is fairly standard creationist fare. It attempts to make the article "feel" scientific by quoting scientific articles and scientists, but makes several outright misstatements and "hand-wavy" dismissals.

"This is impossible. Why? Because I said it is."

About the only thing that the guy gets right is that ". . . the evolutionary origin of whales remains controversial among zoologists."

Of course, none of this controversy is presented in a fair manner. For the creationist, disagreement as to the exact ancestor is cause to dismiss the entire "wild idea" of evolution, as if a disagreement among people measuring the number of atoms in a glass of water means there is no water in the glass.

The biggest lie in the article seems pretty willfully misleading.


Macroevolutionists cannot appeal to natural selection to produce amazing structures like the countercurrent system [that helps whales retain body warmth], although comparative physiologists present countercurrent exchange found in gills and kidneys as structures that repeatedly evolved.

Indeed, no known process can turn a four-legged land creature into a blue whale: "Natural selection can act only on those biologic properties that already exist; it cannot create properties in order to meet adaptational needs."9 Specifically, natural selection cannot produce new structures

Pretty much this entire paragraph, the lynchpin of the article is factually incorrect, and I think pretty willfully dishonest.

1. No biologist has ever claimed "natural selection produces new structures in an organism". This is a mischaractorization of evolutionary theory. (see strawman logical fallacy)

2. "no known process can turn a four-legged land creature into a blue whale" is blatantly false. Mutation and natural selection, a fully known process, pretty adequately explains this. This is a prime example of "hand wavy" dimissals. "2 + 2 =4? Why that is simply impossible!"

That is essentially a tautology and the kind of circular reasoning that creationists constantlly partake in. "Evolution is wrong, therefore it cannot explain how land animals turned into whales"

Bad logic, misleading "facts" and provable ignorance.

It is the kind of thing that only really appeals to the converted seeking some cloak of "truthiness" for their pre-existing beliefs.

[mouse]

I thought you didn't debate with others who have not shown their educational achievements?

The last photo I posted while drinking rolling rock is to show people that the so-called useless bone people claim used to be a leg on a whale is actually a bone used in mating.

Those of you who are ignorant to think man does not use his tail bone need to visit your proctologist and ask him or her.

The human tailbone is very important.

As far as posting something over and over and over as you say..could it be because your replies show your not getting the points I make?

Maybe if your shallow minds could absorb some of this knowledge I offer we could move on in other areas but you guys seem to be stuck on stupid.

on a side note: don't talk about me posting pictures from a 17 year old book and you have the nerve to quote Darwin and show fossil charts from the 1600s?

I don't see how 1993 is that far away considering your minds are stuck in the 1700s

I can see many in here don't possess the mental capability it takes to have a civil conversation, and the sad part is you all have all these so-called diplomas and achievements you expect others to have and yet you can't even seem to reply in a manor that is productive.



bones they show in the museums when they are telling kids whales used to have legs.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-263349.png

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-263295.png

the bones are still used today in helping whales mate.
http://www.viewoverberg.com/Images/www_Mating.jpg

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/ee/v2/whale-vestigial-structure.jpg


The pelvic bone in whales serves as an important anchor for muscles of the reproductive organs. Contrary to the claim in this figure, a structure cannot “show structural change over time.” The change over time must be inferred from assumptions about the fossil record and evolution. To know if an organ is vestigial, you must know its ancestors and exactly how the organ was used by those ancestors.





More lies in the text books.

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-263489.png

[ALVAREZ6]

I don't see how 1993 is that far away considering your minds are stuck in the 1700s

Another fallacy of logic my friend. I couldn't tell you the name of this fallacy, but one nonetheless.

If our minds are stuck in the 1700s (technically 1800s), yours is stuck somewhere from thousands of years ago. :rolleyes

[RandomGuy]

you can't even seem to reply in a manor that is productive.

:lmao

... says the guy that repeats the same debunked stuff over and over and over and over.


"2 + 2 = 5"



No, actually it doesn't. See here are two pennies, and I put them with two more pennies, then you can count them, one, two, three, four.


Nuh-uh, 2 + 2 = 5



No, really, did you bother counting them? I put them right there for you.


I don't need to count them, I saw on the history channel where they had a show with a guy that said, 2 + 2 = 5, that's good enough.



So, you actually won't bother counting them?


Nuh-uh, 2 + 2 = 5



You do know that you never really provided any proof of that statement, you just made the claim and walked away, right?


See, here is a youtube video of a guy at a chalkboard, and it clearly shows 2 + 2 = 5



Well, how did *he* get to that conclusion?


It doesn't really matter, because 2 + 2 = 5, he must be right.



um, ok. Are you sure you won't count the pennies? I assure you there are only four of them.


I've already debunked your 2 + 2 = 4 theory, maybe you didn't see my youtube video of the guy at the chalkboard. I mean he has a tweed jacket, glasses and a beard. Just in case here is that youtube video again. Just to back it up, here is a funny cartoon.



So, you won't count the pennies, but you want me to watch your youtube video?


Why should I bother learning about your silly 2 + 2 = 4 theory? You can't expect me to actually understand the math involved, can you? I don't need to, because I have clearly demonstrated 2 + 2 =5

et cetera et cetera, et cetera.

[RandomGuy]

The last photo I posted while drinking rolling rock is to show people that the so-called useless bone people claim used to be a leg on a whale is actually a bone used in mating.

Really?

What people claimed that?

Link?

Do tell.

While you are at it, tell me exactly how the definition of "vestigal" is important to the theory of evolution.

[ALVAREZ6]

Really?

What people claimed that?

Link?

Do tell.

While you are at it, tell me exactly how the definition of "vestigal" is important to the theory of evolution.
You and I both know the whole tailbone nonsense is a complete distraction from the real discussion at hand, it means nothing.

[lebomb]

Instead of bashing Mouse, who is actually trying to explain examples of his theory............why dont yall show us some proof as well.

Its like ya bash Mouse, then answer questions with questions. No one has proven shit in this thread, other than a great ability to smash people who believe in a different theory.

[RandomGuy]

Instead of bashing Mouse, who is actually trying to explain examples of his theory............why dont yall show us some proof as well.

Its like ya bash Mouse, then answer questions with questions. No one has proven shit in this thread, other than a great ability to smash people who believe in a different theory.

Fair enough.

What would you find acceptable?

[Blake]

Instead of bashing Mouse, who is actually trying to explain examples of his theory............why dont yall show us some proof as well.

What exactly do you think mouse's theory is?

[RandomGuy]

First I think one should define it, and work from there. If one doesn't understand it, then it is hard to talk about it.


Biological evolution is genetic change in a population from one generation to another.

A bit longer defintion and explanation can be found at one of the clearing-house sites. Unsurprisingly, a good deal of information can be found there, as this stuff has been hashed about unceasingly for decades.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html


Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

"One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows: "



"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions." - Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

If one wants the full essay it is there.

Note that biological evolution is a tad different than talking about the ultimate origin of life. That is another kettle of protozoa.

[RandomGuy]

The mechanisms of evolution are mutation and natural selection.

All the specific mechanisms of mutation are still not 100% catalogued (to my understanding), but recent advances in genetics have filled in quite enough for us to have gotten how and when mutations occur, as well as the various statistical liklihoods of different kinds of mutation.

Natural selection occurs when differences in expressed genes cause reproductive successes or failures over variances. I.e. an expressed gene provides a benefit, or conversely a detriment to survival. Good examples are dark colored fur for rodents in light coloured backgrounds, or the ability to outrun predators, or produce more offspring.

[RandomGuy]

How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

1. the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4. the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm
--------------------------------------------------------

We have observed evolution in the laboratory.

Bacteria make major evolutionary shift in the lab (http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html)


A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.



We have observed new species being formed within the last few hundred years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation



Observed instances
Mayr bird fauna
The Australian bird Petroica multicolor
Reproductive isolation occurs in populations of Drosophila subject to population bottlenecking



Observed instances
Ring species
The Larus gulls form a ring species around the North Pole.
The Ensatina salamanders, which form a ring round the Central Valley in California.
The Greenish Warbler (Phylloscopus trochiloides), around the Himalayas.

... among others.

[RandomGuy]

IF one really wanted to explore and learn about the evidence for evolution:

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Version 2.87

Copyright © 1999-2006 by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
[Last Update: June 19, 2007]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/


Are There Other Scientifically Valid Explanations?
The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001).
No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons:
(1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science,
(2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found,
(3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and
(4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

---------------------------------------

Note this acknowledges things that seem contradictory and even (gasp) mistakes. What it does say is that the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports the theory that groups of organisms can and do change over time.

The above link is also useful for defintions of "scientific" as well.


Scientific theories are validated by empirical testing against physical observations. Theories are not judged simply by their logical compatibility with the available data. Independent empirical testability is the hallmark of science—in science, an explanation must not only be compatible with the observed data, it must also be testable. By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis. Simple compatibility, in itself, is insufficient as scientific evidence, because all physical observations are consistent with an infinite number of unscientific conjectures. Furthermore, a scientific explanation must make risky predictions— the predictions should be necessary if the theory is correct, and few other theories should make the same necessary predictions.

[lebomb]

What exactly do you think mouse's theory is?

Hell if I know, remember I didnt understand Inception?............I just said he is TRYING to define it. Yall are bashing him, but havent really said a damn thing yourselves about what you believe in.

[RandomGuy]

Instead of bashing Mouse, who is actually trying to explain examples of his theory............why dont yall show us some proof as well.

Its like ya bash Mouse, then answer questions with questions. No one has proven shit in this thread, other than a great ability to smash people who believe in a different theory.

Mouse doesn't really have a theory. All he has is stuff that bashes evolution.

Are you going to call him on that?

We have been asking mouse to flesh out his theory, but have met with little success.

Maybe you will have better luck.

[lebomb]

Thanks Randomguy..............let me take this all in, and I will get back with you.

[lebomb]

Mouse doesn't really have a theory. All he has is stuff that bashes evolution.

Are you going to call him on that?

We have been asking mouse to flesh out his theory, but have met with little success.

Maybe you will have better luck.


Mouse sees creation differently..............he was explaining why he believes in what he believes in and yall found holes in it. Believe me, there are holes in evolution big time, as well as creationism. Just sayin.............

[RandomGuy]

Mouse sees creation differently..............he was explaining why he believes in what he believes in and yall found holes in it. Believe me, there are holes in evolution big time, as well as creationism. Just sayin.............

I don't think there are "big time" holes in evolution, but feel free to read up on it. Maybe your concerns are addressed somewhere.

There is a lot to understand.

If you want an actual book to hold in your hand:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532

It is a good read. It also explains why Darwin got a few things wrong, mostly because DNA was yet to be discovered or understood, as well as offers some very fascinating bits on new research.

My wife took a rather high-power course on evolution for her biology degree, and I got to sit in an audit a few times on days off. Yikes. Interesting, but very very detailed. Not having the specific genetics classes made me struggle to keep up, but it was fun.

To really get into it requires one to get into some fairly intense genetics.

In addition to the Talk Origins page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There are a few other good ones to be found on that web through university biology departments.

[Blake]

Hell if I know, remember I didnt understand Inception?............I just said he is TRYING to define it. Yall are bashing him, but havent really said a damn thing yourselves about what you believe in.

I responded to his "alternative design" tenets nearly line by line.

I also don't recall anyone asking me directly what I believe in this thread about any particular thing.

[Blake]

Believe me, there are holes in evolution big time, as well as creationism. Just sayin.............

What hole do you see in evolution?

[lebomb]

I responded to his "alternative design" tenets nearly line by line.

I also don't recall anyone asking me directly what I believe in this thread about any particular thing.


Ok...............I will ask. What do you believe in?? And dont get me started with the holes in evolution.....because whatever I say you will ask a question about. Do some research like I did. You will see some holes.

[lebomb]

I don't think there are "big time" holes in evolution, but feel free to read up on it. Maybe your concerns are addressed somewhere.

There is a lot to understand.

If you want an actual book to hold in your hand:

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Evolution-True-Jerry-Coyne/dp/0670020532

It is a good read. It also explains why Darwin got a few things wrong, mostly because DNA was yet to be discovered or understood, as well as offers some very fascinating bits on new research.

My wife took a rather high-power course on evolution for her biology degree, and I got to sit in an audit a few times on days off. Yikes. Interesting, but very very detailed. Not having the specific genetics classes made me struggle to keep up, but it was fun.

To really get into it requires one to get into some fairly intense genetics.

In addition to the Talk Origins page, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There are a few other good ones to be found on that web through university biology departments.

I hear ya............but, what you have to understand is evolution makes sense to those who believe in it. You will find holes by those who oppose it. Why would someone who teaches a class in evolution show you any holes. That is like the pastor of a Baptist church saying Jesus may not have existed.

[RandomGuy]

Ok...............I will ask. What do you believe in?? And dont get me started with the holes in evolution.....because whatever I say you will ask a question about. Do some research like I did. You will see some holes.

... and they are? (curious)

Always up to a good research project.

[Blake]

Ok...............I will ask. What do you believe in??

I have a long list that I'd rather not waste time unnecessarily typing out.

Be more specific.


And dont get me started with the holes in evolution.....because whatever I say you will ask a question about. Do some research like I did. You will see some holes.

What makes you think I haven't?

do some research on my posts in the creation threads here in the Club and I think you will see I've done some research on evolutionary theory.

I'm also not saying there aren't holes. I'm asking you to pick one for us to discuss.

[RandomGuy]

By the by:

One or more of the "holes" has probably been addressed in their responses to creationist claims here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

[Blake]

Why would someone who teaches a class in evolution show you any holes. That is like the pastor of a Baptist church saying Jesus may not have existed.

not really.

[lebomb]

Meh..........yall have at it. This debate about how we all got here, how it all started has been going on since day 1. Its a non winnable debate. I care to observe than participate...........no matter what I say will change anyones mind about what they believe, and vice versa. Just like Mila Kunis being hot.

Its all a big waste of typing really.

Meep Meep!!

[RandomGuy]

I'm also not saying there aren't holes.


No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons:
(1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science,
(2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found,
(3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and
(4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

I'll say it. There are no holes. The evidence at this point is rather overwhelming.

There are certainly gaps in our knowledge about specifics, but there aren't really any major glaring flaws in the theory that anyone has found and scientifically tested.

[RandomGuy]

Meh..........yall have at it. This debate about how we all got here, how it all started has been going on since day 1. Its a non winnable debate. I care to observe than participate...........no matter what I say will change anyones mind about what they believe, and vice versa. Just like Mila Kunis being hot.

Its all a big waste of typing really.

Meep Meep!!

I think it is pretty winnable.

If you really dig, you will find that creationists tend to be outright dishonest in their arguments.

Read up on logical fallacies, i.e. specific instances of bad logic, all classified according to type, and then read through creationist essays.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

Pick apart the claims to examine the underlying assumptions and see if they stand up. If someone asserts something, they have to back it up or it is simply an effort to put forth opinion as fact.

If that link is the *only* thing you read out of all the material I give you, that will give you enough informtion to see who is bullshitting you, and who isn't.

EDIT:
Just for fun, I will pick apart the whale essay I posted earlier, and show the specific unsupported assertions, distortions of actual science, and bad logic.

Hell, I can easily do that for a good chunk of creationist stuff. It isn't all that hard.

[Blake]

Meh..........yall have at it. This debate about how we all got here, how it all started has been going on since day 1. Its a non winnable debate. I care to observe than participate...........no matter what I say will change anyones mind about what they believe, and vice versa. Just like Mila Kunis being hot.

Its all a big waste of typing really.

Meep Meep!!

Why would you try to change anyone's mind here other than your own?

If you yourself are comfortable with what you believe, then I'd agree, it's a waste of typing trying to convine anyone else here of anything.

[Blake]

I'll say it. There are no holes. The evidence at this point is rather overwhelming.

There are certainly gaps in our knowledge about specifics, but there aren't really any major glaring flaws in the theory that anyone has found and scientifically tested.

Gaps = holes, imo.......but I agree with everything you said.

[RandomGuy]

I haven't read this whole thread but here's some relevant info in case it hasn't been posted yet.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=michael+cremo&aq=f

Let me make it clear that I'm an agnostic.

No, you are an idiot who thinks the Apollo moon landings were faked by NASA.

Please fuck off back to that thread, either here or in any of the other dozens of forums you push that bullshit.

[RandomGuy]

Speaking of logical fallacies:

Cosmored is not wrong about any given topic, just because he is a fucktard about "moon hoaxes". That is what is call an ad hominem attack.

He is, however, a fucktard, who I am reasonably sure has some cognitive problems in a very real psychological sense.

Take his statements regarding reality with the weight it deserves, and an appropriate level of skepticism.

[Ginobilly]

Is it possible to believe in everything?? Evolution, ID, AD, Ancient Aliens, The Force, String Theory, etc.....................All I know is that Life is a crazy ride and it wouldn't surprise me if everything turns out to be right or wrong. Lets just enjoy our time on earth and keep our minds open.

[lebomb]

Im just gonna throw one event out there.

A person that I know has a 4yr old that fell into a swimming pool this past summer..........the water was warm, not frigged. He was at the bottom of the pool for approx. 2 min. according to EMS.............took 5 min. to revive him..........now this is in 100 deg PLUS heat. This kid was eventually revived.......suffered no brain damage whatsoever..........stayed in the hospital overnight and was back up, running, asking when he could go swimming the next day.

The doctors still dont understand how the kid came back without any type of issues with his organs or brain. There isnt any scientific reasoning that this kid should not have been a vegetable for the rest of his life, according to the doctors that took care of him.

Divine intervention? Who knows?? ............but things like this lead me to believe there is a higher power.

[MannyIsGod]

Your fucking use of ellipses makes me realize there is no god because if there was he would have removed you from the earth out of pity by now. God damn.

[Ginobilly]

Im just gonna throw one event out there.

A person that I know has a 4yr old that fell into a swimming pool this past summer..........the water was warm, not frigged. He was at the bottom of the pool for approx. 2 min. according to EMS.............took 5 min. to revive him..........now this is in 100 deg PLUS heat. This kid was eventually revived.......suffered no brain damage whatsoever..........stayed in the hospital overnight and was back up, running, asking when he could go swimming the next day.

The doctors still dont understand how the kid came back without any type of issues with his organs or brain. There isnt any scientific reasoning that this kid should not have been a vegetable for the rest of his life, according to the doctors that took care of him.

Divine intervention? Who knows?? ............but things like this lead me to believe there is a higher power.


That's the beauty of it! I'm perfectly fine if there is a God or if there isn't. If there is, I would like to know who made him and also thank him for giving us the opportunity to live, enjoy the pleasures of life:Women, food, weed, cars, The San Antonio Spurs!:lobt::hat

And if there isn't?? Well, Thank you photosynthesis, evolution, o lo que sea!

[RandomGuy]

Why don't you say something about the info I posted.

Because you are a one-note fucktard, who doesn't return the favor.

Reading your posts is like being bukkake'd with stupid.

[redzero]

Hey mouse, remember that time you tried to disprove the Big Bang Theory by claiming that since the term was given its name by a science fiction writer, that it must be false?

[RandomGuy]

Im just gonna throw one event out there.

A person that I know has a 4yr old that fell into a swimming pool this past summer..........the water was warm, not frigged. He was at the bottom of the pool for approx. 2 min. according to EMS.............took 5 min. to revive him..........now this is in 100 deg PLUS heat. This kid was eventually revived.......suffered no brain damage whatsoever..........stayed in the hospital overnight and was back up, running, asking when he could go swimming the next day.

The doctors still dont understand how the kid came back without any type of issues with his organs or brain. There isnt any scientific reasoning that this kid should not have been a vegetable for the rest of his life, according to the doctors that took care of him.

Divine intervention? Who knows?? ............but things like this lead me to believe there is a higher power.

Real brain damage doesn't occur until about 10 minutes, generally to my understanding, and kids are fairly resiliant.

Remember that efforts to revive someone also start forcing oxygen into the blood, mitigating damage to the brain.

Nothing that can't be ruled out as simple happenstance.

Two hours at the bottom of the swimming pool, maybe. Two minutes?

My other problem with such things is that do we then see the divine spark when famine and starvation kills millions of children every year?

If you only attribute good things to God, but not bad, is that logical?

[Blake]

Im just gonna throw one event out there.

A person that I know has a 4yr old that fell into a swimming pool this past summer..........the water was warm, not frigged. He was at the bottom of the pool for approx. 2 min. according to EMS.............took 5 min. to revive him..........now this is in 100 deg PLUS heat. This kid was eventually revived.......suffered no brain damage whatsoever..........stayed in the hospital overnight and was back up, running, asking when he could go swimming the next day.

The doctors still dont understand how the kid came back without any type of issues with his organs or brain. There isnt any scientific reasoning that this kid should not have been a vegetable for the rest of his life, according to the doctors that took care of him.

Divine intervention? Who knows?? ............but things like this lead me to believe there is a higher power.

So you also believe that doctors know everything there is to know about the human body?

[Blake]

I just finished watching this six part series.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv-DcREegqg

It's the same info that's in his other videos. The title of the series is- "2012 UFO's ALIENS HIDDEN HISTORY Michael Cremo Forbidden Archeology". However there's nothing in it about 2012, UFO's, or aliens. It all looks pretty scientific. I don't know why it has that stuff in the title.

I don't know why you posted this stuff in this thread.

Weird.

[mouse]

Real brain damage doesn't occur until about 10 minutes


I can see why you hate the #11 now,..... dam those slow ass EMS techs back when you fell in the pool!

[mouse]

.
Science was wrong .


Thank you for your honesty. I knew someday you come around.

:toast

A heads up to others.

Evolution/young earth/NASA/911.... are really subjects I specialize in and have been part of many debates all over the www....... you can even ask Al Gore.

...trust me, it would be better if you just read on and learn a thing or two ... unless ...you want to be publicly humiliated as often the case.

Trust me I take no pride in doing so.....well unless you insult me then you deserved it..

So from this post fourth.... the debate gloves come off, you can't say now you didn't see it coming. But you can witness Guinness at work not measured on a scale or been achieved in today's modern thinking.


Anyone who unfortunately still believes they "evolved" from an ape?

deserves what they get.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Im just gonna throw one event out there.

A person that I know has a 4yr old that fell into a swimming pool this past summer..........the water was warm, not frigged. He was at the bottom of the pool for approx. 2 min. according to EMS.............took 5 min. to revive him..........now this is in 100 deg PLUS heat. This kid was eventually revived.......suffered no brain damage whatsoever..........stayed in the hospital overnight and was back up, running, asking when he could go swimming the next day.

The doctors still dont understand how the kid came back without any type of issues with his organs or brain. There isnt any scientific reasoning that this kid should not have been a vegetable for the rest of his life, according to the doctors that took care of him.

Divine intervention? Who knows?? ............but things like this lead me to believe there is a higher power.

Things like that make me believe in a bunch of tiny multidimensional beings that eat carpet.

[ALVAREZ6]

Thank you for your honesty. I knew someday you come around.

:toast

A heads up to others.

Evolution/young earth/NASA/911.... are really subjects I specialize in and have been part of many debates all over the www....... you can even ask Al Gore.

...trust me, it would be better if you just read on and learn a thing or two ... unless ...you want to be publicly humiliated as often the case.

Trust me I take no pride in doing so.....well unless you insult me then you deserved it..

So from this post fourth.... the debate gloves come off, you can't say now you didn't see it coming. But you can witness Guinness at work not measured on a scale or been achieved in today's modern thinking.


Anyone who unfortunately still believes they "evolved" from an ape?

deserves what they get.
"Holy shit, way too much useful information posted by RandomGuy, I'm overwhelmed and therefore quit."



In response to the bold: lolololol what? You don't specialize on any of that shit, how can one specialize in these related fields and yet still not understand shit about them??? Simply because you've debated them over and over?

[BlairForceDejuan]

I know which show you are talking about mouse. Mind was blown. I like the part where the Grim Reaper was actually derived from aliens with fog machines during the Great Plague.

[Vici]

I can't tell who is dumber, Mouse or the people trying to debate him. He is clearly a troll or handicapped.

[mouse]

"Holy shit, way too much useful information

9jK-NcRmVcw

[mouse]

I can't tell who is dumber, Mouse or the people trying to debate him. He is clearly a troll or handicapped.

come back after your next 1000 posts.

:wakeup

[mouse]

I know which show you are talking about mouse. Mind was blown. I like the part where the Grim Reaper was actually derived from aliens with fog machines during the Great Plague.

So the bottom-line was ...........................


http://kickthis.typepad.com/.a/6a0115707beb82970b0133ecc2b2cd970b-800wi

[mouse]

"Holy shit, way too much useful information posted by RandomGuy, I'm overwhelmed and therefore quit."
In response to the bold: lolololol what? You don't specialize on any of thshit, how can one specialize in these related fields and yet still not understand shit about them??? Simply because you've debated them over and over?


You posted how you avoid my topics and yet your still here?


You seek the truth my son....and therefore I shall give it to you...


Trust your compass it set you here,

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/vlcsnap-1605731.png

[ALVAREZ6]

I can't tell who is dumber, Mouse or the people trying to debate him. He is clearly a troll or handicapped.
He's definitely both, at different times normally, perhaps many times at the same time... who knows :bang

[ALVAREZ6]

You posted how you avoid my topics and yet your still here?

It's just a particular case in which I haven't found a problem, I've been sticking around also to hear what others have had to say, such as RandomGuy, redzero, etc, and I have barely exhausted much energy in any of my posts in this thread. I don't mind occasional exceptions to my typical "lol mouse" posts...

[lebomb]

So you also believe that doctors know everything there is to know about the human body?


You would think, since Darwin and Scientists seem know everything about creation. Since creation is indisputable.

[Blake]

You would think, since Darwin and Scientists seem know everything about creation. Since creation is indisputable.

No I wouldn't think doctors know everything about the human body.

Darwin, Scientists and religious zealots all know/knew the exact same thing about creation in that there are stories about it in various religious/mythological books.

Strange analogy.

[lebomb]

No I wouldn't think doctors know everything about the human body.

Darwin, Scientists and religious zealots all know/knew the exact same thing about creation in that there are stories about it in various religious/mythological books.

Strange analogy.


Hugh? I thought yall said there are no holes in creationism? Wouldn't that be knowing everything? ............ or is this thread Inception like?

[Blake]

Hugh? I thought yall said there are no holes in creationism? Wouldn't that be knowing everything? ............ or is this thread Inception like?

No holes in creationism? Who said there are no holes in creationism? :lol

I have no idea what you are talking about or who the "yall" you are referring to is.

[lebomb]

I'll say it. There are no holes. The evidence at this point is rather overwhelming.




:wakeup

[Blake]

what you have to understand is evolution makes sense to those who believe in it. You will find holes by those who oppose it.


I'm also not saying there aren't holes. I'm asking you to pick one for us to discuss.


I'll say it. There are no holes. The evidence at this point is rather overwhelming.




Put the cup down and keep up.

[lebomb]

Put the cup down and keep up.

Personally, I don't care what anyone believes in. It could be the monkey man from planet krypton for all I care. :rolleyes

Have a good day.

[Blake]

Personally, I don't care what anyone believes in. It could be the monkey man from planet krypton for all I care. :rolleyes

Have a good day.

it's too much to ask you to keep up with your own posts?

ok. see ya.

[lebomb]

it's too much to ask you to keep up with your own posts?

ok. see ya.


Thats why Im bailing..........not enough interest in this subject.

Mouse......have at it bruh! :toast

[Blake]

Thats why Im bailing..........not enough interest in this subject.


ok. see ya.

[RandomGuy]

Thank you for your honesty. I knew someday you come around.

:toast

A heads up to others.

Evolution/young earth/NASA/911.... are really subjects I specialize in and have been part of many debates all over the www....... you can even ask Al Gore.

...trust me, it would be better if you just read on and learn a thing or two ... unless ...you want to be publicly humiliated as often the case.

Trust me I take no pride in doing so.....well unless you insult me then you deserved it..

So from this post fourth.... the debate gloves come off, you can't say now you didn't see it coming. But you can witness Guinness at work not measured on a scale or been achieved in today's modern thinking.


Anyone who unfortunately still believes they "evolved" from an ape?

deserves what they get.

I am sure I am seeing a Guinness at work, or a Rolling Rock or two, or whatever it is you're drinking. :lol

The closest thing to an insult I have leveled at you is accusing you of not being enough of an expert in science to really credibly pronounce the sceintific theory of evolution to be "dying".

I stand by that 100%. Sorry, if that makes you all butthurt.

You may claim all the expertise in whatever pseudo-science topics you want to, and it still won't change the fact that you have to resort to lies, distortion and bad logic to "prove" points you try to make.

If you can't even provide a working definition of the theory of evolution, or accurately describe the mechanisms, what makes you think *I* am the one being "humiliated"?

[RandomGuy]

I can't tell who is dumber, Mouse or the people trying to debate him. He is clearly a troll or handicapped.

I know he is trolling for a lot of this.

It is still a bit fun for me to pick things apart. Oddly enough, I have learned a lot of good science by debunking his arguments.

I have learned, or increased my understanding of:

The precise mechanisms of biological evolution
How stalatites are formed.
whale biology
genetic mechanisms and particulars of baterial flagella
basic physics, from laws of motion and kinetic energy to chemistry
cosmology

among others.

I stopped taking it too seriously a long time ago.