dilloduck
Diamond Member
manu1959 said: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.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
manu1959 said:if not for several cultures of religious dogma you would not be a pompous ass
Bullypulpit said: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.
Bullypulpit said: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.
LuvRPgrl said: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 said:Anything can be used to benefit humankind, or misused to its detriment. It all depends on one's moral foundations.
manu1959 said:the founding fathers committed treason and were latter day terrorists...the morays of the day say they were way out of boundsÂ….what say yee?
Bullypulpit said:They were right.
Mr. P said: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.
manu1959 said:who is they in your head?
Bullypulpit said:Don't be obtuse.The Founding Fathers. Besides I only do what the voices in my head tell me. :teeth:
TheEnemyWithin said: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!!
HmmmMissileMan said: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.
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.LuvRPgrl said: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?
LuvRPgrl said: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
LuvRPgrl said:and you failed to respond to the rest of E. within's post.
LuvRPgrl said: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.
Powerman said: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 said: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.
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.MissileMan said: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. ?
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???MissileMan said:You mean like the proof of a creator? Apology accepted!?
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.MissileMan said: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 said: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.....
The problem with your analogy, (which I dont find dumbass at all, in fact, I like it,,,except.....)Powerman said: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.
Powerman said: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...
LuvRPgrl said: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.