Reply With Quote
Do you really have to wonder why people give you for the ridiculous things you post? So spurster accepting evolution like the rest of the educated world means he'll get punished on judgement day?
I think its clear where your soul is going to end up.
Unless these bozos can tell you the real reason why WTC7 fell down due to a small fire i wouldn't be trying to talk about Evolution just yet.
Do you really have to wonder why people give you for the ridiculous things you post? So spurster accepting evolution like the rest of the educated world means he'll get punished on judgement day?
I think its clear where your soul is going to end up.
So is spurster's soul going to for accepting evolution too?I think its clear where your soul is going to end up.
Faith in a higher power = faith in evolution's legitimacy.Do you really have to wonder why people give you for the ridiculous things you post? So spurster accepting evolution like the rest of the educated world means he'll get punished on judgement day?
Religious Follower: "God is real because I see the world must of been created by something.
Evolutionist: "Evolution is real because all this life must of got here from somewhere besides God."
You're no better or less of a sheep.
It's not about what you accept, every person has free will to believe in anything they choose.
It's really when you push your beliefs and lies onto others as facts that angers the man upstairs.
And therefore you will answer to him.
hey, i look skinny in that pic...and where's my goatee...
So spurster should have thrown a disclaimer in before advocating Darwin? LMAO @ someone who posts 9/11 truther propaganda constantly lecturing someone about pushing beliefs and lies on people.It's not about what you accept, every person has free will to believe in anything they choose.
It's really when you push your beliefs and lies onto others as facts that angers the man upstairs.
And therefore you will answer to him.
Darwin's contribution to science is so bloated you do quite the crime categorizing those three (creationist) scientists in the same sentence. Darwin wrote down some observations which all clearly fall into Adaptation, which is perfectly within the scientific method. He never had any conclusive evidence supporting his theory and in fact, wrote a whole section of his infamous Origin of Species devoted to the many problems with his theory, many of which were proven factual a long time ago.
I only post facts and tell others to ask questions about 9/11.
You on the other hand can't stand anyone who disagrees with you, so your agenda is to win an argument rather than debate the subject with any form of intelligence.
Then again anyone who thinks they evolved from a fish has an excuse for being simple minded. I used to teach the 3rd grade and therefore I can relate to you and others in this forum.
Yeah, you really stepped up to the plate when Summers called you out and showed many examples of transitional fossils in the god thread, or when I showed natural selection makes logical sense based on exponential functions of the form e^{rt} that model population growth of a species with different mutations, where the one with largest r (r=reproduciton rate) dominates all the others as time gets large.
As I recall, your answer was to post more youtube videos and copy and paste a couple of articles rather than arguing on your own.
Baseline 1
Alex 0
Please link thread with these "transitional fossils", and again, natural selection is not mutually exclusive with evolution.
It was a couple of months ago in the middle of an enormous thread, so I'm not going to search for the post. If you want to, look for a god or evolution thread in The Club that's 60+ pages.
Spot ing on.
I find it incredibly ironic that, according to various surveys, about 50% of people in the most technologically advanced country in the world still doubt the theory of evolution by natural selection... 10% would be understandable, but 1 in 2?
Also, you don't have to be an athiest to accept evolution - you simply have to understand that the Old Testamanet is not literal, and the earth was not created in 6700BC.
Pssssssst! you left out the part were you always say you spent 4 years in collage on this very subject!
hegamboa disproved the existence of fossils older than 3000 years in his high school valedictorian acceptance speech.
Except for the small bit where mitochondrial DNA are seperate and distinct from the rest of the cell.
Evolutionary theory would predict that in the march from single-celled organisms to multi-cellular organisms, you would find small clumps of cells that would gain some adaptive benefit from symbiosis.
Lo and behold, when one starts looking around at cells and their make up, we find that both mitochondria and chloroplasts have seperate DNA and a striking similarity in just about every way to independent bacteria.
What would creationist theory predict about these symbiotic relationships? That God made them that way and they look so much like seperate organisms with seperate DNA on purpose just to mess with us?
This isn't circular logic, it is using a theory to make testable predictions about evidence.
Please show the form of the circular logic.
If you cannot, then you do not understand the term well enough to apply it meaningfully.
They have found so many transitional forms they literaly almost get into fist-fights over whether some of them are reptile-like mammals, or mammal-like reptiles.
To claim that there have been none found is a relatively easy claim to debunk, and it has been rather soundly.
The only way to make this claim at all is to constantly move the goalposts when each new transitional form is discovered.
"You dont' have the transitional form between animal A and animal C,therefore there are no transitional forms."
(scientist goes out and finds animal B, a transitional form between A and C)
"You don't have the transitional form between animal A and B, therefore there are no transitional forms."
(scientist goes out and finds animal A.5, a transitional form between A and B)
"You don't have the transitional form between animal A and A.5, therefore there are no transitional forms."
A common, though fallacious, creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. Vestigial organs are common in whales for example.[7]. Also, there is evidence that a complex feature with one function can adapt to a wholly different function through evolution in a process known as exaptation. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been used for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings may still have all of these functions, while also being used for active flight.
Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special cir stances required for preservation of remains, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be "caught in the act" as it were.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil
Geostratographical column. Have fun
Again, moving the goal posts.
"Look this organism is irreducibly complex! It can't be broken down into seperate, functional elements, look at that bacterial flagellum!"
(scientist shows how the proteins and structures of the flagellum can be broken down into seperate, functional elements)
"Look even the earliest single celled organisms are irreducibly complex..."
What happens to this statement when science demostrates, yet again, that the earliest, most primitive single celled organisms can be broken down into seperate, functional elements?
They have already shown that simple enzymes can reproduce and, yes, they can mutate, all without actual cell structures.
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/view...hp?f=5&t=68577
I sense another movement of said goalposts...
Enzymes, a sub-part of a cell, simple molecules, can reproduce themselves, therefore even the earliest single-celled organisms are reducibly complex.
Last edited by RandomGuy; 02-18-2009 at 11:28 AM.
1) The geostratographical column is a teaching tool, not a part of any coherent theory.Geostratographical column. Have fun
and
2) The phrase "geotstratographical column" do not answer the reasonable request:
Please show the form of the circular logic ["where did the original strands of DNA come from? *cue circular argument based IN evolution to prove it." ]
Once again, you say it is circular logic, I would like to see the logical form of this, so I can verify if the logic is indeed circular.
Easy, Time-travel.Radiometric and carbon dating are tools used by men to prove how old something is, and how it takes millions of years for something the become petrified, and yet they can't explain how a cowboy boot manufactured around 1950 and found in a creek bed about 1980 near Iraan, Texas, contains a "fossilized" or "petrified" human leg inside, demonstrating that fossils do not take millions of years to form.
I would like TLongII to explain away the limestone cowboy!
Here is some help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
This shows the logical format of circular logic, just in case you aren't familiar with the term you are using and simply parroting something you read somehwere.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
