Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[Malak]

Well the whole concept of 'a missing link' doesn't make sense to me. There will always be missing links given an incomplete fossil record, just like there are missing links in a family history that doesn't have a complete record. In order for there to be no missing links in evolutionary history, we'd literally have to possess a record of every individual organism that ever lived. The missing links in my own family history start showing up in the late 1800s, so if we can't do it for humans that lived in historical times, we sure as shit can't do it for everything that's ever lived.

I don't disagree that some evolutionary biologists are fanatics whose arguments are invalid at best and incredibly insulting and hateful at worst. However, I think you'd agree that religion has its own fanatics who make invalid arguments and promote irrational hatred. In that sense, you're dismissing the message because you don't like some of the messengers - just like many who support evolution dismiss religion because they don't like some of its messengers.

You are absolutely correct, there are tons of religious fanatics on both sides that muddy it up.

The point to Billions of Missing Links is that there isn't any evidence of macro-evolution of any kind. Minor adaptations or mutations don't prove anything at all. I even already presented a just as plausible alternate theory to the OP.

I am not anti-evolution because I believe the biblical story about creation. If you look at the few details in Genesis, it can be open to interpretation for both sides. Men were created from dirt after all. My religious beliefs have no bias towards it. The biologist I agreed with isn't religious at all. I agree with him because he makes more sense.

In the end, it is all moot. The method of creation means nothing and changes nothing. The only purpose of my interaction in these silly debates is not to convince someone of my side but rather to convince them of how weak their belief really is. Fanatical belief in evolution is just as silly as fanatical belief against it. Closed minds on both sides.

 

[Malak]

Stop arguing with trolls. Malak isn't a troll though. He's just a sincere idiot.

Thanks :thumbsup:

 

[Jeff7]

...
In the end, it is all moot. The method of creation means nothing and changes nothing. The only purpose of my interaction in these silly debates is not to convince someone of my side but rather to convince them of how weak their belief really is. Fanatical belief in evolution is just as silly as fanatical belief against it. Closed minds on both sides.

Fanatical belief in evolution is just about like fanatical belief in gravity.
Or are we going to go back to the Intelligent Falling idea?

 

[Gigantopithecus]

You are absolutely correct, there are tons of religious fanatics on both sides that muddy it up.

The point to Billions of Missing Links is that there isn't any evidence of macro-evolution of any kind. Minor adaptations or mutations don't prove anything at all. I even already presented a just as plausible alternate theory to the OP.

I am not anti-evolution because I believe the biblical story about creation. If you look at the few details in Genesis, it can be open to interpretation for both sides. Men were created from dirt after all. My religious beliefs have no bias towards it. The biologist I agreed with isn't religious at all. I agree with him because he makes more sense.

In the end, it is all moot. The method of creation means nothing and changes nothing. The only purpose of my interaction in these silly debates is not to convince someone of my side but rather to convince them of how weak their belief really is. Fanatical belief in evolution is just as silly as fanatical belief against it. Closed minds on both sides.

The method by which populations of organisms change over time is not a moot issue. It is incredibly relevant to the welfare of humanity. I also disagree that the reasons for accepting evolution are not weak, but then again, I'm biased, since I enjoy researching and teaching it and doing so allows me a comfortable life, haha.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The point to Billions of Missing Links is that there isn't any evidence of macro-evolution of any kind.

That is simply false and demonstrative of wanton ignorance. Here's a link already supplied in this thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There is a shitload of evidence right there. Read it.

Minor adaptations or mutations don't prove anything at all. I even already presented a just as plausible alternate theory to the OP.

Plausibility is a very low bar to set for deciding on a reliable theory. Literally infinite sets of circumstances are plausible. Only one is borne out by the evidence, however.

I am not anti-evolution because I believe the biblical story about creation. If you look at the few details in Genesis, it can be open to interpretation for both sides. Men were created from dirt after all. My religious beliefs have no bias towards it. The biologist I agreed with isn't religious at all. I agree with him because he makes more sense.

Which "biologist" is this?

In the end, it is all moot. The method of creation means nothing and changes nothing. The only purpose of my interaction in these silly debates is not to convince someone of my side but rather to convince them of how weak their belief really is.

You're going to convince someone of "how weak their belief really is" by demonstrating a profound ignorance about it? That's a stellar strategy.

Fanatical belief in evolution is just as silly as fanatical belief against it. Closed minds on both sides.

I'm as fanatical about acceptance of evolution as I am quantum mechanics, relativity, the kinetic theory of gases, the germ theory of disease, or any other generalized scientific knowledge. If some other group of whackadoos were trying to teach that magical fairies determined changes in gas pressures instead of temperature or volume, for example, I'd point out that they are just as ignorant as I am describing you.

 

[DanDaManJC]

That is simply false and demonstrative of wanton ignorance. Here's a link already supplied in this thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There is a shitload of evidence right there. Read it.

Absolutely this.

To PJ too -- you had mentioned in the post that you want people to spoon feed the theory to you and explain it in simple terms. First.. aside from the obvious fact that you were just presented with direct evidence in the preceding link you also seem to be implying that nature should be easily explained.

To that end, may I bring the field of quantum mechanics to your attention? The theory's implications are, by all definitions, completely non intuitive. And yet it's a theory that works very well (thanks to it we have modern micro electronics among other big advances). My point is, this implied argument from incredulity -- my take on your not wanting to read the above link for yourself -- is just outright silly since you don't take issue with QM or other very technically inaccessible theories that don't conflict with religion.

 

[IcePickFreak]

Hey when the Virgin Mary popped out a kid from nowhere, they didn't call is evolution. I think all this does is point to the most obvious conclusion - this is the divine work of the [size=+2]Jesus Lizard[/size]

 

[Mr. Lennon]

No one that I know of has any issue with microevolution. Macroevolution is the issue. When a skink becomes a new species or gives birth to a primate, let me know.

 

[Sea Moose]

Hey when the Virgin Mary popped out a kid from nowhere, they didn't call is evolution. I think all this does is point to the most obvious conclusion - this is the divine work of the [size=+2]Jesus Lizard[/size]

Hail the almighty water basilisk!

 

[El Guaraguao]

Hail the almighty water basilisk!

Who should I write out my check too?

 

[Gibsons]

Hey when the Virgin Mary popped out a kid from nowhere, they didn't call is evolution. I think all this does is point to the most obvious conclusion - this is the divine work of the [size=+2]Jesus Lizard[/size]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wilcAlAal8

 

[Nik]

Hey when the Virgin Mary popped out a kid from nowhere, they didn't call is evolution. I think all this does is point to the most obvious conclusion - this is the divine work of the [size=+2]Jesus Lizard[/size]

hahahahahahhahaha

 

[PricklyPete]

very cool/interesting

 

[SunnyD]

So in the near future, chickens won't come out in eggs no more? :'(

Why stop there? How about just have them come out already deep-fried! YUM!

 

[skace]

No no, let me try.

Hey PhineasJWhoopee, what do you mean you can't imagine?

Phineas is trolling, but I'll be damned if that comment didn't get a laugh out of me

 

[DAPUNISHER]

You're right I'm too much of a fool to read all that. Explain it to me like I'm a 5th grader, which is proabably my intellectual capacity.

Judging by the game show, most people fail at being "smarter than a 5th grader".

You were given a wealth of information, and yet it is less to read than the Bible. Which I surmise you have read. If you have not, read the bible that is, and yet hold your current beliefs, you are indeed a fool. And by fool, I mean, willfully ignorant.

So far you have only demonstrated that you are feigning a desire to be educated about evolution. Had you an actual desire, you would do the required reading, much the same way you did with your holy book.

Or, do you let your religious leaders read and interpret scripture for you as well?

 

[LumbergTech]

This is great viewing for those who are wondering how animals become new animals

http://www.veoh.com/browse/videos/category/educational/watch/v16421939nKHkh5wR

it starts off a bit slow, but then it gets into some really crazy stuff

 

[NinjaTech]

Wait a minute! I already have proof of evolution in my pond out back. I have these fish that grew legs and then they started hopping around on land making a "ribbiting" sound. I SWEAR! I'm not kidding. I'm going to get a noble prize for this one 'fer sure!

How many silly scientists does it take to think a skink is the missing link?

~NT

 

[sandorski]

Wait a minute! I already have proof of evolution in my pond out back. I have these fish that grew legs and then they started hopping around on land making a "ribbiting" sound. I SWEAR! I'm not kidding. I'm going to get a noble prize for this one 'fer sure!

How many silly scientists does it take to think a skink is the missing link?

~NT

What you babbling about?

 

[IcePickFreak]

What you babbling about?

I think he's implying that scientists shouldn't worry themselves with all this technical mumbo-jumbo. What they should be focusing on is placing camera's in the animals nature habitat in hopes of catching on camera their hiding spot for, when for instance, basilisks magically poof into birds. How hard can it be? I mean we have lots of cameras and the woods don't have very many closets. Gosh these scientistesises are dumb lol!

 

[Nik]

Yeah, not sure what to make of that last question either.

 

[Malak]

That is simply false and demonstrative of wanton ignorance. Here's a link already supplied in this thread:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

There is a shitload of evidence right there. Read it.

There is only assumptions and interpretation. No actual evidence. You believe it as evidence, just as many Christians believe the bible as evidence of God.

Plausibility is a very low bar to set for deciding on a reliable theory. Literally infinite sets of circumstances are plausible. Only one is borne out by the evidence, however.

There is no way to test either theory, therefore both theories are as reliable. It's a moot point because who cares? It changes nothing, it's just a silly continuing argument by evolutionists for people to take them seriously. They feel they need to keep pointing it out to shove it in anyone's face that doesn't agree with their interpretation. Any alternate theories are immediately dismissed without any actual consideration. Is that rational?

Which "biologist" is this?

Geoffrey Simmons, a biologist with more experience in the field than probably anyone in this discussion.

You're going to convince someone of "how weak their belief really is" by demonstrating a profound ignorance about it? That's a stellar strategy.

No actually I will attempt at showing that what you call "evidence" I call faith in assumptions. The labels we put on the creatures of this earth are man-made, and the belief in evolution is just like any other religion. Hell, they show it off at atheist conventions which only enforces my point.

Interpretation of fossils and genetics in no way proves a theory on a process that supposedly takes millions of years. The book I mentioned several times shows a rational argument of why the theory doesn't make sense from a biological standpoint. Ignoring an opposing argument is not rational no matter what you think.

 

[Nik]

No actually I will attempt at showing that what you call "evidence" I call faith in assumptions. The labels we put on the creatures of this earth are man-made, and the belief in evolution is just like any other religion. Hell, they show it off at atheist conventions which only enforces my point.

Facepalm.

Of course labels are man-made. We define animals based on their physical and habitual traits. Science is a study of the observed and includes theories for things not yet observed, but those theories are based on evidence. There's a reason we think the way we do and it's not because some man-written book wants us to believe that an invisible zombie jew in the sky got nailed to a cross.

 

[Gibsons]

Geoffrey Simmons, a biologist with more experience in the field than probably anyone in this discussion.

LOL, he's not even a scientist. He's a lecturer who makes a living preaching to the converted.

 

[Ruptga]

Ignoring an opposing argument is not rational no matter what you think.

So why are you still talking instead of actually considering anything that is said?