evolution

Predator_89> “yup omega you're right there is no proff of God, not what you want to see do you really think if you could feel the concept of a god do you think proof of god can just be snached up.”
Ah, well there you do. NO proof of God. Odd isn’t it, since he’s supposed to be all-powerful and stuff, he/she/it’s SO hard to se?

”Call me ignorant if you want or not it does not matter, maybe i dont have all the answers but thats where my strength lies you believe because you can see and feel,”
But you see… It’s not a matter of BELIEF when you have proof. Then it’s a matter of KNOWING.

”me i can wait and one day weather you or me is right at least i can either live or die in peace knowing that i have my answer. The real question is could you live with it if you were wrong.”
And there… You are wrong, You are NOT KNOWING, YOU are believing.
If science finds itself to be in error, it corrects itself. Which is more than I can say about your precious belief.

Feceman> “Sorry, the (not all, but some) "proof" for evolution has been refuted…”
Well, you keep chanting that, but YOU repeating yourself constitutes no proof that anything has been refuted.
Read this thread, there is plenty of proof. IF you can’t be bothered, then I can only assume that you do not want to ACCEPT the proof of evolution, which makes you childishly stubborn.
Here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

OK, back. Can't talk long--need do poetry analysis. "Snake" by D.H. Lawrence.

I've been thinking...the problem seems to be ambiguity between "signs" of evolution and creationism. You see CHON as evidence of an evolutionary thread and a common ancestor; I see it as evidence of an intelligent design and common Creator.

Anyhow, discuss away, must analyze. I don't think that my Freudian analysis would go over well with my teacher, so I'll have to go ahead and work at it.

Originally posted by The Omega
What... No arguments against evolution for five days...
Hm 🙂

u spoke too soon, lol

*views thread, is tired of creationists avoiding the q's*

*offers pillow*

*has fallen asleep from having to be so repetitive...*

It gets quite old, doesn't it.

Feceman> 😆 Who cares about your poetry analysis????
Deal with the facts offered or go away.
You keep chanting he same crap - which to be frank is getting boring - but offer no proof of Creationism save your own belief.
That you suffer from a culturally accepted delusion is your deal. Not mine.

(Peers around) No way, I won't let this thread die.

To you most esteemed defenders of the truth http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html
From Q 3 and down there's funky ammo should we be able to lure another Creationist in here... 😉

Ooooooh, fun.......I'll be sure to check it out when I get home (I've hijacked my friend's comp at the moment) 🙂

*falls on ground and starts plucking hair out*

It's not true! It's not true I tell ya! There is a god and he created all! 😐

Originally posted by Silver Stardust
Ooooooh, fun.......I'll be sure to check it out when I get home (I've hijacked my friend's comp at the moment) 🙂

Hacker 😖hifty:

the weaker die, the stronger live, thats with all animals same aint it?
has this always been the same?

well.... evolution is when a new generation differs to his parental in biological way.... ? can you say it like this? (may be expressed a bit unclearly what i think but i guess you know what i mean...)

would you call these genetic changes over millions of years mutations?
i would.....

whats with mutations today? they dont live a long life or at least dont have any progeny....

wouldnt these mutations have to be under the law that the weaker die and the stronger live on?

The reasons mutations seem to always die off is because the chance of a successful mutation occurring is extremely low. It's also very rare that even a mutation that proves useful will show up in more than one individual. That's why it's taken millions of years to get where we are today evolutionarily.

just think about a fish that should be mutating to a land animal.... if it has got feets it will be slower than the other fishes and will die probably earlier than the others.... what ever you think of it always hinders the animal in its usual life...

Not necessarily, if its feet can still be used effectively as fins. There are a lot of amphibious animals that can move around in water just as well as on land.

but in comparison the mutants couldnt live in their group.... and whats with the progeny? i think most mutated animals cant have any progeny..... (fe. mules)

Like I said, the chances of a successful, fertile mutation occuring and spreading to other generations are extremely slim. It does happen--but it's very, very rare. Which is part of why evolution has taken so long.

A mule isn't a mutant. It's a hybrid. Hybrids are when you cross two species, and usually they are unable to reproduce.

Oops, missed that part 😮

It's okay.

*pats Nivek on the head*

oh yeah wrong example there.... sorry, just look for another example yourself 😉 😛 narh too tired now to post anything... i will answer later....