It's kind of hard to teach you evolution if you've never studied it but here's an academic link:Originally posted by: Arkitech
This is impossible, I wish I could respond to all of the posts here. But obviously those who support evolution in this thread far out weigh those believe in creation and I lack the time to reply to each and every post in a well thought out and intelligent manner. I will say that I appreciate those of you who actually support their statements with information they have acquired instead of just resorting to juvenile retorts. I will definitely return to this thread over the next few days and try to provide some more responses if this thread is'nt closed by then.
In the meantime if some of you don't mind, please provide a few links to articles on evolutionary theory so that I can print out a few to read in my spare time. If possible link to concise articles, its hard to find the time to read through 40 lengthy articles of. I will also do some research and put a few links to articles of where science supports creationism.
I'll be back later this afternoon.
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: Arkitech
This is impossible, I wish I could respond to all of the posts here. But obviously those who support evolution in this thread far out weigh those believe in creation and I lack the time to reply to each and every post in a well thought out and intelligent manner. I will say that I appreciate those of you who actually support their statements with information they have acquired instead of just resorting to juvenile retorts. I will definitely return to this thread over the next few days and try to provide some more responses if this thread is closed by then.
In the meantime if some of you don't mind, please provide a few links to articles on evolutionary theory so that I can print out a few to read in my spare time. If possible link to concise articles, its hard to find the time to read through 40 lengthy articles of. I will also do some research and put a few links to articles of where science supports creationism.
I'll be back later this afternoon.
"Intellectual Design" has already been proven to be a farce in a courtroom setting. I don't see why people even argue about it anymore.
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Garth
Evolution doesn't work that way, really. Descendant populations are never a "new type of life form" different from the parent population. That's why it's a tree of life, not a ladder. Populations branch out to diverge from one another, but they're all connected to the same roots, and they're all part of the same tree.Originally posted by: Arkitech
I kind agree with Dirtboy on this thread. I always wondered why (if evolution truly occured) are'nt we seeing various stages of it on a constant basis. If I'm not mistaken we have about 3000-4000 years of historical recordings from our ancestors and there has never been any mention or evidence of lifeforms that have evolved from one species into the next. There have been many examples of environmental adaptation but no solid examples of evolution in the sense of one type of life form changing into another.
See that's what makes these debates kind of hard to get through. It seems there are several different schools of thought on what evolution truly is. Is it life forms changing into something new? Is it life forms adapting to their environment? Is it a combination of the two? It's really hard to debate the matter when there are so many points of view on what evolution truly is.
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: Arkitech
This is impossible, I wish I could respond to all of the posts here. But obviously those who support evolution in this thread far out weigh those believe in creation and I lack the time to reply to each and every post in a well thought out and intelligent manner. I will say that I appreciate those of you who actually support their statements with information they have acquired instead of just resorting to juvenile retorts. I will definitely return to this thread over the next few days and try to provide some more responses if this thread is closed by then.
In the meantime if some of you don't mind, please provide a few links to articles on evolutionary theory so that I can print out a few to read in my spare time. If possible link to concise articles, its hard to find the time to read through 40 lengthy articles of. I will also do some research and put a few links to articles of where science supports creationism.
I'll be back later this afternoon.
"Intellectual Design" has already been proven to be a farce in a courtroom setting. I don't see why people even argue about it anymore.
To be fair it should also be pointed out that courts have awarded people millions for spilling coffee on themselves, allowed thieves to sucessfully sue their victims, murderers to walk free from their crimes and host of other bewildering things. In other words courts don't provide the final or factual word on a matter.
I read a peer review of Behe's publication on ID, it was a slaughter, I kind of felt bad for the guyOriginally posted by: Gibsons
Originally posted by: Arkitech
Originally posted by: Juddog
Originally posted by: Arkitech
This is impossible, I wish I could respond to all of the posts here. But obviously those who support evolution in this thread far out weigh those believe in creation and I lack the time to reply to each and every post in a well thought out and intelligent manner. I will say that I appreciate those of you who actually support their statements with information they have acquired instead of just resorting to juvenile retorts. I will definitely return to this thread over the next few days and try to provide some more responses if this thread is closed by then.
In the meantime if some of you don't mind, please provide a few links to articles on evolutionary theory so that I can print out a few to read in my spare time. If possible link to concise articles, its hard to find the time to read through 40 lengthy articles of. I will also do some research and put a few links to articles of where science supports creationism.
I'll be back later this afternoon.
"Intellectual Design" has already been proven to be a farce in a courtroom setting. I don't see why people even argue about it anymore.
To be fair it should also be pointed out that courts have awarded people millions for spilling coffee on themselves, allowed thieves to sucessfully sue their victims, murderers to walk free from their crimes and host of other bewildering things. In other words courts don't provide the final or factual word on a matter.
They didn't just lose the case, it was an embarrassment. Text
Originally posted by: Mo0o
although props for making the panther, without it i wouldn't have this awesome cologne
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: zinfamous
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Strk
No modern scientific research has disproved evolution. Here's a good start amount of information you can enlighten yourself with..
Oh, and man evolved from an ape-like creature.
Please provide fossil records of this transition and please explain to me why there are no more of this ape-like creatures around. Certainly if evolution is a continuous form, there will be apes evolving right now and ape-like creatures evolving into man right now. Of course, nothing is doing this and ever has; science proves that. Let's see how you prove science wrong.
This proves that you have a 3rd-grade understanding of evutionary theory. Well, it looks like you've gone away now, not that it matters.
yeah, honestly. that view assumes that mankind is the next step for all apes, rather than only for us. talk about painting a target around the arrow.
Originally posted by: Juddog
"Intellectual Design" has already been proven to be a farce in a courtroom setting. I don't see why people even argue about it anymore.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Life didn't exist 55 million years ago. It couldn't. The sun has been shrinking since we have been charting it. Reverse the size of the sun, back it up a few million years and you find the planet was too hot to sustain any form of life, thus disproving the possibility of evolution. 55 million years ago... not a chance. Science can prove that. Now let's see what the evolutionist say. Will it be: We're not sure where the sun really was (excuse), or the sun just recently started shrinking (contradicts science) or ... ???
Originally posted by: Mo0o
This article is also great review of the mechanisms of evolution and actual experimental data, a quick read:
http://eckliptic.theeternal.org/SimpleSelection.pdf
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Life didn't exist 55 million years ago. It couldn't. The sun has been shrinking since we have been charting it. Reverse the size of the sun, back it up a few million years and you find the planet was too hot to sustain any form of life, thus disproving the possibility of evolution. 55 million years ago... not a chance. Science can prove that. Now let's see what the evolutionist say. Will it be: We're not sure where the sun really was (excuse), or the sun just recently started shrinking (contradicts science) or ... ???
Show me peer review article stating the sun was too hot to sustain organic chemicals
No, it hasn't.Originally posted by: dirtboy
The sun has been shrinking since we have been charting it.
No, it doesn't. Rather, it sounds like you want him to sound unsure. In reality we have every reason to believe the statement means exactly what it says.Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Mo0o
This article is also great review of the mechanisms of evolution and actual experimental data, a quick read:
http://eckliptic.theeternal.org/SimpleSelection.pdf
I thought you said evolution was scientific fact?
Let's look at some of the titles of some of these chapters of the gospel of evolution, shall we?
2. Exponential growth can be maintained by serial transfer
Can or is? Sounds like someone isn't sure.
Where does it say that? You appear to be talking out of your posterior.3. Replication is always imprecise
Read the first 3 sentances. It is always imprecise expect when it isn't. Whoops.
Sometimes the most precise answers involve "may or may not." I'm sorry if that is just too much for your delicate little intellect to comprehend.6. Selection may act indirectly on other characters
It might, it might not. I thought this was science. Science is exact, just like evolution, except when it might be and it might not be.
All animals or plants are mutants. You simply have an infantile concept of what that means.7. The indirect response is to selection is often antagnostic
This next one I love, cause I asked for this proof in the fossil records. Then I was told, no there isn't a linear progression because Darwin, which we said was right and now is wrong, was wrong. Now things mutate into new forms, even though I haven't seen any mutant animals or planets running around, but check this out...
Actually the evidences have been linked plenty of times in this thread by myself alone. You're making yourself look foolish proclaiming such nonsense when the truth is right there for everyone to see.8. Evolution typically involves a sequence of small altercations
PWNED!! Show me the small altercated fossil records!! We don't have them... where did they go? 55 million years and you got some scraps. hahaha This guy proves you guys wrong!
Oh really? How? You're awfully big on claims and woefully short on details. Typical for creationist trolls, actually.10. Very improbable structures readily arise through the cumulation of small altercations.
Wow. Can this guy be any more uncertain? This is all great, except when genes are regressive. What? You say genes aren't regressive? Go back to biology class. The mere fact genes are regressive disproves evolution.
When can't it?13. Selection can be used to engineer the structure of molecules
Except when it can't.
It is and I've even linked you to recorded instances of speciation.I asked to see molecular proof of evolution. Evolution on the cellular level must be rampant and easy to see.
But they haven't. Simply the differing number of chromosomes is enough to refute you.You guys ignored this. I would too, since you can't prove it. You can prove it, you can prove cells are the same as they always have been.
So what?And lastly we will prove this guy knows nothing...
16. blah blah genes are replicators
Genes are regressive!
We do.And if they weren't we'd see evolution all over the place, as I've said.
No we wouldn't.We'd see apes evolving into man right now, but we don't.
You're an idiot.Dogs into horses, but nope, nothing there either.
So? You really have no idea what the theory of evolution stipulates.Humans evolving? Nothing there either.
Do you even know what a regressive gene is?Someone cited people are getting taller, except for the people who aren't. Why are some people short? Genes are regressive. Otherwise, you might have a chance to prove yourself.
Only people with less intelligence than yourself could read this passage and think that you understood the first thing about evolutionary theoryNatural selection? Oh please... get real. The first "man" was a limbless slug. Then over millions of years he or she, which couldn't reproduce, but somehow did... grew an arm and that was deemed and improvement. How a 1 legged man was great is beyond me. Just like 3 legged horsies. When did they get the fourth leg? Or did they get them all at once? They couldn't have... this book here says evolution was slow. So one leg at a time. Luckily it all worked out, but gee, what happened to all the failed version?? dirtboy you idiot, they died off!! So how did the one legged horse survive long enough to get another? When do I get a 3rd arm? I'd like one... but damn if I can get it started. I'd use it a bunch to pass that on to my kids. But it *gasp* doesn't happen.
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Life didn't exist 55 million years ago. It couldn't. The sun has been shrinking since we have been charting it. Reverse the size of the sun, back it up a few million years and you find the planet was too hot to sustain any form of life, thus disproving the possibility of evolution. 55 million years ago... not a chance. Science can prove that. Now let's see what the evolutionist say. Will it be: We're not sure where the sun really was (excuse), or the sun just recently started shrinking (contradicts science) or ... ???
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Originally posted by: Mo0o
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Life didn't exist 55 million years ago. It couldn't. The sun has been shrinking since we have been charting it. Reverse the size of the sun, back it up a few million years and you find the planet was too hot to sustain any form of life, thus disproving the possibility of evolution. 55 million years ago... not a chance. Science can prove that. Now let's see what the evolutionist say. Will it be: We're not sure where the sun really was (excuse), or the sun just recently started shrinking (contradicts science) or ... ???
Show me peer review article stating the sun was too hot to sustain organic chemicals
LOL
You're trying to prove your point and you can't. Life can only live in certain temperatures. Probably why Venus has no life on it.
But you can't prove me wrong... cause life couldn't have been around then. Check your math on the sun's rate of decline and estimate the temp of the Earth.
Hot!! hehehe Game, set, and match.
Originally posted by: oldman420
Originally posted by: dirtboy
Life didn't exist 55 million years ago. It couldn't. The sun has been shrinking since we have been charting it. Reverse the size of the sun, back it up a few million years and you find the planet was too hot to sustain any form of life, thus disproving the possibility of evolution. 55 million years ago... not a chance. Science can prove that. Now let's see what the evolutionist say. Will it be: We're not sure where the sun really was (excuse), or the sun just recently started shrinking (contradicts science) or ... ???
Giant tube worms are marine invertebrates in the phylum Annelida (formerly grouped in phylum Pogonophora) related to tubeworms commonly found in the intertidal and pelagic zones. Riftia pachpieptila lives over a mile deep on the floor of the Pacific Ocean near black smokers and can tolerate extremely high temperatures and sulfur levels. They can grow up to a length of eight feet (2.4 meters).
there ya go
Originally posted by: oldman420
dirtboy thankyou for so adamently proving my point in my op. your point counterpoint although inacurate has been interesting