user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
When DNA replicates it gets it wrong once in about 10 million tries. Not enough. Fossils are hard evidence of the fact that there are only seperate species. No evolution. And couchgnome (good name) wants to kill people who question ideas that need to withstand questioning. What's the big deal? I'm quite happy having a childish argument but some people have to take it down a level.
i_cart_spel,
I'm afraid you have been grossly misled about the fossil record. I'd be very curious to know your source, as it seems to be very convincing to you despite a total lack of truthfulness. The list of fossils that exhibit traits of two established species is actually quite large. Here are a few samples from the Artiodactyls family (cloven-hoofed animals):
Chriacus
Diacodexis
Helohyus
Anthracotherium
Propalaeochoerus
Perchoerus
Paleochoerus
Diacodexis
Homacodon
Poebrodon
This is a very short list and you could find many more examples if you bothered to look. If you doubt that these fossils exist or show evidence of speciation, then don't take my word for it. Do a little research on your own. It is easy to spread lies about evolution because it is possible to make any outrageous claim against it you want. If you chose to continue to spread misconceptions in spite of evidence you are no longer simply uniformed and misguided, you are a liar. At least you admit DNA does replicate so perhaps there is some hope for you yet.
By the way this ballot is sick. It's too bad you posted this, couchgnome.
I got the 1 in 10 million from a website about evolution. I'll try and have another look to get the address. From the reaction I assume you know how many times DNA has to replicate before it makes a boo-boo. It also seems strange that you give a list of seperate species as evidence of speciation. We can't see evolution in action so the theory of one species morphing into another cannot be proved. I think it is a bit unfair to dismiss the debate that is going on between evolutionists and anti-evolutionists. What you would term as misconceptions may actually be valid points that cannot be answered the evolution model. Like how single celled creatures first appeared. I will continue my reading because I want to find out why this theory evolution has been promoted as fact to the point where it is taken as a given. I think the motive is to do with trying to eradicate spiritual thought from the modern mind. I'm glad you don't want to stab me or shoot me or anything. I am enjoying reading a few pro evolution websites (isn't that a Mitsubishi car?) and it's good to have something like a real argument.
The animals listed in my last comment are not separate species. They are closely related fossilized organisms that exhibit traits of two species. Creationists ask for proof in the fossil record of speciation. Paleontologists provide ample evidence in return. Despite this, creationists continue to promote falsehoods about evolution. This exposes a hidden motive in their attempt to convince you that evolution is invalid. You may want to reflect on what this motive might be. My interest in evolution originates from a desire to understand nature. A belief in a supernatural deity of any kind will not help me in this endeavor.
"It leads to the justifiable criticism that the concept of natural selection is scientifically superficial. T.H. Morgan, famous American geneticist, said that the idea of natural selection is a tautology, a case of circular reasoning. It goes something like this: If something cannot succeed, it will not succeed. Or, to put it another way, those things which have succeeded were able to succeed."—Lester J. McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 49.
If yo go to www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm and read the Proof of Evolution exactly what that quote criticises. It doesn't know why evolution might be true, it can't suggest how it might happen but it just says it must have happened because life gets more diverse as time goes on. Finally a belief in a supernatural deity may not help your interest in nature but it won't hinder it either. Wordsworth's Daffodils and Leaves Of Grass by Walt Whitman,
"A child said What is the grass? fetching it to me with full hands,
How could I answer the child? I do not know what it is any more than he.
Good stuff i_carnt_spel, I'm reading up. Thank you!
"Evolution is observed in the laboratory." Yeah? If that was true then it would be the Law of Evolution and the person who demonstrated it in the lab would be given a Nobel prize. Who proved evolution in the laboratory?
"Not one change of species into another is on record...we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."
Charles Darwin, My Life & Letters
Well said Charlie.
24.165.87.77 is obsessed with calling me names. Why is he so devoid of a life?
carnt spel has the right idea on politics, but maybe he was beaten up by an anthropologist as a child, and it became his life's passion to debunk palenontology, biology, and any evil doing science man, hehhehe
Agreed, Mad Dog. And part of scientific integrity is *not* invoking supernatural creators whose existence can't be empirically demonstrated as a default "explanation" for everything we don't yet fully understand.
Mad Dog, the existence of a creator cannot be empirically demonstrated, and so is outside the realm of science. Science, real science anyway, has nothing to say on the matter, either for or against. (For the record, Creation Science and Intelligent Design are *not* science.)
As for your example, if I found a pocket calculator in a forest after a tornado, I'd assume someone had dropped it. I wouldn't ponder over its origin, because we know that calculators are made by humans. We *don't* know that the universe was created. Many people believe it was, to be sure, but there's no evidence to support that belief, the claims of "creation science" notwithstanding. Your example is nothing more than Bishop Paley's long since refuted watchmaker argument, with a new coat of paint.
And re. the Hubble "blowing holes" in the Big Bang theory, I'm sure the astronomical community would be interested to hear that, since they don't appear to have noticed. :-)
i_carnt_spel and Nuetral_Observer are the smartest guys I ever heard. They seem to know what they are talking about. What website is it that shows you missing links?
I don't agree with creationism, but Creationists certainly have the right to their own views. It's only when they try to ban textbooks that I have a problem with them.
You are all psychotic if you believe in creationism
ok ok, I'm not gonna read all that but I saw where someone said "It's the evolutionists who are narrow minded. They can't accept God simply because they can't see Him, yet they can't see evolution either. I .." What is that?? You can believe in both at once, the fact that god (God) made everything, maybe without that cute little Adam & Eve picture, but why can't you imagine that god (God) made the dinosaurs too? Ugh why is everyone so hard-headed? And Why are they taking the word evolution out of textbooks now? Are we going backwards into the stone-ages?
by x__ on Wed Feb 04, 04 9:46am
[+]
Theists never present any alternative to scientific theory. They think that all they have to do is make unsubstantiated claims against science, and somehow they have proven their point. Actually, they haven't even made their point. Please, give me a better explanation for the natural phenomena we observe. I'm really begging you; give me a better explanation than evolution or the big bang for the origins of life or the universe. Both of these theories successfully predict and explain natural phenomena that we observe everyday while Creationism, a.k.a. Intelligent Design, fails miserably. Eventually they always retreat to faith, which only exposes the weakness of their beliefs. When there is no other reason to accept their ridiculous claims, the religious always fall back on faith. The theist clings to faith as a last stand against the atheist. If you're a Christian or whatever, let me be the first to tell you. If you've resorted to the faith argument, you've already lost.
Creationists support the 'divine creation' idea because 'it's in the bible'. They have been brainwashed to think that 'the bible is true' and that 'everything in the bible is true'. How childish. How primitive. How ignorant, to use a popular term. However, it almost does seem that there must be an 'intelligence factor' in Nature to account for logically assembled lifeforms.. Father Nature Itself must be Intelligent..
|
|
