Evolution

[the_antisocial_hermit]

Compleatly and totally imposible.

to proove somthing you must assume somthing is real by somthing as simple as feel.. touch.. smell.. witch can be proven by that you CAN do them,you can smell an apple pie.. witch can be proven by sight..smell..fell.. and tast. so essentially.. you need two things that are bothe things.. and can be proven by bias that the other one is real(Example.. julias Ceaser can be proven by that there are writings of him.. and that he is on coins. and those can be proven by that you can touch.. feell.. tast.. maby even smell them.)

According to this statement, then tangible proof is needed for whatever facts one decides to believe in, is this read correctly?

What about concepts like God? Clearly not tangible. Yes, there's the Bible and numerous written things, but written accounts and stories are not true proof. They still have to be proven in their own rights through various measures.

Just because you don't have tangible proof, doesn't mean it doesn't exist or happen. And it doesn't mean the tangible proof isn't out there.

[wichita]

This all reminds me very much of the discussion I had the first time I inbibed in marijuana. I spent about two hours discussing the nature of perception and existence with my friend. See I thought about as how I stand there looking at him, the light is collected by my eyes, translated into an electrochemical impulse, transmitted to my brain and interpreted by some yet unknown chemical process involving a network of hundreds to thousands of neurons. This image is what I percieve to be my friend. Now, what if he was to see the same light signal himself, with his eyes, but when his mind interprets the signal, what he pictures is the same thing that I would see if I was looking at a wiggling green blob? And what if English sounded to him like what Swahili sounds like to me. What if our signals were all crossed and I started seeing things the way he sees them only I can recognize them as what I would be seeing instead?

Don't do drugs kids. It will get you nowhere in life.

Did I have a real point to make here?

[kinvoya]

I think Pie has some sort of Creationism textbook there with him that's full of anti-evolution arguments that seem to make sense if you don't understand science or logic or, well...anything, very well. I don't see how he could possibly be coming up with these goofy examples and complex terms on his own.

the DNA of the body remains compleatly the same AND in tact

Right I believe Pie wrote that himself. Don't you?

@Wichita. No.

[Pie]

yes i am getting stuff from(e?) a "text book". but you knew what i ment. nothing changed exept the Immun system, and all that changed about that is how much it knows.


well.. we are getting side tract. shall we call this one a draw?

SO MUCH FUN!

[The Industriallist]

:roll:
yes i am getting stuff from(e?) a "text book". but you knew what i ment. nothing changed exept the Immun system, and all that changed about that is how much it knows.

Curious...what textbook?

well.. we are getting side tract. shall we call this one a draw?

I'm still waiting for answers...but if they don't come, I guess that makes it a draw of sorts.

[Pie]

ime sorry if i didn't answer some questions.. it's just that everyone is posting really fast.

well.. you have to say.. i do have a point with what i am saying. and i am driving a point into Evolution.. and poking a few holes that havn't been quite coverd up yet. so lets just leav it at this then..

Evolution hase no proof of it.. but we havent gatherd all of the proof.. so there is still a posabilaty of it happening. but evolution still has no proof of anything and people have been trying. evolution still has sertain problems.(alot of them.)

The bible does have alot of discoveries and things that we havn't discoverd untill resant times.. and it does have Archeaologicle and Anthropolagicle proof of things that have happened. And it is posible that there is a god somwere and in some place of Energy. but it is also posible for our beliefs to have a few problems.


so.... What should we Debait on next?

[kinvoya]

Pie, you haven't poked any holes in anything. If you would pay attention to the answers you get and try to understand them you would see how that book you have is full of nonsense. Non = none, sense = sense. The examples you are using do not make sense to an educated person. That book is designed to provide information that seems to be based on science but isn't, IS NOT! The information it is providing to you is mostly false and the rest is twisted so much that it is foolishly ignorant.

The "sceientific" examples you have used are just stupid. Sorry to say it but they are. They make no sense at all. You are very young and easily fooled but that is no excuse to ignore the information that people on this thread have tried to provide to you. The fact that you totally ignore everything they say just makes you a boring debator. You could have learned some things here about thinking clearly and questioning what you see in a book but clearly you haven't.

I have been searching for a while for any legitimate and scientifically sound Creationist refutation of evolution but I haven't seen any yet. I would love to though. I'm still waiting.

[Pie]

well...it amases me that you aren't even lisning to me. I mean, NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT! you have done nothing exept INSULT MY EVEDANCE.. and not even give any information on how they are rong. and maby you should question your text book. and i Quote

You could have learned some things here about thinking clearly and questioning what you see in a book but clearly you haven't.

and also..

The examples you are using do not make sense to an educated person

The "sceientific" examples you have used are just stupid.

now.. let me just say this to Bad monky.. aha.. so evolution is about changing in the womb. well... were is the proof of this? now... i have seen alot of rats.. i have hered of storys of were a rat is humoungose.. or that it has no fur(naked mole rat) but the thing is.. i have never seen that a rat has different bone structer.. or anything like that. The simple thing is.. there is no proof of this at all. if there were minor changes in the size of an animall.. there would have been fossles. fossles of a rat getting much larger.. of a monkey.. with no tail. of... really anything. So.. assuming that i am right... that you need somthing real to prove that somthing exists.. then were is that somthign real? Nowere. so we must then assume that it is not real.

[Talapus]

Pie, your "evidence" doesn't even make real sense to me, even though I was raised in a religious setting (3 years of conformations and all that). If you want some of the evidence that shows changes in animal bone structure and such, I will provide it.

Here is a diagram showing and comparing skulls:
http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/evolution-skull.jpg

Scroll down to the part about guppies (the little fish) and see how they are changed by natural selection:
http://www.dhushara.com/book/evol/evol.htm

This page shows the evolution of animal skulls to that which we know as whales:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/l ... onal.shtml

And this page shows the evolution of horse feet:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/l ... nal2.shtml

You should take a look at these, and if you want, I will find you some more. Once you check these out, I think you will have a better understanding of why people support evolution, and why they heap scorn on intelligent design and creationism (besause it doesn't have evidence comming anywhere near this level, if it has any at all).

[kinvoya]

evolution is about changing in the womb

Here a good example right here. It has been explained to you over and over in many different ways that this is not how evolution works.

[The Industriallist]

well...it amases me that you aren't even lisning to me. I mean, NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT! you have done nothing exept INSULT MY EVEDANCE.. and not even give any information on how they are rong. and maby you should question your text book. and i Quote

You could have learned some things here about thinking clearly and questioning what you see in a book but clearly you haven't.

and also..

The examples you are using do not make sense to an educated person

The "sceientific" examples you have used are just stupid.

I think she might have figured that, with all the information other people, myself included, have posted as to why your 'evidence' is either not real or not relevant, restating it would be a waste of time.

now.. let me just say this to Bad monky.. aha.. so evolution is about changing in the womb.

Um, not at all. 'changing in the womb' would be development, which hasn't much to do with it. Evolution, as I keep saying, is some of the population breeding more successfuly than the rest (often because they survive better) and thus having more influence on the next generation. Thus over generations the population becomes better genetically suited to it's envifonment.

now... i have seen alot of rats.. i have hered of storys of were a rat is humoungose.. or that it has no fur(naked mole rat) but the thing is..

I don't know what your huge rats are, but naked mole rats are a distinctly different species from any of the common pests. Their similarities may suggest that they came from similar stock, but they certainly are different species today.

i have never seen that a rat has different bone structer.. or anything like that.

Well, would you still call it a rat, if it were for instance a shrew? Which is another rodent, and thus somewhat similar, but again a different (and not that closely related) species.

The simple thing is.. there is no proof of this at all.

Of what, Pie? When rambling through paragraphs of irrelevancy, please try not to use unclear pronouns. Gramatically I think you must have just said that the that your previous statements are unproven, which I'd guess wasn't your intent...

if there were minor changes in the size of an animall.. there would have been fossles. fossles of a rat getting much larger.. of a monkey.. with no tail. of... really anything.

Um. Pie? Are you aware of apes? As opposed to monkeys? They don't have the tails, tend to be larger, and incidentally are the creatures actually thought to resemble pre-human ancestors.

So.. assuming that i am right... that you need somthing real to prove that somthing exists.. then were is that somthign real? Nowere. so we must then assume that it is not real.

Pie, it may shock you to discover that you being unaware of something does not mean that it doesn't exist. A simple google search turned up, as the first item, a for-the-layman, if somewhat lightweight, discussion of evolution with fossil evidence.

[Pie]

Ah.. i think we are finally begining to get somwere. thank you for compleatly telling me what you think in total clearaty.

Industryalist.. i have taken precous time to try and rest your ideas.. will you not at least do the same for me?

So.. what about the all existant fact that when the Egg is Fertalised take a "baby monky". That baby monky will be as furry as his jenes that his mother and father gave him in there genes. And will have as long a tail as his mother and father gave him. If you consider this.. you will see that Evolution is clearly in need of changes.

[El_Skwidd]

From what I understand, evolution is a really, really, realllllllly loooooonng process.

So, it's not like the "baby monky" that comes out of the womb of his tail-bearing mother is all of a sudden going to have no tail and a sophisticated brain that can handle tasks like talking. One of two things happens:

-The monkey grows up, adapting to his surroundings. When he makes it to breeding time, he passes on his adapted traits to his offspring.

OR

-The monkey fails to adapt and dies.

If the monkey lives, he's not going to change in such a drastic way that his babies are humans. He's going to change minimally. Evolution is a process that takes millions of years and millions of generations of a species.

[wichita]

Have you guys ever rogorously checked into the integrity of the data cited by Evolutionary Biologists. Bookmarking a website at Berkley and all is nice, but is that "evidence" any more accurate, valid, and conclusive than the "evidence" presented on a Creation Scientists website? The quality of a scientific conclusion is related to the quality of the data available to the individuals who have arrived at (or divined) said conclusion, isn't it?

So, I guess what I am asking is...how do you guys know beyond a shadow of a doubt that one side is using a flawed or at least biased dataset. What if it is indeed true that human and dinosaur remains have been found alongside each other in the fossil record? How invalidating are the presence of all the missing links in phylogenetic trees? What is the statistical integrity of said phylogenetic trees?

Why is the faith placed in scientific integrity so often preferable to spiritual faith? All reasonable thought processes rest on fundamental assumptions, so what makes one side superior to the other?

I do have a point here. There are logical holes on both sides of this pointless debate that are often overlooked by each side respectively to the point where this entire thing is just one enormous debacle that will never be sorted out or universally accepted over the future course of human existence. This debate will always range and everyone will always have two cents to pitch in on it.

I see only one fundamental truth out of all this that so often loses focus. Things are the way they are and we will never be able to know for sure, becuase the forces at work here are greater than any experiment or set of experiments than can ever be devised.


Let it drop. It is old...it is annoying. It is counterproductive. Don't argue for argument's sake. Blah blah blah. Some of you will understand a little bit of this. The rest will just continue on repeating the same crap over and over and over and over.....ad infinitum ad nauseum.

[formerly known as hf]

Let it drop. It is old...it is annoying. It is counterproductive.

Thankyou wich...

Most people just will not change what they believe - and fair enough. When someone who believes in evolution (and it is jus as much a belief), like myself, meets a creationist, I, and I know others, find it deeply absurd and grinding that someone can deny the 'proof' that is seen as being so concrete.

But these people are more than welcome to believe what they wish - and it is always futile to try and get them to think otherwise. Creationists hold their belief in it as much as evolutionists hold their belief in that.

I hate Jehova's witnesses and the like - trying to cnvince me to believe in the bible, in god, jesus etc. It annoys and insults me that people think they can argue such a case and expect me to fall for it. But, those that argue the case for evolution to those that believe in something else are just as annoying, and wrong.

Disagree - but respect the disagreement, and the rights of others to think what the hell they like, no matter how stupid and short sighted it may be...