No one here knows you personally. We only know you as the guy with really fucked up logic who continually posts asinine articles from questionable sources. For all we know, you just might be crazy. No one here is lying about their perceptions.

10/27/2005 12:15:00 PM

Quote :

"To deny reality is insanity."

self pwnt.

[/thread]

[Edited on October 27, 2005 at 1:27 PM. Reason : yeah]

10/27/2005 1:26:33 PM

Quote :

" If they REALLY believed it, why spend all the time carrying on discussions about issues such as this?"

[/thread]

10/27/2005 9:18:46 PM

When I watch "Republicans" and "Democrats" argue as if there is a difference anymore (special interests, corporate-gov't revolving door) I fail to believe in the theory of HUMAN evolution.

10/27/2005 9:51:06 PM

Emo checks in Entertainment, not Soap Box.

10/27/2005 10:11:56 PM

bttt

read page 1 where there is an interesting article from Scientific American

10/28/2005 4:09:26 PM

yes that was quite an interesting article. everyone should read it.

10/28/2005 4:14:44 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, and I'm sure they'll be crying themselves to sleep that you "don't take them seriously." It hurts to have delusional people who think monkeys turn into humans feel that way about you. "

you fucking idiot

delusion= unfounded belief

the entire evolutionaly picture we have is based on fossil evidence

why is that all these zealots present evolution as it's own form of belief or faith; it is a lack of belief or faith, nothing more

do us all a favor and take a time machine back to the dark ages, live there where you belong, and hopefully get disemboweled for sorcery or something

10/31/2005 2:34:28 AM

Quote :

"the entire evolutionaly picture we have is based on fossil evidence"

What fossil evidence? The "transitional" fossils THAT DO NOT EXIST?


Even this evolution theory promoter (a University of Pittsburgh anthropology professor) admits that no transitional fossils have been discovered...

http://www.post-gazette.com/books/reviews/19991212review395.asp

Quote :

"Sudden Origins : Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species' by Jeffrey H. Schwartz Jeffrey Schwartz, a University of Pittsburgh anthropology professor, has written a book that will challenge -- even overwhelm -- its readers with a wealth of detail. Yet if they can stay the course, they will be rewarded with a thought-provoking new view of the history of life. [...] A recurring theme in that conversation is one that creation scientists often seize upon. If life evolves gradually, where are all the “missing links”? Although that term conjures images of “ape-men,” the challenge to the theory is much more serious than that. The fossil record is riddled with gaps. [...] “Given the potential of homeobox genes to be fully rather than partially expressed,” Schwartz concludes, “we can appreciate why ‘missing links’ are so elusive in the fossil record. They probably did not exist.""

You see, these evolutionists must constantly come up with new theories, once their old ones become obsolete and unsupported by real evidence....eg, after the "evidence" supporting the old theories is exposed as phony and completely fabricated (like the fake human embryo drawings, the pildown man hoax, the java man hoax, etc.).


[Edited on October 31, 2005 at 10:49 AM. Reason : 4]

10/31/2005 10:38:01 AM

Quote :

"“Evolution is not a theory,” argues Schwartz. “It is a phenomenon. What evolutionists … strive to understand are the processes that make evolution tick. This is not an easy task, because evolutionary events occur over greater periods of time than any scientist, or generations of scientists, could observe.” Without taking on so-called “creation science” directly, Schwartz demonstrates that evolutionary theory is itself evolving, as all good scientific theories do in the face of new knowledge. What creation scientists cite as the theory’s weaknesses, Schwartz presents as its strengths."

The "crap" from Scientific American posted on page one (which you refuse to read) actually covered that.

Quote :

"13. Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils--creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance. Actually, paleontologists know of many detailed examples of fossils intermediate in form between various taxonomic groups. One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs. A flock's worth of other feathered fossil species, some more avian and some less, has also been found. A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. Whales had four-legged ancestors that walked on land, and creatures known as Ambulocetus and Rodhocetus helped to make that transition [see "The Mammals That Conquered the Seas," by Kate Wong; SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN, May]. Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. Perhaps 20 or more hominids (not all of them our ancestors) fill the gap between Lucy the australopithecine and modern humans. Creationists, though, dismiss these fossil studies. They argue that Archaeopteryx is not a missing link between reptiles and birds--it is just an extinct bird with reptilian features. They want evolutionists to produce a weird, chimeric monster that cannot be classified as belonging to any known group. Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record. Nevertheless, evolutionists can cite further supportive evidence from molecular biology. All organisms share most of the same genes, but as evolution predicts, the structures of these genes and their products diverge among species, in keeping with their evolutionary relationships. Geneticists speak of the "molecular clock" that records the passage of time. These molecular data also show how various organisms are transitional within evolution."

10/31/2005 11:58:58 AM

and I repeat

Quote :

"ARE YOU FUCKING RETARDED? IF I HAD OFFSPRING AND WE BOTH DIED, WOULD YOU EXPECT THERE TO BE TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS BETWEEN US?"

Quote :

"Even if a creationist does accept a fossil as transitional between two species, he or she may then insist on seeing other fossils intermediate between it and the first two. These frustrating requests can proceed ad infinitum and place an unreasonable burden on the always incomplete fossil record."

10/31/2005 12:44:38 PM

Quote :

"What fossil evidence? The "transitional" fossils THAT DO NOT EXIST?"

Quote :

"To deny reality is insanity"

[Edited on October 31, 2005 at 1:04 PM. Reason : lol]

10/31/2005 1:03:57 PM

Quote :

"“Given the potential of homeobox genes to be fully rather than partially expressed,” Schwartz concludes, “we can appreciate why ‘missing links’ are so elusive in the fossil record. They probably did not exist.""

10/31/2005 1:06:03 PM

Quote :

"To deny reality is insanity"

10/31/2005 1:07:06 PM

Problem of the discontinuous mind.

This thread reeks of biological misunderstanding on both sides.

10/31/2005 5:48:16 PM

Quote :

"Most Americans do not accept the theory of evolution. Instead, 51 percent of Americans say God created humans in their present form, and another three in 10 say that while humans evolved, God guided the process. Just 15 percent say humans evolved, and that God was not involved."

the theory of evolution doesnt speculate on if god guided the process or if god was involved

so this poll is meaningless.

evolution states: variation and selection led to speciation


SHOW WHERE GOD HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION


on a side;

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ABSENCE


you can have all the conspiracy theories you want, but SCIENCE CANNOT BE CONSPIRED AGAINST
we have peer reviewed journals. you cant fake that shit becuase all the experts independantly check eachother. constantly. on record. in journals with real titles that dont include site links to prison-planet.com


[Edited on October 31, 2005 at 5:55 PM. Reason : -]

10/31/2005 5:52:06 PM

Quote :

"And usually, when people talk about this theory of macro-evolution, they assume or believe that no higher power was involved and that this process of "mutation" and forming complex organic beings from non-complex inorganic matter happned purely by chance due to nothing but passage of time."

this is the reason why you will burn in hell

YOU PERVERT THE DEBATE ASSHOLE

1.evolution states: selection+variation=speciation

2.nowhere in the thoery of evolution is god mentioned.

3.do you see the word god in 1?

4.i dont. do some people? yes. does the scienific theory? no

5.was it an accident? i dont know. maybe. yes. no. does it matter? no!!!! either way, speciation still occured and could have occured having made the assumptions of an involved/uninvolved creator

i cant dumb it down for you anymore.



STOP SAYING WHAT 'THEY' BELIEVE.

YOU DONT KNOW WHAT 'THEY' BELIEVE SANS THE BULLSHIT YOU READ ON THE INTERNET

ACTUALLY TAKE A BIOLOGY COURSE


[Edited on October 31, 2005 at 6:00 PM. Reason : -]

10/31/2005 5:58:08 PM

Quote :

""Sudden Origins : Fossils, Genes, and the Emergence of Species' by Jeffrey H. Schwartz Jeffrey Schwartz, a University of Pittsburgh anthropology professor, has written a book that will challenge -- even overwhelm -- its readers with a wealth of detail. Yet if they can stay the course, they will be rewarded with a thought-provoking new view of the history of life. [...] A recurring theme in that conversation is one that creation scientists often seize upon. If life evolves gradually, where are all the “missing links”? Although that term conjures images of “ape-men,” the challenge to the theory is much more serious than that. The fossil record is riddled with gaps. [...] “Given the potential of homeobox genes to be fully rather than partially expressed,” Schwartz concludes, “we can appreciate why ‘missing links’ are so elusive in the fossil record. They probably did not exist."""

hahahaha that makes a whole alot of fucking sense

by that logic since we haven't discovered how to travel at the speed of light yet lets just throw out our concept of gravity...hey lets just forget physics all together

10/31/2005 11:06:57 PM

^ every thread its the same thing

person A says X, therefor its true. he just doesnt understand the communal nature of science.

11/1/2005 3:57:12 AM

yeah

science is not dictated on a pulpit upon high

we're talking about god damn REASON here

11/1/2005 9:41:39 AM

Quote :

"science is not dictated on a pulpit upon high"

Is that sarcasm?

11/1/2005 10:42:25 AM

12/1/2005 3:56:54 PM