I want some answers

[dilloduck]

if not for several cultures of religious dogma you would not be a pompous ass

Hang on ----he's gonna explain the cause of humanity for us here in just a sec.

 

[Gunny]

Your opinion, and there's nothing to refute but your opinion. The scientific method has done more to advance the cause of humanity than prayerful and pious adherence to religious dogma. History bears this out. Dismissed.

The scientifc method when supported by evidence has no play in this. Scientific conjecture based on the agenda of whoever is doing the guessing IS what is being discussed.

I make no absolute claims regarding my beliefs except that they are mine. You on the other hand are attempting to pass off conjecture as absolute. Not in this life.

The statement is simple ..... there is no more evidence to support scientifc theories of origin than there is to support ID. If your statement above is supposed to be some form of refutation, you have failed dismally, and it is YOU who are dismissed.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Your opinion, and there's nothing to refute but your opinion. The scientific method has done more to advance the cause of humanity than prayerful and pious adherence to religious dogma. History bears this out. Dismissed.

religous dodma and science are in the same boat. Humans will use both to advance mankind, and to hurt mankind.

I mean, as for science, the gun, the blade, advancement of metals, nuclear bombs, tanks, all the weapons of war,,,and enviormental destruction....

 

[Bullypulpit]

religous dodma and science are in the same boat. Humans will use both to advance mankind, and to hurt mankind.

I mean, as for science, the gun, the blade, advancement of metals, nuclear bombs, tanks, all the weapons of war,,,and enviormental destruction....

Anything can be used to benefit humankind, or misused to its detriment. It all depends on one's moral foundations.

 

[manu1959]

Anything can be used to benefit humankind, or misused to its detriment. It all depends on one's moral foundations.

the founding fathers committed treason and were latter day terrorists...the morays of the day say they were way out of bounds….what say yee?

 

[Bullypulpit]

the founding fathers committed treason and were latter day terrorists...the morays of the day say they were way out of bounds….what say yee?

They were right.

 

[manu1959]

They were right.

who is they in your head?

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

No, I don't think I do.

I'll say this though, you CAN'T prove ID and neither can someone else prove evolution to be 100% correct. If we accept that no one really knows, for sure, based on FACT, maybe we can look for the answers and stop this I'm right you're wrong BS. It goes nowhere.

I said NOTHING about I'm-right-your-wrong. By the way, we CAN'T accept that "no one really knows" because some people really DO know. I went to the trouble of listing a bunch of examples how there's no way in hell that Evo. could have happened judging by the fossil record. The facts are right there for anyone who's not shitfaced on his/her lefty viewpoint to see!!! It's weird how nobody's admitted, for example, that "missing links" are totally non-existent. If animals have really been around for umpteen billion years like they say, we should be up to our eyeballs in partially-evolved fossils. We shouldn't even be able to dig a two-foot hole anywhere on earth without running into those fossils.

And, if the fossils were slowly buried over millions of years, how is it that they are intact?? I've seen a dead kitten that took about two days to completely rot away except for a few moldy bones. Millions of years my ass!!!!!! Try a few minutes and add floodwater and silt!!

 

[Bullypulpit]

who is they in your head?

Don't be obtuse.The Founding Fathers. Besides I only do what the voices in my head tell me. :teeth:

 

[Gunny]

Don't be obtuse.The Founding Fathers. Besides I only do what the voices in my head tell me. :teeth:

Finally said something I can agree with.

 

[MissileMan]

I said NOTHING about I'm-right-your-wrong. By the way, we CAN'T accept that "no one really knows" because some people really DO know. I went to the trouble of listing a bunch of examples how there's no way in hell that Evo. could have happened judging by the fossil record. The facts are right there for anyone who's not shitfaced on his/her lefty viewpoint to see!!! It's weird how nobody's admitted, for example, that "missing links" are totally non-existent. If animals have really been around for umpteen billion years like they say, we should be up to our eyeballs in partially-evolved fossils. We shouldn't even be able to dig a two-foot hole anywhere on earth without running into those fossils.

And, if the fossils were slowly buried over millions of years, how is it that they are intact?? I've seen a dead kitten that took about two days to completely rot away except for a few moldy bones. Millions of years my ass!!!!!! Try a few minutes and add floodwater and silt!!

Intermediary species would be very low in number, due to their being unsuccessful. It takes a very special set of circumstances to create a fossil, so the odds are unfavorable to wind up with one for a low population species.

BTW, buried for millions of years does not equal buried over millions of years.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Intermediary species would be very low in number, due to their being unsuccessful. It takes a very special set of circumstances to create a fossil, so the odds are unfavorable to wind up with one for a low population species.

BTW, buried for millions of years does not equal buried over millions of years.

Hmmm

so species A developes into species B, then C, then D, then F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N

and so on. Ok, now species A, has lots of fossile records, then species K also has lots of fossils, now you say the intermediate species were unsucessful, then why would species A have become species B, if B were inferior to A, as you say?

And also, when your "theory" comes up lacking "proof" you just respond with reasons why its not there? Any reason its not there is irrelevant,, if the proof isnt there, it isnt there, sorry charlie

and you failed to respond to the rest of E. within's post.

 

[MissileMan]

Hmmm

so species A developes into species B, then C, then D, then F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N

and so on. Ok, now species A, has lots of fossile records, then species K also has lots of fossils, now you say the intermediate species were unsucessful, then why would species A have become species B, if B were inferior to A, as you say?

There could be several reasons why some of species A evolved into B. Isolation due to a geographical event or climate change are two I can come up with off the top of my head. The Bs evolve into C, D, E, etc until a succesful variant K, finds it's niche. The original As are still chugging along successfully, and now a distantly related K also increases in population.

And also, when your "theory" comes up lacking "proof" you just respond with reasons why its not there? Any reason its not there is irrelevant,, if the proof isnt there, it isnt there, sorry charlie

You mean like the proof of a creator? Apology accepted!

and you failed to respond to the rest of E. within's post.

Umm, ok... I'm not shit-faced, isotopical dating has dated fossils to tens of millions of years old, and there's no way a kitten totally decomposed in 2 days. Did I miss any other pointless ramblings of E. within's?

 

[Powerman]

Hmmm

so species A developes into species B, then C, then D, then F,G,H,I,J,K,L,M,N

and so on. Ok, now species A, has lots of fossile records, then species K also has lots of fossils, now you say the intermediate species were unsucessful, then why would species A have become species B, if B were inferior to A, as you say?

And also, when your "theory" comes up lacking "proof" you just respond with reasons why its not there? Any reason its not there is irrelevant,, if the proof isnt there, it isnt there, sorry charlie

and you failed to respond to the rest of E. within's post.

I'm not reading through all of this bullshit in the thread...
BUT if Missle claims that a species is 'inferior' to the species before the previous then he is mistaken. The new species is always going to be superior to the previous if the chain of evolution is to survive. In your example species 'K' would be much more elite than species 'A'

I don't know how any rational person can claim that the transitional species were 'unsuccessful when they were clearly just doing their part.

To believe that a transitional species is unsuccessful is the mother of all stupid ideas. If there ever existed a transitional species it would have to be successful just for the fact that it evolved to keep the species alive...

 

[MissileMan]

I'm not reading through all of this bullshit in the thread...
BUT if Missle claims that a species is 'inferior' to the species before the previous then he is mistaken. The new species is always going to be superior to the previous if the chain of evolution is to survive. In your example species 'K' would be much more elite than species 'A'

I don't know how any rational person can claim that the transitional species were 'unsuccessful when they were clearly just doing their part.

To believe that a transitional species is unsuccessful is the mother of all stupid ideas. If there ever existed a transitional species it would have to be successful just for the fact that it evolved to keep the species alive...

I guess you and I are going to disagree on this one, then again, maybe we just aren't using the term successful in the same way. I am saying that it makes sense that "missing links" were unsuccessful, otherwise their populations would have been higher. In order for the line to survive, additional adaptations had to occur.

 

[Powerman]

I guess you and I are going to disagree on this one, then again, maybe we just aren't using the term successful in the same way. I am saying that it makes sense that "missing links" were unsuccessful, otherwise their populations would have been higher. In order for the line to survive, additional adaptations had to occur.

Well over a long enough time period, I believe that no group is successful. If a group evolves then it is successful for paving the way of future generations.

Just for a dumbass analogy....

Let's say that we have a group of animals let's call group A...over time they develop into group B and then into group C through evolution. You could argue that they were not successful but I believe that they were very successful in the fact that they adapted when needed to spawn new groups.

Take another example where you just have group A that never changes and eventually becomes extinct. Even if they survived longer than our original group A they were less successful in the long run because they couldn't spawn new groups and descendents.

Maybe we're just on a different wavelength here but I don't see how you could look at something as not successful because it evolves. To me it has some elite survival trait within it that allows it to adapt for maximum group longevity.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

There could be several reasons why some of species A evolved into B. Isolation due to a geographical event or climate change are two I can come up with off the top of my head. The Bs evolve into C, D, E, etc until a succesful variant K, finds it's niche. The original As are still chugging along successfully, and now a distantly related K also increases in population. ?

So, now you are going to try to get us to accept (without proof once again) the idea that each and every species somehow conveniently went through what you just described. I mean, virtually every time specization occured, which was thousands upon thousands(?) of times, this little A found its own niche, BCDE and so on evolved into K, and K was superior, but the superior species BCDE and so on, all failed because they didnt find a niche like the inferior A did. EVERY TIME???? Now, tack that onto irreducable complexity, TWICE, the fossil record problems E W presented, and I would say your "beliefs" are stretching a bit further than mine.

You mean like the proof of a creator? Apology accepted!?

Ahhh, I get it. So, for me to believe without proof is silly and unscientific, but since I believe that way, its ok for you too, but your belief without proof is somehow scientific???

Umm, ok... I'm not shit-faced, isotopical dating has dated fossils to tens of millions of years old, and there's no way a kitten totally decomposed in 2 days. Did I miss any other pointless ramblings of E. within's?

considering he didnt have any pointless ramblings (yes, thats what one likes to think of their opponent when they have squeezed them into a corner) I think you should go and re read his post. He did mention some things like some fossils that are suppose to be older found ON TOP of other fossils that are suppose to be younger? Yea, I know you "scientific" types think actual factual information that doesnt fit into your theory is "rambling unscientific", but apparently what has become scientific in the minds of some is anything that supports evolution, and anything that doesnt automatically is labeled unscientific.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Well over a long enough time period, I believe that no group is successful. If a group evolves then it is successful for paving the way of future generations.

Just for a dumbass analogy.....

SO I see, the anti God gang has evolved into using dumb ass analogies . Doesnt seem like evolution is going in the forward direction there, yet another proof that evolution is bogus

Let's say that we have a group of animals let's call group A...over time they develop into group B and then into group C through evolution. You could argue that they were not successful but I believe that they were very successful in the fact that they adapted when needed to spawn new groups.

Take another example where you just have group A that never changes and eventually becomes extinct. Even if they survived longer than our original group A they were less successful in the long run because they couldn't spawn new groups and descendents.

Maybe we're just on a different wavelength here but I don't see how you could look at something as not successful because it evolves. To me it has some elite survival trait within it that allows it to adapt for maximum group longevity.

The problem with your analogy, (which I dont find dumbass at all, in fact, I like it,,,except.....)

seriously,,step back and look at this without bias if you could. You are thinking up this analogy and putting adjectives in it from a CREATORS point of view.

If you are building a house, then some of the failures along the way are ok if they helped in the overall "PLAN", but without an overall plan, every single individual act, species and issue is completely independent. Survival of the fittest is "THE FITTEST" not "The fittest species" or "line of species". Species A could give a rats ass what is going to happen to the overall plan, evolution only accounts for one thing, SURVIVAL of INDIVIDUAL A, much less species A. In fact, I would argue reproduction is contrary to evolution, because it depeletes the individuals ability to survive longer.

By bringing in the concept that species A helped species K evolve, you have immediately introduced a creator.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I don't know how any rational person can claim that the transitional species were 'unsuccessful when they were clearly just doing their part.

To believe that a transitional species is unsuccessful is the mother of all stupid ideas. If there ever existed a transitional species it would have to be successful just for the fact that it evolved to keep the species alive...

So it sounds like you two are arguing amongst yourselves? So, the factual evolution has some unanswered questions??? OH MY !!!

In the concept of survival of the fittest, the individual would have no reason to want to keep the species alive. The individual that is stronger and better adapted wouldnt be wasting time and energy bringing up offspring.

 

[Powerman]

So it sounds like you two are arguing amongst yourselves? So, the factual evolution has some unanswered questions??? OH MY !!!

In the concept of survival of the fittest, the individual would have no reason to want to keep the species alive. The individual that is stronger and better adapted wouldnt be wasting time and energy bringing up offspring.

LOL I just hope for our sake you don't waste any time or energy bringing up offspring.