# Did evolution happen ?



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 4, 2019)

Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.


----------



## JGalt (Mar 4, 2019)

If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?


----------



## Hugo Furst (Mar 4, 2019)

No

it's a figment of your imagination.

You're still crawling around in the primordial ooze.


----------



## JGalt (Mar 4, 2019)

WillHaftawaite said:


> No
> 
> it's a figment of your imagination.
> 
> You're still crawling around in the primordial ooze.



The OP missed by a mile. The greatest living Englishman is Kieth Richards.

At least I think he's still alive. Barely.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Mar 4, 2019)

We're all dinosaurs.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Mar 4, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.


Your poor delicate ego can't accept Intelligent Design.

Boo Fucking Hoo


----------



## sealybobo (Mar 4, 2019)

JGalt said:


> If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?


They’re on a different evolutionary path.

They have evolved in that time just not like us.

Mutations inside us happened that led us to be human but so did the environment. We left the trees so we started using our hands more. We had more leasure time to invent wheels and weapons and other tools


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 4, 2019)

JGalt said:


> If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?


If you had any clue about what evolution is you'd realize how ignorant this sounds.


----------



## Death Angel (Mar 4, 2019)

Damaged Eagle said:


> We're all dinosaurs.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****


Just Democrats


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Mar 4, 2019)

JGalt said:


> If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?



Because evolution is the dividing of a species with one remaining successful where it is and another moving off in a new direction. The chimps and gorillas do quite well in the jungle and have remained much the same. Hominids moved onto the ground, out onto the savannah, and the rest is history. Here we are discussing it.

"If Apes Evolved From Monkeys, Why Are There Still Monkeys?"


----------



## Wyatt earp (Mar 4, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?
> ...


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Mar 4, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > We're all dinosaurs.
> ...







Unfortunately they'll probably take most of us with them if we have another progressive warmonger like the last one.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## otto105 (Mar 4, 2019)

JGalt said:


> If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?



Why don't all branches of a tree go the same way?


Next


----------



## JGalt (Mar 4, 2019)

ChesBayJJ said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?
> ...



The fact that there are many species of animals which are unchanged after millions of years, negates the whole "theory" of evolution.


----------



## Hugo Furst (Mar 4, 2019)

otto105 said:


> Why don't all branches of a tree go the same way?



They honor different Gods?


----------



## JGalt (Mar 4, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?
> ...



How "ignorant"? So maybe you have an explanation why the same apes that were in existence millions of years ago, haven't evolved into people?


----------



## ChesBayJJ (Mar 4, 2019)

JGalt said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



Wrong. Your assumption that they are unchanged is incorrect. Rates of change can vary greatly depending on environmental influences.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 4, 2019)

JGalt said:


> If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?



That's not the theory.

Apes and humans ... in fact, humans and every species on earth have common ancestors.

Species diverge when a single member of that species mutates.  Those mutations are passed on to that member's offspring leaving the original species unchanged.


----------



## otto105 (Mar 4, 2019)

JGalt said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



Can you provide any information that current day apes were the same millions of years ago.


----------



## JGalt (Mar 4, 2019)

ChesBayJJ said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...



There are many species of plant and animal life that hasnt changed one bit over the last millions of years, even though their environment supposedly has. The fact that environment influences hasn't altered those lifeforms, completely invalidates the whole myth of "climate change" and "global warming."


----------



## JGalt (Mar 4, 2019)

fncceo said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?
> ...



Sorry. Being a biblical creationist, I don't subscribe to that "theory."


----------



## fncceo (Mar 4, 2019)

JGalt said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



And no one is asking you to.  You brought it up.

Everyone should believe what they want, especially on something as inconsequential to our daily lives as this.

However, if you are going to question someone else's beliefs, you should understand what you're questioning and be prepared for them to respond.


----------



## JGalt (Mar 4, 2019)

otto105 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



More Evidence That "Lucy" Was Just An Ape


----------



## BuckToothMoron (Mar 4, 2019)

JGalt said:


> If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?



Really? You haven’t studied evolution at all have you? First, there likely are not apes around today that were around millions of years ago. They have evolved.

Have you ever noticed how humans can breed certain characteristics of dogs into all new breeds? If humans can create a whole new breed of dog, why is it so hard to extrapolate that hominoids can breed and change through time?


----------



## Death Angel (Mar 4, 2019)

fncceo said:


> in fact, humans and every species on earth have common ancestors.


Yes. We call Him "God"


----------



## fncceo (Mar 4, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > in fact, humans and every species on earth have common ancestors.
> ...



If you're going to claim we have G-d's DNA in us ... you would have to explain how it got in there.

I wouldn't pull on that thread if I was you.


----------



## JGalt (Mar 4, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...



Didn't He create us in His own image? Old Testament, man. Doesn't Judaism recognize Genesis?


----------



## fncceo (Mar 4, 2019)

JGalt said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Death Angel said:
> ...



Being created in an image and being an ancestor are two entirely different things.  I believe, based on what I've seen, that there is much to the genesis of our Universe that defies explanation of our physical sciences and leaves the door open for theology.

But, I also believe that a G-d that could fashion every creature on earth individually from clay, could in fact just invent molecular biology and let things create themselves.  G-d has, after all, infinite time, infinite knowledge, and is, by definition, infinite in himself.

Everything I see in the sciences of the natural world around me, including Evolution, doesn't deny the existence of G-d, it proclaims it.


----------



## Death Angel (Mar 4, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Everything I see in the sciences of the natural world around me, including Evolution, doesn't deny the existence of G-d, it proclaims it


Though it may not deny the existence of A god, it does deny "your" books.


----------



## Death Angel (Mar 4, 2019)

fncceo said:


> If you're going to claim we have G-d's DNA in us ... you would have to explain how it got in there


We DONT have the nonexistent DNA of a Spirit Being. He is the Creator of all life. That makes Him our ultimate ancestor.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 4, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > Everything I see in the sciences of the natural world around me, including Evolution, doesn't deny the existence of G-d, it proclaims it
> ...



I accept that scripture is allegorical, a simple explanation of greater things.  I'm pretty sure bronze age man could not have understood molecular biology any more than some people today.

If you try to reconcile everything we see around us in the natural world to a literal interpretation of scripture, then we are going to run in to a lot of conflicts.   If we accept that a single part of scripture is allegorical, then we must admit that all of scripture could be as well.  We can't pick and choose which bits we choose to interpret literally.

Being a allegory doesn't diminish the beauty and importance of scripture, it merely allows us to incorporate that which we also perceive with our, G-d given, minds and senses.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 4, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> That makes Him our ultimate ancestor.



Are you unaware of how ancestory works?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2019)

JGalt said:


> If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago?


You're a bit off on your timeline, there. One would expect apes to have been around 100s of thousands of years ago that are very much like today's apes. But, 10 million years ago? No apes.


JGalt said:


> The fact that there are many species of animals which are unchanged after millions of years, negates the whole "theory" of evolution.


I would ask you "why is that?", but we both know you couldn't come up with an answer to that.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2019)

fncceo said:


> I accept that scripture is allegorical, a simple explanation of greater things.


Yeah... it's like sweet, sweet music to my eyes:

_“*Consecrate to me every first-born that opens the womb among Israelites, both man and beast, for it belongs to me.”*_
_
_
oh, the depth of moral nuance... the delightful, hidden meanings...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 4, 2019)

Death Angel said:


> He is the Creator of all life.


Ok, great.  So what does that have to do with evolution? Cannot evolution still be true?


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney (Mar 4, 2019)

WillHaftawaite said:


> No
> 
> it's a figment of your imagination.
> 
> You're still crawling around in the primordial ooze.



Yes, and I refuse to allow myself to stop dragging my knuckles and grunting.


Tommy Tainant said:


> Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.



I believe we did not come from Monkeys but I do not accept the Bible Story either.

I believe Men are from Mars and Gays and Women are from Venus...

Actually I do believe we are not from this shithole of a planet...


----------



## Dogmaphobe (Mar 4, 2019)

Yes, Evolution happened.

Based upon my observations here at USMB, I would say that the problem is that it simply happened to some a lot more than others.


----------



## james bond (Mar 5, 2019)

Evolution is like the eternal universe.  People believed in it for hundreds of years and then boom it became false (big bang).  It really doesn't matter if you believe in it or not unless your income is based on it.  I laughed when noboby went to see Lucy the ape-human or whatever you call it.  It was so bad they sent it back to Ethiopia never to be seen in public again.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

JGalt said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...


Evolution does not have as a goal to make apes into men, it is a natural process that develops the best apes possible.  Is the goal of gravity is to make flying hard?  A less ignorant question is why did apes and humans diverge from their common ancestor?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2019)

james bond said:


> Evolution is like the eternal universe.  People believed in it for hundreds of years and then boom it became false (big bang).  It really doesn't matter if you believe in it or not unless your income is based on it.  I laughed when noboby went to see Lucy the ape-human or whatever you call it.  It was so bad they sent it back to Ethiopia never to be seen in public again.



Other than evolution becoming false at your Christian madrassah,  when did the relevant science community abandon science in favor of magic and supernaturalism?


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 5, 2019)

JGalt said:


> If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?



You are making the unducated (or intentionally incorrect) assumption that the apes today are the same as the apes that are long extinct which today's humans and apes evolved from.  

There aren't apes today like Dryopithecus.  What you are doing is creating a lie to support your claim.  We did not evolve from a modern, living ape, like a chimpanzee. We evolved and descended from the common ancestor of apes, which lived and died in the distant past millions of years ago.  

What you are saying is if fish evolved into mammals how do we still have fish?   Like you don't understand that species evolved differently depending on their needs to survive?  

Evolution isn't a linear process.  We still have a LOT of primitive life on earth.  

You are looking at the human branch only of evolution when you see this:





The reality is the past ones all went extinct and that is missing all the other branches that evolution took.  








It's how we can have zebra's, horses, and donkeys, even though they all evolved from a prehistoric "horse" that is long extinct.  Zebra's didn't evolve from the living family of horses.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

JGalt said:


> The fact that there are many species of animals which are unchanged after millions of years, negates the whole "theory" of evolution.


You should think of evolution as you think of Newton's 1st Law (Newton's First Law of Motion states that unless acted upon by an external force, a body at rest will remain at rest and a body in motion will remain in motion).  Unless there is a changing selection pressure, a species will remain unchanged.  Also note that as climate changes, many species will migrate north or south in response to a cooling or warming environment.  That is not evolution.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?
> ...


but evolution is ever changing so that way the brain dead cANT EXPLAIN Iit


any moron that thinks human evolved from a rock is a dumbass


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

fncceo said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?
> ...


according to evolution thats a rock


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



Rocks are not biological organisms, so no, rocks don't evolve. 

Pass that on to your friends at the Jimmy Swaggert bible thump'fest.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Jimmy Swaggert would be disappointed with your demeanour.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> but evolution is ever changing so that way the brain dead cANT EXPLAIN Iit
> 
> any moron that thinks human evolved from a rock is a dumbass


Completely wrong.  Evolution is NEVER changing natural process, just like gravity.

Any moron who thinks anyone believes humans evolved from a rock is a dumbass.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > but evolution is ever changing so that way the brain dead cANT EXPLAIN Iit
> ...


if it doesnt change then whats the process??? 

and whats the primordial soup if not rock soup  

most evos are to dumb to even know what evo teachs


----------



## fncceo (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




Not an example of evolution


----------



## fncceo (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> the primordial soup if not rock soup



Complex molecule chain soup ... great with crackers.


----------



## Darkwind (Mar 5, 2019)

JGalt said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > No
> ...


LOL

He was barely alive 40 years ago, so I"m sure he's still going strong!


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 5, 2019)

JGalt said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



What do you mean?  

The entire premise of evolution is that as change is NECESSARY animals will change to adapt to their environment to survive.  If the environment doesn't change in some area's, horseshoe crabs in those area's don't evolve.  

And you can see it today.  Drug resistant bacteria.  Pesticide resistant bugs.   Used to be you could wipe out everything with penecillin and DDT.   Now there are piles of evolved life forms that can live through it.  

If you don't believe in evolution, put your money where your mouth is.   Get yourself a case of Gonnorhea.  100% curable 60 years ago with penecillin.  And only allow yourself penecillin to cure yourself.   If no evolution, you are cured and no problem. It sounds nice in theory to take your stance.  But we literally have evolution occurring around us today.  


Maybe you think God is dumb.  That he gave Whales vestigal legs because he didn't know what he was doing.  Maybe you think our tailbone which serves no purpose was God just messing up.  I think it was evolution and not God screwing up.

Look people are fallible.  We were when we used religion as the reason the Sun moves around the earth.   We were on this case too.   It doesn't do away with God or the Bible.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I'm sure the relevant science community could benefit from your Jimmy Swaggert inspired Theory of Rock Evolution.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 5, 2019)

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Don't question the theory of rock evolution!


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...




that in no way is the premise of evolution

and no whales dont have legs,,,those bones are for muscle


fncceo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




well evos are dumber than a box of rocks


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


If you put a rock on the ground will it move?  No.  Does that mean there is no gravity?

Evolution deals only with living things, NOT how living things came to be.

Most creationists are, by choice, almost completely ignorant of just what evolution teaches.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> those bones are for muscle



Vestigial bones and muscles.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




we are talking about evolution so dont change the subject,,,and you obviously know nothing about it since at its core it teachs we came from a primordial soup and evolved from there


please go educate yourself before speaking again


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

fncceo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > those bones are for muscle
> ...


those bones are for muscle to attach to help them give birth


DONT KNOW WHY IT DIDNT POST THE HOLE COMMENT


----------



## fncceo (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> we came from a primordial soup and evolved from there



Not literally a soup.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> HOLE COMMENT



I made no comments about anyone's holes.  

That would be rude.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 5, 2019)

JGalt said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



What animal/plant are you saying hasn't evolved??

If you are talking about "living fossils"...   Animals which seem to have not changed much in their skeletal remains.   Luckily for you there's been a blowup in genetics the past few decades, so lets catch you up from your 1970's views since debunked by science.  We've seen with Coelacanths, horseshoe crabs and plenty of other species that not only do we see some changes in the skeletal structure but genetically they have evolved A LOT.  

No, that doesn't "invalidate" science.   That's proving science.  


And you can see animals changing where they live in their environments.  Alligators survived the ice age by not living as far north.   They lived in the warmer waters of the Caribbean based on fossil records.  Now with warming their environment is expanding north.  Their environment never changed to force evolution, just the area that environment covered.  And of course there's numerous alligator evolutions, from caymans to crocodiles.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



Vestigial bones prove that the gods have a sense of humor.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



No, they are vestigal and serve no purpose.  Same as the snakes vestigal legs, or animals in the deep pacific with zero sunlight having vestigal eyes that do not see anything.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...




A change within species based on environment and breeding is not evolution


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...


have you always been this ignorant or are you just evolving???

the snakes use their hooks everytime they have sex and the whales couldnt give birth without their muscles being attached where they are


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Evolution deals only with living things, NOT how living things came to be.
> ...


Thanks for so eloquently proving my point.  I may not know much, but I do know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis.


----------



## TNHarley (Mar 5, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.


Evolution happens. Fact. 
Our origins are questionable though.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



The group of snakes you are talking about with pelvic spurs are those where those leg appendages push outside the snake, not the ones with the structure still existing internally.  And studies have shown while some species use them for reproduction it isn't necessary for all and many with them don't.   Why are they there still?

  Why do dozens of species have eyes that don't have vision? 

 Why do all whales have vestigal legs even though some don't use them?  Why do many embryo's start with legs in whales, but they disappear in development and why do they have defined femurs and tibias which are not needed at all?   And why do the ones who do use have evolved larger legs?  Why do some of those legs have digits even which are not used?

Why does a whale shark, who filter feeds on plankton still have teeth?  

Why does a Galapagos Cormorant have wings?  They don't use them to fly or steer underwater.  with no predators to fly away from they forgot them.  

Why do owls have vestigal hands on their wings?  

Why do dandelion who reproduce through cloning, have male and female sex organs?  

Why do humans have wisdom teeth and appendixes, which only serve to hurt our survivability, and can be removed with zero negative impact?  

On animals erector pili are used to puff up their fur and make them appear larger and scarier to predators.   Goosebumps on people (same reaction) serve no purpose.  Why?  

You are only answering part of the question there bucko.   That's not supporting your cause, saying 'well at times some of those vestigal organs may be used in certain species" and ignoring the rest which don't use them.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


link please


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



No, alligators moving to where they can survive isn't evolution.  What is would be 
Champsosaurus evolving into modern crocodiles and brachychampsa Montana evolving into the American Alligator

What you are proving is evolution exists, and goes at different speeds among different species.   Thanks for debunking yourself.  

Your argument on monkeys and humans while dozens of other species are the same way and that branching from extinct parent species is pure ignorance.   

I get it.  You are ignorant on this topic, otherwise you wouldn't have brought that up.   OR you are intentionally trying to use falsehoods to support your cause. 

Either way you've been proven on it multiple times.   Thanks for debunking yourself and showing you have no knowledge on this topic.  Yes I will believe a biologist or a geneticist over an uneducated twat on the net who can't even defend his basic lies.   

Please, go and educate yourself first.  Then maybe when you have an educated opinion, return.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Take five seconds on google and educate yourself using peer reviewed studies and actual scientists.  

If your goal is to stick your head in the sand and say "look, the sun doesn't exist since I can't see it and I have no desire to educate myself further".

That is on you.  Not going to hold your hand and babysit you, if you are that fucking hopeless that you can't learn on your own if you don't like what you would learn so be it.  


Thanks but I have no desire to debate those who willingly choose to be ignorant on the subject here.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




but evo teachs we all evolved from rocks,,,

wheres the proof


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


its your claim so you back it up


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Actually in response to your lie which you haven't been able to back up.  

And it's fucking 5th grade science.   Not sure if maybe you just never made it that far, or ignored it or just live in your own world where basic science and educating yourself is beyond your ability.  

But yeah, thats on you kiddo.   If you want to fight about how you wish to remain ignorant of basic facts, that's your stance.   I'm not going to let someone intentionally trying to be a moron bring me down to their level.   You've made it clear you have no desire to educate yourself on the topic at hand, since then you can't spout your easily scientifically disproven lies.  

Thank you.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...




when you tell me how to prove a negative, or that something didnt happen  I will back it up

to date there is not one single piece of evidence that we evolved from a rock much less anything else evo claims


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Even by the standards (such as they are), of the nonsense you find at creation.com, the above is the silliest yet.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

JGalt said:


> If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?



First of all, evolution does not say we evolved from modern apes.  It says we have a common ancestor.

Second of all, the modern apes will a niche in their environment.   They will not evolve into something identical to one that exists.  Especially now that it is common for species to be far less isolated.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?
> ...


they only changed to that in the last few yrs since they couldnt prove we came from apes,,,just like the did with global cooling to global warming to now climate change

and they cant even show what we evolved from now so they say a common ancestor,,,

well other than we all came from a rock


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



The last couple of years??    Bullshit.   I was taught that in the 9th grade in 1974.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



No I asked you to prove the things that you claimed.

It doesn't matter you started by telling a lie that humans evolved from existing apes, when the proof is the evolution is both came from a common ancestor.

Now you're just giving mushy mouth crap to try and avoid your lie.

When you need to lie to make up the basis of your argument, you aren't helping your cause.

You either made your claim out of ignorance which means you don't have the necessary knowledge on the subject to maintain a conversation...

then you double down that you are not going to even begin to educate yourself on the very basics of the topic of which you are trying to speak.  why should I continue to have a conversation with somebody who's unwilling to learn the basics of this topic??

Or knowing the truth and intentionally lying.

Either way you then went on to debunk yourself and that's all I really care.

I don't really care whether you're ignorant or a liar.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...




Wrong.  Darwin said  "much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history."

And he postulated humans and monkeys and apes were related " via an ancient undiscovered common ancestor"

People have tried to twist and turn that into lies like  you're saying there.

If you would like you can choose to actually educate yourself on the Topic and read "On the origin of species" written 160 years ago.

Or you can continue lying out of ignorance. The choice is yours.

It's just as more complete fossil records and genetic testing have been found to corraborate his hypothesis, those trying to twist his words have become called out more and are disappearing.

So a question for you. what you stated there was in complete opposition to what Darwin stated 160 years ago.

Were you lying out of ignorance? or did you actually know about this subject and are lying intentionally?


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 5, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.


NO. Adaptation happened little by little but that nutcase Darwin was trippin' on the plants he found while travelling(on someone elses dime).

Kinda like wheree I live. I spotted a small group of capuchin monkeys and " I'lll be damned" they must have "evolved" to accept the fruits and climate here.
Even AlGore could come up with a more realistic evaluation and he's proof that there was no missing link. He came from those before what we now know as modern homo-erectus.
Pre-gene alteration(improvement) by The Creator.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2019)

Likkmee said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.
> ...


Let me give you some good advice: do not ever open your mouth about evolution again.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


sorry jr but this is still in the text books


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




this is whats taught in schools today


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Likkmee said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


now thats advice you should consider yourself


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Which school?


----------



## fncceo (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



You realize that's a satirical caricature, right?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

fncceo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


of course youd catch it


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



That is a joke meme.   No biology text has the words "Something went terribly wrong."


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

fncceo said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



Apparently not.  But him using a satirical meme as scientific evidence is the best laugh I have had all day.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)




----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...





progressive hunter said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



The pic you posted in post #88 is not used in any school or in any biological textbook.

I defy you to prove differently.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...




just seeing how much youre paying attention, and of course you pick the only one that isnt in the text books

I challenge you to prove me wrong


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


>



The pic is small.  Can you post a link to where you got this pic?


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Riiiiight.  You are testing me?    Lmao!!    That is funny


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


do you know how to do a google image search??

righyt click on the picture and go to google image search


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




thats funner than waiting for you to quote me out of context and putting words in my mouth


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


>



Ok, you are posting this to "prove" that science texts taught that man evolved from apes we have today, instead of saying they share a common ancestor.

The picture you show does not prove that.   No modern ape is shown in that pic.   

The 3 on the left are _Dryopithecus (extinct), Oreopithecus (extinct) and Ramapithecus (extinct - actually now considered a female Sivapithecus - also extinct).

The 3 on the right are Neanderthal, Cro-Magnon, and modern man.

So no, the text books did NOT say that man came from apes.  They said we evolved from a common ancestor._


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> >
> ...


and what is that common ancestor???


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




You were the one who claimed that school text books said we evolved from apes, and only changed it a few years ago.   I'm still waiting for any proof (or even evidence).


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



It is not a modern ape.  That much is for sure.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




its right next to your evidence of a common ancestor


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


prove it by producing it


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



Here you made the claim that text books a few years ago said we evolved from apes, and did not say we evolved from a common ancestor.

Then, as "proof" of what was in textbooks you post a timeline that does not have any modern apes in it.   

Now you want to push the focus to "what is that common ancestor".    I thought the evolutionists said it was apes until "just a few years ago".    Or will you admit that was bullshit?


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



You made a claim of something you said happened prior to "just a few years ago".    Surely you can find an example?

Or is it just more lies from you?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


wheres the common ancestor???

if its common you should be able to shut me down quickly

or are you afraid its a monkey of some kind???


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I did not actually say it existed.  I corrected your misquoting of the actual theory of evolution.  
Here is proof:
from:  Evolution: Frequently Asked Questions
"Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 
5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids."


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Obviously you are afraid you have been caught in a lie.   Since you refuse to even discuss something you were adamant about just a little bit ago.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


but wheres the proof of a common ancestor


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


its not a lie til you prove it one,,,


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I didn't say I had proof of a common ancestor.   I simply said that is what the theory of evolution actually says.  It does not say man evolved from apes, as you insist it did until a few years ago.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



LMAO!!     Full blown panic!!

Earlier in this thread you derided someone for wanting you to prove a negative.

But the last pic you posted was called The March of Progress.  It was published in 1965.  So unless you consider 54 years to be "just a few years ago" I have proven what you said was a lie.  And I did it using the picture you tried to post as proof of your point.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



but you said we came from one,,,so what did it look like???

it OK cause I already know that the common ancestor thing is bullshit because their ape human thing was falling apart due to NO EVIDENCE

face it evolution is no less a religion than the rest of them, and there is more proof for a young earth than an old one


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



There actually is a evidence for descent with modification, it's called biological evolution. 

That will offend your delicate christian fundamentalist sensibilities so learn to adapt and evolve.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I never claimed to have it.    In fact, I never claimed it existed.

I simply corrected your lie about what evolution claimed


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Did I say we did?    Please provide the post number.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



What "...ape human thing..." are you talking about?    You mean what you said was taught in schools until a few years ago?  (when you lied?)


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


see now youre twisting my words


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


liar,,,you said we came from a common ancestor then you turned it on me instead of proving your claim


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I twisted nothing.    I simply asked what you meant by "...ape human thing...".    I quoted it properly.  I didn't make any assumptions.  I asked a question.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


good for you,,,now wheres your proof for a common ancestor??


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Then give me the post # where I said it.    It should be simple.   If I actually said we came from a common ancestor.   But all I have said in this thread is that the theory of evolution does not say we came from apes, but that we have a common ancestor.

I didn't turn anything on you.  You claimed the "common ancestor" thing started in the last few years.  Before that they claimed we came from apes.   That is an outright lie.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


no I didnt


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I never said I had any proof.   But then, I never claimed that we did share a common ancestor with apes.  I just said that was what the theory of evolution claimed.

Now, when was it, exactly, that evolutionists changed it from coming from apes to sharing a common ancestor?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


good twist on words


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Yes you did.   I explained that the theory of evolution did not say we came from apes but that we share a common ancestor (Post #80)

To which you replied: "they only changed to that in the last few yrs since they couldnt prove we came from apes,,,just like the did with global cooling to global warming to now climate change

and they cant even show what we evolved from now so they say a common ancestor,,,

well other than we all came from a rock"


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


what common ancestor???


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 5, 2019)

JGalt said:


> If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?



Seems that Evolution does not always go in one direction. See Tommy; definitely a regressive gene developed somewhere in his line. 

Greg


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



No twist at all.   You made the claim.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


what common ancestor??? what did it look like???


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Yes indeed.

When did the Theory of Evolution change from "we came from apes" to "we share a common ancestor"?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


what common ancestor??? what did it look like???


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I didn't claim there was one.


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?
> ...



The problem is that only about one in a thousand who squawk "evolution" have a clue about it. What most people who say it is illogical is the popular explanation of evolution. Few understand the biochemistry of it. Plus the Evolution as espoused by Darwin was a very simple model; life ain't that simple.


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



It was as ugly as Tommy.

Greg


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


liar


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Prove I said it.    Show me the post.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


right here


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



That we came from apes was a common view post-Darwin. Not sure when it went out of fashion but it was a view I was familiar with when I was at Uni. It was somewhat new about the "common ancestor" then. 





> *Abstract*
> Reconstructing the behavioral shifts that drove hominin evolution requires knowledge of the timing, magnitude, and direction of anatomical changes over the past ∼6–7 million years. These reconstructions depend on assumptions regarding the morphotype of the _Homo_–_Pan_ last common ancestor (LCA). However, there is little consensus for the LCA, with proposed models ranging from African ape to orangutan or generalized Miocene ape-like. The ancestral state of the shoulder is of particular interest because it is functionally associated with important behavioral shifts in hominins, such as reduced arboreality, high-speed throwing, and tool use. However, previous morphometric analyses of both living and fossil taxa have yielded contradictory results. Here, we generated a 3D morphospace of ape and human scapular shape to plot evolutionary trajectories, predict ancestral morphologies, and directly test alternative evolutionary hypotheses using the hominin fossil evidence. We show that the most parsimonious model for the evolution of hominin shoulder shape starts with an African ape-like ancestral state. We propose that the shoulder evolved gradually along a single morphocline, achieving modern human-like configuration and function within the genus _Homo_. These data are consistent with a slow, progressive loss of arboreality and increased tool use throughout human evolution.



Fossil hominin shoulders support an African ape-like last common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees

Lots of stuff to find out.

Greg


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Nothing in those quoted proves that I said there was a common ancestor.  I simply corrected your misconception of what the theory of evolution says.

Now produce a quote where I said the WAS a common ancestor, or shutup.

But meanwhile, tell us, when did the Theory of Evolution change from "we came from apes" to "we share a common ancestor"?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


so you dont believe in evolution???


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

gtopa1 said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



That we came from apes or that we came from a primate?   I remember reading the common ancestor was a primate.  But an ape is different.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Twisting my words?   I didn't say that.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


I asked a question


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 5, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.





Tommy Tainant said:


> Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.





> *4. We Swim in the Nude*: A little later in the age of Aquarius, Elaine Morgan, a TV documentary writer, claimed that humans are so different from other primates because our ancestors evolved in a different environment—near and in the water. Shedding body hair made them faster swimmers, while standing upright enabled them to wade. The “aquatic ape” hypothesis is widely dismissed by the scientific community. But, in 2013, David Attenborough endorsed it.



12 Theories of How We Became Human, and Why They’re All Wrong

Maybe "great" but what the hell does he know about evolution? I would suggest that "Evolution" is more like a term that over-arches a series of theories on genetic development. Gravity, for example, is defined by what we observe; not what it is. There are countless theories that are tested in trying to find out what it is. Evolutionists say that Evolution results in the diversity of life we see today. They test hypotheses changing one variable at a time. How it actually happens is, well, a scientific pursuit. 

Believe It or Not, Science Still Can't Explain Gravity

Greg


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> gtopa1 said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Most lay writers on the subject are confused about it. Heck: I can't recall any real discussion of it between anyone who really understands it outside of Academia, and then they mostly talk about which sequences changed. But that is only quite recent.

I am still of the opinion though that Evolution is mostly just a fun thing scientists speculate about. The relevance of genetic studies is how it is applied to treatments of disease and production for commercial uses etc. 

Greg


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Yes you did.

I also asked a question.   I asked it several times.   About your claim that the claims of evolutionists changed.   Still no answer from you.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


then why did I put all the question marks????


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



You put the question marks there because you asked a question.

I never said you didn't ask a question.   In fact, my reply started with "Yes you did".

Perhaps a remedial reading class would help you.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


yes I did what???


do you believe in evolution???


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Mar 5, 2019)

fncceo said:


> Death Angel said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...







We're all made of star dust so yeah we have God's DNA in us.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I quoted your post.

You said "I asked a question".
And I replied "Yes you did".


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...








Funny..... I find Creationists and Big Bang supporters have a lot in common when it comes to beliefs about Creation.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

Damaged Eagle said:


> Funny..... I find Creationists and Big Bang supporters have a lot in common when it comes to beliefs about Creation.


I await your findings...


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Funny..... I find Creationists and Big Bang supporters have a lot in common when it comes to beliefs about Creation.
> ...






I already covered it in an extensive thread on the subject unfortunately for you the mods closed it.

You'll have to PM the mods and see if they'd let me start a new one..... or perhaps you'd like to call me out in the Bull Ring.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## fncceo (Mar 5, 2019)

The Big Bang is the best explanation,  to explain observed expanding universe and background radiation.

The rules of physics didn't exist prior to the Big Bang so you could say it is very much like a creation theory. 

There is no well-accepted theory on how our Universe became a singularity in the first place so anything prior to it is a total unknown.

Discoveries being made about Dark Matter could fundamentally change our explanation. The theories will always incorporate new findings.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> > Funny..... I find Creationists and Big Bang supporters have a lot in common when it comes to beliefs about Creation.
> ...


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> yeah nothing exploding and making everything is a great explanation,,,NOT!!!


Why do you assume there was nothing before the Big Bang?  We don't know what there was, material, energy, dark matter or dark energy.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > yeah nothing exploding and making everything is a great explanation,,,NOT!!!
> ...


cause thats what the scientist say


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

Damaged Eagle said:


> perhaps you'd like to call me out in the Bull Ring.


I'm not disagreeing with you, I was merely curious.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Link?  I've never heard a scientist say that.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


then what exploded??


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


holy crap they changed it again
evolution is an ever moving thing

The *Big Bang* is not an *explosion* of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. In other words, the *Big Bang* is not an *explosion* in space, but rather an expansion of space.
*Big Bang - Wikipedia*

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


I don't know.  Do you?


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> holy crap they changed it again
> evolution is an ever moving thing
> 
> The *Big Bang* is not an *explosion* of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe. Instead, space itself expands with time everywhere and increases the physical distance between two comoving points. In other words, the *Big Bang* is not an *explosion* in space, but rather an expansion of space.
> ...


*Science *is an ever moving thing.  It changes as we learn and that gets us closer to truth.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




so now they say nothing expanded,,,doesnst that create a problem with where did all the matter come from???


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > holy crap they changed it again
> ...


so if they were wrong before so many times, how do we know they are right this time???


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> so now they say nothing expanded,,,doesnst that create a problem with where did all the matter come from???


It would be is space were 'nothing'.  It is not.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > *Science *is an ever moving thing.  It changes as we learn and that gets us closer to truth.
> ...


Newton's laws were an imperfect approximation that Einstein fleshed out.  Doesn't mean Newton was wrong, only that Einstein got us closer to the truth.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



The “Big Bang” is an imprecise term for the disruption in space and time that began the expansion of the universe. 

Seriously, get outside of your madrassah and learn some of these concepts.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


none of that means they are right this time,,,and the difference between a bang that created everything and an expansion that cant then explain what created matter and time is huge


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Perhaps you should read your own link.

"The model describes how the universe expanded from a very high-density and high-temperature state,[7][8] and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background (CMB), large scale structure and Hubble's law (the farther away galaxies are, the faster they are moving away from Earth)."

If the universe started expanding from a very high-density and high temperature state, it was not nothing.   Your claim that "nothing exploded" is not what the Big Bang claims.    Once again, I have to explain what a theory actually says.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


a high density of what???


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> the difference between a bang that created everything and an expansion that cant then explain what created matter and time is huge


True.  So?


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Why does there have to be a time when nothing existed?

There is at least one theory that involves the expansion we are now observing, slowing gradually until it comes to a stop.   Since the center is the most dense area, it would exert a strong gravitational pull, drawing everything back to the center.   That much mass would collapse into a black hole and potentially explode again.   What we refer to as THE Big Bang may just be one more in an infinite number of such occurrences.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Matter.    Various combinations of atoms and molecules.  Matter and energy may well be eternal.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2019)

gtopa1 said:


> Evolutionists say that Evolution results in the diversity of life we see today


As well they should, for that is a fact. You can list many different mechanisms by which this happens, but, collectively, they all are evolution.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




who said there was a time when nothing existed???

and did you know the big bang is a TV show too???


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Who is "they" and where do they say it?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...




so might cow farts


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


aliens,,,


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



So now you are quoting aliens?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


when???


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



You are the one suggesting aliens are the "they" you referred to in a previous post.  Unlike you, I do not accuse you of saying things you did not say.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


only on fridays


----------



## TomParks (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



Some think aliens, dolphins, bigfoot, etc. Evolution Is the biggest fairy tale of all time


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 5, 2019)

TomParks said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


As if you know anything about it...sorry, your opinion on it is worth less than nothing...


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

TomParks said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


So where do we come from?  Why do we have goosebumps?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


you first,,,


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > TomParks said:
> ...


Abiogenesis then evolution.  Your turn.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> TomParks said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Goosebumps are a leftover function from when we had more hair or fur.   To bristle up and look bigger.  To stand hairs up for warmth.   Ect


----------



## Hollie (Mar 5, 2019)

TomParks said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



That’s odd. Among the relevant science community, there’s no doubt that evolution is factual and verifiable.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I would be arrogant to suggest I have a clue


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > TomParks said:
> ...


like monkeys/apes???


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> I would be arrogant to suggest I have a clue


So you don't know how it happened but you do know how it didn't happen?


----------



## Kilroy2 (Mar 5, 2019)

What if evolution was circular and reverted back to primitive beings

God would probably have a fit and just give up on the earth

send that comet to end it all


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 5, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > I would be arrogant to suggest I have a clue
> ...


I never said that,,,


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 5, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.


Define the type of "evolution" you mean. What do you mean by "EVOLUTION"?


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 5, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Do you deny that it is true?  If not, why not?


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Mar 6, 2019)

Perhaps all those lights in the sky are sperm in search of the celestial egg.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 6, 2019)

JGalt said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > No
> ...


What about Paul McCartney?


----------



## gtopa1 (Mar 6, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > holy crap they changed it again
> ...


...or goes down blind alleys. 

Greg


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



Most animals that are covered in fur or feathers have the ability.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



EXACTLY.   And in humans that is a trait we carry that provides no benefit.   But with a common ancestor you could explain how two different species carry that same trait even if one no longer had a need for it.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 6, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> But meanwhile, tell us, when did the Theory of Evolution change from "we came from apes" to "we share a common ancestor"?



I guess day 1 of the modern science based evolution about 160 years ago?

Darwin's theory of evolution 160 years ago was the "tree of life" theory or common ancestor, with new species "branching off" from an "ancient or extinct" ancestor.  So in the 1860's would be the answer to your question, at the founding of Darwinian evolution.  

His first writings intentionally kept humans out of them as he saw what happened to the first people saying the earth moved around the sun, or that the earth was round and wanted to see how the initial reaction to his new theories were.

But by the 1870's he went from "much light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history." about human evolution to writing that humans and primates like other animals share a common ancestor in his "Descent of Man".



And for years people opposing evolution through scams have tried to rewrite his clearly stated beliefs of a common ancestor into "we came from apes as they exist today".  It's people like Progressivehunter up there who intentionally try and rewrite that and fool the easily confused into believing evolution is about us evolving from chimpanzee's which makes no sense, therefore that theory can't be true. That's not the theory of evolution.  That's just people lying about it.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 6, 2019)

gtopa1 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


It's important to know which alleys are blind.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 6, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


that sounds like a loaded question,,,can you be more specific??


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > But meanwhile, tell us, when did the Theory of Evolution change from "we came from apes" to "we share a common ancestor"?
> ...



So many claims about what the theory of evolution says are just ignorance or lies.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...


who are you to say if we have a need for it???

more hair is always a benefit in cold weather

even today I have a beard to help stay warm


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Seem like simple questions to me.  Deflecting?

When I asked if you knew where do we come from, you said "I would be arrogant to suggest I have a clue".  So it seems you don't know how it happened.  Yet you don't believe in evolution so it seems you know how it did not happen.  Am I wrong?


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 6, 2019)

Apparently not.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 6, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Humans don't have fur.   Sorry.  Haven't found a single scientific fact myself tied to the arrector pili increasing the insulation effect of beards on men and women.  We evolved skills to be able to use animal fur to wear to keep us warm an allow humans to live in those colder environments.  More skills like controlling fire and creating shelters have also helped.

And while you may like a beard in colder weather, as for it being a necessity for existing in colder climates, well if that was true, procreation would kinda suck.

But if you want to make the claim that arrector pili increase the heat retaining of facial hair in women/men in cold environments... please continue.  lol


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



You would have to have significantly denser hair for it to accomplish any insulation.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 6, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Agree.  Why we lost it is still debatable from what I remember...  Some say while forests were cooler and had trees, monkeys that evolved kept theirs while as humans moved to the savannah's, hair was lost to keep cooler during the day.  

Another thought is pests.  Ticks, lice, bugs carrying malaria and other diseases infest fur.  

But yes, if we had body hair/fur our arrector pili would have a purpose, keeping that hair down against the skin in warm temps, not trapping hot air against the body, and puffing out when cold to trap that warmer air to insulate with.  But without fur it is a useless feature for humans now that we have evolved.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



I fascinating thing I remember from high school biology, if you sit with your knees up, your arms around your legs and you face down on you knees, all of the hair on the outside points down.   To shed water.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 6, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Cool!   I remember a theory on human evolution that one reason we may have lost our hair is for a time humans lived a much more aquatic lifestyle where hair would hinder swimming and such.   Haven't had any fossil records supporting it, but was an interesting idea at least.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



I’ve read that theory.   Interesting idea.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 6, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


The real reason is that fur makes it much more difficult to keep our bodies cool.  Humans excelled as hunters because they could track their prey for long distances.  Animals with fur cannot travel for long distances at a stretch because their bodies overheat.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 7, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



I've heard that one too.   That humans started eating more meat when we left the jungles.  So out on the savannah, the heat was the issue (from a temp and lifestyle purpose).  I could see how animal hunting would be an influence.   And unlike other warm temp animal hunters (wild dogs and other cats and canines in the desert), we could build better shelters and wear fur at night to retain warmth.

I think all those reasons (outside of the aquatic lifestyle of humans unless we find some fossils to support it) have merit, and it could be any combination thereof. 

And that's a big reason why evolution is considered a "scientific theory".   We have enough of a fossil record to say evolution happened.  We just haven't tested/observed it ourselves across all scales and answered every single question.   Much like Newton's theory of gravity.  We made it to the moon based on that theory.  What it didn't include was objects moving at close to the speed of light.  Einstein (and later Higgs) both helped further adjustments to other circumstances which didn't fit his theory.  But the basis and principles are the same as when Newton came up with it.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 7, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



Not sure that explains hair loss


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 7, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


sorry guys but due to a family emergency I cant continue this or any discussion at this time or most likely for a few weeks if at all

I am just home for a few hrs to shower change cloths and hopefully get a little sleep, which I doubt will happen


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 7, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Hope things take a turn for the better!


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2019)

fncceo said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > WinterBorn said:
> ...



Me neither.  What does it have to do with evolution?  Hair is generally sexier to the opposite sex and men with hair probably procreate more.  All of these guys look like they haven't had any for some time.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hair is generally sexier to the opposite sex and men with hair probably procreate more.



Less hair in a species with no soap, no deodorant, who live outdoors with fleas, ticks, spiders, and creepy-crawlers would definitely be an evolutionary advantage.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



When I first shaved my head in 2000, I was amazed at the number of women who like a shaved head.


----------



## SixFoot (Mar 8, 2019)

People ask if evolution happened, but they also tend to ask that based on the idea that evolved life _originated _on Earth.


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2019)

WinterBorn said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > fncceo said:
> ...



Um.. did you shave to get mo chicks or because of MPB?  Generally speaking regarding survival of the fittest, I would think it's someone with hair.  Of course, there are other factors in these matters.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



That is a neat one where if over time the "bald is beautiful" may have any effect.   

But of course as a sexual trait, would it be carried, or would it be a trait that for most people the offspring are born BEFORE the trait shows itself?  At the time when Baldness is showing, is that still a time through history where you adding to the population if you still have your hair or not because it isn't seen as a top sexual trait.  

Also another potential impact would be the non-natural hair supplements possibly changing evolution making the change.


----------



## WinterBorn (Mar 8, 2019)

james bond said:


> WinterBorn said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



I was mostly bald on top.   I was getting ready to go to an award ceremony to see my son get the Outstanding Chemistry Student Award, and I couldn't get the hair on the sides of my head to lay flat.  Half bald and having a bad hair day?   I cured that problem forever.

As for survival of the fittest, I don't think hair matters much.   The story above happened the year I turned 41.   My prime survival years I had plenty of hair.  I also have a good bit of body hair.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 8, 2019)

SixFoot said:


> People ask if evolution happened, but they also tend to ask that based on the idea that evolved life _originated _on Earth.


Yep. Because it probably did.


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2019)

fncceo said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hair is generally sexier to the opposite sex and men with hair probably procreate more.
> ...



It just could be what is under that hair or no hair that makes a difference.  I just don't see evolution playing a part.  Shaving one's head could be about cleanliness, grooming that sort of thing.  It's part of being confident to accept what it is.  Confidence is the key.

I live in an urban center, so this is not a good look but who am I to judge haha?

Animated Gif by Goody Goodrich


----------



## SixFoot (Mar 8, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > People ask if evolution happened, but they also tend to ask that based on the idea that evolved life _originated _on Earth.
> ...



Or any number of other places in the solar system where life had a head start in reaching habitable conditions compared to Earth.

There are rocks on Earth that come from Mars. The process is called Panspermia.

Mars had a chance to be a habitable world before Earth.

There's likely living creatures on/within a number of moons orbiting the gas giants.

Any life we find in this solar system will likely have matching DNA sequences to here.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 8, 2019)

SixFoot said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > SixFoot said:
> ...


Oh, it's possible,but it probably just formed here.


----------



## james bond (Mar 8, 2019)

Here's a known contradiction.  No secular scientist has come forward with a widely accepted theory where life began.  Here is one theory -- Where did life originate?.  What is widely accepted today is the land mass Pangaea.  This supercontinent broke up to form smaller continents and eventually the seven continents we have today.  The contradiction is the uniformitarianism theory that life in the past was similar to the present according to James Hutton/Charles Lyell.  This doesn't hold true for the geology of Pangaea which was started as continental drift theory by Alfred Wegener after uniformitarianism..  This is a pretty big discrepancy for uniformitarianism.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> Here's a known contradiction.  No secular scientist has come forward with a widely accepted theory where life began.  Here is one theory -- Where did life originate?.  What is widely accepted today is the land mass Pangaea.  This supercontinent broke up to form smaller continents and eventually the seven continents we have today.  The contradiction is the uniformitarianism theory that life in the past was similar to the present according to James Hutton/Charles Lyell.  This doesn't hold true for the geology of Pangaea which was started as continental drift theory by Alfred Wegener after uniformitarianism..  This is a pretty big discrepancy for uniformitarianism.



Here's a known contradiction: ID’iot / creationism being presented as a viable argument. 

How creationists distort science

Just to clue you in, there are a number of scientific theories regarding how life began. In the relevant science community, none of those theories make apoeals to magic and supernaturalism.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 9, 2019)

Abiogenesis is a fact and is a foregone  conclusion. The only reason there is any fundamental disagreement on it at all is because of superstition and religious fetishes.

 Once there was no life, then there was. Therefore, abiogenesis. Similarly, we don't invent magical fairy tales about star or planet formation.


----------



## james bond (Mar 9, 2019)

Hollie said:


> one of those theories make apoeals to magic and supernaturalism.




I like to watch the Fool Us show with Penn & Teller.  Above is a good sample.  That's some good magic if you can fool them and get the FU award.

You are in line for a FU award, too, but it's not like the "Fool Us" award.  It's you who has been fooled and will get the spiritually dead treatment.

Anyway, the only supernatural that I know of is God and Genesis.  Since life is precious, why can't you or life itself be a spirit or soul?  The only thing you have is your body, but after you die, then you only have your spirit left (which gets swiftly taken away to the land of the dead).

So no.  Evolution didn't happen.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > one of those theories make apoeals to magic and supernaturalism.
> ...



Your nonsense claim that evolution didn't happen is common for ID'iot / creationists but it is contrary to the clearly defined science community.

You're free to reject all of it - you and those forward thinkers like you in the Pakistani tribal areas.


----------



## james bond (Mar 9, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Abiogenesis is a fact and is a foregone conclusion.



If abiogenesis is a fact, then there would be no need for you to post it unless you comment on the obvious such as the sky is blue.  Usually, people end up avoiding these kinds of people at parties.

To the contrary, abiogenesis has not been demonstrated in the laboratory.  No proteins have been formed outside the cell.  What has been demonstrated is only life begats life in the lab and that science has backed up the Bible once more.  More evidence for God.  You can crawl back under your rock now.


----------



## james bond (Mar 9, 2019)

SixFoot said:


> Or any number of other places in the solar system where life had a head start in reaching habitable conditions compared to Earth.
> 
> There are rocks on Earth that come from Mars. The process is called Panspermia.
> 
> ...



You're making a lot of assumptions like other places had a head start and that they are habitable.  Our probes that we sent out to check for habitability has mostly returned negative habitability.  The fine tuning facts show that Earth is a rare exception.  For example, Mars may have had water, but does not have a magnetic field to protect against solar wind.  That kills everything.  Even evolutionists admit that life is rare now.  So you have nothing to base your thinking on, but NASA's hyperbole.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 9, 2019)

james bond said:


> SixFoot said:
> 
> 
> > Or any number of other places in the solar system where life had a head start in reaching habitable conditions compared to Earth.
> ...



The religious claim to “fine tuning” is a hoax,


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2019)

Fine tuning parameters is not a hoax.  It's one of the truths secular (atheist) scientists found when investigating the big bang.  Since it goes against evolution, it has been discarded (covered up by multiverses).  Can you not see how "science" works today?  _*Science has always been about the search for the truth.  It has always been about arguments between the top scientists. * _It isn't the truth or proof like mathematics.  Today's science has been cannibalized to fit the theory of evolution, evolutionary thinking and history.  Why?  So few people can make money.

One has to be independent thinkers and think for themselves to find the "best" theory in today's science.  One has to "disbelieve" what is placed in museums and what is taught in schools/universities today.  I know people like this are in this thread.  If you want _uniformitarianism_, then look to the science before the 1850s to and compare.  Today's uniformitarianism is easily contradicted with Pangaea.  You know we were a supercontinent and due to large earthquakes below the sea became seven continents.  Mountains which stand today such as the Himalayas rose to prominence.

Be watchful, my friends.  Think for yourselves.  Don't let others do the thinking for you.  This has become what is part of science and technology today.  One doesn't need evolution to have_ joy_ and _honor_ in their lives.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fine tuning parameters is not a hoax.  It's one of the truths secular (atheist) scientists found when investigating the big bang.  Since it goes against evolution, it has been discarded (covered up by multiverses).  Can you not see how "science" works today?  _*Science has always been about the search for the truth.  It has always been about arguments between the top scientists. * _It isn't the truth or proof like mathematics.  Today's science has been cannibalized to fit the theory of evolution, evolutionary thinking and history.  Why?  So few people can make money.
> 
> One has to be independent thinkers and think for themselves to find the "best" theory in today's science.  One has to "disbelieve" what is placed in museums and what is taught in schools/universities today.  I know people like this are in this thread.  If you want _uniformitarianism_, then look to the science before the 1850s to and compare.  Today's uniformitarianism is easily contradicted with Pangaea.  You know we were a supercontinent and due to large earthquakes below the sea became seven continents.  Mountains which stand today such as the Himalayas rose to prominence.
> 
> Be watchful, my friends.  Think for yourselves.  Don't let others do the thinking for you.  This has become what is part of science and technology today.  One doesn't need evolution to have_ joy_ and _honor_ in their lives.



The ID’iot / creationist “fine tuning” claim certainly is a fraud.

Nothing about the universe shows fine tuning, unless you want to represent cometary bombardment of planets, meteor strikes (have you heard of that little dalliance on this planet that occured 65 million years age), cosmic radiation, galaxy collisions, etc., fine tuning. The fact is, space is a hostile environment to life. 

It is simply laughable to press the finely tuned universe, nonsense The illusion of order is primarily an artifact of scale. We live in a profoundly violent and chaotic universe, but are spared direct experience with most of that chaos because it occurs on cosmic and geologic time scales, while we exist on a human time scale. This (luckily for us) means most of us expend our lifetimes in the brief moments of calm between supernovae, asteroid impact, and cometary bombardment. 

We have already established that “complexity” is more a function of your limited imagination than a barrier to possibility.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> If abiogenesis is a fact, then there would be no need for you to post it unless you comment on the obvious such as the sky is blue.


Unless, of course, i was in a discussion about the earth's atmosphere , and some nutball insisted the sky wasn't blue.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2019)

Hollie said:


> The religious claim to “fine tuning” is a hoax,


Correct, and, as we have known for 150 years, completely backwards. Life is fine tuned to the universe, not the other way around.


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2019)

Yet, the fine tuning facts show no aliens and we have no aliens.  Even my website evolution.berkeley.edu has admitted life is rare.  How can that be if our habitability index for Earth is mediocre?  It means the atheist scientists are wrong again.  Earth's habitability is the best in the universe.  We can't live on Mars nor the moon even though there are those like NASA, Elon Musk, China, Russia and so on trying to prove different.  

I've asked this of atheists and their scientists several times and it's DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS or DESPAIR that I get in response.  If life happens via abiogenesis where is it?  We should have seen it by now.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> and we have no aliens.


^^

This moron actually believes that he fact that we have no alien specimens is a good argument that no life exists anywhere else in the universe.

Of course, this is just a pile of embarrassing, dishonest horseshit, and just part of the daily dog and pony show this fraud puts on for us. The fact is, he believes 100%, regardless of any new information found since the iron age, that the universe is only about 10,000 years old and was made perfectly to spec just for the human race.  Anything he says that is not just a restatement of this is just an embarrassing little instance of prancing and preening. He's so far gone, he forgot how to be honest.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> Yet, the fine tuning facts show no aliens and we have no aliens.  Even my website evolution.berkeley.edu has admitted life is rare.  How can that be if our habitability index for Earth is mediocre?  It means the atheist scientists are wrong again.  Earth's habitability is the best in the universe.  We can't live on Mars nor the moon even though there are those like NASA, Elon Musk, China, Russia and so on trying to prove different.
> 
> I've asked this of atheists and their scientists several times and it's DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS or DESPAIR that I get in response.  If life happens via abiogenesis where is it?  We should have seen it by now.



How much of the universe has been searched for alien life for you to make your claim?


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> Yet, the fine tuning facts show no aliens and we have no aliens.  Even my website evolution.berkeley.edu has admitted life is rare.  How can that be if our habitability index for Earth is mediocre?  It means the atheist scientists are wrong again.  Earth's habitability is the best in the universe.  We can't live on Mars nor the moon even though there are those like NASA, Elon Musk, China, Russia and so on trying to prove different.
> 
> I've asked this of atheists and their scientists several times and it's DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS or DESPAIR that I get in response.  If life happens via abiogenesis where is it?  We should have seen it by now.



So YOUR source says "All available evidence supports the central conclusions of evolutionary theory, that life on Earth has evolved and that species share common ancestors"

And that debunks evolution??? Lol.


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 10, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.



Did evolution produce 27 genders?

Or just an X and Y chromosome?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2019)

percysunshine said:


> Did evolution produce 27 genders?


Yes, as evolution produced the human brain, the human ability for self-aware introspection, and the complex human psychology.


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Did evolution produce 27 genders?
> ...



There are only 26 letters in the alphabet.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2019)

percysunshine said:


> There are only 26 letters in the alphabet.


Neato!

*pats percy's head


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > There are only 26 letters in the alphabet.
> ...



Can’t have it both ways. Either evolution exists, or it does not. What people want evolution to be is irrelevent.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 10, 2019)

percysunshine said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...



Yes.  It does. Just like gravity.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2019)

percysunshine said:


> Can’t have it both ways.


Nor at any time did I make any attempt to do so. evolution is responsible for the human brain and for human psychology. I answered your question very directly and succinctly.  And you, naturally, ignored my answer, because you thought you had posed a real "STUMPER!!"

But, as it turns out, you didn't, and didn't think it through very well, and your question got stomped out very easily by someone willing to think it through.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Can’t have it both ways.
> ...


Ouch. Game. Set. Match.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 10, 2019)

percysunshine said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.
> ...



I believe it was Carl Sagan who popularized the term “sentience”, am ability to perceive one’s environment and their place in it. Our sentience is a product of more complex brains as opposed to other animals. Our sentience has allowed us to explore. As you move further away from humans, you find corollaries of human behavior that reside in all of nature, that have proven successful evolutionarily throughout time, and are maintained, and you also see hints of where our sentience comes from. That's why we see a degree of self-awareness in chimpanzees but not at all in ants -- yet hierarchal structuring of both societies have similarities. Are there offshoots? Yes, nature is not perfect, and never has it been claimed it is, and what do we see? An imperfect nature, with a lot of starts and stops, successes and failures. 

We have evolved a sense of survival, it is _evident_ in almost every animal, and the methods to which we go to survive get more complex as -- surprise! -- the higher towards sentience you go. At the same time, we _also_ see vestiges of self-sacrifice for the greater good, just like a lowly bee will sting an invader and die, for the greater good of the hive. 

Also, why would god create mankind out of dust, give him sentience, a special place in the universe, and then give animals such similar abilities—just at a lower “wattage”? 

Yet more confusion, making it seem as though we evolved our characteristics from animals similar to us, who share 99.9% of our DNA, instead of humans being qualitatively different. Why would a god do this, particularly when the bible says man will have dominion over all beasts? What is more likely, that god purposely made these similarities so to confuse and confound us, or the story was set down within the limited parameters of knowledge of the natural world that existed at the time?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> Yet, the fine tuning facts show no aliens and we have no aliens.  Even my website evolution.berkeley.edu has admitted life is rare.  How can that be if our habitability index for Earth is mediocre?  It means the atheist scientists are wrong again.  Earth's habitability is the best in the universe.  We can't live on Mars nor the moon even though there are those like NASA, Elon Musk, China, Russia and so on trying to prove different.
> 
> I've asked this of atheists and their scientists several times and it's DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS or DESPAIR that I get in response.  If life happens via abiogenesis where is it?  We should have seen it by now.



That fine tuning by the gods worked out well on this planet 65 million years ago.


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Did evolution produce 27 genders?
> ...



So, are there transgendered monkeys?

You probably know where this is going.


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Squids are too low on the evolution ladder to understand gravity.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 10, 2019)

percysunshine said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...




1,500 animal species practice homosexuality


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2019)

percysunshine said:


> So, are there transgendered monkeys?


Almost certainly, yes.  But thing is, we can't ask them.  But we definitely see gender fluidity in nature, and especially fluidity of sexual preferences.

But, even if there were not ANYTHING resembling "transgender" in other monkeys, or even in our closest ape relatives, that would not be an argument that it is not a product of human psychology.  So you are just chasing down a red herring, anyway.

Do you often beg strangers on the internet to spoonfeed you information regarding complex, scientific ideas?  Do you think that, oh just maybe, there is a better way to learn about these topics?


----------



## percysunshine (Mar 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > So, are there transgendered monkeys?
> ...



There certainly is, but you have no evidence...but you believe it. Gosh, sounds like the same arguement creationists use.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2019)

percysunshine said:


> but you have no evidence.


Of what, specifically?  Use your big boy words, or people will not know exactly what you are talking about.

Of what, specifically?


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 10, 2019)

percysunshine said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...




So like male colobus monkeys who change their appearance to mimic female colobus monkeys in heat in order to keep from getting kicked out of their pod?

You know.  Gender expression different from their sex.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 10, 2019)

percysunshine said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


There are 28 in the Welsh alphabet. Not many have 26.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Did evolution produce 27 genders?
> ...


There are only two genders.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > percysunshine said:
> ...


Well, strictly speaking, there are, chromosomally, some gray areas, due to polyploidy.

But, in terms of psychology, the gray area is much bigger.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2019)

Hollie said:


> percysunshine said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


You're going off the rails if you start bringing that gender fluid nonsense into this.


----------



## bripat9643 (Mar 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


Gender isn't a function of psychology.  It's a function of your chromosomes.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 10, 2019)

bripat9643 said:


> Gender isn't a function of psychology


But gender identity is.


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > and we have no aliens.
> ...



It's not just no aliens, doomed one.  We have atheist scientists claiming multiverses to argue against the fine tuning facts.  Stephen Hawking explained the fine tuning facts, but he never advertised that since it went against evolutionary thinking and history.  He bought into the multiverse theory and believing that explains how Earth isn't special due to more universes.  That's more expanding space yet there has been no evidence for it at LHC.  He ended up studying multiverse theories before he died.  BTW he's another doomed one that will be screaming 24/7, i.e. throughout time, because of his fate or is it his "faith-based" science.

Furthermore, how can panspermia happen when there is solar wind, extreme cold and not enough oxygen.  None of the evolutionary thinking holds up.  You may as well be floating out there as you are gone.


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Yet, the fine tuning facts show no aliens and we have no aliens.  Even my website evolution.berkeley.edu has admitted life is rare.  How can that be if our habitability index for Earth is mediocre?  It means the atheist scientists are wrong again.  Earth's habitability is the best in the universe.  We can't live on Mars nor the moon even though there are those like NASA, Elon Musk, China, Russia and so on trying to prove different.
> ...



It's based on statistics.  We have searched and enough time has passed so that if any intelligent ETs existed, then they would have contacted us already.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Mar 10, 2019)

_“Did evolution happen ?”_

Yes.

It’s happening now.

And it will continue to happen.


----------



## james bond (Mar 10, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Yet, the fine tuning facts show no aliens and we have no aliens.  Even my website evolution.berkeley.edu has admitted life is rare.  How can that be if our habitability index for Earth is mediocre?  It means the atheist scientists are wrong again.  Earth's habitability is the best in the universe.  We can't live on Mars nor the moon even though there are those like NASA, Elon Musk, China, Russia and so on trying to prove different.
> ...



No, they both ignore the fine tuning facts found by the secular (atheist) scientists including Stephen Hawking when studying the big bang.  Afterward, it was not a popular theory so they ignored it and came up with multiverses in order to show Earth's habitability isn't special.  Yet, it IS special in our universe since we are the only life here.  That's what the evolution website from Berkeley concluded, too, but this just went over your head .


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Hmmm seti statistics say "SETI searches have examined roughly 5.8 times 10 raised to the minus 18, or about a quintillionth, of the available space"


It's like checking your kitchen cabinet and based on that saying Africa doesn't exist.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 10, 2019)

james bond said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



So what you are trying to do is distract from your own source saying evolution is real.


Lol. Nice try kiddo.  But when your own source debunks you, that's game over.  Have a fun night


----------



## james bond (Mar 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



That's based on us being the advanced race.  Currently, we just are able to get to Mars and not back according to Elon Musk.  You just DISMISSED the advanced ETs ability to contact us.  All the intelligent people believe this including Musk, Fermi, creation scientists and I.  Not you tho.  Don't mean to insult.  Just an observation.


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 11, 2019)

james bond said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Elon Musk has said he believes intelligent ET's have the ability to contact us but are only observing us from afar and choosing not to (His feb 2017 interview with the chairman of the WGS).

So you saying too that you believe like Musk that "If there are superintelligent aliens out there, they're probably already observing us.  That would seem quite likely. We just are not smart enough to realize it."

Another theory many put out there is they are so so different they may not even recognize us as sentient.


So next time you want to lie for an uninformed retort that doesn't even correlate to my statement (I said nothing about ET's desire to communicate with us, just our ability and desire to communicate with them being so small), please, educate yourself first, then decide if typing something untrue is worth it or not for you.


Now that's the advanced race theory.   There's lots of theories that most never got to our point.  I mean we are the only species of millions on Earth to ever be able to even send out a tiny signal.   There's theories that sentient beings destroy themselves with war before being able to master intergalactic travel and communication.  There's ones that resources fail before interstellar travel is discovered.  

Anyways this is so far off Evolution now.   Sure the start of life has many competing theories, some showing better scientific chance than others.  But Evolution itself, is not a conflicting theory.


----------



## james bond (Mar 11, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



Haha.  You said it was game over and clearly it isn't.  Clearly you are riffing off my comments, but at least are learning something.  

The ball is in your court.  NASA is definitely going to Mars by 2025 with a manned mission.  I think it will be extremely dangerous because they will not have fuel to get back.  Hope they do not die from solar wind.  They will have to live there and make their own fuel.  Perhaps the backup plan is to send an unmanned ship with fuel, but that will be costly.  

However, they aren't going to find any aliens.  Not even a microbe and I've already explained why.  They are basing it on superior technology and ice on Mars.  They believe there may have been past life (Evidence for this is fine, too.  Anything to debunk the creation scientists and I.).  Can I help it if these NASA meatheads continue to follow the evolutionary thinking and aliens will be discovered?  It's ridiculous and a waste of taxpayer dollars.

I rather visit a luxurious space station, do some space experiments and adventures (except free fall) and take a grand picture of the big blue marble.  Right now, it appears that God did not make it easy for us to be multi-planetary.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 12, 2019)

I would think after 5 days the evo's would have found the common ancestor and posted it,,,

but alas nothing as usual


----------



## SandSquid (Mar 12, 2019)

james bond said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Talk about going on a ledge.  30 billion stars in our Galaxy is a realistic assumption that could have planets.  100 billion visible galaxies.  And you're basing this that the planet closest to us might not have life so none of them do.


Lol

Thanks. Just needed to see your logic there.

Wow.  That's just amazing.  You went right back to the argument of "since I looked in my cupboard kitchen and didn't find anybody Chinese in there, Chinese people don't exist"

And this has nothing to do with biblical creation.  Just like the Earth being the center of the universe had nothing to do with biblical creation.


----------



## Denizen (Mar 12, 2019)

It bypassed conservatives.


----------



## indiajo (Mar 16, 2019)

james bond said:


> Yet, the fine tuning facts show no aliens and we have no aliens.  Even my website evolution.berkeley.edu has admitted life is rare.  How can that be if our habitability index for Earth is mediocre?  It means the atheist scientists are wrong again.  Earth's habitability is the best in the universe.  We can't live on Mars nor the moon even though there are those like NASA, Elon Musk, China, Russia and so on trying to prove different.
> 
> I've asked this of atheists and their scientists several times and it's DEFLECT, DENY, DISMISS or DESPAIR that I get in response.  If life happens via abiogenesis where is it?  We should have seen it by now.
> 
> ...



This is all illogical gibberish,
Take our galaxy alone. Plus our ability to send or detect radiowaves or other signatures, which started only about a ridiculous 100 years ago.
Any ET civilisation more than about 100 lightyears away would know nothing of our existence. Our galaxy has a diameter of roughly 150.000 lightyears. 
If there is any civilisation in a segment of our galaxy we can observe, so about 180 to 210 degrees, the rest is behind the black hole in the center, they could be pretty far away. If they are presently on the same technology level as we are, their signals could reach us in 1.000 or 10.000 or 20.000 years.
If they would be a million years ahead of us, they could have been wiped out by a supernova in the meantime, we would never know. Their signals would have passed by before we were able to operate a radio.
So what SETI is looking for, is a civilisation that was on our level the time ago their signals would need to reach us.
The hopes are not very high though, but we would at least know there is or was somebody.
We will definetely not be able to answer in real time or communicate.
But it would fuck up any religion on earth, which makes it worth any effort.


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 16, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...


You might find some rice and tea! One doesn't usually find people in their kitchen cupboards...


----------



## james bond (Mar 16, 2019)

SandSquid said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > SandSquid said:
> ...



You do not understand probabilities and this is what we use to determine whether an event such as finding aliens will happen in the future.  There is greater probability that we won't because it is based on a planet's habitability.  What a planet has to have is based on fine tuning parameters that the secular scientists found when they were investigating the Big Bang theory.  However, they do not mention it anymore because it goes against evolutionary thinking.  The chances of finding life, even one microbe, is so remote that evolutionists admit that life is rare now.  Not only that, the solar wind is so bad that even the heartiest cell creatures cannot survive out in space.  Thus, your probabilities of countless suns, moons and planets is still no match for fine tuning.  The atheist scientists went to multiverses because of this and there is no evidence for those either.  Thus, you are wrong.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 17, 2019)

james bond said:


> SandSquid said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Actually, the nonsense you read at fundamentalist ministries has nothing to do with science. Your statements about the nonsensical “fine tuning” canard, “evolutionary thinking” and “Big Bang theory”, are just laughably incoherent and factually incorrect,

It’s truly astonishing how the hyper-religious are so morally bankrupt that they have no problem with lies and falsehoods to protect their dogma.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 17, 2019)

james bond said:


> You do not understand probabilities


No, it is you who doesn't understand probabilities. Nor do the YEC bloggers you plagiarize, when they reiterate hoyle's fallacy ad nauseum. 

You double that error when you accidentally conflate the madeup "probability" (that isn't) of the existence of humans exactly as they are today with the probability of abiogenesis occuring elsewhere in the universe. It's useless, specious nonsense, and you guys embarrass yourselves with it every time.


----------



## TroglocratsRdumb (Mar 17, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.


*Well of course evolution is real and it happened, it just left the backwards liberals behind.*


----------



## james bond (Mar 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > You do not understand probabilities
> ...



I understand probabilities just fine.  Took a course at my alma mater.  It is you who doesn't understand probabilities and how it is used.  Moreover, you are wrong about it being related to YEC bloggers.  I just told you that I learned it during college and am using it now.  Thus, the probability of finding aliens in the future is practically zero.  Now, NASA is looking for evidence of past life, as well.  Do we use probabilities in this case?

What about abiogenesis occurring?  This is zero because Louis Pasteur showed only life begats life in his famous experiment.  The probability is worse than aliens.  Thus, you better hope aliens populated this planet.

Finally, the creation scientists got admission from secular ones that "life is rare."  Why don't you just admit no aliens and no abiogenesis?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 17, 2019)

james bond said:


> I understand probabilities just fine. Took a course at my alma mater.


You clearly do not. And so what if you "once took a course"? You also probably once took a science course, but you clearly know fuck all about that subject, either.

This is the kind of moronic shit that plays in your goofy voodoo religion circles, but not in the educated community. In your goofy voodoo, one just has to out "reverend," in front of his name, and suddenly he can say any stupid fucking shit he wants.  In science, you can out as many letters behond your name as you like...and, if you don't agree evolution is a fact, you're wrong. And that is decided on the evidence, not on how many kids you have brainwashed in Africa, or how many times you stomp your feet and insist evolution is false.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 17, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Actually, you don't understand probabilities. You also don't understand that the nonsense you cut and paste from bible ministries makes you an accomplice to fraud.

Here's a lesson in probabilities for you: "Mum gives birth to SIX babies in just nine minutes defying one in 4.7 billion odds". You can find the article by doing your own search. With your belief in a 6,000 year old earth, That's presents you with a real problem. For a 4.7 billion +/- year old earth, evolutionary process and "chance" have real options.




What's funny is that your _alma mater_ is nothing more than the silly _Watchtower Bible Society_. Regarding your false claim in connection with Pasteur, you wrote:



> Louis Pasteur showed only life begats life in his famous experiment




Here's where that fraud came from:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

What your fraud fails to identify is that the spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism - how cool is that?. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.


Take some time to learn the consequences of being an accomplice to fraud.

Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative



Let's address your other fraud, shall we?
You wrote; 





> Finally, the creation scientists got admission from secular ones that "life is rare".



Religious fundamentalists have no information about life beyond our planet or solar system. Religious fundamentalists are not doing research or publishing in peer reviewed papers. Your nonsense claims are utterly unsupported and lack corroboration.


----------



## james bond (Mar 17, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > I understand probabilities just fine. Took a course at my alma mater.
> ...



Why do you resort to the lowest common denominator after you've lost?  Don't you think you should modify your thinking and start to realize what real science is?  All of this has made you confused and angry.  You are the angry LCD atheist.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 17, 2019)

james bond said:


> Why do you resort to the lowest common denominator after you've lost?


Lost? Oops, looks like it's time to check the scoreboard again:

Evolution remains an accepted fact. It is a fact endorsed and taught by every scientific society on the planet. It still enjoys the support of all of academia and all of thw mutually supportive evidence.

Young earth creationism is still a laughingstock and has been for 150 years. 

Hmm,no, looks like I haven't lost anything.


----------



## james bond (Mar 17, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...



Your basic arguments are ad hominem attacks that I am a fraud and my arguments are fraudulent.  And then you take my words and start adding whatever stereotypes and looney tunes dark fantasies that you have for religion.  This is science that we are talking about.

And what good is probability if the event already happened?  You cannot comprehend this and give ridiculous explanations for probability.

Anyway, with some professional treatment, perhaps you can recover.  Maybe believing in God and praying to him for help with your mental condition will change your life.


----------



## james bond (Mar 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Why do you resort to the lowest common denominator after you've lost?
> ...



Buh, buh, buh what if you have a spirit and it is what is real and lasting and the physical world is the illusion?  We know the physical world does not last.  No matter how rich you are, how famous you are, you can't take the physical world with you.  You have to leave everything behind.  Don't you agree with that?  It doesn't take science to know it.

Thus, if we all began with singularity and abiogenesis, then why is that all there is?  It seems like we work all our lives to accomplish something and leave a legacy and when one dies then they can't take anything with them.

The Bible tells us that we are spiritually alive or spiritually dead.  That seems to make more sense to me about *life* than remaining with the dead.


----------



## WheelieAddict (Mar 18, 2019)

JGalt said:


> If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?


We are still evolving you donut.


----------



## james bond (Mar 18, 2019)

WheelieAddict said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > If evolution it a fact, then why are there apes today like there were hundreds of thousands of years ago? And why haven't they evolved into humans, like evolutionists believe?
> ...



This is a stupid AF argument.  The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory," but they can't do that today.  If things in the present reflect what it was like in the past, then those dumb monkeys couldn't walk either.  Other wise, they de-evolved.  Some people believe any dumb shit that is told to them.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Your basic argument is to revile knowledge and learning. I countered your comments with sources that are fraudulent because they are religious claims and not supported by fact. 

You are angry and emotive because your fraudulent claims are countered with reason and rationality. 

I hope you will reflect on the above and pray for forgiveness from your gods.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



You should avoid your silly “according to Darwin” claims because they are false.

Evolution does not proceed as your fundamentalist ministries claim. Biological evolution does not move from along a linear path as claimed by the charlatans at creation.com.


----------



## WheelieAddict (Mar 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...


the time scale is over tens of thousands of years, and that's just since the last ice age donut


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> Buh, buh, buh


Nope, sorry weenie, no amount of slithering and mincing and public masurbation is going to change what the scoreboard says. But you are free to be that retard running around the empty arena, claiming victory after losing the big game by 1000 points. And we all know you will.


----------



## james bond (Mar 18, 2019)

WheelieAddict said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > WheelieAddict said:
> ...



Time scale?  Over tens of thousands of year?  Last ice age?  Why don't you explain?


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 18, 2019)

"The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory," 

Haha...fucking moron...might as well announce to the world you know less than nothing about evolution...


----------



## james bond (Mar 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Buh, buh, buh
> ...








My lead over you is a 1000+ points already.  You got docked for ad hominem attacks.  Basically, that was your only argument.  You presented no science in the S&T forum and what little you gave turned out to be wrong such as abiogenesis, aliens, re-engineering chickens into dinosaurs, humans from monkeys and birds from dinosaurs.  What we discovered is Darwin's ideas led to racism of the worst kind, the holocaust and more.  For example, how it shows a black man as part of human evolution.  Even the title of Darwin's Origin of Species is racist -- _On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life_.  No wonder a science book became a best seller and made white man Darwin rich.


----------



## james bond (Mar 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory,"



"According to Darwin."  His theories have pretty much all have been debunked.  Even survival of the fittest was shown to be wrong as we found creatures that co-operate with each to survive.

The monkeys did not even lose their tails.  They have to become anthropoidea from primates first according to common ancestor descent.  There is no fossil evidence for this.  Besides the chronological layers are suspicious.  The only explanation or argument we get is it had to do with the hip and leg bone changes.  No one really believes in Lucy (Au. afarensis) as it was put together from several different animals.  The bones were found miles apart in different levels of depth.  Suffice to say, inconclusive and people don't buy it.  When they toured Lucy's fossils around, the museums lost big money.  They made up a phoney excuse that the fossils were too valuable so mothballed it back to Ethiopia never to see the light of day again.  There should be hundreds, if not thousands, of these fossils if the australopiticines were bipedal.  We should have a fairly good agreement on what these creatures looked like from artists' renditions.  However, the drawings are different and all over the place.  Most look like chimpanzees or chimp hybrids.  Thus, if the key to the past is the present, then we find that chimpanzees or even apes are not fully bipedal.

How many points do I get for this slam dunk in your face?  It's worth 2, but because of the agility and showmanship (and it's over a villain) it should be worth 3.  I'll accept 2 because the villain keeps losing.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> "According to Darwin." His theories have pretty much all have been debunked.


Not only is the quote you attributed to darwins thought a lie, it is also a lie thay all of his theories have been debunked. Damn you are stupid. And a huge liar. You are making baby jesus cry with your stupidity and dishonesty.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> Even survival of the fittest was shown to be wrong as we found creatures that co-operate with each to survive.


I presume you are talking about social insects or the like.  In these cases the individuals all share many genes so the cooperation ensures the genes a better chance at survival.  We are all little more than vessels for our genes, slavishly carrying them into the future. It is their survival that matters, not ours.  And that is the meaning of life.


----------



## james bond (Mar 18, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > "According to Darwin." His theories have pretty much all have been debunked.
> ...



Then which thoughts or ideas of his has panned out?  Which ones are observable, testable and falsifiable?

Do your own thinking and explanation as the ones provided by museums have been shown to be bogus.  For example, secular scientists found "life is rare."  Shouldn't it be happening all over the place according to Darwin?  We do not find transitional fossils nor evidence of modification by descent.  Everything is done to make the facts fit ToE instead of ToE to fit the facts.

How Common is Life?


----------



## WheelieAddict (Mar 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


Evolution, or do you think humans were just placed here at your convenience.


----------



## james bond (Mar 18, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Even survival of the fittest was shown to be wrong as we found creatures that co-operate with each to survive.
> ...



There is no social gene in insects or any other animal.  Gene regulation is performed through several mechanisms by living cells to control the process by which the information encoded in a gene is converted into protein or some other form of RNA.  IOW individual cells use the information in genes to produce product.  It does not produce behavior.

To move forward, it's not just insects, but other animals, too.  The atheist scientists who believed in Darwin found out he was wrong in that similar creatures would compete with each other for food.  It's not just a dog eat dog world for humans in business, sports, politics or other endeavors.  Sure, there is competing, winner take all or survival of the fittest  behavior no doubt, but that isn't all there is.


----------



## james bond (Mar 18, 2019)

WheelieAddict said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > WheelieAddict said:
> ...



You can't just say thus evolution as that which was the cause.  It's fallacy of assumption.  You just assumed that which  you were trying to show.

Humans were placed here for God's enjoyment in creation.  It's not that we are robots or his slaves, but free thinking and free willed individuals.  However, this led to disobedience in no time and so we are being segregated into those who will live forever in paradise and those who will be spiritually dead.  There is complexity in the design although the choice is simple.  One can think of it as choosing evolution means disobeying God, stating he does not exist and death of our spiritually perfect body.  Or choosing he exists, that Jesus will save, i.e. cleanse us and lead us to eternal spiritual life.  Isn't this the case?.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > "The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory,"
> ...



How many points do you believe you deserve for false and ignorant statements?

You claim Darwin’s theories have been debunked but you can't provide a single instance. That’s pretty typical in my experience. Religious zealots calling themselves “creationists” never provide any valid points at all. It can be time consuming to address the confusions and errors inherent in creationist rhetoric, but the actual content very rarely includes anything at all of genuine scientific interest. If you have a specific valid point in mind, you might like to bring it to the attention of those who can address your ignorance.

Evolution has been observed. The mechanisms are well described. No scientific or educational institution doubts the occurrence of evolution (except those with a competing religious dogma to protect). There is every reason to accept evolution, and no good reason to reject it. The fabricated, mistake-filled "evidence" of fundamentalist creationism that is supposed to "overturn evolution" does no damage to evolution, no matter how loudly they shout it.

In fact, as time goes on and the methods for testing evolutionary science become more exacting, the *facts* demonstrating evolution become better defined.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 18, 2019)

james bond said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



As the self-entitled spokes-jerk for the gods, tell us how you know humans were placed here for God's enjoyment in creation?

Are we to believe that you're "hearing voices"? That's really, umm, how shall we say....creepy? 

Are you suggesting you have communications with the gods and they confide in you?

None of your gods or any of the gods that humans invented  before the invention of your gods are defined in any differentially testable fashion. You assign to your gods human attributes that are no different from ay of the other inventions of the gods. As the resident representative of all things godly, I've watched you re-write and invent your own versions of Christianity while entirely dodging the fundamental problem that no demonstrably accurate version of scripture is available. Like all the gods invented before the invention of your gods, there is nothing that one can point to and say "here is the actual word of the gods."

Maybe you can have the gods write you a letter of recommendation?


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 18, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


The truth is that creationism is labeled religious thought, and therefore unsuitable to be expressed in governmental funded institutions. This is the only reason Creationism and Intelligent Design are excluded. 

Your so called Scientific and Educational institutions are forced to ignore and exclude any logic that eludes to a CREATOR or face losing governmental funding... As long as this remains unchecked, public education is little more than a bastion of atheistic thought and not conducive to educative research, debate, and through investigation.


----------



## james bond (Mar 19, 2019)

Hollie said:


> You claim Darwin’s theories have been debunked but you can't provide a single instance.



I've been providing them all throughout the thread.  Yet, you can't provide one good example where it's observable aside from microevolution.  We do not disagree on that.

These seem to go over your head .

Darwin believed in spontaneous generation from a "warm little pond," but that's been debunked by Louis Pasteur.

He thought bacteria was a "glob of protoplasm."

He thought a single cell was simple and did not contain much information.  He didn't have a powerful microscope like today.

He thought there were thousands of transitional fossils or else he was wrong about common ancestors.  <=== Your scientists to this day do not admit this.

A lot of it is his beliefs were so elementary that no one would question they have been debunked or would they be considered scientific.

It must be really embarrassing for you to not realize this .


----------



## james bond (Mar 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> "The monkeys were supposed to become fully bipedal according to Darwin and his stupid common ancestor "theory,"
> 
> Haha...fucking moron...might as well announce to the world you know less than nothing about evolution...



C'mon Darwin thought there were thousands of common ancestors fossils to show transition, but since that's not what the fossil evidence is, he thought his theory was wrong.  However, scientists today do not admit this.  They make up excuses.  When Darwin was younger, he thought that we haven't explored enough of the earth or there was a problem with the layers.

Darwin on Transitional Fossils

However, as Charles Darwin became older, he became increasingly concerned about the lack of transitional evidence in regards to the fossil record.  He wrote, “When we descend to details, we cannot prove that a single species has changed; nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial," which is the basis of the theory.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You claim Darwin’s theories have been debunked but you can't provide a single instance.
> ...



What is embarrassing is your ignorance. As I noted earlier, the tools and methodology used by scientists have become far more exacting since Charles Darwin’s time. Despite your revulsion for knowledge, biological evolution has become among the best studied sciences, in part becaue it conforms with the scientific method. 

While that has occurred, the religious extremists have only become angrier and less relevant. 

Now this is embarrassing.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You claim Darwin’s theories have been debunked but you can't provide a single instance.
> ...



What is embarrassing is your ignorance. As I noted earlier, the tools and methodology used by scientists have become far more exacting since Charles Darwin’s time. Despite your revulsion for knowledge, biological evolution has become among the best studied sciences, in part becaue it conforms with the scientific method. 

While that has occurred, the religious extremists have only become angrier and less relevant. 

Now this is embarrassing.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...




Societal structures that cooperate will have a advantage for survival. It follows the Darwinian theory of fitness for survival. 

I'll cite Jane Goodall's study of chimpanzees as the natural analogy to human tribal customs that evolves into law (and which codes morality). I'm hoping you can cite coding of morality with regard to your gods and their behaviors throughout the bibles. 

Speaking of your gods and the notion of merciful, loving god, if I was a god, these are the things I _wouldn’t_ do while claiming to be preach morality to anyone:

I wouldn't set up a test for my children that was impossible for them to pass, purposely tempt them, and when they did fail it I wouldn't curse my children, and their children, and their children and their children and...

I wouldn't drown them all.

I wouldn't be the general of some of them and order some of them to put others to the sword -- but keep the female virgins for their pleasure.

I wouldn't create a Satan and allow him any power over my children.

I wouldn't create a hell and condemn my children to it forever.

I wouldn't allow vials to be poured out carrying disease and death and destruction.

The list of things your gods have done is horrifying in the extreme.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> There is no social gene in insects or any other animal.


So why do social insects behave as they do?  Do you think they learn from their parents?  Yet another scientific field you don't understand.


----------



## fncceo (Mar 19, 2019)

De-evolution happened ... I got the LP...


----------



## rightwinger (Mar 19, 2019)




----------



## james bond (Mar 19, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > There is no social gene in insects or any other animal.
> ...



They figure it out unlike you.  You need a gene, but don't have it el stupido .


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > So why do social insects behave as they do?  Do you think they learn from their parents?
> ...


Priceless.  Thank you.


----------



## james bond (Mar 19, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



This bit of sarcasm further shows your el stupido.  C'mon didn't you learn this stuff in elementary school and middle school?  Do you know some have a caste system and are born into it?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



That's fascinating. You're suggesting that insects have an analytical thought process they use to figure stuff out. Fascinating. 

Isn't there something in the Koran about talking ants?  

Tell us more, please.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 19, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> The truth is that creationism is labeled religious thought,


Wrong. The creation myths that run contrary to all the evidence are correctly labeled "religious thought" (which, in this case, is a polite way of saying "provably false magical horseshit"), but the question of whether or not a creator created the universe is a scientific question.


----------



## james bond (Mar 19, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...



_You_ said they have an analytical thought process haha.  What we know is chimps cranial capacity hasn't changed much in whatever number of years from their fossils.  Did you watch the cooperation TED talks vid?  The answer is no.  It shows that your analytical thought process is lacking and that the chimps made a monkey out of you.  However, chimps and other animals can figure out what they need to do to get food.  For example, bears go bipedal in order to mooch food from the tourists.

In your looney tunes quest to dismiss creation science or real science, you end up being wrong and looney once again.  What Jesus taught is this kind of thinking or strategy leads to despair.  Are you depressed?  Your posts show a tendency towards this type of condition and not being able to think clearly.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



You're a bit befuddled. Why do you believe insects have an analytical thought process?

What is the significance of your ranting about chimpanzee cranial capacity? 

There is nothing to dismiss about so-called creation science because fundamentalist creation ministries dont perform anything related to science. There's nothing scientific about the fundamentalist religious claim "all of existence is explained by magic and supernaturalism".


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...


I'm confused, do they 'figure it out' or are they born into it?


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > The truth is that creationism is labeled religious thought,
> ...


Wrong. Biblical creation runs contrary to evolutionary THEORY which is protected by governmental educational policy. The horse manure is in your back pocket...


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 19, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Wrong. Biblical creation runs contrary to evolutionary THEORY


Correct, exactly as I said. Why would you respond with "wrong", and then agree with me? There's something wrong with your brain.


----------



## james bond (Mar 19, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...





james bond said:


> Do you know some have a caste system and are born into it?



smh.  You can't answer a simple elementary school and middle school question.  Ask my question to a 4th grader and then 7th grader who isn't confused as you.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 19, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> I'm confused, do they 'figure it out' or are they born into it?


You're not confused.  He is.  He is engaging in an exercise of "backward think". So he isn't keeping track of his own self-contradictions.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 19, 2019)

I cant see the conflict between evolution and this creationism cult.

I am not an expert on this at all but the people I see pushing back against evolution are generally wrong on most other things. 

Why would they be right on this ?

Is it not just possible that God created the earth and then stuff happened ?

Where is the victim in that ?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> I cant see the conflict between evolution and this creationism cult.
> 
> I am not an expert on this at all but the people I see pushing back against evolution are generally wrong on most other things.
> 
> ...




its about all the flaws in evolution that are in question


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> I cant see the conflict between evolution and this creationism cult.


Which makes sense, because this is not a conflict between evolution and creation. It's a conflict between evolution and a very specific subset of idiotic, provably false religious dogma that says the Earth is, at most, 10,000 years old.  And that is it, in a nutshell.  Yes, the young-earthers are nutballs.  Yes, they go on the same shelf with flat-earthers.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I cant see the conflict between evolution and this creationism cult.
> ...



What flaws? 

Theres a flaw in making unsupported, non-specific claims.


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Wrong. Biblical creation runs contrary to evolutionary THEORY
> ...


Because Creationism is also a theory, and yet is not allowed in the governmentally controlled science classrooms or curriculum. There is something wrong with your soul.


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 19, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Because Creationism is also a theory


Creationism is not a scientific theory. get that through your skull.


----------



## james bond (Mar 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confused, do they 'figure it out' or are they born into it?
> ...



You're the deaf leading the blind.  Obviously, you're not qualified to explain it to him or else you would have already.  Still stuck in fourth grade.  Sad.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Because Creationism is also a theory
> ...


yes it is,,,


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 19, 2019)

james bond said:


> Obviously, you're not qualified to explain it to him or else you would have already.


What does that have to do with the fact that you made some shit up to explain it and completely contradicted yourself in the process?  nothing, that's what.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 19, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Great. I've been waiting for you Flat Earth'ers to post a link to the 
"*General Theory of Supernatural Creation*".


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 19, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > I cant see the conflict between evolution and this creationism cult.
> ...


I certainly do not believe that the circle of the earth is flat. The Bible certainly doesn't say it's flat. And Christians have believed it to be a sort of sphere since the time of Christ..Atheists do their best to undermine Christianity by judging all Christendom by the misguided views of small fringe groups, who do not even subscribe to the views of Creation scientists. There is certainly a lot of evidence to support the FLOOD of Noah's time to say the least. No one is asking anyone to accept anything without any proof whatsoever. The problem is that evolutionary "science" claims an exclusive right to indoctrinate without any counterpoint. That is not an education. That is manipulative and controlling. This is an unfair advantage that is not conductive to the instigation of confrontational research ----but mere agreement!


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 19, 2019)

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


I'm not a "flat earth'er."  You would need someone else to argue that unbiblical point.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 19, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Fort Fun Indiana said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


Which subject would you teach it under ?


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 19, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Fort Fun Indiana said:
> ...


What subject do they teach the theory of evolution under?


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Mar 20, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


They arent the same thing.


----------



## james bond (Mar 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Which subject would you teach it under ?



Creation science is science.  Evolution should be under philosophy.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > Which subject would you teach it under ?
> ...



“Creation science” is Christian fundamentalism. 

Kitzmiller v. Dover: Intelligent Design on Trial


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Who says? The evolutionists?


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 20, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


I believe the established authorities make presumptions with regard to Creationism, based on the influences of well entrenched elitists who are under the sway of evolutionary thought. The simple truth is that no one really enjoys competition which questions one's own values. And playing the "separation" ploy is rather lame.  It requires no real investigation and involves only lawyers.


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 20, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


What do you know about Flood theory? What makes it non-scientific?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 20, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Your comment has the tangy taste of conspiracy theory.  "Creationists" is just a label for christian fundamentalists. The links you and others provide to AIG and creation.com are fundamentalist Christian websites. I provided a link to the "statement of faith" they operate under.

Faith doesn’t claim evidence and it *can not* claim evidence. That's because faith isn't a tool-- it is a conclusion. Faith by definition is not a path to knowledge -- else, if the item is known, it no longer needs faith. If one can be said to "know there is a god" -- then of what need is there for faith?

Since _reason_ won't suffice to support an irrational claim (i.e., supernatural beings being _real_, not fictional), one is forced into creating a "new method" by which one supports one's claims. Enter faith, theistically defined as the substance of things "hoped for"; the evidence of things not seen. I "hope for" a number of things-- but "hoping" is not enough-- there has to be evidence, and not evidence that is "not seen".


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 20, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> What do you know about Flood theory? What makes it non-scientific?


There are no known natural processes that could lead to a global flood and none have ever been offered by Flood proponents, at least to my knowledge.  Since the Flood must have been a supernatural event, it is, by definition, non-scientific.


----------



## Likkmee (Mar 20, 2019)

Take a look on Capital Hill. It's in full force.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 20, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > What do you know about Flood theory? What makes it non-scientific?
> ...


only if you ignore all the evidence, and compared to the lack of evidence for evolution both are a religion


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 20, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


The Flood has nothing to do with evolution so that is a case of 'what about-ism'.  Do you have ANY evidence for a global flood outside of the Bible?  Any theories as to where the water came from that don't conflict with natural law? or where it went?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 20, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


I've posted them repeatedly,,,
maybe you should open your mind and see them



this one makes far more sense than millions of yrs


----------



## Hollie (Mar 20, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Religious quackery makes little sense.

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #537: Walt Brown


----------



## james bond (Mar 20, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



You are wrong, looney tunes and keep confusing ID with creation.  Hopefully, one day we will be able to teach creation science once again is schools as they are teaching fake atheist science today.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 20, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Pure fantasy.  An obvious case of starting with an answer, in this case that the Flood happened exactly like told on the Bible, and fitting some facts to fit and ignoring any facts that don't.

There is no known process that the earth could be formed with or get a layer of water beneath a layer of rock.  Rock does not float.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 20, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


so there is no such thing as underground lakes and rivers???


and try leaving the bible and god out of it and look at the evidence

what about polystrates that cross over millions of yrs??


----------



## Hollie (Mar 20, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



You can attempt to separate the ID'iot / creation ministries from one another but they are identical.

The courts have repeatedly struck the attempts of Christian fundies to force their nonsense ID'iot / creationist dogma into the public schools. You have repeatedly been handed humiliating defeats.

Fortunately, the public schools are protected by the US constitution from Christian fundamentalism.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 20, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> so there is no such thing as underground lakes and rivers???
> 
> and try leaving the bible and god out of it and look at the evidence
> 
> what about polystrates that cross over millions of yrs??


Underground lakes and rivers are small and post-date the rocks and the water is not under pressure so they don't fit the theory.  When they get too big the land collapses, see sinkholes, the water doesn't rise up.

Your video brought in the Bible and God.  It also ended by saying the Flood was a fine piece of supernatural engineering.

Creationists must be the only group that are surprised that roots grow into the ground and trees grow above it.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 20, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > so there is no such thing as underground lakes and rivers???
> ...


you suffer from whats called indoctrination because you are unable to think for yourself and are easily controlled,,,

evolution has no proof and therefor a religion as well,,,at least intelligent design has evidence that can be observed and studied


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 20, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> you suffer from whats called indoctrination because you are unable to think for yourself and are easily controlled,,,
> 
> evolution has no proof and therefor a religion as well,,,at least intelligent design has evidence that can be observed and studied


I certainly appreciate the irony that you can't counter the evidence so you accuse me of being unable to think for myself when it is you who parrot the creationist lies and refuse to see the world as God made it.  Because you know better?  Bearing false witness?  What if God asks you these questions, what would you say to him, that you think for yourself?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 20, 2019)

you gav


alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > you suffer from whats called indoctrination because you are unable to think for yourself and are easily controlled,,,
> ...


you gave your opinion not evidence


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 20, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> you gave your opinion not evidence


Now I see the problem, you can't tell the difference.


----------



## james bond (Mar 20, 2019)

Hollie said:


> You can attempt to separate the ID'iot / creation ministries from one another but they are identical.
> 
> The courts have repeatedly struck the attempts of Christian fundies to force their nonsense ID'iot / creationist dogma into the public schools. You have repeatedly been handed humiliating defeats.
> 
> Fortunately, the public schools are protected by the US constitution from Christian fundamentalism.



Fortunately, we are making inroads to teach creation science in the US public schools and it is being taught in different states.  The students question and challenge abiogenesis, ToE and evolutionary thinking and history.  They think the facts do not back up what evolution teaches and that the facts were molded to fit the theory.

You are so looney that you cannot separate ID from creation and science from Christian fundamentalism.  I'm not even sure you can speak science as most of your diatribe is against religion.  It's reeks of the fruits of bitterness that you have grown.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 21, 2019)

james bond said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > You can attempt to separate the ID'iot / creation ministries from one another but they are identical.
> ...



Fortunately, Christian fundamentalists are not making inroads in the public school system. Kitzmiller vs. Dover was another humiliating loss in a series of humiliating losses for the Christian fundies.

Ten Major Court Cases about Evolution and Creationism

Fortunately, the courts have upheld the constitutional principle of separation of church and state. While you Christian taliban would want the US public school system to mimic some backwater Pakistani madrassah, we have a Constitution that protects our children from people like you.

While you angry, self-hating fundies would want to force you religion on others, the courts have repeatedly stepped in and identified that the false claims of ID’iot / creationism is nothing more than fundamentalist xtians attempting to impose their dogma as something it isn’t,


----------



## Aponi (Mar 21, 2019)

JGalt said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> > No
> ...


Hes done so much drugs and drank so much hes pickled and will be a scientifically a wonderment


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 21, 2019)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


What do you know about fact vs faith? Please consider the following: Faith and facts  - creation.com


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 21, 2019)

Hollie said:


> james bond said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


Unfortunately, since 1963 (when GOD became illegal as an interest of public education), the test scores have not improved. People once read Latin as a part of "college prep". Respect of authority has plummeted. The dumbing down of test scores has become the norm. And now we find that some have been paying money to get better test score ratings. Once college was a whole lot cheaper and not nearly 100 thousand dollars. Partying was not what schools were known for. I believe you are too young to realize just how silly your remarks really are...


----------



## Hollie (Mar 21, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...



Sorry, but I don't accept ID'iot / creationist quacks with an inherent (and announced bias toward a conclusion),  to be a reliable source.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 21, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > james bond said:
> ...



Fortunately, since the inception of this nation, public education has been operated under the establishment clause. 

The christian Taliban has no place in the public schools. The dumbing down of public schools with religious indoctrination is prevented by the US constitution and efforts by fundamentalist ministries falsely labeling christian fundamentalism as ID'iot / creationism has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2019)

JGalt said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



First of all, most of them have changed. Second, no, it doesn't.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 21, 2019)

dblack said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > ChesBayJJ said:
> ...


sorry but none of them have changed to another species,,,change within a species based on environment and breeding is not evolution


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



Your conception of evolution is wildly inaccurate. Do some reading, please. Then you can discuss it intelligently.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 21, 2019)

dblack said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




well can you point me to something that proves where life was created from non living matter or where one species gave birth to another species???


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Your request make no sense. Seriously, the internet makes it possible to learn this stuff without going to college, or spending time at the library. Once you understand the theory, you can critique it without sounding like a clueless crackpot.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 21, 2019)

dblack said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...




oh so its the old I aint smart enough claim,,,

sorry I know exactly what evolution teachs and thats why I disagree because its 100% speculation based on flawed assumptions with no proof


----------



## dblack (Mar 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



LOL - if you say so. I suppose you're a billionaire too, eh?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 21, 2019)

dblack said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


no


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 21, 2019)

dblack said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > dblack said:
> ...


even after all the insults and claims of the great internet you still cant provide one single piece of evidence,,,

its OK cause I know none exist,,which is why all you have left is insults and personal attacks


----------



## Hollie (Mar 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Why would one species give birth to a different species? That kind of magical nonsense only occurs in tales and fables in your bibles? 

You never had even a rudimentary education in the life sciences, right?


----------



## Hollie (Mar 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> dblack said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...



Observed Instances of Speciation


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> well can you point me to something that proves where life was created from non living matter or where one species gave birth to another species???


You'll never get proof of what happened millions or billions of years ago.  What you will get is overwhelming evidence.  And that applies to both evolution and the beginning of life.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 21, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > well can you point me to something that proves where life was created from non living matter or where one species gave birth to another species???
> ...


as of yet no evidence has been given,,,just speculation based on flawed assumptions


----------



## Hollie (Mar 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



No evidence given.... except for the evidence given.

Doesn't that suggest a certain failure on your part?


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


Evidence life was created from non living matter: we're here.  How we got here: speculation only since little or no evidence remains

Evidence one species gave birth to another species: overwhelming evidence from the fossil record and biology.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 21, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


like I said ,,,

speculation based on flawed assumptions

the first assumes we came from a wet rock and the second assumes the geo column happened over millions of yrs   

 both have been proven crazy at best and an outright lie at worst


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> like I said ,,,
> 
> speculation based on flawed assumptions
> 
> ...


You're the one making 'wet rock' assumptions, no one else is.  There are many theories but precious little evidence.

As for the geo column, it is well studied and the original assumption of thousands of years proved incompatible with the evidence and was lengthened to millions of years. Exactly what about the geo column has been 'proven' crazy?


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 21, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > like I said ,,,
> ...


THEN WHAT IS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP COME FROM???

and why is evolution taught as fact???

the geo column can be replicated easily today and there are many being formed right now in flooded areas

not to mention under evo's geo column an animal would have to sit in the open for millions of yrs without rotting or get eaten while getting covered for evo to work,,,
I could also get into polystrates but whats the use

maybe its you that doesnt know what evo claims


----------



## Fort Fun Indiana (Mar 21, 2019)

Why are you responding to this lying troll? He is intentionally saying stupid shit to elicit responses.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...


_THEN WHAT IS THE PRIMORDIAL SOUP COME FROM??? _ Wet rocks and primordial soup?  You're thinking of an old folk tale.

_and why is evolution taught as fact???_  If you mean evolution as in decent from a common ancestor, that is a fact as evidenced by the fossil record and biology.  If you mean evolution as in the mechanism, there are theories, mainly as a version of natural selection, but details are still in dispute so this is not a fact so much as a well accepted, at least by scientists, theory.

_the geo column can be replicated easily today and there are many being formed right now in flooded areas_  You're right that the geo column is still being formed by deposition.  You're wrong that it can be easily replicated, a geologist would not be fooled.  I can look at a bone and guess at it origin but a trained anatomist can tell what animal it came from, the age, sex, and health of the animal.

_not to mention under evo's geo column an animal would have to sit in the open for millions of yrs without rotting or get eaten while getting covered for evo to work,,,_  That is exactly how fossils are NOT formed.  They are buried rapidly before they can get eaten.

_I could also get into polystrates but whats the use_  No feel free, you actually learn something about them.

_maybe its you that doesnt know what evo claims_  You have not demonstrated you understand much about the subject so I don't think you can judge.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 21, 2019)

Fort Fun Indiana said:


> Why are you responding to this lying troll? He is intentionally saying stupid shit to elicit responses.


It's working.  I guess I'm not bored yet.  I see it as a chess game.


----------



## toobfreak (Mar 21, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> Attenborough is probably the greatest living Englishman and his brother ran Jurassic Park. I think he pretty much nailed the intelligent design nut.




You don't need to look to the rocks, the proof of evolution lives today.  The person to truly ask and who definitively proved the matter was Alfred Russel Wallace.

Alfred Russel Wallace - Wikipedia

https://www.amazon.com/Malay-Archipelago-Alfred-R-Wallace/dp/1165242435&tag=ff0d01-20


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 21, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...




I see the problem,,,

you know nothing about what evo teachs or claims

sorry you wasted my time


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 21, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> I see the problem,,,
> 
> you know nothing about what evo teachs or claims
> 
> sorry you wasted my time


And I was trying so hard to educate you.  Obviously a waste of your time.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 21, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > I see the problem,,,
> ...


if you think the primordial soup is a fairy tale its you that lack an education,,,,

but you have given some proof of evolution ,,,

you are dumber than a box of rocks


----------



## Hollie (Mar 22, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



I understand _why_ the hyper-religious are so threatened by the various sciences that cumulatively support evolution. An old earth, speciation, and modification with descent poses obvious conflicts with a 6,000 year old planet, biblical fables and the need for salvation.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 22, 2019)

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > alang1216 said:
> ...


Western religions tell their followers they are the center of the universe and it was created just for them, they are watched over and taken care of, their God can make their lives better here on Earth, they are fundamentally different from any other life on the planet, and they are immortal, just like God himself.  That is a child-like mindset difficult to give up.  Growing up is painful.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 22, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...




thats off topic and has nothing to do with evolution,,,

it justt goes to show you cant back up the religion of evolution with any facts so you attack those that know it for what it is...

a complete lie


----------



## Hollie (Mar 22, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...



^^^^ creation.com has groupies.


----------



## alang1216 (Mar 22, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> thats off topic and has nothing to do with evolution,,,
> 
> it justt goes to show you cant back up the religion of evolution with any facts so you attack those that know it for what it is...
> 
> a complete lie


So what do you ad hominin attacks on me have to do with evolution?

You have shown your ears don't hear, your eyes don't see, and your mind doesn't think.  You have all the answers in your book so why listen to anything at all.  Just keep screaming that it's all a lie.  If I were you I'd worry about meeting God and him asking why you didn't use that brain he gave you.


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 22, 2019)

alang1216 said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > thats off topic and has nothing to do with evolution,,,
> ...


as expected still posting off topic with personal attacks,,,


----------



## progressive hunter (Mar 22, 2019)

*David Berlinski Explains Problems With Evolution.*


----------



## Hollie (Mar 22, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> *David Berlinski Explains Problems With Evolution.*



Oh, please. Berlinski is a mouthpiece, a hack associated with the charlatans at the Disco'tute. 

He's a mathetician BTW, not a biologist or paleontologist 

Encyclopedia of American Loons: #24: David Berlinski


----------



## dblack (Mar 22, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> *David Berlinski Explains Problems With Evolution.*



LOL - are you trying to pretend that his criticisms of evolution have anything to do with the ignorant horseshit you've been posting???


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 22, 2019)

Hollie said:


> LittleNipper said:
> 
> 
> > Hollie said:
> ...


TOTALLY NOT TRUE! Separation of Church and State didn't become an educational issue until the Kennedy years.


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 22, 2019)

dblack said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > *David Berlinski Explains Problems With Evolution.*
> ...


So, let's start by playing this commentary in public school and university biology classes, and we will see whose manure stinks the worse.


----------



## LittleNipper (Mar 22, 2019)

Hollie said:


> progressive hunter said:
> 
> 
> > *David Berlinski Explains Problems With Evolution.*
> ...


Mathematicians can certainly grasp the concept of statistics, time and what is logical and illogical.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 23, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > LittleNipper said:
> ...


The establishments clause dates to 1791. That was a bit before the Kennedy years.


----------



## Hollie (Mar 23, 2019)

LittleNipper said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> > progressive hunter said:
> ...



Maybe you could provide a link to some of the research work he has done in the fields of biology and paleontology and published in peer reviewed journals. 

We both know that the ID’iot/creation ministries do no research so I guess I addressed the above for you.


----------

