Evolution

He's more than just ignorant

It's like that video of the guy and a banana 'made by God for eating'. He points out all the good things about bananas and says they are evidence for God, but doesn't realise that if they weren't good for eating we wouldn't frickin' eat them (and therefore in the long run the banana species dies out).

You fools. The only type of evolution that ever actually happens is microevolution, not macroevolution. The big bang theory is a bunch of trash as well, and no one can explain where all that matter came from anyway. I think believing in God is easier than believing evolution or the big bang.

I'm glad you have an opinion. It may come in useful one day.

You fools. The only type of evolution that ever actually happens is microevolution, not macroevolution.

Source?  Actually there are plenty of examples of macro evolution, and consider this;  Life has been on the Earth for about 4 billion years.  How significant would the "microevolution" be over that period of time?  Or do you also believe that the world is only 7000 years old?

The big bang theory is a bunch of trash as well, and no one can explain where all that matter came from anyway.

Not knowing everything about the world doesn't mean that a theory is wrong.  Considering how much you personally know about the world, do you think a theory that claims to know everything is more likely to be right, or a theory that claims to only know a little bit?  If I claimed to know who will be the president of the US for the next 100 years, and somebody else claimed to know how will be the president at the end of next year, who would you think is most credible?

I think believing in God is easier than believing evolution or the big bang.

I think it's a great deal easier to believe in things that are based on evidence, rather than things that are based on "faith."  There is no evidence that God exists, there are libraries of evidence that evolution exists.

There are also libraries of evidence of medical miracles that science cannot explain. Countless stories of people witnessing power of God. If you cannot see God it doesn't mean he does not exist. Same with the wind, you can't see it, but yet everyone knows its there.

Also those libraries of evidence for evolution you are referring to is nothing more then peoples' interpretations of the facts. Interpretations are influenced by believes, and since "general scientific belief" is towards the evolution, all the findings will be interpreted as evidence of evolution.

Belief that one small dot exploded and created all matter in the Universe has no more scientific merit than the notion of Creation.

There are also libraries of evidence of medical miracles that science cannot explain. Countless stories of people witnessing power of God. If you cannot see God it doesn't mean he does not exist. Same with the wind, you can't see it, but yet everyone knows its there.

lol, no it's not.  You can prove the wind scientifically.

Countless stories of people witnessing power of God.

"stories" - Also, how does one know this is god's power? I could claim that my food in the microwave after coming to a finish is the power of god....and that's essentially how stupid religious people sound to me.

Also those libraries of evidence for evolution you are referring to is nothing more then peoples' interpretations of the facts.

And the bible? Religion is people's interpretation of the non-facts.

Belief that one small dot exploded and created all matter in the Universe has no more scientific merit than the notion of Creation.

I hate people like this. The Big Bang and evolution are SEPARATE. Why the hell do idiots lump them together? If you're going to criticize anything, you want to criticize the Big Bang, not evolution. God could have gone *poof* and created the universe, but that doesn't change the FACT that we've seen the effects of evolution. Sure, it's a theory but an extremely well-documented and supported one.

I agree that we see the effects, but I don't think its evolution.

Every FACT that was discovered and interpreted to support evolution can be explained in terms of creation.
Bring some facts up and I will try to put another interpretation on them. I don't claim to know everything, but I'll try to explain what I can.

Every FACT that was discovered and interpreted to support evolution can be explained in terms of creation.

I suppose that's true. Although, it's rather easy to explain anything when you say "there is a supernatural being that can do anything and everything". Where is the fun in that?

I still fail to see why people pit evolution vs. creation. They are quite capable of co-existing. Nothing in evolution inhibits the ideas of creation.

I suppose that's true. Although, it's rather easy to explain anything when you say "there is a supernatural being that can do anything and everything". Where is the fun in that?

I still fail to see why people pit evolution vs. creation. They are quite capable of co-existing. Nothing in evolution inhibits the ideas of creation.

Not necessarily. The process of Creation was completed in 6 days after that natural laws, that were set previous to creation, took over. So all facts found after the First Week can be explained by natural laws.

There are many fundamental differences between creation and evolution. The biggest one is: creation rejects macro-evolution whereas evolution embraces it. Of course there are different flavors of creation that believe different things, just as there are different versions of evolution that interpret the facts differently, which only illustrates the point that evolution, just as creation, requires a great deal of faith to be accepted.

there are different versions of evolution that interpret the facts differently

And where can I view these different versions?

You could probably find them on the Internet.
There is Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and there are also guys (forgot how they call themselves) who believe that the lack of "missing links" can be explained by instant jumps prom species to species. And i'm sure that is not a full list.

You could probably find them on the Internet.
There is Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and there are also guys (forgot how they call themselves) who believe that the lack of "missing links" can be explained by instant jumps prom species to species. And i'm sure that is not a full list.

No im not going ot read this whole thread.  There are no missing links. 

Is that a fact, Sokarul?  Can you back that up?

Is that a fact, Sokarul?  Can you back that up?

Of course he can. He knows of all remains that have yet to be discovered and that there are no missing links. Where the hell have you been? After god was done with the dinosaurs, he snapped his finger and they died. He then *poofed* Adam and Eve into the Garden of Eden and we've progressed to today. DUH!

Every FACT that was discovered and interpreted to support evolution can be explained in terms of creation.

Good point.

And if you believe this is proof that creationism is true, then I would like to add that I also have an answer for every question. Ask me how anything works, and I will answer "It's magic!". I am all knowing. Worship me.

And if you believe this is proof that creationism is true, then I would like to add that I also have an answer for every question. Ask me how anything works, and I will answer "It's magic!". I am all knowing. Worship me.

If only you lived in the past and wrote a big fat book about ridiculous things!

You could probably find them on the Internet.
There is Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and there are also guys (forgot how they call themselves) who believe that the lack of "missing links" can be explained by instant jumps prom species to species. And i'm sure that is not a full list.

You so don't know what you're talking about. Like at all.

Darwinism = Neo-Darwinism. Every 'Darwinist' since the 1920s has been a neo-Darwinist. Neo-Darwinism is simply the realization that genetics is the mechanism of reproducing heritable variations that evolution requires. No modern 'Darwinist' is not a neo-Darwinist.

The theory about missing links you're talking about is called 'punctuated equilibria', and is not any sort of splinter group of of 'Darwinism' as you are implying. It is accepted by pretty much everyone in the field. And it does not at all involve instant jumps from species to species, it instead posits that speciation generally occurs when small groups of a species are isolated from the larger population. Mutations pass more easily through smaller populations, and thus these isolated groups will change more quickly than the larger population from which they split off. While their cousins change only very slowly, these smaller populations will speciate 'instantly'- instantly in geological time, which still means tens of thousands of years.

Now, imagine you have a photo of the surface of Mars. But the smallest objects that photo can resolve are a meter across. Anything smaller than that would be effectively invisible. We would say that this photo has one meter resolution. Well, the geological record has about a ten thousand year resolution. Anything that happens more quickly than that is simply extremely unlikely to be recorded. Remember, only those individuals that get fossilized are left in this record, and the vast, VAST majority of creatures that ever lived were not fossilized when they died. So the chances of any individual from one of these small groups getting fossilized during that time is very low.

Go back to the photo of Mars. Imagine you can see a rover moving across the surface. The rover is much larger than one meter. But if the rover moved, but moved less than one meter, you wouldn't be able to tell, because the image can't resolve anything smaller than a meter, remember? So imagine the rover moved two meters. You'd be able to see the move, but to you it would look like it had suddenly jumped a whole meter instantly. Just the same, it looks like one species transforms into another (albeit, very similar) species instantly, but this is only because we only see very few of the individuals who ever lived. It's like a connect-the-dots picture. We don't know everything in between, but we can quite easily see what the picture is. The fossil record holds a clear picture of the chain of descent from species to species. Most of the 'jumps' in the fossil record actually represent no larger a change than, say, the difference between dogs and wolves.

Is that a fact, Sokarul?  Can you back that up?

My bro can.  When I get a chance I will have himn come argue eveolution.  In the mean time you can go over to ar15.com and find the evolution posts from him.  He HoodyHoo21, of course that forum is teh suck so you cant search for peoples posts. 

I'm not arguing against the existence of evolution by any stretch, but there are missing links throughout the fossil record.  It doesn't mean evolution is not real, and in fact dysfunction's argument for why they exist makes a lot of sense.

I'm not arguing against the existence of evolution by any stretch, but there are missing links throughout the fossil record.  It doesn't mean evolution is not real, and in fact dysfunction's argument for why they exist makes a lot of sense.

See thats the problem.  There isnt.  Its a myth.

We are putting in a hardwood floor, when we are done I will have my bro come answer questions. 

Quote from: Roundy the FE Proponent on May 28, 2007, 11:16:28 AM

I'm not arguing against the existence of evolution by any stretch, but there are missing links throughout the fossil record.  It doesn't mean evolution is not real, and in fact dysfunction's argument for why they exist makes a lot of sense.

See thats the problem.  There isnt.  Its a myth.

There are missing links. It's just that the missing links we observe are exactly what we would expect if these two provisions are true:

1. All species are descended from one (or a few) common ancestors.
2. Only a tiny fraction of individuals are preserved in the fossil record.

From the Wikipedia article "Transitional fossil":

Gaps remain in the fossil record, however; and while some argue that this is a problem for evolutionary theory, most scientists accept that the rarity of fossils means that many extinct animals will always remain unknown.

Quote from: googleSearch on May 25, 2007, 02:11:29 PM

You could probably find them on the Internet.
There is Darwinism, Neo-Darwinism, and there are also guys (forgot how they call themselves) who believe that the lack of "missing links" can be explained by instant jumps prom species to species. And i'm sure that is not a full list.

No im not going ot read this whole thread.  There are no missing links. 

Your license to speak has been revoked.  Remove yourself from the internet.

"Missing links" is just proof of an incomplete fossil record, ladies and gentlemen.  But, through the knowledge of what we do have, we have been able to predict where a common ancestor is in the timeline with great success.  My professor showed us of one such occurence in my Age of Dinosaurs class.

Ok I'm going to need to know what fossils are missing. 

BTW Im sure you all saw in the news how T rex was related to the common chicken. 

Ok I'm going to need to know what fossils are missing. 

BTW I'm sure you all saw in the news how T rex was related to the common chicken. 

Their last common ancestor occured at Coelurosauria.  Therapoda -> Tetanurae -> Coelurosauria (Tyrannosauroidea branches off here)-> Maniraptora -> Avialae -> Ornithurae -> Aves -> Neognathae -> Galloanserae -> Galliformes (fowl - chickens, quail, grouse, etc.)

[Source = 012:007:AAA Course booklet, "Age of Dinosaurs"; Professor Brochu, Fall 2006]

Quote from: sokarul on May 28, 2007, 02:21:58 PM

Ok I'm going to need to know what fossils are missing. 

BTW I'm sure you all saw in the news how T rex was related to the common chicken. 

Their last common ancestor occured at Coelurosauria.  Therapoda -> Tetanurae -> Coelurosauria (Tyrannosauroidea branches off here)-> Maniraptora -> Avialae -> Ornithurae -> Aves -> Neognathae -> Galloanserae -> Galliformes (fowl - chickens, quail, grouse, etc.)

[Source = 012:007:AAA Course booklet, "Age of Dinosaurs"; Professor Brochu, Fall 2006]

Here is what I was getting at
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1176152797122&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

I'm still waiting for the missing links.  I want ot be ont he same page.  Are they human links or random animals? 
Until then they aren't missing

So let me get this straight, you all cry evolution has missing links but you don't know what they are?

I'm starting to feel sorry for you, Sokarul.