The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Virgo on November 07, 2005, 05:32:04 AM

Title: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Virgo on November 07, 2005, 05:32:04 AM
I don't know Nrg.
I heard it from someone else at "BC" (a Swedish forum for those of you that don't know)  ((he was an atheist)).
Maybe I should look it up ^^
Title: Evolution???
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 07, 2005, 09:13:13 AM
Quote from: "Nrg"
What "glitches" are you talking about, Virgo?


Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Nrg on November 07, 2005, 10:30:45 AM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.
Yeah, well, except for all the fossils showing improvements of entire species. I mean, creationism got loads of more evidence like... Um... Yeah, like what?
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Virgo on November 07, 2005, 11:52:44 AM
Nrg: I think there were some real glitches somewhere. Like jumps in the "bridge" if you know what I mean. Species that should have been in between but aren't there and such.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 07, 2005, 12:44:05 PM
Quote from: "Nrg"
Yeah, well, except for all the fossils showing improvements of entire species.


Quote
For decades students have been shown a representation of the fossil record appearing as a vertical column with marine invertebrates on the bottom, overlain by fish, then amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, with man on the top. The column is a column of time, they are told, with the long ago past on the bottom and the present on top. The fossil column (or similar figure) is presented without question as if it were true—as if it were real data. Students are led to believe that the order of first appearance of the fossils over time proves evolution.

I suggest that it does no such thing, for several reasons. First, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts. In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking. A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary, with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.

Second, the evolutionary presentation in the textbook column implies that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the Cambrian System, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibits a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly (by this I mean without the necessary ancestors lower in the column), every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.

Third, these diverse forms continue up the column (i.e., throughout time) with much the same appearance possessed at the start. The term stasis describes the tendency to "stay" the same, remain "stationary" or "static." Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced.

Summarizing:

1) Abrupt appearance
2) Diversity at the start, and
3) Stasis.
Certainly the fossil record does not prove evolution. On the other hand, its character fully supports creation of multiple "kinds" at the start with no evolutionary lineage, and continuance of those rather static kinds with limited adaptations into the present, or else going extinct. This is the creation idea.

The fossils further support the Flood. While no evolutionary trends can be seen bridging the basic kinds and producing new ones, we do see a transition from totally marine at the bottom to more terrestrial toward the top. At every level the dominant fossil is marine, but more and more land-dwelling fossils creep in. What more pursuasive testimony to the Biblical model could there be?

John Morris, Ph.D.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Brylian on November 08, 2005, 04:14:14 AM
No....evidence....... :x ....NO....EVIDENCE!!!

DUDE! I've been studying dinosaurs for the past 10 years! Do not say things you have NO idea about!

In the age of Dinosaurs There also existed large and small swimming reptiles, such at pliosaurs and pleosaurs (cant remember how to spell them right, I just memorised how to say them). How on earth did these creatures suddenly vanish? The flood wouldnt have wiped them out, and surely if Crocodiles survived then surely no;reptile targeting disease that affects only marine reptiles; could have wiped them out. Where do u lie on this?
 
More importantly Dinosaurs are the ultimate link in the world to evolution. We find that dinosaurs who's carbon dating (as well as layer dating) is before 200 million BC do not have chewing teeth, and after that time, most herbivores do. We also find that some of the smaller dinosaurs, such as consagnathus, slowly grew their arms outright and over time developed feathers on their arms. and we can see that later consagnathus have hollower bones (birds have hollow bones so that their bones arnt too heavy to fly). Doesn't it seem logical that this works in perfect co-ordination with evolution? Where does ur god stand on this?
 
 We do have fossilised Dinosaur remains (waste just in case u still don;t get me: poo), and from what we see is that there is no grass at all in any of the dinosaur & their waste. Not even slight evidence, considering that grass the absolute primary plant species that exist, doesnt it seem strange that none of these wastes contain any grass in them at all? If ur a large herbivore that digests on minor plants usually ferns and grass is a minor Plant with virtually the same minerals as ferns, then shouldnt it be logical that we find fern AND grass remain in the waste. Isnt it far more logical that because we find no such evidence that grass slowly evolved from ferns into grass? P.S its not only dinosaurs that we dont find grass in waste early mammal waste and other early reptiles (Dinosaurs are NOT reptiles).  
 
 further expanding on the last paragraph, we find that herbivores of the Triassic through to Cretaceous digested certain ferns that no longer exist, and didnt feed on plants that now do exist. Infact virtually ALL the plants that were digested by dinosaurs do not exist anymore, However these plants have been fossilised, and we can tell that, although u wouldnt believe it, 360-65 million years old, Doesnt it seem logical that the plants evolved from these plants cousins. Besides from what we can see from these plants is that they were high in protein and energy (high kilajules) AND they died out almost exactly when dinosaurs did. Logically these plants were intended for the massive herbivores due to high energy ability (and they were incredibly larger).

As you can tell i'm only talking about dinosaurs, i COULD go into other areas, like ice age evolution, early animal life, that virus's are evolving all the time in responce to out powerful anti-virus's, and more importantly, the fact that HUMANS have evolved from being 4 foot high everage 5000 years ago to 6 foot high average now. Dude! Use your brain!
Title: Evolution???
Post by: pspunit on November 08, 2005, 12:57:10 PM
hey, astrophysicist, way to go, you jackb*tt. It's the 21st century, not the 19th. The 19th century was the 1800s when ignorance like these peoples' may have been a bit more acceptable.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 08, 2005, 03:48:37 PM
First off, it's never a good idea to start off an argument by saying you can't spell the name of something you have been studying for ten years.

Quote from: "Brylian"

Where do u lie on this?


Why couldn't a flood have wiped them out? do you think that there was some sort of invisible wall around the oceans and they would only have stayed in a specific area? what if they swam over what would become dry land once the water dried up? and how do you know that they are all extinct? we can't go down very far in the ocean yet. who Knows what we'll find.
 
Quote
We find that dinosaurs who's carbon dating (as well as layer dating) is before 200 million BC do not have chewing teeth, and after that time, most herbivores do.


What did they do, gum their food?

Quote
We also find that some of the smaller dinosaurs, such as consagnathus, slowly grew their arms outright and over time developed feathers on their arms.


how do you know this? do you have a time machine that allows you to go back and watch?

Quote
Doesn't it seem logical that this works in perfect co-ordination with evolution? Where does ur god stand on this?


Not really it doesn't, since all you are doing is guessing as to what those dinosuars where actually like.
 
Quote
We do have fossilised Dinosaur remains and what we see is that there is no grass at all in any of the dinosaur & their waste. Not even slight evidence, considering that grass the absolute primary plant species that exist, doesnt it seem strange that none of these wastes contain any grass in them at all? If ur a large herbivore that digests on minor plants usually ferns and grass is a minor Plant with virtually the same minerals as ferns, then shouldnt it be logical that we find fern AND grass remain in the waste. Isnt it far more logical that because we find no such evidence that grass slowly evolved from ferns into grass?


I don't see what you're trying to prove here, are you saying that since there is no evidence of grass, that somehow proves evolution?
 
Quote
further expanding on the last paragraph, we find that herbivores of the Triassic through to Cretaceous digested certain ferns that no longer exist, and didnt feed on plants that now do exist. Infact virtually ALL the plants that were digested by dinosaurs do not exist anymore, However these plants have been fossilised, and we can tell that, although u wouldnt believe it, 360-65 million years old, Doesnt it seem logical that the plants evolved from these plants cousins. Besides from what we can see from these plants is that they were high in protein and energy (high kilajules) AND they died out almost exactly when dinosaurs did.


Ok, so why couldn't it have been the flood that wiped them out? you said yourself they died out the same time as the dinosaurs. Thats just as much evidence for a great flood than it is for evolution.

Quote
I COULD go into other areas, like ice age evolution


 Every bit of evidence for an ice age could just as easily be credited to a flood.

Quote
That virus's are evolving all the time in responce to powerful anti-virus's


That same thing would happen with or without cross species evolution, it proves nothing other than that if a single bacteria has a gene that makes it immune to something all the bacteria produced by it will also have that same gene.

Quote
And more importantly, the fact that HUMANS have evolved from being 4 foot high everage 5000 years ago to 6 foot high average now.


Show me the evidence for this because I have never seen any.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Brylian on November 08, 2005, 07:08:11 PM
Its physically impossible for a creature we find was actually an amphibian (pliosaurs), to suddenly be stuck on land was not an issue. We know they are amphibian because the same ferns are found in their structure (these do no grow under the sea). A flood would NOT wipe these creatures out, pliosaurs would never have been wiped out by a flood. And because we KNOW they lived on land and the sea we also KNOW they would come between the ocean and land quite a bit, meaning they are NOT at the bottom of the ocean as the floor level of the ocean has far too much pressure for any creature that can surface, they would be crushed, like we would if we went that far down. You have no logical explanation for their extinction, and its not only Pliosaurs and its unlikely as well for Pleosaurs. Also its not only Pliosaurs and Pleosaurs that would have to have died out, Trillobites, Acrosyphamore's, and various other marine mammals that have all meraculously have died out (piece by piece over time), evolution is real my friend, even if you can't see it, you should be able to understand that.

Gum their food? Insects do not chew their food, many birds don't, neither do dolphins, and yet they have not died out, strange how that works isn't it? Dinosaurs would strip ferns and leave's with their jaggered teeth, and digestion did not require the food to be broken down any more as the body would do it for it. Much like our body would if we were to swallow something without chewing it, it would digest but its easier for our stomach to digest piece by piece.

How grass relates to evolution is that there are NO dinosaur remains that contain grass, yet grass contains virtually the same materials as fern's, so why in NO dinosaurs waste at all do we find evidence of grass?

the fact that virus's are evolving everyday indicates that life evolves. From one form to another, from one area to another. Some fish have changed the colour of their skin in order to relate to their specific environment, as it gives them more protection, is this not showing that animals evolve? And as they slowly add more features for survive are they not turning from one creature to another? Evolution my friend, although you can't see it, it is definalty there. YOU of all people should be able to understand that concept. Especially that this concept actually has evidence!
Title: Evolution???
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 08, 2005, 08:59:24 PM
Quote from: "Brylian"
Its physically impossible for a creature we find was actually an amphibian (pliosaurs), to suddenly be stuck on land was not an issue. A flood would NOT wipe these creatures out. You have no logical explanation for their extinction, and its not only Pliosaurs and its unlikely as well for Pleosaurs. Also its not only Pliosaurs and Pleosaurs that would have to have died out, Trillobites, Acrosyphamore's, and various other marine mammals that have all meraculously have died out (piece by piece over time).

 
The flood would have wiped out their food supply, and since herbivores need to eat such vast amounts of plants to survive it is easy to see why a flood would cause them to go extinct.

Quote
Gum their food? Insects do not chew their food, many birds don't, neither do dolphins, and yet they have not died out, strange how that works isn't it? Dinosaurs would strip ferns and leave's with their jaggered teeth, and digestion did not require the food to be broken down any more as the body would do it for it. Much like our body would if we were to swallow something without chewing it, it would digest but its easier for our stomach to digest piece by piece.


Exactly, not having chewing teeth proves nothing, other than the fact that they didn't chew their food.

Quote
How grass relates to evolution is that there are NO dinosaur remains that contain grass, yet grass contains virtually the same materials as fern's, so why in NO dinosaurs waste at all do we find evidence of grass?


Perhaps because dinosaurs didn't eat grass. Or maybe because grass as we know it couldn't grow on a pre-flood earth (and you can't deny that a flood would spread alot of nutrients).

Quote
the fact that virus's are evolving everyday indicates that life evolves. From one form to another, from one area to another. Some fish have changed the colour of their skin in order to relate to their specific environment, as it gives them more protection, is this not showing that animals evolve?


It shows that nature adapts, which can be called evolution if you like. But it does not show that man came from an ape or that all life came from a fish type creature or that birds came from dinosaurs.

Quote
And as they slowly add more features for survive are they not turning from one creature to another?


How do we know they keep adding more features to survive? we can't observe it happening, all we can see is bacteria that already have a gene, pass that gene on, they aren't just making genes at random, that bacteria already hade the ability to have that gene, just not all of them did.


This is not related to dinosaurs, but I'm going to quote myself from another thread.

Quote
have you ever heard of Wistar? What Wistar did was make a forum that put together many of the world's best biologists together with the world's best mathmaticians. It was designed to prove the mathmatcial validity of Darwinian natural selection. It was, however, a complete distaster. The odds proved so enormous that Darwinism seemed to be mathmatically impossible. It was thereby shoved into the closet & hidden because it was an embarrasment to the Darwinists.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Brylian on November 08, 2005, 10:04:06 PM
Darwin is an idiot, he thought of the world through natural selection, not evolutionary selection. He was a catholic and although came up with an interesting theory, Darwinism is NOT evolutionism, evolution grew out of darwinism. Do not confuse the 2 or i might start saying how protestants are the same as born agains.

Amphibian means you can survive in either environment for survival. You cannot argue that that is natural selection, as a frog can survive in a flood and survive in a drought, same with all amphibians, for that is their definition, the ability to live in either water, or land or both. Also you did not explain why so many OTHER animals died out suddenly, such as Trillobites. And if all these thousands of marine animals, amphibians, marine reptiles and marine mammals died out, why not crocodiles, whales and fish? Why not turtles?

You seem to have forgotten what my origional argument was in relation to crewing. My argument was that life before 200 million BC we find no creatures containing the ability to chew, after that we find many. Such as Iguanadon, the first Dinosaur to have the ability to chew. After that creature nearly all, even predators developed some sort of way to chew. This seems to relate perfectly to evolution, that nature itself is learning over time to survive. Its not random as you think evolutionists believe, no far from it, the single cell learns better ways to survive via evolution, everything being created in 7 days is just not possible.

Would you like to know one of the most interesting things of evolution. You CAN see it! sure not with your eyes, but even human history reflects evolution. 2000 years ago the average height of a man was 5 foot, the average height now is 6. 5000 years ago the average height was 4 foot! Evolution is causing us to grow. You want evidence? Look at the height of all doorways in ancient  Egypt, Greece, China ect, doorways were much MUCH smaller. I'm sure not every single race on earth decided to lower their doorways simply because its a cool inconvieniance. Ask a historian, they will tell you (and no believe it or not, your priest is NOT a historian).

And of course that calculate by darwinism was a disaster. That was over 100 years ago, they didnt have calculators, or even real numbers to work with. What the heck did they calculate anyways? What COULD they calculate? The reason why evolution remains a "theory" is because if we called it fact you guys would go Jihad on us (and yes i am aware that is a muslim term, but its the same concept).

You still have nothin to say to deny that dinosaurs slowly evolved into birds, as carbon dating, strata dating and common sense analysis of the comparison of bones over time indicate.

Btw, here have a look at this

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html

Good discussion btw.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Mark the Illuminatus on November 09, 2005, 03:22:51 AM
I really wish people would get their facts straight about evolution. Darwin was NOT an idiot. That's like saying Newton was an idiot just because Einstein's theories replaced Newton's. Of course, Newton wasn't an idiot, and neither was Darwin.

You all need to read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Which explains to you that evolution is both a fact and a theory, and the real definitions of the words "fact" and "theory" (for they have different definitions in science).
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Nrg on November 09, 2005, 05:29:50 AM
Well, Brylian posted first and gave a better response then I can ever dream of getting. Anyway, you can't argue that viruses evolve. That, in itself, should show evidence of evolving life.

If you want to critisize the natural selection and call it vauge, well, go ahead. But its a question of belief then. But don't say that there are no evidence. Vague evidence, perhaps, but it is a question of belief then.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Poorboy_Marlon on November 09, 2005, 07:29:56 AM
Perhaps the genetic code is preprogrammed to evolve into steadily higher forms of life? This would allow creationism and Evolution to both be true.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Nrg on November 09, 2005, 09:22:18 AM
Maybe, but that's conjecture.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 09, 2005, 06:14:47 PM
Ok lets get a few things straight so you'll understand what I'm arguing here. I believe that there is a god, but I could just barly be called a christian, I don't believe most of what is in the bible because it is nothing more than a book that was written by men, edited many times where large parts were cut from it, and it has been translated numerous times changing slightly every time no doubt. I don't believe the creation in the bible but I do believe that the universe was created by a god. The only reason I believe that there was a flood is because the bible and christianity are not the only places or religions it has been mentioned in.

Some of the most horrible things in history where committed in the name of christianity, most of them by the catholic church.

I also believe that most religions are all worshiping the same god just under different names. Now, on to the discussion.

Quote from: "Brylian"
Amphibian means you can survive in either environment for survival. You cannot argue that that is natural selection, as a frog can survive in a flood and survive in a drought, same with all amphibians, for that is their definition, the ability to live in either water, or land or both.


So if they can live in either I would say that is more evidence they did not evolve, because they would have no reason to, why would they need to make changes to survive if they could survive perfectly well no matter where they were.

Quote
Also you did not explain why so many OTHER animals died out suddenly, such as Trillobites.


I would say a flood would wipe them out as well as any other creature. And that would also easily explain why they died out suddenly.

Quote
And if all these thousands of marine animals, amphibians, marine reptiles and marine mammals died out, why not crocodiles, whales and fish? Why not turtles?


Because their food source is not grass and trees and plants, crocodiles eat other animals (from my understanding) whales eat various different sea creatures such as plankton and small fish (depinding on the type of whale) and as for turtles, once again Different species have different diets. The leatherback feeds only on jelly fish, the hawksbill only on sponges, the loggerhead feeds on a selection of bottom-dwelling invertebrates and kemps ridley turtles have a preference for crabs. The green turtle is thought to be omnivorous but largely herbivorous, feeding mainly on seagrasses and algae. But they all eat sea creatures, which would not have all died out in a flood.

Quote
My argument was that life before 200 million BC we find no creatures containing the ability to chew, after that we find many. Such as Iguanadon, the first Dinosaur to have the ability to chew. After that creature nearly all, even predators developed some sort of way to chew. This seems to relate perfectly to evolution, that nature itself is learning over time to survive. Its not random as you think evolutionists believe, no far from it, the single cell learns better ways to survive via evolution, everything being created in 7 days is just not possible.


But like Poorboy said, even if they where created in 7 days that does not mean they couldn't adapt and change slightly over thousands of years. And all of them suddenly changing at about the same time would be even more evidence for a flood. Not a slow evolution.

Quote
Evolution is causing us to grow. You want evidence? Look at the height of all doorways in ancient  Egypt, Greece, China ect, doorways were much MUCH smaller. I'm sure not every single race on earth decided to lower their doorways simply because its a cool inconvieniance.


I can't deny or confirm this because I have never seen a doorway in ancient ruins. However, if you believe in the bible peoples ages shortend dramatically (from seven to nine hundred years to about sixty to eighty today) so I see no reason for peoples hight to not change as well, in fact one may have been the cause of the other.

Quote
and no believe it or not, your priest is NOT a historian).


read the beginning of my post.

Quote
And of course that calculate by darwinism was a disaster. That was over 100 years ago, they didnt have calculators, or even real numbers to work with. What the heck did they calculate anyways? What COULD they calculate? The reason why evolution remains a "theory" is because if we called it fact you guys would go Jihad on us (and yes i am aware that is a muslim term, but its the same concept).


Actualy that happend in 1967 and they did have calculators, what they calculated was the mathmatical probability of evolution and found that it was almost mathmaticaly impossible. The reason evolution remains a theory is because it can't be proved, and it can't be fact unless it can be.

Quote
You still have nothin to say to deny that dinosaurs slowly evolved into birds, as carbon dating, strata dating and common sense analysis of the comparison of bones over time indicate.


you said yourself they where all wiped out at around the same time, which indicates that they didn't "slowly evolve" into anything. They simply died out.

Quote
Btw, here have a look at this

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html


Again, read the beginning of my post.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Goethe on November 10, 2005, 12:41:54 AM
OK first I'll address parts of the article posted by EnragedPenguin:

Quote
I suggest that it does no such thing, for several reasons. First, the fossils do not occur in this order, simple to complex from bottom to top. The fossils at the bottom (i.e., long ago) are equally as complex as any animal today, and are essentially the same as their modern counterparts.


This is partly true. Although as time goes on a species doesn't necessarily evolve and they also don't necessarily evolve into more complex organisms either. Sometimes simpler works better (or is atleast sufficient). That is why simple bodied species are still in existence today and have also been found in higher layers of the fossil record alongside more complex creatures. For the fossil record to be contradicted you need to find a complex bodied organism towards the bottom not simple organisms near the top.

Quote
In reality, the fossils appear abruptly in the record, fully formed and fully functional without less adapted ancestors in lower levels that would have preceded them in time. To be honest, the entire fossil record consists of predominately marine invertebrates (animals without a backbone, like clams, jellyfish, coral). The column is nothing more than a statement of evolutionary thinking.


The reasons fully formed fossils appear abrubtly in the record is because the organisms before them consisted of bodies too simple to be preserved in the record.

Quote
A case can perhaps be made for the order of first appearance of vertebrates (i.e., fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals), but vertebrate fossils are exceptions to the rule and usually quite fragmentary with the lower range of each often being extended downward with new discoveries. Most come from Ice Age deposits which sometimes contain human remains also.


Ofcourse its fragmentary, you can't just go digging and haul up a fossil record showing the perfect paths of divergent species. The word 'fragmentary' seems to be used here to negatively describe the evolutionist view of the fossil record but without any real basis, which would make me suspicious of any of the author's writings. The last couple of sentences also fail to criticize the theory of evolution.

Quote
Second, the evolutionary presentation in the textbook column implies that all life has come from one (or perhaps a few) common ancestor(s). But the Cambrian System, the lowest (i.e., oldest) level containing extensive multicellular fossils, exhibits a virtual explosion of life. Suddenly (by this I mean without the necessary ancestors lower in the column), every phylum of life is found—every basic body style, including vertebrate fish. The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.


Fossils have now been found before the Cambrian System.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/vendian/vendian.html


A detailed description of the Cambrian System can be found at:
http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/palaeontologie/Stuff/casu8.htm#explo

Quote
The Cambrian Explosion

The latest Neoproterozoic to Early Cambrian fossil record indicates that multicellular life evolved into a large number of possible bauplans as soon as it got a foothold. These bauplans, or types of organization, characterize high-ranked taxa such as phyla. Although life developed to a huge diversity as seen today, probably no new phyla developed in post-Cambrian times and the number of phyla has actually decreased since. The Middle Cambrian may thus represent the time with the organizational diversity at a maximum. What are the reasons of the Cambrian Explosion? This is a question that nobody can answer with enough certainty in the moment.

Physical examination of latest Proterozoic and Cambrian rocks indicate that there was

(1)  a distinct fluctuation of carbon isotopes around the Proterozoic-Cambrian,

(2)  a dramatic increase of the d34S curve,

(3)  an increase of the global sea-level,

(4)  a distinct rise of the phosphorite production, and

(5)  a slow increase of oxygen in the atmosphere from late Proterozoic to early Phanerozoic times.

These facts form the frame of a probably complex scenario, which ecologically equals the filling of an ecological barrel. However, we only hypothesize factors that may be responsible for a dramatic increase of phylogenetic development, such as possibly simpler Cambrian genomes or a more direct translation of gene to product, which may have enabled early diversification. Other hypotheses are needed to explain the rapid evolution and diversification of hard parts. Most of those hypothesis focus on changes in the physico-chemical environment and ecological stimuli (such as the evolution of the first predators). Regardless of the reasons, the novelty of hard parts led to more efficiency and improvements in the performance of animals and so is directly related to "advanced" animal groups such as arthropods and the group to which we belong, the chordates.


Quote
The abrupt appearance of diverse forms of life does not match with evolutionary predictions of one form descending into many.


What predictions? Is he making this up? Even if there are predictions I'm sure paleontologists would not consider them reliable due to the complexity of the situation (described above).

Quote
Third, these diverse forms continue up the column (i.e., throughout time) with much the same appearance possessed at the start. The term stasis describes the tendency to "stay" the same, remain "stationary" or "static." Some body styles go extinct as you come up the column, but no new basic styles are introduced.

Lies, all LIES!
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Mark the Illuminatus on November 10, 2005, 01:19:50 AM
You all need to read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Goethe on November 10, 2005, 01:59:22 AM
Quote from: "Mark the Illuminatus"
You all need to read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html.

 :( What was wrong with my arguments? Or are you saying there is no point in having this argument since evolution is a FACT?
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Goethe on November 10, 2005, 02:08:51 AM
Information on speciation:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Make sure you atleast read the part on isolating mechanisms. For some reason this is hardly ever mentioned in debates but it is fundamental to speciation.

It also makes perfect sense.

(Isolating mechanisms) + (the fact that genes are passed from one generation to the next) = EVOLUTION

There really isn't much need to diverge into discussing the Cambrian period and coming up with crappy 'evidence' for evolution. Stick to the basics.
 :(
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Goethe on November 10, 2005, 03:04:57 AM
Quote
have you ever heard of Wistar? What Wistar did was make a forum that put together many of the world's best biologists together with the world's best mathmaticians. It was designed to prove the mathmatcial validity of Darwinian natural selection. It was, however, a complete distaster. The odds proved so enormous that Darwinism seemed to be mathmatically impossible. It was thereby shoved into the closet & hidden because it was an embarrasment to the Darwinists.


I'd like to get my hands on these results. I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Superhead on November 10, 2005, 08:42:26 AM
Quote from: "Brylian"

The government is much weaker than u think, just because they have the military does not mean they control everything. Theres no way divided governments across the world (each having different religious beliefs) would agree to this as well as all the major economic classes.... it's illogical and just couldn;t happen. Think with ur brain, not with what someone else tells you to believe.


Actually, the only governments that would have to be in on the conspiracy are ones with space programs.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 10, 2005, 09:25:48 AM
There is no need to start going into the Cambrian area because we are talking about dating fossils to hundreds of millions of years ago and the only reliable method for dating is carbon-14 which can only be used to date back to about 50000 years ago, all the other methods can have variables of millions of years which (in my view) makes them very unreliable.

Let me rephrase what I said in my original post, There is evidence of evolution, plenty infact as long as when you say evolution you mean nature adapting and changing slightly over the course of many hundreds of years, however, if you mean evolution as in humans evolving from some sort of Ape creature (which is what most people mean when they say evolution), than no there is no evidence for this at all and it is nothing more than a guess.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: EnragedPenguin on November 12, 2005, 09:11:39 AM
Quote from: "Goethe"
I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(



Thats exactly what it was about and they proved that it was not possible to have evolution through random selection, and when you set aside  randomness you are left with design, which would require "purposive planning by an Intelligence."
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Goethe on November 13, 2005, 12:09:02 PM
Quote from: "EnragedPenguin"
Quote from: "Goethe"
I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(



Thats exactly what it was about and they proved that it was not possible to have evolution through random selection, and when you set aside  randomness you are left with design, which would require "purposive planning by an Intelligence."

It is now understood by many biologists that random selection due to mutation is unlikely and not the driving force of evolution, however, that still leaves natural selection, genetic drift, isolating mechanisms and whatever else.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: khatores on November 13, 2005, 12:31:20 PM
Quote from: "Virgo"
flatman: I'm one of those "fucking retarded christians" and I would highly appreciate it if you could stop making generalisations that aren't true.


I second that.  :)
Title: Evolution???
Post by: khatores on November 13, 2005, 12:33:23 PM
Quote from: "Superhead"
Quote from: "Brylian"

The government is much weaker than u think, just because they have the military does not mean they control everything. Theres no way divided governments across the world (each having different religious beliefs) would agree to this as well as all the major economic classes.... it's illogical and just couldn;t happen. Think with ur brain, not with what someone else tells you to believe.


Actually, the only governments that would have to be in on the conspiracy are ones with space programs.


Or, anyone with an air force...airlines would also have to be in on it, as would all kinds of shipping, telecommunications that use satellites and worldwide radio transmissions, air traffic controllers, astronomers, seismologists, cartographers, the list is practically endless.  Basically, at least 25% of the world would have to be in on this to make it work out, or someone would screw up and fly off the end.  At 40,000 feet, you'd have no trouble clearing a 150 ft ice wall.
Title: ?
Post by: pspunit on November 14, 2005, 03:06:58 PM
Are there satellites according to the flat-earth theory? If so, what do they orbit? If not, how do things like satellite TV, cell phones, and google earth work?
Title: Re: ?
Post by: khatores on November 15, 2005, 04:06:45 PM
Quote from: "pspunit"
Are there satellites according to the flat-earth theory? If so, what do they orbit? If not, how do things like satellite TV, cell phones, and google earth work?


Satellites are well-placed weather balloons...satellite TV uses hidden government antennas...and Google earth, of course, is a conspiratorial teaching tool.
Title: Evolution???
Post by: Scorpion on November 15, 2005, 05:46:14 PM
I remember one time I went to the beach, and I had my 5 year old sister with me.

At the time, I was like 8, and I looked at the map of the world. I was only a kid, and the map of the world was the whole world on paper, not a globe.

So, I was like "where is the rest of the world?" and the teacher told me that's the whole world.

The first thing that came to my mind was "the earth is flat".

But, as I first said, I was at the beach with my little sister, and I was looking out into the ocean. I could see the horizon, and some boats were dissapearing.  I was a bit confused at first, but then my little sister said "The earth is round like a ball" she holded up a beach ball, a part of the beach ball covered in sand. "If I move the ball back, the sand slowy dissapears". She held the ball in the air, and rolled it with her fingers back slowy so the sand would be going in the opposite direction. "So, the boats dissapear too, because the world is round".

Money makes the world go round, but hold up, according to a particular, moronic group, MONEY MAKES WORLD GO FLAT!! "HAHA I HOPE YOU FALL OFF THE EDGE, I HAVE NO LIFE, THUS I ACCEPT THE FACT THAT THE WORLD IS FLAT, I"LL KILL YOU WITH MY INVISIBLE LAZERS TOO HAHA!!!!!!!!!!LOL"

People who think the world is flat = nerds.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on November 20, 2008, 04:32:34 PM
Are there satellites according to the flat-earth theory?
Not really, no.
If so, what do they orbit? If not, how do things like satellite TV, cell phones, and google earth work?
As engy once said, GPS (including gigahertz transmissions) does not require satellites. Google earth being the exception can be disproven via the fact that it's just a patchworking of high altitude images taken by various companies.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Daz555 on November 21, 2008, 02:43:59 AM
Quote from: Nrg
What "glitches" are you talking about, Virgo?

Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.
...apart from the evidence which was used to develop the theory of course.  ::)
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on November 30, 2008, 03:37:50 PM
there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_common_descent [/thread]

This should interest the kingman troll as well.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Edtharan on December 06, 2008, 04:24:37 AM
Quote from: Goethe
I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(


Thats exactly what it was about and they proved that it was not possible to have evolution through random selection, and when you set aside  randomness you are left with design, which would require "purposive planning by an Intelligence."
The problem with your argument is that selection is not random. Variation can be random, but selection is most definitely not random.

Take for example Gazelles. If random variation made one slower than the others, then that Gazelle would be more likely to be eaten by a predator. This is not random, neither is it design.

This proves that selection is not random, and as your "disproof" required selection to be random, it shows that your disproof is false.

Ok, I'd like for you all to try my Evolution Game:

1) Write down any word you can think of
2) Pick a another word as target word
2) Randomly make 10 copies of that word but make random change to that word. These changes can be one of the following:
   a) Randomly change one letter into another letter
   b) Remove a letter
   c) Duplicate a letter that already exists in the word at a random point in the word
3) Remove any words that are not real words
4) Find the 8 words that most closely resembles the target word (at first this will not be very close to the target word). Usein the criteria:
   a) Number of letters
   b) Number of letters that match the target word
5) Select 2 of the remaining words at random to include in the list
6) Using the words selected in steps 4 and 5 randomly make 10 words out of each (giving you 100 words again) and repeat steps 3, 4 and 5 until the target word is reached (it might take a while)

In this, although there is random variation, the selection is not random, and although the criteria for selection is different than in evolution, the important matter is that there is selection (I have even included some random selection too).

Using this "game" you should be able to get form pretty much any word (ok, single letter words as a start word won't necessarily work).

The processes involved in this are the same as in evolution. First there is reproduction (you make 10 copies of each selected word) with variation (you make random changes to each replicated word ) and selection (which is not random).

Reproduction with variation and selection. This is the cornerstone of evolution, and by playing this game you can demonstrate that this process works.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on December 07, 2008, 04:04:42 PM
Quote from: Goethe
I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(


Thats exactly what it was about and they proved that it was not possible to have evolution through random selection, and when you set aside  randomness you are left with design, which would require "purposive planning by an Intelligence."
The problem with your argument is that selection is not random. Variation can be random, but selection is most definitely not random.

Take for example Gazelles. If random variation made one slower than the others, then that Gazelle would be more likely to be eaten by a predator. This is not random, neither is it design.

This proves that selection is not random, and as your "disproof" required selection to be random, it shows that your disproof is false.

Ok, I'd like for you all to try my Evolution Game:

1) Write down any word you can think of
2) Pick a another word as target word
2) Randomly make 10 copies of that word but make random change to that word. These changes can be one of the following:
   a) Randomly change one letter into another letter
   b) Remove a letter
   c) Duplicate a letter that already exists in the word at a random point in the word
3) Remove any words that are not real words
4) Find the 8 words that most closely resembles the target word (at first this will not be very close to the target word). Usein the criteria:
   a) Number of letters
   b) Number of letters that match the target word
5) Select 2 of the remaining words at random to include in the list
6) Using the words selected in steps 4 and 5 randomly make 10 words out of each (giving you 100 words again) and repeat steps 3, 4 and 5 until the target word is reached (it might take a while)

In this, although there is random variation, the selection is not random, and although the criteria for selection is different than in evolution, the important matter is that there is selection (I have even included some random selection too).

Using this "game" you should be able to get form pretty much any word (ok, single letter words as a start word won't necessarily work).

The processes involved in this are the same as in evolution. First there is reproduction (you make 10 copies of each selected word) with variation (you make random changes to each replicated word ) and selection (which is not random).

Reproduction with variation and selection. This is the cornerstone of evolution, and by playing this game you can demonstrate that this process works.
Some freak evolutionary superior human gets a random rock to their head ending their potential evolutionary chain means that evolution is not always fool proof, especially when in the past "freaks" have been seen as works of the devil/witches and delt with appropriately another act of christianity's fear of chage, backward thinking and the handbrake to evolving in general.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Raist on December 07, 2008, 04:15:03 PM
Quote from: Goethe
I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(


Thats exactly what it was about and they proved that it was not possible to have evolution through random selection, and when you set aside  randomness you are left with design, which would require "purposive planning by an Intelligence."
The problem with your argument is that selection is not random. Variation can be random, but selection is most definitely not random.

Take for example Gazelles. If random variation made one slower than the others, then that Gazelle would be more likely to be eaten by a predator. This is not random, neither is it design.

This proves that selection is not random, and as your "disproof" required selection to be random, it shows that your disproof is false.

Ok, I'd like for you all to try my Evolution Game:

1) Write down any word you can think of
2) Pick a another word as target word
2) Randomly make 10 copies of that word but make random change to that word. These changes can be one of the following:
   a) Randomly change one letter into another letter
   b) Remove a letter
   c) Duplicate a letter that already exists in the word at a random point in the word
3) Remove any words that are not real words
4) Find the 8 words that most closely resembles the target word (at first this will not be very close to the target word). Usein the criteria:
   a) Number of letters
   b) Number of letters that match the target word
5) Select 2 of the remaining words at random to include in the list
6) Using the words selected in steps 4 and 5 randomly make 10 words out of each (giving you 100 words again) and repeat steps 3, 4 and 5 until the target word is reached (it might take a while)

In this, although there is random variation, the selection is not random, and although the criteria for selection is different than in evolution, the important matter is that there is selection (I have even included some random selection too).

Using this "game" you should be able to get form pretty much any word (ok, single letter words as a start word won't necessarily work).

The processes involved in this are the same as in evolution. First there is reproduction (you make 10 copies of each selected word) with variation (you make random changes to each replicated word ) and selection (which is not random).

Reproduction with variation and selection. This is the cornerstone of evolution, and by playing this game you can demonstrate that this process works.
Some freak evolutionary superior human gets a random rock to their head ending their potential evolutionary chain means that evolution is not always fool proof, especially when in the past "freaks" have been seen as works of the devil/witches and delt with appropriately another act of christianity's fear of chage, backward thinking and the handbrake to evolving in general.

Yup, our next step in the evolutionary chain is a half functioning person.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on December 07, 2008, 05:29:58 PM
Quote from: Goethe
I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(


Thats exactly what it was about and they proved that it was not possible to have evolution through random selection, and when you set aside  randomness you are left with design, which would require "purposive planning by an Intelligence."
The problem with your argument is that selection is not random. Variation can be random, but selection is most definitely not random.

Take for example Gazelles. If random variation made one slower than the others, then that Gazelle would be more likely to be eaten by a predator. This is not random, neither is it design.

This proves that selection is not random, and as your "disproof" required selection to be random, it shows that your disproof is false.

Ok, I'd like for you all to try my Evolution Game:

1) Write down any word you can think of
2) Pick a another word as target word
2) Randomly make 10 copies of that word but make random change to that word. These changes can be one of the following:
   a) Randomly change one letter into another letter
   b) Remove a letter
   c) Duplicate a letter that already exists in the word at a random point in the word
3) Remove any words that are not real words
4) Find the 8 words that most closely resembles the target word (at first this will not be very close to the target word). Usein the criteria:
   a) Number of letters
   b) Number of letters that match the target word
5) Select 2 of the remaining words at random to include in the list
6) Using the words selected in steps 4 and 5 randomly make 10 words out of each (giving you 100 words again) and repeat steps 3, 4 and 5 until the target word is reached (it might take a while)

In this, although there is random variation, the selection is not random, and although the criteria for selection is different than in evolution, the important matter is that there is selection (I have even included some random selection too).

Using this "game" you should be able to get form pretty much any word (ok, single letter words as a start word won't necessarily work).

The processes involved in this are the same as in evolution. First there is reproduction (you make 10 copies of each selected word) with variation (you make random changes to each replicated word ) and selection (which is not random).

Reproduction with variation and selection. This is the cornerstone of evolution, and by playing this game you can demonstrate that this process works.
Some freak evolutionary superior human gets a random rock to their head ending their potential evolutionary chain means that evolution is not always fool proof, especially when in the past "freaks" have been seen as works of the devil/witches and delt with appropriately another act of christianity's fear of chage, backward thinking and the handbrake to evolving in general.

Yup, our next step in the evolutionary chain is a half functioning person.
Slowing the evolution and in the end devolvng humanity slightly.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Raist on December 07, 2008, 05:30:40 PM
Quote from: Goethe
I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(


Thats exactly what it was about and they proved that it was not possible to have evolution through random selection, and when you set aside  randomness you are left with design, which would require "purposive planning by an Intelligence."
The problem with your argument is that selection is not random. Variation can be random, but selection is most definitely not random.

Take for example Gazelles. If random variation made one slower than the others, then that Gazelle would be more likely to be eaten by a predator. This is not random, neither is it design.

This proves that selection is not random, and as your "disproof" required selection to be random, it shows that your disproof is false.

Ok, I'd like for you all to try my Evolution Game:

1) Write down any word you can think of
2) Pick a another word as target word
2) Randomly make 10 copies of that word but make random change to that word. These changes can be one of the following:
   a) Randomly change one letter into another letter
   b) Remove a letter
   c) Duplicate a letter that already exists in the word at a random point in the word
3) Remove any words that are not real words
4) Find the 8 words that most closely resembles the target word (at first this will not be very close to the target word). Usein the criteria:
   a) Number of letters
   b) Number of letters that match the target word
5) Select 2 of the remaining words at random to include in the list
6) Using the words selected in steps 4 and 5 randomly make 10 words out of each (giving you 100 words again) and repeat steps 3, 4 and 5 until the target word is reached (it might take a while)

In this, although there is random variation, the selection is not random, and although the criteria for selection is different than in evolution, the important matter is that there is selection (I have even included some random selection too).

Using this "game" you should be able to get form pretty much any word (ok, single letter words as a start word won't necessarily work).

The processes involved in this are the same as in evolution. First there is reproduction (you make 10 copies of each selected word) with variation (you make random changes to each replicated word ) and selection (which is not random).

Reproduction with variation and selection. This is the cornerstone of evolution, and by playing this game you can demonstrate that this process works.
Some freak evolutionary superior human gets a random rock to their head ending their potential evolutionary chain means that evolution is not always fool proof, especially when in the past "freaks" have been seen as works of the devil/witches and delt with appropriately another act of christianity's fear of chage, backward thinking and the handbrake to evolving in general.

Yup, our next step in the evolutionary chain is a half functioning person.
Slowing the evolution and in the end devolvng humanity slightly.

I'm glad you've changed your mind.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Edtharan on December 07, 2008, 05:41:11 PM
Quote from: Goethe
I've heard that the main focus of the forum was on the likelyhood of evolution due to random mutation (Not the other mechanisms of evolution). These claims may have been altered a little by some Creationists who are willing to stretch the truth to push their agenda.

 :(


Thats exactly what it was about and they proved that it was not possible to have evolution through random selection, and when you set aside  randomness you are left with design, which would require "purposive planning by an Intelligence."
The problem with your argument is that selection is not random. Variation can be random, but selection is most definitely not random.

Take for example Gazelles. If random variation made one slower than the others, then that Gazelle would be more likely to be eaten by a predator. This is not random, neither is it design.

This proves that selection is not random, and as your "disproof" required selection to be random, it shows that your disproof is false.

Ok, I'd like for you all to try my Evolution Game:

1) Write down any word you can think of
2) Pick a another word as target word
2) Randomly make 10 copies of that word but make random change to that word. These changes can be one of the following:
   a) Randomly change one letter into another letter
   b) Remove a letter
   c) Duplicate a letter that already exists in the word at a random point in the word
3) Remove any words that are not real words
4) Find the 8 words that most closely resembles the target word (at first this will not be very close to the target word). Usein the criteria:
   a) Number of letters
   b) Number of letters that match the target word
5) Select 2 of the remaining words at random to include in the list
6) Using the words selected in steps 4 and 5 randomly make 10 words out of each (giving you 100 words again) and repeat steps 3, 4 and 5 until the target word is reached (it might take a while)

In this, although there is random variation, the selection is not random, and although the criteria for selection is different than in evolution, the important matter is that there is selection (I have even included some random selection too).

Using this "game" you should be able to get form pretty much any word (ok, single letter words as a start word won't necessarily work).

The processes involved in this are the same as in evolution. First there is reproduction (you make 10 copies of each selected word) with variation (you make random changes to each replicated word ) and selection (which is not random).

Reproduction with variation and selection. This is the cornerstone of evolution, and by playing this game you can demonstrate that this process works.
Some freak evolutionary superior human gets a random rock to their head ending their potential evolutionary chain means that evolution is not always fool proof, especially when in the past "freaks" have been seen as works of the devil/witches and delt with appropriately another act of christianity's fear of chage, backward thinking and the handbrake to evolving in general.
You have made the most common mistake about evolution, that it is some how directed in the long term. It isn't

Sure there is short term direction, based on the current environment, but there is no longer term direction to evolution. When one starts talking about "evolutionary superior" organisms you are falling into that misconception.

As I said in that example, the selection criteria is not the same as in biological evolution. I previously didn't go into the details of selection in biological evolution (it is quite complex, but not impossible to understand) because it would have taken up too much of the post.

Selection in biological evolution (natural selection) is about removal of the weakest (more than survival of the fittest). In my previous analogy, it is not necessarily the fastest Antelope that passes on the gene, but that the slowest on does not (because it gets caught by the predator). If there is variation in the speeds, and the slowest gets removed, then the average will eventually increase.

Another thing about natural selection, the greatest competition between organisms, is not in the predator/prey  competition, but between members of the same species (as the Antelope example shows, with a bit of thought).

When it comes to social organisms (like humans, ants termite, bees, etc), then things become more complex still (and I am greatly simplifying it as it is). However, you can simplify social organisms as Super Organisms. Not like in Superman super  ;D, but that the collective acts as a single organisms made up on individual organisms. Indeed, multi cellular organisms are made up of individual cells, but there are individual organisms that are single cells so what we consider as a multi cellular organism is really a super organism already, only made up of single cell organisms.

Basically, the selection criteria in Natural Selection is dependant ton the current environment and the organisms that inhabit it. This causes the organisms to adapt to that environment, but as those organisms are part of that environment, their adoption causes the environment to change. As the environment has changed, the organisms have to re-adapt (which causes the environment to change, as so on...).

This is what I mean by complex. Because the environment and what is selected are so dependent on each other, if one changes, then the other change which requires the first to change again in a cycle. This kind of looping is specifically called a feedback loop (an engineering term) as the effects of one "feed back" around the loop to cause an effect on itself.

As a specific example:
At one time in Earth's history, there was not much oxygen in the atmosphere. We know this because oxygen reacts with certain materials to produce certain products. Like if you leave an iron bar out in the air, the oxygen will react with the iron to form iron oxide (rust). But if there was no oxygen, then no rust could form. Oxygen also reacts this way with rocks, but much more slowly. And so looking at the rocks that were laid down at the time, we can see that there was very little reaction with oxygen, so we can conclude that there was little oxygen in the atmosphere.

However, we also can find fossil evidence of life at this time too. So life, at the time, did not use oxygen. Oxygen is a highly reactive element, it reacts quite easily with many chemicals found in living organisms and this can cause damage to them. For instance we can often here about "Free Radicals" and the damage that they cause us. These Free Radicals are really just Oxygen (with a few electrons removed and maybe some other chemicals also attached).

Now, we don't think of Oxygen as bad, but this is because of what happened next on the ancient Earth. The Organisms that evolved in this environment did not have to combat damage from oxygen very often (there would have been a bit of it around, but not enough to threaten the organisms), but then there evolved the ability of plants to photosynthesise using sunlight.

Photosynthesis used sunlight to drive a chemical reaction that takes water (H2O) and carbon dioxide (CO2) to make carbohydrates (a class of chemicals that is a chain of carbon and hydrogen atoms). As you can see, carbohydrates use the carbon from the carbon dioxide, and the hydrogen from water to build the chain. This leaves Oxygen, which the plat expels.

Suddenly, there is a build up of oxygen in the atmosphere because plants have started to photosynthesise. As the other organisms have no defense against oxygen damage, they are in serious trouble. The highly reactive oxygen would be reacting with the very chemicals in the organisms and causing massive damage to them.

So we had an environment where spending energy and resources (from food) combating oxygen damage (repair, producing chemicals that mop up the oxygen, etc) gave you an advantage. But then when an organism evolved (plants) in a way that change the environment (expelled oxygen), what was once a selective advantage became a selective disadvantage.

Any organisms that did produce chemicals that prevented the oxygen from causing damage, or that spent more of their resource on repair would have then been at a great advantage.

But then, because there is all this highly reactive chemical around, an organisms that could use it would ahve another source of energy and thus have another selective advantage, and because the reactions are fast, it could speed up it's metabolism and do things like move faster, or digest different materials as well.

Now there has been another change to the selective criteria and that organisms that just deafened against oxygen too well would be at a selective disadvantage as organisms that focused on repair would be able to handle the increased level of oxygen inside them and even evolve chemicals to control where that oxygen went in them (like haemoglobin does in us).

As there is a lot of oxygen in the atmosphere today, any organisms that could not defend itself against it would be at a disadvantage, and any organisms that just removed it from itself and didn't use it would also be at a disadvantage. There are environments on Earth that don't contain a lot of oxygen, and we can see organisms that are adapted for low oxygen environments. If you place them in a high oxygen environment they die. IF you place organisms adapted for high oxygen environments in the low oxygen environments, they die too. But it is possible by slowly changing the amount of oxygen in the environment (over  along period of time) and the organisms change to adapt to the new environment (this has been done in the lab, and not only with oxygen but other chemicals as well).

As this shows, organisms react to the immediate environment, not to some long term goal. And, what was once an organisms that would have been the "pinnacle" of evolution turns out, if the environment changes, to be a badly adapted organism.

So although we might think of Humans as the pinnacle of Evolution (at the moment), this is just plain Hubris. We are only so successful because we have adapted to this environment. If another Ice age came along, we might almost go extinct. If we could go from the population we have now, to quite possibly extinct, then we can't be the absolute pinnacle of evolution.

At one time, Neanderthals were more populous than Humans, this would have made them appear to be the Pinnacle of evolution to themselves, as those pathetically evolved humans could not survive well in cold environments. However, the environment change, and became less cold, what would those Neanderthals say now?
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on December 07, 2008, 06:05:56 PM
I just reread how much fatal mistakes I made in my last post, I really need to learn how to spell when shit-faced.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: KingMan on December 13, 2008, 11:25:13 PM
Quote from: EnragedPenguin
Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.
Yeah, well, except for all the fossils showing improvements of entire species. I mean, creationism got loads of more evidence like... Um... Yeah, like what?
There are very few fossils that show such. This is what we call "gaps in the fossil record".
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Raist on December 13, 2008, 11:27:05 PM
Quote from: EnragedPenguin
Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.
Yeah, well, except for all the fossils showing improvements of entire species. I mean, creationism got loads of more evidence like... Um... Yeah, like what?
There are very few fossils that show such. This is what we call "gaps in the fossil record".

So basically you won't be happy until every member of a species is found as it changes? That is called ignoring evidence.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: KingMan on December 13, 2008, 11:29:29 PM
Quote from: EnragedPenguin
Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.
Yeah, well, except for all the fossils showing improvements of entire species. I mean, creationism got loads of more evidence like... Um... Yeah, like what?
There are very few fossils that show such. This is what we call "gaps in the fossil record".

So basically you won't be happy until every member of a species is found as it changes? That is called ignoring evidence.
Well if it happened then we should be able to find evidence of it. And I can't ignore what doesn't exist.

ps: good to talk to ya Raist
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Raist on December 14, 2008, 12:03:56 AM
We have found steps. What more do you want. Are you saying that these slightly changed species aren't evidence because we have nothing in between them? How complete would it have to be before you would acknowledge it?
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Trekky0623 on December 14, 2008, 07:51:08 AM
Quote from: EnragedPenguin
Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.
Yeah, well, except for all the fossils showing improvements of entire species. I mean, creationism got loads of more evidence like... Um... Yeah, like what?
There are very few fossils that show such. This is what we call "gaps in the fossil record".

So basically you won't be happy until every member of a species is found as it changes? That is called ignoring evidence.
Well if it happened then we should be able to find evidence of it. And I can't ignore what doesn't exist.

ps: good to talk to ya Raist


One of my favorite pieces of evidence is this:

Quote
For those who don't know Endogenous Retroviruses are molecular remnants of a past parasitic viral infection. Occasionally, copies of a retrovirus genome are found in its host's genome, and these retroviral gene copies are called endogenous retroviral sequences. Retroviruses make a DNA copy of their own viral genome and insert it into their host's genome. If this happens to a germ line cell (i.e. the sperm or egg cells) the retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host.

So what does this mean and how does it prove evolution? Well, When a Retrovirus infects the host it will leave behind a tell tale sign, Like a calling card, In the hosts genome. This calling card is then passed on to the hosts offspring in cases where the genome change was made in a Germ cell.

So if evolution is correct we should find that we share Retrovirus DNA with chimpanzees, And we do, At numerous locations in our genome. Could this be a coincidence? Well it could, But it is highly unlikely. For it to be a coincidence humans and chimpanzees would have had to get infected by the same viruses and have the viruses insert the DNA change in exactly the same place. So as humans have around 3 billion base pairs and retroviruses generally insert their DNA randomly it's impossible that ourselves and chimpanzees would have the same instances of retrovirus DNA at the same locations unless we inherited it from a common ancestor.

This evidence is even more compelling when we learn that we share multiple instances of retrovirus DNA with chimpanzees, All of which occur in the same locations in our genome. The odds against this happening by chance in a genome with 3 billion base pairs is astronomical.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Edtharan on December 14, 2008, 07:23:32 PM
Quote from: EnragedPenguin
Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.
Yeah, well, except for all the fossils showing improvements of entire species. I mean, creationism got loads of more evidence like... Um... Yeah, like what?
There are very few fossils that show such. This is what we call "gaps in the fossil record".
First of all, fossilisation only occurs occasionally. Then the longer a fossil is around the less of them there are due to them being re-exposed and weathering away, or other geological processes or have yet to be exposed.

So if only a few fossils actually make it, they represent millions upon millions of animals that either didn't get fossilised, were destroyed or are still in the ground waiting to be exposed).

If we get even just 4 fossils that show a continuity, this is very good evidence (not proof) of that continuity.

However, we do have direct examples of animal populations that have undergone evolution and indeed specieation: Eg: http://www.abc.net.au/nature/vampire/default.htm . And many experiments with Fruit Flies.

So we know that evolution occurs and that they can evolve into new species. It has been observed.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Jono on January 11, 2009, 10:53:42 PM
Perhaps the genetic code is preprogrammed to evolve into steadily higher forms of life? This would allow creationism and Evolution to both be true.

This is what happens when people want to believe everything  ::). Stupid philosophy.

@Penguin guy. Do you honestly believe that we are all worshiping the same God under different names? Wow, God must be hell of schizophrenic...telling one of his groups to go declare war on the others.

~Jono
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Trekky0623 on January 11, 2009, 10:56:08 PM
Well, the god figure in, at least, the three major religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) is pretty much the same.  We just fight over the details and land disputes.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Anteater7171 on January 11, 2009, 11:04:23 PM
Well, the god figure in, at least, the three major religions (Judaism, Islam, and Christianity) is pretty much the same.  We just fight over the details and land disputes.

Or how many god's there are!
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Trekky0623 on January 11, 2009, 11:14:49 PM
There's only one god in each of those religions.  Thanks for playing.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Anteater7171 on January 11, 2009, 11:20:41 PM
There's only one god in each of those religions.  Thanks for playing.

But Hinduism is a major religion, and they have a bunch of gods. Currently they're fighting with the Muslim faith. 
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: KingMan on January 11, 2009, 11:22:00 PM
There's only one god in each of those religions.  Thanks for playing.

But Hinduism is a major religion, and they have a bunch of gods. Currently they're fighting with the Muslim faith. 
Both of those religions are wrong.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Anteater7171 on January 11, 2009, 11:26:46 PM
There's only one god in each of those religions.  Thanks for playing.

But Hinduism is a major religion, and they have a bunch of gods. Currently they're fighting with the Muslim faith. 
Both of those religions are wrong.

Your point? They're all wrong.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on January 11, 2009, 11:27:18 PM
There's only one god in each of those religions.  Thanks for playing.

But Hinduism is a major religion, and they have a bunch of gods. Currently they're fighting with the Muslim faith. 
All religions are wrong.
Fixed.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: KingMan on January 11, 2009, 11:29:10 PM
There's only one god in each of those religions.  Thanks for playing.

But Hinduism is a major religion, and they have a bunch of gods. Currently they're fighting with the Muslim faith. 
All religions are wrong.
Fixed.
I knew someone would do something like that, but I posted anyways.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Trekky0623 on January 12, 2009, 06:24:16 AM
The Hindus aren't fighting with anyone.  They're boring.  And we're not talking about them.  We're talking about Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which are pretty much all the same.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: KingMan on January 12, 2009, 06:28:52 AM
The Hindus aren't fighting with anyone.  They're boring.  And we're not talking about them.  We're talking about Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, which are pretty much all the same.
wrong again
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Trekky0623 on January 12, 2009, 06:36:37 AM
Okay, maybe they're fighting, but we weren't talking about them, so why does it matter?  We're talking about how Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all pretty much the same.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: KingMan on January 12, 2009, 06:42:27 AM
Okay, maybe they're fighting, but we weren't talking about them, so why does it matter?  We're talking about how Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all pretty much the same.
No, I meant this statement is wrong.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Raist on January 12, 2009, 07:04:31 AM
Okay, maybe they're fighting, but we weren't talking about them, so why does it matter?  We're talking about how Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all pretty much the same.
No, I meant this statement is wrong.

How so?
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 12, 2009, 01:00:42 PM
Okay, maybe they're fighting, but we weren't talking about them, so why does it matter?  We're talking about how Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all pretty much the same.
No, I meant this statement is wrong.
They are very much the same Mohammed even consulted with the catholic shurch while he was forming his religion

How so?
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: KingMan on January 12, 2009, 04:04:39 PM
Okay, maybe they're fighting, but we weren't talking about them, so why does it matter?  We're talking about how Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all pretty much the same.
No, I meant this statement is wrong.

How so?
Christians believe Jesus was the son of God. Muslims believe Muhamed was Allahs prophet. Jews don't believe either of those.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 12, 2009, 04:14:22 PM
however muslims believe jesus was a prophet, jews just do not believe that jesus was the messaih we do the torah and the old testament are the same thing the rules guiding the religions are the same along with the histories so how are they not similar
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: KingMan on January 12, 2009, 04:29:19 PM
however muslims believe jesus was a prophet, jews just do not believe that jesus was the messaih we do the torah and the old testament are the same thing the rules guiding the religions are the same along with the histories so how are they not similar
Allright, you can think that.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Raist on January 12, 2009, 08:53:21 PM
Okay, maybe they're fighting, but we weren't talking about them, so why does it matter?  We're talking about how Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all pretty much the same.
No, I meant this statement is wrong.

How so?
Christians believe Jesus was the son of God. Muslims believe Muhamed was Allahs prophet. Jews don't believe either of those.

You have stated one difference. They all believe in one god, and from all stories, the same one.

Other than dogma, they are very similar.
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: KingMan on January 13, 2009, 04:46:38 PM
Okay, maybe they're fighting, but we weren't talking about them, so why does it matter?  We're talking about how Islam, Judaism, and Christianity are all pretty much the same.
No, I meant this statement is wrong.

How so?
Christians believe Jesus was the son of God. Muslims believe Muhamed was Allahs prophet. Jews don't believe either of those.

You have stated one difference. They all believe in one god, and from all stories, the same one.

Other than dogma, they are very similar.
Allright, you can think that.
::)
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 16, 2009, 05:07:58 PM
I think the problem is the propaganda about other religions. Islam is being defiled the most right now.

When terrorists claim to follow Islam and bomb buildings, it gives us a view into their most extremist followers. They really have no connection to Islam.
Comparing Islam to the media purported stereotyped followers is something that happens to all religions. If you wanted to learn Islam, you would not go to those people and ask any more than someone wishing to learn about Christianity would approach the KKK. Yes, the KKK is a Christian organization, and just like Islam, the extreme people who are seen following it are actually vastly misrepresentative.

Learn about Islam before you claim it is nothing like Christianity.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 05:48:51 PM
I think the problem is the propaganda about other religions. Islam is being defiled the most right now.

When terrorists claim to follow Islam and bomb buildings, it gives us a view into their most extremist followers. They really have no connection to Islam.
Comparing Islam to the media purported stereotyped followers is something that happens to all religions. If you wanted to learn Islam, you would not go to those people and ask any more than someone wishing to learn about Christianity would approach the KKK. Yes, the KKK is a Christian organization, and just like Islam, the extreme people who are seen following it are actually vastly misrepresentative.

Learn about Islam before you claim it is nothing like Christianity.
Even Mohammed consulted with the Catholic Church while he was organizing his religion no too mention that the Koran talks about Jesus and Abraham as prophets that came before Mohammed. Also of you ever go the temple mount in Jerusalem both Jesus and Abraham are written about in the walls there also
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on January 16, 2009, 05:52:07 PM
I think the problem is the propaganda about other religions. Islam is being defiled the most right now.

When terrorists claim to follow Islam and bomb buildings, it gives us a view into their most extremist followers. They really have no connection to Islam.
Comparing Islam to the media purported stereotyped followers is something that happens to all religions. If you wanted to learn Islam, you would not go to those people and ask any more than someone wishing to learn about Christianity would approach the KKK. Yes, the KKK is a Christian organization, and just like Islam, the extreme people who are seen following it are actually vastly misrepresentative.

Learn about Islam before you claim it is nothing like Christianity.
People in the KKK believe that the white race is better than others. Islam believe that religion makes them better than other.

LEARN ABOUT ISLAM BEFORE SAYING IT IS ANYTHING LIKE CHRISTIANITY.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 16, 2009, 05:55:01 PM
I think the problem is the propaganda about other religions. Islam is being defiled the most right now.

When terrorists claim to follow Islam and bomb buildings, it gives us a view into their most extremist followers. They really have no connection to Islam.
Comparing Islam to the media purported stereotyped followers is something that happens to all religions. If you wanted to learn Islam, you would not go to those people and ask any more than someone wishing to learn about Christianity would approach the KKK. Yes, the KKK is a Christian organization, and just like Islam, the extreme people who are seen following it are actually vastly misrepresentative.

Learn about Islam before you claim it is nothing like Christianity.
People in the KKK believe that the white race is better than others. Islam believe that religion makes them better than other.

LEARN ABOUT ISLAM BEFORE SAYING IT IS ANYTHING LIKE CHRISTIANITY.
So muslims think they worship a different god? No, they just believe that after Jesus god spoke to one more guy to spread the message even more
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 16, 2009, 06:12:49 PM
Kingman, do you believe that Christianity is better than Islam?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on January 16, 2009, 07:17:33 PM
Kingman, do you believe that Christianity is better than Islam?
I'm not touching that with a 40 foot pole.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: ﮎingulaЯiτy on January 16, 2009, 08:29:02 PM
Kingman, do you believe that Christianity is better than Islam?
I'm not touching that with a 40 foot pole.
lol. I can't imagine why.  ;)

...Alright, let's see.... You chose Christianity over Islam right?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on January 17, 2009, 04:03:31 AM
Islam can't be better than Christianity cos Muslims can't eat pigs. Pigs are tasty.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 17, 2009, 10:54:15 AM
Islam can't be better than Christianity cos Muslims can't eat pigs. Pigs are tasty.
And they cant drink booze
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on January 17, 2009, 11:06:26 AM
If we're going to be going all fundie with the ideas, Christians can't fuck. It's a self destructive ideal, given that it spreads like AIDS.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 11:22:08 AM
I think the problem is the propaganda about other religions. Islam is being defiled the most right now.

When terrorists claim to follow Islam and bomb buildings, it gives us a view into their most extremist followers. They really have no connection to Islam.
Comparing Islam to the media purported stereotyped followers is something that happens to all religions. If you wanted to learn Islam, you would not go to those people and ask any more than someone wishing to learn about Christianity would approach the KKK. Yes, the KKK is a Christian organization, and just like Islam, the extreme people who are seen following it are actually vastly misrepresentative.

Learn about Islam before you claim it is nothing like Christianity.
People in the KKK believe that the white race is better than others. Islam believe that religion makes them better than other.

LEARN ABOUT ISLAM BEFORE SAYING IT IS ANYTHING LIKE CHRISTIANITY.

People in the KKK believe that white christians are the best and everyone else should leave. Extremist Muslims believe people of their religion are better. Can I ask the difference.

So state one thing about islam that is inherently different from christianity other than the basic dogma that is less belief and more details.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on January 17, 2009, 12:15:41 PM
Islam can't be better than Christianity cos Muslims can't eat pigs. Pigs are tasty.
And they cant drink booze

Poor suckers. Although all the muslims I know, won't touch pig but will happily drink.

If we're going to be going all fundie with the ideas, Christians can't fuck. It's a self destructive ideal, given that it spreads like AIDS.

Eh?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 17, 2009, 12:29:22 PM
Islam can't be better than Christianity cos Muslims can't eat pigs. Pigs are tasty.
And they cant drink booze

Poor suckers. Although all the muslims I know, won't touch pig but will happily drink.

The same is true with those I know. :P
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 12:37:03 PM
Christians can have sex, they just aren't allowed to cheat on their wives.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 17, 2009, 01:02:24 PM
Islam can't be better than Christianity cos Muslims can't eat pigs. Pigs are tasty.
And they cant drink booze

Poor suckers. Although all the muslims I know, won't touch pig but will happily drink.

They can have mead I believe but they are not supposed to drink anything that is fermented with grains or fruits
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 01:11:00 PM
Then vodka should be fine coming from potatoes.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: cbarnett97 on January 17, 2009, 01:12:07 PM
Then vodka should be fine coming from potatoes.
It may be I will have to ask a muslim next time I see one
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: grogberries on January 17, 2009, 01:14:06 PM
You can ferment most anything, including potatoes. I know people that make pickle wine  ???. Most things you eat, you can ferment!
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on January 17, 2009, 01:33:21 PM
Islam can't be better than Christianity cos Muslims can't eat pigs. Pigs are tasty.
And they cant drink booze

Poor suckers. Although all the muslims I know, won't touch pig but will happily drink.

They can have mead I believe but they are not supposed to drink anything that is fermented with grains or fruits

They're always talking about whisky. Hmmm.

Then vodka should be fine coming from potatoes.

vodka is made from all kinds of things
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 01:35:28 PM
You can ferment most anything, including potatoes. I know people that make pickle wine  ???. Most things you eat, you can ferment!

As long as it has sugars. You can make it from pure sugar and water. I thought vodka had to be potato.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on January 17, 2009, 01:38:43 PM
Vodka can be from grains, potatoes or sugar beet.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: grogberries on January 17, 2009, 01:45:34 PM
Quote
"Vodka" is a diminutive of the Slavic word woda/voda meaning water

interesting?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on January 17, 2009, 01:50:55 PM
Typical Slavs
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 02:20:06 PM
Quote
"Vodka" is a diminutive of the Slavic word woda/voda meaning water

interesting?

Water of life. Where do you think the name for whiskey comes from?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 17, 2009, 02:50:50 PM
Islam can't be better than Christianity cos Muslims can't eat pigs. Pigs are tasty.
And they cant drink booze

Poor suckers. Although all the muslims I know, won't touch pig but will happily drink.

They can have mead I believe but they are not supposed to drink anything that is fermented with grains or fruits

They're always talking about whisky. Hmmm.

Probably because they sin just enough to make life exciting. Like christians. You can't go around following every rule in the book, or you would just become an hero out of boredom. Some muslims drink, some christians have extramarital sex and eat prawns.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 03:02:41 PM
Islam can't be better than Christianity cos Muslims can't eat pigs. Pigs are tasty.
And they cant drink booze

Poor suckers. Although all the muslims I know, won't touch pig but will happily drink.

They can have mead I believe but they are not supposed to drink anything that is fermented with grains or fruits

They're always talking about whisky. Hmmm.

Probably because they sin just enough to make life exciting. Like christians. You can't go around following every rule in the book, or you would just become an hero out of boredom. Some muslims drink, some christians have extramarital sex and eat prawns.

The old laws of cleanliness were reinterpreted by christ. Eating shellfish is no longer bad.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 17, 2009, 03:32:57 PM
Well, it's bad, but not so bad that you get punished for doing it. What the old testament said is bad, is still bad, but you don't get stoned to death for it, like it said you should get for some stuff. Like divorce, if I remember correctly.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 03:37:26 PM
Well, it's bad, but not so bad that you get punished for doing it. What the old testament said is bad, is still bad, but you don't get stoned to death for it, like it said you should get for some stuff. Like divorce, if I remember correctly.

Eating shellfish couldn't get you in trouble. You were just considered unclean. Those rules were completely changed or abolished. No church will mention them. Have you met a christian before?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 17, 2009, 03:41:15 PM
Yes, very much so. Some of my closest friends are christians. But that's just the thing: They're my friends and christian at the same time. Which means that the small stuff like extramarital sex and those lesser sins have never been a problem with them. Anyway, I live in a protestant country, so we hardly even use any of those old rules from OT, which means it's easy for me to confuse those that actually ARE obsolete with those that are simply considered obsolete. I mean, in Sweden gays are allowed to wed, if the minister will allow it, so we're a wee bit more liberal than American christians.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 03:43:22 PM
Yes, very much so. Some of my closest friends are christians. But that's just the thing: They're my friends and christian at the same time. Which means that the small stuff like extramarital sex and those lesser sins have never been a problem with them. Anyway, I live in a protestant country, so we hardly even use any of those old rules from OT, which means it's easy for me to confuse those that actually ARE obsolete with those that are simply considered obsolete. I mean, in Sweden gays are allowed to wed, if the minister will allow it, so we're a wee bit more liberal than American christians.

Well it cuts down to this, if it is in the 10 commandments, we follow it. If it isn't it is probably obsolete rule wise. Doesn't mean it's not a sin, but most won't consider it a sin.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 17, 2009, 03:51:34 PM
Sweet, gay buttsecks it is, then. Since, you know, that's in OT, Jeebus didn't say jack shit about it, and it's not in a commandment, and also, roman catholics are officially all vegetarians, since they use the translation "You shall not kill".
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 03:58:27 PM
Sweet, gay buttsecks it is, then. Since, you know, that's in OT, Jeebus didn't say jack shit about it, and it's not in a commandment, and also, roman catholics are officially all vegetarians, since they use the translation "You shall not kill".

Most evidence points to jesus having no problem with homosexuality.

Ending an animals life for food is not killing. God put them here for our food. Though they limit how often they eat meant, don't know the rules on that. Also roman catholics follow whichever rules the pope chooses.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 17, 2009, 04:01:58 PM
Still, the commandment clearly states: "Thou shall not kill." That leaves little space for interpretation.

But really:

Ending an animals life for food is not killing.

Yes it is.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 04:30:49 PM
Not in the view of the times. So if God didn't want them to kill animals, he should have stated so in a separate commandment. He wouldn't use language in a way that hasn't been invented.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 17, 2009, 04:32:15 PM
So you mean that people in biblical times didn't see it as killing an animal when they clubbed or stabbed it to death and slowly roasted it over a bed of embers?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 04:37:24 PM
So you mean that people in biblical times didn't see it as killing an animal when they clubbed or stabbed it to death and slowly roasted it over a bed of embers?

Actually, all animals killed by jews had to have thier throats cleanly sliced severing both the vein and the artery in the neck. The blade had to be razor sharp and free of any nicks or serration. If strict procedure wasn't followed in slaughtering the animal it was considered unclean, and inedible. It was very ritualistic and ensured minimal pain from the animal. So I guess in a sense he did ensure animals weren't killed in the manner you described.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 17, 2009, 04:42:36 PM
Now you're dodging the question. Do you, or do you not think that people in biblical times thought that they were killing an animal when they butchered it and prepared it for cooking, in the same way as one thinks of killing a human being?
Title: Re: Evolution???
Post by: Shredderbeam on January 17, 2009, 05:41:41 PM
Quote from: Nrg
What "glitches" are you talking about, Virgo?

Maybe he's talking about the little ones, like the fact that there is no evidence what so ever to say that the evolution theory is true.

I lol'd.

Then I thought you might be serious.

I grew concerned, and advised you to Google "evidence" and "macroevolution".
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on January 17, 2009, 06:15:23 PM
So you mean that people in biblical times didn't see it as killing an animal when they clubbed or stabbed it to death and slowly roasted it over a bed of embers?
God made the animals, and he told us to sacrifice them. It was perfectly fine.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 17, 2009, 08:06:04 PM
Now you're dodging the question. Do you, or do you not think that people in biblical times thought that they were killing an animal when they butchered it and prepared it for cooking, in the same way as one thinks of killing a human being?

No I do not at all. I was simply answering your appeal to emotion about how animals were slaughtered.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on January 17, 2009, 09:20:51 PM
Now you're dodging the question. Do you, or do you not think that people in biblical times thought that they were killing an animal when they butchered it and prepared it for cooking, in the same way as one thinks of killing a human being?

No I do not at all. I was simply answering your appeal to emotion about how animals were slaughtered.
Animals are slaughtered everyday. They are here to feed us.

PS, this isn't directed at you Raist.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 18, 2009, 02:50:33 AM
Now you're dodging the question. Do you, or do you not think that people in biblical times thought that they were killing an animal when they butchered it and prepared it for cooking, in the same way as one thinks of killing a human being?

No I do not at all. I was simply answering your appeal to emotion about how animals were slaughtered.

Actually, knowing what I know about what happens to farm animals in slaughterhouses, even in the worst of conditions, I have no moral quarrel eating meat. I'm sorry if you took it as an appeal to emotion, but that wasn't the purpose. In any way, what I'm getting at is that killing is killing. No exceptions. srsly.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 18, 2009, 12:38:37 PM
Now you're dodging the question. Do you, or do you not think that people in biblical times thought that they were killing an animal when they butchered it and prepared it for cooking, in the same way as one thinks of killing a human being?

No I do not at all. I was simply answering your appeal to emotion about how animals were slaughtered.

Actually, knowing what I know about what happens to farm animals in slaughterhouses, even in the worst of conditions, I have no moral quarrel eating meat. I'm sorry if you took it as an appeal to emotion, but that wasn't the purpose. In any way, what I'm getting at is that killing is killing. No exceptions. srsly.

With todays attitudes and syntax yes. Though when the old testament was written it obviously used a word that in no way meant the killing of animals, or possibly was being used in a way that didn't mean the slaughtering of animals.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on January 18, 2009, 01:05:07 PM
So you mean that people in biblical times didn't see it as killing an animal when they clubbed or stabbed it to death and slowly roasted it over a bed of embers?
God made the animals, and he told us to sacrifice them. It was perfectly fine.
Please broadcast that to PETA, I'll lol... I promise.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on January 18, 2009, 01:56:27 PM
So you mean that people in biblical times didn't see it as killing an animal when they clubbed or stabbed it to death and slowly roasted it over a bed of embers?
God made the animals, and he told us to sacrifice them. It was perfectly fine.
Please broadcast that to PETA, I'll lol... I promise.
Thats a great Idea. i hate PETA.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 18, 2009, 02:32:53 PM
I don't hate them so much as get annoyed by them. I also don't really like the fact that they are so dumb that they think those shock videos they put out are what's really going on in the fur and farming industries. Anyway, who's with me in the creation of PERTA?(People eating really tasty animals)
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Colonel Gaydafi on January 18, 2009, 02:40:39 PM
I'm with you Wendy!
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 18, 2009, 03:35:20 PM
I don't hate them so much as get annoyed by them. I also don't really like the fact that they are so dumb that they think those shock videos they put out are what's really going on in the fur and farming industries. Anyway, who's with me in the creation of PERTA?(People eating really tasty animals)

I have a plan. I am going to lock the head of peta in a cage with nothing but steaks each day. When she finally gets hungry enough and eats a steak I stop putting steaks in there and put some small vaguely edible animal in there.

Slowly her morals will be decayed to the point that she brutally slaughters a small animal with her own hands and eats it. I will post the video on the internet and PETA will crumble.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on January 19, 2009, 12:00:49 AM
I don't hate them so much as get annoyed by them. I also don't really like the fact that they are so dumb that they think those shock videos they put out are what's really going on in the fur and farming industries. Anyway, who's with me in the creation of PERTA?(People eating really tasty animals)
i have long thought about creating such a group. I'm in dude.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 19, 2009, 06:09:12 AM
Sweet. Finally, we can agree on something. As long as we steer clear of religion, I think we're green, though.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Mythix Profit on January 19, 2009, 06:28:30 PM
Someone beat you to it. T shirts imprinted w/ People Eating Tasty Animals already exist in the marketplace.

ALso, I'm fairly sure that the term used in hebrew refered to murder, not killing per se; as Yahveh demands ritual blood sacrifice and apparently directs or condones the slaughter of whole populations deemed to be enemies of Israel.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on January 20, 2009, 02:20:20 AM
True, but we're not talking about jews right now. We're talking about christians, who have a book where it says, specifically: "Do NOT kill." I know it's not a perfect book, but it's not a perfect religion either.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on January 20, 2009, 04:42:57 AM
True, but we're not talking about jews right now. We're talking about christians, who have a book where it says, specifically: "Do NOT kill." I know it's not a perfect book, but it's not a perfect religion either.

Well see what you are referring to is a section of the christian book, that tells about the jewish tablets. Our book being slightly mistranslated should be taken into account especially when he was obviously fine with killing.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Dead Kangaroo on February 08, 2009, 09:30:37 AM
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Mythix Profit on February 08, 2009, 12:41:08 PM
That vid goes from the absurd to the sublime.

This proves beyond a shadow of doubt that Art is the fastest evolving form of Life and the only Truth worth pursuing religiously.

Wine, I say; Wine,.... wine and Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeese, Please.

Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 09, 2009, 04:04:40 PM
I was talking to my Biology teacher today about evolution(he has a masters in Biology). And he told me possibly the biggest flaw with the theory of Evolution. Why do we have a male and Female? We started off as asexual and so how is it that a male appeared and a female appeared at the same time? This diectly contradicts evolution because it's a process that6 requires a lot more energy and changes in the body. How did it happen?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: cbarnett97 on February 09, 2009, 04:42:00 PM
I was talking to my Biology teacher today about evolution(he has a masters in Biology). And he told me possibly the biggest flaw with the theory of Evolution. Why do we have a male and Female? We started off as asexual and so how is it that a male appeared and a female appeared at the same time? This diectly contradicts evolution because it's a process that6 requires a lot more energy and changes in the body. How did it happen?
My guess would be that it is easier for our bodies to only procude half the material needed so we have 2 sexes to produce on whole organism.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on February 09, 2009, 08:54:13 PM
I was talking to my Biology teacher today about evolution(he has a masters in Biology). And he told me possibly the biggest flaw with the theory of Evolution. Why do we have a male and Female? We started off as asexual and so how is it that a male appeared and a female appeared at the same time? This diectly contradicts evolution because it's a process that6 requires a lot more energy and changes in the body. How did it happen?
Well originally, bacteria can inject small bits of DNA into each other. It wouldn't be much of a jump to get to sex. Your biology teacher is an idiot, or possibly oversimplifying a question for you guys. We didn't immediately get a male and a female, we probably had two types that were slightly more specialized for having babies, or giving babies, these turned into some sort of simple transvestite species, eventually the great apes rolls around. Then boom us.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 10, 2009, 09:46:55 AM
I was talking to my Biology teacher today about evolution(he has a masters in Biology). And he told me possibly the biggest flaw with the theory of Evolution. Why do we have a male and Female? We started off as asexual and so how is it that a male appeared and a female appeared at the same time? This diectly contradicts evolution because it's a process that6 requires a lot more energy and changes in the body. How did it happen?
Well originally, bacteria can inject small bits of DNA into each other. It wouldn't be much of a jump to get to sex. Your biology teacher is an idiot, or possibly oversimplifying a question for you guys. We didn't immediately get a male and a female, we probably had two types that were slightly more specialized for having babies, or giving babies, these turned into some sort of simple transvestite species, eventually the great apes rolls around. Then boom us.
He is uch smarter than oyu considering he has a masters and, what do you have? He has studied it and seen how unlikly it is that it happened. it defies logic.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 10, 2009, 09:49:11 AM
It's a simple biological principle and he doesn't know it. How many cocks did he suck for that degree? Or did he get it in one of those places where "God did it" is a valid answer for every question?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 10, 2009, 09:52:20 AM
It's a simple biological principle and he doesn't know it. How many cocks did he suck for that degree? Or did he get it in one of those places where "God did it" is a valid answer for every question?
You're pitiful. Insulting someone because you don't agree with him. Even when he is without a doubt much more educated than you on the subject. I pity you.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: cmdshft on February 10, 2009, 09:53:38 AM
It's a simple biological principle and he doesn't know it. How many cocks did he suck for that degree? Or did he get it in one of those places where "God did it" is a valid answer for every question?
You're pitiful. Insulting someone because you don't agree with him. Even when he is without a doubt much more educated than you on the subject. I pity you.

I find that hard to believe if he's teaching biology and doesn't have any clue as to why we go through sexual reproduction...
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 10, 2009, 09:54:46 AM
It's a simple biological principle and he doesn't know it. How many cocks did he suck for that degree? Or did he get it in one of those places where "God did it" is a valid answer for every question?
You're pitiful. Insulting someone because you don't agree with him. Even when he is without a doubt much more educated than you on the subject. I pity you.

Where did I insult him? He's ignorant of one of the most basic biological principles, and he has a Master's degree in Biology, so I merely questioned how he did it.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Robbyj on February 10, 2009, 09:56:49 AM
He is uch smarter than oyu considering he has a masters and, what do you have? He has studied it and seen how unlikly it is that it happened. it defies logic.

Being a high school or lower teacher does not make you smart.  In fact, it is usually the exact opposite.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 10, 2009, 09:59:14 AM
How many cocks did he suck for that degree?
Right there Douchebag.

He is uch smarter than oyu considering he has a masters and, what do you have? He has studied it and seen how unlikly it is that it happened. it defies logic.

Being a high school or lower teacher does not make you smart.  In fact, it is usually the exact opposite.
You are only saying that to try and discredit him. You are so full of shit I can smell it a thousand miles away.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Robbyj on February 10, 2009, 10:00:22 AM
I'm not trying to discredit anyone.  That is simply the truth.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 10, 2009, 10:01:49 AM
I merely questioned how he did it.

::) Look, it's for genetic variation, mmkay? All beneficial mutations either increase genetic variation or increase the chance of offspring survival. That's the basis of Darwinism, and given that he hasn't punched you in the face for ID, I wouldn't expect him to know it.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 10, 2009, 10:02:23 AM
I'm not trying to discredit anyone.  That is simply the truth.
Proof? I don't have any teachers that I would consider less than smart. And thats exactly what your trying to do by claiming he is stupid and shouldn't be listened to.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Robbyj on February 10, 2009, 10:04:24 AM
I'm not saying he shouldn't be listened to in the sense of class material, but I would be leery of accepting his personal opinion as solid truth. 
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 10, 2009, 10:05:45 AM
I'm not saying he shouldn't be listened to in the sense of class material, but I would be leery of accepting his personal opinion as solid truth. 
It's not an opinion. how me the opinion in my original post.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Robbyj on February 10, 2009, 10:07:26 AM
I was talking to my Biology teacher today about evolution
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 10, 2009, 10:55:48 AM
I was talking to my Biology teacher today about evolution
What?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on February 10, 2009, 10:57:01 AM
I was talking to my Biology teacher today about evolution(he has a masters in Biology). And he told me possibly the biggest flaw with the theory of Evolution. Why do we have a male and Female? We started off as asexual and so how is it that a male appeared and a female appeared at the same time? This diectly contradicts evolution because it's a process that6 requires a lot more energy and changes in the body. How did it happen?
Well originally, bacteria can inject small bits of DNA into each other. It wouldn't be much of a jump to get to sex. Your biology teacher is an idiot, or possibly oversimplifying a question for you guys. We didn't immediately get a male and a female, we probably had two types that were slightly more specialized for having babies, or giving babies, these turned into some sort of simple transvestite species, eventually the great apes rolls around. Then boom us.
He is uch smarter than oyu considering he has a masters and, what do you have? He has studied it and seen how unlikly it is that it happened. it defies logic.

And I have helped multiple zoo majors understand concepts in biology. A masters in biology would guarantee no practical knowledge about evolution especially if his degree is slightly dated. I never claimed to be smarter than him, I just can logically think through a simple concept using things I have learned. A masters doesn't mean he can figure out why we don't have a 6 cents piece, and 10 minutes ago I explained to a professor of economics why they use a price floor on beer instead of taxing it to the price it is.

And if your biology teacher is anything like your english teacher, they should be sued for malpractice.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Proleg on February 10, 2009, 11:51:13 AM
I expect KingMan is taking what was said out of context or twisting it around in some way (if he's not outright lying).

KingMan, kindly ask your biology teacher to clarify what he meant and perhaps present him with the conclusion you have presented us for him to comment on.

I would be most interested in the results.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 10, 2009, 01:55:29 PM
I was talking to my Biology teacher today about evolution(he has a masters in Biology). And he told me possibly the biggest flaw with the theory of Evolution. Why do we have a male and Female? We started off as asexual and so how is it that a male appeared and a female appeared at the same time? This diectly contradicts evolution because it's a process that6 requires a lot more energy and changes in the body. How did it happen?
Well originally, bacteria can inject small bits of DNA into each other. It wouldn't be much of a jump to get to sex. Your biology teacher is an idiot, or possibly oversimplifying a question for you guys. We didn't immediately get a male and a female, we probably had two types that were slightly more specialized for having babies, or giving babies, these turned into some sort of simple transvestite species, eventually the great apes rolls around. Then boom us.
He is uch smarter than oyu considering he has a masters and, what do you have? He has studied it and seen how unlikly it is that it happened. it defies logic.

And I have helped multiple zoo majors understand concepts in biology. A masters in biology would guarantee no practical knowledge about evolution especially if his degree is slightly dated. I never claimed to be smarter than him, I just can logically think through a simple concept using things I have learned. A masters doesn't mean he can figure out why we don't have a 6 cents piece, and 10 minutes ago I explained to a professor of economics why they use a price floor on beer instead of taxing it to the price it is.

And if your biology teacher is anything like your english teacher, they should be sued for malpractice.
Lern2typo



I expect KingMan is taking what was said out of context or twisting it around in some way (if he's not outright lying).

KingMan, kindly ask your biology teacher to clarify what he meant and perhaps present him with the conclusion you have presented us for him to comment on.

I would be most interested in the results.
I did. I only posted this after talking to him about it after class.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Cinlef on February 10, 2009, 02:23:40 PM
Kingman have you ever heard of Dr Peter Van Inwagen?

He's the John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at University of Notre Dame

Now having read several of your posts in this thread I think his Wormsley Glen though experiment  may clarify to you how it is possible random chance creates the illusion of design.

It begins on the second paragraph of this page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen) and finishes on the next page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen)


A helpful
Cinlef
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on February 10, 2009, 02:25:12 PM
Kingman have you ever heard of Dr Peter Van Inwagen?

He's the John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at University of Notre Dame

Now having read several of your posts in this thread I think his Wormsley Glen though experiment  may clarify to you how it is possible random chance creates the illusion of design.

It begins on the second paragraph of this page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen) and finishes on the next page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen)


A helpful
Cinlef

I think my sister had one of his classes. (possibly)
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: cmdshft on February 10, 2009, 08:01:56 PM
Kingman have you ever heard of Dr Peter Van Inwagen?

He's the John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at University of Notre Dame

Now having read several of your posts in this thread I think his Wormsley Glen though experiment  may clarify to you how it is possible random chance creates the illusion of design.

It begins on the second paragraph of this page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen) and finishes on the next page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen)


A helpful
Cinlef

 ;D

Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 10, 2009, 08:17:34 PM
Kingman have you ever heard of Dr Peter Van Inwagen?

He's the John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at University of Notre Dame

Now having read several of your posts in this thread I think his Wormsley Glen though experiment  may clarify to you how it is possible random chance creates the illusion of design.

It begins on the second paragraph of this page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen) and finishes on the next page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen)


A helpful
Cinlef

 ;D


:P
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Cinlef on February 11, 2009, 06:38:12 PM
Kingman have you ever heard of Dr Peter Van Inwagen?

He's the John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at University of Notre Dame

Now having read several of your posts in this thread I think his Wormsley Glen though experiment  may clarify to you how it is possible random chance creates the illusion of design.

It begins on the second paragraph of this page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen) and finishes on the next page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen)


A helpful
Cinlef

 ;D


:P

Sigh KingMan did even you read the links?

A exasperated
Cinlef
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 11, 2009, 09:07:26 PM
Kingman have you ever heard of Dr Peter Van Inwagen?

He's the John Cardinal O'Hara Professor of Philosophy at University of Notre Dame

Now having read several of your posts in this thread I think his Wormsley Glen though experiment  may clarify to you how it is possible random chance creates the illusion of design.

It begins on the second paragraph of this page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA196&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen) and finishes on the next page (http://books.google.ca/books?id=7-LqDltXrNoC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA196&ots=_2A5ljwmlB&dq=wormsley+glen)


A helpful
Cinlef

 ;D


:P

Sigh KingMan did even you read the links?

A exasperated
Cinlef
I did, but I only got one page for some reason. It didn't let me read the others.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Benocrates on February 12, 2009, 04:43:37 AM
XD, you guys are still debating with Kingman?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 12, 2009, 07:11:20 AM
XD, you guys are still debating with Kingman?
It's been over for a couple days.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 12, 2009, 10:15:51 AM
This debate has been over for decades, you Christfags just won't accept it.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: cmdshft on February 12, 2009, 10:30:06 AM
This debate has been over for centuries, you Christfags just won't accept it.

Fix'd.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 12, 2009, 10:31:33 AM
In fairness, On the Origin of Species was only published 150 years ago.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 12, 2009, 10:48:13 AM
This debate has been over for centuries, you Christfags just won't accept it.

Fix'd.
Then why are there still more christians?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Proleg on February 12, 2009, 10:56:51 AM
This debate has been over for centuries, you Christfags just won't accept it.

Fix'd.
Then why are there still more christians?
Because we remain a poorly evolved mammalian species. Our prefrontal lobes are too small. Our adrenaline glands are too big. Our thumb-finger opposition isn't all that it might be. And we're afraid of the dark and we're afraid to die and so we believe in the myths of "holy books" which are so stupid and so fabricated that a child can see through them.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 12, 2009, 10:59:04 AM
This debate has been over for centuries, you Christfags just won't accept it.

Fix'd.
Then why are there still more christians?
Because we remain a poorly evolved mammalian species. Our prefrontal lobes are too small. Our adrenaline glands are too big. Our thumb-finger opposition isn't all that it might be. And we're afraid of the dark and we're afraid to die and so we believe in the myths of "holy books" which are so stupid and so fabricated that a child can see through them.
You have obviously never read the bible. And many people are not afraid to die.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 12, 2009, 11:00:33 AM
This debate has been over for centuries, you Christfags just won't accept it.

Fix'd.
Then why are there still more christians?
Because we remain a poorly evolved mammalian species. Our prefrontal lobes are too small. Our adrenaline glands are too big. Our thumb-finger opposition isn't all that it might be. And we're afraid of the dark and we're afraid to die and so we believe in the myths of "holy books" which are so stupid and so fabricated that a child can see through them.
You have obviously never read the bible. And many people are not afraid to die.

I have and he's right. And those people that you're thinking about are afraid of death, they just think it won't happen because of their "afterlife".
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 12, 2009, 11:01:24 AM
This debate has been over for centuries, you Christfags just won't accept it.

Fix'd.
Then why are there still more christians?
Because we remain a poorly evolved mammalian species. Our prefrontal lobes are too small. Our adrenaline glands are too big. Our thumb-finger opposition isn't all that it might be. And we're afraid of the dark and we're afraid to die and so we believe in the myths of "holy books" which are so stupid and so fabricated that a child can see through them.
You have obviously never read the bible. And many people are not afraid to die.

I have and he's right. And those people that you're thinking about are afraid of death, they just think it won't happen because of their "afterlife".
Why did you read it if you think its BS?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 12, 2009, 11:02:31 AM
I read it before that, back when I was really interested in religion and the psychology behind it. The Qur'ran is way better.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Proleg on February 12, 2009, 11:03:12 AM
I was indoctrinated from a very early age. I didn't know any better at the time that I first read it. I have since reread it with a clearer mind.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: optimisticcynic on February 12, 2009, 02:43:47 PM
I read it before that, back when I was really interested in religion and the psychology behind it. The Qur'ran is way better.
Is it really? I have been researching a religeon that I would want to be a part of But So far I have only got through Buddhism and part of Hinduism.
If you want an interesting version of god look at the Hindus. 
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 12, 2009, 02:44:42 PM
I read it before that, back when I was really interested in religion and the psychology behind it. The Qur'ran is way better.
Is it really? I have been researching a religeon that I would want to be a part of But So far I have only got through Buddhism and part of Hinduism.
If you want an interesting version of god look at the Hindus. 
You keep spelling religion wrong.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Cop(urnicus)Killa on February 13, 2009, 03:23:39 AM
When I was a child I aksed my dear old religious mum whether we were related to monkeys after having read it in the Penguin Book of Evolutionary Relativism.

She turned around from scrubbing my soiled nappies (physically I was a late developer) and said, "Nigel", for that's my name, "Nigel, we are no more related to Apes than those jungle bunnies the Ambroses down the road. Now stop fondling yourself."

Her view on the world (bar the casual bigotry) has abided with me since then and I have never seen how evolution could ever be satisfactorily proven. To me it's all circumstance that finches have different beaks and that it's the beaks that influences what they eat, no the other way round.

Can it be proven?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: C.B.B. Cat on February 13, 2009, 03:27:03 AM
How can religeon not explain an eye?  I mean, an eyeball isn't just gonna like suddenly sprout on a gibbon or fish or whatevers face and start seeing?  If you didn't have eyes then how did you know that there was sumthing to see?  Must be a goD
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Scrofula T Bone on February 13, 2009, 03:30:28 AM
I'm in full agreement with your mother re this comrade, I don't believe in evolution one iota skip, I don't care what the medical people say about it; before I was removed, our compound had developed a few mutations but thats what fighting the NWO is all about - seclusion and the odd genetic mutation, scars of war, taking one for the team. My club foot is testament to this ideal.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Cop(urnicus)Killa on February 13, 2009, 03:32:50 AM
How can religeon not explain an eye?  I mean, an eyeball isn't just gonna like suddenly sprout on a gibbon or fish or whatevers face and start seeing?  If you didn't have eyes then how did you know that there was sumthing to see?  Must be a goD

Too true, Cat. Where did the eyeball come from if not for the draught table of He? The eye is a design classic, so sleek, so beautiful with great usability at the same time. You can't tell me this just evolved. We all know God has a good eye for design. Just look at the waterfalls, the night sky, Runcorn.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: RevAngry on February 13, 2009, 03:36:15 AM
My specialist subject!  How I love religion - can anyone explain the missing link?  I mean a few posters seem to be a little, how shall we call it, "slow" but this is surely not evidence that man turned from Ape into God's glorious creation that sits here and types.

I mean where is apeman when you need him?  All this evolution stuff is poppycock.  7 days it took, to create the heavens and the earth - all else is heresy and should and will be punishable by eternal damnation.

Read the Bible, the earth is the centre and the heavens travel around it.  Anyone thinking otherwise is a heathen dolt.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Scrofula T Bone on February 13, 2009, 03:38:25 AM
My specialist subject!  How I love religion - can anyone explain the missing link?  I mean a few posters seem to be a little, how shall we call it, "slow" but this is surely not evidence that man turned from Ape into God's glorious creation that sits here and types.

I mean where is apeman when you need him?  All this evolution stuff is poppycock.  7 days it took, to create the heavens and the earth - all else is heresy and should and will be punishable by eternal damnation.

Read the Bible, the earth is the centre and the heavens travel around it.  Anyone thinking otherwise is a heathen dolt.

I like the cut of your jib my man; as we used to say on the compound 'damnation doth spew from the barrrel of my AK'
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: C.B.B. Cat on February 13, 2009, 03:42:54 AM
My specialist subject!  How I love religion - can anyone explain the missing link?  I mean a few posters seem to be a little, how shall we call it, "slow" but this is surely not evidence that man turned from Ape into God's glorious creation that sits here and types.

I mean where is apeman when you need him?  All this evolution stuff is poppycock.  7 days it took, to create the heavens and the earth - all else is heresy and should and will be punishable by eternal damnation.

Read the Bible, the earth is the centre and the heavens travel around it.  Anyone thinking otherwise is a heathen dolt.

I once met a missing link called Chris Kay.  He was all covered in little round black hairs and had been made in a lab in China by Jews and Catholicks.  That's why China has never nuked Israel.  Cos they are the missing tribe of Judea.  The House of Klispyflied Duck.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 13, 2009, 06:50:15 AM
How can religeon not explain an eye?  I mean, an eyeball isn't just gonna like suddenly sprout on a gibbon or fish or whatevers face and start seeing?  If you didn't have eyes then how did you know that there was sumthing to see?  Must be a goD
Thats a great point. I never thought of that. That also works with hearing, touch, smell, and taste.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 13, 2009, 09:45:31 AM
It developed slowly, first with a patch of light-sensitive tissue so that the animal could tell roughly where they were, and this grew more detailed and generally better until it reached the level we have now.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 13, 2009, 09:50:40 AM
It developed slowly, first with a patch of light-sensitive tissue so that the animal could tell roughly where they were, and this grew more detailed and generally better until it reached the level we have now.
Proof?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 13, 2009, 09:54:12 AM
Yeah, look at bacteria. They didn't, that's where the split occurred.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 13, 2009, 09:55:56 AM
Yeah, look at bacteria. They didn't, that's where the split occurred.
Can bacteria see? Gee, I didn't know that. And how does light sensitive skin turn into a lens i  your eye?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: optimisticcynic on February 13, 2009, 10:06:28 AM
Yeah, look at bacteria. They didn't, that's where the split occurred.
Can bacteria see? Gee, I didn't know that. And how does light sensitive skin turn into a lens i  your eye?
Actually national Geography had an interesting article about this. Many bacteria can sense light. This gene was not active in multi cell life But was still there. Then a mutation activated it. Poof you have a patch of light sensitive skin Then it started to sink into the rest of the body. The reason this is useful is that It allows the patch to be more directional. Muscle that happened to affect were it was aiming eventually stopped doing their main job and instead just aimed the thing that would become the eye The lens that covers the eye is also from a gene that had been dormant for many generations.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 13, 2009, 10:40:37 AM
Yeah, look at bacteria. They didn't, that's where the split occurred.
Can bacteria see? Gee, I didn't know that. And how does light sensitive skin turn into a lens i  your eye?
Actually national Geography had an interesting article about this. Many bacteria can sense light. This gene was not active in multi cell life But was still there. Then a mutation activated it. Poof you have a patch of light sensitive skin Then it started to sink into the rest of the body. The reason this is useful is that It allows the patch to be more directional. Muscle that happened to affect were it was aiming eventually stopped doing their main job and instead just aimed the thing that would become the eye The lens that covers the eye is also from a gene that had been dormant for many generations.
There is a giant leap between sensing light and interpreting light
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 13, 2009, 10:44:26 AM
That has fuck all to do with the eye, that's the brain.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 13, 2009, 10:45:40 AM
That has fuck all to do with the eye, that's the brain.
speaking of which, how did the brain evolve? what did it start out as?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Benocrates on February 13, 2009, 12:56:41 PM
The next person to respond to Kingman will die of rectal prolapse.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Proleg on February 13, 2009, 01:13:55 PM
I'm still not convinced that KingMan isn't narcberry trolling us for banning him.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 13, 2009, 01:51:41 PM
I'm still not convinced that KingMan isn't narcberry trolling us for banning him.
Narcberry was banned?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on February 13, 2009, 02:57:57 PM
My specialist subject!  How I love religion - can anyone explain the missing link?  I mean a few posters seem to be a little, how shall we call it, "slow" but this is surely not evidence that man turned from Ape into God's glorious creation that sits here and types.

I mean where is apeman when you need him?  All this evolution stuff is poppycock.  7 days it took, to create the heavens and the earth - all else is heresy and should and will be punishable by eternal damnation.

Read the Bible, the earth is the centre and the heavens travel around it.  Anyone thinking otherwise is a heathen dolt.


Well, there isn't one. Whew, that was hard.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: optimisticcynic on February 13, 2009, 11:26:57 PM
My specialist subject!  How I love religion - can anyone explain the missing link?  I mean a few posters seem to be a little, how shall we call it, "slow" but this is surely not evidence that man turned from Ape into God's glorious creation that sits here and types.

I mean where is apeman when you need him?  All this evolution stuff is poppycock.  7 days it took, to create the heavens and the earth - all else is heresy and should and will be punishable by eternal damnation.

Read the Bible, the earth is the centre and the heavens travel around it.  Anyone thinking otherwise is a heathen dolt.


Well, there isn't one. Whew, that was hard.
Does anyone know how rare it is for a fossile to form. Especially around something that is on the planet for as short of a time as an intermediate species
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on February 13, 2009, 11:48:10 PM
My specialist subject!  How I love religion - can anyone explain the missing link?  I mean a few posters seem to be a little, how shall we call it, "slow" but this is surely not evidence that man turned from Ape into God's glorious creation that sits here and types.

I mean where is apeman when you need him?  All this evolution stuff is poppycock.  7 days it took, to create the heavens and the earth - all else is heresy and should and will be punishable by eternal damnation.

Read the Bible, the earth is the centre and the heavens travel around it.  Anyone thinking otherwise is a heathen dolt.


Well, there isn't one. Whew, that was hard.
Does anyone know how rare it is for a fossile to form. Especially around something that is on the planet for as short of a time as an intermediate species

I meant there isn't a link that is missing. Not that we didn't evolve.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: StratTele on February 14, 2009, 07:33:03 AM
Has anyone ever pondered the co-existence of "God" and Dawin's Theory of Evolution?

Keep in mind, when I say God, I do not mean the white-bearded man from The Bible, but rather, that unexplainable(in my opinion) underlying force that gives us life.

Note: I do not claim to be an expert in these fields, just a very interested and motivated Anthropology and Philosophy student.

So back to the point, I have been studying evolution and natural selection for a couple years now and it really is a wonderful theory. I hope all of you critics understand the workings behind it so I will not explain it. (Even though I doubt I can do it justice)

My question is, what do you think of the possibility that the universe/world/organisms or whatever, were created by some force and then natural selection took place and evolution occurred?

This is something I find absolutely fascinating. While I am very much into science, and do believe in the Big-Bang theory, there is something that has always bothered me. How did life itself begin. When did things go from inorganic to organic, and HOW?

Hope this starts up a good, CLEAN discussion. I am new to this site and enjoying the debates. Hope to hear all of your opinions.

One Love.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Wendy on February 14, 2009, 08:05:11 AM
This debate has been over for centuries, you Christfags just won't accept it.

Fix'd.
Then why are there still more christians?
Because we remain a poorly evolved mammalian species. Our prefrontal lobes are too small. Our adrenaline glands are too big. Our thumb-finger opposition isn't all that it might be. And we're afraid of the dark and we're afraid to die and so we believe in the myths of "holy books" which are so stupid and so fabricated that a child can see through them.

True story, that.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on February 14, 2009, 08:09:04 AM
Has anyone ever pondered the co-existence of "God" and Dawin's Theory of Evolution?

Keep in mind, when I say God, I do not mean the white-bearded man from The Bible, but rather, that unexplainable(in my opinion) underlying force that gives us life.

Note: I do not claim to be an expert in these fields, just a very interested and motivated Anthropology and Philosophy student.

So back to the point, I have been studying evolution and natural selection for a couple years now and it really is a wonderful theory. I hope all of you critics understand the workings behind it so I will not explain it. (Even though I doubt I can do it justice)

My question is, what do you think of the possibility that the universe/world/organisms or whatever, were created by some force and then natural selection took place and evolution occurred?

This is something I find absolutely fascinating. While I am very much into science, and do believe in the Big-Bang theory, there is something that has always bothered me. How did life itself begin. When did things go from inorganic to organic, and HOW?

Hope this starts up a good, CLEAN discussion. I am new to this site and enjoying the debates. Hope to hear all of your opinions.

One Love.

Things were always organic. Organic material is abundant throughout the universe, and there would have been plenty of it all over the Earth at the time life started. There have been a couple threads detailing the exact method it probably took, feel free to search or wait a few minutes and someone else will write it up for you. I just finished an all nighter and it would come out as near jibberish if i tried at the moment. Sorry I'm not of much help right now.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: iznih on February 14, 2009, 09:26:35 AM
Has anyone ever pondered the co-existence of "God" and Dawin's Theory of Evolution?

afaik even pope john paul 2nd has accepted evolution
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on February 14, 2009, 09:42:34 AM
Has anyone ever pondered the co-existence of "God" and Dawin's Theory of Evolution?

afaik even pope john paul 2nd has accepted evolution

I don't think that counts as an even. The catholic church has been one of the most forward religions in the areas of evolution, and the universe.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 14, 2009, 11:17:01 AM
Keep in mind, when I say God, I do not mean the white-bearded man from The Bible,

I have to say fail to this sentence because it shows that you know nothing about what we believe.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: iznih on February 14, 2009, 11:25:33 AM
Has anyone ever pondered the co-existence of "God" and Dawin's Theory of Evolution?

afaik even pope john paul 2nd has accepted evolution

I don't think that counts as an even. The catholic church has been one of the most forward religions in the areas of evolution, and the universe.

yeah, when thinking about it again i realize your completely right. at least it shows that religion and science can go together to an certain extend
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 14, 2009, 12:03:55 PM
Keep in mind, when I say God, I do not mean the white-bearded man from The Bible,

I have to say fail to this sentence because it shows that you know nothing about what we believe.

Could you explain why? It makes perfect sense to me.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 14, 2009, 12:05:45 PM
Keep in mind, when I say God, I do not mean the white-bearded man from The Bible,

I have to say fail to this sentence because it shows that you know nothing about what we believe.

Could you explain why? It makes perfect sense to me.
The white beard thing.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Guessed on February 14, 2009, 12:50:46 PM
Keep in mind, when I say God, I do not mean the white-bearded man from The Bible,

I have to say fail to this sentence because it shows that you know nothing about what we believe.

Could you explain why? It makes perfect sense to me.
The white beard thing.

Oh, so you've seen God then?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 14, 2009, 01:00:42 PM
Keep in mind, when I say God, I do not mean the white-bearded man from The Bible,

I have to say fail to this sentence because it shows that you know nothing about what we believe.

Could you explain why? It makes perfect sense to me.
The white beard thing.

Oh, so you've seen God then?
Retard
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 14, 2009, 01:06:58 PM
Is that a no? How the fuck do you know he has no beard then?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 14, 2009, 01:10:10 PM
Is that a no? How the fuck do you know he has no beard then?
Retard. Really, this isn't trolling. your just a retard.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Guessed on February 14, 2009, 01:13:44 PM
Is that a no? How the fuck do you know he has no beard then?
Retard. Really, this isn't trolling. your just a retard.

It is trolling actually. You've never seen god, you have no idea wha "he" looks like, yet you assume he has no white beard. I was a practicing catholic for 14 years and even I never made assumptions about the look of god. You are the one who is retarded kingman, fuck you.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 14, 2009, 01:34:54 PM
Is that a no? How the fuck do you know he has no beard then?
Retard. Really, this isn't trolling. your just a retard.

It is trolling actually. You've never seen god, you have no idea wha "he" looks like, yet you assume he has no white beard. I was a practicing catholic for 14 years and even I never made assumptions about the look of god. You are the one who is retarded kingman, fuck you.
What are you getting mad at me for? You acted retarded so I called you a retard.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: General Douchebag on February 14, 2009, 01:35:27 PM
HOW DO YOU KNOW HE HAS NO FUCKING BEARD?
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Guessed on February 14, 2009, 03:03:06 PM
Is that a no? How the fuck do you know he has no beard then?
Retard. Really, this isn't trolling. your just a retard.

It is trolling actually. You've never seen god, you have no idea wha "he" looks like, yet you assume he has no white beard. I was a practicing catholic for 14 years and even I never made assumptions about the look of god. You are the one who is retarded kingman, fuck you.
What are you getting mad at me for? You acted retarded so I called you a retard.

And you were wrong. Ergo, everything you've ever said is wrong and god has a beard. Another win for Guessed.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 14, 2009, 03:05:26 PM
Is that a no? How the fuck do you know he has no beard then?
Retard. Really, this isn't trolling. your just a retard.

It is trolling actually. You've never seen god, you have no idea wha "he" looks like, yet you assume he has no white beard. I was a practicing catholic for 14 years and even I never made assumptions about the look of god. You are the one who is retarded kingman, fuck you.
What are you getting mad at me for? You acted retarded so I called you a retard.

And you were wrong. Ergo, everything you've ever said is wrong and god has a beard. Another win for Guessed.
If God does have a beard, it is much more epic than danns.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Guessed on February 14, 2009, 03:06:19 PM
True, but not s epic as mine. Therefore, I am greater than god. You can't argue with my logic.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 14, 2009, 03:07:21 PM
True, but not s epic as mine. Therefore, I am greater than god. You can't argue with my logic.
I saw your pic. You are as clean shaven as a hairy babys ass.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Guessed on February 14, 2009, 03:08:36 PM
True, but not s epic as mine. Therefore, I am greater than god. You can't argue with my logic.
I saw your pic. You are as clean shaven as a hairy babys ass.

That's not even a little true.  You're not even trying anymore. Ya know, it used to be fun to troll you. You've officially failed at failing.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: Raist on February 14, 2009, 07:12:45 PM
HOW DO YOU KNOW HE HAS NO FUCKING BEARD?

Because a beard would require a physical body. You must be thinking of jesus.
Title: Re: Evolution and Religion
Post by: KingMan on February 14, 2009, 11:27:56 PM
True, but not s epic as mine. Therefore, I am greater than god. You can't argue with my logic.
I saw your pic. You are as clean shaven as a hairy babys ass.

That's not even a little true.  You're not even trying anymore. Ya know, it used to be fun to troll you. You've officially failed at failing.
The last pic I saw of you was with those two friends and the cliche hand signal when you were drunk. You didn't have a beard.