Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Where have YOU, a 'science poster' been while these Idiots are Blaring THEIR anti-evo OPs?
I let them blare because their ignorance doesn't offend me. I recognize that acting like an asshole won't benefit science. Their ignorance doesn't excuse your childish behavior. If you actually care about science you should stop using it to berate people that don't see things the way you do.
Thank god I'm not the only athiest who thinks this way. I guess it is to be expected. Atheism as a movement is relatively young, unorganized and by its nature without an orthodoxy. It doesn't yet have a defined positive cause, and very well may never - but it has defined itself so far in what it's against. That might just be all it can be...
Atheism is relatively young? "Atheist" was coined in the 16th Century, but the concept of "there are no gods" goes farther back in time. No one knows how far back, but there are records of atheist-like sentiment dating back to the Vedic Period in India, which was roughly from 1500BC to 500BC. Before that was a pygmy tribe in Africa that held no beliefs.
Right. But like I wrote: atheism as a movement is relatively young.
Epicurus, perhaps a vegetarian, lived an unusually LONG Life for the time. 72 years is nearly the avg span 2300 Years later/now.AFAIK modern atheist thinking started with Epicurus during ancient Greece. Atheists love to quote this man. In the end, God punished him as he died a very painful death of huge kidney stones. Epicurus, during his life, spoke many times about death:
Epicurus said "that death is nothing to us." His basic argument is laid out as follows:
1. Death involves neither pleasure nor pain.
2. The only thing that is bad for us is pain.
Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?
I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.
Not a fact, it is a theory, big difference. And if we descended from an ape, why are there still apes?I've asked the same question a number of times and never got an answer.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a Well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are Not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.
[......]
6. If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?
This surprisingly common argument reflects several levels of Ignorance about evolution. The first mistake is that evolution does Not teach that humans descended from monkeys; it states that both have a common ancestor.
The deeper error is that this objection is tantamount to asking, "If children descended from adults, why are there still adults?" New species evolve by splintering off from established ones, when populations of organisms become isolated from the main branch of their family and acquire sufficient differences to remain forever distinct. The parent species may survive indefinitely thereafter, or it may become extinct.
[.....]
Why sure.Lately we've had a Bimbo Outbreak here, with godists and other klowns starting whacky strings. Virtually all the challenges are answered here briefly.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
When Charles Darwin introduced the theory of evolution through natural selection 143 years ago, the scientists of the day argued over it fiercely, but the massing evidence from paleontology, genetics, zoology, molecular biology and other fields gradually established evolution's truth beyond reasonable doubt. Today that battle has been won everywhere--except in the public imagination.
Embarrassingly, in the 21st century, in the most scientifically advanced nation the world has ever known, creationists can still persuade politicians, judges and ordinary citizens that evolution is a flawed, poorly supported fantasy.
[......]
1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.
Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law. Scientists do not use the terms that way, however. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are not expressing reservations about its truth.
In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.
[......]
Relevent to some recent Kweationist Klownery.
+
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism's DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features. Comparisons of the DNA from a wide variety of organisms indicate that this is how the globin family of blood proteins evolved over millions of years.
11. Natural selection might explain microevolution, but it cannot explain the origin of new species and higher orders of life.
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the model called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.
Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved.
12. Nobody has ever seen a new species evolve.
Speciation is probably fairly rare and in many cases might take centuries. Furthermore, recognizing a new species during a formative stage can be difficult, because biologists sometimes disagree about how best to define a species. The most widely used definition, Mayr's Biological Species Concept, recognizes a species as a distinct community of reproductively isolated populations--sets of organisms that normally do not or cannot breed outside their community. In practice, this standard can be difficult to apply to organisms isolated by distance or terrain or to plants (and, of course, fossils do not breed). Biologists therefore usually use organisms' physical and behavioral traits as clues to their species membership.
Nevertheless, the scientific literature does contain reports of apparent speciation events in plants, insects and worms. In most of these experiments, researchers subjected organisms to various types of selection--for anatomical differences, mating behaviors, habitat preferences and other traits--and found that they had created populations of organisms that did not breed with outsiders. For example, William R. Rice of the University of New Mexico and George W. Salt of the University of California at Davis demonstrated that if they sorted a group of fruit flies by their preference for certain environments and bred those flies separately over 35 generations, the resulting flies would refuse to breed with those from a very different environment.
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 Rodhocetushelped 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 thatArchaeopteryx 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.
[......]
You can believe in the theory of evolution all you want monkey boy....
But I was created
.
Now where did you come up with that bullshit? The dingleberries here challenge the most robust of all the scientific theories. And they are being answered with real science, links to articles showing the proof of evolution, and their only answer is nonsense.Those that use science to bully religious people are just as bad as the religious zealots they so loathe.
The origin of the universe is in the realm of physics. That of Abiogenisis, in chemistry and physics. Evolution only occores after that first life has been come to be. Right now, the problem for those looking for the path of abiogenisis is not lack of possible paths, but the number of possible paths and environments that life can start in.How do you not believe the universe was created? How do you explain the first event that happened? It is really hard to fathom it can come into existence on its own since it had no preceding event before it that caused it. It could be possible that we live in someone's test tube universe that was made by them for whatever reason. Then how do you explain where they came from? There has to be a first in any sequence of events.
OK, show how that is a fact. You can back up your brainless flap yap, right?Evolution is 150 Years old and is more solid than ever.
+
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
solid then ever???????????????????????????????????????????????
ha ha ha ha ha ha
it is crumbling from every site.
ALL current and past fossils/species are 'transitional,' there is either evo or extinction, there is/are no 'final form,' only ongoing adaptation.But yet no transitional fossils
And WHO are these guys, "God's Mistakes".
The very short version.
`
Now you are approaching as dumb as Silly Billy and Frankie Boi.ALL current and past fossils/species are 'transitional,' there is either evo or extinction, there is/are no 'final form,' only ongoing adaptation.But yet no transitional fossils
And WHO are these guys, "God's Mistakes".
The very short version.
`
/---- in your pic, which bathroom did the early Homo use?
ALL current and past fossils/species are 'transitional,' there is either evo or extinction, there is/are no 'final form,' only ongoing adaptation.But yet no transitional fossils
And WHO are these guys, "God's Mistakes".
The very short version.
`
/---- in your pic, which bathroom did the early Homo use?
No, but the OP appears to be.Those that use science to bully religious people are just as bad as the religious zealots they so loathe.
Lol. Telling the truth is not bullying.
/---- The bathroom in our mater bedroom is similar to this but a tad bit smaller. Thanks for asking.ALL current and past fossils/species are 'transitional,' there is either evo or extinction, there is/are no 'final form,' only ongoing adaptation.But yet no transitional fossils
And WHO are these guys, "God's Mistakes".
The very short version.
`
/---- in your pic, which bathroom did the early Homo use?Cellblock ""/---- in your pic, which bathroom did the early Homo use?""
No doubt the same one you Still use.
I didn't "ask", I told./---- The bathroom in our mater bedroom is similar to this but a tad bit smaller. Thanks for asking.
View attachment 125613
