Prove Evolution...win money

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I got your proof, a Chiwawa. Humans have been playing with the basic building blocks of evolution for centuries. A Chiwawa could never have lived in the wild; we humans have made this animal by selective breading. The dog had the genetic potential to make all the strange dogs we have today. Evolution is nature doing the selective breading instead of humans.

Hey! were is my money? 🙄

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Hey! were is my money? 🙄

Submit your claim to Dr. Hovind, make the hack pay up! 😛

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Submit your claim to Dr. Hovind, make the hack pay up! 😛

Don't you wish it was that simple. It most likely is a scam, anyway, I don't have time for that. 😛

Life is like a cafeteria. Each belief structure has it's our line of food. There's one for Christians, there's one for Buddhists, there's even one for atheists. Some people only eat food from one line, even if it makes them sick. I like to pick for more then one line. I am a Buddhist but there are some things in the Christian line I like, and some from the atheists. This is what I suggest, look at all the lines, and be moderate in what you pick.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
so ur counterargument is that my argument{a concept which is BASED on logic} is wrong simply because god is beyond logic and nuthin can be said or proven or given to make it otherwise? no matter how logical/reasonable/believeable?

yup... One of the benifits of being "omnipotent" and having all power is you don't have to play by the rules...

If you had read the definition I gave you, you would understand...

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Good grief. Why do so many religious people on this forum seem like they were homeschooled by retards. Were they actually all homeschooled by retards?

X..from what I can gather..you're a scientist, or at least attempting to be one. I'm quite certain that you have an exstensive knowledge of biology, genetics, etc, and I'm sure you went to or are going to an accredited university.

The irony of all this, is the fact that despite your exstensive educational/professional experience..you've stated the following in various Evolution threads:

1. The Neandrathal Man is a "different species of human."

2. Mutations found in nature are generally progressive and beneficial.

3. In a society ruled by a secular government, those whom have non-secular beliefs are able to classify what their belief systems represent.

4. Even though human beings themselves are "Intelligent Designers", it would make more sense to assume that no one designed them, and that life just randomly formed from nothing..

😕..😉

Seriously Bud..

Just think about this for a minute. All of the knowledge you've acquired through studies..and some of life's simplest lessons have alluded you. I think you need to do some serious soul searching my friend.

Fin

Originally posted by whobdamandog
...Just think about this for a minute. All of the knowledge you've acquired through studies..and some of life's simplest lessons have alluded you. I think you need to do some serious soul searching my friend.

Fin

That is the most hypocritical thing I have ever read from you, wait, I maybe wrong about that 😆 .

Whob, there are a lot of things you should learn.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is the most hypocritical thing I have ever read from you, wait, I maybe wrong about that 😆 .

Wasn't it a wise man(or perhaps a foolish one...I can't remember) who once said...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison

The wise words of Shaky..

Was my statement absolute? No. Your reality is yours, and if you wish to see it that way, it is fine with me. Your delusion is no better than mine.

🙄 😉

whob why do you believe in ID over Ev??? what convinced you??

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Wasn't it a wise man(or perhaps a foolish one...I can't remember) who once said...

🙄 😉

Not a bad point, but not the one I was getting at. When a person says something like "I think you need to do some serious soul searching my friend." that person sounds like they are being judgmental. So, I thought I would point it out with a joke. Everyone could stand to learn, but we can only learn within our capability. Wouldn't it make your arguments better, if you knew more about science?

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
whob why do you believe in ID over Ev??? what convinced you??

Well to be quite honest with you, I have been a Christian all of my life. I can't imagine how my life would be if I had no such belief in "God", nor can I understand how anyone can live life without believing that their life has no true purpose.

But aside from my religious roots, from a scientific perspective, I find it too difficult to believe that life could have formed from mere chance. The evidence out there does not support this hypothesis, and its wishful thinking for one to assume that it does.

As ironic as it may be, I actually grew up in a school system that taught evolutionary theory, and am a bit more learned on said subjects than many assume me to be. I'm actually taking a courses in Chemistry and Biology right now.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Back on topic:

"Did dinos soar? Imaginations certainly took flight over "Archaeoraptor Liaoningesis", a birdlike fossil with a meat-eater's tail that was spirited out of northeastern China, 'discovered' at a Tucson, Arizona, gem and mineral show in '99, and displayed at the National Geographic Society in Washington, D.C. Some 110,000 visitors saw the exhibit, which closed January 17th; millions more read about the find in November's National Geographic. Now, paleontologists are eating crow. Instead of 'a true missing link' connecting dinosaurs to birds, the specimen appears to be a composite, its unnusual appendage likely tacked on by a Chinese farmer, not evolution.
"Archaeoraptor is hardly the first 'missing link' to snap under scrutiny. In 1912, fossil remains of an ancient hominid were found in England's Piltdown quarries and quickly dubbed man's ape-like ancestor. It took decades to reveal the hoax."

-U.S. News & World Report, February 14,2000

"Scientists concede that their most cherished theories are based on embarrassingly few fossil fragments and that huge gaps exist in the fossil record."

-Time magazine, Nov. 7,1977

"Charles Dawson, a British lawyer and amateur geologist, announced in 1912 his discovery of pieces of a human skull, and an apelike jaw in a gravel pit near the town of Piltdown, England...Dawson's announcement stopped the scorn cold. Experts instantly declared Piltdown Man (estimated to be 300,000 to one million years old) the evolutionary find of the century. Darwin's missing link had been found.
"Or so it seemed for the next 40 or so years. Then, in the early fifties...scientists began to suspect misattribution. In 1953, that suspcicion gave way to a full-blown scandal: Piltdown Man was a hoax. Radiocarbon tests proved that its skull belonged to a 600-year old woman, and its jaw to a 500-year old orangutan from the West Indies."

-Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century

These are not isolated incedents.

The famed Nebraska Man was derived from a single tooth, which was later found to be from an extinct pig. Java Man, found in the early 20th century, was nothing more than a piece of skull, a fragment of a thigh bone, and three molar teeth. The rest came from the deeply fertile imaginations of plaster of Paris workers. Java Man is now regarded as fully human. Heidelberg Man came from a jawbone, a large chin section, and a few teeth. Most scientists reject the jawbone because its similar to modern man. Still, many evolutionists believe that he's 250,000 years old. No doubt they pinpointed his birthday with carbon dating. However, TIME magazine (June 11, 1990) published a science article subtitled "Geologists show that carbon dating can be way off", in which it is implied that carbon dating is only 100% accurate up to 7,000-10,000 years(the exact amount of time that the earth would be around if the Bible is correct), and even more interestingly, :

"Shells from LIVING snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old" - SCIENCE magazine, vol.224, 1984 (emphasis added 😉 )

The Neanderthal man is no evidence for evolution either. He died of exposure. His skull was exposed as being fully human, not ape. Not only was his stuped posture found to be caused by disease, but he spoke and was artistic and religious.

😎

Oh my GOD! oh my god! I feel so bad for you! What bible thumping, Bush supporting site did you get this pile of shit off of?

Your disproving of facts are disporoving of facts that aren't even accurate. It's name isn't even Archaeoraptor! My god, I feel so bad for you and your people! Oh my god!...well, oh your god!

Originally posted by whobdamandog
X..from what I can gather..you're a scientist, or at least attempting to be one. I'm quite certain that you have an exstensive knowledge of biology, genetics, etc, and I'm sure you went to or are going to an accredited university.

The irony of all this, is the fact that despite your exstensive educational/professional experience..you've stated the following in various Evolution threads:

1. The Neandrathal Man is a "different species of human."

2. Mutations found in nature are generally progressive and beneficial.

3. In a society ruled by a secular government, those whom have non-secular beliefs are able to classify what their belief systems represent.

4. Even though human beings themselves are "Intelligent Designers", it would make more sense to assume that no one designed them, and that life just randomly formed from nothing..

😕..😉

Seriously Bud..

Just think about this for a minute. All of the knowledge you've acquired through studies..and some of life's simplest lessons have alluded you. I think you need to do some serious soul searching my friend.

Fin

So, you're ready for round 2?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
X..from what I can gather..you're a scientist, or at least attempting to be one. I'm quite certain that you have an exstensive knowledge of biology, genetics, etc, and I'm sure you went to or are going to an accredited university.

The irony of all this, is the fact that despite your exstensive educational/professional experience..you've stated the following in various Evolution threads:

1. The Neandrathal Man is a "different species of human."

2. Mutations found in nature are generally progressive and beneficial.

3. In a society ruled by a secular government, those whom have non-secular beliefs are able to classify what their belief systems represent.

4. Even though human beings themselves are "Intelligent Designers", it would make more sense to assume that no one designed them, and that life just randomly formed from nothing..

😕..😉

Seriously Bud..

Just think about this for a minute. All of the knowledge you've acquired through studies..and some of life's simplest lessons have alluded you. I think you need to do some serious soul searching my friend.

Fin

I'm sure your god doesn't appreciate your lies, halfwit.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Good grief. Why do so many religious people on this forum seem like they were homeschooled by retards. Were they actually all homeschooled by retards?

No, my friend. I actually was a rather bright student.

I did quite well on my S.A.T.'s .... back in 6th grade. My lowest score was 9th grade math level, with a 10th grade science level, and four P.H.S. (Post High School) scores for English, Reasoning, Vocabulary, History.

I'm no genius, hey, I freely admit to not finishing high school,(due to my own stupid choices) but you don't need to post stuff like that.

I don't attack you. I may not agree with you, or you with me, but we don't need to name call.

(It makes your point-of-view seem less valid 😉

Originally posted by Hit_and_Miss
They just use google and copy paste the first argument they can find on a website, Then add some comment like how right that argument is.. Or in this case.. A dude with glasses....

they can't prove it themselves so they count on some flawed webpage to do the work for them...

Give me a little credit... I didn't go "web surfing for anti evolution" drivel..... 😛

Point of fact,... those are REAL articles, written in REAL magazines, and a real history book. Perhaps rather than make fun of the source,(since you don't like the info.) you ought to try to "cut and paste" your counter points. Or at least show what I posted to be false/contradicted.

On a side note.... I'm a registered member of the boards who has been here longer than you, and I'm also a few years older. Don't be disrespectfull. Please be civil and show the same courtesy that I have afforded to you.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Homeschooled by people with such resources as the "Our Times: The Illustrated History of the 20th Century." Now that's scary. Evolutionists better be scared. Snort. Snicker.

And our Christian friends should be careful about loudly proclaiming the falsity of evolution based upon things like the Piltdown man. People might do it back.

Maybe we could mention all those things meant to prove God and Jesus. Shroud of Turin anybody? The box said to contain the bones of Jesus's "brother"? All the pieces of the "True Cross", which if put together would create something hundreds of meters high? The fact back in the 1200's there was something like three, count 'em three, heads all apparently belonging to to John the Baptist? Rusty old spear tips said to be the fabled "spear of destiny" that turn out to be many, many hundreds of years too late? The list goes on, and is far, far larger then any list that could be created from studies of evolution.

Same applies to you, good sir. Please dispute my source with something of SUBSTANCE, rather than a crack about a book that you've never cracked.

Piltdown Man was a fraud. I don't see your reason for saying that I should'nt include him in an argument about the validity of Evolutionism.

You have a point about some of the things throughout history that have wrongly been used to validate Christianity, and I applaud your knowleged of that subject. 🙂

Please use your knowledge to stay on topic, and provide points/counterpoints to the discussion that is currently underway.

(Rather than respond out of emotionalism and say, "but Christ has had false evidence too."😉 Its not the focus of the thread.

Something else to ponder:

"Platelets" play an important role in preventing the loss of blood by beginning a chain reaction that results in blood clotting. As blood begins to flow from a cut or scratch, platelets respond to help the blood clot and to stop the bleeding after a short time.

Platelets promote the clotting process by clumping together and forming a plug at the site of a wound and then releasing protiens called "clotting factors". These protiens start a series of chemical reactions that are extremely complicated. Every step of the clotting must go smoothly if a clot is to form. If one of the clotting factors is missing or defective, the clotting process does not work. A serious genetic disorder known as "hemophilia" results from a defect in one of the clotting factor genes. Because they lack one of the clotting factors, hemophilia sufferers may bleed uncontrollably from even small cuts or scrapes.

To form a blood clot there must be twelve specific individual chemical reactions in our blood. If evolution is true, and if this 12-step process didn't happen in the first generation (i.e., if any one of these specific reactions failed to operate in their exact reaction and order), no creatures would have survived. They all would have bled to death!

So... did they skip the natural selection/adaption through mutation process,....

Or did God give them the full 12-step process to have platelets when he created them?

😖hifty:

Oh, and does anybody have a comment on this:

" One morning I woke up and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing that I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for so long...I've tried putting a simple question to various people: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?' I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only asnwer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time. Eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing-it ought not to be taught in high school.' "

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, in a keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, in 1981. In it, he explained his sudden "anti-evolutionary" view.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, my friend. I actually was a rather bright student.

I did quite well on my S.A.T.'s .... back in 6th grade. My lowest score was 9th grade math level, with a 10th grade science level, and four P.H.S. (Post High School) scores for English, Reasoning, Vocabulary, History.

I'm no genius, hey, I freely admit to not finishing high school,(due to my own stupid choices) but you don't need to post stuff like that.

I don't attack you. I may not agree with you, or you with me, but we don't need to name call.

(It makes your point-of-view seem less valid 😉

Give me a little credit... I didn't go "web surfing for anti evolution" drivel..... 😛

Point of fact,... those are REAL articles, written in REAL magazines, and a real history book. Perhaps rather than make fun of the source,(since you don't like the info.) you ought to try to "cut and paste" your counter points. Or at least show what I posted to be false/contradicted.

On a side note.... I'm a registered member of the boards who has been here longer than you, and I'm also a few years older. Don't be disrespectfull. Please be civil and show the same courtesy that I have afforded to you.

Same applies to you, good sir. Please dispute my source with something of SUBSTANCE, rather than a crack about a book that you've never cracked.

Piltdown Man was a fraud. I don't see your reason for saying that I should'nt include him in an argument about the validity of Evolutionism.

You have a point about some of the things throughout history that have wrongly been used to validate Christianity, and I applaud your knowleged of that subject. 🙂

Please use your knowledge to stay on topic, and provide points/counterpoints to the discussion that is currently underway.

(Rather than respond out of emotionalism and say, "but Christ has had false evidence too."😉 Its not the focus of the thread.

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Something else to ponder:

"Platelets" play an important role in preventing the loss of blood by beginning a chain reaction that results in blood clotting. As blood begins to flow from a cut or scratch, platelets respond to help the blood clot and to stop the bleeding after a short time.

Platelets promote the clotting process by clumping together and forming a plug at the site of a wound and then releasing protiens called "clotting factors". These protiens start a series of chemical reactions that are extremely complicated. Every step of the clotting must go smoothly if a clot is to form. If one of the clotting factors is missing or defective, the clotting process does not work. A serious genetic disorder known as "hemophilia" results from a defect in one of the clotting factor genes. Because they lack one of the clotting factors, hemophilia sufferers may bleed uncontrollably from even small cuts or scrapes.

To form a blood clot there must be twelve specific individual chemical reactions in our blood. If evolution is true, and if this 12-step process didn't happen in the first generation (i.e., if any one of these specific reactions failed to operate in their exact reaction and order), no creatures would have survived. They all would have bled to death!

So... did they skip the natural selection/adaption through mutation process,....

Or did God give them the full 12-step process to have platelets when he created them?

😖hifty:

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Oh, and does anybody have a comment on this:

" One morning I woke up and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years and there was not one thing that I knew about it. That's quite a shock to learn that one can be misled for so long...I've tried putting a simple question to various people: 'Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?' I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only asnwer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time. Eventually one person said, 'I do know one thing-it ought not to be taught in high school.' "

Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, in a keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History, New York City, in 1981. In it, he explained his sudden "anti-evolutionary" view.

"Dear Mr. Binkley,

Obviously I have not helped you fight your local creationists - sorry. The
story behind the "Impact" article is that last November I gave a talk to the
systematics discussion group in the American Museum of Natural History. I was
asked to talk on 'evolutionism and creationism', and knowing the meetings of
the group as informal sessions where ideas could be kicked around among
specialists, I put the case for difficulties and problems with evolution,
specifically in the field of systematics. I was too naive and foolish to guess
what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to
Luther Sunderland. Sunderland made a transcript, which I refused to edit since
it was pretty garbled, and since I had no exact record of what I did say.
Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to
stop circulating the transcript, but of course to no effect.

There is not much point in going through the article point by point. I was
putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking
about systematics, a specialised field. I do not support the creationist
movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify
school curricula. In short, the article does not fairly represent my views.
But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational
discussion, not be quoting 'authorities' which seems to be the creationists'
principal mode of argument.

Sincerely, Colin Patterson"

Letter to Steven Binkley, 17th June 1982.

Darwin. Now Patterson. Quote manipulation trend. They're both rolling in their graves.

"Evolution makes more sense then creationism because no one knows if I exist" - God.

If they can make shit up, so can I.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Your excerpts from articles are predominantly 20 to 30 years old. Mostly they detail irrelevancy. They are not from scientific journals they are from populist newstand magazines.
You have poor understanding of the processes of evolution.

You did not get me here.

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Colin Patterson has a comment on it.

"Dear Mr. Binkley,

Obviously I have not helped you fight your local creationists - sorry. The
story behind the "Impact" article is that last November I gave a talk to the
systematics discussion group in the American Museum of Natural History. I was
asked to talk on 'evolutionism and creationism', and knowing the meetings of
the group as informal sessions where ideas could be kicked around among
specialists, I put the case for difficulties and problems with evolution,
specifically in the field of systematics. I was too naive and foolish to guess
what might happen: the talk was taped by a creationist who passed the tape to
Luther Sunderland. Sunderland made a transcript, which I refused to edit since
it was pretty garbled, and since I had no exact record of what I did say.
Since, in my view, the tape was obtained unethically, I asked Sunderland to
stop circulating the transcript, but of course to no effect.

There is not much point in going through the article point by point. I was
putting a case for discussion, as I thought off the record, and was speaking
about systematics, a specialised field. I do not support the creationist
movement in any way, and in particular I am opposed to their efforts to modify
school curricula. In short, the article does not fairly represent my views.
But even if it did, so what? The issue should be resolved by rational
discussion, not be quoting 'authorities' which seems to be the creationists'
principal mode of argument.

Sincerely, Colin Patterson"

Letter to Steven Binkley, 17th June 1982.

Darwin. Now Patterson. Quote manipulation trend. They're both rolling in their graves.

You did get me here, however.

Bravo.

I honestly did not know that. I would want to make valid points through valid info. so please disreagard.

Do you have an answer to the platelets question?

Or any others that I posted?

Or just more emotionalist naysaying?

Originally posted by sithsaber408
Something else to ponder:

"Platelets" play an important role in preventing the loss of blood by beginning a chain reaction that results in blood clotting. As blood begins to flow from a cut or scratch, platelets respond to help the blood clot and to stop the bleeding after a short time.

Platelets promote the clotting process by clumping together and forming a plug at the site of a wound and then releasing protiens called "clotting factors". These protiens start a series of chemical reactions that are extremely complicated. Every step of the clotting must go smoothly if a clot is to form. If one of the clotting factors is missing or defective, the clotting process does not work. A serious genetic disorder known as "hemophilia" results from a defect in one of the clotting factor genes. Because they lack one of the clotting factors, hemophilia sufferers may bleed uncontrollably from even small cuts or scrapes.

To form a blood clot there must be twelve specific individual chemical reactions in our blood. If evolution is true, and if this 12-step process didn't happen in the first generation (i.e., if any one of these specific reactions failed to operate in their exact reaction and order), no creatures would have survived. They all would have bled to death!

Here is an article on the subject.

(Edited to remove snarkiness, since you seem like a fairly reasonable person)