survival of the fittest

I'm all for physics and evolution... but the sucky thing about it is ... it's all based on high-level estimations, predictions, and educated guesses :-(

this does NOT by any means, under any circumstances, suggest that I believe in creationism for one stupid blind moment tho ;-) ... go chimps!! woo woo!

Listen up FUCKTARD you're never going to get the whole answer because no one was around at the start. Doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen. Where is the proof of God that you require of evolution? Just because you don't like the truth doesn't mean it's not true.

I find it perplexing that someone that beleivex in mystical magic man creating the universe and making man out of sand and women out of a man's rib and talking snakes and some dude making a boat big enough to hold ALL the world's animals and virginal procreation, can find it IMPOSSIBLE to believe that animals would have the ability to adapt to differenting evnviromental circumstances.

I believe certain people can live without a brain. That I've witnessed right here.

What's special about humans?
If it's been observed to occur in hundreds of other organisms, it's not a huge leap of faith to assume it happened in humans.

"Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances,... and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."

St. Augustine
The Literal Meaning of Genesis

Something similar is said in Genisis about God. funny how this idiot can accept that concept when it comes to GOD but not the universe.

You're full of shit.

The fact that evolution of a species into a higher form of species (intelligence, etc.) has not been done in a controlled setting (to my knowledge) leads me to believe the whole idea is boloney.

Show me another scientific theory of origins.

you didnt read the thread, he makes no claimes either way , if I understand corectly his point is that both evolution and creationism are just theories and both cannot be proved right now, wich is correct,


but I am going with the evolution theory anyways :Graucho

I believe in two Gods.

Read the thread title.

You just said it yourself - evolution is just a theory.

How can a process that takes millions of years be observed in a 'controlled setting'?

:1orglaugh

OMFG!!! Controlled setting? You realize evolution take a LONG fucking time. Also it wouldn't happen in a CONTROLLED setting, IDIOT. Species evolve to adapt to a changing enviroment. If their enviroment is the same( ie CONTROLLED ) of course the aren't going to evolve. There wouldn't be a point in it. Geesh!

I have better things to do that explain 3 grade science to a ignorant hypocritical Jesus freak that is in the porn business. OWNED is IGNORED form now on.

"If the universe was infinitely large than then there would be no end. If there was no end then there would be no beginning. There is only one "thing" that has no beginning and no end. He is the alpha and the omega. This would mean there are either two Gods and or there is no God. Since nether option could be valid because there is ONE true GOD the theory of the universe being infinite is to the best of my knowledge false."

- Einstein

Discussion on the Infinate Universe

Sure... so show me another scientific theory regarding origins.

Also, do you understand how the word 'theory' is used in a scientific context?

As far as I know creation of a planet in 7 days has not been replicated within a controlled setting either, not to mention bringing a dude back to life after 3 days...........

I guess you shouldn't believe any of that either then.

Translation: I've been throughly owned in this discussion. I don't have a single proven fact regarding the evolution.

Maybe this will help

http://gofuckyourself.com/member2.ph...user id=31500

"science" itself is a man-created consept.

Oh no, not this arguement again..

Not "Just" a theory. It is a theory.

Within the context of science, you have a hypothesis formed first. If you find enough evidence of the hypothesis then it graduates and becomes a theory....

Nice thing about science is that it is open to proof and disproof. A theory remains valid as long as it is not disproven. Once it is disproven it is invalid. If enough time passes and enough evidence is gathered for it and no disproof is found then it eventually becomes a law.

But even then, if it is proven wrong once it is invalidated.

The theory of evolution has been around for a pretty good stretch now and has yet to be disproven.

heres your proof, idiot:

http://bbs.gofuckyourself.com/member...&user id=7592

Anything that comes from a human's mouth or through a human's endeavours is a "man created concept". By the way, that includes religion.

"The terms "hypothesis", "model", "theory", and "law" have a different use in science to colloquial speech. Scientists use the term model to mean a description of something, specifically one which can be used to make predictions which can be tested by experiment or observation. A hypothesis is a contention that has not (yet) been well supported nor ruled out by experiment. A physical law or a law of nature is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations.

Most non-scientists are unaware that what scientists call "theories" are what most people call "facts". The general public uses the word theory to refer to ideas that have no firm proof or support; in contrast, scientists usually use this word to refer only to ideas that have repeatedly withstood test. Thus, when scientists refer to the theories of biological evolution, electromagnetism, and relativity, they are referring to ideas that have survived considerable experimental testing. But there are exceptions, such as string theory, which seems to be a promising model but as yet has no empirical evidence to give it precedence over competing models.

Especially fruitful theories that have withstood the test of time are considered to be "proven" in the scientific sense ? that it is true and factual but of course can still be falsified. This includes many theories, such as universally accepted ones such as heliocentric theory and controversial ones such as evolution, which are backed by many observations and experimental data. Theories are always open to revision if new evidence is provided or directly contradicts predictions or other evidence. As scientists do not claim absolute knowledge, even the most basic and fundamental theories may turn out to be incorrect if new data and observations contradict older ones.

Newton's law of gravitation is a famous example of a law falsified by experiments regarding motions at high speeds and in close proximity to strong gravitational fields. Outside of those conditions, Newton's Laws remain excellent accounts of motion and gravity. Because general relativity accounts for all of the phenomena that Newton's Laws do, and more, general relativity is currently regarded as our best account of gravitation."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science

Is it still going on (evolution from simian to human)? Or has the evolution from simian to human stopped? And why? Also why did it start? I do understand animals learning and evolving to some degree based on adapting to surroundings and what not, but how the change to human? And yes to become a different species is dramatic.

It all boils down to this:

People who believe in religion are very unlikely to accept any theories that have been logically developed due to the fact that their beliefs have simply been "adopted", not learned.

I have foudn that debating logicially with someone who holds a faith based belief is pointless. There are always unlimited rebuttals they can pick out of a bag, because faith never requires empirical proof. What is proof? Well, we all make that judgement ourselves.

During my PhD, I examined the isotopic abundances of metal in a meteorite. The material was perviously dated pre-solar (4.5+, and that value could be disputed with some success). However, It's isotopic abundances were different than those found on our planet.

There is proof (according to Dusen) contrary to the claims of most religions right there. It formed in a different environment than our earth did. Proof that there was NOT one single creation in this universe.

But when you get down to it, there will never be any absolute proof for most faith arguists - as I said they can always claim false data or fallacious technique without requirement of support.

People believe what they believe. I think it is great that people get strength from religion. I have never felt the need to convince anyone in my life that what I believe is absolutely correct - I just wish others would follow my lead.

Scientific research that fails to explain its own beginnings. Methinks not young man, stay in your lane.

Have the Bible to a triple bypass surgery on your heart.


I like it when ultra right wing Christian people go to the doctor.


HAHAHAHA

Can you please repeat that in English?

I see satan has gotten to you.

http://www.jesusoftheweek.com/art/j2k3-15.jpg

"Hey OWNED, evolution is REAL! Jesus says so. Oh and you're going to hell for being in the porn biz."

I'm not.

Its not a sin. I dont do people any harm.

Occam's Razor: When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred.

That to me explains why so many believe in Creationism.




Geology: The scientific study of the origin, history, and structure of the earth.
IE: Geology shows that fossils are of many different ages.


Paleontology: The study of the forms of life existing in prehistoric or geologic times, as represented by the fossils of plants, animals, and other organisms.
IE: Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species representing changes through the process of time.


Taxonomy: The classification of organisms in an ordered system that indicates natural relationships.
IE: Taxonomy shows biological relationships between and among all species.


Evolution: A gradual process in which something changes into a different and usually more complex or better form, directly in relation to environment.
IE: Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. It's not just another "Religion" as the Creationists will have you believe.


Creationism: Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.
IE: The practice of closing a persons eyes shut and screaming "DOES NOT!"

OWNED, if you are trying to provide us with alternate theories to Newton's UNIVERSAL LAW OF GRAVITATION, you are a fucking idiot. If not, carry on with your little debate...

oh, and by the way

you don't get to make up what is and isn't a sin. closet homosexual child molestors who wear black robes and funny hats do. so sorry but you're going to hell.

Here is a current example of modern human evolution:

http://phreeque.tripod.com/grady_stiles.html

It's a tripod site, so GFY will probably kill it, but here we have a mutation that is passed on to future generations. That is all evolution is. If the mutation benefits the spreading of those genes, it will propagate - if it is of no benefit or detrimental to the spreading of those genes, the line will die off.

Evolution is as much a theory as is gravity.

Theory means a different thing in science as it does in common language.

GRAVITY IS NOT A THEORY, IT IS A SCIENTIFIC FUCKING LAW

It's not dramatic at all.

The process of speciation is a lengthy one.