Evolution: Fact or Fallacy? | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1151940 United States 11/06/2010 12:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1153921 United States 11/06/2010 12:21 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
sum_peeps User ID: 1075952 United States 11/06/2010 12:23 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1154142 United Kingdom 11/06/2010 12:24 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1151940Darwin's Own Confession "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties") |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1154142 United Kingdom 11/06/2010 12:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1151940 United States 11/06/2010 12:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1154142So I ask you....What came first the chicken or the egg? Answer please I don't have all the answers, I only have harebrained theories. The bird. He was probably hatched inside the mother bird, (Like you and I both hatched inside our mothers). And at some point nature determined that the birds had a better chance of surviving if the developed outside of the bird, as opposed to inside. See, harebrained theories. |
sum_peeps User ID: 1075952 United States 11/06/2010 12:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1154142So I ask you....What came first the chicken or the egg? Answer please The closest thing to a chicken without being a chicken laid a chicken egg, therefore, the egg came first. Of course this is completely unrealistic, evolution is a gradual process, you can't draw a definite line. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1154142 United Kingdom 11/06/2010 12:31 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
sum_peeps User ID: 1075952 United States 11/06/2010 12:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1151940 United States 11/06/2010 12:38 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1154142Darwin's Own Confession "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties") And there is no absolute 100% way to prove creation either. So really what is this conversation going to lead to? I do not believe that we were magically created by a supernatural entity that breathed life into clay figures so he would have a population of primates groveling at his feet. You do not believe that we were magically evolved from a puddle of slime and after billions of years have the form we have today. This discussion has nothing to do with evolution or creation. It has to do with God, and the christen religion. You really only care if people believe what you believe, if they do not, then they are wrong. Bottom line. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1154142 United Kingdom 11/06/2010 12:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: sum_peepsSo I ask you....What came first the chicken or the egg? Answer please The closest thing to a chicken without being a chicken laid a chicken egg, therefore, the egg came first. Of course this is completely unrealistic, evolution is a gradual process, you can't draw a definite line. If Humans developed from monkeys/apes, and we have reminants of tails..ie.Tail bones..for example...Why haven't we discovered human fossils that show the human skeletons/fossils losing the tail over a period of time. Why is the human one of the only earth mammals with no hair ie...Like a dogs hair or apes hair covering the whole body? We have smooth practically hairless bodies for all climates on earth. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1154142 United Kingdom 11/06/2010 12:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1151940Darwin's Own Confession "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties") And there is no absolute 100% way to prove creation either. So really what is this conversation going to lead to? I do not believe that we were magically created by a supernatural entity that breathed life into clay figures so he would have a population of primates groveling at his feet. You do not believe that we were magically evolved from a puddle of slime and after billions of years have the form we have today. This discussion has nothing to do with evolution or creation. It has to do with God, and the christen religion. You really only care if people believe what you believe, if they do not, then they are wrong. Bottom line. It depends on how you class your God or Gods. Is your god, if you have one, a holy God, a spirit God or could the Gods be ancient visitors to this planet that were classed as Gods and they created us. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1154142 United Kingdom 11/06/2010 12:47 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
sum_peeps User ID: 1075952 United States 11/06/2010 12:48 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And BTW everyone, this OP just copy and pasted from here: [link to atschool.eduweb.co.uk] Keep in mind that almost none of the quotes are by people in the field of evolution and some of them have ellipses, meaning they could easily be quote-mined. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1025379 United States 11/06/2010 12:50 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1154142Darwin's Own Confession "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties") |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1154142 United Kingdom 11/06/2010 12:52 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | And BTW everyone, this OP just copy and pasted from here: Quoting: sum_peeps[link to atschool.eduweb.co.uk] Keep in mind that almost none of the quotes are by people in the field of evolution and some of them have ellipses, meaning they could easily be quote-mined. It is quiet obvious I copied and pasted it to GET THE BALL ROLLING. You win the badge of Forum police of the week. Well done old chap. Claps hands |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1154142 United Kingdom 11/06/2010 12:55 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1154142Darwin's Own Confession "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties") And there is no absolute 100% way to prove creation either. So really what is this conversation going to lead to? I do not believe that we were magically created by a supernatural entity that breathed life into clay figures so he would have a population of primates groveling at his feet. You do not believe that we were magically evolved from a puddle of slime and after billions of years have the form we have today. This discussion has nothing to do with evolution or creation. It has to do with God, and the christen religion. You really only care if people believe what you believe, if they do not, then they are wrong. Bottom line. It depends on how you class your God or Gods. Is your god, if you have one, a holy God, a spirit God or could the Gods be ancient visitors to this planet that were classed as Gods and they created us. That guy has the clap |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1154142 United Kingdom 11/06/2010 12:57 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
reptilicus User ID: 946104 United States 11/06/2010 12:59 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
sum_peeps User ID: 1075952 United States 11/06/2010 01:02 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1154142So I ask you....What came first the chicken or the egg? Answer please The closest thing to a chicken without being a chicken laid a chicken egg, therefore, the egg came first. Of course this is completely unrealistic, evolution is a gradual process, you can't draw a definite line. If Humans developed from monkeys/apes, and we have reminants of tails..ie.Tail bones..for example...Why haven't we discovered human fossils that show the human skeletons/fossils losing the tail over a period of time. Why is the human one of the only earth mammals with no hair ie...Like a dogs hair or apes hair covering the whole body? We have smooth practically hairless bodies for all climates on earth. This is ages-old bullshit misconception which has been parroted by creationists way too much. Evolution does not split between animals that remain the same and animals that evolve. That is why you don't see fossils from crocodiles to ducks or from cats to dogs.Most mammals had tails until the point where apes created a branch without tails, humans then evolved from an ancestor which didn't have a tail in the first place. And as for hair, are you kidding? Humans have plenty of hair, all over the place, it's just not black. As for why our hair got thinner, that has long been under discussion by evolutionists. Personally, I think it was the combination of wearing close and regulating body temperature in hot climates. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1152961 United States 11/06/2010 01:08 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
sum_peeps User ID: 1075952 United States 11/06/2010 01:11 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1154142Darwin's Own Confession "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties") First of all, charles darwin never even wrote anything entitled "My Life & Letters" so I can't see how he could have written that in a book he never wrote. As for your blatant quote mining, the real quote is: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real." You've been caught asshole. Last Edited by sum_peeps on 11/06/2010 01:16 AM |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1151940 United States 11/06/2010 01:12 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1154142Darwin's Own Confession "Not one change of species into another is on record ... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed." (Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters) "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree." (Charles Darwin, Origin of Species, chapter "Difficulties") And there is no absolute 100% way to prove creation either. So really what is this conversation going to lead to? I do not believe that we were magically created by a supernatural entity that breathed life into clay figures so he would have a population of primates groveling at his feet. You do not believe that we were magically evolved from a puddle of slime and after billions of years have the form we have today. This discussion has nothing to do with evolution or creation. It has to do with God, and the christen religion. You really only care if people believe what you believe, if they do not, then they are wrong. Bottom line. It depends on how you class your God or Gods. Is your god, if you have one, a holy God, a spirit God or could the Gods be ancient visitors to this planet that were classed as Gods and they created us. Are you asking my view? I believe in nature. Life! Life happens EVERYWHERE on this rock, almost nothing can stop it out side of nature. Even in radioactive environments like Chernobyl, nature flourishes where humans would perish. Life can be found in the searing heat of volcanic vents to the ice of Antarctica. Is there a consciousness that exists that has a hand in nature?? Sure, there could very well be. Is this consciousness God? Perhaps. I don't know. And I am proud to not know. Life happens. Who are we to limit how life works. Nature has shown time and time again that it will work in ways that we can not possibly understand. I wish people could simply admit to the mysteries or life, instead of twisting the mystery to fit their religious views because they have some underlying fear or remorse about being an animal. You can not provide undeniable proof of an entity breathing life into clay figures, to prove creation, anymore then I can produce a fossil of anything proving anything. I just happen to personally find it more logically sound for life to have evolved over billions of years, then instantly by a supernatural being that only spoke to people in the far distant past and demands unwavering worship under threat of torture by fire, and then vanishes and yet still demands undying devotion. Honestly I think God could care little for the affairs of man. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1154142 United Kingdom 11/06/2010 01:13 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: sum_peepsSo I ask you....What came first the chicken or the egg? Answer please The closest thing to a chicken without being a chicken laid a chicken egg, therefore, the egg came first. Of course this is completely unrealistic, evolution is a gradual process, you can't draw a definite line. If Humans developed from monkeys/apes, and we have reminants of tails..ie.Tail bones..for example...Why haven't we discovered human fossils that show the human skeletons/fossils losing the tail over a period of time. Why is the human one of the only earth mammals with no hair ie...Like a dogs hair or apes hair covering the whole body? We have smooth practically hairless bodies for all climates on earth. This is ages-old bullshit misconception which has been parroted by creationists way too much. Evolution does not split between animals that remain the same and animals that evolve. That is why you don't see fossils from crocodiles to ducks or from cats to dogs.Most mammals had tails until the point where apes created a branch without tails, humans then evolved from an ancestor which didn't have a tail in the first place. And as for hair, are you kidding? Humans have plenty of hair, all over the place, it's just not black. As for why our hair got thinner, that has long been under discussion by evolutionists. Personally, I think it was the combination of wearing close and regulating body temperature in hot climates. Humans are bare compared to most animals. We don't have hair that would keep us warm LIKE a dog or an APE or feathers like a bird and down that keeps them warm. Ekimos as an example are still smoothed skinned after thousand of years in the ice and freezing weather, they didn't evolve like a polar bear or penguin for friggs sake. And that's bollocks about the fossils. We STILL have the reminants of tails, so they say. Same as some snakes supposedly have reminants of hind legs. Who's to say they just have them because God wanted them that way OR they just evolved like that because they want those tiny legs for reasons we don't even UNDERSTAND yet. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 813550 United States 11/06/2010 01:14 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
SaltWaterTaffy User ID: 1027643 United States 11/06/2010 01:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | both! no, seriously, both. and neither. :SWT name: When the shit hits the fan and the end is quite nigh, will you cry out to heaven? Will you lay down and die? Not me, my dear ones. This is my sacred life. To no one or no thing I'll surrender. For how does one know where when dead he will go, or if sweet mother Earth she'll remember? |
sum_peeps User ID: 1075952 United States 11/06/2010 01:18 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Like every other topic that has a side, it depends on who you ask. Quoting: Anonymous Coward 1154142So I ask you....What came first the chicken or the egg? Answer please The closest thing to a chicken without being a chicken laid a chicken egg, therefore, the egg came first. Of course this is completely unrealistic, evolution is a gradual process, you can't draw a definite line. If Humans developed from monkeys/apes, and we have reminants of tails..ie.Tail bones..for example...Why haven't we discovered human fossils that show the human skeletons/fossils losing the tail over a period of time. Why is the human one of the only earth mammals with no hair ie...Like a dogs hair or apes hair covering the whole body? We have smooth practically hairless bodies for all climates on earth. This is ages-old bullshit misconception which has been parroted by creationists way too much. Evolution does not split between animals that remain the same and animals that evolve. That is why you don't see fossils from crocodiles to ducks or from cats to dogs.Most mammals had tails until the point where apes created a branch without tails, humans then evolved from an ancestor which didn't have a tail in the first place. And as for hair, are you kidding? Humans have plenty of hair, all over the place, it's just not black. As for why our hair got thinner, that has long been under discussion by evolutionists. Personally, I think it was the combination of wearing close and regulating body temperature in hot climates. Humans are bare compared to most animals. We don't have hair that would keep us warm LIKE a dog or an APE or feathers like a bird and down that keeps them warm. Ekimos as an example are still smoothed skinned after thousand of years in the ice and freezing weather, they didn't evolve like a polar bear or penguin for friggs sake. And that's bollocks about the fossils. We STILL have the reminants of tails, so they say. Same as some snakes supposedly have reminants of hind legs. Who's to say they just have them because God wanted them that way OR they just evolved like that because they want those tiny legs for reasons we don't even UNDERSTAND yet. Then give me one reason why god would give snakes legs, give humans pubes, or tell us to cut the tips of our dicks off. |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 1154142 United Kingdom 11/06/2010 01:32 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Then give me one reason why god would give snakes legs, give humans pubes, or tell us to cut the tips of our dicks off. Quoting: sum_peepsExactly!!!! Who's to say they are/were legs? Hair plays an important part to the human body. It helps things like trap heat on the head, eyebrows stop sweat leaking into the eyes, eyelashes stop micro dust entering the eyes, nostril hair stops dust from going up our hooter, pubic hair helps keep our balls warm and stops your penis shriveling up in the cold. BUT we don't have much body hair compared to OTHER mammals for our varied world climate. Maybe God just had to tell us to do that because dirty bastards wouldn't wash behind their foreskin and it can spread infection and cause problems. For the record, I keep it trim down below for our British climate. |
sum_peeps User ID: 1075952 United States 11/06/2010 01:36 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | No, no, no, the point you're trying to make is that god made things intelligently and they don't evolve. If that was the case, why would he give snakes the remnants of legs, give humans pubes (when we obviously wear close), and give us foreskin only to tell us to cut it off? If he made us intelligently, we wouldn't have all of this shit. |
sum_peeps User ID: 1075952 United States 11/06/2010 01:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |