Here's my argument about people who don't believe in evolution:

[Arbex]

+

TIME

=



If you picked an ignorant person and showed that person the above, that person would probably laugh it off.

How can those 2 microscopic things like that become a full grown man (or woman)!? HOLY **** !!11one!'%

What creationists don't understand is the amount of time it took for us to evolve.

They all talk about how we were "designed" and all that bull**** when in fact, we simply evolved due to mutations and environmental conditions.

Abiogenesis is not "chance." Chemicals that were present here on Earth started to move around BECAUSE OF NATURAL CAUSES AND PHYSICS. It really isn't that hard to understand.

But anyway, I know this is the 289232389089230823th thead about this ****, but I just wanted to show the pictures.

Just think about it.

[kate00]

Worst thread ever

[TheAsianMan]

lol good point (to the op not kate00)

[William McC]

Yes, its incredibly complex and astounding, but why do that?s prove evolution?

fail

[TheAsianMan]

he just saying that given enough time, change happen.


and much of evolution is alredy proven.

[William McC]

But that?s not a change in species. That?s just how human reproduction works, it doesn?t have anything to do with evolution.

[PickItUp]

I like your point...but there is an even simpler way of stating it.

The simple minded bible thumpers know that humans came last...after the animals...as the bible tells them so.

That being said, animals has eyeballs, lungs, and other organs WAY before we were even created. So by default, the technology behind the eyeball or the lung developed with other organisms, and we as humans selected (through evolution) the best combination of organs and and other things calculated by our DNA.

Bam, evolution proven.

[Cramerica]

I remember hearing Ben Stein talk with Richard Dawkins some time back and it was odd how they were discussing microevolution, which is pretty easy to prove, and macroevolution, which requires much more time (more than we will ever see in our lifetimes) to solidify.

However, I thought it was odd (and I'm sure it's been discussed here) when Stein asked Dawkins where he thought the first cell of life came from and his reply was 'maybe aliens'.....then Stein asked his where did the first alien cell come from and Dawkins abruptly replied, 'I don't know, but it definitely wasn't God.'

But as Stein said, there are enough holes in the theory of evolution (and others) that there is certainly room for Intelligent design.

[TheAsianMan]

I remember hearing Ben Stein talk with Richard Dawkins some time back and it was odd how they were discussing microevolution, which is pretty easy to prove, and macroevolution, which requires much more time (more than we will ever see in our lifetimes) to solidify.

However, I thought it was odd (and I'm sure it's been discussed here) when Stein asked Dawkins where he thought the first cell of life came from and his reply was 'maybe aliens'.....then Stein asked his where did the first alien cell come from and Dawkins abruptly replied, 'I don't know, but it definitely wasn't God.'

But as Stein said, there are enough holes in the theory of evolution (and others) that there is certainly room for Intelligent design.

your using ben stein for a source

there not much holes in the theory of evolution, in fact compare that hole to that of intelligent design.

[Cramerica]

your using ben stein for a source

there not much holes in the theory of evolution, in fact compare that hole to that of intelligent design.

I am referring to Stein as the questioneer, Dawkins as the source.

There are holes in evolution, whether you like it or not.

[TheAsianMan]

yeah and there are proven facts about evolution

what about the intellegent design, is that hole free too?

[Arbex]

Yes, its incredibly complex and astounding, but why do that?s prove evolution?

fail

You're 17 and still do not a fully functional brain.

Fail.

[Cramerica]

yeah and there are proven facts about evolution

what about the intellegent design, is that hole free too?

LOL...I didn't say Intelligent Design is 'hole-free'.

I simply stated that evolution, while many parts of it are proven, has its holes.

I think most would agree with that.

[TheAsianMan]

LOL...I didn't say Intelligent Design is 'hole-free'.

I simply stated that evolution, while many parts of it are proven, has its holes.

I think most would agree with that.

yes?.. and just because it has holes doesn't mean its wrong, 99.9 percent of the scientific communities take it as fact.

the theory of gravity has holes in it, surely it just a theory.

[Cramerica]

yes?.. and just because it has holes doesn't mean its wrong, 99.9 percent of the scientific communities take it as fact.

the theory of gravity has holes in it, surely it just a theory.

99.9%? Really?

Evolution is not the same as gravity. Its concepts, studies, theories, etc. are not similar. Gravity has nothing to do with the discussion.

And I didn't say evolution was right or wrong, I said it had holes in it. That's it.

[TheAsianMan]

99.9%? Really?

Evolution is not the same as gravity. Its concepts, studies, theories, etc. are not similar. Gravity has nothing to do with the discussion.

And I didn't say evolution was right or wrong, I said it had holes in it. That's it.

yup, probably even higher

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

and how is it not simulator to the theory of gravity?

[Cramerica]

yup, probably even higher

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html

and how is it not simulator to the theory of gravity?

I was being sarcastic about the percentage.

How is evolution not similar to gravity? Seriously?

[JAGERBOY]

But that?s not a change in species. That?s just how human reproduction works, it doesn?t have anything to do with evolution.

Wow, you really don't get his point?

[William McC]

You're 17 and still do not a fully functional brain.

Fail.

pwahahahaha!!!

u mad?

[William McC]

Evolution and gravity are not the same. We can feel and see he effects of gravity every day. Evolution is based on speculation and assumption. "well this animals dna is really close to this animals dna, A must of evaluated into B!" btw that would mean we are partly related to bananas. Just sayin.

[JAGERBOY]

Evolution and gravity are not the same. We can feel and see he effects of gravity every day. Evolution is based on speculation and assumption. "well this animals dna is really close to this animals dna, A must of evaluated into B!" btw that would mean we are partly related to bananas. Just sayin.

Actually we can see evolution as well. Don't you ever feel silly spouting off about things you are completely ignorant too?

[TheAsianMan]

Evolution and gravity are not the same. We can feel and see he effects of gravity every day. Evolution is based on speculation and assumption. "well this animals dna is really close to this animals dna, A must of evaluated into B!" btw that would mean we are partly related to bananas. Just sayin.

you don't understand the scientific mothed

to become a theory you must go through steps.

example GRAVITY

it was first observe (apple falling down), then hypothesize (a force causes apple to fall down), then tested. It makes it through and become a theory but some parts of it can not be proven (we cant move in the speed of light), it will remain a theory. This does not however make it wrong, a theory has enough evidence to make it plausible

now EVOLUTION

It was observe (animal change over time, fossile evidence), then hypothesize, then tested (natural selection, artificial selection), because enough of it has been proven with significant evidence, it became a theory but we cant prove all of it, it will remain a theory.

Now Intellegent design

Can never be observe, no testable evidence, no plausible evidence, no factual evidence. its not a theory and not even a hypothesis



btw the reasion we share dna with bananas is because we share a common ancestor, Eukaryote, and the DNA sequence for the basic design of the cell is very simmilar between us.

[stateless]

you don't understand the scientific mothed

to become a theory you must go through steps.

example GRAVITY

it was first observe (apple falling down), then hypothesize (a force causes apple to fall down), then tested, it makes it through and become a theory but some parts of it can not be proven (we cant move in the speed of light), it will remain a theory. This does not however make it wrong, a theory has enough evidence to make it plausible

now EVOLUTION

It was observe (animal change over time, fossile evidence), then hypothesize, then tested (natural selection, artificial selection), because enough of it has been proven with significant evidence, it became a theory but we cant prove all of it, it will remain a theory.

Now Intellegent design

Can never be observe, no testable evidence, no plausible evidence, no factual evidence. its not a theory and not even a hypothesis



btw the reasion we share dna with bananas is because we share a common ancestor, Eukaryote, and the DNA sequence for the basic design of the cell is very simmilar between us.

repped

[William McC]

you don't understand the scientific mothed

to become a theory you must go through steps.

example GRAVITY

it was first observe (apple falling down), then hypothesize (a force causes apple to fall down), then tested, it makes it through and become a theory but some parts of it can not be proven (we cant move in the speed of light), it will remain a theory. This does not however make it wrong, a theory has enough evidence to make it plausible

now EVOLUTION

It was observe (animal change over time, fossile evidence), then hypothesize, then tested (natural selection, artificial selection), because enough of it has been proven with significant evidence, it became a theory but we cant prove all of it, it will remain a theory.

Now Intellegent design

Can never be observe, no testable evidence, no plausible evidence, no factual evidence. its not a theory and not even a hypothesis



btw the reasion we share dna with bananas is because we share a common ancestor, Eukaryote, and the DNA sequence for the basic design of the cell is very simmilar between us.

Plausible is not the same thing a factual. Its plausible for me to lift 1,000 lbs, but until I do it, how can I say I can?
Evolution does not follow the same line as gravity. Show me one animal you have seen evolve. IS there a scientific test out there that shows an animal that evolved into another? There is archeological evidence for the bible too, but I don?t think you believe it is fact, do you?

ID and evolution are not in the same ball park. Comparing evolution and ID apples to oranges. When evolution becomes to answer to all life is when it stops being science and starts being philosophy.

[QuicksandATL]

[
They all talk about how we were "designed" and all that bull**** when in fact, we simply evolved due to mutations and environmental conditions.

So what about people who are fully informed about evolution and still reject it?

Abiogenesis is not "chance." Chemicals that were present here on Earth started to move around BECAUSE OF NATURAL CAUSES AND PHYSICS. It really isn't that hard to understand.

In that case, do you mind showing me an instance of abiogenesis happening in the lab or in nature?

Didn't think so.

[PickItUp]

This thread is now officially off topic.

I will chime in on the of topic poriton of the discussion...

The Theory of Evolution and the Theory of Gravity are VERY different things. Even a bird knows about gravity. Gravity is too universal to be ignored, or dismissed.

Evolution on the other hand is not apparent. One must search for the answers...

No animal would deduce that he evolved from a lesser species without critical thinking. However, all animals experience gravity, and have to some extent, found a way of dealing with it.

Gravity is not s theory...it is a fact. Evolution is appoaching fact status as well...but evolution stems from entropy. Gravity is pretty consistent throughout. Evolution can be changed severely by the introduction of a single contaminant. Gravity will always adhere and conform to the equations we use to define it.

They are very different...and should not be compared in this manner. Evolution deals with life. Gravity deals with EVERYTHING.

I would like to say one thing about experiencing evolution. Pigs are a great species to experience evolution. If you take a domesticated pig, and release it into the wild early enough, its snout will change shape and composition. Domestic pigs do not need snouts that are desigend for digging. They are domesticated afterall. Wild pigs have a cery different snout however, The shape and strength of a wild pig's snout is better for digging up the soil in search of food. Science has observed domesticated pigs in the wild with the wild snouts. Pigs exhibit short term evolutionary characteristics.

[QuicksandATL]

you don't understand the scientific mothed

to become a theory you must go through steps.

example GRAVITY

it was first observe (apple falling down), then hypothesize (a force causes apple to fall down), then tested. It makes it through and become a theory but some parts of it can not be proven (we cant move in the speed of light), it will remain a theory. This does not however make it wrong, a theory has enough evidence to make it plausible

now EVOLUTION

It was observe (animal change over time, fossile evidence), then hypothesize, then tested (natural selection, artificial selection), because enough of it has been proven with significant evidence, it became a theory but we cant prove all of it, it will remain a theory.

Now Intellegent design

Can never be observe, no testable evidence, no plausible evidence, no factual evidence. its not a theory and not even a hypothesis



btw the reasion we share dna with bananas is because we share a common ancestor, Eukaryote, and the DNA sequence for the basic design of the cell is very simmilar between us.

Intelligent design is falsified by Darwinism. If we can see that Darwinistic causes are responsible for life, then that would make Intelligent Design falsified, since it could be shown causation was not needed.

So yes, ID is testable through the falsification of naturalistic causes.

[user1245464]

Show me one animal you have seen evolve.

If you say so.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...ion.html#part5

[TheAsianMan]

Plausible is not the same thing a factual. Its plausible for me to lift 1,000 lbs, but until I do it, how can I say I can?
Evolution does not follow the same line as gravity. Show me one animal you have seen evolve. IS there a scientific test out there that shows an animal that evolved into another? There is archeological evidence for the bible too, but I don?t think you believe it is fact, do you?

ID and evolution are not in the same ball park. Comparing evolution and ID apples to oranges. When evolution becomes to answer to all life is when it stops being science and starts being philosophy.

form dictionary dot com

1. having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable:

Holy **** dude did you ever pay attention in biology and physic class? They BOTH follow the SAME scientific method to became a theory. I just prove to you why gravity and evolution is comparable. Intelligent design tried but did not work because their not enough evidence supporting it.

Yes there is archaeological evidence for the bible, but they are frugala nd does not prove the existence of god.

And what? ID been trying to invade our school system for years, all have fail because it is not scientific.


want evidence here

nylon consuming bug (nylon is man made)
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

Itallian wall lizard becoming veggies (their digestive system change as well as bodyshape in 37 years)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...evolution.html

[JAGERBOY]

I'm really in the mood for a Hot Pocket...