Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 53
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,191
    Thanks (Given)
    4834
    Thanks (Received)
    4684
    Likes (Given)
    2611
    Likes (Received)
    1601
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075394

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
    ROFL...true science....LMFAO. You have no clue what science is or how it works, just admit it now and save yourself any more embarrasment. Seriously.
    DejaVu...

    http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...ight=Evolution



    "The fossil record pertaining to man is still so sparsely known that those who insist on positive declarations can do nothing more than jump from one hazardous surmise to another and hope that the next dramatic discovery does not make them utter fools... Clearly, some people refuse to learn from this. As we have seen, there are numerous scientists and popularizers today who have the temerity to tell us that there is 'no doubt' how man originated. If only they had the evidence..."
    Fix, William R. in The Bone Peddlers. Macmillan, New York, NY (1984), p.150.


    "Botanists construct as best they can an imaginary picture of the missing links, so as to complete the sequence of steps in the evolution of the plant kingdom . Obviously such a practice is mainly guesswork, but, like many such hypotheses, has been very useful in organizing subject matter and stimulating research...the record of the rocks reveals practically nothing of the earlier chapters in the evolution of the plant kingdom. For these, therefore, we must rely upon the types of plants still in existence, plus a liberal measure of scientific imagination."

    Coulter M. C. in The Nature of the World and of Man. H. H. Newman, Garden City, NY (0), p.216.



    "The models we consider are of three sorts: those that extrapolate processes of speciation to account for higher taxa via divergence, those that invoke selection among species, and those that emphasize that many higher taxa originated as novel lineages in their own right, not only as a consequence of species-level processes. It is in this latter class of model that we believe the record favors." "... many of the large populations should have been preserved, yet we simply do not find them. Small populations are called for, then, but there are difficulties here also. The populations must remain small (and undetected) and evolve steadily and consistently toward the body plan that comprises the basis of a new phylum (or class). This is asking a lot. Deleterious mutations would tend to accumulate in small populations to form genetic loads that selection might not be able to handle. Stable intermediate adaptive modes cannot be invoked as a regular feature, since we are then again faced with the problem of just where their remains are. We might imagine vast arrays of such small populations fanning continually and incessantly into adaptive space. Vast arrays should have produced at least some fossil remains also. Perhaps an even greater difficulty is the requirement that these arrays of lineages change along a rather straight and true course --- morphological side trips or detours of any frequency should lengthen the time of origin of higher taxa beyond what appears to be available. Why should an opportunistic, tinkering process set on such a course and hold it for so long successfully among so many lineages?"
    Valentine, J., and Erwin, D. in "Interpreting Great Developmental Experiments: The Fossil Record" in Development as an Evolutionary Process, Raff, Rudolf A. and Elizabeth C. Raff, ed. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York, NY (1985), p.71.


    "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

    Gould, Stephen Jay i,l. (1982), p.140.

    "Since we hardly know anything about the major types of organization, suggestions, and suggestions only, can be made. How can one confidently assert that one mechanism rather than another was at the origin of the creation of the plans of organization, if one relies entirely upon imagination to find a solution? Our ignorance is so great that we dare not even assign with any accuracy an ancestral stock to the phyla Protozoa, Arthropoda, Mollusca, and Vertebrata. The lack of concrete evidence relative to the "heyday" of evolution seriously impairs any transformist theory. In any case, a shadow is cast over the genesis of the fundamental structural plans and we are unable to eliminate it."
    Grasse, Pierre in "Chapter I: From the Simple to the Complex--Progressive Evolution, Regressive Evolution" in Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. Academic Press, New York, NY (1977), 2nd edition, p.17.


    "Another beauty - and an important weakness - of the theory of evolution by natural selection is that with a little imagination it is possible to come up with an explanation of anything. Evolutionary biologists like to spend their time making up stories about how selection has moulded the most unlikely characteristics. Sometimes they even turn out to be right."
    Jones, Steve in The Language of the Genes: Biology, History and the Evolutionary Future. Flamingo, London, (1994), p.196.


    ""This is true of all thirty-two orders of mammals...The earliest and most primitive known members of every order already have the basic ordinal characters, and in no case is an approximately continuous sequence from one order to another known. In most cases the break is so sharp and the gap so large that the origin of the order is speculative and much disputed... This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate...it is also true of the classes, themselves, and of the major animal phyla, and it is apparently also true of analogous categories of plants.""

    Simpson, George Gaylord in "Chapter III: Micro-Evolution, Macro-Evolution, and Mega-Evolution" in Tempo and Mode in Evolution, L. C. Dunn, ed. Hafner Publishing Company, Inc., New York and London, NY (1965), Reprint, p.106,107.

    "At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."
    Rensberger, Boyce in How the World Works. William Morrow & Co., New York, NY (1986), p.1718.

    "Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination."
    Takahata. 1995. A genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans in Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. …


    "Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears. Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture. The guesswork approach often leads to errors"
    Rensberger, Boyce. 1981, in Science…

    "It is, however, when we come to consider the actual course or lineage in the subsequent diversification of organisms...that we meet with disappointment and frustration if we rigorously distinguish between evidence and speculation...At this time there are no known living or fossil forms which unequivocally link any two of the proposed divisions."
    Bold, Harold C. in Morphology of Plants. Harper & Row, (1967), p.515.

    "Feathers are features unique to birds, and there are no known intermediate structures between reptilian scales and feathers. Notwithstanding speculations on the nature of the elongated scales found on such forms as Longisquama ... as being featherlike structures, there is simply no demonstrable evidence that they in fact are. They are very interesting, highly modified and elongated reptilian scales, and are not incipient feathers."

    Feducia, Alan in "On Why Dinosaurs Lacked Feathers" in The Beginning of Birds. Jura Museum, Eichstatt, West Germany (1985), p.76.


    One of my biggest issues with Darwinism is fundamentally it has a racist core which i think is it's most socially potent and insidious aspect, many Jewish and other historians acknowledge that Darwinism was a seed bed for the holocaust. And that Darwin promoted many racist Ideas. He was related to and corresponded with many of the people connected to the eugenics movement and to Malthus who voice bogus concerns of overpopulation.
    Darwin not only had a racially biased view of the non-Aryan races, he even held other Europeans who were not of English descent with contempt. Here is his opinion of the Irish, taken from his Descent of Man:
    "A most important obstacle in civilised countries to an increase in the number of men of a superior class has been strongly insisted on by Mr. Greg and Mr. Galton, namely, the fact that the very poor and reckless, who are often degraded by vice, almost invariably marry early, whilst the careful and frugal, who are generally otherwise virtuous, marry late in life, so that they may be able to support themselves and their children in comfort. . .Those who marry early produce within a given period not only a greater number of generations, but, as shewn by Dr. Duncan they produce many more children. Thus the reckless, degraded, and often vicious members of society, tend to increase at a quicker rate than the provident and generally virtuous members. Or as Mr. Greg puts the case: 'The careless, squalid, unaspiring Irishman multiplies like rabbits..."(Descent, Chapter Five: On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties During Primeval and Civilised Times: Natural selection as affecting civilised nations.)
    Darwin quoted Greg here in referring to his Irish neighbors as degraded members of society.
    He also wrote that the western nations of Europe owed none of their "superiority" to Greek ancestry: "The western nations of Europe, who now so immeasurably surpass their former savage progenitors, and stand at the summit of civilisation, owe little or none of their superiority to direct inheritance from the old Greeks", to whom he referred in a quote from Greg as "'corrupt to the very core.'" (Descent, ibid.)
    Darwin shared with us his evolutionary viewpoint on what happens to more primitive cultures when encountering more "advanced" (i.e. European) cultures in Chapter Seven of the Descent, On the Races of Man: On the Extinction of the Races of Man: "The partial or complete extinction of many races of man is historically known . . . Extinction follows chiefly from the competition of tribe with tribe, and race with race . . .the contest is soon settled by war, slaughter, cannibalism, slavery, and absorption . . .When civilized nations come into contact with barbarians the struggle is short, except where a deadly climate gives its aid to the native race."
    Darwin also stated that the wealthy nations would eventually replace the less privileged races in the struggle for life, and it is apparent that he believed this to be a good thing:
    "But the inheritance of property by itself is very far from an evil; for without the accumulation of capital the arts could not progress; and it is chiefly through their power that the civilised races have extended, and are now everywhere extending their range, so as to take the place of the lower races."(Ibid)




    "I had motive for not wanting the world to have a meaning; consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics, he is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do, or why his friends should not seize political power and govern in the way that they find most advantageous to themselves. For myself, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation, sexual and political."

    Huxley, Aldous in Ends and Means. (0), p.270.


    "What theistic evolutionists have failed above all to comprehend is that the conflict is not over "facts" but over ways of thinking. The problem is not just with any specific doctrine of Darwinian science, but with the naturalistic rules of thought that Darwinian scientists employ to derive those doctrines. If scientists had actually observed natural selection creating new organs, or had seen a step-by-step process of fundamental change consistently recorded in the fossil record, such observations could readily be interpreted as evidence of God's use of secondary causes to create. But Darwinian scientists have not observed anything like that. What they have done is to assume as a matter of first principle that purposeless material processes can do all the work of biological creation because, according to their philosophy, nothing else was available. They have defined their task as finding the most plausible-or least implausible- description of how biological creation could occur in the absence of a creator. The specific answers they derive may or may not be reconcilable with theism, but the manner of thinking is profoundly atheistic. To accept the answers as indubitably true is inevitably to accept the thinking that generated those answers. That is why I think the appropriate term for the accommodationist position is not "theistic evolution," but rather theistic naturalism. Under either name, it is a disastrous error."
    Johnson, P.E. October 24, 1994. Shouting `Heresy' in the Temple of Darwin in Christianity Today, 38(12).
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia, U.S.A.
    Posts
    14,191
    Thanks (Given)
    4834
    Thanks (Received)
    4684
    Likes (Given)
    2611
    Likes (Received)
    1601
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    3
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    14075394

    Default

    <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k5r5cRlctLM?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
    It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. The freeman of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. James Madison
    Live as free people, yet without employing your freedom as a pretext for wickedness; but live at all times as servants of God.
    1 Peter 2:16

  3. #18
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    23,251
    Thanks (Given)
    7207
    Thanks (Received)
    11746
    Likes (Given)
    1048
    Likes (Received)
    1381
    Piss Off (Given)
    4
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    39 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475215

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot View Post
    Kenya, is this going to be proof that obama's family goes way,way back!??--Tyr

    Were any of those fossils possibly holding any items that looked like a Birth Certificate, etched in stone near the Kenya border where another fossil, that looked like an I-POD, and very old Cell-phone were found next to the AL GORE book about Global Warming?

    Inquiring Minds would like to know.
    I love to make Liberals Cry, and Whine.
    So, this is for them.
    GOD BLESS AMERICA - IN GOD WE TRUST !

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The SOUTH!!!
    Posts
    2,054
    Thanks (Given)
    2141
    Thanks (Received)
    2059
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2786510

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aboutime View Post
    Were any of those fossils possibly holding any items that looked like a Birth Certificate, etched in stone near the Kenya border where another fossil, that looked like an I-POD, and very old Cell-phone were found next to the AL GORE book about Global Warming?

    Inquiring Minds would like to know.
    Aboutime,

    Closed, simple minded lemmings who do what they are told an not question what they are told do not.

    Science is about QUESTIONING and trying to understand. Just as those who believe in the THEORY of evolution are usually bigoted (following after their bigoted leader Mr. Darwin) the are closed minded and bigoted to the possibilities. I once believed in evolution but after considering ALL the possibilities and seeing the vast holes in evolution, I began to see the evidence that the great flood was responsible for the fossiles (both land and sea creatures) that are so often times found within a congested area.

    This evidence that disputes evolution is increasing and so is the number of scientists who see things for what they are instead of for what someone tells them that they are.
    NEVER MESS WITH AN
    IRISH/SCOTT/ITALIAN CHEROKEE!

    "A wise man is at the right hand but a fool is at the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2
    "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" Psalms 53:1

  5. #20
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by red state View Post
    Aboutime,

    Closed, simple minded lemmings who do what they are told an not question what they are told do not.

    Science is about QUESTIONING and trying to understand. Just as those who believe in the THEORY of evolution are usually bigoted (following after their bigoted leader Mr. Darwin) the are closed minded and bigoted to the possibilities. I once believed in evolution but after considering ALL the possibilities and seeing the vast holes in evolution, I began to see the evidence that the great flood was responsible for the fossiles (both land and sea creatures) that are so often times found within a congested area.

    This evidence that disputes evolution is increasing and so is the number of scientists who see things for what they are instead of for what someone tells them that they are.
    Darwinism requires as much "faith" as does Christianity IMHO. Sure has only proved itself to those already willing to accept it. I find the missing links to be evidence of imagination in creating the timeline and the scientific fable.-Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,799
    Thanks (Given)
    34
    Thanks (Received)
    59
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    835969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by red state View Post
    Aboutime,

    Closed, simple minded lemmings who do what they are told an not question what they are told do not.

    Science is about QUESTIONING and trying to understand. Just as those who believe in the THEORY of evolution are usually bigoted (following after their bigoted leader Mr. Darwin) the are closed minded and bigoted to the possibilities. I once believed in evolution but after considering ALL the possibilities and seeing the vast holes in evolution, I began to see the evidence that the great flood was responsible for the fossiles (both land and sea creatures) that are so often times found within a congested area.

    This evidence that disputes evolution is increasing and so is the number of scientists who see things for what they are instead of for what someone tells them that they are.
    Hey genius! If there were a single shred of evidence that disproved evolution, scientists would abandon the theory...that's how science works. Science isn't about giving equal consideration to all theories but going to where observations and evidence lead. As I said in an earlier post, you have no clue what science is or how it works.
    I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. -- Susan B. Anthony


  7. #22
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/08...d_f049111.html

    Evolution as "Both Theory and Fact"? A Philosopher Blows Away the Often-Heard Darwinian Claim
    Casey Luskin August 5, 2011 12:30 PM | Permalink


    When attacking opponents, Darwin lobbyists typically define "theory" as "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, and tested hypotheses" (National Academy of Sciences, 1999) or "a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence" (National Academy of Sciences, 2008). Using such definitions, saying the "theory of evolution" now necessarily implies an idea that is "well-substantiated" and "supported by a vast body of evidence." Darwin lobbyists then scold those who say that "evolution is just a theory" as misunderstanding the definition of the term "theory" and also mock them for unwittingly implying that evolution is well-supported. But is that what "theory" really means?

    Kosso observes that in practice, the term "theory" says little about the degree of certainty that characterizes an idea. As he notes "neither 'theoretical' nor 'law' is about being true or false, or about being well-tested or speculative."

    How does Kosso define theory? He writes that "all theories describe objects or events that are not directly observable. This is the core concept of theory. A theory describes aspects of nature that are beyond (or beneath) what we can observe, aspects that can be used to explain what we observe." He continues:

    Germs, atoms, caloric, curved spacetime, and elemental strings are all, to one degree or another, unobservable. That's what makes them theoretical. But that doesn't make them unreal.Kosso goes on to explain that saying something is a "theory" doesn't necessarily imply it is a "fact," or even that it is well-supported by the evidence:
    A theory is true if it describes unobservable things that really exist and describes them accurately. Otherwise it is false. This shows the mistake in contrasting "theory" and "fact." A fact is an actual state of affairs in nature, and a theory, or any statement for that matter, is true if it matches fact. Some theories are true (atomic theory), some are false (caloric theory), and the scientific method is what directs us in deciding which are which.Thus, Kosso has blown the cover on the Darwin lobby's attempt to redefine theory to necessarily imply a concept which has strong evidential backing and is "well-tested" or "supported by a vast body of evidence."

    Kosso continues, stating: "To say of some idea, That's a theory not a fact, is a confusion of categories, a comparison of apples and oranges." While I agree with Kosso on this, it would stand to reason that it is also a confusion of categories to say "That's a theory and a fact." Thus, Kosso's argument also could cut against Darwin proponents who say "Evolution is both theory and fact."

    Amending My Recommendations For Expressing Skepticism of Neo-Darwinian Evolution

    A few years ago, I wrote a series where I explained why using the line that "evolution is a theory, but not a fact" is an ineffective way of expressing skepticism of neo-Darwinism. As I wrote:

    I've long opposed using such a rhetorical line of "evolution is just a theory, not a fact" to oppose evolution because it gets you caught up in a semantic debate over the proper definition of fact and theory, and communicates very little about the most important component of this debate -- the scientific evidence. ... What follows is a slightly longer description of what one might say to communicate doubts about neo-Darwinism while avoiding semantic mistakes and communicating more than mere soundbyte arguments:

    When evolution is defined as mere change over time within species, no one disputes that such evolution is a fact. But neo-Darwinian evolution -- the great claim that unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life -- has many scientific problems because such random and unguided processes do not build new complex biological features. According to the technical definitions of "theory," "fact," and "hypothesis," such neo-Darwinian evolution is neither theory nor fact. It's just a hypothesis."

    (Is "Evolution" a "Theory" or "Fact" or Is This Just a Trivial Game of Semantics?)
    Today, I continue to very much stand by the position that the "evolution is a theory, not a fact" or "evolution is just a theory" lines are poor and ineffective means of expressing skepticism of neo-Darwinism. However, in light of Kosso's definitions of "theory," driven by no discernible agenda, I would like to amend myself.

    What follows is an amended description of what one might say to communicate doubts about neo-Darwinism while avoiding semantic mistakes and communicating more than mere sound-byte arguments:

    When evolution is defined as mere change over time within species, no one disputes that such evolution is a fact. But neo-Darwinian evolution -- the great claim that unguided natural selection acting upon random mutations is the driving force that produced the complexity of life -- has many scientific problems because such random and unguided processes do not build new complex biological features. Neo-Darwinian evolution is a theory that has been falsified by the evidence.And that's a fact
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ^^^^^^^^ Interesting and enlightening too.-Tyr
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187319

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Missileman View Post
    Hey genius! If there were a single shred of evidence that disproved evolution, scientists would abandon the theory...that's how science works. Science isn't about giving equal consideration to all theories but going to where observations and evidence lead. As I said in an earlier post, you have no clue what science is or how it works.
    Miss.....if I join in this conversation would you respond this time?.......you haven't replied to one of my posts since I destroyed you in a debate like this two years ago.....
    ...full immersion.....

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Location
    The SOUTH!!!
    Posts
    2,054
    Thanks (Given)
    2141
    Thanks (Received)
    2059
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    2786510

    Default

    Thanks for the video, Revelarts,

    Thanks, Tyr, but Evolution (as 'dictated' by many these days, is BOTH theory and fact! You gotta love the left and it sounds exactly like the WARMERS....does it not? They they are so intolerant and it boggles their mind to see and hear great minds debunk the so-called "proof" in either.

    FACT: There are NO known fossils chimp fossels and they only have similar genetics. Then again, we have amazing similarities in various ways to swine. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils...unless many of the fossils that are [alleged] to be early "man" or "ape men" or "cave men" are, IN FACT, simply gorilla and chimps or extinct varieties of apes and chimps. All primates have 48 chromosomes while we have 46.....Ummmmm, someone should get Miss to explain that one. Heck, we aren't even in the same class as we are bipeds. Surely a "missing link" among chimps would be walking around today (upright that is). And where did Miss go anyway? Post Modern Prophet...you wasn't too mean the last time in bringing up all the HOLES within evolution that Miss and those like him follow blindly and with their extreme biased towards others were you?

    I doubt very seriously that any of the lemmings will or have given any regards or consideration to your writing, links or intelligent quest for TRUTH and possibilities. I provided a fantastic video to bacteria by Dr. Morris and your video was certainly as enlightening and touched base on the same topics of concern when trying to understand the origins of life and of species. There is no evidence of evolution but there is evidence that our universe is dying and species are going extinct...not evolving to survive for the drastic change in climate and other factors are (to be fair...USUALLY) too great and too sudden for a species to have time to "evolve". As Dr. Berlinski so adequately put it, [a dog has always been a dog]. I dare say that if a sea-like creature EVENTUALLY became a cow-like creature (or vise versa), there should be a species that survived during the Transforming/"missing link" period of that creature just as we still have apes and we still have man...yet we do not have (and never have had an Ape-man (other than Tarzan of course). Seriously though, how hard is this to understand and see the HUGE hole in evolution. There are animals that share appearance with one another BUT that is all they usually share so they can never or should never be considered as proof of evolution. Science doesn't work that way...at least it shouldn't. Why would the "in-between" transitions disappear and the beginning and end results are still thriving? Hhmmmm...true science would and should ask this question. Funny thing is, those who are usually find themselves ousted through Nazi-like actions of discrediting, firing and black listing those who oppose them.

    I can understand how we could try and breed or force a certain environment on a pig to where it will one day fly but even with our best efforts, I don't see it happening. Maybe with hi-tech genetically ingenuity we could achieve much in improving the edible quality of ham & bacon but NEVER a flying pig. HA! In nature, we have no genetic scientists so the example that I'd have to provide would be to throw pieces of a puzzle in a box and shake it till they all come together. Nature is a very violent and unreliable thing and it can really shake you up but when it is all done and said, if you were a box full of pieces...you'll probably be a box full of pieces even with a million years of shaking and hoping. Odds are, whoever is doing the shaking will get bored and trash the box if it was necessary for the puzzle to transform or die. The math just isn't there. Thus... (extinction).

    The video I have now included deals with myth, evidence and the possibilities that are being overlooked and downright ignored. To ignore the other possibilities (and I haven't excluded evolution) but to exclude the possibilities of ID or to ignore the "holes" of evolution, one must be ignorant. Evolution is a theory at best and at worse it is a "half theory/fact" under the so-called scientists who are nothing more than followers of the cults that have fooled so many evolutionist "warmers". Many of them are intolerant, ignorant and rude but that is to be expected when the TRUTH hurts so much.

    I hope this video is interesting to whomever wishes to view it. As wild and KraZy as it may be in certain sections, it makes very interesting points and does raise legitimate questions. in my opinion (which is just as good as anyone elses) it actually offers more evidence of its theory of origins than what evolution offers. Still, if one believes in evolution and a "missing link" perhaps the ID and Creationists should provide evidence of Loch Ness while the evolutionists provide evidence of Sasquatch. Seems fair to me if one is to exclude one theory over another. RIGHT? RIGHT!!!!....unless you're LEFT. HA!


    Enjoy the videos... some are really off the wall but ALL of the them have interesting and fascinating discussion of our POSSIBLE origins. Only a fool can refuse to ask questions or refuse to accept/consider the many theories.

    (everything you know is WRONG) AGAIN...EVERYTHING.
    [You don't need one "missing link" to prove Darwinism/Evolution...you need several missing links to smoothly bridge the gap and so far we don't even have a finger]

    Intelligent design, Creation and Evolution....ALL very interesting THEORIES:

    We shouldn't say: "I don't like that evidence and I won't accept it". That isn' science.

    {may wish to MUTE the video because of annoying music}

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=BbRlMn4UpeU

    NEVER MESS WITH AN
    IRISH/SCOTT/ITALIAN CHEROKEE!

    "A wise man is at the right hand but a fool is at the left." Ecclesiastes 10:2
    "The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God" Psalms 53:1

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,799
    Thanks (Given)
    34
    Thanks (Received)
    59
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    835969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by red state View Post
    Thanks for the video, Revelarts,

    Thanks, Tyr, but Evolution (as 'dictated' by many these days, is BOTH theory and fact! You gotta love the left and it sounds exactly like the WARMERS....does it not? They they are so intolerant and it boggles their mind to see and hear great minds debunk the so-called "proof" in either.

    FACT: There are NO known fossils chimp fossels and they only have similar genetics. Then again, we have amazing similarities in various ways to swine. It is believed that there are no proto-chimpanzee fossils or proto-gorilla fossils...unless many of the fossils that are [alleged] to be early "man" or "ape men" or "cave men" are, IN FACT, simply gorilla and chimps or extinct varieties of apes and chimps. All primates have 48 chromosomes while we have 46.....Ummmmm, someone should get Miss to explain that one. Heck, we aren't even in the same class as we are bipeds. Surely a "missing link" among chimps would be walking around today (upright that is). And where did Miss go anyway? Post Modern Prophet...you wasn't too mean the last time in bringing up all the HOLES within evolution that Miss and those like him follow blindly and with their extreme biased towards others were you?

    I doubt very seriously that any of the lemmings will or have given any regards or consideration to your writing, links or intelligent quest for TRUTH and possibilities. I provided a fantastic video to bacteria by Dr. Morris and your video was certainly as enlightening and touched base on the same topics of concern when trying to understand the origins of life and of species. There is no evidence of evolution but there is evidence that our universe is dying and species are going extinct...not evolving to survive for the drastic change in climate and other factors are (to be fair...USUALLY) too great and too sudden for a species to have time to "evolve". As Dr. Berlinski so adequately put it, [a dog has always been a dog]. I dare say that if a sea-like creature EVENTUALLY became a cow-like creature (or vise versa), there should be a species that survived during the Transforming/"missing link" period of that creature just as we still have apes and we still have man...yet we do not have (and never have had an Ape-man (other than Tarzan of course). Seriously though, how hard is this to understand and see the HUGE hole in evolution. There are animals that share appearance with one another BUT that is all they usually share so they can never or should never be considered as proof of evolution. Science doesn't work that way...at least it shouldn't. Why would the "in-between" transitions disappear and the beginning and end results are still thriving? Hhmmmm...true science would and should ask this question. Funny thing is, those who are usually find themselves ousted through Nazi-like actions of discrediting, firing and black listing those who oppose them.

    I can understand how we could try and breed or force a certain environment on a pig to where it will one day fly but even with our best efforts, I don't see it happening. Maybe with hi-tech genetically ingenuity we could achieve much in improving the edible quality of ham & bacon but NEVER a flying pig. HA! In nature, we have no genetic scientists so the example that I'd have to provide would be to throw pieces of a puzzle in a box and shake it till they all come together. Nature is a very violent and unreliable thing and it can really shake you up but when it is all done and said, if you were a box full of pieces...you'll probably be a box full of pieces even with a million years of shaking and hoping. Odds are, whoever is doing the shaking will get bored and trash the box if it was necessary for the puzzle to transform or die. The math just isn't there. Thus... (extinction).

    The video I have now included deals with myth, evidence and the possibilities that are being overlooked and downright ignored. To ignore the other possibilities (and I haven't excluded evolution) but to exclude the possibilities of ID or to ignore the "holes" of evolution, one must be ignorant. Evolution is a theory at best and at worse it is a "half theory/fact" under the so-called scientists who are nothing more than followers of the cults that have fooled so many evolutionist "warmers". Many of them are intolerant, ignorant and rude but that is to be expected when the TRUTH hurts so much.

    I hope this video is interesting to whomever wishes to view it. As wild and KraZy as it may be in certain sections, it makes very interesting points and does raise legitimate questions. in my opinion (which is just as good as anyone elses) it actually offers more evidence of its theory of origins than what evolution offers. Still, if one believes in evolution and a "missing link" perhaps the ID and Creationists should provide evidence of Loch Ness while the evolutionists provide evidence of Sasquatch. Seems fair to me if one is to exclude one theory over another. RIGHT? RIGHT!!!!....unless you're LEFT. HA!


    Enjoy the videos... some are really off the wall but ALL of the them have interesting and fascinating discussion of our POSSIBLE origins. Only a fool can refuse to ask questions or refuse to accept/consider the many theories.

    (everything you know is WRONG) AGAIN...EVERYTHING.
    [You don't need one "missing link" to prove Darwinism/Evolution...you need several missing links to smoothly bridge the gap and so far we don't even have a finger]

    Intelligent design, Creation and Evolution....ALL very interesting THEORIES:

    We shouldn't say: "I don't like that evidence and I won't accept it". That isn' science.

    {may wish to MUTE the video because of annoying music}

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=BbRlMn4UpeU

    Once again, you display a total lack of any understanding of the evolutionary process. Your demand for a half-ape, half-man missing link speaks to that ignorance. Evolution is the buildup of millions of small changes over the course of immense spans of time, not some hybrid half and half instant change. It's no wonder you would consider creation and YOUR theory of evolution competing theories. YOUR theory of evolution is as farsical as creation. The problem is, YOUR theory of evolution isn't evolution.

    BTW, if you're going to "wonder" where my response is to someone else's post it should be after you've addressed mine to you. You don't have to worry about me going anywhere...I'll be here to shove your silly creation myth up your ass sideways each and every time you break it out.
    Last edited by Missileman; 08-12-2012 at 10:56 AM.
    I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. -- Susan B. Anthony


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9,002
    Thanks (Given)
    36
    Thanks (Received)
    209
    Likes (Given)
    20
    Likes (Received)
    101
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    1187319

    Default

    I thought not....
    ...full immersion.....

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Westchester, New York
    Posts
    67,823
    Thanks (Given)
    7315
    Thanks (Received)
    34146
    Likes (Given)
    7051
    Likes (Received)
    7761
    Piss Off (Given)
    14
    Piss Off (Received)
    19
    Mentioned
    514 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475726

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    Miss.....if I join in this conversation would you respond this time?.......you haven't replied to one of my posts since I destroyed you in a debate like this two years ago.....
    Quote Originally Posted by PostmodernProphet View Post
    I thought not....
    Perhaps he has you on his ignore list?
    “You know the world is going crazy when the best rapper is a white guy, the best golfer is a black guy, the tallest guy in the NBA is Chinese, the Swiss hold the America's Cup, France is accusing the U.S. of arrogance, Germany doesn't want to go to war, and the three most powerful men in America are named "Bush", "Dick", and "Colin." Need I say more?” - Chris Rock

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,550
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    2
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    0
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    563127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by taft2012 View Post
    This always confuses me. They say Neanderthal was a different species than Homo sapien, but that they did interbreed and have offspring together.

    So is that truly different species, or a different genus? Or are they discussing what we would call different "races" today, and being quite offensive by calling them different species?

    Was it like a horse and a donkey mating and making a sterile mule?

    What is science's basis for declaring a fossil a:
    a. human species
    b. human genus
    c. human of a specific race
    I'm enjoying the conversation, but I'm still in the dark about these questions.

    For instance, if these are different species, how do we descend from a completely different species? I can see if they were a different genus, sort of like horses and zebras having a common ancestor. But a different species? That being the case, they could just as easily say we descended from cats.

    Different species can not procreate, as far as I know.

    Does anyone know anything about any of this?
    Last edited by taft2012; 08-12-2012 at 12:21 PM.
    Mama Jeffro: Jeeeeh-froooo! What's going on down there? What's that smell?
    Jeffro: Nothing ma! Me and Lorenzo are practicing our Turkish oil wrestling.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    USA, Southern
    Posts
    27,683
    Thanks (Given)
    32441
    Thanks (Received)
    17532
    Likes (Given)
    3631
    Likes (Received)
    3156
    Piss Off (Given)
    21
    Piss Off (Received)
    2
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    21475259

    Default

    Originally Posted by Missileman
    Hey genius! If there were a single shred of evidence that disproved evolution, scientists would abandon the theory...that's how science works. Science isn't about giving equal consideration to all theories but going to where observations and evidence lead. As I said in an earlier post, you have no clue what science is or how it works.
    Originally posted by PostmodernProphet
    Miss.....if I join in this conversation would you respond this time?.......you haven't replied to one of my posts since I destroyed you in a debate like this two years ago..... ...liberals, yech!.....
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Join in and lets see your presentations. The more the merrier I usually say.---Tyr
    Last edited by Tyr-Ziu Saxnot; 08-12-2012 at 12:22 PM.
    18 U.S. Code § 2381-Treason Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    5,799
    Thanks (Given)
    34
    Thanks (Received)
    59
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    2
    Piss Off (Given)
    0
    Piss Off (Received)
    0
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Rep Power
    835969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jimnyc View Post
    Perhaps he has you on his ignore list?
    Correctomundo! Has been for a very long time.
    I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. -- Susan B. Anthony


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Debate Policy - Political Forums