Has evolution been completely proven? - Page 4 - GoFuckYourself.com

GigoloMason · 11-08-2005, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gideongallery

really the what was the prevelent theory about why life existed at the time.
If he assumed that God existed there would have been no need for his theory to explain the diversity of life, he would have attributed it to God and be done with it.

Clueless.

Joe Citizen · 11-09-2005, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

i for one do not believe we came from apes, i think both species come from a 100% different gene line.

Present some evidence for your views.

Quote:

alot of people are also mixing up evolution and adaptation in this thread also.

What do you see as the difference between evolution and adaptation?

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Citizen

Present some evidence for your views.

you post CONCRETE evidence 100% concrete.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Citizen

What do you see as the difference between evolution and adaptation?

evolution is the creation of a new species

man > ape

adaptation is adding something to exist better in your enviroment

fox > bigger ears to hear prey

big difference imo.

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 12:21 AM

Joe where is the concrete proof of an ape with an upright spine?

none.

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 12:38 AM

waiting for proof....

i dont know how anyone believes we came from apes, i seriously 99% doubt it.

Myst · 11-09-2005, 12:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

waiting for proof....

i dont know how anyone believes we came from apes, i seriously 99% doubt it.

we didnt come FROM apes
apes and humans came from the same ancestor. we share ~97.5% of our DNA with apes. thats right. 97.5%.

neanderthals that existed many many years ago were upright. they also had bigger brains than humans, and were likely smarter

Quote:

Then the found skeletons of Neanderthal which stood perfectly upright. Subsequently the first skeletons with curvature of the spine were re-examined and found to have suffered from a form of arthritis. In essence, we located an early ancestor with an arthritic problem.

Study the skull of the first Neanderthal. Byron Nelson took the side view and compared it to a painting of the Revolutionary War hero LaFayette. He found that one can put his features on the skull without any difficulty at all. A Neanderthal skull can be make to look very modern or very primitive depending on how the reconstruction is made. If skull capacity means anything, the Neanderthal man has a capacity larger than modern man, about 1600 cc. Modern man has somewhere between 1200 and 1500 cc. If brain capacity means anything, Neanderthal man would be more intelligent than modern man. Brain capacity may not be the whole answer, but Neanderthal has been identified as very similar to modern man.

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

we didnt come FROM apes
apes and humans came from the same ancestor. we share ~97.5% of our DNA with apes. thats right. 97.5%.

neanderthals that existed many many years ago were upright. they also had bigger brains than humans, and were likely smarter

a Neanderthal and an ape are different, there is no concrete proof of the link between an ape and a human.

the difference is the upright spine, there is no fossils with the missing link, thus it is called MISSING LINK, there is only scientists who have filled in the gaps with what they thought "could be".

i do not care how close out DNA is, i have heard this argument before.

there is still a 2.5% genetic difference.

Myst · 11-09-2005, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

a Neanderthal and an ape are different, there is no concrete proof of the link between an ape and a human.

the difference is the upright spine, there is no fossils with the missing link, thus it is called MISSING LINK, there is only scientists who have filled in the gaps with what they thought "could be".

i do not care how close out DNA is, i have heard this argument before.

there is still a 2.5% genetic difference.

a neanderthal represents that missing link. it stood upright and had a slightly curved spine. it was the 'early human' if you will.

have you seen joan of ark? that scene where the man tells her 'of all the millions of possibilities that the sword could have come into the field.. you chose to believe this one..'. thats you.

you say there is no concrete proof that apes and humans came from the same ancestor. thats because we cannot go back in time and see it for ourselves. but there is so much evidence that suggests they did, and almost none to suggest they didnt. the evidence is there, its very clear. from the way mammals develop to the way they think and act to their dna sequences, there is so much evidence to suggest there was a common ancestor. and yet you choose to believe that humans were created entirely different, with absolutely no evidence

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

a neanderthal represents that missing link. it stood upright and had a slightly curved spine. it was the 'early human' if you will.

have you seen joan of ark? that scene where the man tells her 'of all the millions of possibilities that the sword could have come into the field.. you chose to believe this one..'. thats you.

you say there is no concrete proof that apes and humans came from the same ancestor. thats because we cannot go back in time and see it for ourselves. but there is so much evidence that suggests they did, and almost none to suggest they didnt. the evidence is there, its very clear. from the way mammals develop to the way they think and act to their dna sequences, there is so much evidence to suggest there was a common ancestor. and yet you choose to believe that humans were created entirely different, with absolutely no evidence

yes i believe humans evolved but evolved seperatly from apes.

stop talking like the evidence is so concrete.

Myst · 11-09-2005, 01:03 AM

its like finding used condoms in your daughters room, seeing birth control pills in her dresser, noticing a pregancy indicator strip in the washroom, seenig her come home with different guys each day, seeing her dress like a whore, etc etc, and from all this you come to the conclusion your daughter is a virgin because you have not seen her have sex.

thats how stupid it sounds

i seriously suggest you read some stuff on the human body, and learn how it actually works. the evidence is so strong and its available, and much of it youve come across, but i think you are just avoiding it to avoid the truth.

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

its like seeing finding used condoms in your daughters room, seeing birth control pills in her dresser, noticing a pregancy indicator strip in the washroom, seenig her come home with different guys each day, seeing her dress like a whore, etc etc, and from all this you come to the conclusion your daughter is a virgin because you have not seen her have sex.

thats how stupid it sounds

funny, i did like it.

the one HUGE difference still remains an upright spine, some humans have hunchedbacks how do you know that the neanderthals werent a bunch of people with bad posture?

look at apes, and look at us, i do not see a comparison, i have watched show after show on the topic and nothing ever is concrete, in my mind it is indeed THEORY.

sexxxydesign.com · 11-09-2005, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fletch XXX

You can always tell who didnt finish highschool and definitely never attended a college course on this board.

LOL not allways true.. Im a big Darwin FAN and I had to walk out of a college course once couse a stupid professor said that it was BULLSHIT and that untill they find the missing link we should stick to what the bible said.. can you bealive such a thing in a college? (BTW it was Catholic University of Buenos Aires.. LOL ) that day i realized that place was not for me and moved to another university

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

its like finding used condoms in your daughters room, seeing birth control pills in her dresser, noticing a pregancy indicator strip in the washroom, seenig her come home with different guys each day, seeing her dress like a whore, etc etc, and from all this you come to the conclusion your daughter is a virgin because you have not seen her have sex.

thats how stupid it sounds

i seriously suggest you read some stuff on the human body, and learn how it actually works. the evidence is so strong and its available, and much of it youve come across, but i think you are just avoiding it to avoid the truth.

Quote:

After reanalysis of the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skeleton in the 1950's, it became clear that a serious mistake had been made. This had been an atypical Neandertal. He was at least 40 years old with a somewhat hunched over posture resulting from severe arthritis in his spine. There was a bowing of his legs that may have resulted from rickets disease in childhood. He had lost most of his teeth and part of his jaw resulting in a disharmonic looking face. Despite these deforming infirmities, it is now clear that the La Chapelle-aux-Saints man was much more like us in appearance than had been believed by Marcellin Boule.

HIS HUNCH WAS DUE TO ARTHRITIS,

dont spread misinformation.

there is NO PROVEN LINK, the missing link like i thought HAS NOT been found.

the 100% major difference is the straight spines of humans, if you do not understand why this is such a huge difference then there is no need to continue this conversation.

this is science, in science you do not just "fill in holes" that is theory not FACT.

Myst · 11-09-2005, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

HIS HUNCH WAS DUE TO ARTHRITIS,

dont spread misinformation.

there is NO PROVEN LINK, the missing link like i thought HAS NOT been found.

the 100% major difference is the straight spines of humans, if you do not understand why this is such a huge difference then there is no need to continue this conversation.

this is science, in science you do not just "fill in holes" that is theory not FACT.

fair enough. actually he didnt have an upright position due to arthritis as you believe, but the other way around.

anyway, here is your proof. sorry to burst your bubble, but theyve found the missing link

Quote:

If there was any lingering question about the early manifestation of bipedality in human evolutionary history, it has been erased by recent fossil discoveries: a 4.4-million-year-old hominid from Ethiopia, found last year, and a 4.2-million-year-old hominid near Lake Turkana in Kenya, recently reported. The newly identified species were older more primitive and much more ape-like than any hominids known before, but already they were bipedal -- certainly the younger one, probably the other as well.

"This gets close to the hypothesized time of splitting of the ape and human lineages," said Dr. Alan Walker, an anatomist at Pennsylvania State University who specializes in early human studies. He and Dr. Meave Leakey, a paleontologist at the National Museums of Kenya, who is Richard Leakey's wife, discovered the Turkana fossils, to which they have given the new species name Australopithecus anamensis.

Dr. Tim D. White, a paleontologist at the University of California at Berkeley, excavated the 4.4-million-year-old hominid, so different from anything seen before that it has been assigned to an entirely new genus as well as species name Ardipithecus ramidus. Dr White has yet to assemble and analyze the pelvis and lower limb bones, but he has inferred from other evidence that these creatures probably had an erect posture for walking. They resembled apes more than even anamensis does, showing primitive qualities that might be expected of creatures more than five million years old.

"With ramidus," he said, "we are very very close to the hominid-ape split, surprisingly close."

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_071_04.html

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

fair enough. actually he didnt have an upright position due to arthritis as you believe, but the other way around.

anyway, here is your proof. sorry to burst your bubble, but theyve found the missing link

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/li.../l_071_04.html

thats what i am saying he was curved due to arthritis.

sorry to burst your bubble but the key:

"creatures probably had an erect posture for walking"

as you see from the arthritis post, i will wait until the doctor changes his probably to a no.

Myst · 11-09-2005, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

thats what i am saying he was curved due to arthritis.

sorry to burst your bubble but the key:

"creatures probably had an erect posture for walking"

as you see from the arthritis post, i will wait until the doctor changes his probably to a no.

you misread
they probably had an erect posture for walking. but they had an erect posture.

imma post this again so other creationists can see

its like seeing finding used condoms in your daughters room, seeing birth control pills in her dresser, noticing a pregancy indicator strip in the washroom, seenig her come home with different guys each day, seeing her dress like a whore, etc etc, and from all this you come to the conclusion your daughter is a virgin because you have not seen her have sex.

thats how stupid it sounds

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

you misread
they probably had an erect posture for walking. but they had an erect posture.

imma post this again so other creationists can see

its like seeing finding used condoms in your daughters room, seeing birth control pills in her dresser, noticing a pregancy indicator strip in the washroom, seenig her come home with different guys each day, seeing her dress like a whore, etc etc, and from all this you come to the conclusion your daughter is a virgin because you have not seen her have sex.

thats how stupid it sounds

i am reading bare with me,

your point on the condoms goes the other way around also,

look at apes, bent backs, hairy, feets like hands, that point has no baring and goes bother ways.

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

you misread
they probably had an erect posture for walking.

but they had an erect posture.

s

where is the second part? i cant find it specifically in the article i want to read what it says to go along with it.

nm no i didnt.

where is the part about HAD an erect posture?

Myst · 11-09-2005, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

i am reading bare with me,

your point on the condoms goes the other way around also,

look at apes, bent backs, hairy, feets like hands, that point has no baring and goes bother ways.

im sure youll find some insignificant detail to rekindle your faith.. no matter.

why do you think it is that from the tens of thousands of biological scientists, they all believe in evolution. its not even a matter of belief nowadays for them, its pretty much fact. are all these scientists (representing some of the most intelligent people alive) idiots? are they all anti christ? anti religion? or maybe the proof is just so undenyable that evolution exists.

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

you misread
but they had an erect posture.

where does it say HAD, it says PROBABLY HAD.

Myst · 11-09-2005, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

where is the second part? i cant find it specifically in the article i want to read what it says to go along with it.

nm no i didnt.

where is the part about HAD an erect posture?

the quote u posted 'they probably had an erect posture for walking' is the guy giving a probable reason why they had an erect posture (for walking). but they did in fact have an erect posture. you are reading the sentance as 'they probably had an erect posture for walking'
read it as 'they probably had an erect posture for walking'.

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

im sure youll find some insignificant detail to rekindle your faith.. no matter.

why do you think it is that from the tens of thousands of biological scientists, they all believe in evolution. its not even a matter of belief nowadays for them, its pretty much fact. are all these scientists (representing some of the most intelligent people alive) idiots? are they all anti christ? anti religion? or maybe the proof is just so undenyable that evolution exists.

I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

im not going to respond to think point becuase you start to talk about God and yadda yadda,

when in this entire thread did i mention God?

NOT ONCE.

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

the quote u posted 'they probably had an erect posture for walking' is the guy giving a probable reason why they had an erect posture (for walking). but they did in fact have an erect posture. you are reading the sentance as 'they probably had an erect posture for walking'
read it as 'they probably had an erect posture for walking'.

the key word is PROBABLY, do you not understand how huge that one single word is?

they have been able to tell how other fossils walk but this case it is PROBABLY.

you are going to tell me every single scientists believe we came from apes?

im sure 99% believe in evolution, but im sure THOUSANDS believe we do not come from apes.

Myst · 11-09-2005, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION.

im not going to respond to think point becuase you start to talk about God and yadda yadda,

when in this entire thread did i mention God?

NOT ONCE.

kk
but you cannot imagine that apes and humans are related. the link and info i posted was for you to see that they are.

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

kk
but you cannot imagine that apes and humans are related. the link and info i posted was for you to see that they are.

in what form of "relation" similar yes, as to a whale and shark similar but 100% different.

this was an article interviewing the doctor who made the discovery obviously he is going to be biased in opinions, look you can even buy his book!

hmmmmmm

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:44 AM

and i ask you the question why is it that modern day apes also didnt evolve?

Myst · 11-09-2005, 01:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

the key word is PROBABLY, do you not understand how huge that one single word is?

they have been able to tell how other fossils walk but this case it is PROBABLY.

you are going to tell me every single scientists believe we came from apes?

im sure 99% believe in evolution, but im sure THOUSANDS believe we do not come from apes.

Quote:

The newly identified species were older more primitive and much more ape-like than any hominids known before, but already they were bipedal

A biped is an animal that travels across surfaces supported by two legs.

Bipedalism in general
Bipedal locomotion is walking, running, and standing on two legs (as opposed to four). It is a process requiring complex interaction of mechanical and control-system characteristics. Humans are capable of performing such motion because their spines are s-curved and their heels are round. Whether such a system has evolved in an animal species or been engineered in a robot, many of the same issues are inevitably involved.

If you want more proof of how humans came to be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_anamensis
look at the species list on the left, its all there.

Myst · 11-09-2005, 01:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MetaMan

and i ask you the question why is it that modern day apes also didnt evolve?

my answer to that was because humans DIDNT evolve from apes that we know today. apes and humans had a common ancestor. think of humans as an abnormal ape. or an ape as an abnormal human. both are fit to survive and reproduce today, thats why both exist today. its the same reason ants birds trees etc are here. they didnt all evolve into humans or some highly intelligent being. they are here simply because they can survive and reproduce, thats it. no different from us, no different from apes.

i gotta get some work done, got a lab report due tomororw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_anamensis

thats all the proof you should need

(follow the evolution of species on the left)

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

A biped is an animal that travels across surfaces supported by two legs.

Bipedalism in general
Bipedal locomotion is walking, running, and standing on two legs (as opposed to four). It is a process requiring complex interaction of mechanical and control-system characteristics. Humans are capable of performing such motion because their spines are s-curved and their heels are round. Whether such a system has evolved in an animal species or been engineered in a robot, many of the same issues are inevitably involved.

If you want more proof of how humans came to be
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_anamensis
look at the species list on the left, its all there.

i read the entire aritcle actually,

also to point out apes today are capable of some forms of Bipedalism. this link imo is an ape not the links between ape and human.

again you are talking like EVERYSINGLE link it filled in.

it is like saying the evolution from theropods > bird

there is no concrete link, and you also believe "lizzard like" creatures are now what we see of birds today?

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Myst

my answer to that was because humans DIDNT evolve from apes that we know today. apes and humans had a common ancestor. think of humans as an abnormal ape. or an ape as an abnormal human. both are fit to survive and reproduce today, thats why both exist today. its the same reason ants birds trees etc are here. they didnt all evolve into humans or some highly intelligent being. they are here simply because they can survive and reproduce, thats it. no different from us, no different from apes.

i gotta get some work done, got a lab report due tomororw.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_anamensis

thats all the proof you should need

(follow the evolution of species on the left)

common ancestor can be said like a single celled amoeba that evolved on our planet into EVERYTHING we see today.

MetaMan · 11-09-2005, 01:57 AM

we can agree to disagree, it was a nice chat,

bedtime for me, goodnight.

graphical x · 11-09-2005, 04:14 AM

It's nice to turn sacred cows like evolution, democracy, and free market economics into hamburgers from time to time. LMAO

Drake · 11-09-2005, 04:55 AM

Woo..
I?m ahead, I?m a man
I?m the first mammal to wear pants, yeah
I?m at peace with my lust
I can kill ?cause in God I trust, yeah
It?s evolution, baby

I?m at piece, I?m the man
Buying stocks on the day of the crash
On the loose, I?m a truck
All the rolling hills, I?ll flatten? em out, yeah
It?s herd behavior, uh huh
It?s evolution, baby

Admire me, admire my home
Admire my song, here?s my coat
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah
This land is mine, this land is free
I?ll do what I want but irresponsibly
It?s evolution, baby

I?m a thief, I?m a liar
There?s my church, I sing in the choir:
(hallelujah¡ha hallelujah¡ha)

Admire me, admire my home
Admire my song, admire my clothes
?cause we know, appetite for a nightly feast
Those ignorant indians got nothin? on me
Nothin?, why?
Because, it?s evolution, baby!

I am ahead, I am advanced
I am the first mammal to make plans, yeah
I crawled the earth, but now I?m higher
Twenty-ten, watch it go to fire
It?s evolution, baby (2x)
Do the evolution
Come on, come on, come on

Pearl Jam - Evolution

Everybody sing with me!

ADL Colin · 11-09-2005, 05:26 AM

Depends what you mean by proven. I am not even sure I exist. I'm even less certain that you exist.

I logged on therefor I am.

rickholio · 11-11-2005, 02:36 AM

Wow. This thread has got to be an example of some of the most nit-picky gooberific sophistry of all time, evar.

Seriously. Some of the so-called arguments approach clinton-esque levels of 'define what 'is' is'.

Tipsy · 11-11-2005, 03:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickholio

Wow. This thread has got to be an example of some of the most nit-picky gooberific sophistry of all time, evar.

Seriously. Some of the so-called arguments approach clinton-esque levels of 'define what 'is' is'.

It's the only way many of those we' faith' can justify their belief. No matter how much proof is presented they'll find a way to say otherwise. Most are simply scared shitless of death and need a belief that there's something after this life. Faith gives them that and they fear a challenge to it because they fear death with no 'saviour'.

Anyone else it's simple ignorance and unintelligence as more than enough proof exists whereas absolutely none exists for creationism.

nastyboy1 · 11-11-2005, 04:04 AM

Everyone knows that Brandi and I have every reason to despise the "church" but the reality is neither creation nor evolution can be "proven" but for all those who believe that evolution is based and proven in science you obviously do not keep up on recent scientific theory. I have no opinion on where we came from but both sides need to agree that both views are equally improbable...

The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument.

The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ?simple? cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10 to 57800 power. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 10 to the 80th power (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would ?only? amount to 10160 electrons.

These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, has used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For example, Hoyle said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik?s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time?and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world ?simple? bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life by natural (random) processes has the same scientific probability of life by creation......meaning neither makes sense

reed_4 · 11-11-2005, 04:12 AM

Lots of crazy views in here. LoL

graphical x · 11-11-2005, 04:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nastyboy1

life by natural (random) processes has the same scientific probability of life by creation......meaning neither makes sense

The beauty of evolution is that its a nice and neat little process. Just add billions of years along with the fact that it recycles prior 'innovations' and add lots of changing environments, you get a nice series of COMPLEX organisms.

That's all....

Not much mystery to it. It's very basic actually.

Drake · 11-11-2005, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by graphical x

The beauty of evolution is that its a nice and neat little process. Just add billions of years along with the fact that it recycles prior 'innovations' and add lots of changing environments, you get a nice series of COMPLEX organisms.

But the fact that it's the result of random processes and you're dealing with a very complex and susceptible life form (cells), it's more likely that it would die rather than survive. Also, adding time doesn't mean that cells become multi-celled organisms. Simple cells could evolve forever and remain as simple cells, we've never seen them do otherwise.

11-09-2005, 01:03 AM	#160
Myst Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 4,707	its like finding used condoms in your daughters room, seeing birth control pills in her dresser, noticing a pregancy indicator strip in the washroom, seenig her come home with different guys each day, seeing her dress like a whore, etc etc, and from all this you come to the conclusion your daughter is a virgin because you have not seen her have sex. thats how stupid it sounds i seriously suggest you read some stuff on the human body, and learn how it actually works. the evidence is so strong and its available, and much of it youve come across, but i think you are just avoiding it to avoid the truth. __________________ ICQ: 298-523-037 Last edited by Myst; 11-09-2005 at 01:04 AM..

11-09-2005, 04:14 AM	#182
graphical x Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2005 Posts: 316	It's nice to turn sacred cows like evolution, democracy, and free market economics into hamburgers from time to time. LMAO __________________ No sigs needed.

11-09-2005, 05:26 AM	#184
ADL Colin Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Tube Titans, USA Posts: 11,929	Depends what you mean by proven. I am not even sure I exist. I'm even less certain that you exist. I logged on therefor I am. __________________ Adult Date Link - $50 PPS starting NOW! -- good and JUICY! skype = "adultdatelink"

11-11-2005, 02:36 AM	#185
rickholio Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Nor'easterland Posts: 1,914	Wow. This thread has got to be an example of some of the most nit-picky gooberific sophistry of all time, evar. Seriously. Some of the so-called arguments approach clinton-esque levels of 'define what 'is' is'. __________________ ~

11-11-2005, 04:04 AM	#187
nastyboy1 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: NC Posts: 257	Everyone knows that Brandi and I have every reason to despise the "church" but the reality is neither creation nor evolution can be "proven" but for all those who believe that evolution is based and proven in science you obviously do not keep up on recent scientific theory. I have no opinion on where we came from but both sides need to agree that both views are equally improbable... The argument from probability that life could not form by natural processes but must have been created is acknowledged by evolutionists as a strong argument. The probability of the chance formation of a hypothetical functional ?simple? cell, given all the ingredients, is acknowledged to be worse than 1 in 10 to 57800 power. This is a chance of 1 in a number with 57,800 zeros. It would take 11 full pages of magazine type to print this number. To try to put this in perspective, there are about 10 to the 80th power (a number with 80 zeros) electrons in the universe. Even if every electron in our universe were another universe the same size as ours that would ?only? amount to 10160 electrons. These numbers defy our ability to comprehend their size. Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, has used analogies to try to convey the immensity of the problem. For example, Hoyle said the probability of the formation of just one of the many proteins on which life depends is comparable to that of the solar system packed full of blind people randomly shuffling Rubik?s cubes all arriving at the solution at the same time?and this is the chance of getting only one of the 400 or more proteins of the hypothetical minimum cell proposed by the evolutionists (real world ?simple? bacteria have about 2,000 proteins and are incredibly complex). As Hoyle points out, the program of the cell, encoded on the DNA, is also needed. In other words, life by natural (random) processes has the same scientific probability of life by creation......meaning neither makes sense __________________ Naked Rhino Presents XCLUSIVECASH!

11-09-2005, 12:21 AM	#154
MetaMan I AM WEB 2.0 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,682	Joe where is the concrete proof of an ape with an upright spine? none.

11-09-2005, 12:38 AM	#155
MetaMan I AM WEB 2.0 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,682	waiting for proof.... i dont know how anyone believes we came from apes, i seriously 99% doubt it.

11-09-2005, 01:44 AM	#176
MetaMan I AM WEB 2.0 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,682	and i ask you the question why is it that modern day apes also didnt evolve?

11-09-2005, 01:57 AM	#181
MetaMan I AM WEB 2.0 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 28,682	we can agree to disagree, it was a nice chat, bedtime for me, goodnight.

11-09-2005, 04:55 AM	#183
Drake Hello world! Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 12,508	Woo.. I?m ahead, I?m a man I?m the first mammal to wear pants, yeah I?m at peace with my lust I can kill ?cause in God I trust, yeah It?s evolution, baby I?m at piece, I?m the man Buying stocks on the day of the crash On the loose, I?m a truck All the rolling hills, I?ll flatten? em out, yeah It?s herd behavior, uh huh It?s evolution, baby Admire me, admire my home Admire my song, here?s my coat Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah This land is mine, this land is free I?ll do what I want but irresponsibly It?s evolution, baby I?m a thief, I?m a liar There?s my church, I sing in the choir: (hallelujah¡ha hallelujah¡ha) Admire me, admire my home Admire my song, admire my clothes ?cause we know, appetite for a nightly feast Those ignorant indians got nothin? on me Nothin?, why? Because, it?s evolution, baby! I am ahead, I am advanced I am the first mammal to make plans, yeah I crawled the earth, but now I?m higher Twenty-ten, watch it go to fire It?s evolution, baby (2x) Do the evolution Come on, come on, come on Pearl Jam - Evolution Everybody sing with me!

11-11-2005, 04:12 AM	#188
reed_4 Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 9,640	Lots of crazy views in here. LoL __________________