Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: blacken700 on September 25, 2010, 05:53:07 AM
-
-
That is a valid point and TOTALLY dispells evolution.Where is the monkey that evolved into a human?Where are the records,the artifacts that it ever happened.Where is the missing link?There isnt one.She is 100% correct,its all theory until you have a skeleton of the ape/man and you dont have it and you wont have it because it never happened.
-
chimps are on their own line of evolution. it's pretty close to impossible that they could evolve into humans. the only thing you could find are common ancestors and they arn't human either. so it's not a valid point. it's just not the way it works.
-
chimps are on their own line of evolution. it's pretty close to impossible that they could evolve into humans. the only thing you could find are common ancestors and they arn't human either. so it's not a valid point. it's just not the way it works.
Don't go throwing logic around.
The thesis for life was discovered 2,000 years ago by men with virtually no understanding of the natural world.
The sky-god has your IP.
-
That is a valid point and TOTALLY dispells evolution.Where is the monkey that evolved into a human?Where are the records,the artifacts that it ever happened.Where is the missing link?There isnt one.She is 100% correct,its all theory until you have a skeleton of the ape/man and you dont have it and you wont have it because it never happened.
Are you kidding Billy? Did you really just say this?
-
chimps are on their own line of evolution. it's pretty close to impossible that they could evolve into humans. the only thing you could find are common ancestors and they arn't human either. so it's not a valid point. it's just not the way it works.
Hugo, bringing down the hammer. I think that's one of my biggest beefs with those who criticize evolution, they have not taken the time to even look at the theory with any degree of scrutiny and yet they want to criticize it. Hell even the libs on the show didn't seem to understand something basic about evolution. Oh well, ignorance is bliss.
-
A possible way to lower medical costs in the future is to start giving all "creationists" first generation penicillin for every bacterial infection.
All the new antibiotics that are developed as the bacteria evolve are off limits.
Science classes in school can show videos of the creationists dying from easily preventable infections while praying for answers as to why the penicillin doesn't work like it did 50 years ago.....kind of a "scared straight" approach.
-
A possible way to lower medical costs in the future is to start giving all "creationists" first generation penicillin for every bacterial infection.
All the new antibiotics that are developed as the bacteria evolve are off limits.
Science classes in school can show videos of the creationists dying from easily preventable infections while praying for answers as to why the penicillin doesn't work like it did 50 years ago.....kind of a "scared straight" approach.
i'll go one better, when their sick just let them pray to god ;D
-
A possible way to lower medical costs in the future is to start giving all "creationists" first generation penicillin for every bacterial infection.
All the new antibiotics that are developed as the bacteria evolve are off limits.
Science classes in school can show videos of the creationists dying from easily preventable infections while praying for answers as to why the penicillin doesn't work like it did 50 years ago.....kind of a "scared straight" approach.
Nice lol
-
i'll go one better, when their sick just let them pray to god ;D
Some christians do that.. and they die... (all part of "god's plan" obviously)
-
For anyone who knows about exercise phyisology and human anatomy, our bodies still think we live in caves and only exert energy when hunting and gathring.
That said, this bitch is such a liability for the GOP its not even funny. I hope she wins just to destroy the democratic majority, but she makes Sarah Palin look like Oprah Einstein.
-
Some christians do that.. and they die... (all part of "god's plan" obviously)
Science has saved more lives than God has.
-
Yet turtles have saved the most of all.
-
"evolution is a myth"
OH MY GOD.
I missed you guys. I've been in the FL Keys for a few days. it's good to be home :)
-
Are you kidding Billy? Did you really just say this?
thats some funny stuff there
-
We live in a country with a surplus of idiots; this does not bode well.
-
That is a valid point and TOTALLY dispells evolution.Where is the monkey that evolved into a human?Where are the records,the artifacts that it ever happened.Where is the missing link?There isnt one.She is 100% correct,its all theory until you have a skeleton of the ape/man and you dont have it and you wont have it because it never happened.
thats awesome...
-
Well it appears she is talking about macro-evolution. Do I think we evolved from monkeys? No, but there are some who make me rethink it. Micro-evolution on the other hand is easily proven.
-
Well it appears she is talking about macro-evolution. Do I think we evolved from monkeys? No, but there are some who make me rethink it. Micro-evolution on the other hand is easily proven.
I doubt she knows the difference.
-
I doubt she knows the difference.
As long as she will vote against ObamaCare, cap & trade, stim bills, tax hikes, etc, she is fine by me,
-
As long as she will vote against ObamaCare, cap & trade, stim bills, tax hikes, etc, she is fine by me,
That woman doesn't have a brain in her head. I couldn't vote for her whatever her party affiliation.
-
That woman doesn't have a brain in her head. I couldn't vote for her whatever her party affiliation.
But you would vote for a self described marxist who voted to raise taxes by 25% last year alone?
-
But you would vote for a self described marxist who voted to raise taxes by 25% last year alone?
No, I wouldn't vote for Obama either. I am so tired of politics in this country that there is no one left to vote for.
-
it's amusing seeing which getbiggers SERIOUSLY believe the earth is 5000 years old and that it was created so quickly. It's insane how many functional adults believe evolution is a lie. ODonnell has helped getbig learn who the bible literalists are - and it's just plain awesome!
-
it's amusing seeing which getbiggers SERIOUSLY believe the earth is 5000 years old and that it was created so quickly. It's insane how many functional adults believe evolution is a lie. ODonnell has helped getbig learn who the bible literalists are - and it's just plain awesome!
I could care less if she attended a racist white church for 20 years, was probably born in South Africa, won't realase her school records, hung around with McVeigh, had no executive experience whatsoever, said she wanted to skyrocket my electric bill , etc etc,
Oh wait . . . . . . .
-
I could care less if she attended a racist white church for 20 years, was probably born in South Africa, won't realase her school records, hung around with McVeigh, had no executive experience whatsoever, said she wanted to skyrocket my electric bill , etc etc,
Oh wait . . . . . . .
this isn't an obama thread.
I wouldn't go on a cancer thread and say "come on guys, cancer isn't as bad as heart disease!"
:)
It's funny seeing which getbiggers believe in fairy tales and ignore science. It's awesome.
-
this isn't an obama thread.
I wouldn't go on a cancer thread and say "come on guys, cancer isn't as bad as heart disease!"
:)
It's funny seeing which getbiggers believe in fairy tales and ignore science. It's awesome.
I havent wieghed in on any of that. I care solely how these people vote on issues, not their whacked out beliefs.
The bearded marxist will vote for obamacare, cap & trade, stim bills, etc etc, she won't.
-
I care solely how these people vote on issues, not their whacked out beliefs.
So you don't think "their wacked out beliefs" influence how they vote?
hahahaha People who think crazy/ignorant shit are more likely to vote crazy, dude. ODonnell might be just like your boy Scott brown- promise constituents anything, then get into office and do whatever she wants.
-
So you don't think "their wacked out beliefs" influence how they vote?
hahahaha People who think crazy/ignorant shit are more likely to vote crazy, dude. ODonnell might be just like your boy Scott brown- promise constituents anything, then get into office and do whatever she wants.
Yes, but at least I have a chance with her that she will turn out ok. Say 60-40
With the bearded marxist I am guaranteed a 100% far left nut who will raise my taxes.
-
Yes, but at least I have a chance with her that she will turn out ok. Say 60-40
Senators can start wars. They can borrow trillions for anything.
maybe some wackjob convinces these bible literalist senators to do stupid shit based upon their irrational beliefs. Seriously, think about it. What's more dangerous - a RINO who plays by the rules, or a loose cannon who REFUSES TO ACCEPT SCIENCE? part of decision making at that highest level will involve some science -
-
Senators can start wars. They can borrow trillions for anything.
maybe some wackjob convinces these bible literalist senators to do stupid shit based upon their irrational beliefs. Seriously, think about it. What's more dangerous - a RINO who plays by the rules, or a loose cannon who REFUSES TO ACCEPT SCIENCE? part of decision making at that highest level will involve some science -
Too late for that - we have the witch or the marxist.
ha ha ha ha ha - Got to love it.
-
Too late for that - we have the witch or the marxist.
ha ha ha ha ha - Got to love it.
delaware voters - morons. it's that simple. no way to argue it. They're stupid.
-
Once again,you guys that support evolution show me the bones of the man that evolved.THERE IS NO MISSING LINK!!!!!It hasnt been found and wont be found.Mock until the cows come home,but until they show the artifacts of the species that evolved into man,its a hoax just like global warming is.
To 240,I dont know mant people who think the earth is 5000 years old.THe Bible says a day is like 1000 years to the Lord.We have zero knowlege of any time period in the Bible because we dont know what a day or a year meant.
-
Once again,you guys that support evolution show me the bones of the man that evolved.THERE IS NO MISSING LINK!!!!!It hasnt been found and wont be found.Mock until the cows come home,but until they show the artifacts of the species that evolved into man,its a hoax just like global warming is.
To 240,I dont know mant people who think the earth is 5000 years old.THe Bible says a day is like 1000 years to the Lord.We have zero knowlege of any time period in the Bible because we dont know what a day or a year meant.
BILLY,
You really don't buy into the big bang, etc?
You really think it was God waving his hand, the whole garden of eden? REALLY?
-
What getbigger believes the earth is 5000 years old? Just curious.
-
delaware voters - morons. it's that simple. no way to argue it. They're stupid.
Why? If it were me - and i have a choice of someone who will vote for cap & trade, the obama agenda, etc, or a person with a checkered past who will vote against it - why is it stupid to vote for that person?
-
Why? If it were me - and i have a choice of someone who will vote for cap & trade, the obama agenda, etc, or a person with a checkered past who will vote against it - why is it stupid to vote for that person?
they're stupid for selecting two such fundamentally flawed candidates.
If you have to hold your nose and vote for a WITCH who is ignorant on science - you alread did a shitty job in primary voting. It's like getting to work one day, and looking in your lunchbox, and finding a turd sandwich and a bowl of vomit soup. You might eat the turd sandwich because you know it's better than vomit soup - but you're still a moron for packing such crappy choices in your lunch :)
This woman thinks people and dinos walked together... and she'll be one of the 100 people making HUGE decisions on war, healthcare, etc. A simple 7th grade understanding of science she lacks. Scary.
-
they're stupid for selecting two such fundamentally flawed candidates.
If you have to hold your nose and vote for a WITCH who is ignorant on science - you alread did a shitty job in primary voting. It's like getting to work one day, and looking in your lunchbox, and finding a turd sandwich and a bowl of vomit soup. You might eat the turd sandwich because you know it's better than vomit soup - but you're still a moron for packing such crappy choices in your lunch :)
This woman thinks people and dinos walked together... and she'll be one of the 100 people making HUGE decisions on war, healthcare, etc. A simple 7th grade understanding of science she lacks. Scary.
Oh, and the geniuses you shill for have done better? Sorry 240 - after two years of the "geniuses" you shilled for have absolutely destroyed evertything, you continual kneepadding for more fo the same is pathetic.
-
Oh, and the geniuses you shill for have done better? Sorry 240 - after two years of the "geniuses" you shilled for have absolutely destroyed evertything, you continual kneepadding for more fo the same is pathetic.
you're still campaigning for shit sandwich over the vomit soup i'm selling.
it's better to just throw the whole lunch bag in the trash and re-vote using qualified candidates.
-
you're still campaigning for shit sandwich over the vomit soup i'm selling.
it's better to just throw the whole lunch bag in the trash and re-vote using qualified candidates.
This is not about any one individual candidate. its about a chess match where there are 100 votes and how one will vote on things.
Very simple - will they rubber stamp and kneepad Obama or will they oppose this treason?
-
This is not about any one individual candidate. its about a chess match where there are 100 votes and how one will vote on things.
Very simple - will they rubber stamp and kneepad Obama or will they oppose this treason?
I have no clue how ODonnell will vote. we all thought we'd know how Brown would vote...
We know she disagrees with commonly accepted science.
I don't konw what that means she'll do. it means she's wildly unpredictable, and may just follow 'her heart' or 'the bible' instead of things like law or common sense or fact. Personaly, to me, any person who ignores evolution is willing to put EMOTION before LOGIC - that's scary.
DEl voters put up two shitty canddiates. it's that simple.
-
you're still campaigning for shit sandwich over the vomit soup i'm selling.
it's better to just throw the whole lunch bag in the trash and re-vote using qualified candidates.
Notwithstanding your rather strange analogy, we simply don't have time to do that. To borrow from the President's tired car analogy, we have a flat and we're stranded on the side on the highway. Do you use the temporary tire or do you stand there stranded, with the rain pouring on you, waiting to get your ideal steel-belted radial?
If nothing else, think of the GOP (or at least O'Donnell) as the temporary tire. It may not be the best; but, it's the best you have, given the circumstances.
-
Notwithstanding your rather strange analogy, we simply don't have time to do that. To borrow from the President's tired car analogy, we have a flat and we're stranded on the side on the highway. Do you use the temporary tire or do you stand there stranded, with the rain pouring on you, waiting to get your ideal steel-belted radial?
If nothing else, think of the GOP (or at least O'Donnell) as the temporary tire. It may not be the best; but, it's the best you have, given the circumstances.
you're right here. i said i'd vote for her over the commie.
Still, we should all note how stupid DEL voters are, so that they might think twice next time.
-
I have no clue how ODonnell will vote. we all thought we'd know how Brown would vote...
We know she disagrees with commonly accepted science.
I don't konw what that means she'll do. it means she's wildly unpredictable, and may just follow 'her heart' or 'the bible' instead of things like law or common sense or fact. Personaly, to me, any person who ignores evolution is willing to put EMOTION before LOGIC - that's scary.
DEl voters put up two shitty canddiates. it's that simple.
People are worried about their taxes going up, being able to feed their families, and healthcare premiums SKYROCKETING. The LAST THING on their minds right now is whether O'Donnell believes we evolved from "goo" 5 billion years ago.
-
BILLY,
You really don't buy into the big bang, etc?
You really think it was God waving his hand, the whole garden of eden? REALLY?
Do you think we evolved from primordial soup at random with no direction from anything"?Why have we stopped evolving then.Why havent we devolped wings or dgills so we can breathe underwater or fly.
Just because you think God directed something and think Evolution is as stupid as man made global warming,doesnt mean you think God waved a wand and poof it was done.
-
Hugo, bringing down the hammer. I think that's one of my biggest beefs with those who criticize evolution, they have not taken the time to even look at the theory with any degree of scrutiny and yet they want to criticize it. Hell even the libs on the show didn't seem to understand something basic about evolution. Oh well, ignorance is bliss.
Skip I disagree. Most of us were taught the theory in either high school or college (or both). It's actually the people who believe in the entire theory that refuse to look at the gaping holes in parts of the theory. Check out this thread I created a while back: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0 Very interesting book.
What you'll find, consistently, is people are unable to talk about the problems with the theory without talking about God, etc.
-
A possible way to lower medical costs in the future is to start giving all "creationists" first generation penicillin for every bacterial infection.
All the new antibiotics that are developed as the bacteria evolve are off limits.
Science classes in school can show videos of the creationists dying from easily preventable infections while praying for answers as to why the penicillin doesn't work like it did 50 years ago.....kind of a "scared straight" approach.
Don't confuse microevolution with macroevolution. Also, regarding viruses:
"Throughout the years, supporters of the theory of evolution have chosen to ignore viruses. Dr. Stephen Gould, in The Book of Life, allotted them only a single paragraph (out of 250 pages). It begins, 'There is one other problematic group, the viruses, which are particularly hard to define.' Dr. Roger Lewin's The Thread of Life: The Smithsonian Looks at Evolution does not have viruses listed in its glossary. In contrast, Dr. Scott Freeman's Biological Sciences textbook has a very comprehensive chapter on viruses. In it, he says, 'But currently, there is no widely accepted view where viruses came from.'"
-
Well it appears she is talking about macro-evolution. Do I think we evolved from monkeys? No, but there are some who make me rethink it. Micro-evolution on the other hand is easily proven.
Agree.
-
O'Donnell is wrong.
SAMSON is a gorilla that has learned how to operate a computer and post on the internet. He is the missing evolutionary link in the chain of progression between man and ape. SAMSON should be paraded around the country (in a cage of course) and shown to those who don't believe in evolution.
-
Once again,you guys that support evolution show me the bones of the man that evolved.THERE IS NO MISSING LINK!!!!!It hasnt been found and wont be found.Mock until the cows come home,but until they show the artifacts of the species that evolved into man,its a hoax just like global warming is.
To 240,I dont know mant people who think the earth is 5000 years old.THe Bible says a day is like 1000 years to the Lord.We have zero knowlege of any time period in the Bible because we dont know what a day or a year meant.
Wow, just wow!
-
God doesn't know how long a year is? Seems like he might be able to figure that one out, buddy.
-
I doubt she knows the difference.
Where the hell have you been?
-
Where the hell have you been?
TBH - she can believe anything as far as I care, its how she will vote that I care about.
-
I meant Deicide. I haven't seen that SN in over a year.
-
this isn't an obama thread.
I wouldn't go on a cancer thread and say "come on guys, cancer isn't as bad as heart disease!"
:)
It's funny seeing which getbiggers believe in fairy tales and ignore science. It's awesome.
Not as funny as an idiot who thinks the country will love the health care bill and run on it.
-
Shock shock, Another dipshit shooting his mouth off without even a basic understanding of evolution. Not counting Brock Lesner, I've never seen a half human half ape either and nobody that understands evolution would expect to!
Glenn Beck calls evolution 'ridiculous,' says he's never seen a half-human, half-monkey ::)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/10/21/2010-10-21_glenn_beck_calls_evolution_ridiculous_says_hes_never_seen_a_halfhuman_halfmonkey.html
-
Shock shock, Another dipshit shooting his mouth off without even a basic understanding of evolution. Not counting Brock Lesner, I've never seen a half human half ape either and nobody that understands evolution would expect to!
Glenn Beck calls evolution 'ridiculous,' says he's never seen a half-human, half-monkey ::)
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2010/10/21/2010-10-21_glenn_beck_calls_evolution_ridiculous_says_hes_never_seen_a_halfhuman_halfmonkey.html
LOL I have a close friend who doesnt believe in evolution but refuses to look into it b/c he is afraid it will challenge his current views? really???
he like most ppl who have no clue about evolution think that we came from monkeys...anybody that believes that has obviously not done any research into evolution
-
Spot on Beck. :) He's talking about macroevolution. The "monkey business" is ridiculous.
-
LOL I have a close friend who doesnt believe in evolution but refuses to look into it b/c he is afraid it will challenge his current views? really???
he like most ppl who have no clue about evolution think that we came from monkeys...anybody that believes that has obviously not done any research into evolution
Sort of sounds like the people who are afraid to look at the gaping holes in macroevolution. :)
-
Sort of sounds like the people who are afraid to look at the gaping holes in macroevolution. :)
such as?
I hate the term Macro evolution...
do you agree that ppl 100 yrs ago were different/looked different even slightly then they do today?
-
Sort of sounds like the people who are afraid to look at the gaping holes in macroevolution. :)
let me see if i can explain the term macro evolution is a man made concept same as the term "species" and what differentiates a species from others...
just b/c we say this species is defined by this doesnt place a limit on the evolution that species. Its a man made concept and nature is not limited by it.
think about it like this the previous species that lead to the modern day humans are basically humans but from millions of years ago. The idea that a species cant evolve into another species is incorrect after all we created the term species and created the criteria for each species.
We could very well narrow the criteria for a certain species and create more than one...
iono if i explained that very well lol
-
such as?
I hate the term Macro evolution...
do you agree that ppl 100 yrs ago were different/looked different even slightly then they do today?
Such as: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0
I have no problem with the terms macroevolution or microevolution.
If you're asking me whether I believe in neanderthals, the answer is (other than a few people on the board), "no." :) The earliest humans looked like humans. That's what the fossil record shows. That's one of the gaping holes in macroevolution and precisely what Beck was talking about. From both a scientific and common sense standpoint, the archeological record should be full of transitional fossils (if macroevolution is true). But it isn't.
-
Such as: http://www.getbig.com/boards/index.php?topic=179381.0
I have no problem with the terms macroevolution or microevolution.
If you're asking me whether I believe in neanderthals, the answer is (other than a few people on the board), "no." :) The earliest humans looked like humans. That's what the fossil record shows. That's one of the gaping holes in macroevolution and precisely what Beck was talking about. From both a scientific and common sense standpoint, the archeological record should be full of transitional fossils (if macroevolution is true). But it isn't.
actually the fossil record is full of transitional fossils that show a logical progression from millions of years ago to about 250k years ago which is when modern humans developed.
modern humans didnt show up until about 250k yrs ago, why are there no modern human remains prior to that?
again macro is a man made term as is species just b/c a man says that a species is defined by this and this doesnt mean that nature will automatically stop evolution at that limit...
the idea of species is a man made concept and shouldnt bear any weight in the idea of evolution as whole.
what does nature care about our idea of species? it doesnt and will continue to to evolve until WE deem that if has changed so much that it is no longer the same species...
its actually the same thing just a different version is all...we just call it different species to make it easier on us...
-
actually the fossil record is full of transitional fossils that show a logical progression from millions of years ago to about 250k years ago which is when modern humans developed.
modern humans didnt show up until about 250k yrs ago, why are there no modern human remains prior to that?
again macro is a man made term as is species just b/c a man says that a species is defined by this and this doesnt mean that nature will automatically stop evolution at that limit...
the idea of species is a man made concept and shouldnt bear any weight in the idea of evolution as whole.
what does nature care about our idea of species? it doesnt and will continue to to evolve until WE deem that if has changed so much that it is no longer the same species...
its actually the same thing just a different version is all...we just call it different species to make it easier on us...
Tony every aspect of our language (terms, concepts, etc.) is manmade. Not sure I understand your point?
I disagree about transitional fossils. They don't exist. The oldest fossil of a man is a man. Oldest fossil of a giraffe is a giraffe. Etc.
-
Tony every aspect of our language (terms, concepts, etc.) is manmade. Not sure I understand your point?
I disagree about transitional fossils. They don't exist. The oldest fossil of a man is a man. Oldest fossil of a giraffe is a giraffe. Etc.
correct but nature and its operations are not man made is my point. Evolution is not man made it is nature you agree with "micro" evolution...the thing is that there really is no difference between "micro" and "macro". The idea of macro evolution is based of our concepts of species and their individual criteria. We could narrow our definition(b/c we made it) of what a modern human is and not have modern human remains until a say 25k yrs ago breaking down into more species or broaden them and have them 2 million years ago breaking down into less species...
since when does nature submit to man made concepts?
just b/c we label some species with certain criteria doesnt mean that evolution will stop at those limits...b/c nature doesnt submit to man made concepts. Ppl act like simply b/c we said this is a dog or cat and gave criteria for them that nature and is process of evolution will stop at tose limits that we have come up with.
right the oldest fossil of a man is a man but the oldest fossil of a man is about 250k yrs old...
the thing is creatures have been on this earth for millions of years, so why have no modern human remains been found that are older than 250k? there are however fossils that look very much like modern humans that are slightly different that are older and some that are alot like those but slightly different that are older and so on and so on...
ill post a timeline of the fossil record when i get home today.
-
..
-
:D :D :D
-
More comedians. They should start calling the Dem party the "The Joker party".
-
-
such as?
I hate the term Macro evolution...
do you agree that ppl 100 yrs ago were different/looked different even slightly then they do today?
From TalkOrigins.org
"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it"
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
-
If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists? Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it? They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth. They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions.
"If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."
The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm
"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetner
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
-
correct sir but again we are the ones who defined what each species entails...so what makes you think that evolution stops at the criteria we define for each species...
there is no difference between macro and micro in terms of nature...only in our definitions of whether it fits within our defined criteria for that species our goes outside of it...
why do you think that nature and the processes of natural selection would stop at the definitions of man?
-
If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists? Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it? They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth. They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions.
LOL broham there are always going to be some ppl who dont agree, you can find ppl that think 9/11 was done with holograms but that doesnt make it so...
the vast vast majority of scientist agree with evolution and yes macro evolution even if they find some flaws in the inner workings of the theory, they still agree with the overall concept.
evolution through natural selections, migration, mutation takes many many things to happen first and foremost is time. If modern humans havent changed in 250k yrs what makes you think that you will see a overnight change in your lifetime?
second is an enviroment that lends itself to change otherwise the new trait wont be beneficial and wont survive...what has changed enviromentally over the course of modern man?
please guys look at this with an objective stance and strip away your preconcieved notions and bias. Do some legit research dont get facts from ppl with agendas.
-
correct sir but again we are the ones who defined what each species entails...so what makes you think that evolution stops at the criteria we define for each species...
there is no difference between macro and micro in terms of nature...only in our definitions of whether it fits within our defined criteria for that species our goes outside of it...
why do you think that nature and the processes of natural selection would stop at the definitions of man?
Well to be honest, the concept is o far reaching for man to grasp. Remember it was thought that the planets rotated around the earth. It is difficult to think that we arent the end all be all to the universe. Its only Logical to accept that if man is defined as a mammal and mammals have different species that are products of evolution over millions of years, that man would be in that same category. Evolution process is slow..but there is still evidence of its presense. Take for instance the average womens weight hight and shoe size from 100 years ago and compare it to now...there is a drastic evololution.
-
^^^^^
I agree and their are studies that show many culture becoming more lactose intolerant b/c they stop producing something in their bodies as a result of not drinking milk as much...
my problem is with the idea that the evolutionary process is all of a sudden going to stop and the man made idea of what a species is...
Im not saying I agree with everything evolution and its concepts say but its just a false idea to think that b/c man says that this species is defined by this that evolution and its process will simply stop at that point and no longer evolve.
macro and micro evolution are the same thing they are evolution one is simply looked at on a smaller scale and one a larger.
the theory of evolution makes none NOT ONE ascertion about creation, so the idea that evolution goes against religion christianity specifically is crazy to me.
-
LOL broham there are always going to be some ppl who dont agree, you can find ppl that think 9/11 was done with holograms but that doesnt make it so...
the vast vast majority of scientist agree with evolution and yes macro evolution even if they find some flaws in the inner workings of the theory, they still agree with the overall concept.
evolution through natural selections, migration, mutation takes many many things to happen first and foremost is time. If modern humans havent changed in 250k yrs what makes you think that you will see a overnight change in your lifetime?
second is an enviroment that lends itself to change otherwise the new trait wont be beneficial and wont survive...what has changed enviromentally over the course of modern man?
please guys look at this with an objective stance and strip away your preconcieved notions and bias. Do some legit research dont get facts from ppl with agendas.
Those I listed are not just any people. They are modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists. Good job comparing them to 9/11 conspiracy theorist nuts! ::)
-
^^^^^
I agree and their are studies that show many culture becoming more lactose intolerant b/c they stop producing something in their bodies as a result of not drinking milk as much...
my problem is with the idea that the evolutionary process is all of a sudden going to stop and the man made idea of what a species is...
Im not saying I agree with everything evolution and its concepts say but its just a false idea to think that b/c man says that this species is defined by this that evolution and its process will simply stop at that point and no longer evolve.
macro and micro evolution are the same thing they are evolution one is simply looked at on a smaller scale and one a larger.
the theory of evolution makes none NOT ONE ascertion about creation, so the idea that evolution goes against religion christianity specifically is crazy to me.
Fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with the tony....im gonna go jump off a bridge
-
Those I listed are not just any people. They are modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists. Good job comparing them to 9/11 conspiracy theorist nuts! ::)
i know they are phd's etc...lol dude like I said you will always have ppl disagree yes even ppl in the same profession(i didnt mean to ridicule them only to point to an example)
but again the vast vast majority of professionals in the area agree with the concept of evolution and its processes.
what makes you think that the processes of evolution are going to all of a sudden stop at the man made definitions of what a species is? Id like your words please...
-
Fuck!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I agree with the tony....im gonna go jump off a bridge
:D its not that bad
-
Malcolm has killed himself...this is his labmate...can i help you
-
Malcolm has killed himself...this is his labmate...can i help you
hahahah at his funeral put him in posing trunks and have PIP shirts with a picture of him on them ;D
-
^^^^^
I agree and their are studies that show many culture becoming more lactose intolerant b/c they stop producing something in their bodies as a result of not drinking milk as much...
my problem is with the idea that the evolutionary process is all of a sudden going to stop and the man made idea of what a species is...
Im not saying I agree with everything evolution and its concepts say but its just a false idea to think that b/c man says that this species is defined by this that evolution and its process will simply stop at that point and no longer evolve.
macro and micro evolution are the same thing they are evolution one is simply looked at on a smaller scale and one a larger.
the theory of evolution makes none NOT ONE ascertion about creation, so the idea that evolution goes against religion christianity specifically is crazy to me.
Holy Cow Tony, look out your window. Those really ARE flying pigs! :o
It took awhile, ...but we actually agree on something. :D
(http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/pig1.gif) (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/Flying_pig.jpg) (http://www.jaguarenterprises.net/images/flying-pigs.gif)
-
Yes, but at least I have a chance with her that she will turn out ok. Say 60-40
With the bearded marxist I am guaranteed a 100% far left nut who will raise my taxes.
so you make more than 250,000 thousand a year? If not, what are you worried about? If yes, all you care about is your own pocket. Either way, your logic is skewed.
-
Goddam I love america to bits but seriously, I cannot for the life of me understand people who question evolution, the rest of the first world left that behind a loooooooong time ago....and by that I mean 100 years+. Seriously game over these questions have all been debated before, there is nothing to say.
it really worries me that some folk genuinely bring up points about monkey's not evolving into humans as proof of evolution being a bogus theory. Cool im all for limited government and strong foreign policy etc....but the bullshit that comes with being a conservative in america is just worrying...
please the sooner you guys stop this cherade the better...for everyone, I know of no other people with the exception of hassidic jews and nutty muslims that question evolution apart from some right wing americans....seriously that's the sort of people that you associate that shit with. The USA deserves better than this sheer stupidity.
-
great point steevo.
95% of what odonnell says makes sense. her positions on $ issues, etc.
it's this unwillingness to just be straight and admit whether or not she even believes in evolution, that bugs me.
I mean, I sorta trust someone i disagree with (who has the balls to tell me what she believes and why), more than I trust someone who WONT EVEN ANSWER THE QUESTION of how she feels.
-
Goddam I love america to bits but seriously, I cannot for the life of me understand people who question evolution, the rest of the first world left that behind a loooooooong time ago....and by that I mean 100 years+. Seriously game over these questions have all been debated before, there is nothing to say.
it really worries me that some folk genuinely bring up points about monkey's not evolving into humans as proof of evolution being a bogus theory. Cool im all for limited government and strong foreign policy etc....but the bullshit that comes with being a conservative in america is just worrying...
please the sooner you guys stop this cherade the better...for everyone, I know of no other people with the exception of hassidic jews and nutty muslims that question evolution apart from some right wing americans....seriously that's the sort of people that you associate that shit with. The USA deserves better than this sheer stupidity.
Sounds like you need to associate with more Americans. A significant portion of the population questions the theory of evolution. There are legitimate questions in a number of areas.
One way to handle the gaping holes in the theory is to declare anyone who questions it stupid, which then allows you to avoid dealing with the significant problems with the theory. Sort of a copout.
-
Sounds like you need to associate with more Americans. A significant portion of the population questions the theory of evolution. There are legitimate questions in a number of areas.
LOL!!
-
LOL!!
:-*
-
great point steevo.
95% of what odonnell says makes sense. her positions on $ issues, etc.
it's this unwillingness to just be straight and admit whether or not she even believes in evolution, that bugs me.
I mean, I sorta trust someone i disagree with (who has the balls to tell me what she believes and why), more than I trust someone who WONT EVEN ANSWER THE QUESTION of how she feels.
Yep, vague platitudes always do. Too bad she has no policies to implement it, which is kind of the job of the politician and all.
-
Sounds like you need to associate with more Americans. A significant portion of the population questions the theory of evolution. There are legitimate questions in a number of areas.
One way to handle the gaping holes in the theory is to declare anyone who questions it stupid, which then allows you to avoid dealing with the significant problems with the theory. Sort of a copout.
beach specifically which ancestor of modern day humans do you have a problem with and why?
also why do you think that no modern human remains have been found older than about 250k yrs but we have a large number of other animals that date back much much further?
-
FUNNY STUFF!!!! especially that little gem from BB above. considering he does the same thing when there are theories voiced he doesn't like.
BB's entire history on this board consists of:
"I'm not watching that"
"I'm not reading that"
"I made it through the first 30 seconds"
and about 20,000 posts that go like this " ::)"
and he has the sack left to call copout on others. LOL!!!!!!
-
Sounds like you need to associate with more Americans. A significant portion of the population questions the theory of evolution. There are legitimate questions in a number of areas.
One way to handle the gaping holes in the theory is to declare anyone who questions it stupid, which then allows you to avoid dealing with the significant problems with the theory. Sort of a copout.
Post a pic of Noah's Ark. I want to see how big it is to fit two of every species on there.
-
Yep, vague platitudes always do. Too bad she has no policies to implement it, which is kind of the job of the politician and all.
you mean like obama and his little daily gaffe machine about cars in the ditch, slurpees, evil empire, putting the car in D, not giving the keys back to the car, etc?
-
And going to a "Constitution Conference" apparently doesn't make you an expert.
-
beach specifically which ancestor of modern day humans do you have a problem with and why?
also why do you think that no modern human remains have been found older than about 250k yrs but we have a large number of other animals that date back much much further?
Tony I have a problem with the entire concept of all life on earth having a common ancestor. One of the primary reasons I have a problem with this is the absence of transitional fossils.
What do you mean by "modern human remains"? They're all the same. All human.
-
Post a pic of Noah's Ark. I want to see how big it is to fit two of every species on there.
I think I deleted mine. You got a copy?
And what does Noah's Ark have to do with the gaping holes in the theory of evolution?
-
Tony I have a problem with the entire concept of all life on earth having a common ancestor. One of the primary reasons I have a problem with this is the absence of transitional fossils.
What do you mean by "modern human remains"? They're all the same. All human.
why do you think that all the fossils are the same species?
there are fossils that correspond to the individual species on this time line why specifically do you feel that are all modern humans(homo sapiens)?
-
-
i secretly wish she would win; the Daily Show and Bill Mahar would have a blast!
-
i secretly wish she would win; the Daily Show and Bill Mahar would have a blast!
oh you know there has to be part of them that wants that.
-
why do you think that all the fossils are the same species?
there are fossils that correspond to the individual species on this time line why specifically do you feel that are all modern humans(homo sapiens)?
Because they are the same species (human). There are no fossils showing the purported transition from whatever the heck we were supposed to be before we were "human." Why do you think there is an absence of an entire fossil record?
-
Because they are the same species (human). There are no fossils showing the purported transition from whatever the heck we were supposed to be before we were "human." Why do you think there is an absence of an entire fossil record?
so you think that homo habalis, erectus, egaster, austrolapithicus and its sub species are all human?
then your basically arguing what im arguing...its human just an earlier version of modern day humans but through evolution we have become what we are now...
now there is no denying that there are other species that were dead ends like neanderthals etc...however
what exactly makes you feel this way beach? is it the way they look? b/c according to our definitions of what a homo sapien species is they are not homo sapiens
-
so you think that homo habalis, erectus, egaster, austrolapithicus and its sub species are all human?
then your basically arguing what im arguing...its human just an earlier version of modern day humans but through evolution we have become what we are now...
now there is no denying that there are other species that were dead ends like neanderthals etc...however
what exactly makes you feel this way beach? is it the way they look? b/c according to our definitions of what a homo sapien species is they are not homo sapiens
You're talking about fragments of bones and teeth pieced together and given a name. They're not fossilized remains of some ape-man. Why do you think the fossil record isn't full of humans at various stages of their evolution?
-
I think I deleted mine. You got a copy?
And what does Noah's Ark have to do with the gaping holes in the theory of evolution?
Man, you are priceless.
-
Man, you are priceless.
Thank you. :)
-
You're talking about fragments of bones and teeth pieced together and given a name. They're not fossilized remains of some ape-man. Why do you think the fossil record isn't full of humans at various stages of their evolution?
stop saying ape man b/c evolution doesnt say that we came from apes...
lol thats what a fossil is beach...they dont just give it a name bro they look at its features and decide based upon those features if it is an already known species or if its a different species.
there is thats why they have them seperated into different species...
what specifically do you think they got wrong with homo habilis, egaster, erectus that makes you think those are modern human remains?
-
stop saying ape man b/c evolution doesnt say that we came from apes...
lol thats what a fossil is beach...they dont just give it a name bro they look at its features and decide based upon those features if it is an already known species or if its a different species.
there is thats why they have them seperated into different species...
what specifically do you think they got wrong with homo habilis, egaster, erectus that makes you think those are modern human remains?
Tony you can call it whatever you want. Whatever you want to label the not-quite-human ancestor, the fact is the fossil record doesn't support the existence of these evolving creatures.
I understand we can find portions of fossilized remains that can allow us to make assumptions, but that is all that we have with macroevolution. There are plenty of intact fossilized remains of a number of creatures, but none of them are in the middle of their so-called transformation.
But you haven't answered my question: Why do you think the fossil record isn't full of humans at their various stages of macroevolution?
-
Why do you think the fossil record isn't full of humans at their various stages of macroevolution?
::) It is filled with various stages. The problem is that you're dealing with a very long time and a small enough population making the finding of intact remains more rare than your chances of finding a 10 pound gold nugget. Then creationists will just chalk finds up to genetic variation within our species and not evidence of evolution lol...
-
Tony you can call it whatever you want. Whatever you want to label the not-quite-human ancestor, the fact is the fossil record doesn't support the existence of these evolving creatures.
I understand we can find portions of fossilized remains that can allow us to make assumptions, but that is all that we have with macroevolution. There are plenty of intact fossilized remains of a number of creatures, but none of them are in the middle of their so-called transformation.
But you haven't answered my question: Why do you think the fossil record isn't full of humans at their various stages of macroevolution?
thats the thing broham it very much is full of "transitional fossils" showing evolution from walking on all fours to bipedal creatures, from small brain sizes to greater and greater brain sizes, from low cognitive abilities to more and more cognitive abilities.
what makes you feel there are no examples of transitional fossils?
-
thats the thing broham it very much is full of "transitional fossils" showing evolution from walking on all fours to bipedal creatures, from small brain sizes to greater and greater brain sizes, from low cognitive abilities to more and more cognitive abilities.
what makes you feel there are no examples of transitional fossils?
Man you describe an apeman, but don't want me to call it an apeman? :)
We're kinda going around in circles. The things you describe do not exist. A few fossilized remains + lots of assumptions does not = a fossil record full of transitional fossils. They do not exist. We can probably quote dueling sources, but I've read enough to know they don't exist. That has always been one of the primary problems with macroevolution. There are lots of other problems too.
-
Man you describe an apeman, but don't want me to call it an apeman? :)
We're kinda going around in circles. The things you describe do not exist. A few fossilized remains + lots of assumptions does not = a fossil record full of transitional fossils. They do not exist. We can probably quote dueling sources, but I've read enough to know they don't exist. That has always been one of the primary problems with macroevolution. There are lots of other problems too.
I love it... Beach is now the foremost resource on Evolution.
Not the thousands of scientists in the world. ::)
-
I love it... Beach is now the foremost resource on Evolution.
Not the thousands of scientists in the world. ::)
Word. Dr. Beach Bum, macroevolution specialist. Along with his highly qualified and extremely smart resources.
-
Dr. Moron... paging Dr. Moron....
We're in the same family
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
We have common ancestors with other modern apes, we did not come from modern apes. There are skulls of these common ancestors. What you want to see for proof is so many skulls that you can create a 10 hour long morphed movie proving we evolve. There will never be enough fossils found to satisfy people like you. So you just look at a skull that has both human and ape features and say it's just another species of ape. Then have the gonads to say there are gaping holes lol... It's a fact, we evolve. There is and always has been debate on how we evolve but to deny that we evolve is just mediaval in its stupidity.
-
Man you describe an apeman, but don't want me to call it an apeman? :)
We're kinda going around in circles. The things you describe do not exist. A few fossilized remains + lots of assumptions does not = a fossil record full of transitional fossils. They do not exist. We can probably quote dueling sources, but I've read enough to know they don't exist. That has always been one of the primary problems with macroevolution. There are lots of other problems too.
B/c apes didnt come along until fairly recently in evolutionary terms we and apes share a common ancestor but we didnt spawn from apes and apes didnt spawn from us. Thats why the idea of an ape man is wrong and ignorant...you can always tell someone who hasnt studied evolution when they say ive never seen an ape turn into a human...b/c evolution never said that...
Beach its obvious that you have only studied and read articles and books that follow your train of thought. Why do we have no human fossils from years when dinosaurs walked the earth?
heres the deal beach and I was trying to let you find your way to this conclusion but if you think that all the different "species" are essentially modern humans even though we define them differently then you are essentially agreeing with macro evolution(even though I dont like that term, youre essentially agreeing with evolution)
b/c there are by our definitions different species...if you think they are all modern homo sapiens then its obvious evolution is happening and by that they are crossing the defined lines of certain species...youre arguement is more with our defining species than it is with evolution...
-
B/c apes didnt come along until fairly recently in evolutionary terms we and apes share a common ancestor but we didnt spawn from apes and apes didnt spawn from us. Thats why the idea of an ape man is wrong and ignorant...you can always tell someone who hasnt studied evolution when they say ive never seen an ape turn into a human...b/c evolution never said that...
Beach its obvious that you have only studied and read articles and books that follow your train of thought. Why do we have no human fossils from years when dinosaurs walked the earth?
heres the deal beach and I was trying to let you find your way to this conclusion but if you think that all the different "species" are essentially modern humans even though we define them differently then you are essentially agreeing with macro evolution(even though I dont like that term, youre essentially agreeing with evolution)
b/c there are by our definitions different species...if you think they are all modern homo sapiens then its obvious evolution is happening and by that they are crossing the defined lines of certain species...youre arguement is more with our defining species than it is with evolution...
That's really splitting hairs. You describe an "apeman," but don't want to call it that. It really doesn't matter what you try and label the pre-human (insert name) that walked on all fours, etc. It's still a sub-human, half-human, etc. that doesn't exist in the fossil record.
What's obvious to me is you haven't read anything that challenges what we were all taught in school. You would be amazed at what you might start to question if you actually stepped outside the box. For example, read "The China Study" and see how it challenges everything we were taught about diet and nutrition in this country.
Regarding macroevolution, read "Darwin's Black Box" and "Billions of Missing Links" and see what you think. It might surprise you.
-
That's really splitting hairs. You describe an "apeman," but don't want to call it that. It really doesn't matter what you try and label the pre-human (insert name) that walked on all fours, etc. It's still a sub-human, half-human, etc. that doesn't exist in the fossil record.
What's obvious to me is you haven't read anything that challenges what we were all taught in school. You would be amazed at what you might start to question if you actually stepped outside the box. For example, read "The China Study" and see how it challenges everything we were taught about diet and nutrition in this country.
Regarding macroevolution, read "Darwin's Black Box" and "Billions of Missing Links" and see what you think. It might surprise you.
LOL beach describe to me what makes you think that there are no fossil records of other species...do you think there are no fossil records of dinosaurs? b/c its the same process....
I will look into those books maybe the darwins black box first...
my main thing here beach is that if you agree with the concept of evolution then you agree with "macro" evolution b/c "macro" is a made up term to helpo humans categorize things not some barrier to evolutionary forces...
-
LOL beach describe to me what makes you think that there are no fossil records of other species...do you think there are no fossil records of dinosaurs? b/c its the same process....
I will look into those books maybe the darwins black box first...
my main thing here beach is that if you agree with the concept of evolution then you agree with "macro" evolution b/c "macro" is a made up term to helpo humans categorize things not some barrier to evolutionary forces...
I never said there were no fossil records of other species. I said there are no transitional fossils showing the transformation from one species to another (humans, animals, etc.).
I believe microevolution is pretty clear. Macroevolution is not. And no, they're not the same.
I hope you read both books. They may not change your views on anything, but they will at least give you scientific discussions of the problems with macroevolution.
-
I never said there were no fossil records of other species. I said there are no transitional fossils showing the transformation from one species to another (humans, animals, etc.).
I believe microevolution is pretty clear. Macroevolution is not. And no, they're not the same.
I hope you read both books. They may not change your views on anything, but they will at least give you scientific discussions of the problems with macroevolution.
why do you think then there are no fossils of humans from those times then beach seeing as God created man first and all other creatures after?
the thing is beach there is no difference between micro and macro those are man made terms that we made to help us categorize...evolution is evolution...what makes you think that evolution will simply stop at man made ideas of what a species is?
-
This thread is:
-
why do you think then there are no fossils of humans from those times then beach seeing as God created man first and all other creatures after?
the thing is beach there is no difference between micro and macro those are man made terms that we made to help us categorize...evolution is evolution...what makes you think that evolution will simply stop at man made ideas of what a species is?
No idea.
Tony every scientific concept we use is man-made.
-
This thread is:
lol. Yes it is. :)
-
No idea.
Tony every scientific concept we use is man-made.
not true evolution would still exist whether we were here or not...macro and micro is just our take on a natural process...
evolution is not man made...evolution is a natural process, defining different creatures into categorized sects is a man made...
we didnt create evolution we created species(or what defines each species)...you understand?
-
LOL...
Misuse
Main article: Objections to evolution
See also: Speciation
The term "macroevolution" frequently arises within the context of the evolution/creation debate, usually used by creationists alleging a significant difference between the evolutionary changes observed in field and laboratory studies and the larger scale macroevolutionary changes that scientists believe to have taken thousands or millions of years to occur. They may accept that evolutionary change is possible within species ("microevolution"), but deny that one species can evolve into another ("macroevolution").[1] Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution", i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature.[10] The claim that macroevolution does not occur, or is impossible, is thus demonstrably false and without support in the scientific community.
Such claims are rejected by the scientific community on the basis of ample evidence that macroevolution is an active process both presently and in the past.[5][11] The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales, but creationist claims misuse the terms in a vaguely defined way which does not accurately reflect scientific usage, acknowledging well observed evolution as "microevolution" and denying that "macroevolution" takes place.[5][12] Evolutionary theory (including macroevolutionary change) remains the dominant scientific paradigm for explaining the origins of Earth's biodiversity. Its occurrence is not disputed within the scientific community.[13] While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution".[14][15]
Nicholas Matzke and Paul R. Gross have accused creationists of using "strategically elastic" definitions of micro- and macroevolution when discussing the topic.[1] The actual definition of macroevolution accepted by scientists is "any change at the species level or above" (phyla, group, etc.) and microevolution is "any change below the level of species." Matzke and Gross state that many creationist critics define macroevolution as something that cannot be attained, as these critics describe any observed evolutionary change as "just microevolution".[1]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
-
let me try again b/c i dont think i explained it very well...
we didnt create evolution we just describe the process of evolution
we created what defines each species, we ourselves said that if it has this characteristic its this if it has this one its that...
if we broadened our definition of each species we would have less "macro" evolution...
if we tightened our definition of each species we would have more "macro" evolution...
but the thing is no matter which way we we would still have the same amount of evolution...
-
The terms macroevolution and microevolution relate to the same processes operating at different scales,
this is my point...if you agree with evolution then you do agree with "macro" evolution b/c macro is simply micro on a different scale...
again why would a natural process that happens without the assistance of man stop at definitions that man created?
-
this is my point...if you agree with evolution then you do agree with "macro" evolution b/c macro is simply micro on a different scale...
again why would a natural process that happens without the assistance of man stop at definitions that man created?
I like that little paragraph on misuse of the term, it exactly describes BB's misuse of it.
-
let me try again b/c i dont think i explained it very well...
we didnt create evolution we just describe the process of evolution
we created what defines each species, we ourselves said that if it has this characteristic its this if it has this one its that...
if we broadened our definition of each species we would have less "macro" evolution...
if we tightened our definition of each species we would have more "macro" evolution...
but the thing is no matter which way we we would still have the same amount of evolution...
i think this explains the wrongly used concept of macro evolution...
-
I love it... Beach is now the foremost resource on Evolution.
Not the thousands of scientists in the world. ::)
Beach Bum Learned a lot from those classes he took in the army.
-
i think this explains the wrongly used concept of macro evolution...
This horse is dead (at least for me), but here are loco's posts from earlier in the thread:
From TalkOrigins.org
"Antievolutionists argue against macroevolution so loudly that some people think they invented the term in order to dismiss evolution. But this is not true; scientists not only use the terms, they have an elaborate set of models and ideas about it"
"In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species"
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
If evolutionary change above the level of species has been observed, then why is it not universally accepted by all scientists? Why do some modern, main stream, well respected, non-Creationist scientists still question it? They have the same evidence, the same fossil record, the same universe, and the same earth. They just don't see the same thing you see, and they do not share your conclusions.
"If one considers the history of evolution, we must postulate thousands of miracles; miracles, in fact, without end."
The Miracles of Darwinism - Interview with Marcel-Paul Schützenberger. Origins & Design 172
http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od172/schutz172.htm
"Despite the insistence of evolutionists that evolution is a fact, it is really no more than an improbable story. No one has ever shown that macroevolution can work" - Dr. Lee M. Spetner
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/fitness/spetner.html
"Hoyle compared the random emergence of even the simplest cell to the likelihood that "a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein." Hoyle also compared the chance of obtaining even a single functioning protein by chance combination of amino acids to a solar system full of blind men solving Rubik's Cube simultaneously."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/genalg/genalg.html
"Sir Fred Hoyle reached the conclusion that the universe is governed by a greater intelligence."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_chemical_evolution
-
Translation: I'm getting owned here so I'll post what loco said and bail.
-
Translation: I'm getting owned here so I'll post what loco said and bail.
BB is always getting owned..
I always thought he was a "gimmick" moderator.
He erases anything he can't refute etc..
-
Beach Bum Learned a lot from those classes he took in the army.
I'd hit it. ;D
-
I'd hit it. ;D
Haha.. :o
-
I'd hit it. ;D
you would have to marry her and then she would only sleep with you for the purpose of having children.
-
you would have to marry her and then she would only sleep with you for the purpose of having children.
That's not what I have read. :o :o
-
That's not what I have read. :o :o
She admitted that she used to sleep around a lot, but she stopped doing that a long time ago. I think she might be a lesbian now.
-
She admitted that she used to sleep around a lot, but she stopped doing that a long time ago. I think she might be a lesbian now.
Damn - I could have been a contender.
-
That's not what I have read. :o :o
well that's kinda what she preached for a while, if she's a hypocrite, I don't know...
-
I'd hit it. ;D
And vote for huh..."Human brained mice" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
And vote for huh..."Human brained mice" HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Over a self admitted MARXIST who bankrupted his county and is a serial tax hiker - yes.