Do you believe?

[Profanity]

Maybe they'll release it as a single and top the charts.

 

[RookParliament]

Oh no Profanity laughed at one of my bad jokes. I should hang myself

 

[Botfly]

Look, I just posted an opposing view, playing devil's advocate if you will, because it SEEMED like some of you, mainly Rock Parliament, had not delved into the facts of creation, but that was ignorance on my part.

Although the occurence of "micro and macro evolution" is indisputable, they distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

Also, while Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.

Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically. Kind of why they call it "The Theory of Evolution" not "Law of Evolution."

I'm not siding with either Creation or Evolution, simply because both have their loop holes, but what I AM doing is "throwing curve balls" to some information you guys use in defense of your ideals. 'Nuff said.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Look, I just posted an opposing view, playing devil's advocate if you will, because it SEEMED like some of you, mainly Rock Parliament, had not delved into the facts of creation, but that was ignorance on my part.

Although the occurence of "micro and macro evolution" is indisputable, they distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

Also, while Darwin predicted that the fossil record would show numerous transitional fossils, even 140 years later, all we have are a handful of disputable examples.

Evolution is not proven fact, so it should not be promoted dogmatically. Kind of why they call it "The Theory of Evolution" not "Law of Evolution."

I'm not siding with either Creation or Evolution, simply because both have their loop holes, but what I AM doing is "throwing curve balls" to some information you guys use in defense of your ideals. 'Nuff said.

indeed.

 

[Botfly]

it's only called a theory so christians don't make a big fuss about it. they beat them on a technicality. i think it started when those nuts were angry about evolution being talked about in school science books and whatnot

Although the occurence of "micro and macro evolution" is indisputable, they distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a ‘micro’ increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite ‘macro’ changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

This is why it's a theory. There are loop holes and contradictions. Because it's under much speculation, and NOT ONLY by Christians, is why it's a theory.

lol @ idiots

 

[Kenneth R.]

at anyone who believes evolution in the grand sense is fact. you all think you you're mutated monkeys eh?

 

[the_drip]

at anyone who believes evolution in the grand sense is fact. you all think you you're mutated monkeys eh?

yes..and all human emotions can be traced back to primal instinct.



God sucks.

 

[Justin S.]

"Theory" is a scientific term that is very specific. Its not about unproven ideas, its about probability. True science doesnt claim 100%, because such a thing doesnt (or is rare, its quite a paradox) exist (easy to see in mathematics/statistics). For all intents and purposes, many "Theories" essentially are 100% percent, relative to humans and any practical realm (gravity, light, thermodynamics, etc.)

The focal point of evolution, that of change at the genetic level, is most certainly FACT. You eat and interact with genetically altered products everyday. Huge segments of the chemical and experimental sciences are devoted to this research.

As far as humanity is concerned, we most certainly are related to the other life forms on this planet. Basic biology and chemistry will show you this. To look at yourself, your tissue, organs, nervous system, and the functioning of the brain and claim that you are NOT a primate is beyond delusion, it is psychosis.

If you would actually delve into the core data and material yourself, rather than read skewed and biased summaries, you might actually have an idea of what you are tallking about.

 

[RookParliament]

I keep wondering why I debate creationists when its always like smashing your head against a wall. No matter how open minded they claim to be thay never actually listen. Its ridiculous.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Read the article please. If you have problems with anything it states please list them as long as you use rational thought to put forth your argument.

 

[RookParliament]

Actually all humans and primates are evolved from a common ancestor. Fact.

 

[Kenneth R.]

Actually all humans and primates are evolved from a common ancestor. Fact.

show me where you spew this propaganda from.

 

[Jon Snow]

show me where you spew this propaganda from.

Have you actually ever read a book on evolution by a real scientist?

 

[Seth'Peth]

I see this little mechanism all over the place and it drives me insane. In your opinion? Oh really? Whose else would it be?

Also, its couldn't care less. That shit pisses me off too.

:Spin: LMAO!!

You really need to grow up and learn just how insignificant you, me and all of this is. I mean you gotta be fuckin' kiddin' me with this message board grammer correction and etiquette.

Ehh, pretty soon life will kick you around a bit and you'll look back on this with embarrassment for thinking you're so cool, tough and smart. This goes for several of you, the others can disregard.

Go ahead and laugh at the old man, I've learned my hardest lessons...good luck with yours. And this is not IMO, happens to be a fact.

Maybe I'll pop back in when the new album comes out, but more than likely I'll ask myself, "why bother?" I'll just listen to good music while you guys call each other names... :Smug:

Later...

 

[Kenneth R.]

Have you actually ever read a book on evolution by a real scientist?

yes, i have... why is it so shocking that i am saying such things?

 

[RookParliament]

All typos are my own as I am copying from my copy of the "Ancestor's Tale" by Richard Dawkins.

"We can be very sure there really is a single concestor of all surviving life forms on this planet. The evidence is that all that have ever been examined share (exactly in most cases, almost exactly in the rest) the same genetic code; and the genetic code is too detailed, in arbitrary aspects of its complexity, to have been invented twice. Although not every species has been examined, we already have enough coverage to be pretty certain that no surprises-alas- await us"

"In spite of the fasciantion of fossils, it is surprising how much we would still know about our evolutionary past without them. If every fossil were magicked away, the comparitive study of modern organisms, of how their patterns of resemblances, especially of their genetic sequences are distributed among continents and islands, would still demonstrate, beyond all sane doubt, that our history is evolutionary, and that all living creatures are cousins. Fossils are a bonus. A welcome bonus, to be sure, but not an essential one. It is worth remembering this when creationists go on (as they tediously do) about gaps in the fossil record. The fossil record could be one big gap, and the evidence for evolution would still be overwhelmingly strong. At the same time, if we had only fossils and no other evidence, the fact of evolution would again be overwhelmingly supported. As things stand we are blessed with both."

 

[Justin S.]

The "IMO" club is certainly not limited to internet forums, and IS a big deal.

I was only half serious about the second... and no, Im not the grammar police, as I make many mistakes. Thats Trey's job.

Dont pull that old and wise bullshit with me, you know nothing about the people you interact with here.

 

[RookParliament]

I know this won't change any creationists mind (minds that are shut tighter than an aged nun's vagina) but I really like showing them how all they argue from is ignorance.

 

[Kenneth R.]

and what makes you think i am a creationist because i disagree with macroevolution? (and the BS posted above)

 

[Jon Snow]

yes, i have... why is it so shocking that i am saying such things?

Because you called it propaganda. Since when is science propaganda?

 

[RookParliament]

Because you have previously stated a firm belief in God and you deny evolution. Are you going to say you are not a creationist? This is on of those things where there aren't to many options