Flaming Darwin's theory

[Rasori]

I personally think that we humans did not evolve from monkeys (gorillas, whichever it was lol) but that they evolved from us.

Gorillas (I'm assuming that was the one now) do not go around killing each other, and don't destroy their environment. Not only that, but they didn't contribute to the Greenhouse Effect or anything else we've done.

They haven't developed WMD.

They can grab things both with their hands AND their feet! (Obvious plus there!)

And, of course, they can never turn down a perfectly good banana :banana::banana::banana:


Yes, this is mainly a joke. But there is SOME sense to it (cough :bs: cough)

Yes, yes, very very :lame:

What's new? :flame: me, please :-p

[NSX]

Maybe put this in Pseudoscience?

& bananas are tasty

[Rasori]

Evolution- Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Thought it fit here.

[iglak]

here's a :flame::

DAGNABBIT!!! that's wrong!
we did not evolve from monkeys!
the theory of evolution says that monkeys and humans have a common ancestor, meaning that we evolved from the same thing they evoled from. this in no way says that we evolved from monkeys. get your facts straight!

well that was fun, lol

[Rasori]

LOL

[Sayonara³]

I'm prepared to leave this in the Evolution/Morphology forum if you can get a proper debate out of it, but it is teetering on the very edge of the Pseudoscience precipice.

;)

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

In my opinion humans did evolve. Try www.darwinawards.com They are evolution happening!

[elfin vampire]

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2512

[danmoore80]

today’s science is tomorrow’s superstition

[Sayonara³]

That's a broad and fairly meaningless generalisation, well done.

[Radical Edward]

danmoore80 said in post #9 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32153#post32153):
today’s science is tomorrow’s superstition

hence creationism and noahs flood were falsified over 100 years ago. they are now the superstition of which you speak.

[JaKiri]

danmoore80 said in post #9 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32153#post32153):
today’s science is tomorrow’s superstition

I don't see Newton's Laws of Gravitation entering superstition any time soon.

Unless of course you haven't actually understood what you're talking about and just saying something because it sounds good.

Empiricism will only ever arise to more and more precise approximations.

[danmoore80]

Radical Edward said in post #11 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32259#post32259):


hence creationism and noahs flood were falsified over 100 years ago. they are now the superstition of which you speak.

That's funny. Since you are so well edjumacated ;) You would also know, that not one single verse in the Bible i.e. KJV has ever been disproved. Facinating I think for a hoax as you would call it. But the lies Evolutionist have been trying to pass off are continually updated or changed. How then is it that the Bible has lasted so long without needing change? Maybe they were just better liars back then? Please Respond.

[fafalone]

The bible has not been updated because there is no new evidence that support anything it says.

[danmoore80]

weak. So are you agreeing then, that the Bible, thus far, has never been proved wrong?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

He never said that. Noah's flood was proved wrong! faf might say that, but only if he had Rad++++++ on his ignore list.

[danmoore80]

Cap'n Refsmmat said in post #16 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32326#post32326):
He never said that. Noah's flood was proved wrong! faf might say that, but only if he had Rad++++++ on his ignore list.

No. He said that it has not been rewritten becuase there was no new evidence to put in. Not that any had been disproved.


Goodnight and God Bless

[Skye]

The bible has changed with different translations.

Do you mean scientifically dispoven? I hope not.

[danmoore80]

Skye said in post #18 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32329#post32329):
The bible has changed with different translations.

Do you mean scientifically dispoven? I hope not.

Yes. Scientifically.

[Radical Edward]

danmoore80 said in post #13 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32305#post32305):


That's funny. Since you are so well edjumacated ;) You would also know, that not one single verse in the Bible i.e. KJV has ever been disproved. Facinating I think for a hoax as you would call it. But the lies Evolutionist have been trying to pass off are continually updated or changed. How then is it that the Bible has lasted so long without needing change? Maybe they were just better liars back then? Please Respond.

It is true that the KJV has never been "disproved" but that is immaterial.

First of all lack of "disproof" does not make something true. I could claim that Iggy the magical elf (who talks to me in my dreams by the way) is responsible personally for all the forces in nature, and made the entire universe last tuesday. You could not dosprove this. go on - try.

Secondly it depends on your interpretation. Following the basic axiom that true statements cannot have false consequences, one can come to a conclusion as to whether something is true or not. From this we can find a literal interpretation of the KJV to be false in many respects.

[iglak]

Radical Edward said in post #20 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32335#post32335):
I could claim that Iggy the magical elf (who talks to me in my dreams by the way) is responsible personally for all the forces in nature, and made the entire universe last tuesday.
Hey! i am not a magical elf!
i did make the universe last tuesday... but that's not the point!
i, in no way, am an elf!

dang, sorry, the nickname for my fake name is Iggy, i thought i was using that on this forum.

[JaKiri]

danmoore80 said in post #13 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32305#post32305):
that not one single verse in the Bible i.e. KJV has ever been disproved

Hahhahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahhaa

[atinymonkey]

Don't laugh. Only last night I made a woman from one of my ribs, in a 'Weird Science' style experiment. I call her 'Ribby', she looks like Kelly LeBrook.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

atinymonkey said in post #23 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32367#post32367):
Don't laugh. Only last night I made a woman from one of my ribs, in a 'Weird Science' style experiment. I call her 'Ribby', she looks like Kelly LeBrook.
Oooh! Interesting! Post instructions! I wanna do it!

[f0nd004u]

lol and i created a son from my toe. Hes black. Im white.

[YT2095]

danmoore80 said in post #9 (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32153#post32153):
today’s science is tomorrow’s superstition

haven`t you got that a little bit ass backwards?

"weak. So are you agreeing then, that the Bible, thus far, has never been proved wrong?"

indeed a good many points RE: "The Bible" have been proven wrong!
and since the word Bible comes from the word "Biblia" meaning Many Books, I can see how your type get around this argument, and it`s ceratinly NOT by Logic as we understand it to be, it`s more a lesson in semantics, and not a game that many of us are likely to play!
if you want genuine answers, then ask SPECIFIC Questions, else your just wasting everyones time including your own :(
think about it a little :)

[NavajoEverclear]

made the entire universe last tuesday

i like this religion, i will incorporate it into my life.

Dan, if you have faith, don't worry about proof. Would you still have faith if you KNEW all science pointed against your beliefs? If you quickly agree to this, then say BUT-- I CAN proove it----- maybe the values you think drive you to say such things are not as solid as your consciously aware of.

What are your reason's for the beliefs you hold? There is a reason for everything (i think), reason is very important.

By the way, to what extent do you believe that evolutionary theory is false? (evolution is pretty complicated (not in function, but in our capability to identify all factors and stuff) so to absolutely discredit every part of it is illogical.

[danmoore80]

I would agree that to discredit evolution completely would be incorrect. I do believe in a form of "evolution" as it is stated scientifically, and that is microevolution. Microevolution has been proven on many occasion, and I do not have a problem with that. I dont' really like the name, because it has "evoluiton" in it, but that's neither here nor there. On the other hand, Macroevoluiton has no grounds. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am just stating a scientific fact. And for those who say "there is evidence of Macroevolution" look at Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer for proof of such.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

What about all the evidence for macroevolution? There is TONS of evidence. All the fossils. All the organisms that are obviously related to other organisms (so close but yet so far) that they could NOT possibly do it themselves. They must be related somehow.

[danmoore80]

Find and quote any reputable scientist that claims "there are fossils that prove macroevolution"

[Skye]

Find a philosopher to say that proof exists without arbitrary axioms.

[NavajoEverclear]

Do you still have your faith if macroevolution has evidence? Well it does, it's just denial to say not. I don't fully believe in it because of the beliefs i was raised with and i have reasons for deciding keep them (thus have made my OWN beliefs, well as before i had different reasons for belief). Um, here i realize there is no point in this dialouge so nevermind.

[Radical Edward]

danmoore80 said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32613#post32613):
Find and quote any reputable scientist that claims "there are fossils that prove macroevolution"

science does not do proof like that. However many scientists would agree that the fossil record provides overwhelming evidence for evolution. There are a number of transitional series which are very clear.

[JaKiri]

Oh, and don't say 'Why aren't there any transitionary organisms!' because ALL organisms are transitionary organisms.

It's not like it was a bird and then POOF! it's a fish or something.

[atinymonkey]

Why do these people insist on focusing so much of their free time picking apart theories that they don't understand in the vague hope people will suddenly stop believing what they are taught in school and just believe in the contents of there own particular doctrine? Isn't that just a little creepy? Why don't they focus some effort into substanciating there doctrines without referring to 'random theory AF0311'? That's just screaming 'I've got deep emotional conflicts with my own belief system, someone please help me!' .

[NavajoEverclear]

amen

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Well said. I couldn't say it better myself.

[Rasori]

I don't know how this got from wherever it was to here, but my posts seem to lead to insanity quickly...

[Meatros]

danmoore80 said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=32606#post32606):
I would agree that to discredit evolution completely would be incorrect. I do believe in a form of "evolution" as it is stated scientifically, and that is microevolution. Microevolution has been proven on many occasion, and I do not have a problem with that. I dont' really like the name, because it has "evoluiton" in it, but that's neither here nor there. On the other hand, Macroevoluiton has no grounds. I'm not trying to be argumentative, I am just stating a scientific fact. And for those who say "there is evidence of Macroevolution" look at Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer for proof of such.

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

Did...did... you just site Kent Hovind?

.... :lame:

Your credibility, if you have any, has now gone straight to zero.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think Mr Hovind is not regarded highly around here.

[mooeypoo]

Will I look like a *complete* idiot if i ask you to tell me who taht man and why he's not credible?

[MishMish]

I do not spend much listening to creationists and had to look him up.

Do that, and then decide for yourself if the assessment is warranted

[mooeypoo]

Well I will do that out of curiousity, but if he's having anything to do with creationism I don't REALLY think I have to actually look him up to form a general opinion.... :P

thanks, though.

[MishMish]

Mooey:

"Well I will do that out of curiousity, but if he's having anything to do with creationism I don't REALLY think I have to actually look him up to form a general opinion"

And you're going to take my word on it?

The name was unfamiliar to me, to be fair went to his web site, but did not take me long and doubt it would waste much of your time

[Hades]

its insecure people like that doctor who believe that fossils we uncover are just a small selection of gods pottery.
occums razor my friend, when the japanese bombed pearl harbor, we knew they wanted war, not to exchange pleasantries.
if we take a brief look at the most obvious answer, if evolution exists in any form, thus it should be evolution on a planetary scale. Gods 'creations' were perfect in design; wouldnt that mean they could not evolve if they were perfect?

[mooeypoo]

I said i'll look it up, I didn't say i'm going to thrash the person because what you said, give me a TINSY BIT of credit here.

I also said that *if he does have anything to do with creationism* (stress the IF HE DOES part) i don't need to REALLY look it up -- I meant I can just know how valid his "scientific" opinions are.

and Hades - I don't really see what oyu mean here. If god created hiumanity with the option to evolve (which is a fair statement) it's copmletely irrelevant, because it gives me only the tautological answer of "because thats what happened, BECAUSE!!" and nothing more.

If god really created humanity and then "left it alone" to see what happens, you can also call him The Big Bang and explain it by using scientifical thinking.

~moo

[MishMish]

mooeypoo said in post # (http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=41260#post41260):
I said i'll look it up, I didn't say i'm going to thrash the person because what you said, give me a TINSY BIT of credit here.

I also said that *if he does have anything to do with creationism* (stress the IF HE DOES part) i don't need to REALLY look it up -- I meant I can just know how valid his "scientific" opinions are.


Snipped out the part that seems to apply to me

I am giving you credit, if it's me you were addressing, or would not have suggested you look him up yourself. But the phrasing above was ambiguous and I went with the meaning that occurred to me, which was the more rhetorical, and so felt should restate the suggestion

[mooeypoo]

Yeah I got that,I'm sorry about the phrasing, it was late at night and I (appearantly) didn't phrase myself right.

You're right, it wasn't my intentions though.

[MishMish]

Mooey, no problem