RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 8:52:25 AM

Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Yes, but science has yet to disprove the theory of divine intervention. In fact it has created more questions than answers.

Divine intervention is not a "theory", it is a hypothesis without enough (any) evidence to promote it to the level of a theory - if it is to be taught in schools, it is an excellent example of the difference between scientific method and superstition.

Science doesn't have to disprove "divine intervention", in fact science can't say a thing about it since science deals in evidence by definition, and there isn't any evidence of divine intervention to dispute one way or the other - "science" has no choice but to ignore the whole thing, until such time as evidence is presented that doesn't fit any existing models - hint: it hasn't happened yet.

Chaos theory doesn't imply design, it does imply order on a scale too complex to fully grasp at one time - this however, is due to the laws of physics that happen to apply in this particular universe.

i.e, wood floats, not because it was designed to do so so that we could make boats, but because the molecular structure of organic compounds differs from the molecular structure of mineral deposits in ways that give it it's particular properties, that we have discovered some handy uses for.

Same with everything else: the properties of energy and the ways in which it combines and interacts to create elements and compounds defines the "pattern" for everything - up to and including, solar systems, galaxies, and the universe itself.

(in reply to SirKenin)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 8:59:07 AM

Posts: 1363
Joined: 7/25/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I'm glad this subject has re surfaced and I notice the same old pro evolution fallacies being trotted out.
For example pro evos, the observation that a Deity could not/did not create what we see around us does NOT make Evolution by Natural Selection true.

Cosmologists are being lead astray by abstruse mathematics, ask a cosmo man what preceded the Big Bang and I think you will get a somewhat blank response couple with a dash of irritation.
As an example for a few years now cosmologists have confidently asserted the the existance of Dark Matter simply to give more credence to the maths. Now it appears that Dark Matter probably doesnt exist at all. Oh well not to worry plenty more theories to choose from !

To the best of my knowledge there is no known example of species A mutating to species B. Odd what ? In fact Evolution has nothing to say about the critical points in pre history when the new species SUDDENLY emerge as if by magick !

When has a new species suddenly appeared as if by magick? When an archeologist or anthropologist use the term "suddenly", it means something a little different than when a regular bloke uses it.

The dinosaurs for instance "suddenly" dissapeared - in fact it took a couple of hundred thousand years, but it looks very sudden by comparison the tens of millions of years they had the joint to themselves.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 9:01:30 AM

Posts: 63
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

I realize this is probably futile, because the basis of faith is its own infallibility. but here goes:

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I'm glad this subject has re surfaced and I notice the same old pro evolution fallacies being trotted out.
For example pro evos, the observation that a Deity could not/did not create what we see around us does NOT make Evolution by Natural Selection true.

Seeing how Natural Selection is plainly observable but Special Creation is an alleged event reported to us long after the fact by someone (Moses) who wasn't there, but who lifted other parts of his narrative from other ancient texts (Gilgamesh, mesopotamia), I'm more inclined to accept natural selection as infinitely more plausible to explain what we see around us.

quote:

Cosmologists are being lead astray by abstruse mathematics, ask a cosmo man what preceded the Big Bang and I think you will get a somewhat blank response couple with a dash of irritation.

What you'll get is a mixed response: on one hand the admission that we do not have the means of knowing what preceded the Big Band, and on the other irritation at having to point this out to yet another Bible-thumping twit.

quote:

As an example for a few years now cosmologists have confidently asserted the the existance of Dark Matter simply to give more credence to the maths. Now it appears that Dark Matter probably doesnt exist at all. Oh well not to worry plenty more theories to choose from !

scientific theories change and adapt according to the available knowledge, as opposed to dogma which tries to interpret a changing body of knowledge to suit its own pre-ordained (or "revealed") conclusions.

quote:

To the best of my knowledge there is no known example of species A mutating to species B. Odd what ?

Your knowledge is difficient. Mutation are part of what makes species change to the point of diverging into different species. The fact you didn't see your cat mutating into a dog this morning doesn't make the mechanism less real.

quote:

In fact Evolution has nothing to say about the critical points in pre history when the new species SUDDENLY emerge as if by magick !

by definition, pre-history has no record of such events. Spontagenous generation has been discredited as a theory back in the 1600's. Won't you join us in this century?

my 2 cents

JohnTom

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 10:50:49 AM

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

Amoros asks....
When has a new species suddenly appeared as if by magick?

This is a major problem that pro evos simply refuse to acknowledge. The fossil record does NOT support the idea of a gradually evolving sequences of higher life forms but the sudden appearance of such life forms in very short , in evolutionary terms, time scales.

Pro evos please digest the above paragraph because....It is TRUE......he he he he he he he

Another point: why do pro evos , many of whom tell us ad nauseam how pristine and pure is the scientific method refuse to apply the said method when it totally demolishes their naive BELIEF in Natural Selection.?
Only arskin !

< Message edited by seeksfemslave -- 11/13/2006 11:02:51 AM >

(in reply to johntom571)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 10:55:18 AM

Posts: 1532
Joined: 10/4/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SirKenin

Yes, but science has yet to disprove the theory of divine intervention. In fact it has created more questions than answers.

Once you have been touched by His noodly appendage, it all becomes crystal clear.

http://www.venganza.org/

_____________________________

I want the scissors to be sharp
And the table perfectly level
When you cut me out of my life
And paste me in that book you always carry.
-Billy Collins

(in reply to Amaros)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 12:29:47 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

To the best of my knowledge there is no known example of species A mutating to species B. Odd what ? In fact Evolution has nothing to say about the critical points in pre history when the new species SUDDENLY emerge as if by magick !

Care to provide any of these critical points where new species suddenly emerge as if by magick?

I am thinking you are referring to the Pre-Cambrian epoch, but that lasted for millions of years and is explained by Chaos Theory and the growth (and extinction) of complex systems.

As far as new species. People genetically splice goat DNA in order to get goats that make milk with different compounds in it. I suppose it is still a goat, but I imagine if aliens came and studied those and regular goats they would stick them in a different species because the DNA varies.

God did not do it. Unless you go on the theological point of view that whatever is done or happens in life is a reflection of God's plan. That does not, however, sound like the point you are trying to make.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 1:46:05 PM

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

Another little difficulty for pro evos: we have the well established scientific theory that energy is conserved and cannot be created or destroyed only transformed.
Any life form you may care to consider can be seen to be an energetic system so it appears that species A changing to species B is consistant with the idea of Conservation of Energy, but pro evos what about the first life form ? Energy appearing from nowhere ? Evolution violating a sacred scientific principle. Surely not ?

Apply the same argument to the Big Bang and the situation is a zillion times worse !!!! he he he he he

The truth of Evolution may be demonstrated as follows....
If evolution is true then it is at least possible that life as we know it could exist
Life exists
Therefore
Evolution is true.

(in reply to Sinergy)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 2:44:00 PM

Posts: 63
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

OOHH boy, where do we start.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Another little difficulty for pro evos: we have the well established scientific theory that energy is conserved and cannot be created or destroyed only transformed.
Any life form you may care to consider can be seen to be an energetic system so it appears that species A changing to species B is consistant with the idea of Conservation of Energy, but pro evos what about the first life form ? Energy appearing from nowhere ? Evolution violating a sacred scientific principle. Surely not ?

Assuming (big step) that a life form can be equated to an "energy level" (and this is where neo-mysticism really shines, using scientific words to sound authoritative), evolution from species A to species B has no bearing on the unmeasurable level of the "system". when an individual lifeform dies, its energy level should go down to zero. it doesn't mean the energy is lost. it is transfered elsewhere: heat, compost, etc. When a child grows, he or she doesn't create additional energy for its own existence. he or she gets it from the enviroment: food, air, water, etc.

To use conservation of energy as an argument against evolution is the best illustration of poor understanding of the entire process...

quote:

Apply the same argument to the Big Bang and the situation is a zillion times worse !!!! he he he he he

... and since we don't know what was going on before the Big Bang, we don't know for a fact that the energy released was actually created, instead of being released from another form. Again, a poor analogy, emphasis on ANAL.

quote:

The truth of Evolution may be demonstrated as follows....
If evolution is true then it is at least possible that life as we know it could exist
Life exists
Therefore
Evolution is true.

Creation "science" on the other hand, stipulates that the oral tradition of desert nomads, adapted to bronze age understanding of how the universe came to be, are divinely revealed because they claim to be, and therefore infallible. Anything contradictory is either irrelevant, suspect, blasphemous and necessarily evil, justifying crusades, pogroms, witch and book burnings. Amen.

my 2 cents

JT

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 3:07:30 PM

Posts: 57
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

I always find these types of topics quite interesting, and ofcourse what other people seem to say about them... The public opinion is usually skewed by media (whether you chose to believe it or not, its true).
Here are a few points:
- Natrual selection is a proven mechanism which we can see from Drosophila Melanogaster (thats fruitfly btw) to humans,
- There was something before the big bang, but i am sure you cant tell me, so why do you expect someone else to? They are trying hard on it, dont worry.
- The fossil record does indeed show evidence of evolution, why do you think it was used as primary evidence for the case of evolution? Dont worry, these theories are pretty sound, what 'normal non science geek people' tend to forget that in scientific literature the term 'theory' doesnt mean like in normal literature, something that isnt completely true and may be disproven, thats called a hypothesis in science. A theory is something that has been disputed over and over again (evolution over the last 100 years or so) and no-one has been able to disprove it.. Now if you can, please publish in Science or Nature and stun the scientific world, but i am sure you will find that someone else a long time ago has probably already thought up of it, tested it, and realised that evolution was right.
Back to the fossil record. The problem with the fossil record is that we dont actually know all of it... we know a very small portion of it, and if you know how fossils are made, they need perfect anaerobic conditions to form, so.. they are actually pretty rare (which is why archeologists and the like tend to go a bit nutty about them). It kind of makes sense in light of this that we havent found fossils of all the species because alot were probably not fossilied.
- the dinosaurs just didnt come out of nowhere, in evolution, a 'short' time might be hundreds of millions of years, because thats how long it takes for a small changes to accumulate (microevolution) to form bigger changes (macroevolution).

Let me define something about evolution.. the changes which cause evolution are called mutations, they arent mutations of the frankenstein sense, they are nucleotide deletions, substitutions or additions within the genome, and it HAS to happen in germ cells (eggs/sperm) otherwise the changes arent transmitted to the next generation.
So.. this is kinda rare.. no not really, we are all mutants in a sense since we all have about 3 mutations per humans.. (so we really are all individuals) Can you see how incredible our DNA replicating system has to be to only make 3 mutations (this is a rough ball park figure, theres others out there.. and this is an actual phenotypic mutation, not a silent one too).. its pretty incredible since we duplicate our cells ALOT. many millions of times and we have lots of cells.
These changes then have to be chosen for (this is where natrual selection comes into it), and then they have to transgress through the populations.. (this is where lots of complex trait stuff comes in.. v.boring) and then become a dominant trait within the population.
Now evolution of a new species is something completely difference and occurs when two populations are segregated from each other and evolve in different environments changing them in some way.
I have to go, but a few more points.

- Can you show me any scientific evidence for the existance for magic/k?

You are free to believe what you wish, i just wanted to put my 2/3/6/8 cents worth in :).
Wish i had more time to blab, but thats just coz i am a geek :P

Have fun everyone!

--Ania

(in reply to johntom571)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 3:33:30 PM

Posts: 10943
Joined: 6/22/2004
Status: offline

You can see it in viri and bacteria.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeveredNeuron

- Natrual selection is a proven mechanism which we can see from Drosophila Melanogaster (thats fruitfly btw) to humans,

(in reply to SeveredNeuron)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 4:47:32 PM

ZenrageTheKeeper

Posts: 237
Joined: 6/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I'm glad this subject has re surfaced and I notice the same old pro evolution fallacies being trotted out.
For example pro evos, the observation that a Deity could not/did not create what we see around us does NOT make Evolution by Natural Selection true.

No it doesn't. But the current evidence: fossil records, dna, microscopic evolution does indeed support it to the point where saying "Evolution can not be supported" is about as intellectually retarded as saying "the theory of gravity can not be supported"

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
Cosmologists are being lead astray by abstruse mathematics, ask a cosmo man what preceded the Big Bang and I think you will get a somewhat blank response couple with a dash of irritation.
As an example for a few years now cosmologists have confidently asserted the the existance of Dark Matter simply to give more credence to the maths. Now it appears that Dark Matter probably doesnt exist at all. Oh well not to worry plenty more theories to choose from !

The double conjecture that "god did it" is not a valid default for a lack of scientific understanding. Does science know everything? No of course not. Does that give you the right to assume any theological garbage is therefore valid by default? HELL NO.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave
To the best of my knowledge there is no known example of species A mutating to species B. Odd what ? In fact Evolution has nothing to say about the critical points in pre history when the new species SUDDENLY emerge as if by magick !

No evolutionist believes species popped up by magic, that's creationism. No evolutionist believes the eye formed in one shot. Not one.

Evolution has been observed on both the microscopic and the macroscopic levels. Also, mutation within species only occurs one gene at a time.

Here's a link and another link. Educate yourself. It appears no one else can.

< Message edited by ZenrageTheKeeper -- 11/13/2006 4:54:17 PM >

_____________________________

If Men never thought with their penises, all you girls would still have cooties.

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 5:25:14 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

but pro evos what about the first life form ?

That is clarified by Chaos Theory.

In a chaotic system, patterns arise which are persistent.

One such persistent pattern that happened in the maelstrom could be RNA and DNA creating proteins.

The rest is evolution.

I made a comment in another post about Occams Razor. The pro-creationists seem to me to be multiplying entities, particularly ones which cannot be empirically proven.

Just me, etc.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 5:30:54 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeveredNeuron

- There was something before the big bang, but i am sure you cant tell me, so why do you expect someone else to? They are trying hard on it, dont worry.

Scientific American a few months ago proposed the idea that the universe oscillates between expansion, contraction, big bang, expansion, contraction, etc. It was basically similar in nature to a supernova, where a chaotic system forms inside the belly of a neutron star and causes an explosion out one side or the other.

They really didnt get in to the mathematical and physics evidence which suggest this, but the idea seemed to make sense to me.

A lot more sense than "I dont know how it happened, but there I believe there is this entity whose name rhymes with Tod who made it all happen."

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to SeveredNeuron)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 6:05:41 PM

Posts: 57
Joined: 8/6/2005
Status: offline

Yeah i read that article, but i dont always trust everything Sciam and New scientist write anymore since i had a few assessment where i had to re-write their articles, and theres were shocking.
Not to mention saying that recombination technologies are 'new' when they're been around for a couple years and then managing to confuse me as to how it worked, when its a technique that i have used and was fine with..
So just be careful of them.. they dont always tell it as it is.

< Message edited by SeveredNeuron -- 11/13/2006 6:08:12 PM >

(in reply to Sinergy)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 7:05:38 PM

Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I'm glad this subject has re surfaced and I notice the same old pro evolution fallacies being trotted out. For example pro evos, the observation that a Deity could not/did not create what we see around us does NOT make Evolution by Natural Selection true.

And speaking of old fallacies, pro evos (got to love labels) do NOT claim their view is proved by the failure of the opposing POV (not that creationism is a viable con to evolution’s pro, that is just ID hubris - no real dialectic here folks). The “you can’t completely explain every detail of the evolutionary process therefore my particular denomination’s version of the creation fairytale MUST be true” argument is pure ID, semantic conceit and intellectual dishonesty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

Cosmologists are being lead astray by abstruse mathematics, ask a cosmo man what preceded the Big Bang and I think you will get a somewhat blank response couple with a dash of irritation.

Sort of like the look creationists get when asked who created the creator, only without the vacuous fury. But then they don’t have to explain that little problem because in the universe of miracles and myths all is possible... How convenient. At least science admits what it doesn’t yet know rather than paint god into the spaces.

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

To the best of my knowledge there is no known example of species A mutating to species B. Odd what ? In fact Evolution has nothing to say about the critical points in pre history when the new species SUDDENLY emerge as if by magick !

See “old fallacies” above. Pure, un-mutated bullshit. Cite your evidence please.

This insistence on an airtight case for evolution while offering vague, scripture driven prejudice in response, is simply unreasonable. I have read the pages of history laid down in the Alberta badlands. The pages of the bible pale in complexity, completeness and believability. Convenience is not proof.

Z.

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 7:10:37 PM

Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeveredNeuron

I always find these types of topics quite interesting, and ofcourse what other people seem to say about them... The public opinion is usually skewed by media (whether you chose to believe it or not, its true).
Here are a few points:
- Natrual selection is a proven mechanism which we can see from Drosophila Melanogaster (thats fruitfly btw) to humans,
- There was something before the big bang, but i am sure you cant tell me, so why do you expect someone else to? They are trying hard on it, dont worry.
- The fossil record does indeed show evidence of evolution, why do you think it was used as primary evidence for the case of evolution? Dont worry, these theories are pretty sound, what 'normal non science geek people' tend to forget that in scientific literature the term 'theory' doesnt mean like in normal literature, something that isnt completely true and may be disproven, thats called a hypothesis in science. A theory is something that has been disputed over and over again (evolution over the last 100 years or so) and no-one has been able to disprove it.. Now if you can, please publish in Science or Nature and stun the scientific world, but i am sure you will find that someone else a long time ago has probably already thought up of it, tested it, and realised that evolution was right.
Back to the fossil record. The problem with the fossil record is that we dont actually know all of it... we know a very small portion of it, and if you know how fossils are made, they need perfect anaerobic conditions to form, so.. they are actually pretty rare (which is why archeologists and the like tend to go a bit nutty about them). It kind of makes sense in light of this that we havent found fossils of all the species because alot were probably not fossilied.
- the dinosaurs just didnt come out of nowhere, in evolution, a 'short' time might be hundreds of millions of years, because thats how long it takes for a small changes to accumulate (microevolution) to form bigger changes (macroevolution).

Let me define something about evolution.. the changes which cause evolution are called mutations, they arent mutations of the frankenstein sense, they are nucleotide deletions, substitutions or additions within the genome, and it HAS to happen in germ cells (eggs/sperm) otherwise the changes arent transmitted to the next generation.
So.. this is kinda rare.. no not really, we are all mutants in a sense since we all have about 3 mutations per humans.. (so we really are all individuals) Can you see how incredible our DNA replicating system has to be to only make 3 mutations (this is a rough ball park figure, theres others out there.. and this is an actual phenotypic mutation, not a silent one too).. its pretty incredible since we duplicate our cells ALOT. many millions of times and we have lots of cells.
These changes then have to be chosen for (this is where natrual selection comes into it), and then they have to transgress through the populations.. (this is where lots of complex trait stuff comes in.. v.boring) and then become a dominant trait within the population.
Now evolution of a new species is something completely difference and occurs when two populations are segregated from each other and evolve in different environments changing them in some way.
I have to go, but a few more points.

- Can you show me any scientific evidence for the existance for magic/k?

You are free to believe what you wish, i just wanted to put my 2/3/6/8 cents worth in :).
Wish i had more time to blab, but thats just coz i am a geek :P

Have fun everyone!

--Ania

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ania:
Concise and precise. Thank you
thompson

(in reply to SeveredNeuron)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 7:23:10 PM

Posts: 220
Joined: 2/26/2005
Status: offline

I belive in divine intervention and I will tell you why. about five years ago I was very depressed and ready to die. I was driving on the freeway and the thought popped into my head to drive into the divider and it would all be over just as fast as it popped in it left and I felt this strange calmness. That was a Sunday on Wed. a friend said to me he leaned over to his wife and said pray for Rachelle and you know what they were not even in town at the time and it was the same time I was going to kill myself. so dont underestimate the power of divine intervention.

(in reply to thompsonx)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/13/2006 9:05:35 PM

Posts: 9383
Joined: 4/26/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeveredNeuron

Yeah i read that article, but i dont always trust everything Sciam and New scientist write anymore since i had a few assessment where i had to re-write their articles, and theres were shocking.
Not to mention saying that recombination technologies are 'new' when they're been around for a couple years and then managing to confuse me as to how it worked, when its a technique that i have used and was fine with..
So just be careful of them.. they dont always tell it as it is.

I tend to be dubious about and research anything regardless of who provides the information.

I was simply pointing out that the SCIAM theory made more sense than some "Divine intervention" hypothesis that lacks any sort of empirical basis.

Sinergy

_____________________________

"There is a fine line between clever and stupid"
David St. Hubbins "This Is Spinal Tap"

"Every so often you let a word or phrase out and you want to catch it and bring it back. You cant do that, it is gone, gone forever." J. Danforth Quayle

(in reply to SeveredNeuron)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 12:03:34 AM

Posts: 4011
Joined: 6/16/2006
Status: offline

Just picking up some points made above....

Someone mentions the eye, the complexity and the apparent purposeful development of which is as perfect an example as you could possibly wish for that Evolution by Natural Selection is untrue.

DNA/RNA "only" need to come into existence and the evolutionary merry go round starts to role, no problem there then ! In fact the molecules are so complicated that it is virtually impossible for them to have developed by chance based mechanisms and when that complexity was revealed pro evos should have immediately realised that their days were numbered.

99.99999% of mutations have DELETERIOUS affects.

Oscillating Universes pose the problem of an infinitude of time. How have we arrived at now from a point in an infinite past.

I repeat the Fossil record does not demonstrate evolution as currently taught and the the argment that it will when more is known goes right back to Darwin !

Cya

(in reply to Sinergy)

RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas - 11/14/2006 12:43:25 AM

Posts: 1564
Joined: 9/4/2004
Status: offline

Are we not men? We are Evos!

quote:

ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave

I repeat the Fossil record does not demonstrate evolution as currently taught and the the argment that it will when more is known goes right back to Darwin !

And I repeat, pure unmitigated crap!

_____________________________

"Before enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood and carry water." (proverb)

(in reply to seeksfemslave)

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> RE: God, Darwin, and Kansas

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.227