wtf?

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: pnad
I thought most of ATOT would be evolutionists. Good to see some fellow creationists here.

I could argue with them, but in the end they BELIEVE what they want to BELIEVE and I don't think any amount of debate will change that.

I have no problem with evolutionists as long as they recognize it as a belief and not a proven fact. Evolution is a theory and has not been 'proven'.

The science (ie electromagnetism) that allows the computer in front of you to work are just "theories", too, I hope you realize

The relativity that scientists use to adjust for time differences with orbiting satellites to allow for proper synchronization, flow of data, accuracy with regard to time etc. -- taken advantage of by cell phones, GPS, and other communications -- that is all just a "theory". I hope you don't take it as, you know, fact or to be true. We should accept that it's just a "theory" before setting about to use such devices.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: So
when two populations get seperated, they diverge and DO become seperate species. The lizard didn't turn into a dog -- they both came from a common ancestor.

How? Natural selection? Like I said, that's old school Darwinist evolution.....the theory long since moved on because Darwinian evolution should have been easy to prove and wasn't.

Think about it. How many countless generations of transitional lifeforms would we have. You'd be freaking tripping over their fossills in your backyard.

Fact is, you bought the song they were selling back when you were in school. A song that they'll tell you now was just plain wrong. Oh, but now they have it right and your children will luckily be indoctrinated and bullied into believing the correct version which is actually far more improbable......but it is easier to explain the lck of evidence with this new version.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: MrPickins

Originally posted by: pnad

Evolution Theory has no purpose in science other than to disprove Creation.

Or it could simply be an investigation in to what physical processes God utilized to create all living creatures...

That's what is so laughable in this debate, neither side will accept a middle ground position.

Originally posted by: DrPizza
"The earth is not the center of the universe. The earth revolves around the Sun"
Catholics: "Dude, take that back or we're burning you at the stake"

Fast forward a few centuries and even the Catholics aren't stupid enough to ignore all the evidence in favor of evolution. The Catholic Church has believed in evolution and the Big Bang Theory since Pope Pious the ## in the early 1960's.

I take my last statement back. Who would've guessed the Vatican of all organizations would have taken such a refreshing stance.

 

[alkemyst]

Yep...all the locals that tell people to stop posting are here. They still have not realized they don't have to read EVERY thread.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Attempting to disprove the big bang theory OR ambiogenesis DOES NOT disprove or deduct from the credibility of the theory of evolution. It only makes you look foolish and ignorant, regardless of ANY of those theories being "the truth".

actually it does...

the theory of evolution depends on there being a single common ancestor from which all life evolved from. if abiogenesis were disproven, then the common ancestor couldnt exist, thereby negating the theory that the processes of evolution are the sole guiding forces which dictated the path from origin to now.


Life either started randomly or deliberately... if it cant be A, then it must be B.
if it was B, then design has already entered into the equation, which negates an assumption made first in the theory...and a fallacy exists.

 

[MrPickins]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Think about it. How many countless generations of transitional lifeforms would we have. You'd be freaking tripping over their fossills in your backyard.

I'm sure it was tongue in cheek, but my geology professor would have a fit at that statement.

 

[Kirby]

My thoughts on evolution vs. creationism.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: So
when two populations get seperated, they diverge and DO become seperate species. The lizard didn't turn into a dog -- they both came from a common ancestor.

How? Natural selection? Like I said, that's old school Darwinist evolution.....the theory long since moved on because Darwinian evolution should have been easy to prove and wasn't.

Think about it. How many countless generations of transitional lifeforms would we have. You'd be freaking tripping over their fossills in your backyard.

Fact is, you bought the song they were selling back when you were in school. A song that they'll tell you now was just plain wrong. Oh, but now they have it right and your children will luckily be indoctrinated and bullied into believing the correct version which is actually far more improbable......but it is easier to explain the lck of evidence with this new version.

overpopulated areas = death of large numbers of certain species, or even the entire species (as happens now even).
The Darwinian evolution theory has only been altered, not scrapped.. updated for recent changes in thought based on digs and observational studies conducted in the last quarter of a century. Reason we aren't tripping over fossils is the same reason we don't go and find random bones. Not all bones survive, because not all bones are covered by the terrain in the same way. Not every creature is destined to become a fossil. There are billions and billions of creatures alive now as it is, and yet we still manage to have almost all of our land seemingly free of skeletons. Why? Because Earth has a way with them. Terraforming is happening all of the time.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: pnad

Originally posted by: So
You can't see how ridiculous your oversimplifications are, can you?

Big Bang -> Soup of energy -> inflation -> soup of quarks -> cooling (more inflation) -> matter settling down into clouds -> clumping into galaxies with stars -> gen 1 stars dying -> exploding -> smaller gen 2 stars -> planets -> some with the right location / star for life -> some with life forming -> simple cells terraform the planet -> cells evolve sexual reproduction, increasing rate of change over simple DNA transliteration errors / free radical mutation -> simple amphibians -> modern life.

when two populations get seperated, they diverge and DO become seperate species. The lizard didn't turn into a dog -- they both came from a common ancestor.

And you don't see what a leap of FAITH it is to believe that paragraph you just wrote? That is a few too many 'What Ifs' for me.

Faith? You may frame the world in terms of faith, I don't. I am expressing a rational expectation based on past results, not an absolute conviction. Stephne hawking said it well: the reason we entertain some theories and disregard others is based on their conforming with the rules of known theories that have stood up to rigorous testing. The reason I accept the current iteration of the big bang as the most likely story of the origins of the universe is because it is absolutely congruous with well demonstrated laws of physics, and the testable predictions it makes have been correct thus far (i.e. background radiation).

 

[AbAbber2k]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Attempting to disprove the big bang theory OR ambiogenesis DOES NOT disprove or deduct from the credibility of the theory of evolution. It only makes you look foolish and ignorant, regardless of ANY of those theories being "the truth".

actually it does...

the theory of evolution depends on there being a single common ancestor from which all life evolved from. if abiogenesis were disproven, then the common ancestor couldnt exist, thereby negating the theory that the processes of evolution are the sole guiding forces which dictated the path from origin to now.


Life either started randomly or deliberately... if it cant be A, then it must be B.
if it was B, then design has already entered into the equation, which negates an assumption made first in the theory...and a fallacy exists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma :roll:

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Attempting to disprove the big bang theory OR ambiogenesis DOES NOT disprove or deduct from the credibility of the theory of evolution. It only makes you look foolish and ignorant, regardless of ANY of those theories being "the truth".

actually it does...

the theory of evolution depends on there being a single common ancestor from which all life evolved from. if abiogenesis were disproven, then the common ancestor couldnt exist, thereby negating the theory that the processes of evolution are the sole guiding forces which dictated the path from origin to now.


Life either started randomly or deliberately... if it cant be A, then it must be B.
if it was B, then design has already entered into the equation, which negates an assumption made first in the theory...and a fallacy exists.

wrong. in the primordial soup model, a few completely separate colonies of life could have began at completely different times on the opposite side of the planet. They may never have interacted until they were large enough to travel. Since we have no footprints of ambiogenesis, we have no evidence to even speculate with, and thus life could have began in multiple time periods, and we could thus have, say.. 4 ancestors.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
"The earth is not the center of the universe. The earth revolves around the Sun"
Catholics: "Dude, take that back or we're burning you at the stake"

Columbus was Catholic. The scientists back then were poking holes in people's heads to cure headaches.

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: pnad

Originally posted by: nick1985
Without googling:

Look at the evidence from Olduvai Gorge (SP) In Eastern Africa. There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence from fossils dug up there that show that that is where humanity began. Look up the "out of africa" model for human dispersion throughout the world. Complete skeletons have been recovered that are Tens of THOUSANDS of years old (but the world is only 3k years old, so how can that be? ).

Look up "australopithecus" (sp).

Bah, Ive gotta go to practice, ill be back later. hopefully by then you have read up on the findings on Eastern Africa!


Not bad for no googling eh?

And how exactly do we know that skeleton was 'Tens of THOUSANDS of years old'?
Carbon or Argon dating is never wrong right? Shall I google up some impossible dating results for you?

Who said its never wrong? Certainly not me. Anyway, of course it is 'wrong' sometimes. They dont measure how old the fossils are, but rather how old the dirt is around them when they dig them up. But do you really think they are wrong on ALL of them?

 

[So]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: So
when two populations get seperated, they diverge and DO become seperate species. The lizard didn't turn into a dog -- they both came from a common ancestor.

How? Natural selection? Like I said, that's old school Darwinist evolution.....the theory long since moved on because Darwinian evolution should have been easy to prove and wasn't.

Think about it. How many countless generations of transitional lifeforms would we have. You'd be freaking tripping over their fossills in your backyard.

Fact is, you bought the song they were selling back when you were in school. A song that they'll tell you now was just plain wrong. Oh, but now they have it right and your children will luckily be indoctrinated and bullied into believing the correct version which is actually far more improbable......but it is easier to explain the lck of evidence with this new version.

overpopulated areas = death of large numbers of certain species, or even the entire species (as happens now even).
The Darwinian evolution theory has only been altered, not scrapped.. updated for recent changes in thought based on digs and observational studies conducted in the last quarter of a century. Reason we aren't tripping over fossils is the same reason we don't go and find random bones. Not all bones survive, because not all bones are covered by the terrain in the same way. Not every creature is destined to become a fossil. There are billions and billions of creatures alive now as it is, and yet we still manage to have almost all of our land seemingly free of skeletons. Why? Because Earth has a way with them. Terraforming is happening all of the time.

What the hell is he talking about? What do you think has changed so drastically in the last 20 years that makes evolution implausible? You do know that it is scientific fact and speciation/evolution/natural selection/whatever straw man you're trying to construct by distinction is and has long been accepted as fact.

Modifications to evolutionary theory don't make the older versions any less accurate than relativity made newtonian mechanics (hint: they still teach newtonian mechanics at school for the same reasons that my and your children will be given the basic concept of evolution and speciation)

 

[nick1985]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: nick1985
Without googling:

Look at the evidence from Olduvai Gorge (SP) In Eastern Africa. There is MASSIVE amounts of evidence from fossils dug up there that show that that is where humanity began. Look up the "out of africa" model for human dispersion throughout the world. Complete skeletons have been recovered that are Tens of THOUSANDS of years old (but the world is only 3k years old, so how can that be? ).

Look up "australopithecus" (sp).

Bah, Ive gotta go to practice, ill be back later. hopefully by then you have read up on the findings on Eastern Africa!


Not bad for no googling eh?

Yeah, saved by the bell, eh?

Australopithecus is what you've given me so far. That's quite a massive collection. how could anyone question that?

As far as australopithecus, there have been numerous studies done on it by evolutionist scientists and there is at best no concensus even amongst them that this is anything by an extinct ape species skull or possibly not even a bipedal animal.

Who believes the world is 3K years old? We have more recorded history than that. You serious think people think the world is that young? Nice hole you're living in. I think even the most hard core creationists are going to go with something more like 30K.

I'm starting to get the sense that you'r like almost every creationism mocking individual...........intellectually insecure and bitter towards organized religeon for some reason.

Yes, I had to go for my run, but thanks for being a dickhead about it. :thumbsup:

Anyway, not bipedal? LOL, there is MASSIVE amounts of evidence that say they were bipedal. Just because there are SOME scientists that say otherwise doesnt mean its true. Hell, there are scientists that disagree with almost every mainstream belief. You could dig up scientists that disagree with the theory of gravity...

I dont know about 3k, but its something like 6k or so years that many HARDCORE bible thumpers believe. As far as being bitter towards religion...not really Im a practicing Catholic, but nice try to smear me at the end of your post. No need to resort to personal attacks.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Attempting to disprove the big bang theory OR ambiogenesis DOES NOT disprove or deduct from the credibility of the theory of evolution. It only makes you look foolish and ignorant, regardless of ANY of those theories being "the truth".

actually it does...

the theory of evolution depends on there being a single common ancestor from which all life evolved from. if abiogenesis were disproven, then the common ancestor couldnt exist, thereby negating the theory that the processes of evolution are the sole guiding forces which dictated the path from origin to now.


Life either started randomly or deliberately... if it cant be A, then it must be B.
if it was B, then design has already entered into the equation, which negates an assumption made first in the theory...and a fallacy exists.

wrong. in the primordial soup model, a few completely separate colonies of life could have began at completely different times on the opposite side of the planet. They may never have interacted until they were large enough to travel. Since we have no footprints of ambiogenesis, we have no evidence to even speculate with, and thus life could have began in multiple time periods, and we could thus have, say.. 4 ancestors.

So the anaology with the bolts was correct. You can get something living from inanimate objects. Amazing.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Attempting to disprove the big bang theory OR ambiogenesis DOES NOT disprove or deduct from the credibility of the theory of evolution. It only makes you look foolish and ignorant, regardless of ANY of those theories being "the truth".

actually it does...

the theory of evolution depends on there being a single common ancestor from which all life evolved from. if abiogenesis were disproven, then the common ancestor couldnt exist, thereby negating the theory that the processes of evolution are the sole guiding forces which dictated the path from origin to now.


Life either started randomly or deliberately... if it cant be A, then it must be B.
if it was B, then design has already entered into the equation, which negates an assumption made first in the theory...and a fallacy exists.

wrong. in the primordial soup model, a few completely separate colonies of life could have began at completely different times on the opposite side of the planet. They may never have interacted until they were large enough to travel. Since we have no footprints of ambiogenesis, we have no evidence to even speculate with, and thus life could have began in multiple time periods, and we could thus have, say.. 4 ancestors.

So the anaology with the bolts was correct. You can get something living from inanimate objects. Amazing.

Of course you can get life from nonlife. How the heck do you think you came to be? A plant absorbed some minerals, your mom ate the plant, and out of that raw material came you. Oversimplification, of course, but you get the point.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: So
when two populations get seperated, they diverge and DO become seperate species. The lizard didn't turn into a dog -- they both came from a common ancestor.

How? Natural selection? Like I said, that's old school Darwinist evolution.....the theory long since moved on because Darwinian evolution should have been easy to prove and wasn't.

Think about it. How many countless generations of transitional lifeforms would we have. You'd be freaking tripping over their fossills in your backyard.

Fact is, you bought the song they were selling back when you were in school. A song that they'll tell you now was just plain wrong. Oh, but now they have it right and your children will luckily be indoctrinated and bullied into believing the correct version which is actually far more improbable......but it is easier to explain the lck of evidence with this new version.

overpopulated areas = death of large numbers of certain species, or even the entire species (as happens now even).
The Darwinian evolution theory has only been altered, not scrapped.. updated for recent changes in thought based on digs and observational studies conducted in the last quarter of a century. Reason we aren't tripping over fossils is the same reason we don't go and find random bones. Not all bones survive, because not all bones are covered by the terrain in the same way. Not every creature is destined to become a fossil. There are billions and billions of creatures alive now as it is, and yet we still manage to have almost all of our land seemingly free of skeletons. Why? Because Earth has a way with them. Terraforming is happening all of the time.

What the hell is he talking about? What do you think has changed so drastically in the last 20 years that makes evolution implausible? You do know that it is scientific fact and speciation/evolution/natural selection/whatever straw man you're trying to construct by distinction is and has long been accepted as fact.

Modifications to evolutionary theory don't make the older versions any less accurate than relativity made newtonian mechanics (hint: they still teach newtonian mechanics at school for the same reasons that my and your children will be given the basic concept of evolution and speciation)

I'm backing you up
I am saying that new discoveries have altered and improved the specifics of the original Darwinian theory, not change it or falsify it. I fully believe in evolution as I've been taught, which is basically Darwinian theory (I don't know the specifics as to what the differences are, but if you know Darwinian theory and not the way its currently taught, pretty sure you're still in good shape as to the full concept ).

 

[So]

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: So
when two populations get seperated, they diverge and DO become seperate species. The lizard didn't turn into a dog -- they both came from a common ancestor.

How? Natural selection? Like I said, that's old school Darwinist evolution.....the theory long since moved on because Darwinian evolution should have been easy to prove and wasn't.

Think about it. How many countless generations of transitional lifeforms would we have. You'd be freaking tripping over their fossills in your backyard.

Fact is, you bought the song they were selling back when you were in school. A song that they'll tell you now was just plain wrong. Oh, but now they have it right and your children will luckily be indoctrinated and bullied into believing the correct version which is actually far more improbable......but it is easier to explain the lck of evidence with this new version.

overpopulated areas = death of large numbers of certain species, or even the entire species (as happens now even).
The Darwinian evolution theory has only been altered, not scrapped.. updated for recent changes in thought based on digs and observational studies conducted in the last quarter of a century. Reason we aren't tripping over fossils is the same reason we don't go and find random bones. Not all bones survive, because not all bones are covered by the terrain in the same way. Not every creature is destined to become a fossil. There are billions and billions of creatures alive now as it is, and yet we still manage to have almost all of our land seemingly free of skeletons. Why? Because Earth has a way with them. Terraforming is happening all of the time.

What the hell is he talking about? What do you think has changed so drastically in the last 20 years that makes evolution implausible? You do know that it is scientific fact and speciation/evolution/natural selection/whatever straw man you're trying to construct by distinction is and has long been accepted as fact.

Modifications to evolutionary theory don't make the older versions any less accurate than relativity made newtonian mechanics (hint: they still teach newtonian mechanics at school for the same reasons that my and your children will be given the basic concept of evolution and speciation)

I'm backing you up
I am saying that new discoveries have altered and improved the specifics of the original Darwinian theory, not change it or falsify it. I fully believe in evolution as I've been taught, which is basically Darwinian theory (I don't know the specifics as to what the differences are, but if you know Darwinian theory and not the way its currently taught, pretty sure you're still in good shape as to the full concept ).

I know, I know -- I meant to direct that at HoP but I felt like adding to your quote.

 

[destrekor]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: destrekor

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: AbAbber2k
Attempting to disprove the big bang theory OR ambiogenesis DOES NOT disprove or deduct from the credibility of the theory of evolution. It only makes you look foolish and ignorant, regardless of ANY of those theories being "the truth".

actually it does...

the theory of evolution depends on there being a single common ancestor from which all life evolved from. if abiogenesis were disproven, then the common ancestor couldnt exist, thereby negating the theory that the processes of evolution are the sole guiding forces which dictated the path from origin to now.


Life either started randomly or deliberately... if it cant be A, then it must be B.
if it was B, then design has already entered into the equation, which negates an assumption made first in the theory...and a fallacy exists.

wrong. in the primordial soup model, a few completely separate colonies of life could have began at completely different times on the opposite side of the planet. They may never have interacted until they were large enough to travel. Since we have no footprints of ambiogenesis, we have no evidence to even speculate with, and thus life could have began in multiple time periods, and we could thus have, say.. 4 ancestors.

So the anaology with the bolts was correct. You can get something living from inanimate objects. Amazing.

no, it's not. As someone else, chemical vs physical. Throwing a bunch of inanimate things together and leaving them alone, nothing will happen. You need chemical processes.

 

[Auric]

Originally posted by: eos
Sitting in my lawn chair waiting for someone to reference: "Our ancestors are not apes!!!".

Speak for yourself... and pass me a banana.

 

[JulesMaximus]

Originally posted by: michaelsslave
well i was watching CNN late last night and during they show some reporter said that '53% of Americans believe in creationism' wtf

If true then it follows that 53% of Americans are idiots.

 

[Flyback]

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: eos
Sitting in my lawn chair waiting for someone to reference: "Our ancestors are not apes!!!".

Speak for yourself... and pass me a banana.

:roll:

Bananas alone are evidence of God. They are contoured to fit our hands in a neat package for tidy consumption. You think it was just by accident that happened?

 

[NikolaeVarius]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: michaelsslave
well i was watching CNN late last night and during they show some reporter said that '53% of Americans believe in creationism' wtf

If true then it follows that 53% of Americans are idiots.

Well, we did vote for Bush..

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Flyback

Originally posted by: Auric

Originally posted by: eos
Sitting in my lawn chair waiting for someone to reference: "Our ancestors are not apes!!!".

Speak for yourself... and pass me a banana.

:roll:

Bananas alone are evidence of God. They are contoured to fit our hands in a neat package for tidy consumption. You think it was just by accident that happened?

:laugh: You saw that clip too? Hilarious stuff.