who honestly doesn't believe in evolution?

[geauxtohell]

Show me the fossil record of change. We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.

It doesn't exist.

No skeletal record?!?! What about the evolution of the horse?

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

interesting. A solid record of mutation to be sure.

Whether or not it's macroevolution, I'm still unconvinced. After all, you have zebras, impalas, and all sorts of other dromidaries out there that could be mistaken potentially for ancestors. That's what I'm talking about best guess. We've made lots like this before in science.

Also,

Is this honestly the first time you have seen this?

How can you say there is no evidence to support evolution when you obviously haven't really looked at the evidence?

 

[Big Fitz]

No skeletal record?!?! What about the evolution of the horse?

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

interesting. A solid record of mutation to be sure.

Whether or not it's macroevolution, I'm still unconvinced because there are too many variables to what is really the case. After all, you have zebras, impalas, and all sorts of other dromidaries out there that could be mistaken potentially for ancestors. That's what I'm talking about best guess. We've made lots like this before in science.

Also,

Is this honestly the first time you have seen this?

How can you say there is no evidence to support evolution when you obviously haven't really looked at the evidence?

First time ever. See, I don't waste my time pouring over national geographic looking for meaning between pictures of naked native women. I've got much better things to do with my time.

The OP was a question of opinion. If you want to evangelize, find someone else. I'm not looking to convert to your religion. Cause that's all you're pushing.

 

[geauxtohell]

First time ever. See, I don't waste my time pouring over national geographic looking for meaning between pictures of naked native women. I've got much better things to do with my time.

In other words, you are too intellectually lazy to really look at the evidence that supports evolution and instead choose to "dismiss first, look at later" and with a particularly lame excuse. National Geographic? WTF???

The OP was a question of opinion. If you want to evangelize, find someone else. I'm not looking to convert to your religion. Cause that's all you're pushing.

Of course you would consider any attempt to beat some information into your thick cranium as "evangelizing". You couldn't be bothered to actually consider the facts and data. No wonder you think it's voodoo. Of course, that is your fault and not anyone or anything elses.

 

[antagon]

Show me the fossil record of change. We've no evidence of organs evolving, or skeletal records changing, gradual or radically.

It doesn't exist.

there's plenty to establish all of that, fitz. plenty. but the question remains about what facilitates a barrier to your concept of microevolution from allowing differences to come about which over time might constitute your idea of macro evolution.

from what i understand about biology, there is nothing like that -- no such barrier. if you know otherwise, that could explain why you believe evolution is split like that. if there isn't anything to substantiate a difference between these concepts you endear, maybe there is no difference and your thoughts about microevolution do extend to evolution in the way virtually every biologist believes.

do you have an answer or could you appreciate that there's no such thing as micro and macro evolution?

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner. Look at em try the full court press. You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it. You trust scientists completely. I don't. Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.

I don't give a fuck about your faith.

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner. Look at em try the full court press. You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it. You trust scientists completely. I don't. Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.

I don't give a fuck about your faith.

Full court press on what? No one cares what you personally believe in.

 

[antagon]

Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner. Look at em try the full court press. You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it. You trust scientists completely. I don't. Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.

I don't give a fuck about your faith.

is this really what you think about science?

you've got to admit going from stating that you have a rational stance based on your perception of a lack of evidence presumably because what you believe is supported by evidence.

now i think you've abandoned any interest in truth or evidence, and have contended that studying anything in the pursuit of understanding it is a waste of time -- even paying attention in high school. you've characterized science as being bullshit with pretty charts -- what i would describe as the observations of a total ignoramus. ignorant and reticent to learning at once.

why did you bother holding an opinion based on fact at all, no matter how loosely?

 

[konradv]

Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner. Look at em try the full court press. You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it. You trust scientists completely. I don't. Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.

I don't give a fuck about your faith.

...or logical debate, apparently!

 

[Big Fitz]

Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner. Look at em try the full court press. You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it. You trust scientists completely. I don't. Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.

I don't give a fuck about your faith.

Full court press on what? No one cares what you personally believe in.

Ditto.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

I do believe in micro-evolution. It's been proven quite conclusively it happens. Diseases and insects become immune to all sorts of treatment.

Everyone seemed to ask you "What's the difference between the minor changes you 'believe' in, and multiple small changes in combination to make larger ones?". You have yet to answer this. The term "micro-evolution" is a made up term to distinguish between things which can absolutely not be refuted by even the most ignorant of people, and the rest of the concept, which is actually all the same thing.

I don't believe in macro-evolution. The fish didn't become a frog, or a bird or a dinosaur.

I think the better quote would be "I don't understand macro-evolution", because the example you gave in that quote is NOT evolution. No scientist believes fish became frogs or dinosaurs.

If you want to get really convoluted, consider maybe that the world WAS created by God, and then sin is the source of all mutation and "evolution".

So in other words, this is your personally made up idea of what's going on, with absolutely no supporting evidence. You seem to focus on the idea that evolution is a "belief" or "guess" just like the religious bullshit I just quoted above. The difference, of course, being that the smart people have evidence, and you.... don't. You have make-believe bedtime stories supported only by the hot air between your ears.

The monsters (yes that was an official scientific term once)

When was that? Recently? Few decades ago? Centuries? When was "monsters" a scientific term, exactly?

The reason I'm bringing this up is to point out an underlying theme to your ignorance: you have absolutely NO CLUE what current scientific understanding consists of. You bring up fossils as the end-all evidence, when it hasn't been the case in half a century.

I don't claim the Bible is a scientific document either. I'm just throwing that open for the possibility it's true. For at this point, it has just as much weight as species evolving into another, even somewhat similar, species. No proof, just belief based on what you trust.

Except, that's not true at all. Just because you have a different belief does not mean it is equal in the least. All opinions are not equal. Some are far superior. In this case, evolutionary theory has an overwhelming amount of reproducible genetic evidence, all of which supports evolution, none of which refutes it. The bible theory has absolutely no reproducible evidence, and no further investigation into the physical world can procure any additional information on biblical theory. In short: you have nothing to show, and I have 3 billion base pairs in every human in my support.

First time ever. See, I don't waste my time pouring over national geographic looking for meaning between pictures of naked native women. I've got much better things to do with my time.

So in other words, you have absolutely no knowledge on the topic, decide to form ignorant opinions anyway, and still claim it's equal to our understanding. How silly. How immature. I'm guessing you're still a teenager. By all means, tell me I'm wrong.

In the meantime, it would behoove you to acquire a minuscule amount of knowledge on a topic before entering a conversation about it.

 

[Big Fitz]

Don't have to be an expert to hold an opinion on any subject. Of course, I can see it is not permissible to tolerate anyone differing from YOUR opinion, so just put me in the death camp with the cool people. We'll enjoy ourselves, sing hymns and pray for your souls after you kill us all.

Oh and you can have reciprocal neg rep every time you pop me with your piddly ass 15 points.

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Don't have to be an expert to hold an opinion on any subject.

Oh that's certainly true. But generally you want to have SOME idea of the topic before actually forming an opinion. That's the difference between ignorance and an educated understanding. That "guessing" you refer to is only done by people such as yourself.

So once again I will restate: it would behoove you to acquire a minuscule amount of knowledge on a topic before entering a conversation about it. But as I said before, all opinions are not created equal. Yours, for example, is worthless when it comes to this topic, it seems.

Oh and you can have reciprocal neg rep every time you pop me with your piddly ass 15 points.

Be my guest. Stupidity does not abate just because you reciprocate a neg rep.

Let me know if you'd actually like to learn a bit on the topic. Knowledge might help with that "opinion" you have simmering.

 

[antagon]

nobody's said anything about being an expert, fitz, however, you've demo'd that you have fled from informing yourself on the subject entirely. you've challenged the factual validity of other's knowledge, but not answered challenges to your own. simple questions.

everyone can have an opinion. there's expert opinions and there's willfully ignorant opinions and plenty in between. i dont think there's any cool, willfully ignorant adults, man. there's no moral or spiritual high ground afforded by your willful ignorance either.

 

[Woyzeck]

Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner. Look at em try the full court press. You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it. You trust scientists completely. I don't. Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.

I don't give a fuck about your faith.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs]YouTube - Insane Clown Posse - Miracles[/ame]

I never knew Fitz could write such catchy songs.

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner. Look at em try the full court press. You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it. You trust scientists completely. I don't. Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.

I don't give a fuck about your faith.

Full court press on what? No one cares what you personally believe in.

Ditto.

Obviously you do, or you wouldn't devote so much time to arguing against evolution.

As we are arguing for what the scientific establishment deems to be the most accurate account of the origins of species, we can dismiss your sillyness.

The same is not true for you. You have the burden of proof if you want to disprove or argue against evolution. That is why you spend time making banal posts.

If you really didn't care about evolution, you wouldn't make any posts on it.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Pulling articles from Wikipedia does not make anyone smart.

 

[geauxtohell]

Oh yeah, the priests of evolution think they got a winner. Look at em try the full court press. You still only have best guess, not truth like the rest of it. You trust scientists completely. I don't. Science is full of people blowing smoke up the asses of people and covering with pretty charts graphs and experiments.

I don't give a fuck about your faith.

is this really what you think about science?

you've got to admit going from stating that you have a rational stance based on your perception of a lack of evidence presumably because what you believe is supported by evidence.

now i think you've abandoned any interest in truth or evidence, and have contended that studying anything in the pursuit of understanding it is a waste of time -- even paying attention in high school. you've characterized science as being bullshit with pretty charts -- what i would describe as the observations of a total ignoramus. ignorant and reticent to learning at once.

why did you bother holding an opinion based on fact at all, no matter how loosely?

This is the basic dead-end you run into with most anti-evolution people. Then you realize their objections are not based in any sort of legitimate scientific argument. It's all religious in nature.

Then you realize that you have wasted your time arguing something with someone who will never accept it anyways.

 

[antagon]

Pulling articles from Wikipedia does not make anyone smart.

c'mon. what would you know about smart, frank?

 

[SmarterThanHick]

Pulling articles from Wikipedia does not make anyone smart.

Correct. It's used to support smart arguments in simple language for people such as yourself. If you'd like primary research publications, I'd be happy to share that as well. But my guess is those types of references are above your head.

You let me know how you'd like me to support my claims. I don't mind using Wikipedia as long as people like you can understand it. But really, wikipedia as a supporting source is still better than your supporting source of..... nothing.

 

[geauxtohell]

Pulling articles from Wikipedia does not make anyone smart.

Correct. It's used to support smart arguments in simple language for people such as yourself. If you'd like primary research publications, I'd be happy to share that as well. But my guess is those types of references are above your head.

You let me know how you'd like me to support my claims. I don't mind using Wikipedia as long as people like you can understand it. But really, wikipedia as a supporting source is still better than your supporting source of..... nothing.

The Wiki argument is so lame anyways. If we were talking about academic work, then I'd agree, but it suffices for internet debate.

And if anyone has a problem with the information, they can check out the citations/primary sources.