More evolutionary lies.

[Zanchief]

I don't hate religion.

Again, I'm not saying this to be mean, to be judgemental, to hate on religion. I just don't think people on this board truly understand Evolutionary Theory.

lol

It's funny, but not for the reasons you think.

[mappatazee]

He obviously doesn't understand because his A, B, and C points up there are the kind of demands a nine year old with no understanding of evolution would make.

[Narrock]

I don't hate religion.

Again, I'm not saying this to be mean, to be judgemental, to hate on religion. I just don't think people on this board truly understand Evolutionary Theory.

lol

It's funny, but not for the reasons you think.

Ok Zansquaw, you've got my curiosity... What makes you think that you have a firm grasp on the myth of evolution, and that everybody else here doesn't "get it?" Explain this to us please.

[Zanchief]

A. If there were no apes, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans, etc. in existence today. Using your illogic... they would have all evolved by now.

B. If they found a T-Rex with wings instead of just a similar hip structure and/or other superficial meaningless coincidences.

C. If humans were built to walk on all fours (which they're not). We're bipeds, unlike Gorillas and Chimpanzees, who aren't exactly quadrupeds, because that means having 4 feet, but they walk mostly on all fours. They have the ability to walk as bipeds briefly... but there is a HUGE difference.

I'd love to try to refute this point by point but your grammar and sentence structure is so bad I don't even know what your talking about.

[Narrock]

A. If there were no apes, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans, etc. in existence today. Using your illogic... they would have all evolved by now.

B. If they found a T-Rex with wings instead of just a similar hip structure and/or other superficial meaningless coincidences.

C. If humans were built to walk on all fours (which they're not). We're bipeds, unlike Gorillas and Chimpanzees, who aren't exactly quadrupeds, because that means having 4 feet, but they walk mostly on all fours. They have the ability to walk as bipeds briefly... but there is a HUGE difference.

I'd love to try to refute this point by point but your grammar and sentence structure is so bad I don't even know what your talking about.

"A" was the answer to his question, so my sentence structure was perfect. Want me to repeat his question in front of each of my answers? Stop side-dancing around the subject and answer my question.

[Zanchief]

These chimps that don't exist, did they at one time? Or did they never exist at all?

[Yamori]

I've got to say, two things that give me trouble with evolution are eyes and brains. Even given millions of years, that seems a bit much. They're quite complicated and intricate.

I'd like to hear someone who has a lot of knowledge on the subject on that issue. It could be interesting.

[Tikker]

A. If there were no apes, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans, etc. in existence today. Using your illogic... they would have all evolved by now.

B. If they found a T-Rex with wings instead of just a similar hip structure and/or other superficial meaningless coincidences.

C. If humans were built to walk on all fours (which they're not). We're bipeds, unlike Gorillas and Chimpanzees, who aren't exactly quadrupeds, because that means having 4 feet, but they walk mostly on all fours. They have the ability to walk as bipeds briefly... but there is a HUGE difference.

I'd love to try to refute this point by point but your grammar and sentence structure is so bad I don't even know what your talking about.

"A" was the answer to his question, so my sentence structure was perfect. Want me to repeat his question in front of each of my answers? Stop side-dancing around the subject and answer my question.

What I'd really like to know is if you're actually this stupid, or if you just pretend to be stupid in the sake of entertainment

[mappatazee]

I've got to say, two things that give me trouble with evolution are eyes and brains. Even given millions of years, that seems a bit much. They're quite complicated and intricate.

I'd like to hear someone who has a lot of knowledge on the subject on that issue. It could be interesting.

Brains; you have your simple organisms that still have very basic nerve centers like jellyfish or flatworms. of course we're the apex in that department. but there are animals covering the full range of brain development.

Eyes; there are organisms that have very simple eyes that only detect light and shadow, and organisms with very complex eyes, like us, or even better eyesight, like eagles.

[Darcler]

I didnt crawl on my knees as a baby, I was on my hands and feet, ass to the air. My baby just started crawling and she shows some of the same patterns, she switches from feet to knees.

Crawling around doggy style at such a young age explains quite a bit...

HAHA CLEVER!

[Lyion]

Yamori, check out Darwins Black Box, which is a pretty good book that covers irreducibly complex things that are not 'common sense' to macroevolution. It basically says that the i complexity of natural systems at the biochemical 'level' somewhat disproves Darwinism

Again, evolution is a big a tent, so it can encompass everything into it, but there is a lot of searching for truth out there that hopefully will allow for more discoveries and knowledge gained. Right now way too much is 'assumed'.


<img src="http://www.namelesstavern.org/phpBB2/album_pic.php?pic_id=646">

[Narrock]

A. If there were no apes, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans, etc. in existence today. Using your illogic... they would have all evolved by now.

B. If they found a T-Rex with wings instead of just a similar hip structure and/or other superficial meaningless coincidences.

C. If humans were built to walk on all fours (which they're not). We're bipeds, unlike Gorillas and Chimpanzees, who aren't exactly quadrupeds, because that means having 4 feet, but they walk mostly on all fours. They have the ability to walk as bipeds briefly... but there is a HUGE difference.

I'd love to try to refute this point by point but your grammar and sentence structure is so bad I don't even know what your talking about.

"A" was the answer to his question, so my sentence structure was perfect. Want me to repeat his question in front of each of my answers? Stop side-dancing around the subject and answer my question.

What I'd really like to know is if you're actually this stupid, or if you just pretend to be stupid in the sake of entertainment

What I'd like to know is are you and your ilk really that stupid, or do you actually believe that only some primate species evolved and some didn't? Just want to know where you're coming from.

[runamonk]

My bigger point was that the so-called "links" don't prove anything. If they did then I'd shutup about it.

hehe the bible isn't proof of anything except fables to scare people into behaving.

[Lyion]

My bigger point was that the so-called "links" don't prove anything. If they did then I'd shutup about it.

hehe the bible isn't proof of anything except fables to scare people into behaving.

Suffice to say many intellectual people have a different opinion than you. Vaelie.
That is pretty much as far from my view as possible.

[Tikker]

A. If there were no apes, Gorillas, Chimpanzees, Orangutans, etc. in existence today. Using your illogic... they would have all evolved by now.

B. If they found a T-Rex with wings instead of just a similar hip structure and/or other superficial meaningless coincidences.

C. If humans were built to walk on all fours (which they're not). We're bipeds, unlike Gorillas and Chimpanzees, who aren't exactly quadrupeds, because that means having 4 feet, but they walk mostly on all fours. They have the ability to walk as bipeds briefly... but there is a HUGE difference.

I'd love to try to refute this point by point but your grammar and sentence structure is so bad I don't even know what your talking about.

"A" was the answer to his question, so my sentence structure was perfect. Want me to repeat his question in front of each of my answers? Stop side-dancing around the subject and answer my question.

What I'd really like to know is if you're actually this stupid, or if you just pretend to be stupid in the sake of entertainment

What I'd like to know is are you and your ilk really that stupid, or do you actually believe that only some primate species evolved and some didn't? Just want to know where you're coming from.

Gee, and I thought you couldn't get any more stupid, jeje

Everything that exists right now, has evolved from some ancestor, to where they are now


You keep making the assumption that the end result of all evolution is to produce man

And if anything else exists, it must disprove evolution



But you do realize, that multiple species can evolve in parallel, right?

that the chimps that we have today, have evolved from a more primitive form of chimp from 1000's of years ago?

You've made it obvious that you have no clue how evolution works

[runamonk]

My bigger point was that the so-called "links" don't prove anything. If they did then I'd shutup about it.

hehe the bible isn't proof of anything except fables to scare people into behaving.

Suffice to say many intellectual people have a different opinion than you. Vaelie.
That is pretty much as far from my view as possible.

Doesn't matter how intellectual these people are, they don't have proof they have faith.

[Zanathar]

Right now way too much is 'assumed'.

A lot of Evolution is proving that the processes that exist in nature today, existed 1000s if not millions and billions of years ago as well.

For example: Carbon Dating. How so? Well, the biggest fundamental flaw of Carbon Dating is that we assume that the level of Carbon 14 was in the same Ratio 1000s of years ago as it is today. What does this mean? Well, today we know (and have for a few decades) what the ratio if carbon 14 is to carbon 12, since we know what this ratio is, and we know the rate of isotropic decay (the rate at which radioactive substances break down into their components) we can determine how old an object is by the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12, this is a very simple mathematical equation which anyone can do with a high school education, feel free to do a google. Also, another possible flaw of Carbon Dating is that we assume that the rate of radioactive decay is a constant, we assume this because we have not noticed any variance when it comes to radioactive decay in over 100 years of studying radioactive isotopes.

Ok, so, if we assume that the rate of radioactive decay is constant (nothing has ever shown it not to be) and the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12 is constant through out time which is the BIG assumption, however, like radioactive decay nothing has ever shown it not to be since its inception (while carbon dating is "new" there are biological samples whose origin is known and whose age is known that is sufficently old that we can test carbon dating on, such as roman boat samples, pompeii artifacts, egyptian mummies, artifacts, the list goes on and on), then we know how old an object is. (Ok, there, now that carbon dating is explained we can move on).

Ok, so, now we know that the process of radioactive decay is constant and can be measured (that is all carbon dating is actually), we can now look at processes that are in nature today and assume they happened in the past as well. Such as Evolution... we know know that things evolve. We knew that 100s of years ago with selective breeding of horses and dogs, we would pick those traits we wanted and breed those animals with others, other examples include corn, cats, etc... corn is a really good example because we have examples of corn dating (from archelogical digs, etc) back 1000s of years that is small, yet in younger digs we see corn that is larger in size, etc. So we know that corn evolved to be what it is today. Now, however, we run into a big problem because, corn was selected for by an outside intelligence (or outside factor, depends on how you look at it and/or what you are trying to prove) as opposed to "natural" outside factors. Not that either make a difference since both prove evolution.

Ok, so, we know evolution is occuring today, viruses, corn, horses, dogs, even people (when indians and white people mated their children were on average 6 inches taller then the parents), we also know people are evolving when we look at organs within our own bodies that do nothing, such as tonsils, appendix, etc... in fact most doctors say that we as a species will lose our appendix entirely before too long. Therefore we can conclusively say evolution is occuring. Also, it is important to realize something, Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology. If you do not believe in Evolution, then you do not believe in modern biology. But how many biologists do we have here? Oh, right none.

Now, since we know evolution is occuring today, we can assume that the process that happened yesterday and today also happened 1000s, millions and billions of years ago. It only makes sense right? Oh, right, for the creationists it does not make sense because the world is only around 10000 years old (lets ignore science, astronomy, geology, ice ages, common sense and intelligence for the moment, shall we?) of course, the fact that we have direct evidence of human existance predating 10000 years ago (cave paintings and other evidence in Europe, Middle East, China as well as North America, South America and Australia, some of which is as old as 35,000 years). Since, for the creationist, the world is only 10000 years old, evolution could not have happened.

The other old tired arguement that attempts to disprove evolution is the odds factor. What are the odds of all of this happening? 1 in a billion? More? There is a problem with all those numbers: They are meaningless. Why? Because someone made them up. It's the biggest flaw in the Anti-Evolutionist theory. The numbers are made up. In fact, there is no scientific way to get the numbers that they used, better, there is no methodology that would allow the numbers to be even guessed at. Figuring out the odds of human life developing independently on another planet would be something that only a person with precognition could do. In other words, the person that came up with the odds of human life developing on Earth played God and made up their numbers. The bigger idea to get out of evolution is that it is a process. If someone asked me, what are the odds of intelligent life evolving independantly on another planet? If that was the question, then my answer would be 1 (or, for you non statisticians, that translates to 100%). If you ask me what are the odds of "human" like life developing on another planet, my answer would be: No idea, it is not a knowable number, there are far too many variables. In actuallity, it is a dumb question to ask. There are far too many variables that can not be accounted for. It would be like trying to model paleoclimates: Its an educated guess at best, which is hardly scientific.

However, all that being said, Evolution is fact, not fiction. When Darwin proposed the theory of evolution (Why is it a theory? Same reason Realitivity is a theory and if you dont know the answer to that question, stop talking about science, you know... nothing) he stated matter of factly that some things would be lost in the fossil record because the fossil record was incomplete. Today, we assume that birds evolved from dinosaurs, since skeletal structure and make up are similiar between the two, we have also found some transition fossils, they look like dinosaurs but have feathers, in China and now in Africa.

I guess the real problem that most people have is that they want their world to be simple, IE: God did this and that is the way it is. These people need their lives to be simple, it makes them go through it easier. It also allows them to not be afraid at night because they know they will live forever in some place where every dream is catered to (Fantasy Island anyone?) Others dont mind if the world is complicated and that the answers are not so simple. Others still can not accept that, if there is a god, he is far more powerful than can be imagined.... Think about it, he could have caused the single spark of life to start on Earth and allowed evolution to take its course... of course, since god is omnipotent and clairvoyent (is he?) he knew exactly when, where and how to start life to get what we have today.

[Lyion]

hehe the bible isn't proof of anything except fables to scare people into behaving.

Suffice to say many intellectual people have a different opinion than you. Vaelie.
That is pretty much as far from my view as possible.

Doesn't matter how intellectual these people are, they don't have proof they have faith.

Exactly. They are not scared into believing, they are seekers of truth. They are wise people who seek higher things. Some have found them through deep study and their own faiths.

Your analogy completely misses the point of scripture. It is not the end of knowledge or wisdom, just the beginning.

[veeneedefeesh]

Your analogy completely misses the point of scripture. It is not the end of knowledge or wisdom, just the beginning.

The problem is that many people take it way too literally and try to use scripture as the total of all wisdom just because "God Said so, see it says it right here in this book"

[Lyion]

The problem is that many people take it way too literally and try to use scripture as the total of all wisdom just because "God Said so, see it says it right here in this book"

Yup.

[Ganzo]

I can never understand why evolutionists can never state their ideas without insulting religious people inteligence, or making outrageous claims about reasons behind peoples faith in God.

[runamonk]

The problem is that many people take it way too literally and try to use scripture as the total of all wisdom just because "God Said so, see it says it right here in this book"

Yup.

Exactly, that's my same line of thinking. I personally don't believe in any all-knowing, all seeing entity. I don't know that evolution happened either, something happened and I'm willing to leave it right there. It doesn't concern me enough to about why I'm here to try and make it more than it really is, I'm just happy to be here to spend my time doing the things that make me happy and content with my life. If people want to worship god, a garbage can, a big fat budda that's their perogative but don't try and run my life with it and shove it down my throat.

The problem I have with the idea of "God" and most religious people is that they want to tell me what should make me happy or what I should be doing or should do. I can figure that out for myself.

There are too many things in this world that happen because people want to appease their "God", No thanks. People just need to think for themselves. The idea of the bible and god is a good one, some of the things in there are great thoughts but they get twisted to the extreme by too many people.

[Lyion]

The problem I have with the idea of "Atheism" is most Atheists want to tell me what should make me happy or what I should be doing or should do. I can figure that out for myself.

There are too many things in this world that happen because people want to appease their "personal belief structure", No thanks. People just need to think for themselves. .

Amazing how close things are on both sides of the fence.

[Harrison]

I'd love to try to refute this point by point but your grammar and sentence structure is so bad I don't even know what your talking about.

You can't be fucking serious.

[runamonk]

The problem I have with the idea of "Atheism" is most Atheists want to tell me what should make me happy or what I should be doing or should do. I can figure that out for myself.

There are too many things in this world that happen because people want to appease their "personal belief structure", No thanks. People just need to think for themselves. .

Amazing how close things are on both sides of the fence.

I suppose this could be true but I've yet to see anything about athiests killing thousands of people because they don't believe in a god. I'm not telling anyone how to run their life, I don't show up at your door trying to get you to join my faith. I don't condem a person because they believe, yet I'm supposedly going to hell because I don't believe in Jesus or God.