Poll: Pick One

Page 4 of 23 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 340

Thread: Evolution versus Creationism

  1. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hear that breathing behind you?
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    Thank you, but I'm just a simple pragmatist

    Now you just show how impossibly naive you are if you accept those very different pictures that the naked eye can discern could not possibly have come from the same type of creature in life. Really moose, you claim I'm the ignorant one as you allow yourself to be spoonfed fairy tales and accept it without question because your [sic] impressed by their scientific vocabulary. Duhhhhh, they use big word [sic] so they must be smart huh ?
    Really Archie, you claim others are ignorant as you allow yourself to be spoonfed fairy tales and accept proven hoaxes without question because you're impressed by their "proof" of your nutjob creationist beliefs. Duhhhhh, they show pretty pictures so they must be smart huh ?

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423
    You're asserting that Neanderthals are descended from Homo sapiens despite Homo neanderthalensis appearing 350,000-130,000 years ago whilst Homo sapiens appears 100,000 years ago on a different continent, their ranges don't overlap until 40,000 years ago.
    You are asserting time travel!
    Except that you don't believe that the world is more than 25,000 years old (for which you don't have merest hint of evidence and instead rely on you own misinterpretation of scripture which of course is so much better than that of every other theologian on the planet)
    Why pray when you can Google?

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    87
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripskar View Post
    You're asserting that Neanderthals are descended from Homo sapiens despite Homo neanderthalensis appearing 350,000-130,000 years ago whilst Homo sapiens appears 100,000 years ago on a different continent, their ranges don't overlap until 40,000 years ago.
    You are asserting time travel!
    Except that you don't believe that the world is more than 25,000 years old (for which you don't have merest hint of evidence and instead rely on you own misinterpretation of scripture which of course is so much better than that of every other theologian on the planet)
    Thank you Ripskar saved me some typing there.
    There are truths which are not for all men, nor for all times

    Letter to Cardinal de Bernis, April 23, 1761--Voltaire

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    2,719
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    Thank you, but I'm just a simple pragmatist

    Now you just show how impossibly naive you are if you accept those very different pictures that the naked eye can discern could not possibly have come from the same type of creature in life. Really moose, you claim I'm the ignorant one as you allow yourself to be spoonfed fairy tales and accept it without question because your impressed by their scientific vocabulary. Duhhhhh, they use big word so they must be smart huh ?
    Why is it dumb people make fun of persons using their intelligence? They accuse others of being arrogant or condescending or "psuedointellectual."
    Did it ever occur to you, Archaic Guy, that all these other people are simply smarter than you? You are the one that needs superstition to make it through the day. Look up "projection" in a psychology book sometime.
    "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" - Charles Darwin

    "One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision" - Bertrand Russell

  5. #50
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by thelmoose View Post
    Why is it dumb people make fun of persons using their intelligence? They accuse others of being arrogant or condescending or "psuedointellectual."
    Who is it you claim is using their intelligence moose ? Surely not you XXXXXX who claim to know what happened from anywhere between 100,000 years ago and 5.4 billion years ago based on TOTALLY unreliable junk science and ridiculous assumptions that you couldn't prove if you had another 100,000 years. So who is being arrogant and condescending ? It's you pseudo intellectuals who place your faith in lies and fraudulent science while looking down on people of faith as ignorant simpletons. Nice job, really.

    Did it ever occur to you, Archaic Guy, that all these other people are simply smarter than you? You are the one that needs superstition to make it through the day. Look up "projection" in a psychology book sometime.
    No, it never once occurred to me. Why ? Because I know the wisdom of this World is foolishness to God, and you will know it too someday. Also, I'm not the one claiming to have come from an animal, talk about archaic beliefs. And it isn't me that believes in superstitions to make it through the day. It is you who worships at the alter of mans false beliefs that we evolved by accident, by a fluke of nature side by side of a complete animal kingdom that we left in the creative dust. All because we were just lucky I guess, huh ? Take your fairy tales and your so called superior intellect. I'll take my foolishness any day.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ripskar
    You're asserting that Neanderthals are descended from Homo sapiens despite Homo neanderthalensis appearing 350,000-130,000 years ago whilst Homo sapiens appears 100,000 years ago on a different continent, their ranges don't overlap until 40,000 years ago.
    You are asserting time travel!
    Except that you don't believe that the world is more than 25,000 years old (for which you don't have merest hint of evidence and instead rely on you own misinterpretation of scripture which of course is so much better than that of every other theologian on the planet)
    blah blah blah, Go tell it to a gullible 6 year old. I'm beyond your lowly preconceived notions and assumptions that degrade humanity to that of a soulless beast.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hear that breathing behind you?
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    5.4 billion years ago
    Well, I'm not sure what the importance of this date you've chosen is (or if you've just chosen randomly), but if you are trying to talk about the age of the earth, it is around 4.56 billion years or so old, not 5.4 billion years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    degrade humanity to that of a soulless beast.
    You shouldn't speak so harshly about your relatives, Archie. I think it is hilarious that creationists of your ilk get their panties in a bunch when the "evilutionists" tell the truth about us being animals just like every other animal in the world.

    As to the rest of your post, all I see are the delusional rantings of a creationist that knows next to nothing about science.

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    439

    Lightbulb

    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowPikachu View Post
    Really Archie, you claim others are ignorant as you allow yourself to be spoonfed fairy tales and accept proven hoaxes without question because you're impressed by their "proof" of your nutjob creationist beliefs. Duhhhhh, they show pretty pictures so they must be smart huh ?
    while youre "pretty pictures" consist of an ape turning into a human is that right? well I would like proof of that too. or are you mesmerized by the fact that you evolved from a monkey... wow.. typing monkeys...
    -*Gig 'em*-.. All things work out for good, to those who LOVE the Lord. Romans 8:28

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    439
    Quote Originally Posted by ShadowPikachu View Post
    Well, I'm not sure what the importance of this date you've chosen is (or if you've just chosen randomly), but if you are trying to talk about the age of the earth, it is around 4.56 billion years or so old, not 5.4 billion years.



    You shouldn't speak so harshly about your relatives, Archie. I think it is hilarious that creationists of your ilk get their panties in a bunch when the "evilutionists" tell the truth about us being animals just like every other animal in the world.

    As to the rest of your post, all I see are the delusional rantings of a creationist that knows next to nothing about science.

    do all animals have the ability to think and reason?? NO. do all animals have a conscience? NO do animals have the ability to study or read? NO . how are we animals? explain to me your ignorance of the fact that we were created!
    -*Gig 'em*-.. All things work out for good, to those who LOVE the Lord. Romans 8:28

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hear that breathing behind you?
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by PoohBear View Post
    while youre [sic] "pretty pictures" consist of an ape turning into a human is that right? well I would like proof of that too. or are you mesmerized by the fact that you evolved from a monkey... wow.. typing monkeys...
    Well, a simple look at Bush will show us that he is the "missing link".

    Seriously though, yes, I AM mesmerized by the fact that present-day monkeys and apes are relatives of ours and that we evolved from a common ancestor - I am mesmerised, mainly because of how incredible the process of evolution is (and my personal belief is that God created us through the instrument of evolution, and no, we are not his end products or the pinnacle of this creation through several billion years of evolution, we are just one stop on the endless flow of evolution).

    And the "pretty pictures" I was referring to was a hoax that good old gullible Archie completely fell for - one that showed pictures of Civil War era men holding a pteranodon that they supposedly had killed: it ended up being a prop for a TV show, something that was known and admitted, and yet he still fell for it, and when we pointed it out, he never acknowledged the fact that it was a hoax.

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Hear that breathing behind you?
    Posts
    1,913
    Quote Originally Posted by PoohBear View Post
    do all animals have the ability to think and reason?? NO. do all animals have a conscience? NO do animals have the ability to study or read? NO . how are we animals? explain to me your ignorance of the fact that we were created!
    Do ALL animals have tails? NO. Do ALL animals have fur? NO. Do ALL animals have ears? NO. How are dogs and cats animals?

    Now that we got that out of the way, no, not ALL animals have those, however some do. Dolphins, parrots, monkeys and apes, even octopuses have the ability to think and reason, and it is believed that many have consciences. Just because humans can read, that does not make them above animals. Humans are apes - we just had different pressures that led us to evolve in a different way than the rest of our ape cousins.

    Explain to me the ignorance of the fact that we evolved!

  11. #56
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    3,525
    why do you guys bother at this point? this is like trying to make a mentally insane person go sane by beating them with wet noodles.
    "You are, of course, free to make your own calls on how much rationality you want to impose upon yourself." - Kronus

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423
    There is a serious side to the debate, (Life and Death for millions) medical science requires a flow of trained people who understand evolution in order to combat diseases that increasingly are evolving immunity to treatment.
    Malaria, C.Dificil, HIV, MRSA, TB, etc.
    Creationists and ID proponents threaten the source of trained people, and thus threaten the mass of humanity. The religious alternative to medicine, (praying for the sick <dying>, faith healing etc.) simply isn't an answer.
    You might say that these individual creationists aren't that important, but if we couldn't defeat these fools how would we confront the dangerous ones?
    Why pray when you can Google?

  13. #58
    Archangel Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by Ripskar View Post
    There is a serious side to the debate, (Life and Death for millions) medical science requires a flow of trained people who understand evolution in order to combat diseases that increasingly are evolving immunity to treatment.
    Malaria, C.Dificil, HIV, MRSA, TB, etc.
    Creationists and ID proponents threaten the source of trained people, and thus threaten the mass of humanity. The religious alternative to medicine, (praying for the sick <dying>, faith healing etc.) simply isn't an answer.
    You might say that these individual creationists aren't that important, but if we couldn't defeat these fools how would we confront the dangerous ones?
    Oh please!!!!! Now you're concerned about becoming the victim of Creationists who will dumb down society with our antiquated beliefs ? Can you post one iota of evidence that there are not now and never have been any people of faith in the legitimate sciences ? And how dare you blatantly lie by insisting that it's people who are evolutionary scientists who are discovering the cures for modern diseases. Evolutionary science is junk science and it consists more of fraud than fact. And only self deluded pseudo intellects will place their faith in it. But everyone needs a religion huh ? For the atheist, it may as well be evolution I guess.

  14. #59
    Archangel Guest
    Interesting that none of the evolutionist mental giants around here even dealt with the inconsistencies pointed out here.

    Living Fossils

    Since 1822 thousands of previously unknown animals have been found, many of which are known as "living fossils" - animals that once known only by its fossilized bones and presumed to have been extinct for millions of years and used as "proof" of evolution. But then, to the embarrassment of scientists, these animals were later found to be alive in remote parts of the world.

    Charles Darwin, himself, coined this term. In the Origin of Species he called lungfish and other species whose form remained unchanged since its inception "anomalous forms" that "may almost be called living fossils."

    Living fossils are living proof of the accuracy with which plants and animals reproduce themselves and the fact that many are not changing at all.

    The Okapi was once thought to have been extinct until they were found still living. These animals were once used as evidence that the horse had evolved.


    Living Coelacanths

    The Australian and African lungfish are . . . living fossils. They all look "primitive" and have lobed fins. Obviously lungfish can't be our ancestors because they have remain unchanged, again for 400 million years [ET*]. Another animal, the horseshoe crab, would be a great candidate for our ancestor. It looks "primitive" and leaves the ocean to spawn on dry land. However, it, too, is a living fossil, appearing about 425 million years ago [ET*] in the Silurian period, and remaining unchanged.

    Similarly, gars, sturgeons, bowfins, and paddlefish all look "primitive" but are living fossils. Yet they are doing nicely in today's environment.

    IN 1994. in Wollemi National Park (in the Blue Mountains) the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Services found a pine tree once thought to be extinct. They are close relations to plants only found in the so called "Jurassic and Cretaceous" periods. (65-200 million years ago [ET*]). There are very few of these trees left in an isolated area.

    The following aquatic animals alive today are also examples of creatures that have not evolved since their fossil ancestors:- lobsters, crayfish and rays (fossils found in Jurassic rock), lampshells, mussels oysters, thumb nail shells (fossils found in Carboniferous rock), sharks (fossilized teeth found in Devonian rock), mackerel, perch, herring, jelly fish, fogs, the nautilus etc.

    Of the 12,000 fossilized insects the majority are similar to living types of insect found today.


    The fossils of bees, ants, cicadas, beetles, termites or cockroaches, and other insects are always practically identical with (though often larger than) their modern descendants. The same applies to the arachnids and myriapods.

    Other famous living fossils include the tuatara (supposedly extinct since the Cretaceous Period until found still living in New Zealand), the Lepidocaris crustacean (only found as fossils in Devonian rocks), the lingula brachiopod ("extinct" since the Ordovician), and even the trilobite (chief index fossil of the even more ancient Cambrian Period).

    If all of these species have not evolved in 50 million [ET*], 100 million [ET*] or even 200 million [ET*] years, then why should we believe that they (or anything) have evolved? Some changes due to speciation have occurred, but not the large scale changes that evolution supposes.


    The list goes on; example after example of no change from one type of animal to another in the fossil record. Darwin tried to cover over this embarrassment by saying the fossil record is incomplete, but it wasn't then and it's not now. What we know about living fossils, then and now, is a representative sample of the fossil record.

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Here be Dragons
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Archangel View Post
    Oh please!!!!! Now you're concerned about becoming the victim of Creationists who will dumb down society with our antiquated beliefs ? Can you post one iota of evidence that there are not now and never have been any people of faith in the legitimate sciences ? And how dare you blatantly lie by insisting that it's people who are evolutionary scientists who are discovering the cures for modern diseases. Evolutionary science is junk science and it consists more of fraud than fact. And only self deluded pseudo intellects will place their faith in it. But everyone needs a religion huh ? For the atheist, it may as well be evolution I guess.
    The World Health Organization (WHO) requested pharmaceutical companies to end the marketing and sale of “single-drug” artemisinin malaria medicines, in order to prevent malaria parasites from developing resistance to this drug.
    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/.../2006/pr02/en/

    http://www.organic-chemistry.org/Hig...5OctoberA.shtm

    http://www.the-scientist.com/2005/3/28/42/1/
    In the presence of drugs, pathogens have evolved sophisticated mechanisms to inactivate these compounds (e.g. by pumping out compounds mutating residues required for the compound to bind etc.), and they do so at a rate that far exceeds the pace of new development of drugs.
    Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection or programmed evolution. The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce. They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.
    Lin LL, Little JW. 1988. Isolation and characterization of noncleavable (Ind−) mutants of the lexA repressor of Escherichia coli K-12. J Bacteriol. 170:2163–2173.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract
    Why pray when you can Google?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •