Penn and Teller on Creationism

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

I'm not sure if this is one of the manufactured fakes, however alot of fake creatures have been showing up from China with papers written on them, all of which are later determined to be fakes.

To this day nothing has been dug up showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, and as I said in a previous response, science recently dug up a duck fossil in a dinosaur bed, so they had to rewrite history to say that birds now came before dinosaurs.

Of course none of the highly educated evolutionist here know that, despite now repeated claims that it is obvious birds came from dinosaurs. LMAO.

 

[KCfromNC]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: KCfromNC

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Fossil evidence is observable. So are the physical features of birds that prove that they are descended from dinosaurs.

To me, this kind of evidence implies a single creator, not a single ancestor. My $.02.

That's the wonderful thing about using an omnipotent creator to "explain" the world - no matter what evidence you turn up, an omnipotent creator could have done it. If scientists had dug up early bird fossils that were related to fish instead of birds, you'd be saying the exact same thing. And if they'd found that half of the early bird fossils were related to mammals while the other half came from reptiles and then these two lines merged, you'd be claiming that your omnipotent creator did that as well.

That an omnipotent creator is compatible with anything isn't surprising - that's the whole definition of omnipotent - this creator could have done anything (the things which acutally happened being a subset of this anything). Unfortunately, since she can do anything, it doesn't really let us predict anything about future findings, other than "any future findings must be compatible with an omnipotent being which can do anything it wants on a whim". Unlike scientific explanations that's not a useful tool. But I guess it doesn't hurt anything.

Basically. In the end, it is a matter of faith and belief, not proof either way because it cannot be proven either way.

I'm not sure where you got that from what I wrote. I was simply pointing out that bringing an ad-hoc magical creator into the picture had nothing to do with science and certainly isn't "implied" by the evidence.

To answer your point, in the end, it's not a matter of faith and belief but evidence and reasonable explanation for observations. In science nothing can be proven with mathematical certainty, but that doesn't mean you can just make up any answer you like. Some really are better than others.

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: JDub02

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: crt1530
What do you think "genetic drift" and "natural selection" add up to over millions of years?

I could only wager a guess as could you as since have no scientific evidence of what it really amounts to. I wouldn't have the astounding audacity to proclaim that I know definitively and then proceed to teach it to others as if it were fact.

But my guess is that it doesn't lead to us sprouting gills some day. It's more like water colors get all smeared together and then cleaned off again....mostly cosmetic certainly nothing changing one species into another.

interesting point...perhaps, however, it explains whey the human fetus does indeed "sprout" gills early in it's embryonic development. This is a fact that you're more than welcome to deny, but it will only make you look dumber than you already are.

care to explain how a fetus is supposed to breath in an aqeuous environment before its lungs are developed?

From what I gathered from EMT class, babies don't breath until they're born. They receive oxygenated blood from the mother throuth the umbilical cord. No need to breath.

Well, if breathing is defined as using lungs, then sure. Are the fetal gills considered vestigial, then? Been a while since I went over this stuff.

Besides, as we all know (according to Water World and Kevin Costner), humans will indeed evolve gills, at some point....

There is no scientific evidence embryos have gills. Even in the most liberal text book it says, "gill-like folds." Oddly enough, it's not gill like at all.

Even funnier, as people are are adamant about the evolution of fish, how many "gill-like" structures does a fish embryo have? NONE.

 

[AMDZen]

People spouting off about intelligent design are really the worst of all the fundy's. The pope himself, as well as most of the top tier hierarchy of the catholic church are telling everyone to embrace science, to embrace evolution. They make compelling arguments too, evolution can still exist and it doesn't mean that god still didn't start it all. He could of still created everything.

Personally I have an open mind, I don't know if there is a god or not. I don't know if Jesus was his/her/its son, but I don't care. What I do KNOW is that evolution is clearly and endeniable, and its so entertaining to see people spoit the contrary. I know that the earth is older then 6,000 years old, I know Dinosaurs existed and not the ludicris hair-brained scheme these intelligent designers are spouting where they were alive, but only up to a few thousand years ago. Utter rediculous. What about all the phases in that time line, so much happened and it all did so in a couple thousand years?

Why can't religion in this country just apply science to their religion and get over it? Just because man evolved doesn't mean that god didn't have a hand in it. Why can't the missing link just be the hand of god? So we evolved and evolved and god gave us that extra thing to make us sentient. Get over it. Science is real, evolution is real and just like they had to do in the middle ages, you have to adapt the religion to the new things we learn.

 

[maziwanka]

it's un-fvcking-real how religion just clouds people's views. i love how at the end of the show they replaced god with aliens and gave you an idea of how ludicrous creationism is.

seriously, why not teach creationism with aliens as well? all the same evidence supports that idea.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: zinfamous
archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

I'm not sure if this is one of the manufactured fakes, however alot of fake creatures have been showing up from China with papers written on them, all of which are later determined to be fakes.

To this day nothing has been dug up showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, and as I said in a previous response, science recently dug up a duck fossil in a dinosaur bed, so they had to rewrite history to say that birds now came before dinosaurs.

Of course none of the highly educated evolutionist here know that, despite now repeated claims that it is obvious birds came from dinosaurs. LMAO.

Ummm.. Archaeopteryx is a well established type of dinosaur.

Reptile scales and bird feathers share very, very similar chemical structures.

You are incorrect, sir.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

Sorry I'm just getting back to this, been busy.

But if anything archaeopteryx proves my point as does most of the fossil record. How many tiny mutations would it have taken for a dinosaur to end up as archaeopteryx. I don't think you're suggesting that a raptor turned into this without numerous transitional genetic phases. And we'd see them all in the fossil record. And its existence fits perfectly well into creationism which believes a divine being created all this wonderous diversity and balance.

Again evolution is based on random genetic mutation....so why does the progression from raptor to finch look so orderly? Sure it makes sense logically. So does creationism.

 

[Ulfwald]

Maybe when God said Let there be light, that was a metaphor for the big bang. And when Adam and eve first ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, that is when we first became self aware and self conscience as well, I honestly believe that God created us all through evolution.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: KCfromNC
I'm not sure where you got that from what I wrote. I was simply pointing out that bringing an ad-hoc magical creator into the picture had nothing to do with science and certainly isn't "implied" by the evidence.

To answer your point, in the end, it's not a matter of faith and belief but evidence and reasonable explanation for observations. In science nothing can be proven with mathematical certainty, but that doesn't mean you can just make up any answer you like. Some really are better than others.

I agree with your statement except that G-d or an Ultimate being cannot be proven either way. It is the nature of the concept of G-d. Unless he shows up and reveals himself, there is no way to conclusively prove that G-d does or does not exist. It is a matter of belief then. That is what I am saying which follows what you are saying, just stated in a different manner.

Look, some people postulate that there had to be a beginning to all of this culminating in a Creator, some people don't. How can this be proven unless that Creator reveals himself? Both are rational trains of thought. One is just based on historical events that defy natural occurrances as we understand them currently, the other gives no beginning and does not postulate a beginning.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Why can't religion in this country just apply science to their religion and get over it? Just because man evolved doesn't mean that god didn't have a hand in it. Why can't the missing link just be the hand of god? So we evolved and evolved and god gave us that extra thing to make us sentient. Get over it. Science is real, evolution is real and just like they had to do in the middle ages, you have to adapt the religion to the new things we learn.

I somewhat agree with this except for the fact that science and religion don't necessarily have to apply to each other. They are sister methodologies that both search for truth in understanding the world.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

Sorry I'm just getting back to this, been busy.

But if anything archaeopteryx proves my point as does most of the fossil record. How many tiny mutations would it have taken for a dinosaur to end up as archaeopteryx. I don't think you're suggesting that a raptor turned into this without numerous transitional genetic phases. And we'd see them all in the fossil record. And its existence fits perfectly well into creationism which believes a divine being created all this wonderous diversity and balance.

Again evolution is based on random genetic mutation....so why does the progression from raptor to finch look so orderly? Sure it makes sense logically. So does creationism.

BTW, Hero, this statement in bold is not true. Just letting you know. Only mutations in gametic cells get passed on. And also, because of genetic variation of gametes and natural selection for traits in an indivdual. It is not tied to mutation. This is not the X-Men. There is not a mutation gene. You need to read up on genetics to understand this.

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Why can't religion in this country just apply science to their religion and get over it? Just because man evolved doesn't mean that god didn't have a hand in it. Why can't the missing link just be the hand of god? So we evolved and evolved and god gave us that extra thing to make us sentient. Get over it. Science is real, evolution is real and just like they had to do in the middle ages, you have to adapt the religion to the new things we learn.

I somewhat agree with this except for the fact that science and religion don't necessarily have to apply to each other. They are sister methodologies that both search for truth in understanding the world.

Thats where you and everyone else is wrong. Science is not a philosophy, its the process by which we gain knowledge and understanding.

And through science we may one day be able to prove or disprove the existance of god. What happens then?

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Why can't religion in this country just apply science to their religion and get over it? Just because man evolved doesn't mean that god didn't have a hand in it. Why can't the missing link just be the hand of god? So we evolved and evolved and god gave us that extra thing to make us sentient. Get over it. Science is real, evolution is real and just like they had to do in the middle ages, you have to adapt the religion to the new things we learn.

I somewhat agree with this except for the fact that science and religion don't necessarily have to apply to each other. They are sister methodologies that both search for truth in understanding the world.

Thats where you and everyone else is wrong. Science is not a philosophy, its the process by which we gain knowledge and understanding.

And through science we may one day be able to prove or disprove the existance of god. What happens then?

I can't foresee Science disproving a philosophical concept. Like you said, they are different, science is not philosophy, religion is not science. I still hold on to the fact that although they are different in methodology, both are in search of understanding the world. I don't understand how what I said goes against what you just posted.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

Sorry I'm just getting back to this, been busy.

But if anything archaeopteryx proves my point as does most of the fossil record. How many tiny mutations would it have taken for a dinosaur to end up as archaeopteryx. I don't think you're suggesting that a raptor turned into this without numerous transitional genetic phases. And we'd see them all in the fossil record. And its existence fits perfectly well into creationism which believes a divine being created all this wonderous diversity and balance.

Again evolution is based on random genetic mutation....so why does the progression from raptor to finch look so orderly? Sure it makes sense logically. So does creationism.

BTW, Hero, this statement in bold is not true. Just letting you know. Only mutations in gametic cells get passed on. And also, because of genetic variation of gametes and natural selection for traits in an indivdual. It is not tied to mutation. This is not the X-Men. There is not a mutation gene. You need to read up on genetics to understand this.

Yes it is. Everything else involved in the processes of evolution are not species altering....they merely work to adjust a species dominant traits. Evolution purports that a fish turns into a cow. That's unsupported by all the many processes of evolution (I hesitate to call it the kitchen sink approach) except genetic mutation.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: zinfamous
archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

I'm not sure if this is one of the manufactured fakes, however alot of fake creatures have been showing up from China with papers written on them, all of which are later determined to be fakes.

To this day nothing has been dug up showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, and as I said in a previous response, science recently dug up a duck fossil in a dinosaur bed, so they had to rewrite history to say that birds now came before dinosaurs.

Of course none of the highly educated evolutionist here know that, despite now repeated claims that it is obvious birds came from dinosaurs. LMAO.

Yeah! dirtboy is back! he whose existence is the only observable evidence to date that evolution may not occur

wait, that sucks. provide proof before making such irrational claims. Otherwise, I will simply call you a troll, which you are

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

Sorry I'm just getting back to this, been busy.

But if anything archaeopteryx proves my point as does most of the fossil record. How many tiny mutations would it have taken for a dinosaur to end up as archaeopteryx. I don't think you're suggesting that a raptor turned into this without numerous transitional genetic phases. And we'd see them all in the fossil record. And its existence fits perfectly well into creationism which believes a divine being created all this wonderous diversity and balance.

You wouldn't expect to find them all in the fossil record, that's simply preposterous. And the problem with creationism as it explains ANYthing 'perfectly.' That's why it's not scientific and has no place in science.

Again evolution is based on random genetic mutation....so why does the progression from raptor to finch look so orderly? Sure it makes sense logically. So does creationism.

You're painting the bullseye around the arrow.


edit: fixed italics

 

[Gibsons]

stupid double post

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: zinfamous
archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

I'm not sure if this is one of the manufactured fakes, however alot of fake creatures have been showing up from China with papers written on them, all of which are later determined to be fakes.

To this day nothing has been dug up showing the evolution of dinosaurs to birds, and as I said in a previous response, science recently dug up a duck fossil in a dinosaur bed, so they had to rewrite history to say that birds now came before dinosaurs.

Of course none of the highly educated evolutionist here know that, despite now repeated claims that it is obvious birds came from dinosaurs. LMAO.

Ummm.. Archaeopteryx is a well established type of dinosaur.

Reptile scales and bird feathers share very, very similar chemical structures.

You are incorrect, sir.

Don't even bother, he has proven time and again that he is incapable of holding a legitimate debate. His appearance marks the end of rationality in any thread. what was once an interesting discussion, will soon crumble into trollish gibberish

Hit him with the banstick, he just keeps coming

 

[AMDZen]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Why can't religion in this country just apply science to their religion and get over it? Just because man evolved doesn't mean that god didn't have a hand in it. Why can't the missing link just be the hand of god? So we evolved and evolved and god gave us that extra thing to make us sentient. Get over it. Science is real, evolution is real and just like they had to do in the middle ages, you have to adapt the religion to the new things we learn.

I somewhat agree with this except for the fact that science and religion don't necessarily have to apply to each other. They are sister methodologies that both search for truth in understanding the world.

Thats where you and everyone else is wrong. Science is not a philosophy, its the process by which we gain knowledge and understanding.

And through science we may one day be able to prove or disprove the existance of god. What happens then?

I can't foresee Science disproving a philosophical concept. Like you said, they are different, science is not philosophy, religion is not science. I still hold on to the fact that although they are different in methodology, both are in search of understanding the world. I don't understand how what I said goes against what you just posted.

But see therein lies the issue. Religion can never really alter scientific discovery, but science has and WILL continue to alter our pre-conceived notions on religion. Does that mean that science can prove or disprove god's existence? There is no real reason why it can't. Its already proven and disproven so much that we have taken as gospel since the beginning of science. We have proved the existance of Christ, we will continue to learn more about him - and we will do it using science.

The difference in what I just said and what you are saying is that religion is what we used to try and "understand" before science. All of what we believed at one time, we believed because of our lack of understanding. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE in rome would have believed in a god, or many gods - because it made sense when trying to understand our world. So in essence what I'm saying is that religion is no longer valid in trying to gain understanding. Even the religious will agree, you don't need to understand to have faith. In your mind you already have everything that matters figured out. You accept christ, you live and let live, you confess your sins, you die and he or whoever decides that you go to heaven or hell. What more do you need to know?

If you have interest in gaining understanding of other things, besides that - you use science.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: AMDZen
But see therein lies the issue. Religion can never really alter scientific discovery, but science has and WILL continue to alter our pre-conceived notions on religion. Does that mean that science can prove or disprove god's existence? There is no real reason why it can't. Its already proven and disproven so much that we have taken as gospel since the beginning of science. We have proved the existance of Christ, we will continue to learn more about him - and we will do it using science.

The difference in what I just said and what you are saying is that religion is what we used to try and "understand" before science. All of what we believed at one time, we believed because of our lack of understanding. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE in rome would have believed in a god, or many gods - because it made sense when trying to understand our world. So in essence what I'm saying is that religion is no longer valid in trying to gain understanding. Even the religious will agree, you don't need to understand to have faith. In your mind you already have everything that matters figured out. You accept christ, you live and let live, you confess your sins, you die and he or whoever decides that you go to heaven or hell. What more do you need to know?

If you have interest in gaining understanding of other things, besides that - you use science.

I guess we will agree to disagree about this then. I do see why you believe that way, but again if you follow my reasoning, how can science disprove the concept of G-d? They are two different forms of thought.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: AMDZen

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: AMDZen
Why can't religion in this country just apply science to their religion and get over it? Just because man evolved doesn't mean that god didn't have a hand in it. Why can't the missing link just be the hand of god? So we evolved and evolved and god gave us that extra thing to make us sentient. Get over it. Science is real, evolution is real and just like they had to do in the middle ages, you have to adapt the religion to the new things we learn.

I somewhat agree with this except for the fact that science and religion don't necessarily have to apply to each other. They are sister methodologies that both search for truth in understanding the world.

Thats where you and everyone else is wrong. Science is not a philosophy, its the process by which we gain knowledge and understanding.

And through science we may one day be able to prove or disprove the existance of god. What happens then?

I can't foresee Science disproving a philosophical concept. Like you said, they are different, science is not philosophy, religion is not science. I still hold on to the fact that although they are different in methodology, both are in search of understanding the world. I don't understand how what I said goes against what you just posted.

But see therein lies the issue. Religion can never really alter scientific discovery, but science has and WILL continue to alter our pre-conceived notions on religion. Does that mean that science can prove or disprove god's existence? There is no real reason why it can't. Its already proven and disproven so much that we have taken as gospel since the beginning of science. We have proved the existance of Christ, we will continue to learn more about him - and we will do it using science.

The difference in what I just said and what you are saying is that religion is what we used to try and "understand" before science. All of what we believed at one time, we believed because of our lack of understanding. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE in rome would have believed in a god, or many gods - because it made sense when trying to understand our world. So in essence what I'm saying is that religion is no longer valid in trying to gain understanding. Even the religious will agree, you don't need to understand to have faith. In your mind you already have everything that matters figured out. You accept christ, you live and let live, you confess your sins, you die and he or whoever decides that you go to heaven or hell. What more do you need to know?

If you have interest in gaining understanding of other things, besides that - you use science.

not really. science can never prove or disprove the possiblity of life after death. this is where religion steps in, and almost is essential for the majority of humanity to accept the concept of death. Plenty find comfort in this, even being agnostic their whole lives.

One thing that seems clear, is that spirituality, or the need for some other-wordly fulfillment/acceptance, is a component of human evolution, and successful civilizations.

I'm pretty much agnostic. Does it bother me that someone takes comfort in the belief that something better awaits them after death? Hell no! Why should it?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: AMDZen
But see therein lies the issue. Religion can never really alter scientific discovery, but science has and WILL continue to alter our pre-conceived notions on religion. Does that mean that science can prove or disprove god's existence? There is no real reason why it can't. Its already proven and disproven so much that we have taken as gospel since the beginning of science. We have proved the existance of Christ, we will continue to learn more about him - and we will do it using science.

The difference in what I just said and what you are saying is that religion is what we used to try and "understand" before science. All of what we believed at one time, we believed because of our lack of understanding. Anyone, and I mean ANYONE in rome would have believed in a god, or many gods - because it made sense when trying to understand our world. So in essence what I'm saying is that religion is no longer valid in trying to gain understanding. Even the religious will agree, you don't need to understand to have faith. In your mind you already have everything that matters figured out. You accept christ, you live and let live, you confess your sins, you die and he or whoever decides that you go to heaven or hell. What more do you need to know?

If you have interest in gaining understanding of other things, besides that - you use science.

I guess we will agree to disagree about this then. I do see why you believe that way, but again if you follow my reasoning, how can science disprove the concept of G-d? They are two different forms of thought.

Exactly.

Belief in (truth through) God = Faith

Truth through science = empirical evidence.

faith /= science. again...does not compute; system error....

It baffles me how this simple reality seems so ungraspable by many.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Gibsons

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

Sorry I'm just getting back to this, been busy.

But if anything archaeopteryx proves my point as does most of the fossil record. How many tiny mutations would it have taken for a dinosaur to end up as archaeopteryx. I don't think you're suggesting that a raptor turned into this without numerous transitional genetic phases. And we'd see them all in the fossil record. And its existence fits perfectly well into creationism which believes a divine being created all this wonderous diversity and balance.

You wouldn't expect to find them all in the fossil record, that's simply preposterous. And the problem with creationism as it explains ANYthing 'perfectly.' That's why it's not scientific and has no place in science.

Again evolution is based on random genetic mutation....so why does the progression from raptor to finch look so orderly? Sure it makes sense logically. So does creationism.

You're painting the bullseye around the arrow.

Well I think it does explain everything perfectly and that's not a bad thing. The answer to this question, as I said originally, is irrelevent for the study of science.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
How is it real science? Because your teachers long ago bullied you into never questioning them and they said so? Has evolution ever been observed? Can we experiment with it?

Oh jebus, i dont know why im doing this.

1) Evolution is real science, but your question is just silly. Its clear that you dont even know what science is.
2) No.
3) Yes, all the time.
4) Yes, everyday.

You really are a pathetic person if so dearly argue against something that you dont even fundamentally understand. I dont understand quantum chemistry, but there is no way in hell im going to go spouting off that everything they know is wrong. You know why? Because i dont like looking like an idiot. Hint...

Um. Understanding we're talking about the evolution of species and not tadpoles you're standing by this snide-ass statement?

 

[Inspector Jihad]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: zinfamous

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DefDC
Lizard + time = bird (observable)
fish + time = mudskipper (observable)
Genetic goulash = Duck-billed Platypus (observable) Actually, that might be one source of evidence for creationism, and that God loves the chronic.

Wrong... wrong... and wrong

And I actually believe evolution is valid.

Sure, fossil record is a good start, but do you know what observable means? You need to look into this more. If by observable, you mean there is someone or something that has recorded the actual change from a lizard to a bird, or a fish to a mudskipper, then please show me, otherwise, that is a foolish statement.

archaeopteryx?

The dino> birds thing is pretty standard overall. The "debate" surrounding the notion of birds evolving from dinosaurs, as presented in Jurassic Park, is pretty much as valid as the "debate" involving evolution

Sorry I'm just getting back to this, been busy.

But if anything archaeopteryx proves my point as does most of the fossil record. How many tiny mutations would it have taken for a dinosaur to end up as archaeopteryx. I don't think you're suggesting that a raptor turned into this without numerous transitional genetic phases. And we'd see them all in the fossil record. And its existence fits perfectly well into creationism which believes a divine being created all this wonderous diversity and balance.

Again evolution is based on random genetic mutation....so why does the progression from raptor to finch look so orderly? Sure it makes sense logically. So does creationism.

BTW, Hero, this statement in bold is not true. Just letting you know. Only mutations in gametic cells get passed on. And also, because of genetic variation of gametes and natural selection for traits in an indivdual. It is not tied to mutation. This is not the X-Men. There is not a mutation gene. You need to read up on genetics to understand this.

Yes it is. Everything else involved in the processes of evolution are not species altering....they merely work to adjust a species dominant traits. Evolution purports that a fish turns into a cow. That's unsupported by all the many processes of evolution (I hesitate to call it the kitchen sink approach) except genetic mutation.

learn about evolution and biology before typing yet another worthless post.