Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Yeah it's already been discussed how inappropriate it would be to include religion in a scientific curriculum. What's the point of this post?

In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence.

Bicnarok it's apparent you have a poor understanding of evolution considering that was the same arguement that JIA had. Concerning humans, we did not evolve from apes, we evolved from a common ancestor. lol noob.

This thread is intended to address if and how creationism can be a threat to human rights.

It can be a threat to a human's right to learn without bias imo. Creationism is not a scientific concept, it only pretends to be. I'm not saying that creationism shouldn't be taught in schools, I'm just saying it should be kept in the Theology classes.

I completely agree,it should not be taught in any classroom

I cant believe creationism would even be considered being tought in science classrooms, its just insane. Science deals with FACTS obtained from DATA. Not wishy washy ideas thought up thousands of years ago. If they want to teach it in school, then put it in a religious education lesson.

Also, not everyone in schools are christians, so why should this crap be shoved down their throughts?

^ The title of this thread is ridiculous.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
^ The title of this thread is ridiculous.


How is the titel ridiculous ? Storm has a valid point.

This thread repesents the constant oversimplification of these issues.

Creationism is not a threat to human rights.

Teaching creationism in public schools as a scientific theory violates freedom of religion clauses and the speration of church and state.

Oddly enough, humanism permeates the atmosphere of public education.

Hmm.

Oh, and saying that creationism is a threat to human rights is like saying that evolution is a threat to national security.

Originally posted by FeceMan
Oddly enough, humanism permeates the atmosphere of public education.

Part of that false-perception comes from that public education must respect all faiths by supporting none.

Not to mention "humanism" is the "absence of faith" is a pretty narrow view of the philosophy.

I was watching a program on this. Is it true that Creationists believe that the world was created in 7 days?

Originally posted by Alfheim
I was watching a program on this. Is it true that Creationists believe that the world was created in 7 days?
The entire universe was created by the God in 6 days.

Comparative Religions taught in schools isn't a bad thing as long as it's taught from a neutral objective.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
The entire universe was created by the God in 6 days.

Well this is the problem. As another Christian was saying you have people who interpret the Bible the wrong way. If you wanted to you could say that the Universe was created in 6 stages not days. As the other Christian put it, you could blantantly see that the whole point of the creation story is that it was supposed to be metaphorical.

All you have is a bunch of "facist" Christians trying to force their messed up intpretation of the Bible down peoples throats.

Originally posted by Alfheim
I was watching a program on this. Is it true that Creationists believe that the world was created in 7 days?

Some views of CREATION are the 7 day versions. Some are not. Creationism is much more than believing in creation.

Technically shouldn't it be six days to create everything, excluding the one day of rest.

"Human evolved from apes." strawman. Lawl.

The day of rest was very important.

Shut up, Jackie.

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
That is not a fact.And should not be taught in school as a fact.jm

I agree. Creationsim is not a fact and should not be taught as one.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Shut up, Jackie.

Why should this even be considered? I remember learning about this stuff in religious and moral education but to teach it in a science class is just plain stupid. It is centred around religion and has not one single credible bit of proof to say it can be taught in a science classroom, you know that subject that deals with facts and things that can be tested and analyzed. I can just imagine it now.
"right kids today we are going to learn about creationism",
"whats that?"
"Basically its the theory that god created the universe the earth and all life we see here today"
"How do you know that sir?"
"I don't its just a theory created by bitter religious nuts with not the slightest bit of credible proof backing it and to down play evolution."

Yea here is a great idea, lets teach our kids lies. Great way to progress as a species isnt it.

Originally posted by Magee
"How do you know that sir?"
124,000 Prophets and 5 Books have backed the theory of Creationism. That is more then enough evidence to support a single theory.

Originally posted by Magee
"I don't its just a theory created by bitter religious nuts with not the slightest bit of credible proof backing it and to down play evolution."
Theory of Evolution was presented by Darwin, who was an atheist. He made an assumption based on skeletal remains of some ancient creatures and tried to establish a link among all the life forms based on that assumption. But the problem is that we have yet to see Evolution happening in our times to fully believe in his theory.

Those prophets came in much earlier times and it shows that theory of Creationism is far older and supported by many people. And the surprising thing to note is that all those prophets believed in existance of a single God.

Q: So were they all mad? There was no valid reason for all of them to be mad and some of them were great scholars and are considered to be among the best educators to mankind.

Q: Were they chosen by the God himself to promote the truth? Maybe.

Originally posted by Magee
Yea here is a great idea, lets teach our kids lies. Great way to progress as a species isnt it.
Theory of Evolution also have lots of holes and flaws in it.

Umm last time I heard, Darwin came up with the idea of Natural Selection by observing finches in the Galapagos Islands. *cough* microevolution *cough*

Edit: The difference between creationism being a theory and evolution being a theory: evolution is a scientific theory

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Umm last time I heard, Darwin came up with the idea of Natural Selection by observing finches in the Galapagos Islands. *cough* microevolution *cough*

Edit: The difference between creationism being a theory and evolution being a theory: evolution is a scientific theory

Also, Evolution can be proved wrong, but Christians can't let Creationism be disproved.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Theory of Evolution also have lots of holes and flaws in it.


The Theory of Creationism has absolutely no evidense to back it up what so ever. There is no science or history behind it. The mythological words of generations of story tellers is not evidense.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
124,000 Prophets and 5 Books have backed the theory of Creationism. That is more then enough evidence to support a single theory.


Theory of Evolution was presented by Darwin, who was an atheist. He made an assumption based on skeletal remains of some ancient creatures and tried to establish a link among all the life forms based on that assumption. But the problem is that we have yet to see Evolution happening in our times to fully believe in his theory.

Those prophets came in much earlier times and it shows that theory of Creationism is far older and supported by many people. And the surprising thing to note is that all those prophets believed in existance of a single God.

Q: So were they all mad? There was no valid reason for all of them to be mad and some of them were great scholars and are considered to be among the best educators to mankind.

Q: Were they chosen by the God himself to promote the truth? Maybe.


Theory of Evolution also have lots of holes and flaws in it.

Would you rather have Hippocrates or House treat your illness?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Would you rather have Hippocrates or House treat your illness?


I hope he understands your analogy .

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
I hope he understands your analogy . I hope he doesn't so I can make more fun of him.

Why can't people get past Darwin when it comes to evolution? That's like saying cartoons started to go down hill since the 30's. It's not like evolution was realized in the 1850's and no one has contributed to it since.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Theory.
Please don't confuse "Scientific Theory" with "Cockamanie Theory." Perhaps you've heard of Newton's Theory of Gravity?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
of Evolution was presented by Darwin, who was an atheist.
Darwin was never really an athiest. he lost faith and became more deist after his daughter died.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
He made an assumption based on skeletal remains of some ancient creatures and tried to establish a link among all the life forms based on that assumption. But the problem is that we have yet to see Evolution happening in our times to fully believe in his theory.

Darwin did not use skeletal remains...he mainly used finches and barnacles. Evolution is observable. If youre expecting a lizard to turn into a dog, you'll never see it, nor did it probably ever happen.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Those prophets came in much earlier times and it shows that theory of Creationism is far older and supported by many people. And the surprising thing to note is that all those prophets believed in existance of a single God.
Not all the Christian prophets believed in one god....and you're unfairly discounting the millions of phrophets of other religions.

They also thought the world was flat and held up in the corners by for pillars, as the Bible tells us. Clearly older is better.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Q: So were they all mad? There was no valid reason for all of them to be mad and some of them were great scholars and are considered to be among the best educators to mankind.


What shape is the Earth? is it round? how do you know that? Have tou travelled the earth? No.

You simply THINK it is round because thats what everyone has told you...because thats what they were told Fake organizations like NASA publish fake pictures of the Earth just to reinforce this view. People will think the Earth is round for millenia...its a modern travesty.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Q: Were they chosen by the God himself to promote the truth? Maybe.
Perhaps Darwin, Huxley, Mendel, Dobzhansky, Morgan, Mayr, Haldane, Simpson, Fischer, and Woese were put here by God to promote the truth?

How can you deny the observable truth of God's creation?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Theory of Evolution also have lots of holes and flaws in it. "lots" meaning "some"...none of which can be answered by any other theory.

Originally posted by Devil King
Why can't people get past Darwin when it comes to evolution? That's like saying cartoons started to go down hill since the 30's. It's not like evolution was realized in the 1850's and no one has contributed to it since.

Because they don't even know what they're arguing about.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The Theory of Creationism has absolutely no evidense to back it up what so ever.
It is however mentioned in the 5 Books of Faith. To believe in it, having faith is the first step.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
There is no science or history behind it.
History is behind it.

Check this quote again: 124,000 Prophets and 5 Books have backed the theory of Creationism.

Regarding Science! What kind of scientific evidence do you want to see to believe in Creationism? All life forms can reproduce life through Sexual means or A-sexually.

So we do not need to see God himself showing us that how he creates life.

Originally posted by Goddess Kali
The mythological words of generations of story tellers is not evidense.
Some of those story tellers were great scholars and are considered to be among the best educators to mankind.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
It is however mentioned in the 5 Books of Faith. To believe in it, having faith is the first step.


History is behind it.

Check this quote again: 124,000 Prophets and 5 Books have backed the theory of Creationism.

Regarding Science! What kind of scientific evidence do you want to see to believe in Creationism? All life forms can reproduce life through Sexual means or A-sexually.

So we do not need to see God himself showing us that how he creates life.


Some of those story tellers were great scholars and are considered to be among the best educators to mankind.

Why does there have to be a point of Creation? If God has always been, then why not the universe. I believe that the Universe is part of God and eternal.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Would you rather have Hippocrates or House treat your illness?
Totally irrelevant comment. Stick to the topic next time.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I hope he doesn't so I can make more fun of him.
I know how to handle people like you. I will advice you to stay civil for your own good.

LMAO, I'm sure he's quaking in his stylish yet affordable boots.

Originally posted by Alliance
Please don't confuse "Scientific Theory" with "Cockamanie Theory." Perhaps you've heard of Newton's Theory of Gravity?
Can you explain to me in short words that how Theory of Evolution is purely "scientific" in nature?

Originally posted by Alliance
Darwin was never really an athiest. he lost faith and became more deist after his daughter died.
His views show that he was not a man of faith.

Originally posted by Alliance
Darwin did not use skeletal remains...he mainly used finches and barnacles.
WOW! I never realized that he was this stupid.

Regarding finches: There are at-least 12 identified species of this bird.

Take a look at this PIC of Darwin's Click!

It only shows different species of the same bird and nothing else. Darwin sought these specimens for observation and made an assumption that somehow these different species could have been formed from a small number of common ancestors so that each was modified to suit "different ends" or "habitats".

Now who are the supposed ancestors of this bird? And how can you prove to me that these birds evolved from those prehistoric birds?

Yeah right! Now comes the concept of examinig the skeletal remains of some ancient birds that are dead and make claims that they are ancestors of these birds.

Regarding Barnacles: Several of species of this creature have been identified and each species demonstrate different habitats. Now the problem is that Barnacles remain Barnacles. We do not see them evolving in to more advanced life forms.

Or do they according to Darwin!

Originally posted by Alliance
Evolution is observable.
Show me one live example of an animal that is currently evolving in to a different and better animal.

Originally posted by Alliance If youre expecting a lizard to turn into a dog, you'll never see it, nor did it probably ever happen.
Do you think that I am stupid? I never said that a Lizard will evolve in to a Dog. However I would like to see a Lizard evolving in to a more advanced Lizard during it's life.

Originally posted by Alliance
Not all the Christian prophets believed in one god....and you're unfairly discounting the millions of phrophets of other religions.
All the 124,000 Prophets have believed in on true God. Who are these millions of Prophets of other religions?

Originally posted by Alliance
They also thought the world was flat and held up in the corners by for pillars, as the Bible tells us. Clearly older is better.
Which known Prophet have said this? Do not provide me citations from the New Testament because it is no longer reliable.

Originally posted by Alliance


What shape is the Earth? is it round? how do you know that? Have tou travelled the earth? No.
Tell me one thing. Thousands of years ago, man lacked the means to travel accross the globe to observe the entire world. So people came up with an assumption that the world is perhaps FLAT. But when some people built some big ships and sailed in the oceans for days, they discovered that they never fall. Thus throught this fact, they started believing that the Earth is not flat but round.

The case of Theory of Evolution is also similar. Darwin observed different species of some animals and made an assumption that they might have evolved from a few ancestors. The evidence being shown are the skeletal remains of dead ancient or prehistoric animals who are the supposed anacestors of the modern animals. This clearly shows that the entire theory is just based on assumptions and not a proven fact. Until we see a currently alive animal changing in to a different animal, I will not believe this shit.

Originally posted by Alliance
You simply THINK it is round because thats what everyone has told you...because thats what they were told
Some people told us this theory and many believed it until it was proven wrong through live observation. Notice the word "live" in this case.

In the similar manner, a person told us that Evolution happened and many believe it but it has yet to proven to be true because there are no live examples to witness.

A Lion remains a Lion. A Dog remains a Dog and so on.

Originally posted by Alliance
Fake organizations like NASA publish fake pictures of the Earth just to reinforce this view. People will think the Earth is round for millenia...its a modern travesty.
People do not need NASA to believe in a fact when they can observe the truth by themselves.

Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps Darwin, Huxley, Mendel, Dobzhansky, Morgan, Mayr, Haldane, Simpson, Fischer, and Woese were put here by God to promote the truth?
They were never Prophets of God. Your analogy is already dead.

Originally posted by Alliance
How can you deny the observable truth of God's creation?
Tell me that who made it possible for life to exist on this planet? No wait? Bacteria on the Earth itself decided to establish life!

Originally posted by Alliance
"lots" meaning "some"...none of which can be answered by any other theory.
Can you be more specific here?

Originally posted by Alliance
Because they don't even know what they're arguing about.
And you have any credible evidence to show the people of this world that Evolution is observable and is happening?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Why does there have to be a point of Creation?
Because everything is created but in a systematic manner. The mighty Force behind this is termed as "God".

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If God has always been, then why not the universe.
You are then going against a very fundamental theory of science, which is called "Big Bang". According to this theory, the Universe came in to existance from nothingness. Though how quickly it was formed, can be debated but according to the 5 books of faith, the entire Universe took 6 days to take form.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I believe that the Universe is part of God and eternal.
It is your belief and I will respect it but remember that only God is eternal and not the Universe. Even Albert Einstein have said that the Universe will collapse one day.

This means that things will once again go back in to nothingness but the point is that there is no true nothingness but a Force that makes all this happen.

IMPORTANT NOTE: A Post of mine above have some errors that cannot be fixed now. So I have re-posted my reply in a proper manner again here and without any errors.

@ Alliance! You can discard the above post and reply to this one.

Originally posted by Alliance
Please don't confuse "Scientific Theory" with "Cockamanie Theory." Perhaps you've heard of Newton's Theory of Gravity?
Can you explain to me in short words that how Theory of Evolution is "purely scientific" in nature?

Originally posted by Alliance
Darwin was never really an athiest. he lost faith and became more deist after his daughter died.
Since he lost faith, it equates to not being "man of faith."

Originally posted by Alliance
Darwin did not use skeletal remains...he mainly used finches and barnacles.
WOW! I never realized that he was this stupid.

Regarding finches: There are at-least 12 identified species of this bird.

Take a look at this PIC of Darwin's finches: Click!

It only shows different species of the same bird and nothing else. Darwin sought these specimens for observation and made an assumption that somehow these different species could have been formed from a small number of common ancestors so that each was modified to suit "different ends" or "habitats".

Now who are the supposed ancestors of this bird? And how can you prove to me that these birds evolved from those prehistoric birds?

Yeah right! Now comes the concept of examinig the skeletal remains of some ancient birds that are dead and make claims that they are ancestors of these birds.

Regarding Barnacles: Several of species of this creature have been identified and each species demonstrate different habitats. Now the problem is that Barnacles remain Barnacles. We do not see them evolving in to more advanced life forms.

Or do they according to Darwin?

Originally posted by Alliance
Evolution is observable.
Really? Show me one live example of an animal that is currently evolving in to a different and better animal.

Originally posted by Alliance
If youre expecting a lizard to turn into a dog, you'll never see it, nor did it probably ever happen.
Do you think that I am stupid? I never said that a Lizard will evolve in to a Dog. However I would like to see a Lizard evolving in to a more advanced Lizard during it's life.

Originally posted by Alliance
Not all the Christian prophets believed in one god....and you're unfairly discounting the millions of phrophets of other religions.
All the 124,000 Prophets have believed in on true God. Who are these millions of Prophets of other religions?

Originally posted by Alliance
They also thought the world was flat and held up in the corners by for pillars, as the Bible tells us. Clearly older is better.
Which well known Prophet have said this? Do not provide me citations from the New Testament because it is no longer reliable.

Originally posted by Alliance


What shape is the Earth? is it round? how do you know that? Have tou travelled the earth? No.
Thousands of years ago, man lacked the means to travel accross the globe to observe the entire world. So people came up with an assumption that the world is perhaps FLAT. But when some people built some big ships and sailed in the oceans for days, they discovered that they never fall. Thus through this fact, they started believing that the Earth is not flat but round.

The case of Theory of Evolution is also similar. Darwin observed different species of some animals and made an assumption that they might have evolved from a few ancestors. The evidence being shown are the skeletal remains of dead ancient or prehistoric animals who are the supposed anacestors of the modern animals. This clearly shows that the entire theory is just based on assumptions and not a proven fact. Until we see a currently alive animal changing in to a different animal, I will not believe this shit.

A Lion remains a Lion. A Dog remains a Dog and so on.

Originally posted by Alliance
You simply THINK it is round because thats what everyone has told you...because thats what they were told
Addressed above.

Originally posted by Alliance
Fake organizations like NASA publish fake pictures of the Earth just to reinforce this view. People will think the Earth is round for millenia...its a modern travesty
People do not need NASA to believe in a fact when they can observe the truth by themselves.

Originally posted by Alliance
Perhaps Darwin, Huxley, Mendel, Dobzhansky, Morgan, Mayr, Haldane, Simpson, Fischer, and Woese were put here by God to promote the truth?
They were never Prophets of God. Your analogy is already dead.

Originally posted by Alliance
How can you deny the observable truth of God's creation?
Tell me that who made it possible for life to exist on this planet? No wait? Bacteria on the Earth suddenly itself decided to establish life!

Originally posted by Alliance
"lots" meaning "some"...none of which can be answered by any other theory.
Can you be more specific here?

Originally posted by Alliance
Because they don't even know what they're arguing about.
And you have any credible evidence to show the people of this world that Evolution is observable and is happening?

I love it how Theists love to throw the word "faith" around, particularly in bold or italic letters.
SWLegend, The notion that hundreds of thousands of people or alleged prophets in the OT believed in Creationism means shit, Creationism doesn't have a shred of proof nor will it ever have any because if Creationism by a small chance ever did occur it wouldn't left any evidence behind. Thus, it is irrational for people to believe in it but no, being who you are you will now start waving your fist and yell "faith".


Hahahaha.

Originally posted by backdoorman
I love it how Theists love to throw the word "faith" around, particularly in bold or italic letters.
It is a matter of distinguishing oneself from those without faith.

Originally posted by backdoorman
SWLegend, The notion that hundreds of thousands of people or alleged prophets in the OT believed in Creationism means shit, Creationism doesn't have a shred of proof nor will it ever have any because if Creationism by a small chance ever did occur it wouldn't left any evidence behind. Thus, it is irrational for people to believe in it but no, being who you are you will now start waving your fist and yell "faith".
And neither is there any concrete evidence to prove that Theory of Evolution is true.

Originally posted by backdoorman
Hahahaha.
Trust me! I have made some people to stay civil and only a few "insulting words" are enough.

No, no, not only is there no 'concrete' proof of Creationism, there isn't ANY proof, not debatable proof or otherwise. As for the Evolution theory I don't see why you are drawing comparison to it, I didn't mention it in my post.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Totally irrelevant comment. Stick to the topic next time.

Very relevant, you extreme moron.

You trust people from 2000 years ago that had to eat each others shit in order to not die more than the people that gave you penicilin, computers, heart transplants, etc.

You are a conditioned idiot...it is sad that people like you still exist.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Very relevant, you extreme moron.
Learn some manners, son.

Do not forget that when you point one finger at others, the other 4 fingers point back at you as well.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You trust people from 2000 years ago that had to eat each others shit in order to not die more than the people that gave you penicilin, computers, heart transplants, etc.
Those people did not eat each others shit.

They used to eat proper food like us. And they taught people the right things and adviced them to shun barbarism.

Darwin never gave us Computers, Heart Transplants or things like that. He gave us a shitty theory, which also lacks any visible evidence.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are a conditioned idiot...it is sad that people like you still exist.
It is really a waste of time for people of faith to deal with dellusional people like you who will remain dellusional till death.

Prove to me that Theory of Evolution is true.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Learn some manners, son.

You are 3 years older than me, gramps. Also stupid.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

Do not forget that when you point one finger at others, the other 4 fingers point back at you as well.


Oh my me, I never thought of it that way....but wait, it's just an idiotic analogy people that constantly get pointed at came up with. Do not forget that when someone points a finger at you....well, you are a moron. Incidently also when no one points a finger at you.



Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Those people did not eat each others shit.

They used to eat proper food like us. And they taught people the right things and adviced them to shun barbarism.

Darwin never gave us Computers, Heart Transplants or things like that. He gave us a shitty theory, which also lacks any visible evidence.

No, but scientists did, using the scientific method that also made Evolution a scientific theory and not a "shit theory" (correct term for creationism)

They didn't know nearly as much as we actually know today. They died at the age of 40 and they thought the earth was flat...they didn't have any ultimate wisdom, dude...they were idiots.



Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
It is really a waste of time for people of faith to deal with dellusional people like you who will remain dellusional till death.

Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha

Hahahahahahhahahahah

I get it, cause you are stupid, right?

Hahahahahhahaha

That's funny.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

Prove to me that Theory of Evolution is true.

Nah, you are too stupid. Waste of time.

The thing is, creationism doesn't just start with faith, like S W Legend says, it also ends there. The reason evolution has beena theory for so long is because it has been tested countless times to the best of our current abilities, and has still yet to be disproven. How about instead of asking people to prove to you that evolution exists, why not get off your lazy ass and do your own research?

canines. We humans have witnessed the canine species changing and growing into over 150 variations, we refer to them today as breeds. A German Shephard is different from a poodle in both size and structure. As for "better".......there is no such thing. Different canines are "better" suited to different environments. I can put a poodle in the arctic north and it will freeze to death in hours.......yet if I were to drop my very cute 3 year old Siberian Husky into the arctic north, survival would not be a problem for her. Her structural differences from that of a poodle make her better adapted to the environment. By her surviving and the poodle dying, this ensures the next canines born in the arctic north would be Siberian Huskies as they are more fit to survive there. You may have heard it referred to as "survival of the fittest" when you heard one of your friends (who actually went to class to learn something) talk about it. The proper term for that is natural selection.......you know, the method of evolution. This process has only been occurring on a large scale in the canine population for 1000 years, where will it be in hundreds of thousands of years? Canines are born with mutations all the time....we humans, however, have them put to sleep or atleast keep them from breeding. All we have to do is breed an animal with a mutant gene....imbreed the next two or three generations and voila, new species.

I'm done here.....enough of your Christian, invisible man in the sky watching me jerk off rhetoric.

Ironic and incorrectly spelled use of the word delusional. Hilarity ensues.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Can you explain to me in short words that how Theory of Evolution is "purely scientific" in nature?

sure, its pretty simple. There is no "set in stone" criteria for anything to be considered fact by the scientific community, though there are some very important criteria. The main ones are passing occam's razor and being falsifiable. Evolution passes occam's razor because there is no better way of explaining what we observe objectively in labs around the world. Any other explanation must introduce many more unknowable forces than evolution, and thus, it is considered to be the most consistant explanation for the phenomena.

Falsifiability is a little bit different. In science, something cannot be true if it cannot be prooven false. So, we can think of evidence that would disprove evolution. For instance, if we found a new species that was ompletely novel in the fossil and genetic record, then we could possibly conclude that evolution did not occur. Similarily, if we could run a hereditary line of bacteria or whatever, and we found that their survival and genes were not related, evolution would be thrown out the window.

Evolution is also repeatably testable, and experiments that show the validity of the fossil records, heredity, variance, and all of the other qualities involved in the process of evolution have been conducted all over the world with the same rsults. Because of this, predictions can be made about evolution, and while they would be useless in a non-controled eco-system, in a controlled lab setting, there are new experiments that are showing we can use our understanding of evolution to predict certain changes.

Methodologically, evolutionary scientists follow the rigors of the scientific method, the same as the people who discovered the way to make the computer you are using today. In fact, because the American scientists during the cold war were so methodologically commited to science and thus evolution, Amreicans did not fall into the folk science that starved much of Russia (their anti-americanism had lead them to refuse the concept of genetic heredity because it was an American science).

Finally, Evolution works. Biology doesn't make sense without evolution, nor does creationism. The idea that we were "intelligently" designed with an appendix is ridiculous, and at best shows that this omnscient intelligence in the sky has far less of an idea of how to engineer something than most teenagers.

Creationism does not pass occam's razor, since a supernatural explanation for events by definition introduces unexplainable entities or variables into an equation.

However, the most damning evidence against creationism is that it is completely unfalsifiable. Given what we know about the universe, for creationism to be true, God, or whatever, would have had to have created the universe in such a way that it appears that it was not created. God would have had to painstakingly designed life with the appearance of evolving.

Think about the implications of this for a moment. If a universe that appears to be natural can also be designed, then what would be the evidence that the universe wasn't designed or that life was not designed? For instance, scientists can tell you what you would expect to see if what were know about the universe is false, there is no such corellary for creationism. Even the appearance of natural evolution can be proof of design. Thus, simply because the idea is unfalsifiable, creationism is pretty much childish fantasy.

Creationism similarily proposes no experiments that can be done, and makes no predictions about the future.

Basically, evolution is science, creationism is religion. there is no reason to argue this point, especially if you think religion is truer than science. If you really think God made everything, don't look foolish by trying to beat science at it's own game. Issac Newton made a fool of himself by theorizing on the metaphysical, as will most natural scientists. Stay with what you know.

Originally posted by Bardock42
You are 3 years older than me, gramps. Also stupid.
Learn to respect your elders.

You are actually acting like a stupid person and not me.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh my me, I never thought of it that way....but wait, it's just an idiotic analogy people that constantly get pointed at came up with. Do not forget that when someone points a finger at you....well, you are a moron. Incidently also when no one points a finger at you.
Like I said before, you are delusional. People like you will never be understand the logic behind a comment properly.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, but scientists did, using the scientific method that also made Evolution a scientific theory and not a "shit theory" (correct term for creationism)
Show me examples of these scientific methods?

Originally posted by Bardock42
They didn't know nearly as much as we actually know today. They died at the age of 40 and they thought the earth was flat...they didn't have any ultimate wisdom, dude...they were idiots.
They knew far better then you actually do. Some Prophets were over 900 years old. And no true Prophet have said that the Earth was flat. They had wisdom and they informed people about the right things. People often never listened and sometimes attacked and killed them. So people of those times are idiots and not the Prophets.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Hahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha

Hahahahahahhahahahah

I get it, cause you are stupid, right?

Hahahahahhahaha

That's funny.
Laugh as much as you can and when you will get tired, then we will talk.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Nah, you are too stupid. Waste of time.
A stupid person is calling me stupid, when I never ever tried to make fun of him and his beliefs!

You have proven to be a true moron and additionally you are delusional.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Ironic and incorrectly spelled use of the word delusional. Hilarity ensues.
English is not my first language, so?

Which voids the irony? No. I'm bilingual too, but I don't speak Retarded, so you're going to have to try a bit harder.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
canines. We humans have witnessed the canine species changing and growing into over 150 variations, we refer to them today as breeds. A German Shephard is different from a poodle in both size and structure. As for "better".......there is no such thing. Different canines are "better" suited to different environments. I can put a poodle in the arctic north and it will freeze to death in hours.......yet if I were to drop my very cute 3 year old Siberian Husky into the arctic north, survival would not be a problem for her. Her structural differences from that of a poodle make her better adapted to the environment. By her surviving and the poodle dying, this ensures the next canines born in the arctic north would be Siberian Huskies as they are more fit to survive there. You may have heard it referred to as "survival of the fittest" when you heard one of your friends (who actually went to class to learn something) talk about it. The proper term for that is natural selection.......you know, the method of evolution. This process has only been occurring on a large scale in the canine population for 1000 years, where will it be in hundreds of thousands of years? Canines are born with mutations all the time....we humans, however, have them put to sleep or atleast keep them from breeding. All we have to do is breed an animal with a mutant gene....imbreed the next two or three generations and voila, new species.
Since we are mainly inbreeding these dogs, so are they responsible for the changes occuring in them?

Also, inbreeding causes several defects in the new born cubs as well. You should keep this fact in mind.

And Evolution says that life forms themselves can evolve in to new and better life forms. We have yet to see a live example of this.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Which voids the irony? No. I'm bilingual too, but I don't speak Retarded, so you're going to have to try a bit harder.
How many words that I have written have spelling mistakes in them?

Woosh.

That's the sound of my comment going right over your head.

Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Since we are mainly inbreeding these dogs, so are they responsible for the changes occuring in them?

Also, inbreeding causes several defects in the new born cubs as well. You should keep this fact in mind.

And Evolution says that life forms themselves can evolve in to new and better life forms. We have yet to see a live example of this.

Evolution doesnt say the life forms evolve into "better" life forms. Just life forms more suitable to its environment. This process can take millions of years to develop naturaly.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Blah, blah, blah.

You use the word delusional wrong...probably because you are called delusional constantly and think it is just a random insult and not a word that describes believing in an invisible man for no reason.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Since we are mainly inbreeding these dogs, so are they responsible for the changes occuring in them?

Also, inbreeding causes several defects in the new born cubs as well. You should keep this fact in mind.

And Evolution says that life forms themselves can evolve in to new and better life forms. We have yet to see a live example of this.

Organisms evolve in order to become better adapted to their environment. They do not just "evolve" like on Pokemon, it's brought on by pressures from their environment.

As for a creature that is evolving, just look at Darwin's finches

Edit: Here's a fun one, why not offer some support as to why creationism should be taught in the science class.

Originally posted by inimalist
sure, its pretty simple. There is no "set in stone" criteria for anything to be considered fact by the scientific community, though there are some very important criteria. The main ones are passing occam's razor and being falsifiable. Evolution passes occam's razor because there is no better way of explaining what we observe objectively in labs around the world. Any other explanation must introduce many more unknowable forces than evolution, and thus, it is considered to be the most consistant explanation for the phenomena.
Some people believe that Evolution is pure FACT. But the problem is that it has not yet been proven to true even by the modern science.

The fact that we can perform an experiment by inbreeding among a certain species of animals belonging to a same genus and show the world that the new born cubs have slight features of both the parents, does not proves Evolution to be true.

Those cubs are born with certain defects that scientists do not tell you willingly but truth never remains hidden for long.

Evolution is about "Survival of the Fittest" or so it says but the problem is that the creatures with defects do not fit in to this category. And I must tell you that some dominant species have also become extinct in the history and we have yet to give valid explanations for the reasons that led to their extinction.

Also Evolutionists claim that life-forms themselves can evolve in to better life-forms by adopting to new envoirnmental changes. How is this so? If we throw a Grizzly bear in to Antartica along with Polar Bears, will it manage to adopt to that new envoirnment and become a more advanced version of it's former-self?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Falsifiability is a little bit different. In science, something cannot be true if it cannot be prooven false. So, we can think of evidence that would disprove evolution. For instance, if we found a new species that was ompletely novel in the fossil and genetic record, then we could possibly conclude that evolution did not occur. Similarily, if we could run a hereditary line of bacteria or whatever, and we found that their survival and genes were not related, evolution would be thrown out the window.
Life-forms often share some similarities with each other. This is not a reason to say that Evolution is true.

The fact is that life-forms always remain the same.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Evolution is also repeatably testable, and experiments that show the validity of the fossil records, heredity, variance, and all of the other qualities involved in the process of evolution have been conducted all over the world with the same rsults. Because of this, predictions can be made about evolution, and while they would be useless in a non-controled eco-system, in a controlled lab setting, there are new experiments that are showing we can use our understanding of evolution to predict certain changes.
Fossil records can decieve us. The oldest known Croc is Sarcosuchus. It shares some similarities with Gavial but this does not means that Sarcosuchus evolved in to Gavial.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Methodologically, evolutionary scientists follow the rigors of the scientific method, the same as the people who discovered the way to make the computer you are using today. In fact, because the American scientists during the cold war were so methodologically commited to science and thus evolution, Amreicans did not fall into the folk science that starved much of Russia (their anti-americanism had lead them to refuse the concept of genetic heredity because it was an American science).
Regarding Genetic Heredity:

Genetic Heredity is about adopting the traits of your parents during birth via genes. It is true that every man reacts differently to an event and have different likings and dislikings and can inherit some personality traits from his/her parents and can learn to suvive in different envoirnments but man still cannot evolve himself to a more advanced life-form through exposure to new things or envoirnments. He uses technology to help him in extreme situations. So Genetic Heredity is a baseless case to back Evolution. It is mostly about behavior.

Regarding Genetic Mutations:

Evolutionists claim that over many generations, the genomes of organisms can change, resulting in the phenomenon of evolution. Mutations and the selection for beneficial mutations can cause a species to evolve into forms that better survive their environment, a process called adaptation.

Adopting to new envoirnments is not a thing that is under our control. Check the example of "Grizzly Bear" above. It easily refutes this.

And genetic Modification looks good in science fiction movies, mate. The theory that you can combine Dino DNA with that of Frog DNA and still expect a true live Dino to be born is not true.

DNA modifications causes lots of issues and can lead to bad results.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Finally, Evolution works. Biology doesn't make sense without evolution, nor does creationism. The idea that we were "intelligently" designed with an appendix is ridiculous, and at best shows that this omnscient intelligence in the sky has far less of an idea of how to engineer something than most teenagers.
Evolution does not works my mate.

- The fact that the "Survival of the Fittest" theory have already been proven to be false.

- The fact that an animal adapted to a specific envoirnment cannot survive in an entirely different envoirnment.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Creationism does not pass occam's razor, since a supernatural explanation for events by definition introduces unexplainable entities or variables into an equation.
Science is only limted to materials. Do not blame Creationism for limitation of science.

Originally posted by Bardock42
However, the most damning evidence against creationism is that it is completely unfalsifiable. Given what we know about the universe, for creationism to be true, God, or whatever, would have had to have created the universe in such a way that it appears that it was not created. God would have had to painstakingly designed life with the appearance of evolving.
God creates things in such a manner that we can only guess that how were they created. We make theories about them. But we fail to acknowledge the fact that God have communicated with us through 124,000 Prophets to tell us that he exists and he created all the things but many people still do not want to believe. But God has said that he is testing people.

In old times, he used to destroy people who attacked and killed his prophets but after Noah asked him to give people another chance, he accepted and since then man is free to judge things by our own accord.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Think about the implications of this for a moment. If a universe that appears to be natural can also be designed, then what would be the evidence that the universe wasn't designed or that life was not designed? For instance, scientists can tell you what you would expect to see if what were know about the universe is false, there is no such corellary for creationism. Even the appearance of natural evolution can be proof of design. Thus, simply because the idea is unfalsifiable, creationism is pretty much childish fantasy.
There are two aspects of nature.

A) Materialistic Aspect.
B) Spiritual Aspect.

A) Materialisitic Aspect: This Universe and World in which live are things that we can see and interact with. We ourselves exist in this world as physical beings and can interact with other physical beings.

B) Spiritual Aspect: That things that we cannot see. The existance of 6 more skies above the sky that we know about, Heaven and Hell, Angels and Spirits etc. But the strange thing is that many people have told tales of interaction with Angels and Spirits. We call this realm to be spiritual because we cannot see it but we get to see signs of their existance which are in the shape of miracles, prophets and existance of super-natural phenomenon.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Creationism similarily proposes no experiments that can be done, and makes no predictions about the future.
Like I said before, the first step to understand Creationism is by becoming a believer. It is explained through special signs and not assumptions.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Basically, evolution is science, creationism is religion. there is no reason to argue this point, especially if you think religion is truer than science. If you really think God made everything, don't look foolish by trying to beat science at it's own game. Issac Newton made a fool of himself by theorizing on the metaphysical, as will most natural scientists. Stay with what you know.
Evolution is also a religion. It is mostly based on assumptions and faulty evidences. Science has nothing to do with religion. It is about understanding the working of materialistic phenomenon of this Universe and we often make theories about things that are pure mysterious to us.

And staying with what we know is narrow-mindedness. Man have progressed by not following this notion or else we still would have thought that he Earth is FLAT.

Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
Evolution doesnt say the life forms evolve into "better" life forms. Just life forms more suitable to its environment. This process can take millions of years to develop naturaly.
Then why do dominant species also disappear even after millions of years of adaption to changes in envoirnments?

Originally posted by Bardock42
You use the word delusional wrong...probably because you are called delusional constantly and think it is just a random insult and not a word that describes believing in an invisible man for no reason.
Who starting insulting in the first place? Me or You?

We are simply discussing about theories. This does not warrant insults or name-calling. If you think that you are not delusional but a mature person, try to participate in a debate and do not spoil it.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Since we are mainly inbreeding these dogs, so are they responsible for the changes occuring in them?

Also, inbreeding causes several defects in the new born cubs as well. You should keep this fact in mind.

And Evolution says that life forms themselves can evolve in to new and better life forms. We have yet to see a live example of this.


New and better? I don't know where you get this, but it has nothing to do with evolution.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Organisms evolve in order to become better adapted to their environment. They do not just "evolve" like on Pokemon, it's brought on by pressures from their environment.
We have yet to see a live example of this happening. Check the example of the "Barnacles" in one of my previous posts.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
As for a creature that is evolving, just look at Darwin's finches
Check this quote:

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

Regarding finches: There are at-least 12 identified species of this bird.

Take a look at this PIC of Darwin's finches: Click!

It only shows different species of the same bird and nothing else. Darwin sought these specimens for observation and made an assumption that somehow these different species could have been formed from a small number of common ancestors so that each was modified to suit "different ends" or "habitats".

Now who are the supposed ancestors of this bird? And how can you prove to me that these birds evolved from those prehistoric birds?

Yeah right! Now comes the concept of examinig the skeletal remains of some ancient birds that are dead and make claims that they are ancestors of these birds.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
Edit: Here's a fun one, why not offer some support as to why creationism should be taught in the science class.
I am not giving any opinion in this case. It is not my decision.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Then why do dominant species also disappear even after millions of years of adaption to changes in envoirnments?

Because the environment can suddenly change which can be disadvantageous for a previous dominant species. A prime example of that iis the dinasours. They were the dominant species for millions of year untill sudden environment changes caused by the meteorite impact caused them to be extinct.

S_W_LeGenD your example of the Kodiak bear is not a good one and doesn't fit into the point you are trying to make. If you throw a Kodiak bear into the arctic it will die because it has no traits to survive in that type of environment so it will not reproduce, this would be the same as having an extinction level event. However if the Kodiak that you put there had some traits such as oversized paws, thicker skin, smaller mass and darker skin it may have a chance be it slim to none of surviving to breed and pass on these traits to its offspring.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Who starting insulting in the first place? Me or You?

We are simply discussing about theories. This does not warrant insults or name-calling. If you think that you are not delusional but a mature person, try to participate in a debate and do not spoil it.

No, no, no, you are supporting a "theory" that has no evidence for it, it is not in any way a scientific theory. Very different.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, no, no, you are supporting a "theory" that has no evidence for it, it is not in any way a scientific theory. Very different.

He doesn't seem to understand that, regardless of the number of times that's been pointed out to him so far.

its debates like these that show why people are not equal at all...

It's debates like these that show that the 2 people who die in vending machine-related deaths every year aren't the stupidest people in the world... which is saddening.

Originally posted by inimalist
its debates like these that show why people are not equal at all...

No, some people are just more equal than others.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
New and better? I don't know where you get this, but it has nothing to do with evolution.
Here is a an example:

Evolutionists claim that a shark called Isurus Hastalis has evolved in to the modern Great White Shark, which is the more advanced shark according to them.

The teeth of Isurus Hastalis does not have serrations but they are of almost same shape as that of GWS. The teeth of GWS however have serrations.

Now common sense dictates that Isurus Hastalis and GWS have different behavioral and habitual niches as this can be judged from the teeth. Isurus most likely chomped it's prey, while the GWS would tear it's prey apart by slicing it, in which the serrations will help.

So this is a major issue with Evolutionists. They make silly claims that an animal has evolved in to a better animal using fossil remains as an example (that can deceive us) and fail to consider other aspects of things.

Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
Because the environment can suddenly change which can be disadvantageous for a previous dominant species. A prime example of that iis the dinasours. They were the dominant species for millions of year untill sudden environment changes caused by the meteorite impact caused them to be extinct.
Dinosaurs have faced extinction 3 times and not just one time. This shows that sudden change in envoirnment can cause extinction but it cannot stop a species from re-emerging.

Originally posted by ThePittman
S_W_LeGenD your example of the Kodiak bear is not a good one and doesn't fit into the point you are trying to make. If you throw a Kodiak bear into the arctic it will die because it has no traits to survive in that type of environment so it will not reproduce, this would be the same as having an extinction level event. However if the Kodiak that you put there had some traits such as oversized paws, thicker skin, smaller mass and darker skin it may have a chance be it slim to none of surviving to breed and pass on these traits to its offspring.
You understood the basics of my point but failed to understand the logic behind it.

A Kodiak Bear is a mammal. It can tolerate changes in environment to a certain extent but this does not means that it can evolve to adopt to an entirely different environment. And despite being warm blooded, it will die in that new environment which is not suitable for it. This clearly goes against Evolution, which tends to say that a species can evolve to adopt to major changes in environment or a new environment, which is not true. No species can evolve to adopt to a different environment. It will simply die in a different environment, if it cannot tolerate it.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Here is a an example:

Evolutionists claim that a shark called Isurus Hastalis has evolved in to the modern Great White Shark, which is the more advanced shark according to them.

The teeth of Isurus Hastalis does not have serrations but they are of almost same shape as that of GWS. The teeth of GWS however have serrations.

Now common sense dictates that Isurus Hastalis and GWS have different behavioral and habitual niches as this can be judged from the teeth. Isurus most likely chomped it's prey, while the GWS would tear it's prey apart by slicing it, in which the serrations will help.

So this is a major issue with Evolutionists. They make silly claims that an animal has evolved in to a better animal using fossil remains as an example (that can deceive us) and fail to consider other aspects of things.

What the hell, this is all wrong.

1. "What the hell is an "evolutionist"
2. the whole Isurus hastalis is NOT accepted.
3. NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION IMPLIES "BETTER THAN BEFORE"
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Dinosaurs have faced extinction 3 times and not just one time. This shows that sudden change in envoirnment can cause extinction but it cannot stop a species from re-emerging.

When?Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You understood the basics of my point but failed to understand the logic behind it.

A Kodiak Bear is a mammal. It can tolerate changes in environment to a certain extent but this does not means that it can evolve to adopt to an entirely different environment. And despite being warm blooded, it will die in that new environment which is not suitable for it. This clearly goes against Evolution, which tends to say that a species can evolve to adopt to major changes in environment or a new environment, which is not true. No species can evolve to adopt to a different environment. It will simply die in a different environment, if it cannot tolerate it.

case and point: exotic species.

Evolution is about change, if you transfer a frog from SAY 30 degrees to 90 degrees...it dies, but if you raise the temperature slowly over many generations...they survive. This has been done. Its about TIME. Not acclimitization.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, no, no, you are supporting a "theory" that has no evidence for it, it is not in any way a scientific theory. Very different.
Same is the case with Evolution. Read all the refutations that I have mentioned and you will understand to some extent.

In simple words:

- Barnacles remains Barnacles.
- GWS remains GWS.
- Man remains Man.
- Ape remains Ape.

And someone have already admitted here that Darwin also have made mistakes.

Originally posted by AngryManatee
He doesn't seem to understand that, regardless of the number of times that's been pointed out to him so far.
Evolution is also mostlly based on assumptions, my mate!

Originally posted by inimalist
its debates like these that show why people are not equal at all...
Debates like these are for informative purposes. To point out mistakes that some so called experts might have made. Man have made progress in this world due to a good reason. This has nothing to do with equality of man.

Originally posted by Alliance
What the hell, this is all wrong.
This is true. Check the details below.

Originally posted by Alliance
1. "What the hell is an "evolutionist"
Advocates of Evolution.

Originally posted by Alliance
2. the whole Isurus hastalis is NOT accepted.
Really? It is widely accepted.

Check the link: Click!

Originally posted by Alliance
3. NOTHING ABOUT EVOLUTION IMPLIES "BETTER THAN BEFORE"
Really? many evolutionists will disagree with you.

Originally posted by Alliance
When?
First Mass Extinction: Happened in Triassic period about 251 million years ago.

Second Mass Extinction: Happened in Jurassic period about 200 million years ago.

Third Mass Extinction: Happened in Cretaceous period about 65 miliion years ago.

There are rumors that a fourth mass extinction process also took place during the age of Dinosaurs.

You really have very limited knowledge, mate!

Originally posted by Alliance
case and point: exotic species.
Here is a good explanation of exotic species: An introduced species (also known as naturalized species or exotic species) is an organism that is not indigenous to a given place or area and instead has been "accidentally" or "deliberately" transported to this new location by human activity. Introduced species can often be damaging to the ecosystem it is introduced to.

Let me tell you another basics of nature. When you will go in to a new location, you will try to eat different food too that you may not have been accustomed to. This is about survival and has nothing to do with evolution. But if you will fail, you will die.

Man is simply messing up with Nature and this will one day lead to disastrous results.

Originally posted by Alliance
Evolution is about change, if you transfer a frog from SAY 30 degrees to 90 degrees...it dies, but if you raise the temperature slowly over many generations...they survive. This has been done. Its about TIME. Not acclimitization.
That is just adaptation and it happens often but it does not means that a Frog will evolve in to a better Frog then before.

Let me give you a simple example: A man who is living in hot conditions becomes accustomed to such conditions. He can survive in it without difficulty. But if you throw a man who is accustomed to cold environment, in to hot conditions. He will become very uncomfortable and might die, if he does not tolerates the immense heat. This does not means that the man living in hot conditions is more evolved then the other man who is not accustomed to hot conditions.

Gibberish followed by an inept understanding of modern evolutionary concepts and biology in general followed by more gibberish with some more inept understanding of evolutionary concepts as garnish. If a species becomes extinct it cannot reemerge, no-wit. Dinosaurs are not collectively a species.

Oh noes, Darwin wasn't infallible back in the 1800s! fear

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Gibberish followed by an inept understanding of modern evolutionary concepts and biology in general followed by more gibberish with some more inept understanding of evolutionary concepts as garnish. If a species becomes extinct it cannot reemerge, no-wit. Dinosaurs are not collectively a species.
You do not understand even the basics of nature. I have also studied about Evolution. The problem is that it is now riddled with inconsistencies because of people like you.

Try to refute my points.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Oh noes, Darwin wasn't infallible back in the 1800s! fear
He was considered to be infallible in that time by the people who believed in his theory. But he is not infallible now.

He was the one who came up with this theory. People believed in him and they do even now. But now people can argue against him due to better understanding of nature and it's mechanisms.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You do not understand even the basics of nature. Try to refute my points. I have also studied about Evolution. The problem is that it is riddled with inconsistencies.I don't understand the basics of nature? Irony, considering the garbage from your "studies of evolution" you've spewed that's somehow fallen onto the keyboard in semi-coherent sentences. Refute stupidity? Now, I already told you I didn't speak Retarded. Try again when your idea of discussing evolution extends beyond copying and pasting things unreferenced from the unreferenced Wikipedia.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
But he is now infallible, right? Strawman. Try again, plebe.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
I don't understand the basics of nature? Irony, considering the garbage from your "studies of evolution" you've spewed that's somehow fallen onto the keyboard in semi-coherent sentences. Refute stupidity? Now, I already told you I didn't speak Retarded.
You are retarted. This shows that you cannot refute my points and you are attacking my level of understanding of things. You have yet to refute my points.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Try again when your idea of discussing evolution extends beyond copying and pasting things unreferenced from the unreferenced Wikipedia.
Wikipedia is among the most popular sources of information available in the Internet. Most of the information in it is correct. We all consult that source for quick references. But not all of my comments are based on wikipedia. Only a few definitions are. Get your eyes checked.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Strawman. Try again, plebe.
Check the edited text in my post above..

I still cant beleive in this day and age that we even have to argue about evolution. There is concrte evidence for this, its called genetics. You can actually see in our genes that humans have 96% similar genes to chimpanzees- our closest relatives.

Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
I still cant beleive in this day and age that we even have to argue about evolution. There is concrte evidence for this, its called genetics. You can actually see in our genes that humans have 96% similar genes to chimpanzees- our closest relatives.
LOL!

And why does chimps do not finally evolve in to humans?

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You are retarted. You cannot refute my points and you are attacking my level of understanfing of things. You have yet to refute my points.If one wants to insult someone with the word retarded, they should spell it correctly. Otherwise they just end up looking... retarded. 313

To acknowledge anything you've written as a "point" would be folly, as it's just plain gibberish. I'm not attacking your level of understanding because there is no understanding to attack as noted by your repeated use of the words "better" and "more advanced" and what can be construed as a belief in evolution occurring at an individual level.

Case-in-point.
Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
LOL!

And why does chimps do not finally evolve in to humans? "ROFFLECOPTER humans OMGWTFBBQ chimps"

Comparative developmental biology. Palaeontology. Molecular genetics and comparative genomics. All refute you.Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Check the edited text above. Yes, evolution has remained completely unchanged for the past century and a half.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
LOL!

And why does chimps do not finally evolve in to humans?

You seem to be under the impreesion the evolution happens in a day. It takes MILLIONS of years. If you think its a proces you physically see in you lifetime, then you'll never understand it (or many other scintific theories)

Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
You seem to be under the impreesion the evolution happens in a day. It takes MILLIONS of years. If you think its a proces you physically see in you lifetime, then you'll never understand it (or many other scintific theories)
I never said that Evolution happens in a day.

The case of Millions of years is just an excuse to support this theory. There are some animals alive today that are millions of years old but they have yet to evolve.

Want an example?

Take the case of the Great White Shark. This shark came in to existance about 10 million years ago. It remains the same thing and occupies the same niche.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If one wants to insult someone with the word retarded, they should spell it correctly. Otherwise they just end up looking... retarded. 313
That was a case of typo mistake.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
To acknowledge anything you've written as a "point" would be folly, as it's just plain gibberish. I'm not attacking your level of understanding because there is no understanding to attack as noted by your repeated use of the words "better" and "more advanced" and what can be construed as a belief in evolution occurring at an individual level.
The gibberish and shit that you have posted makes no sense either.

And better refute my points or drop the argument. Because you are now only making lame excuses to spoil the debate.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Case-in-point.
"ROFFLECOPTER humans OMGWTFBBQ chimps"
Why do they not evolve in to humans?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Comparative developmental biology. Palaeontology. Molecular genetics and comparative genomics. All refute you. Yes, evolution has remained completely unchanged for the past century and a half.
Ha?

All those fields haver yet to prove Evolution happening.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
LOL!

And why does chimps do not finally evolve in to humans?

That's a joke, right? You moron.

Culex pipiens insecticide resistance.

Antibacterial resistance.

Hemoglobin-myoglobin evolution.

Cetacean beta- and kappa-casein.

"Why does chimps do not finally evolve in to humans?" (sic)

You not only lack understanding of evolution you lack understanding of science as a method. Run along back to "studying evolution" on Wikipedia and/or some bullshit creationist website.

Originally posted by Bardock42
That's a joke, right? You moron.
No retard.

I want to know that why do they stay Chimps despite having genes that are 96% same of ours. There is only 4% more to go.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
No retard.

I want to know that why do they stay Chimps despite having genes that are 96% same of ours. There is only 4% more to go.

N-no, there's only 4% more to go for us to become them.


You seem to assume that humans are the pinnacle of evolution and that everything is directed at evolving into humans...well, it isn't.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I never said that Evolution happens in a day.

The case of Millions of years is just an excuse to support this theory. There are some animals alive today that are millions of years old but they have yet to evolve.

Want an example?

Take the case of the Great White Shark. This shark came in to existance about 10 million years ago. It remains the same thing and occupies the same niche.

Exactly. There hasnt been as huge evolutionary pressures on the sharks, so the species hasnt evolved drastically. But still there has been changes to the great whites milions of years ago and the sharks of today.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Culex pipiens insecticide resistance.
Only low levels of such resistance have been dectected in Culex species. It is a thing that exists in them before we actually detected it in them.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Antibacterial resistance.
You've got to be kidding me?

Anti-bacterial resistances exist in all the animals. The immune system protects against different types of bacteria to prevent them from invading our bodies. When an animal dies, it's anti-bacterial resistances are gone and the body starts decaying due to reactions caused by the invading bacteria.

And we often use advanced medical treatments in the shape of anti-biotics and drugs to make ourselves capable of protecting against those micro-organisms, whom we cannot naturally defend against.

However it is true that the bacterial forms or micro=organisms can often improve and then manage to breach the resistances of the available anti-biotics that protect us against them but despite this improvement, they remain the same damn bacterial forms or micro-organisms.

The rest of the explanation will be posted soon.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

The rest of the explanation will be posted soon.

Please don't bother.

Erratum: Antibiotic resistant bacteria. Your stupidity must be contagious.

Culex isn't a species it's a genus. The evolution of heavy metal insecticide resistance is documented in the Montpellier region of southern France.

These are evolution in action.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Erratum: Antibiotic resistant bacteria.
And then new generation of anti-biotics are produced to counter that bacteria again.

This is work of adaptation and not evolution. Like I said before, the bacteria remains bacteria in the end.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Culex isn't a species it's a genus. The evolution of heavy metal insecticide resistance is documented in the Montpellier region of southern France.
It has been "dectected". A thing called "Adaptation" again rings bells.

Once again, the mosquito remains mosquito in the end

OR

Culex remains Culex in the end.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
These are evolution in action.
You are confusing "Evolution" with "Adaptations".

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
It has been "dectected". A thing called "Adaptation" again rings bells.

Once again, the mosquito remains mosquito in the end

OR

Culex remains Culex in the end.


You are confusing "Evolution" with "Adaptations".

As he said, Its evolution in action. Its how evolution starts off. You dont get a new species pooping out just like that. it happens gradually.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
It has been "dectected". A thing called "Adaptation" again rings bells.

The mosquito remains mosquito in the end or Culex remains Culex in the end.

You are confusing "Evolution" with "Adaptations". It's part of the process of evolution, dolt. The resistance corresponds to a gene duplication event resulting in overexpressed (insecticide-degrading) esterase phenotype; those with this trait are more likely to survive, reproduce and thus it increases.

"Life is static." is bullshit, and derives solely from a book written thousands of years ago, or similar, by people lacking current knowledge, where humankind has the same origin as Wonder Woman.

Accumulation of genomic changes leads to reproductive isolation of a population, ergo a separate species. An H. erectus pair didn't suddenly give birth to an H. sapiens.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
It's part of the process of evolution, dolt. The resistance corresponds to a gene duplication event resulting in overexpressed (insecticide-degrading) esterase phenotype; those with this trait are more likely to survive, reproduce and thus it increases.
I know that Adaptation is part of Evolution Theory but you were giving me examples of adaptations that do not show those life-forms evolving in to more advanced life-forms or giving rise to new species. They remain the same damn things even after these adaptations.

Now I will tell you what Theory of Evolution is about. It is an assumed process according to which a new life-form is born from an old life-form due to adaptations coupled with genetic mutations.

Now where is the ****ing evidence of the adaptations or even genetic mutations leading to creation of more advanced Life-forms? Where?

Just on papers? Or comments like that it take millions of years to happen naturally?

And I have said before that micro-organisms remain micro-organisms even after the adaptations. They do not evolve in to more complex life-forms.

Also tell me that after a mass extinction event, from where all the large number of new Life-forms and Animals pop out? (Millions of years - my @ss)

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Life is static." is bullshit, and derives solely from a book written thousands of years ago, or similar, by people lacking current knowledge, where humankind has the same origin as Wonder Woman.
What do you mean by "life is static"?

And when have you seen an animal changing in to a more advanced animal? No! You have read this in books.

Let me give you a new example: Take the case of Whaleshark. This creature is 50% Whale and 50% Shark. Now why does the Whaleshark stays Whaleshark? Why it does not slowly evolves in to a full Shark or a full Whale?

Do you think that a Shark mated with a Whale to form this thing?

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Accumulation of genomic changes leads to reproductive isolation of a population, ergo a separate species.
And chances of this are very rare even according to Evolutionists. Most of the mutations lead to disasters.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
An H. erectus pair didn't suddenly give birth to an H. sapiens.
Show me the proof that we evolved from this supposed H. erectus.

Originally posted by Crimson Phoenix
As he said, Its evolution in action. Its how evolution starts off. You dont get a new species pooping out just like that. it happens gradually.
This is what we read in books made by Evolutionists. This is an assumed thing.

We have yet to see an evidence of "beneficial mutations" occuring in existing animals that lead to creation of more advanced animals or new species. Now I know that the excuse is that this process takes millions of years.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
And when have you seen an animal changing in to a more advanced animal? No! You have read this in books.

Let me give you a new example: Take the case of Whaleshark. This creature is 50% Whale and 50% Shark. Now why does the Whaleshark stays Whaleshark? Why it does not slowly evolves in to a full Shark or a full Whale?

Do you think that a Shark mated with a Whale to form this thing?A whale shark is not half-whale half-shark. You're an idiot and a waste of time. Whales are mammals you moronic moron among morons.

Addendum: I had to add the quote for posterity, so that when they one day open the Museum of ****tarded, it can be added.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A whaleshark is not half-whale half-shark. You're an idiot and a waste of time.
What is it?

A mutated shark?

And you are no less of an idiot then me because you also believe in a an assumed process mentioned in books made by Evolutionists.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Since we are mainly inbreeding these dogs, so are they responsible for the changes occuring in them?

Also, inbreeding causes several defects in the new born cubs as well. You should keep this fact in mind.

And Evolution says that life forms themselves can evolve in to new and better life forms. We have yet to see a live example of this.

#1. humans take no part in the breeding, creation of new life. The animals choose whether too breed and produce offspring or not. Humans are not manually stimulating a dog's penis, lubricating a *****'s vagina, holding the penis in while manually masturbating the dog to ejaculation. The same animals choose to breed......whether in a breeder's back yard or 10,000 years ago on an open savanah.

#2. what are you referring to as a defect? A defect by definition is a hinderence. Imbreeding producing traits not held by the population of a species at large are not a defect unless they hinder the animal. Many times the help the animal survive.....whether making them larger hunters able to kill larger prey, needing less kills to survive or by producing a thicker coat which would allow them to remain more active hunters in a colder climate.....resulting in more kills, more food....survival.

see.....this is called natural selection. Those imbred traits that are defects, hinder the animal, make it harder for that particular animal to survive and pass his/her genes onto the next generation.......see Neanderthal Man. Those traits that make the animal better hunters, requiring the animal to expend less energy or making them better at evading predators allow that animal to survive to pass his genes along to the next generation.


I think a lot of this guy's idiotic rhetoric comes from the fact that he does not even know what evolution is nor how it works. By his logic, if a human parent has a child that is different from the rest of us.....say 6 fingers on each hand......all other humans must immediately drop dead. He keeps saying shit like, "If humans evolved from the same ancestors as apes, why are there still apes?". This guy thinks that when the first ape born with a larger skull allowing for a larger brain pan and inevidably a larger brain was born, all other apes were somehow magically supposed to drop dead. He somehow seems to not understand that this ape with a larger brain could carry on living side by side with those other apes with smaller brains.....both passing their genes on to later generations resulting thousands of generations later with ancestors from apes with small brains existing (chimps) and ancestors from the ape with a larger brain existing (humans). Oh well....he doesn't need to understand anything on this subject. As long as he knows how to properly fry a hamburger patty, he should do well in life.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
I think a lot of this guy's idiotic rhetoric comes from the fact that he does not even know what evolution is nor how it works.
I know about the Theory of Evolution. You do not need to tell me how it works.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
By his logic, if a human parent has a child that is different from the rest of us.....say 6 fingers on each hand......all other humans must immediately drop dead.
No. I never said this.

That human will still remain a human, though with deformed figure. He will not be declared to be a new species because his DNA will be same as that of his parents but with a defect in them.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
He keeps saying shit like, "If humans evolved from the same ancestors as apes, why are there still apes?".
The apes that we see are different animals then humans.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
This guy thinks that when the first ape born with a larger skull allowing for a larger brain pan and inevidably a larger brain was born, all other apes were somehow magically supposed to drop dead.
I have never said this. Stop making shit up.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
He somehow seems to not understand that this ape with a larger brain could carry on living side by side with those other apes with smaller brains.....
This is true.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
both passing their genes on to later generations resulting thousands of generations later with ancestors from apes with small brains existing (chimps) and ancestors from the ape with a larger brain existing (humans).
This is an assumption that our ancestor is an ape. Where is the proof?

Yeah right? Skeletal remains of a dead species of an ape!

Originally posted by Evil Dead
Oh well....he doesn't need to understand anything on this subject. As long as he knows how to properly fry a hamburger patty, he should do well in life.
I am doing well in life. Thankyou!

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I know about the Theory of Evolution. You do not need to tell me how it works.


describe it in as much detail as you possibly can please

Originally posted by Evil Dead
#1. humans take no part in the breeding, creation of new life. The animals choose whether too breed and produce offspring or not. Humans are not manually stimulating a dog's penis, lubricating a *****'s vagina, holding the penis in while manually masturbating the dog to ejaculation. The same animals choose to breed......whether in a breeder's back yard or 10,000 years ago on an open savanah.
Canines are about 7 million years old. There are several species of Canines that exist today.

Now can you show me a recent and documented evidence of a new dog species coming in to existance from existing canines?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
what are you referring to as a defect? A defect by definition is a hinderence. Imbreeding producing traits not held by the population of a species at large are not a defect unless they hinder the animal. Many times the help the animal survive.....whether making them larger hunters able to kill larger prey, needing less kills to survive or by producing a thicker coat which would allow them to remain more active hunters in a colder climate.....resulting in more kills, more food....survival.
I am talking about defects such as:

- Reduced fertility.
- Increased genetic disorders.
- Fluctuating facial asymmetry.
- Lower birth rate.
- Higher infant mortality.
- Slower growth rate.
- Smaller adult size.
- Loss of immune system function.

Originally posted by inimalist
describe it in as much detail as you possibly can please
I do not have massive time to waste! Thankyou!

You can read about it in several sources.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
You understood the basics of my point but failed to understand the logic behind it.

A Kodiak Bear is a mammal. It can tolerate changes in environment to a certain extent but this does not means that it can evolve to adopt to an entirely different environment. And despite being warm blooded, it will die in that new environment which is not suitable for it. This clearly goes against Evolution, which tends to say that a species can evolve to adopt to major changes in environment or a new environment, which is not true. No species can evolve to adopt to a different environment. It will simply die in a different environment, if it cannot tolerate it. Yes I did fail to understand the logic behind it because it is flawed and based on incorrect assumptions. The Polar Bear is a direct descendent of the Kodiak so it already has adapted/evolved to the new environment. Not all species will die to a new environment, some will even thrive such as the Kodiak compared to the Grizzly and Brown bear and others will not. It all depends on the changes to the environment and the traits of that species if it can survive such as the dinosaurs and mammals.

Some species haven't evolved over millions of years simply because they didn't need to because they are perfectly suited to that environment and most are also on the top of the food chain.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
see.....this is called natural selection. Those imbred traits that are defects, hinder the animal, make it harder for that particular animal to survive and pass his/her genes onto the next generation.......see Neanderthal Man.
WOW! big mystery uncovered!

The species with defects become extinct. This supports my case because I am saying that species with defects are mainly result of inbreeding and they do not survive for long.

Also, if Neanderthals were result of inbreeds, they died.

But I will still do some research on Neanderthals. Thanks for pointing out.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
Those traits that make the animal better hunters, requiring the animal to expend less energy or making them better at evading predators allow that animal to survive to pass his genes along to the next generation.
Look dude!

Animals that are results of inbreeding are bound to fail due to certain defects that develop in them. This is not a good example of Evolution because it refers to failures.

The animals that are born perfect remain perfect through-out their life spans on the Earth.

Originally posted by ThePittman

How do you know for sure that the Polar Bear is a direct descedent of the Kodiak?

Originally posted by ThePittman
Not all species will die to a new environment, some will even thrive such as the Kodiak compared to the Grizzly and Brown bear and others will not.
Those species that will not die in a new environment actually have the natural tendency to tolerate that new environment. That natural tendency is present in them from the begining, which helps them to easily adapt to the new environment.

For example: Killer Whales can tolerate both COLD and WARM Waters. They have got the natural tendency to do so right from the begining.

Originally posted by ThePittman
It all depends on the changes to the environment and the traits of that species if it can survive such as the dinosaurs and mammals.
Mammals can adapt to changes in the environment more easily because they are warm blooded animals. This is a matter of common sense.

However where did the early mammals came from? Not from the micro-organisms.

Same is the case with Dinosaurs.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Some species haven't evolved over millions of years simply because they didn't need to because they are perfectly suited to that environment and most are also on the top of the food chain.
The Great White Shark have faced several environmental changes and yet it is still alive and is the same damn thing. They are not even the apex predators.

And like I said before, Theory of Evolution have many holes and flaws. It does not fits to all the animals.

Creationism however deals with all the animals.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
...Creationism however deals with all the animals.

Creationism? So how old is the Earth?

Creationism is only a myth.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
How do you know for sure that the Polar Bear is a direct descedent of the Kodiak?
Through genetic similarities, migration patterns and direct observation, you can find tons of studies, reports and what ever else you want to know simply by reading. Simply by looking at the Kodiaks, Brown, Polar and Grizzlies that live in Alaska you can see the changes that are present.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Those species that will not die in a new environment actually have the natural tendency to tolerate that new environment. That natural tendency is present in them from the begining, which helps them to easily adapt to the new environment.

For example: Killer Whales can tolerate both COLD and WARM Waters. They have got the natural tendency to do so right from the begining.
That is what I and many others have been saying all along and over many generations these traits will be improved on as the environment changes and that is evolution in a nut shell.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Mammals can adapt to changes in the environment more easily because they are warm blooded animals. This is a matter of common sense.

However where did the early mammals came from? Not from the micro-organisms.

Same is the case with Dinosaurs.
Evolution is not something that is debatable because it has been proven time and time again, the only part that IS in question is the beginning of life. You want to find holes in the process of animals adapting to environment which you can not, you want to debate about single cell evolving into complex organisms that is something completely different.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
The Great White Shark have faced several environmental changes and yet it is still alive and is the same damn thing. They are not even the apex predators.

And like I said before, Theory of Evolution have many holes and flaws. It does not fits to all the animals.

Creationism however deals with all the animals. Creationism is so flawed and full of holes that it couldn't hold mud. As for Great Whites the are at the top of the food chain and have very few predators. Even from the early species of Great White they have changed over the generations to their current form but relatively stayed the same because they are perfectly suited to their environment.

that's just the most retarded thing I have ever read. If a mutant gene(s) resulting in an advantage to an animal occurs (like making it larger to hunt larger animals, making it fur a different color for better camoflauge to evade predators, or thicker fur to better survive cold climates) and is imbred.......it is more likely that the decendants of those animals will survive to pass their genes along to the next generation. It is in no way whatsoever a defect or hinderance to the animal.

seriously kid........what education do you have on this subject? I, like Shaky, am surmising that you have cut and pasted your ideas together from bits and pieces of what you could remember from random documentaries you have seen on the Discovery Channel. I've seen nothing from you to indicate any knowledge of anything regarding any field of scientific study in this thread.......furthermore, I've seen plenty of statements ranging from outright ridiculous to factually misunderstood. You have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of the subject at hand.

funny Shaky......classes....college......I'm guessing he may have finished high school.....maybe.......only required to take minimal science courses offered in the ciriculum which only require a D to pass leading to graduation. Maybe.

I watch Discovery Channel all the time, but I must have missed those shows he watched

Originally posted by Evil Dead
...funny Shaky......classes....college......I'm guessing he may have finished high school.....maybe.......only required to take minimal science courses offered in the ciriculum which only require a D to pass leading to graduation. Maybe.

At best: probably home schooled.

Originally posted by ThePittman
I watch Discovery Channel all the time, but I must have missed those shows he watched

Did you watch the shows with a creationist agenda in mind?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Did you watch the shows with a creationist agenda in mind? I watch them all, I like to know both sides of a debate.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD


Let me give you a new example: Take the case of Whaleshark. This creature is 50% Whale and 50% Shark. Now why does the Whaleshark stays Whaleshark? Why it does not slowly evolves in to a full Shark or a full Whale?

Do you think that a Shark mated with a Whale to form this thing?


You claim to have taken a class on evolution yet your describing an animal as being 50% mammal and 50% fish?

I wonder how he's going to explain the genetic similarities between Humans and Neandertals fear.

^ I missed that one.hysterical

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD

Let me give you a new example: Take the case of Whaleshark. This creature is 50% Whale and 50% Shark. Now why does the Whaleshark stays Whaleshark? Why it does not slowly evolves in to a full Shark or a full Whale?


Yeah and Giraffes come from a cross between Camels and Leopards just because they're called Camelopardalis.

If you want to make yourself look poorly informed or desperate go elsewhere.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Let me give you a new example: Take the case of Whaleshark. This creature is 50% Whale and 50% Shark. Now why does the Whaleshark stays Whaleshark? Why it does not slowly evolves in to a full Shark or a full Whale?

Do you think that a Shark mated with a Whale to form this thing?
A whale shark is called a whale shark because it is the largest of the species and has nothing to do with it being part of a whale

And since you like Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_shark

"The species was first identified in April 1828 following the harpooning of a 4.6 metre (15.1 ft) specimen in Table Bay, South Africa. It was described the following year by Andrew Smith, a military doctor associated with British troops stationed in Cape Town. He proceeded to publish a more detailed description of the species in 1849. The name "whale shark" comes from the fish's physiology; that is, a shark as large as a whale that shares a similar filter feeder eating mode."

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
A whale shark is not half-whale half-shark. You're an idiot and a waste of time. Whales are mammals you moronic moron among morons.
I know that it is a fish but it's appearance is similar to that of a whale.

And I know that whales are mammals! You dolt!

You do not need to tell me the basics of science. Dumbshits!

Originally posted by ThePittman
A whale shark is called a whale shark because it is the largest of the species and has nothing to do with it being part of a whale

And since you like Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whale_shark

"The species was first identified in April 1828 following the harpooning of a 4.6 metre (15.1 ft) specimen in Table Bay, South Africa. It was described the following year by Andrew Smith, a military doctor associated with British troops stationed in Cape Town. He proceeded to publish a more detailed description of the species in 1849. The name "whale shark" comes from the fish's physiology; that is, a shark as large as a whale that shares a similar filter feeder eating mode."
I know it's a shark. I was talking about it's apperance. It looks 50% Shark and 50% Whale.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I know that it is a fish but it's appearance is similar to that of a whale.

And I know that whales are mammals! You dolt!

You do not need to tell me the basics of science. Dumbshits!

Then answer my question, please. How old is the Earth?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then answer my question, please. How old is the Earth? Around 4.5 Billion Years Old.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I know that it is a fish but it's appearance is similar to that of a whale.

And I know that whales are mammals! You dolt!

You do not need to tell me the basics of science. Dumbshits!



-sigh-

your previous statements are already posted for all to read, enjoy and laugh at you. By now stating the exact opposite after being presented with the correct information you previously were not privy to.......makes you look rather pathetic.

Originally posted by InnerRise
Around 4.5 Billion Years Old.

anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

I wasn't asking you. But you still get a gold star.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then answer my question, please. How old is the Earth?
More then a billion years old.

The oldest rocks found on Earth are more then 3.8 billion years old.

Scientists however suggest that the Earth is about 4.5 Billion old. Several dating methods settle on this age.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
-sigh-

your previous statements are already posted for all to read, enjoy and laugh at you. By now stating the exact opposite after being presented with the correct information you previously were not privy to.......makes you look rather pathetic.
Do I have to baby-feed you with proper words in every sentence?

It is a matter of common sense that when we are talking about a Shark, we are refering to a fish. My previous comment is aimed at the appearance of that fish.

Whaleshark is an excellent example of indicating the fact that the life-forms can often share similarities in terms of appearances but it does not means that they are related to each other or belong to same genus.

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
More then a billion years old.

The oldest rocks found on Earth are more then 3.8 billion years old.

Scientists however suggest that the Earth is about 4.5 Billion old.

If you believe that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, then how can you believe in the Creationism? In order to believe in Creationism, you have to believe in the bible, and the bible says that the Earth is between 6 and 7 thousand years old.

it doesn't appear so......



furthered by....



suggesting that since the animal is half fish/half mammal it must have been created from nothingness by god instead of evolving from the ancestoral tree of either fish or mammals........

you got busted kid. suck it up, quit crying. we all know where we all stand now....

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
I know that it is a fish but it's appearance is similar to that of a whale.

And I know that whales are mammals! You dolt!

You do not need to tell me the basics of science. Dumbshits!


I know it's a shark. I was talking about it's apperance. It looks 50% Shark and 50% Whale. So we are getting into calling me names, way to go. As for you post you said nothing about appearance but that it was 50/50 and again nothing about looks. We have to take what you have written and no where in your post mentioned anything about "it looks like a whale" and even in that you are incorrect. It is only called a whale because of its size and eating habits I don't think even a 3rd grader would confuse that fish with a whale.

Also what is with all the editing on your post, do you write something and then realize that it is BS and need to change it?

Originally posted by ThePittman
...Also what is with all the editing on your post, do you write something and then realize that it is BS and need to change it?

Do you have a problem with that? I do that all the time.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
it doesn't appear so......
Oh man! I forgot to use the word "apperance" and now these kids are all over me. You people do not even regard typo mistakes or errors. I am simply wasting time with you retards.

Originally posted by Evil Dead
furthered by....
The point is that despite being looking like a Whale, this Shark does not evolves in to one. Why not?

No wait! a shark must have thought "hey! I should look like a whale." When it starts looking like a Whale then it thought "I should become a Whale now but wait a minute! my genes do not mutate further to make me in to a Whale"

Originally posted by Evil Dead
suggesting that since the animal is half fish/half mammal it must have been created from nothingness by god instead of evolving from the ancestoral tree of either fish or mammals........
Did I said that this animal is "half fish" and "half mammal"? Stop putting words in to my mouth, dolt!

And can you tell me about the ancestor of this fish?

Originally posted by Evil Dead
you got busted kid. suck it up, quit crying. we all know where we all stand now....
Ha?

Do I really care? I forgot to use one word in a sentence and voila, this kids got an excuse to change the subject!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you believe that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, then how can you believe in the Creationism? In order to believe in Creationism, you have to believe in the bible, and the bible says that the Earth is between 6 and 7 thousand years old. It's possible to believe in both.

Some people believe in Evolution and Creationism.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

Originally posted by InnerRise
It's possible to believe in both.

Some people believe in Evolution and Creationism.

Anata wa wakarimasu ka.....

How is that possible? If you don't believe in the bible then you are not believing in Creationism. Maybe ID, but not Creationism.

Originally posted by ThePittman
So we are getting into calling me names, way to go. As for you post you said nothing about appearance but that it was 50/50 and again nothing about looks. We have to take what you have written and no where in your post mentioned anything about "it looks like a whale" and even in that you are incorrect. It is only called a whale because of its size and eating habits I don't think even a 3rd grader would confuse that fish with a whale.
There is a thing known as a "mistake" or an "error" and these things can be neglected. We are not taling about "learning to construct proper sentences" in this thread.

Originally posted by ThePittman
Also what is with all the editing on your post, do you write something and then realize that it is BS and need to change it?
LOL!

Now some people are against editing.

You are a pure kid by nature. My advice: Grow Up!

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
Oh man! I forgot to use the word "apperance" and now these kids are all over me. You people do not even regard typo mistakes or errors. I am simply wasting time with you retards.


The point is that despite being looking like a Whale, this Shark does not evolves in to one. Why not?

No wait! a shark must have thought "hey! I should look like a whale." When it starts looking like a Whale then it thought "I should become a Whale now but wait a minute! my genes do not mutate further to make me in to a Whale"


Did I said that this animal is "half fish" and "half mammal"? Stop putting words in to my mouth, dolt!

And can you tell me about the ancestor of this fish?


Ha?

Do I really care? I forgot to use one word in a sentence and voila, this kids got an excuse to change the subject! But when you start to try and jump down people throats because they couldn't read your mind and that you indented to write appearance makes you look like and a$$.Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Do you have a problem with that? I do that all the time. Hey I do it too but he has done it for like the last 10 posts in a row

Originally posted by S_W_LeGenD
There is a thing known as a "mistake" or an "error" and these things can be neglected. We are not taling about "learning to construct proper sentences" in this thread.


LOL!

Now some people are against editing.

You are a pure kid by nature. My advice: Grow Up! If you said that it was a mistake instead or name calling than it wouldn't be an issue.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If you believe that the Earth is 4.5 Billion years old, then how can you believe in the Creationism? In order to believe in Creationism, you have to believe in the bible, and the bible says that the Earth is between 6 and 7 thousand years old.
I am a man of faith but this does not means that I disregard science.

The "religious book" that I follow does not says that Earth is 6000 years old or anything like that.

uhhhm....why did you type my name in there? Pittman posted that......... I'm starting to think you have a man-crush on me. The forum has a "quote" feature that automatically fills in the person's name.........yet you take the time to specificly type my name onto someone else's quote.

Originally posted by ThePittman
If you said that it was a mistake instead or name calling than it wouldn't be an issue.
Hmm!

You can then simply tell me directly to stay civil. I am sorry! if I have offended you through name calling.