# Darwinism is fact???



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)




----------



## mig8888 (Jul 27, 2010)

No mate, its all a load of tosh a great Invisible magical being in the sky zapped us here. Good fu**ing grief :-(


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

If God took *6 days* to make Earth, and assuming he created the rest of the Universe, how long relatively would it have taken him to create the rest of the universe? Frequently asked in.
Keep in mind there's billions of stars which are 100's to millions of times larger then earth and our own sun.

WHo created God???!!


----------



## HJC1972 (Aug 29, 2013)

Absolutely moronic. The opening premise of the first video is that because we can't literally observe the evolutionary process in action, because these events have happened over millennia, that means they can't be substantiated? And yet, presumably, you'd be willing to believe with blind faith that "God" knocked up a the earth in six days, even though that can't be literally observed either?

Some things (and people) are simply not worth even debating about or with.


----------



## Carlsandman (Aug 30, 2012)

Only sheep need a shepherd.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

HJC1972 said:


> Absolutely moronic. The opening premise of the first video is that because we can't literally observe the evolutionary process in action, because these events have happened over millennia, that means that can't be substantiated? And yet, presumably, you'd be willing to believe with blind faith that "God" knocked up a the earth in six days, even though that can't be literally serve either?
> 
> Some thngs (and people) are simply not worth even debating with.


The point is the fossil record would show some observable evidence proving the Darwinian theory to be correct, the fact is there is none, its a theory which is taught as fact. As for the the biblical explanation that is a different subject, here I'm more interested in questioning Darwinism and seeing if science really does support it.


----------



## DappaDonDave (Dec 2, 2013)

nitrogen said:


> If God took *6 days* to make Earth, and assuming he created the rest of the Universe, how long relatively would it have taken him to create the rest of the universe? Frequently asked in.
> Keep in mind there's billions of stars which are 100's to millions of times larger then earth and our own sun.
> 
> WHo created God???!!


ctrl+c then mash ctrl+v

A God wouldn't be a retard, only those who believe in one are...


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Carlsandman said:


> Only sheep need a shepherd.


Is Darwin your shepherd?


----------



## DappaDonDave (Dec 2, 2013)

Carlsandman said:


> Only sheep need a shepherd.


Alpha as fuark brah!



12 gauge said:


> Is Darwin your shepherd?


Don't be a douche, Darwinism isn't a religion it's a concept. You don't need to be a sheep to understand and agree with facts!


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

DappaDonDave said:


> Alpha as fuark brah!
> 
> Don't be a douche, Darwinism isn't a religion it's a concept. You don't need to be a sheep to understand and agree with facts!


Facts? Where are the facts? Its a theory that is all. The problem is its presented as fact and unfortunately it seems many have swallowed it.


----------



## Archaic (Mar 8, 2010)

There is no sense in arguing with a bible basher. They are blind and deaf to any form of common sense and will die before accept otherwise.

Waste of calories.


----------



## DappaDonDave (Dec 2, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Facts? Where are the facts? Its a theory that is all. The problem is its presented as fact and unfortunately it seems many have swallowed it.


So a magical entity that allows mass murder, slaughtering of babies and women and general bumholery in its name is legit?

There is no God, it's a great story, but that's all it is.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)




----------



## MRSTRONG (Apr 18, 2009)

did he invent tren


----------



## Carlsandman (Aug 30, 2012)

12 gauge said:


> Is Darwin your shepherd?


Did my post touch a nerve, continue following your shepherd, sheep.


----------



## coke (Jan 17, 2015)

im not bright enough to understand the science and not dumb enough to believe in religion.

dont believe in religion at all. just a means of control.

im on the fence with God, hedge my bets so to speak, no reason not to believe, if by believing and being a half decent person gets me into heaven (if there is one) then why not.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

DappaDonDave said:


> So a magical entity that allows mass murder, slaughtering of babies and women and general bumholery in its name is legit?
> 
> There is no God, it's a great story, but that's all it is.


It could be argued that Darwinism lead to the horrific Nazi eugenics movement, now that doesn't prove whether the theory is correct or not either way, I think it'd be more helpful to look at the science rather than strawman arguments


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Carlsandman said:


> Did my post touch a nerve, continue following your shepherd, sheep.


No nerves touched mate, just thought it'd be interesting to question what we have been taught is scientific fact.


----------



## Armitage Shanks (Jul 7, 2014)

Says it all really...


----------



## get2big (Mar 9, 2013)

I do believe the giraffe is a significant stumbling block when it comes to darwin's theory of evolution. But of course darwin must be correct because that's what we were taught in schools right? lol

http://defendingcontending.com/2009/03/17/the-miraculous-evolution-of-the-giraffe/


----------



## HJC1972 (Aug 29, 2013)

coke said:


> im not bright enough to understand the science and not dumb enough to believe in religion.
> 
> dont believe in religion at all. just a means of control.
> 
> im on the fence with God, hedge my bets so to speak, no reason not to believe,* if by believing and being a half decent person gets me into heaven (if there is one) then why not.*


So you can just turn on your belief to suit a desired end? Surely that's absurd ain't it? You either believe something because it makes sense or you don't? I might start believing that there's a little leprechaun at the bottom of my garden if it means I can bench press 150 kg. then.


----------



## coke (Jan 17, 2015)

HJC1972 said:


> So you can just turn on your belief to suit a desired end? Surely that's absurd ain't it? You either believe something because it makes sense or you don't? I might start believing that there's a little leprechaun at the bottom of my garden if it means I can bench press 150 kg. then.


believe what you like, i dont care. if it works for you then go with it.


----------



## DappaDonDave (Dec 2, 2013)

get2big said:


> I do believe the giraffe is a significant stumbling block when it comes to darwin's theory of evolution. But of course darwin must be correct because that's what we were taught in schools right? lol
> 
> http://defendingcontending.com/2009/03/17/the-miraculous-evolution-of-the-giraffe/


Didn't do much evolution in school, had religion rammed down my throat though. Thankfully it wasn't a catholic school and religion isn't a euthamism for priests cock.

Hitler understanding genetics caused what was described, at least it wasn't in the name of allah or whatever other "God" people choose.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

HJC1972 said:


> So you can just turn on your belief to suit a desired end? Surely that's absurd ain't it? You either believe something because it makes sense or you don't? I might start believing that there's a little leprechaun at the bottom of my garden if it means I can bench press 150 kg. then.


Leprechauns are not taught in text books and schools as being a fact,Darwinism is, now just because someone questions Darwin doesn't mean the alternative is leprechauns.


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

How can anyone say 'he' or 'him'. Is it a man or a woman.

Who created God?

Is there such thing as taking snake?


----------



## HJC1972 (Aug 29, 2013)

What's your alternative then?


----------



## HJC1972 (Aug 29, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Leprechauns are not taught in text books and schools as being a fact,Darwinism is, now just because someone questions Darwin doesn't mean the alternative is leprechauns.


what's your alternative then?


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

nitrogen said:


> How can anyone say 'he' or 'him'. Is it a man or a woman.
> 
> Who created God?
> 
> Is there such thing as taking snake?


Can we try to examine Darwinism before we move on to alternative explanations? I want to establish that science has not conclusively proven the theory to be fact, in fact there are many gaping holes in it.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

HJC1972 said:


> what's your alternative then?


I wanna see the evidence for darwinism, I haven't seen any, yet most on here thinks its fact.


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

+








+










+

+








+








+










Etc = 0


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

I believe in evolution and not because I was thought but because there is evidence.


----------



## coke (Jan 17, 2015)

12 gauge said:


> I wanna see the evidence for darwinism, I haven't seen any, yet most on here thinks its fact.


You believe what you are taught, until you get old enough to find out yourself. you have a group of scientist saying one thing and another saying another. unless you are very intelligent,picking between them is just a belief.

Who knows if Darwinism is correct? or is incorrect? for Fact?? no one! so its all just speculation.

now if i was able to understand the science on a more intelligent level i might have more input.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)




----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> I wanna see the evidence for darwinism, I haven't seen any, yet most on here thinks its fact.


Read this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Climbing-Mount-Improbable-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0141026170/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448746805&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+dawkins+climbing+mount+improbable

Edit: this includes a detailed discussion how the eye could have evolved.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

nitrogen said:


> I believe in evolution and not because I was thought but because there is evidence.


Excellent, and all I'm suggesting is that we take a cold hard look at that "evidence" and see if it stacks up, isn't that what science is supposed to be about?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I should add that referring to 'Darwinism' is rather outdated. What we should be discussing is evolution, since ideas have advanced somewhat since Darwin wrote On The Origin of Species by means of Natural Selection.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

nitrogen said:


> If God took *6 days* to make Earth, and assuming he created the rest of the Universe, how long relatively would it have taken him to create the rest of the universe? Frequently asked in.
> Keep in mind there's billions of stars which are 100's to millions of times larger then earth and our own sun.
> 
> WHo created God???!!


They can refurbish and decorate a house in an hour on 60 minute makeover so the world in 6 days should be a piece of piss.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Ultrasonic said:


> Read this:
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Climbing-Mount-Improbable-Richard-Dawkins/dp/0141026170/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1448746805&sr=8-1&keywords=richard+dawkins+climbing+mount+improbable


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

>


If you want to see a disucssion of the evidence for evolution, read the book I suggested. This is a complex subject. YouTube is not the answer.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Ultrasonic said:


> If you want to see a disucssion of the evidence for evolution, read the book I suggested. This is a complex subject. YouTube is not the answer.


Yes point taken, but the people highlighted in some of the videos I've posted are leading experts in the fields of molecular biology,physics,paleontology etc etc, they all have serious questions/doubts about "natural selection" and evolution as propagated by Darwinian/material scientists.

Dawkins doesn't have all the answers






The fossil record and the "Cambrian explosion" puts into doubt the answer Dawkins comes up with after giving it some thought.


----------



## Carlsandman (Aug 30, 2012)

FFS, science doesn't have the answers yet, but I'm willing to bet my mortgage on getting them at some point, doesn't mean we have to revert back to the fvckin dark ages and believe in some sky fairy..


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

banzi said:


> The can refurbish and decorate a house in an hour on 60 minute makeover so the world in 6 days should be a piece of piss.


There are about 2647300 househods in the UK,that makes it 2647300 hours equallequalling 302.2031963 years to make over all househods in the UK.

The whole world approx 35257.039573819638463 years.

This excludes animals, land, vegetation.

They better crack on with genetic engineering because one Peter Andre wouldn't be enough.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Yes point taken, but the people highlighted in some of the videos I've posted are leading experts in the fields of molecular biology,physics,paleontology etc etc, they all have serious questions/doubts about "natural selection" and evolution as propagated by Darwinian/material scientists.


What have material scientists got to do with it???



> Dawkins doesn't have all the answer


I'll bet you anything you want that Richard Dawkins would say he does have an answer to all of the arguments put forward in this thread.

Seriously though, if you do have any genuine interest in this area then the book I suggested is a good place to start. It is a book Richard Dawkins wrote specifically to try to set out the case for evolution in an accessible way.

As far as I'm concerned, evolution is by a HUGE margin the best model we have for how we arrived at the the current position of life on Earth.


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

Unless they're done at the same time.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Carlsandman said:


> FFS, science doesn't have the answers yet, but I'm willing to bet my mortgage on getting them at some point, doesn't mean we have to revert back to the fvckin dark ages and believe in some sky fairy..


What if more recent Scientific discoveries point towards an intelligent designer, the I.D theory is supported by many scientists.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> What if more recent Scientific discoveries point towards an intelligent designer, the I.D theory is supported by many scientists.


Not by proper scientists.

"Inteligent Design" is a nonsense 'theory' that is destroyed by simply asking one question: who designed the designer? It doesn't explain anything.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Ultrasonic said:


> What have material scientists got to do with it???
> 
> I'll bet you anything you want that Richard Dawkins would say he does have an answer to all of the arguments put forward in this thread.
> 
> ...


Sorry when I said material Scientists I meant those with a materialistic world view.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Sorry when I said material Scientists I meant those with a materialistic world view.


What do you mean by materealistic world view?


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Ultrasonic said:


> What do you mean by materealistic world view?





Quote said:


> Materialism as a philosophy is held by those who maintain that existence is explainable solely in material terms, with no accounting of spirit or consciousness. Individuals who hold to this belief see the universe as a huge device held together by pieces of matter functioning in subjection to naturalistic laws. Since materialism denies all concepts of Special Creation, it relies on the Theory of Evolution to explain itself, making beliefs in materialism and evolution interdependent.


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> in fact there are many gaping holes in it.


Such as?


----------



## Kazza61 (Jun 14, 2008)

Whether it be God or evolution - look around - they're both pathetic underachievers in the extreme. Neither has created anything to be particularly proud of. If there is a god he'd do well to keep his mouth shut and let evolution take the blame.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Why do God botherers think they have to disprove science to prove God? If God did exist why do they need to believe he does what he does by magic rather than by leveraging science? As to evolution, it is much more arbitrary and random than most people think and is more about species and sub species taking advantage or being devastated by environmental changes than it is about slow gradual change within a species.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Ultrasonic said:


> Not by proper scientists.
> 
> "Inteligent Design" is a nonsense 'theory' that is destroyed by simply asking one question: who designed the designer? It doesn't explain anything.


If one group of scientists looks at the evidence and comes to the conclusion based on that evidence that the universe and life must have been designed by a higher form of intelligence because chance or random mutations could not have possibly fine tuned the constants of physics and all the other intricate complexities needed in order to give rise to and sustain life, they then do not have to explain how that higher form of intelligence came into existence , because that then leads to the absurdity of infinite regress.If the first humans to ever land on the moon came across a whole load of abandoned machinery, the best explanation would be that some intelligent alien life form left it there, now that explanation cannot be disregarded because they do not know who those aliens are or where they came from.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Harry Axe Wound said:


> Such as?


The fossil record does not show how one species evolved into a completely different species, the "Cambrian explosion" provides a huge stumbling block for the theory, in fact what the C.E indicates is that many different life forms appeared in a relatively short period of time and there is nothing to suggest they had a common ancestor.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Ian_Montrose said:


> Why do God botherers think they have to disprove science to prove God? If God did exist why do they need to believe he does what he does by magic rather than by leveraging science? As to evolution, it is much more arbitrary and random than most people think and is more about species and sub species taking advantage or being devastated by environmental changes than it is about slow gradual change within a species.


No one is saying science needs to be disproved, I.D advocates actually base their theory on scientific discoveries such as DNA, the information in the cells is like a digital code this indicates that it cannot have occurred randomly, so the inference to the best possible explanation is that it was designed.


----------



## Archaic (Mar 8, 2010)

> No one is saying science needs to be disproved, I.D advocates actually base their theory on scientific discoveries such as DNA, the information in the cells is like a digital code this indicates that it cannot have occurred randomly, so the inference to the best possible explanation is that it was designed.


The core of your religious beliefs and no different to the Simulation Hypothesis, they both have a 'designer' - I'd probably have more respect for a person that believes the latter, as no barbaric or idiotic stone age human attributes are attached to the notion.

Oxford Professor Nick Bostrom talks about the simulation theory here:


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

12 gauge said:


> If one group of scientists looks at the evidence and comes to the conclusion based on that evidence that the universe and life must have been designed by a higher form of intelligence because chance or random mutations could not have possibly fine tuned the constants of physics and all the other intricate complexities needed in order to give rise to and sustain life, they then do not have to explain how that higher form of intelligence came into existence , because that then leads to the absurdity of infinite regress.If the first humans to ever land on the moon came across a whole load of abandoned machinery, the best explanation would be that some intelligent alien life form left it there, now that explanation cannot be disregarded because they do not know who those aliens are or where they came from.


No.

Evolution is a theory that would explain the existence of aliens. In fact I would suggest it would be more surprising if aliens didn't exist.

As above, suggesting that life is so wonderful and complex that only something even more wonderful and complex could have created it is absolutely no sort of explanation.

"Intelligent Design" is pseudo science promulgated by Creationists.


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> The fossil record does not show how one species evolved into a completely different species, the "Cambrian explosion" provides a huge stumbling block for the theory, in fact what the C.E indicates is that many different life forms appeared in a relatively short period of time and there is nothing to suggest they had a common ancestor.


I try to be amenable, but nonsense toilet drivel like this boils my blood. You post a few videos of idiots thinking they are editing people to look daft and support their ideology, (without EVER proving the opposite or backing ANY of it up with peer reviewed study papers) and you believe you have stumbled across some massive unspoken secret.

You can barely form grammatically coherent sentences structures, so unsurprsignly fail utterly in even the most basic understanding of what evolution is. How can you seriously think you can debate against it, when you are so obviously misinformed.

Let me break down your argument into sections:

"The fossil record does not show how one species evolved into a completely different species"

This argument is used by creationists, but what they fail to realise is they are creating a strawman. This is NOT how evolution works, and so to argue against it is utterly factuous nonsense. THE VERY DEFINITION of evolution means that you would never see a frog suddenly become a monkey (Ive tried to put that in terms you may understand).

DNA is constantly mutating. WE, humans, distinguish animals and compartmentalise creatures into sub catergories. DNA DOES NOT DO THIS. STOP anthropomorphising evolution to satisfy a garbage argument.

"the "Cambrian explosion" provides a huge stumbling block for the theory"

No it doesnt. As stated, DNA is constantly mutating. A basic chemistry experiment done at school easily explains how environmental processes can be seen to accelerate/exacerbate chemical reactions, or inveresly, impede them. Such an event happened before the Cambrian Explosion, as is observable in perma frost readings and isotope dating. It can be easily hypothosised, as is evident and OBSERVABLE in any food chain or micro flora, that a sudden absence will be quickly seased on and monopolised by life. Life fills niches very quickly given the chance and the space too. 
Dont believe that? Throw your fridge in the bin.
Still dont believe it? Well, then by your argument no court of law can never infer anything and send anyone to jail unless someone ACTUALLY witnessed it.

"nothing to suggest they had a common ancestor"

Apart from the DNA but yeah sure. Nothing that suits the paradigm of this nonsense.

One word makes everything youve said look ridiculous.

Madagascar.

Im sure youre a nice guy, but ffs, educate yourself first before spouting this drivel


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

you have to look to the most logical explanation , for dawkins work 'the blind watchmaker' is a good read , for anyone who believes in creationism look up the term ' hitchens razor ' then post back a structured argument with some decent evidence .


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> so the inference to the best possible explanation is that it was designed.


Again, what on earth argument is that? The sheer arrogance of this statement is utterly breathtaking and unfortuantely far too common. Designed because it looks like code? Like what us humans do with our computers machines??

This continuous anthropomorphising of God, that they/he in all their majesty and intelligence, are just like Bill Gates, is demonstrably a psychological construct to facilitate a functioning model of a persons enivronment to enable better chance of survival. THIS DOES NOT require it to be the truth, only to enable the brain to facilitate itself to easier survive and pass on its genes. Its the ultimate self imposed baby sitter


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

Btw, can any of those Republican dribble factories explain to me why I have 3 extra nipple formations along the milk lines?


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

Im done, Ive just seen Fury murder Aerosmith. Out on a (big) bang


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Harry Axe Wound said:


> You can barely form grammatically coherent sentences structures,


Sentence*s* structures? lol fail.


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Sentence*s* structures? lol fail.


Granted, but great repost


----------



## G (Mar 11, 2013)

None of the videos posted challenge evolution? the giraffe thing is just ridiculous.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Harry Axe Wound said:


> (without EVER proving the opposite or backing ANY of it up with peer reviewed study papers) and you believe you have stumbled across some massive unspoken secret.


You want Peer reviews, you got it.



Quote said:


> Michael J. Behe is an American biochemist, author, and intelligent design advocate. He serves as professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

It would appear God is evolving. Ain't that a brain fvck for the believers?


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Quote said:


> *Another Evolutionary Biologist Rejects The Bogus Theory of Evolution*


----------



## DappaDonDave (Dec 2, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> You want Peer reviews, you got it.


There's a teapot floating through space.

I know this because whilst walking into work I heard a voice and it told me.

Now, why when I say that it's absurd but

people believe some nut job voice hearing loon from 2000 years ago...


----------



## AngryBuddha (Nov 25, 2015)

Load of rubbish, considering billions of people actually believe in the bible, id be much more inclined to believe it, its like saying god isnt real LOL


----------



## toxyuk (Sep 8, 2015)

nitrogen said:


> If God took *6 days* to make Earth, and assuming he created the rest of the Universe, how long relatively would it have taken him to create the rest of the universe? Frequently asked in.
> Keep in mind there's billions of stars which are 100's to millions of times larger then earth and our own sun.
> 
> WHo created God???!!


so thats your reason to conclude god doesnt exist very clever the chicken or egg thing must really confuse you alot and also why was the famous picture of adam and eve showing they had belly buttons lols


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

Im interested at this point what it is you understand this scientist to be saying?

Fun fact. What he fails to mention about those blind cave fish is they are born with eyes. They then atrophy and become useless.

Thats some truly efficient coding. That's like booting into windows 95 every time then having to wait ten minutes before widows 10 kicks in


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

people often get confused between philosophy and science


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

toxyuk said:


> so thats your reason to conclude god doesnt exist very clever the chicken or egg thing must really confuse you alot and also why was the famous picture of adam and eve showing they had belly buttons lols


One of the reasons.Don't forget about a talking snake.


----------



## Frandeman (Mar 24, 2014)

I'm still belive in Peter Pam


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

http://ideonexus.com/2012/02/12/101-reasons-why-evolution-is-true/

http://www.provingthenegative.com/2007/12/300-year-gap.html?m=1

God that is conjectural and only supported by anecdotal experience.


----------



## arcticfox (Jan 11, 2015)

Harry Axe Wound said:


> Granted, but great repost


I love the fact he wont try debating with you, As he knows it's a lose lose


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

The reason people do not understand evolution because it has been going on for millions of years.

Whilst the religion came along some 10 000 BC, burial of dead, site worship. Interestingly when humans started living in a more civilized way.


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

The theory of evolution starts at the single cell amoeba. If it were a single cell how did it reproduce? A single cell would surely just die? We are effectively lots of different elements put together in a certain way to create human life. The fact those elements are arranged in such a precise order indicates we are a creation of a higher intelligence. If you had a jar with all the letters of the alphabet in it no matter how many times you tipped that jar out they would never fall a-z. You as the higher intelligence would have to arrange them that way.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

arcticfox said:


> I love the fact he wont try debating with you, As he knows it's a lose lose


people whose primary method of communication is posting YT vids tend to struggle when it comes to real debate. It's also hard for others to engage them because few people are going to waste a precious hour of their time watching the videos just to get to the point of deciding whether there is a debate worth having.


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

Not really following this thread but are people debating the theory of evolution now on UKM? :whistling:


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

JohhnyC said:


> Not really following this thread but are people debating the theory of evolution now on UKM? :whistling:


yes mate. What do you think, apes or God?


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

12 gauge said:


>


I have watched the first 30 seconds of the 1st you tube video.65 millions years ago cannot be observed. The existence of the God surely can be, hmm.

Evolution can be observed daily.Why isn't one flu jab sufficient for many years? Because the bacteria evolves and becomes resistant to flu jab. Why do people catch bird flu or swine flu.....


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

dannythinx said:


> yes mate. What do you think, apes or God?


apes or monkeys?


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

nitrogen said:


> I have watched the first 30 seconds of the 1st you tube video.65 millions years ago cannot be observed. The existence of the God surely can be, hmm.
> 
> Evolution can be observed daily.Why isn't one flu jab sufficient for many years? Because the bacteria evolves and becomes resistant to flu jab. Why do people catch bird flu or swine flu.....


no mate. Darwins theory is change of kind. So bacteria evolving into a fish for example. There's no observable evidence to support it


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

Actually I am curious as to what the human race will look like in 1 million years if we haven't all annihilated each other first


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

dannythinx said:


> no mate. Darwins theory is change of kind. So bacteria evolving into a fish for example. There's no observable evidence to support it


microrevolution vs macrorevolution


----------



## Frandeman (Mar 24, 2014)

dannythinx said:


> yes mate. What do you think, apes or God?


My mum


----------



## Mildo (Feb 11, 2015)

This has to be the first heated debating thread on UK-M where people are actually debating without calling each other names.

Feckin UK-M record


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

Mildo said:


> This has to be the first heated debating thread on UK-M where people are actually debating without *calling each other names*.
> 
> Feckin UK-M record


Yep. It is the "believers " that start hurling abuse.Ironic that is.


----------



## Mildo (Feb 11, 2015)

> Yep. It is the "believers " that start hurling abuse.Ironic that is.


TBF Ive seen both sides resorting to name calling whenever they are cornered, regardless of topic of conversation


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

Mildo said:


> TBF Ive seen both sides resorting to name calling whenever they are cornered, regardless of topic of conversation


suppoose


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

dannythinx said:


> The theory of evolution starts at the single cell amoeba. If it were a single cell how did it reproduce? A single cell would surely just die? We are effectively lots of different elements put together in a certain way to create human life. The fact those elements are arranged in such a precise order indicates we are a creation of a higher intelligence. If you had a jar with all the letters of the alphabet in it no matter how many times you tipped that jar out they would never fall a-z. You as the higher intelligence would have to arrange them that way.


You realise amoeba reproduce, right? The starting point for evolution is also MUCH simpler than a cell.


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

dannythinx said:


> no mate. Darwins theory is change of kind. So bacteria evolving into a fish for example. There's no observable evidence to support it


NOOOOOOOOOOO! Thats not what happens!!!!


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

dannythinx said:


> The fact those elements are arranged in such a precise order indicates we are a creation of a higher intelligence.


Is that a joke or?

"Therefore, God" is not an argument


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

arcticfox said:


> I love the fact he wont try debating with you, As he knows it's a lose lose


It wont ever happen. People of this mindset already vbelieve what they want to believe. Its the ideology that simply enables their behaviour. They see it as evidence to justify their belief, not as evidence of the truth.

Same as islamic terrorists and disciples of televangelist mediums.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Ultrasonic said:


> You realise amoeba reproduce, right?


Next you'll be trying to tell him they don't even need to have sex to do it. Outrageous!


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

> The point is the fossil record would show some observable evidence proving the Darwinian theory to be correct, the fact is there is none, its a theory which is taught as fact. As for the the biblical explanation that is a different subject, here I'm more interested in questioning Darwinism and seeing if science really does support it.


go and read some Richard Dawkins, he will explain it all for you.


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

dannythinx said:


> The theory of evolution starts at the single cell amoeba. If it were a single cell how did it reproduce? A single cell would surely just die? We are effectively lots of different elements put together in a certain way to create human life. The fact those elements are arranged in such a precise order indicates we are a creation of a higher intelligence. If you had a jar with all the letters of the alphabet in it no matter how many times you tipped that jar out they would never fall a-z. You as the higher intelligence would have to arrange them that way.


Psst... It's called asexual reproduction, billions of organisms do it every day.


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

There is absolutely boatloads of evidence for evolution.

In science things stay as "theories" even when we are 99.9% certain.

Evolution is one of those things that is blindingly obvious and provable.

If I want to observe evolution I can literally do it in a couple of months with some bacteria or perhaps some Drosophila instead.


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

> Psst... It's called asexual reproduction, billions of organisms do it every day.


This is the problem with god botherers, their ignorance and lack of knowledge lead them to absurd conclusions


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

Lotte said:


> Psst... It's called asexual reproduction, billions of organisms do it every day.


I just looked this up. I'm not to proud to say I stand corrected. Interesting read too.


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

funkdocta said:


> This is the problem with god botherers, their ignorance and lack of knowledge lead them to absurd conclusions


FYI I'm atheist I do not believe in God. I just like to stir the pot and see what comes back


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

I do find it interesting though that even the most devout atheist has probably prayed before. Even if it's "please god let the light stay green" to "please help my child live through this" if you as a life long atheist were being pinned down by enemy gun fire in Iraq you probably would say a little prayer. It's almost like it's built in


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

dannythinx said:


> FYI I'm atheist I do not believe in God. I just like to stir the pot and see what comes back


Glad that you were open to admit it  Can you really stir a pot that you admit you didn't know the first thing about?

(Not aimed at just you Dannythinx) If you are missing an absolutely baseline piece of knowledge about biology, how can you even join a conversation about evolution?

That goes for every one in this thread posting YouTube videos as 'evidence'

I'm a scientist. I work in science and I have a degree in Biology and Geology. I know enough about evolution to know that this is not a 'debate'.

On the other hand I am not much of a Physicist, I only have Physics to GCSE level.

I know that string theory and quantum mechanics exist, but I have no position on whether they are correct or not because I know I have wildly insufficient knowledge to even summarise them if asked. If I wanted to offer an opinion on those topics I might read intensively and critically about them for a week before reaching an initial conclusion.

I have zero respect for people who present a 'debate' without knowing the first thing about the subject, posting you tube videos and expecting people to take you seriously is embarrassing. Put some time and effort in before expecting others to waste their time debating with you or as is actually the case, doing your research for you...


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

dannythinx said:


> I just looked this up. I'm not to proud to say I stand corrected. Interesting read too.


Kudos to you sir. You join the small number of people who actually debate with an open mind.


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

Lotte said:


> Glad that you were open to admit it  Can you really stir a pot that you admit you didn't know the first thing about?
> 
> If you are missing an absolutely baseline piece of knowledge about biology, how can you even join a conversation about evolution?
> 
> ...


get over yourself ffs it's a body building forum not mensa


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

dannythinx said:


> get over yourself ffs it's a body building forum not mensa


LOL clearly my edit to say I wasn't aiming that post at you came just seconds too late for your inferiority complex...


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

Lotte said:


> LOL lol clearly my edit to say I wasn't aiming that post at you came just seconds too late for your inferiority complex...


inferiority complex? No, I'm just keeping things in context.

It's supposed to be light hearted


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

dannythinx said:


> inferiority complex? No, I'm just keeping things in context.


Okie dokie.

_noun_

an unrealistic feeling of general inadequacy caused by actual or supposed inferiority in one sphere, sometimes marked by aggressive behaviour in compensation.


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

Lotte said:


> Okie dokie.
> 
> _noun_
> 
> an unrealistic feeling of general inadequacy caused by actual or supposed inferiority in one sphere, sometimes marked by aggressive behaviour in compensation.


lotte, your original reply was itself passive aggressive so it fits your own definition


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

dannythinx said:


> lotte, your original reply was itself passive aggressive so it fits your own definition


 :lol: Keep trying young padawan.

My post wasn't passive aggressive, it was overtly condescending


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

Lotte said:


> :lol: Keep trying young padawan.
> 
> My post wasn't passive aggressive, it was overtly condescending


saying I have an inferiority complex is passive aggressive. Posting the definition is condescending


----------



## funkdocta (May 29, 2013)

> saying I have an inferiority complex is passive aggressive. Posting the definition is condescending


you wont win this one danny  give up


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

Evolution by means of natural selection is a fact. Simple as that.

The fossil record has allowed paleontologists to model a 'tree of life' showing lines of descent. Some of the branches are uncertain because of a lack of evidence, and the model is constantly being tweaked as new discoveries come along, but that's how science operates.

When genetic sequencing is done, the lines of descent it uncovers are pretty much the same as the lines of descent the paleontologists had alreadu come up with. There were a few surprises in the detail - like hyenas are closer to cats than dogs, but the general structure is confirmed. The strength is that genetic analysis isn't just looking at one thing. Unlike fossils which only have bone morphology to look at, genetics can look at mutation rates in non-coding DNA, it can look at ERV's, protein distance - whatever test is done, the results match.

ERV's (retro viruses which have written themselves into the DNA passed on to offspring) are a gold standard evidence method of determining lines of descent, because even if the same virus had spliced itself into another creature of a different species, the chances of it doing so in exactly the same place are ridiculously small. Analysis of ERVs show that our line is closest to chimps, then to gorillas, then to orangutans, then gibbons, then the old-world monkeys, then the new world monkeys - just like the fossil record shows, and just like all the other tests show.

If you do the same analysis on parasites that are exclusive to a species (like lice) - lo and behold you find that their family tree matches their hosts.

Anyone who does not accept evolution needs to come up with an explanation for these observational facts.

Also - given that we know that genes mutate, given that evolution can be observed in evolution labs with short-generation creatures, given that the forces of natural selection are known to operate, and can be used to model things like the occurrence rate of genetic faults like sickle-cell & cystic fibrosis (where one copy of the gene gives resistance to a disease but two copies gives you a serious problem), and given that life has existed for 4 billion years - deniers need to explain why & how evolution *isn't* working in the real world.

There is no scientific opposition to evolution. None. Zero. The square root of fcuk-all divided by infinity. The only opposition is from faith groups - which is telling because faith is, by definition, the wholehearted acceptance of something with no evidence.


----------



## GGLynch89 (Mar 6, 2014)

Religion was and still is a means of mass control, Billions of people inhabit the planet, religion is easy to spread. "the word of god" aka chinese whispers ect. 
Weirdly enough, evolution is considered a religion because its not observable over the span of a single lifetime nor century's of mankind.

Both concepts are hard to take on without faith.

IMO: We didnt slither out the ocean, become apes and then humans. We have always being humanoids, we have progressed but we have always being an unfinished species. 
its just a shame now where we are we are being dumbed down.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Lotte said:


> That goes for every one in this thread posting YouTube videos as 'evidence'
> 
> I'm a scientist. I work in science and I have a degree in Biology and Geology. I know enough about evolution to know that this is not a 'debate'.


I'm not quite sure why people have issues with Y.T videos? Yes I suppose the first one I posted is quite provocative and has been edited in a way so as to make evolutionists look daft, but all of the others have been serious scientists talking about the subject, those scientists can obviously explain things far better than I can,so they serve a purpose, if they were vids of some random people sharing their unqualified thoughts I'd understand people not willing to actually watch and listen to what they have to say, but when it comes to people like Micheal Behe who is a leading biochemist then I don't think its fair to just dismiss what he has to say without at least hearing him out.I dunno if you listened to him, but he spoke about Lenski's ongoing E coli experiment,that has been going on for years, the bacteria have surpassed 60,000 generations,there has been nothing in that experiment that proves Darwins theory, yes mutations occur but not evolution as outlined in "the origin of species", so I'm curious to know how you as a scientist can say you can see the evolutionary process by studying bacteria when Lenski hasn't proven anything conclusively?


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Major Eyeswater said:


> Evolution by means of natural selection is a fact. Simple as that.


Its not a fact at all, it is taught as such yes, but when one takes a critical look at the scientific evidence it becomes clear that its far from fact, Its plain to see that people have blind dogmatic faith in it and some get emotional when its questioned


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

Classic example of evolution


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

12 gauge said:


> I'm not quite sure why people have issues with Y.T videos? Yes I suppose the first one I posted is quite provocative and has been edited in a way so as to make evolutionists look daft, but all of the others have been serious scientists talking about the subject, those scientists can obviously explain things far better than I can,so they serve a purpose, if they were vids of some random people sharing their unqualified thoughts I'd understand people not willing to actually watch and listen to what they have to say, but when it comes to people like Micheal Behe who is a leading biochemist then I don't think its fair to just dismiss what he has to say without at least hearing him out.I dunno if you listened to him, but he spoke about Lenski's ongoing E coli experiment,that has been going on for years, the bacteria have surpassed 60,000 generations,there has been nothing in that experiment that proves Darwins theory, yes mutations occur but not evolution as outlined in "the origin of species", so I'm curious to know how you as a scientist can say you can see the evolutionary process by studying bacteria when Lenski hasn't proven anything conclusively?


1. When a 'leading biochemist' who otherwise might seem entirely credible is working very hard to find alternative explanations for the accepted theory, I ask myself, why?

Behe is a devout Catholic, one who cannot reconcile his faith and facts.

2. Behe is arguing outdated semantics. Science recognises improvements and clarifications of Darwin's original 150+ year old theory were needed. Science moves on.

I have no idea whether you have personally read about Lenski's E.coli experiment or just heard Behe say it doesn't prove anything? I can assure you it is the most monumental, thorough and unequivocal demonstration of evolution you could ever hope for. Also Google the "Lenski affair" and read about how Lenski responded to creationist arguments.


----------



## Chrisallan (Jul 11, 2014)

If there is a God he's obviously not a fan of work.

He took 6 days to create everything,then the 7th day was a day of rest,but he's not done anything since.

thats like me working from Monday to Saturday,telling my boss I'm having Sunday off and then just not bothering to come to work again,ever.

Saying that,he's God,so he can do what the f**k he likes.


----------



## simon_g (Apr 23, 2013)

> The point is the fossil record would show some observable evidence proving the Darwinian theory to be correct, the fact is there is none, its a theory which is taught as fact. As for the the biblical explanation that is a different subject, here I'm more interested in questioning Darwinism and seeing if science really does support it.


ever heard of breeding different kinds of animals, with artificial selection working?

ever heard about antibiotic resistent bacterias?

btw. in scientific world there is nothing higher than "theory" (which has different meaning than the comonfolk "theory").


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

science evolves and religion does not , when a scientific law is proven to be incorrect it is corrected or refuted , i find it as funny as f**k when religious people say that a scientific law or theory is full of holes - perhaps they need to spend some time looking at their own religious doctrine and seeing how many holes that has instead


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

Chrisallan said:


> If there is a God *he*'s obviously not a fan of work.
> 
> *He *took 6 days to create everything,then the 7th day was a day of rest,but he's not done anything since.
> 
> ...


How do you know it's him. No one knows what gender the God is.The assumption is that it is a biblical being with long beard.


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

12 gauge said:


> Its not a fact at all, it is taught as such yes, but when one takes a critical look at the scientific evidence it becomes clear that its far from fact, Its plain to see that people have blind dogmatic faith in it and some get emotional when its questioned


Let me explain in layman's term the fact.

Imagine it's snow out there and you notice a large bird track in the snow and a boot track in the snow.You had not seen who walked across but you know one belong to a bird, possibly a crow, and other belongs to a human. It's a fact.

If a scientist measured the track ,depth, width, angle etc and measured the temperature of air, snow, snow consistency, age of snow and do on.They provide very accurate results about the bird such as age, weight, gender and same about the human boot print.

For thousands of years people associated fazes of the moon and eclipse with religion. Then astronomers came along and gave the answer.

The earth was considered being flat, because what religion taught.


----------



## JayPardoe.com (Oct 13, 2015)

Yes. 99% of Scientists agree that there is enough evidence to call it fact.

I find it crazy people rely on Science for everything around them in their lives; their phone, their clothes, their computer, their shoes, their transport, the fu**ing shampoo they put in their hair, the drugs the doctor prescribes them, the make up they put on their face... Every part of their life is here because of Scientific development and yet when it comes to this one issue they will just say 'NO SCIENCE IS WRONG BECAUSE BIBLE' despite pretty much every single Scientist in the world agreeing that the evidence is CONCLUSIVE.

It's 2015, this should no longer be a debate.


----------



## Mildo (Feb 11, 2015)

Lotte said:


> There is absolutely boatloads of evidence for evolution.
> 
> In science things stay as "theories" even when we are 99.9% certain.
> 
> ...


I agree.

I mean, David Attenborough has devoted his entire life on the subject. He's too intelligent to think he would be duped for 50 years of his career believing it was wrong. The guy is a genius. Long live Atty


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Its not a fact at all, it is taught as such yes, but when one takes a critical look at the scientific evidence it becomes clear that its far from fact, Its plain to see that people have blind dogmatic faith in it and some get emotional when its questioned


You havent questioned anything though have you? At least people get emotional. You have once attempted any retort to a single post. Posting propagandist creationist 'interviews' is not retort btw. Neither is saying 'theres no evidence' whilst never explaining your reasoning, understanding and counter evidence.

What is your highest science qualification?


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

Lotte said:


> 2. Behe is arguing outdated semantics. Science recognises improvements and clarifications of Darwin's original 150+ year old theory were needed. Science moves on.


I tried to make this distinction earlier. Clasification is often arbitrary for our own benefit. He never of course acknowledged that.

Strawman after strawman


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

aqualung said:


> science evolves and religion does not , when a scientific law is proven to be incorrect it is corrected or refuted , i find it as funny as f**k when religious people say that a scientific law or theory is full of holes - perhaps they need to spend some time looking at their own religious doctrine and seeing how many holes that has instead


The funny thing is of course, any time a scientific theory can be loosely associated to some prophesied event or biblical description, they are all over it and say, 'see even science says its true'


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

Mildo said:


> I agree.
> 
> I mean, David Attenborough has devoted his entire life on the subject. He's too intelligent to think he would be duped for 50 years of his career believing it was wrong. The guy is a genius. Long live Atty


Im gonna be devastated like he was my grandad when he dies


----------



## Chrisallan (Jul 11, 2014)

nitrogen said:


> How do you know it's him. No one knows what gender the God is.The assumption is that it is a biblical being with long beard.


I don't know if it's a him,her or it!

i don't even believe in God,I was just being flippant.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

simon_g said:


> ever heard of breeding different kinds of animals, with artificial selection working?
> 
> ever heard about antibiotic resistent bacterias?
> 
> btw. in scientific world there is nothing higher than "theory" (which has different meaning than the comonfolk "theory").


Artificial selection or selective breeding is probably an argument against "a change of kinds" rather than for it, because no new kind is ever seen to be produced, yes different types of the same species which have adapted/been manipulated to produce desirable traits but they don't turn into entirely new creatures.

Evolutionists argue that it takes millions of years for a change of kind to occur ,my question is why doesn't the fossil record show this "change of kind", why isn't there even one clear example showing how one creature evolved into a totally different one. As previously stated the Cambrian explosion is actually evidence against this.

Evolutionists have faked so called missing links in the past, check out piltdown man, that was displayed in museums for years and presented as fact and proof of evolution, turned out to be bolox.

Nebraska man was another wishful story where the discovery of a single tooth led evolutionists to conclude they had found the missing link between ape and man, turns out the tooth belonged to a wild boar.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Harry Axe Wound said:


> What is your highest science qualification?


Has your blood stopped boiling yet?


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

12 gauge said:


> Artificial selection or selective breeding is probably an argument against "a change of kinds" rather than for it, because no new kind is ever seen to be produced, yes different types of the same species which have adapted/been manipulated to produce desirable traits but they don't turn into entirely new creatures.
> 
> Evolutionists argue that it takes millions of years for a change of kind to occur ,my question is why doesn't the fossil record show this "change of kind", why isn't there even one clear example showing how one creature evolved into a totally different one. .


You are completely confused about what evolution is even supposed to mean and what the process of natural selection involves.

No one can debate this with you while you refuse to put your socks and shoes on and get into the starting blocks...


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

JayPardoe.com said:


> Yes. 99% of Scientists agree that there is enough evidence to call it fact.
> 
> I find it crazy people rely on Science for everything around them in their lives; their phone, their clothes, their computer, their shoes, their transport, the fu**ing shampoo they put in their hair, the drugs the doctor prescribes them, the make up they put on their face... Every part of their life is here because of Scientific development and yet when it comes to this one issue they will just say 'NO SCIENCE IS WRONG BECAUSE BIBLE' despite pretty much every single Scientist in the world agreeing that the evidence is CONCLUSIVE.
> 
> It's 2015, this should no longer be a debate.


Have a read mate, the common misconception that most scientists are atheists simply isn't true, many are not, yes loads have accepted evolution but they reconcile it with their belief in god,because not even evolution can claim to know the origin of life.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2010/04/13/are-top-scientists-really-so-atheistic-look-at-the-data/#.VlsyAXbhDIU


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Has your blood stopped boiling yet?


Since you fail on every level to satisfy even GCSE standard understanding of evolution, and yet perpetuate YOUR misunderstanding as fact and the very strawman as the basis for your 'argument', whilst simultaneously never approaching any issue raised against your demonstrable drivel...

no.


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

Chrisallan said:


> I don't know if it's a him,her or it!
> 
> i don't even believe in God,I was just being flippant.


I know I only corrected.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Evolutionists have faked so called missing links in the past, check out piltdown man, that was displayed in museums for years and presented as fact and proof of evolution, turned out to be bolox.


This demonstrates that you do not know what you are talking about.

Piltdown man was not faked by 'evolutionists'. It was faked by Charles Dawson, an amateur archaeologist & fossil collector who faked loads of other stuff. It wasn't displayed in any museum and wasn't presented as proof or even evidence of evolution. Many paleontologists dismissed it immediately as a hoax, but a combination of nationalism (this was a British find) and the lack of good material to compare it to 100 years ago caused a few to take it seriously - at least until other finds showed that it absolutely didn't fit into the model of human evolution that was being developed.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Nebraska man was another wishful story where the discovery of a single tooth led evolutionists to conclude they had found the missing link between ape and man, turns out the tooth belonged to a wild boar.


Wrong again.

The 'Nebraska man' tooth was incorrectly identified as an ape by Henry Osborn. An article was then published in Science magazine about the find that Osborn himself criticised as innaccurate and jumping to wild conclusions. The evidence was not accepted by the scientific community simply because the evidence wasn't good enough. Further fieldwork a few years later revealed the rest of the jawbone, which belonged to an extinct peccary called _Prosthennops. _The misidentification occurred because the fossil had been damaged & weathered in such a way as to make it look very much like an ape tooth.

Nobody - not even the guy who made the original mistake or the pop-science magazine that wrote the article claimed that this was any sort of missing link. It would have been a notable discovery because apes have never existed in the Americas

It sounds like you are just uncritically regurgitating the misinformation being spread by Creationist websites.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

12 gauge said:


> Its not a fact at all, it is taught as such yes, but when one takes a critical look at the scientific evidence it becomes clear that its far from fact, Its plain to see that people have blind dogmatic faith in it and some get emotional when its questioned


With respect you are in no position whatsoever to make statements like that. You began the thread saying you wanted to learn more about evolutionary theory, so spend some serious time doing that rather than watching the odd YouTube video and then making pronouncements on the subject.

Evolution is a complex subject. Many very intelligent people have spent their lives thinking about the issues involved. You cannot expect to suddenly become able to pass judgement on it following a few exchanges on a forum.


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

What if God created evolution?


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

EpicSquats said:


> What if God created evolution?


then how the fvck do we explain you?


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Its not a fact at all, it is taught as such yes, but when one takes a critical look at the scientific evidence it becomes clear that its far from fact, Its plain to see that people have blind dogmatic faith in it and some get emotional when its questioned


I've just explained all the scientific evidence (genetic analysis) an you've ignored it. You are also claiming that there are no transitional fossils - which is nonsense.

Australopithicus, Tiktaalik, Archaeopterix, Ambulocetus, Amphistium - there's a whole page of them here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Specimens of Australopithicus & **** Erectus form such a good transitional series that it's now pretty much impossible to draw a line separating them.


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

> then how the fvck do we explain you?


I'm the next stage of evolution punk.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

EpicSquats said:


> What if God created evolution?


The existence of a god and the validity of evolutionary theory should be completely separate discussions. I know many religious people who accept evolution as fact. In fact I've not personally met any who don't.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Major Eyeswater said:


> I've just explained all the scientific evidence (genetic analysis) an you've ignored it. You are also claiming that there are no transitional fossils - which is nonsense.
> 
> Australopithicus, Tiktaalik, Archaeopterix, Ambulocetus, Amphistium - there's a whole page of them here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
> 
> Specimens of Australopithicus & **** Erectus form such a good transitional series that it's now pretty much impossible to draw a line separating them.


From the link you provided



Quote said:


> Almost all of the transitional forms in this list do not actually represent ancestors of any living group or other transitional forms. Darwin noted that transitional forms could be considered common ancestors, direct ancestors or collateral ancestors of living or extinct groups, but believed that finding actual common or direct ancestors linking different groups was unlikely


----------



## toxyuk (Sep 8, 2015)

just remember god is always watching even when you have a wank...... )))


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Major Eyeswater said:


> I've just explained all the scientific evidence (genetic analysis) an you've ignored it. You are also claiming that there are no transitional fossils - which is nonsense.
> 
> Australopithicus, *Tiktaalik*, Archaeopterix, Ambulocetus, Amphistium - there's a whole page of them here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
> 
> Specimens of Australopithicus & **** Erectus form such a good transitional series that it's now pretty much impossible to draw a line separating them.


Tiktaalik blown out of the water, the link below is from National Geographic i.e not a creationist website, it shows how new findings have shown that tetrapods were roaming the earth way earlier than previously thought, so Tiktaalik which was propagated by evolutionists as a transitional fossil has been shown to be false.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land/

http://www.academia.edu/6547149/Tetrapods_from_Poland_trample_the_Tiktaalik_school_of_evolution


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

So can you explain, why I'm white and I'm sure there are a few on this forum who are black, without us having evolved to suit our surroundings.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Denied said:


> So can you explain, why I'm white and I'm sure there are a few on this forum who are black, without us having evolved to suit our surroundings.


Its called adaptation, not the same as "change in kind" i.e one creature evolving into a completely different one.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

This will no doubt get dismissed as creationist propaganda but it is an excellent documentary, a must watch.


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Its called adaptation, not the same as "change in kind" i.e one creature evolving into a completely different one.


At what point satisfies your "change of kind"? When does one thing arbitrarily become another in your educated opinion?


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

Harry Axe Wound said:


> At what point satisfies your "change of kind"? When does one thing arbitrarily become another in your educated opinion?


When we jump from monkeys to mankind via the missing link, rather than understanding evolution.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

This is why I.D is rejected by many within the Scientific community as pseudoscience


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Tiktaalik blown out of the water, the link below is from National Geographic i.e not a creationist website, it shows how new findings have shown that tetrapods were roaming the earth way earlier than previously thought, so Tiktaalik which was propagated by evolutionists as a transitional fossil has been shown to be false.
> 
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/01/100106-tetrapod-tracks-oldest-footprints-nature-evolution-walking-land/
> 
> http://www.academia.edu/6547149/Tetrapods_from_Poland_trample_the_Tiktaalik_school_of_evolution


So - you are adopting the standard Creationist technique of trying to pick holes in one bit of evidence or bicker about the precise meaning of 'transitional fossil', and completely ignoring the sheer mass of multiple lines of evidence.

Like the science of molecular genetics, which would prove common descent beyond all reasonable doubt even if not a single fossil had ever been found. Creationists cannot explain why multiple, independent lines of evidence from molecular genetics all reveal matching family trees. Instead, they stick their fingers in their ears & shout "piltdown, piltdown, piltdown"

Tiktaalik is still considered to be a transitional fossil because it displays features common to fish & tetrapods. The link to National Geographic is simply announcing the discovery of tetrapod tracks a few million years earlier than previously thought - which is fascinating and may lead to the early evolution of tetrapods to be re-modelled. That's what science does - it corrects it's mistakes as they are uncovered.

The Acedemia article has "Creation.com" stamped on it - so it's not science, it's creationist opinion. Again, you're just regurgitating stuff from faith groups without critical appraisal.

Citing a couple of hoaxes / mistakes as evidence that the entirety of evolutionary science is completely wrong is the equivalent of pointing to a faked Michaelangelo painting and a misdated Leonardo document, and citing them as proof that the Rennaisance never happened.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

JayPardoe.com said:


> I find it crazy people rely on Science for everything around them in their lives; their phone, their clothes, their computer, their shoes, their transport, the fu**ing shampoo they put in their hair, the drugs the doctor prescribes them, the make up they put on their face... Every part of their life is here because of Scientific development and yet when it comes to this one issue they will just say 'NO SCIENCE IS WRONG BECAUSE BIBLE' despite pretty much every single Scientist in the world agreeing that the evidence is CONCLUSIVE.
> 
> It's 2015, this should no longer be a debate.


I was involved in an argument elsewhere, where a guy was ranting about how science is all guesswork, confirmation bias & deliberate fraud to secure funding.

When I pointed out to him the irony that he had expressed this opinion via the touch sensitive screen of a hand-held computer & communications device, connected to a global network of supercomputers that share information via fibre-optic cable & satellite relays - his response was "That's not science - that's technology."

You can't reason with people like that


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Major Eyeswater said:


> So - you are adopting the standard Creationist technique of trying to pick holes in one bit of evidence or bicker about the precise meaning of 'transitional fossil', and completely ignoring the sheer mass of multiple lines of evidence.
> 
> Like the science of molecular genetics, which would prove common descent beyond all reasonable doubt even if not a single fossil had ever been found. Creationists cannot explain why multiple, independent lines of evidence from molecular genetics all reveal matching family trees. Instead, they stick their fingers in their ears & shout "piltdown, piltdown, piltdown"
> 
> ...


I'm trying to look at neutral sources but its difficult as it seems both those for and against are so convinced of their views that they cant even entertain the possibility that there may be holes in their understanding.

That being said and I know its not actually what the theory of evolution deals with but the origin of life, or the cause of the universe is obviously something which evolution can't or even claims to know, and that is something which I think many who have accepted evolution in totality assume science has explained when it clearly hasn't, I know this is probably more of a philosophical discussion than a scientific one, but there are tremendous philosophical and logical arguments in this regard.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> I'm trying to look at neutral sources but its difficult as it seems both those for and against are so convinced of their views that they cant even entertain the possibility that there may be holes in their understanding.


You may want to consider why there aren't many 'neutral' sources...


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> I'm trying to look at neutral sources but its difficult as it seems both those for and against are so convinced of their views that they cant even entertain the possibility that there may be holes in their understanding.


If you engage with actual evolutionary scientists (as I do), you'll find they are acutely aware of the gaps in their understanding. Science doesn't know everything - if it did it would stop. But just because there are holes in understanding doesn't man that the whole model is wrong.

Science has no real idea what causes gravity, and can't reconcile it in with quantum theory like the other fundamental forces. Most physicists working in the field are fairly sure they have got something wrong. But that doesn't mean that if you step off a tall building, you are going to float to safety

As for neutral sources - forget it. Science accepts evolution because the evidence in it's favour is absolutely overwhelming, and no other scientific hypothesis has emerged to challenge it. Nobody can even come up with a halfway decent explanation of how evolution via natural selection *can be avoided*. The only people against it are faith groups - and as I said before, faith is, by definition, doggedly holding a belief with no supporting evidence.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Major Eyeswater said:


> As for neutral sources - forget it. Science accepts evolution because the evidence in it's favour is absolutely overwhelming, and no other scientific hypothesis has emerged to challenge it. Nobody can even come up with a halfway decent explanation of how evolution via natural selection *can be avoided*. The only people against it are faith groups - and as I said before, faith is, by definition, doggedly holding a belief with no supporting evidence.


There are still very many evolutionary scientists who do accept intelligent design because evolution may explain the process to a certain extent but it still doesn't provide the answers to many questions, the information stored within DNA is a huge indicator that cant be explained away by random chance, who's to say an intelligent designer isn't guiding the evolutionary process? The whole origin and causality question remains even for die hard atheists.

It was relatively recently that there was a consensus in the scientific community that the universe was infinite i.e the static universe assumption, it was only when Edwin Hubble observed galaxies moving away that the big bang idea became known, at first he had a hard time trying to convince his colleagues of his theory because many scientists were reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning, it all looked too much like creationism to them,but now obviously it has become accepted that there was a beginning point.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Chimps are not evolving any more, they still have centre partings.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

12 gauge said:


> There are still very many evolutionary scientists who do accept intelligent design because evolution may explain the process to a certain extent but it still doesn't provide the answers to many questions, the information stored within DNA is a huge indicator that cant be explained away by random chance, who's to say an intelligent designer isn't guiding the evolutionary process? The whole origin and causality question remains even for die hard atheists.
> 
> It was relatively recently that there was a consensus in the scientific community that the universe was infinite i.e the static universe assumption, it was only when Edwin Hubble observed galaxies moving away that the big bang idea became known, at first he had a hard time trying to convince his colleagues of his theory because many scientists were reluctant to accept that the universe had a beginning, it all looked too much like creationism to them,but now obviously it has become accepted that there was a beginning point.


I can't be bothered to reply to all of that, but if you haven't even grasped that evolution is NOT RANDOM CHANCE, this thread is even more of a waste of time than I'd thought.

Please, please, go and spend some time learning what evolution is rather than Googling why it's wrong.


----------



## anaboliclove (Oct 9, 2010)

I believe in social Darwinism it would put a stop to the grossly over populated planet we are heading for that's for sure

brace your self :devil2:


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

Ultrasonic said:


> I can't be bothered to reply to all of that, but if you haven't even grasped that evolution is NOT RANDOM CHANCE, this thread is even more of a waste of time than I'd thought.
> 
> Please, please, go and spend some time learning what evolution is rather than Googling why it's wrong.


I just Googled Darwinism and it seems to be about people falling down lift shafts??


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

is this conversation still going on? i see multiple people have to tried to explain things , failed and moved on.......

...... if as you say there is a intelligent designer behind the evolutionary process he or she is doing a pretty shitty job when you look at the time scales involved.

re: the point you made about the universe model changing , yes it changes as more evidence becomes available - thats science for you , however if you follow religion they still think some magic sky fairy did it all 1000 years after the fact it was written (time dependant on religion involved and changes made to 'gods' word by man) -again i would not exactly call that intelligent design.


----------



## toxyuk (Sep 8, 2015)

anaboliclove said:


> I believe in social Darwinism it would put a stop to the grossly over populated planet we are heading for that's for sure
> 
> brace your self :devil2:


lols yeah we can start with immigrants :gun_bandana:


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

@12 gauge

How would you explain convergent and divergent evolution?


----------



## toxyuk (Sep 8, 2015)

banzi said:


> Chimps are not evolving any more, they still have centre partings.


i dont know you look alot like from your avi


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

nitrogen said:


> @12 gauge
> 
> How would you explain convergent and divergent evolution?


I wouldn't


----------



## mal (Dec 31, 2009)

where did the dinosaurs come from,that always stumped me tbh......im going with the prometheus theory anyway

seems pretty tight.


----------



## toxyuk (Sep 8, 2015)

JayPardoe.com said:


> Yes. 99% of Scientists agree that there is enough evidence to call it fact.
> 
> I find it crazy people rely on Science for everything around them in their lives; their phone, their clothes, their computer, their shoes, their transport, the fu**ing shampoo they put in their hair, the drugs the doctor prescribes them, the make up they put on their face... Every part of their life is here because of Scientific development and yet when it comes to this one issue they will just say 'NO SCIENCE IS WRONG BECAUSE BIBLE' despite pretty much every single Scientist in the world agreeing that the evidence is CONCLUSIVE.
> 
> It's 2015, this should no longer be a debate.


thats what makes the world intresting everyone is different no on can be 100% right.science as also had its stupid moments look at medical science lols


----------



## anaboliclove (Oct 9, 2010)

banzi said:


> Chimps are not evolving any more, they still have centre partings.


Steady on mate that's a bit racist


----------



## toxyuk (Sep 8, 2015)

Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book _Glimpses of the Great_, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist, explained:



> Your question is the most difficult in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought. Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as two separate things.[20]


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> There are still very many evolutionary scientists who do accept intelligent design because evolution may explain the process to a certain extent but it still doesn't provide the answers to many questions, the information stored within DNA is a huge indicator that cant be explained away by random chance, who's to say an intelligent designer isn't guiding the evolutionary process? The whole origin and causality question remains even for die hard atheists.


The two main problems with intelligent design are

1) Unintelligent design. Why are vertebrate retina's back to front, when cephalopods are the right way around, giving them much better eyes ? Why does the urethera run *through *the prostate - an organ notorious for swelling up ? Why do bipedal humans have a lower back designed for a quadruped ? Why do we breathe & swallow through the same orifice - which is a choking hazard ? Why do we have too many teeth to fit in our jaw ? Why does the laryngeal nerve loop around the aortic arch, meaning that giraffes need an extra 7 metres of nerve ? Why do dolphins & whales breathe like mammals & not like fish - making them less efficient & forcing them to have all kinds of strategies for not drowning ? Why do mammals in hot climates have stupidly fast metabolisms that leave them prone to overheating ? Why do us & apes need vitamin C when other animals synthesise it themselves ? Why do mammals have testicles that don't work properly at normal mammal body temperature - meaning we need to store them in a bag outside our bodies - while birds have a higher body temperature & manage just fine ?

I could fill a couple of pages with these. This designer's attention to detail is very poor.

2) Every living creature is either at risk of being pounced on, and either being painfully killed or dismembered & eaten alive - or is obliged to do this just to survive. Humane killing strategies are notable for their absence. Then there are all the horrible parasites that consume their hosts alive or render them sick. Whatever intelligence designed that is clearly a psychopath.


----------



## toxyuk (Sep 8, 2015)

anaboliclove said:


> Steady on mate that's a bit racist


ssssshhhhh no one told him his dad was a monkey lols


----------



## anaboliclove (Oct 9, 2010)

toxyuk said:


> Einstein had previously explored the belief that man could not understand the nature of God. In an interview published in 1930 in G. S. Viereck's book _Glimpses of the Great_, Einstein, in response to a question about whether or not he defined himself as a pantheist, explained:


go on Albert! What a fcukin answer genius (pun intended)


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Major Eyeswater said:


> The two main problems with intelligent design are
> 
> 1) Unintelligent design. Why are vertebrate retina's back to front, when cephalopods are the right way around, giving them much better eyes ? Why does the urethera run *through *the prostate - an organ notorious for swelling up ? Why do bipedal humans have a lower back designed for a quadruped ? Why do we breathe & swallow through the same orifice - which is a choking hazard ? Why do we have too many teeth to fit in our jaw ? Why does the laryngeal nerve loop around the aortic arch, meaning that giraffes need an extra 7 metres of nerve ? Why do dolphins & whales breathe like mammals & not like fish - making them less efficient & forcing them to have all kinds of strategies for not drowning ? Why do mammals in hot climates have stupidly fast metabolisms that leave them prone to overheating ? Why do us & apes need vitamin C when other animals synthesise it themselves ? Why do mammals have testicles that don't work properly at normal mammal body temperature - meaning we need to store them in a bag outside our bodies - while birds have a higher body temperature & manage just fine ?
> 
> ...


Just because we don't understand every detail of anatomy in no way means there aren't perfectly good reasons for them, design is evident in every single cell, DNA is information more complex than the most complex computer program,the constants of physics etc all indicate a fine tuning down to minuscule detail, the odds are phenomenally stacked against chance.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

12 gauge said:


> Just because we don't understand every detail of anatomy in no way means there aren't perfectly good reasons for them, design is evident in every single cell, DNA is information more complex than the most complex computer program,the constants of physics etc all indicate a fine tuning down to minuscule detail, the odds are phenomenally stacked against chance.


probability is meaningless after the fact.


----------



## toxyuk (Sep 8, 2015)

IT DONT MATTER WE ARE LIVING IN A COMPUTER SIMULATION ON A FUTURE HD.


----------



## Fluke82 (Sep 10, 2015)

Look, if you get sufficient micronutrients and fibre it doesn't matter what food types you eat within your macros with regards to body composition.

generally, an 80/20 rule is applied whole food/junk which is deemed sufficient to hit micronutrients and also allows you to eat what you want within your macros.

tldr: no need to stick to "bro" diets, just track your macros and enjoy food.


----------



## Major Eyeswater (Nov 2, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> the odds are phenomenally stacked against chance.


Correct - but evolution is not just blind chance - something that has been pointed out to you a few times. Until you can understand that really basic concept, there is no point continuing, because your understanding of evolution is not sufficient to make this conversation worth investing any more of my time in.

Enjoy your wilful ignorance.


----------



## Archaic (Mar 8, 2010)

> Look, if you get sufficient micronutrients and fibre it doesn't matter what food types you eat within your macros with regards to body composition.
> 
> generally, an 80/20 rule is applied whole food/junk which is deemed sufficient to hit micronutrients and also allows you to eat what you want within your macros.
> 
> tldr: no need to stick to "bro" diets, just track your macros and enjoy food.


Out of all the replies in the thread, this one makes the most sense


----------



## toxyuk (Sep 8, 2015)

Drogon said:


> Look, if you get sufficient micronutrients and fibre it doesn't matter what food types you eat within your macros with regards to body composition.
> 
> generally, an 80/20 rule is applied whole food/junk which is deemed sufficient to hit micronutrients and also allows you to eat what you want within your macros.
> 
> tldr: no need to stick to "bro" diets, just track your macros and enjoy food. and yes darwinism is fact.


----------



## Fluke82 (Sep 10, 2015)

Double


----------



## zyphy (Jun 23, 2014)

Drogon said:


> Look, if you get sufficient micronutrients and fibre it doesn't matter what food types you eat within your macros with regards to body composition.
> 
> generally, an 80/20 rule is applied whole food/junk which is deemed sufficient to hit micronutrients and also allows you to eat what you want within your macros.
> 
> tldr: no need to stick to "bro" diets, just track your macros and enjoy food.


not really hiding your true identity well lol. why'd you change your username :lol:


----------



## b0t13 (Jan 3, 2013)

Well debated thread with some big words, I'm impressed, obviously the day of rest has left everyone full of energy for a debate


----------



## nitrogen (Oct 25, 2007)

12 gauge said:


> I wouldn't


Are you aware of them? I think it proves evolution.


----------



## banzi (Mar 9, 2014)

zyphy said:


> not really hiding your true identity well lol. why'd you change your username :lol:


hes also posting under ‌@Kratos


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> design is evident in every single cell


You have proved over and over and over through avoidance of every single question put to you, and your distinct lack of knowledge on every subject you have spoken about, that you are about as qualified to make that statement as Gary Glitter is to look after children.

You make me question evolution. Because of how incredibly devoid of intelligence you are.

Stop wasting everyones time and read a book.....No not that book, put that down. ANY other book


----------



## Fluke82 (Sep 10, 2015)

banzi said:


> hes also posting under ‌@Kratos


Not sure who that is or what you're talking about!!


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Harry Axe Wound said:


> Stop wasting everyones time and read a book.....


Yes I'm gonna have a read of this one

Signature in the cell


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Yes I'm gonna have a read of this one
> 
> Signature in the cell


You can read at least


----------



## nowhereboy (May 22, 2012)

Ah the "blind watch maker" argument.

Religious nut jobs with the "something this complex had to have a designer theory".

So let's get this straight, assuming only something very complex has the capacity to create something complex.... Who created god?

Oh yea I forgot, god was just "always there", he contradicts the very argument religious people try to use against us and breaks his own rule.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

nowhereboy said:


> Ah the "blind watch maker" argument.
> 
> Religious nut jobs with the "something this complex had to have a designer theory".
> 
> ...


Infinite regress

Everything that begins needs a cause, but there needs to be an un-caused cause to initiate or originate, it wasn't that long ago that scientists believed the universe was eternal,now we know that it is not, it had a beginning point, in other words it was caused.


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Infinite regress
> 
> Everything that begins needs a cause, but there needs to be an un-caused cause to initiate or originate, it wasn't that long ago that scientists believed the universe was eternal,now we know that it is not, it had a beginning point, in other words it was caused.


IGNORANCE ALERT IGNORANCE ALERT!!!

This understanding is wrong. Wrong wrong wrong.


----------



## dannythinx (Oct 4, 2014)

Has anyone said we are here because an alien race put us here yet?

if not, that's my contribution


----------



## ellisrimmer (Sep 9, 2012)

I'm pretty sure that it will turn out that we have bee created by higher intelligences. We'll all be too dumb to understand it though.


----------



## Sebbek (Apr 25, 2013)

You ALL going to hell


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

dannythinx said:


> Has anyone said we are here because an alien race put us here yet?
> 
> if not, that's my contribution


Yes actually some have said that.

If you watch the documentary I posted earlier ("Expelled, no intelligence allowed") you'll see that Richard Dawkins said it when pressed about the evidence for I.D, so he doesn't say there is absolutely no possibility that a higher intelligence created everything he just doesn't accept that the higher intelligence is God.

Dawkins btw also accepts that there is an "illusion of design".


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Yes actually some have said that.
> 
> If you watch the documentary I posted earlier ("Expelled, no intelligence allowed") you'll see that Richard Dawkins said it when pressed about the evidence for I.D, so he doesn't say there is absolutely no possibility that a higher intelligence created everything he just doesn't accept that the higher intelligence is God.
> 
> Dawkins btw also accepts that there is an "illusion of design".


You know Dicky Dawkins?


----------



## Armitage Shanks (Jul 7, 2014)

8 pages and this this thread has not evolved


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> The point is the fossil record would show some observable evidence proving the Darwinian theory to be correct, the fact is there is none, its a theory which is taught as fact. As for the the biblical explanation that is a different subject, here I'm more interested in questioning Darwinism and seeing if science really does support it.


as in small inherited variations?


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

Armitage Shanks said:


> 8 pages and this this thread has not evolved


Agreed. You'd have thought that by now we'd have moved on to the much more important issue of who put the Ram in the Rama-Lama Ding-Dong?


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

12 gauge said:


> Yes actually some have said that.
> 
> If you watch the documentary I posted earlier ("Expelled, no intelligence allowed") you'll see that Richard Dawkins said it when pressed about the evidence for I.D, so he doesn't say there is absolutely no possibility that a higher intelligence created everything he just doesn't accept that the higher intelligence is God.
> 
> Dawkins btw also accepts that there is an "illusion of design".


If we're quoting Richard Dawkins, he also wrote a book on why evolution is fact, maybe you need to give it a read "the greatest show on earth"


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

Denied said:


> If we're quoting Richard Dawkins, he also wrote a book on why evolution is fact, maybe you need to give it a read "the greatest show on earth"


Youve got more chance of convincing him to read his horoscope and telling him to live his life by that


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Denied said:


> If we're quoting Richard Dawkins, he also wrote a book on why evolution is fact, maybe you need to give it a read "the greatest show on earth"


Dawkins main argument is that Darwinian evolution is true therefor there is no intelligent design i.e God, yet at the same time he accepts that one could believe in evolution and believe in a creator. I find him very contradictory.


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> Dawkins main argument is that Darwinian evolution is true therefor there is no intelligent design i.e God, yet at the same time he accepts that one could believe in evolution and believe in a creator. I find him very contradictory.


Thats not what he is saying at all. Wrong again.

NEXT PLEASE?!


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

Roll up roll up YT video lovers!

I found this for you guys today, I'll be taking bets on which teeny weeny part of it you choose to try and pick to pieces :whistling:


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

Lotte said:


> Roll up roll up YT video lovers!
> 
> I found this for you guys today, I'll be taking bets on which teeny weeny part of it you choose to try and pick to pieces :whistling:


Is it the part where the designer soooooo obviously inserted redundant hip and thigh bones into the whales anatomy just to mess with us?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

12 gauge said:


> Dawkins main argument is that Darwinian evolution is true therefor there is no intelligent design i.e God, yet at the same time he accepts that one could believe in evolution and believe in a creator. I find him very contradictory.


No.

If you want to know why he doesn't believe there is a god, read The God Delusion (it's good, if a little overly arrogant in style at times). At its simplest though the reason he (and I) don't believe there is a god (or gods) is that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise. This is a huge subject though, most of which has nothing to do with evolution.

However, as I posted earlier, it is perfectly possible to believe both evolutionary theory to be correct and that there is a god. We don't need to bring religion into this discussion at all.

If you don't want to read anything by Dawkins try Daniel Dennet.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Ultrasonic said:


> No.
> 
> If you want to know why he doesn't believe there is a god, read The God Delusion (it's good, if a little overly arrogant in style at times). At its simplest though the reason he (and I) don't believe there is a god (or gods) is that there is no evidence to suggest otherwise.
> 
> ...


I think many theists have an issue with evolution because the atheists have hijacked it by claiming it is an unguided process whereas it could well be the means by which an intelligent designer is acting, you see the explanation of how a mechanism works in no way disqualifies that mechanism from being designed, in fact the actual mechanism itself suggests an agent.

Again evolution doesn't even claim to answer the origin of life and the universe, and again the latest discoveries of the workings of the cell at a microscopic level i.e the DNA information contained therein etc etc which is obviously something which wasn't observable in the past points to intelligence.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

So now evolution is supposed to answer the original of the universe?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

12 gauge said:


> I think many theists have an issue with evolution because the atheists have hijacked it by claiming it is an unguided process whereas it could well be the means by which an intelligent designer is acting, you see the explanation of how a mechanism works in no way disqualifies that mechanism from being designed, in fact the actual mechanism itself suggests an agent.
> 
> Again evolution doesn't even claim to answer the origin of life and the universe, and again the latest discoveries of the workings of the cell at a microscopic level i.e the DNA information contained therein etc etc which is obviously something which wasn't observable in the past points to intelligence.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/embed/slf1HocG9Mk?feature=oembed]


An informed theist may argue essentially that their god created evolution, but I do not agree that there is a credible argument for evolution being guided.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

.


----------



## nowhereboy (May 22, 2012)

12 gauge, have you read the God delusion by Dawkins? I suggest you do if not.


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> I think many theists have an issue with evolution because the atheists have hijacked it by claiming it is an unguided process whereas it could well be the means by which an intelligent designer is acting, you see the explanation of how a mechanism works in no way disqualifies that mechanism from being designed, in fact the actual mechanism itself suggests an agent.


LMAO!!!!! Where on earth do you pull these sentences from?!


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

12 gauge said:


> Dawkins main argument is that Darwinian evolution is true therefor there is no intelligent design i.e God, yet at the same time he accepts that one could believe in evolution and believe in a creator. I find him very contradictory.


Just read the first chapter of the greatest show on earth and you'll realise that statement is completely wrong.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> Just read the first chapter of the greatest show on earth and you'll realise that statement is completely wrong.


I really must get round to reading that book sometime. I've had a copy sitting on a shelf waiting to be read for a few years now.


----------



## nowhereboy (May 22, 2012)

12 gauge said:


> Infinite regress
> 
> Everything that begins needs a cause, but there needs to be an un-caused cause to initiate or originate, it wasn't that long ago that scientists believed the universe was eternal,now we know that it is not, it had a beginning point, in other words it was caused.


So why can't the big bang or evolution be the "un-caused cause" to originate it?

What a completely delusional argument, actually think about what you're saying man! Ridiculous.


----------



## Fluke82 (Sep 10, 2015)

View attachment 118256


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

Members of the Jury, I present to you, evidence of evolution, with all its foibles and redundant inadequacies.... Myself. More accurately, one of (I have three extra in total) my pseudo nipples on my milk line. Enjoy

View attachment IMG_2331.JPG


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

nowhereboy said:


> So why can't the big bang or evolution be the "un-caused cause" to originate it?
> 
> What a completely delusional argument, actually think about what you're saying man! Ridiculous.


I'm asking what caused the big bang? The big bang didn't cause itself, something must have initiated it. Scientists agree that the cause is unknown or unclear. The same goes for the first living cell, the top scientists don't even claim to know how the first cell came into existence, do a bit of research into what it actually takes for a living cell to actually live. I've posted several vids detailing some of the things required but check for yourself,the statistics involved are phenomenally stacked against anything like that happening by random chance, so much so it is in mathematical terms impossible.


----------



## Fluke82 (Sep 10, 2015)

12 gauge said:


> I'm asking what caused the big bang? The big bang didn't cause itself*, something must have initiated it. *Scientists agree that the cause is unknown or unclear. The same goes for the first living cell, the top scientists don't even claim to know how the first cell came into existence, do a bit of research into what it actually takes for a living cell to actually live. I've posted several vids detailing some of the things required but check for yourself,the statistics involved are phenomenally stacked against anything like that happening by random chance, so much so it is in mathematical terms impossible.


But if it was initiated. what initiated the thing that originally initiated the initiation?


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Drogon said:


> But if it was initiated. what initiated the thing that originally initiated the initiation?


Something eternal,

The universe has a beginning, it was thought to be eternal but its not.


----------



## Fluke82 (Sep 10, 2015)

12 gauge said:


> Something eternal,
> 
> The universe has a beginning, it was thought to be eternal but its not.


Eternal is without an end.

It must of had a beginning, so what created the eternal thing?


----------



## Harry Axe Wound (Jul 1, 2013)

12 gauge said:


> I'm asking what caused the big bang? The big bang didn't cause itself, something must have initiated it. Scientists agree that the cause is unknown or unclear. The same goes for the first living cell, the top scientists don't even claim to know how the first cell came into existence, do a bit of research into what it actually takes for a living cell to actually live. I've posted several vids detailing some of the things required but check for yourself,the statistics involved are phenomenally stacked against anything like that happening by random chance, so much so it is in mathematical terms impossible.


You have zero concept of what "before" means, and so are pondering this question completely wrong, again. You are utterly and disgracefully embarrassing yourself. Myself and others have repeatedly told you to research more and to read proper material. Why wont you do that? Why dont you EVER reply to someone that has suggested material, or contradicted something you have said?

What is the point in pretending to question anything, when all you do is clearly demonstrate that your mind is made up by displaying zero interest in engaging with anything that contradicts youre already blatantly firmly held belief of a god. And dont sit there pretending you arent bringing god into this. You have clearly demonstrated that you are nothing other than a fantasist. You are dime a dozen, regurgitating arguments that have been perpetuated by moronic theists for years, and have equally been proven wrong for just as long.

Stop patronising EVERYBODY here by pretending you are too good and all knowing to take on board anything that anyone has said. Your arrogance is staggering,

Grow the fvck up for the love of (*the universe*)


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

this is natural selection in action 

*i am however impressed with the op's wholehearted disregard to anyone who attempts to engage him in debate when it seems they may actually know what they are talking about :thumb


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Drogon said:


> Eternal is without an end.
> 
> It must of had a beginning, so what created the eternal thing?


Without a beginning, infinite if you will.


----------



## Fluke82 (Sep 10, 2015)

12 gauge said:


> Without a beginning, infinite if you will.


Infinity is not real.


----------



## RepsForJesus (Jul 9, 2015)

Shout outs to @Major Eyeswater , @Lotte and @Harry Axe Wound (and his awesome, useless, extra nipples) to thoroughly disproving and educating this rambling loons creationist understandings


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Drogon said:


> Infinity is not real.


Scientists assumed the universe was infinite not too long ago, the theory is known as the "static universe theory", I don't think even now scientists claim infinity is impossible for the universe only that the evidence shows otherwise.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

12 gauge said:


> I'm asking what caused the big bang? The big bang didn't cause itself, something must have initiated it. Scientists agree that the cause is unknown or unclear. The same goes for the first living cell, the top scientists don't even claim to know how the first cell came into existence, do a bit of research into what it actually takes for a living cell to actually live. I've posted several vids detailing some of the things required but check for yourself,*the statistics involved are phenomenally stacked against anything like that happening by random chance, so much so it is in mathematical terms impossible. *


That is absolute nonsense. As I said in a previous post, probability after the fact is meaningless.People fall for it all the time so you are not alone but it is still a logically flawed approach. Using probability for forecasting or planning is fine but using it to try and prove that something that has happened shouldn't have happened is beyond silly.

Let me try and give you an example and I'll use really big numbers because the bigger the number the more people tend to fall for this nonsense.

There are roughly 30 million registered vehicles on Britain's roads. So let's say you and I stand at a busy junction and I claim I can guess the registration number of the next car to come into view. The odds would be 30000000:1 (rounded for simplicity) against of me doing that. Now that's a big number but it's not an "impossibly big" number so let's up the game. I claim that I can predict the next 10 license plates that come into view. The probability of that is 5.9x10^74:1 against. Longhand:

5900000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000:1.

I think we can all agree that is a ridiculously large number and if I were indeed to predict the next 10 license plates the only reasonable conclusion would be that it was some kind of trick as it is effectively mathematically impossible.

So is a random sequence of 10 license plates always a mathematical impossibility? Of course not. We each see that and more countless times every day. It is only impossible to try and predict (forward looking) 10 random license plates. You arguing that life couldn't have occurred by chance because it is so mathematically unlikely is like you screaming at 10 cars in Tescos car park that they can't possibly be there because it is a mathematical impossibility.


----------



## nowhereboy (May 22, 2012)

Well put Ian!

Now 12 gauge, please wrap your head around that for a minute ^.

Religious people drive me mad, they choose a religion based on faith, then look for "evidence" that prove's their theory. I prefer to do things the other way round, you know logically analyzing all information and basing my belief on the most logical outcome.

Nearly every religious person uses the former. Makes sense really, because anyone who looks at it logically is going to be an atheist, unless they're a bit slow in the head.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

nowhereboy said:


> Makes sense really, because anyone who looks at it logically is going to be an atheist, unless they're a bit slow in the head.


I know many very intelligent religious people. Calling people thick for believing in a god is not helpful or accurate.


----------



## nowhereboy (May 22, 2012)

Ultrasonic said:


> I know many very intelligent religious people. Calling people thick for believing in a god is not helpful or accurate.


That's not quite true.

I said if people choose religion after careful unbiased analysis of the evidence that makes them stupid. Most religious people don't choose it, they're born into it, such people are not stupid, they're brainwashed, there's a difference.

Frankly, if you're not born into religion and you research it and decide that's the most plausible answer to life on earth you must have a few screw's loose.... (In my opinion).


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

nowhereboy said:


> That's not quite true.
> 
> I said if people choose religion after careful unbiased analysis of the evidence that makes them stupid. Most religious people don't choose it, they're born into it, such people are not stupid, they're brainwashed, there's a difference.
> 
> Frankly, if you're not born into religion and you research it and decide that's the most plausible answer to life on earth you must have a few screw's loose.... (In my opinion).


I read and understood what you said. I know university physics and engineering professors who are religious. They have thought about it and are not thick. Although I do think they're wrong.

(Dragging intelligence into an already contentious subject won't do anyone any favours IMHO.)

Edit: and note I specifically responded to your point about being an atheist, not in relation to evolution.


----------



## trainiac (Sep 5, 2011)

Evolution is no longer a theory. There is plenty of observable proof. Religion, on the other hand, is theoretical. You can't prove or disprove "god/gods/goddesses". Belief in it/they are a matter of faith, not observable events. Don't trust anyone, especially any American evangelist with big-money megachurches and a TV network, who says "God spoke to me last night and told me to ......" Or someone whose bumper sticker says, "God said, I believe it, and that's final."You know that just ain't right. They checked their minds at the door, I guess.

Read this article very carefully. It's not just about Google but the much larger issue being discussed in this thread. It includes proof of observed evolution, which I quote here:

"In fact, microbiologists just a couple years ago for the first time witnessed the evolution of a wholly new metabolic pathway in a bacterial colony -- sort of the microbial equivalent of growing wings or an extra set of arms."

Ips facto. QED.

http://www.dailytech.com/Creationists+are+Mad+About+Google+Doodle+Depicting+Evolution/article37536.htm


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

12 gauge said:


> I'm asking what caused the big bang? The big bang didn't cause itself, something must have initiated it. Scientists agree that the cause is unknown or unclear. The same goes for the first living cell, the top scientists don't even claim to know how the first cell came into existence, do a bit of research into what it actually takes for a living cell to actually live. I've posted several vids detailing some of the things required but check for yourself,the statistics involved are phenomenally stacked against anything like that happening by random chance, so much so it is in mathematical terms impossible.


I posted a video too. I have calculated a probability of 100% that you definitely didn't watch it.

You don't know anything about abiogenesis.

You don't know anything about the RNA world theory.

You don't know anything about the actual probabilities involved (there are lots of lovely articles about the actual probability if you cared to look)

Chemistry involves a lot of stuff that isn't random; atoms, elements, molecules, compounds have certain characteristics and behave may behave in predictable ways. Before "life" began was pure Chemistry. "Random chance" is not what we are talking about here.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Lotte said:


> I posted a video too. I have calculated a probability of 100% that you definitely didn't watch it.
> 
> You don't know anything about abiogenesis.
> 
> ...


1) wrong, I watched the video, I hope you're a better scientist than you are a statistician.

2) yes maybe I don't, but I'm humble enough to say I'm wiling to learn. I haven't claimed to know a lot,I'm not here to prove how knowledgeable I am.

3) I've read a bit about Dennis Overbye and his work, don't get angry but to me its evidence for Intelligent design not random chance See here

4) I have looked and they're astronomical

5) You need to have something to work with, even if one were to entertain the ridiculous idea that the inanimate could somehow convert animate you still need to have the ingredients, 0+0=0.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Ian_Montrose said:


> That is absolute nonsense. As I said in a previous post, probability after the fact is meaningless.People fall for it all the time so you are not alone but it is still a logically flawed approach. Using probability for forecasting or planning is fine but using it to try and prove that something that has happened shouldn't have happened is beyond silly.
> 
> Let me try and give you an example and I'll use really big numbers because the bigger the number the more people tend to fall for this nonsense.
> 
> ...


I get your point but surely this would be the case if we were to agree that it was chance that led to the first life form, the end result is not what is being disputed but whether it was a series of unguided events that led to the formation of the cell or whether it was a guided process.


----------



## Ian_Montrose (Nov 13, 2007)

12 gauge said:


> I get your point but surely this would be the case if we were to agree that it was chance that led to the first life form, the end result is not what is being disputed but whether it was a series of unguided events that led to the formation of the cell or whether it was a guided process.


I think we have to be careful about what we think we mean when we use the word chance or any of its pseudonyms. Let me give you another example, if only because I love the fascination the human brain has with large numbers and how easily it can be duped into thinking there is a special significance in something that is actually quite ordinary.

If you have 2 objects they can be arranged in only 2 different ways. If you have a collection of 20 objects these can be arranged in 2.4x10^18 different sequences. Do the arithmetic and the number of possibilities is easily verified but very few people would look at a pile of 20 DVDs and instinctively realize that they could be stacked on a shelf in over 2 billion billion different ways. That's a mind-blowing number of possibilities from a very small number of everyday items.Now, armed with the knowledge of knowing how many possible outcomes there are, let's say you ask a blind man to stack a randomized pile of 20 DVDs from a box set and on his first attempt he puts them on the shelf in perfect chronological order. You would be dumbfounded, amazed and convinced there must be an explanation for this miraculous outcome, it couldn't just be pure chance. But here's the thing, the DVDs are no less likely or unlikely to be arranged in that order than any of the other gazillions of possible ways. It's simply that you put some special significance in the result. That is a hard one to get the head around I admit but it is true. Now that's not to say there wasn't some outside interference but we cannot use maths alone as conclusive proof. We need something more than that.

The biggest "something more" favoured by ID advocates appears to be that life, or some of it's sub-components like proteins or DNA, is so amazing there must be more to it than just the laws of physics, biology and chemistry.But why do they think this? Everything around us in the universe is amazing, almost beyond human comprehension if you look at it in enough detail. Look at the humble atom. A construct of electrons, protons and neutrons. Simple little things on their own (on the face of it) but the diversity of outcomes depending on the number of each and the way they're ordered is fascinating. From those three simple building blocks we get all the elements, including carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. Then look at all the possible outcomes we get from combining those three elements in different ratios and in different conditions. Carbon on it's own can be black, crumbly charcoal or it can be the almost unbreakable diamond that fascinates us so much. Combine hydrogen with oxygen and we get water which depending on nothing more than a slight change in temperature can be ice, liquid or steam. Combine carbon, oxygen and hydrogen and we can get all sorts of different outcomes from petrol to alcohol to methane etc etc. Everything we see in our world and the wider universe, no matter how complex, breaks down to the incredibly simple components of the atom. I'm sure you agree that is truly fascinating, I certainly think so. Indeed, I think it's just as fascinating as life.

Now tell the honest truth. Do you look at a lump of charcoal and rationalize that it is so spectacularly amazing the only conceivable explanation is that a God-being must have designed it? I would hope you don't.So why do you need to think so about life? Getting from charcoal to DNA in a mathematical sense is no more complicated than getting from the 2 possibilities of 2 DVDs to getting the n x 10^nnn possibilities of nn DVDs. All you need is a sufficient number of variables and time.

Where you go is up to you. I'm not going to claim I can prove the God-being doesn't exist and I'm not going to insult you if you chose to believe he does. I do think though that the approach the ID advocates take is intellectually flawed and you do yourself a disservice by joining them. We should all aspire to advancing our knowledge and to dismiss things we don't yet understand fully by crediting them to a God-being is just giving ourselves an easy excuse for accepting our ignorance rather than trying to decrease it.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Thanks Ian, still trying to get my head around exactly what you're saying lol, but came across this when having a search and I think the guy has given a good analogy.



Quote said:


> I think there is also another way of looking at it, not contradictory at all, just a different angle, and that is, the probability depends on the precise question you are asking, which can unwittingly be changed after something has already happened. For example, if 1,000,000 people enter a lottery, the odds of any randomly selected particular one of them winning (all other things being equal) is a million to one. However, once the lottery is over and person A has won, some people say that the million-to-one chance has indeed occured, at least for person A. However, the original _question _itself has now subtly been changed by the knowledge of the past event, from "what are the odds of any _randomly selected_ particular person winning" to, "what are the odds of person A (the _actual winner_) winning", which of course, is 1. Or, put less particularly, the question has become "what are the odds of any undefined one (non-selected before the event, selectable after the fact) of the entrants winning", which is 1,000,000 out of 1,000,000, or 1 again. One can see the odds of the original question still hold unchanged even after the event, by randomly selecting any one of the million entrants to be the particular target of the question. It's still a million to one that your random selection turns out to be the winner.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

O.K guys I accept I messed up I haven't articulated my thoughts very well, posting that first video was a mistake, it probably put a lot of people off from actually listening to the argument.

This is a video I should have posted from the outset, in it Dr Stephen Meyer outlines the case for intelligent design, he explains how I.D theorists do not have a problem with all aspects of evolution and breaks down evolution into different categories and explains which are compatible with I.D and which are not, he also goes into some of the evidences in favour of I.D and explains why I.D is the best explanation for them, he also explains how I.D isn't religion even though it may have certain theological implications, but he emphasises that the I.D theory is not based on or derived from religion.Its only an hour long and I would urge those interested to watch it, you may not agree with I.D but at least you'll get an understanding as to what it entails.


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

12 gauge said:


> Its only an hour long and I would urge those interested to watch it, you may not agree with I.D but at least you'll get an understanding as to what it entails.












ONLY A FVCKIN HOUR!?!?!

This guy.


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

takes 15mins to read and will give a better view

http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-amateur-cambrian-follies/

when you post a video of someone who is trying to make a point regarding a theorem they support, do your homework and look at what they actually have a PHD in .


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

aqualung said:


> takes 15mins to read and will give a better view
> 
> http://www.skepticblog.org/2013/08/28/stephen-meyers-fumbling-bumbling-amateur-cambrian-follies/
> 
> when you post a video of someone who is trying to make a point regarding a theorem they support, do your homework and look at what they actually have a PHD in .


Stephen Meyer has responded to Prothero and I could post his responses but that wouldn't inform us laypeople as to who is presenting the more accurate picture, what I do in this kind of situation is I pick out a claim made by each of them and then check to see who's facts are right (at least with regard to the claim I'm checking) In this case I took a look at the length of the Cambrian Explosion, Prothero claims it occurred over a period of 80 million years while Meyer claims it was a much much shorter period, hence the name explosion.

According to wikipedia the C.E occured over about a 20 million year time span, so in this case at least it appears the so called expert Prothero is actually guilty of what he has accused Meyer of i.e twisting the facts/known data to support his preconceived notions.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Do you have any plans to read anything written by someone making the case for evolution, e.g. Richard Dawkins?


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

> Stephen Meyer has responded to Prothero and I could post his responses but that wouldn't inform us laypeople as to who is presenting the more accurate picture, what I do in this kind of situation is I pick out a claim made by each of them and then check to see who's facts are right (at least with regard to the claim I'm checking) In this case I took a look at the length of the Cambrian Explosion, Prothero claims it occurred over a period of 80 million years while Meyer claims it was a much much shorter period, hence the name explosion.
> 
> According to wikipedia the C.E occured over about a 20 million year time span, so in this case at least it appears the so called expert Prothero is actually guilty of what he has accused Meyer of i.e twisting the facts/known data to support his preconceived notions.


again , as in pretty much every other response that challenges your youtube videos you are completely ignoring what has been said by the person responding to you.



> when you post a video of someone who is trying to make a point regarding a theorem they support, do your homework and* look at what they actually have a PHD in .*


out of the 2 persons you have quoted one is qualified to offer a theorem and one is not , * hint > the person you posted in the youtube video is not

from your responses in this thread there are 2 possible explanations

1/ you are trolling

2/ you dont have a clue what you are talking about and are grasping at any straws you can to try and support your addled thinking

either way i'll leave you too it as from my viewpoint its like trying to teach a monkey to play bachs english suites


----------



## BoomTime (Feb 19, 2009)

12 gauge said:


> Stephen Meyer has responded to Prothero and I could post his responses but that wouldn't inform us laypeople as to who is presenting the more accurate picture, what I do in this kind of situation is I pick out a claim made by each of them and then check to see who's facts are right (at least with regard to the claim I'm checking) In this case I took a look at the length of the Cambrian Explosion, Prothero claims it occurred over a period of 80 million years while Meyer claims it was a much much shorter period, hence the name explosion.
> 
> According to wikipedia the C.E occured over about a 20 million year time span, so in this case at least it appears the so called expert Prothero is actually guilty of what he has accused Meyer of i.e twisting the facts/known data to support his preconceived notions.


And we all know that what Wikipedia says is right!

It cant be randomly edited by anyone at all...

Seems legit!


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment

There you go, question answered evolution is fact.

This is also covered in depth in one of the chapters in the greatest show on earth.

TLR - Bacteria evolve differently under the same conditions, but usually end up with the same improvement but using different methods to get there, apart from one sample, the evolved to take energy from a different source to the rest. proving there's no intelligence to it or they would all evolve the same.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

aqualung said:


> again , as in pretty much every other response that challenges your youtube videos you are completely ignoring what has been said by the person responding to you.
> 
> out of the 2 persons you have quoted one is qualified to offer a theorem and one is not , * hint > the person you posted in the youtube video is not
> 
> ...


Attacking the man wont win the argument, yes he's not a Paleontologist but neither is Dawkins, I don't see Darwinist's screaming blue murder when non specialists in their camp write about a whole host of subjects they don't actually have qualifications in, the fact is the actual science needs to be scrutinised not ad hominem attacks. As far as the critical review you posted I already explained that neither you nor I have the resources to check each and every detail, but I explained what I do in such situations and thus far it seems your man was chatting breeze for want of a more scientific term.

At the end of the day the Cambrian Explosion poses a great problem for neo Darwinism, the scientists know and understand this

Here is James Valentine (whom Prothero actually recommends a a source) trashing Prothero's 80 million years claim and also explaining why the Cambrian Explosion is problematic for evolutionists.






Here's a quote from Dawkins,



Quote said:


> For example the Cambrian strata of rocks&#8230; are the oldest ones in which we find most of the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is *as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history*
> 
> Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, W. W. Norton, London, 1986, p. 229. (emphasis added)


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

12 gauge said:


> Attacking the man wont win the argument, yes he's not a Paleontologist but neither is Dawkins, I don't see Darwinist's screaming blue murder when non specialists in their camp write about a whole host of subjects they don't actually have qualifications in, the fact is the actual science needs to be scrutinised not ad hominem attacks. As far as the critical review you posted I already explained that neither you nor I have the resources to check each and every detail, but I explained what I do in such situations and thus far it seems your man was chatting breeze for want of a more scientific term.
> 
> At the end of the day the Cambrian Explosion poses a great problem for neo Darwinism, the scientists know and understand this
> 
> ...


That quote from dawkins seems to have been taken out of context, he's explaining the argument, the creationist use, to prove them wrong, what he will have been explaining, is that mammals don't appear in any of the rock layers before that period, proving, that all the fossils found in the layers below this, must have been around before mammals evolved, showing that there was life before mammals evolved and proving, the world is more than 6000years old and no we won't be basing the age of those fossils on sedimental rocks, but also carbon dating, to cross reference they have the correct dates.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

Denied said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment
> 
> There you go, question answered evolution is fact.
> 
> ...


The bacteria adapted, such adaptation is not disputed by I.D proponents, the experiment doesn't really prove anything, those bacteria could uptake citrate anyway only not in a anaerobic environment, so after thousands and thousands of generations one colony adapted to their oxygen free surroundings and began to utilise citrate as an energy source.


----------



## AngryBuddha (Nov 25, 2015)

JESUS JESUS JESUS, THE ONLY FACT THERE IS!!!!


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

12 gauge said:


> The bacteria adapted, such adaptation is not disputed by I.D proponents, the experiment doesn't really prove anything, those bacteria could uptake citrate anyway only not in a anaerobic environment, so after thousands and thousands of generations one colony adapted to their oxygen free surroundings and began to utilise citrate as an energy source.


The bacteria adapted to its surroundings - That's exactly what evolution is, things adapt, then the strongest survive "survival of the fittest" kills all the things that don't adapt.


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

12 gauge said:


> The bacteria adapted, such adaptation is not disputed by I.D proponents, the experiment doesn't really prove anything, those bacteria could uptake citrate anyway only not in a anaerobic environment, so after thousands and thousands of generations one colony adapted to their oxygen free surroundings and began to utilise citrate as an energy source.


The only reason that you started this post,is that you are trying to justify your religion.You know it, and we all know it.You probably realise your beliefs are nonsense, yet you really cant come to terms with it,or admit it to yourself.

Either admit ,its all nonsense and that you will eventually be no more than worm food (like most rational logical humans do) or go join, some religious forum, where you can post nonsense, safe with other blinkered, delusional fruitcakes, who think theres some bloke in the sky.Cos quite frankly you aint got a chance of convincing anyone here.


----------



## 12 gauge (Jul 16, 2011)

essexboy said:


> The only reason that you started this post,is that you are trying to justify your religion.You know it, and we all know it.You probably realise your beliefs are nonsense, yet you really cant come to terms with it,or admit it to yourself.
> 
> Either admit ,its all nonsense and that you will eventually be no more than worm food (like most rational logical humans do) or go join, some religious forum, where you can post nonsense, safe with other blinkered, delusional fruitcakes, who think theres some bloke in the sky.Cos quite frankly you aint got a chance of convincing anyone here.


The reason your getting irate is because you thought science had all the answers, science has put man on the moon so it must know everything, right? Wrong, you and many like you are living under the misconception that science has proved their is no creator, the fact is science itself makes no such claims, the data is interpreted by humans who then draw their own conclusions, now if you think you've got all the answers and are not interested in finding out more on this subject make like a tree and leave, no one is forcing you to read or post in this thread, I myself am interested by this subject and find discussing it in this way pushes me to look further and deeper. Each to their own.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

> The reason your getting irate is because you thought science had all the answers, science has put man on the moon so it must know everything, right? Wrong, you and many like you are living under the misconception that science has proved their is no creator, the fact is science itself makes no such claims, the data is interpreted by humans who then draw their own conclusions, now if you think you've got all the answers and are not interested in finding out more on this subject make like a tree and leave, no one is forcing you to read or post in this thread, I myself am interested by this subject and find discussing it in this way pushes me to look further and deeper. Each to their own.


No scientist believes science has answered all possible questions. If it had we'd have stopped doing science.

If you actually want to push your understanding, read a book on evolution!


----------



## essexboy (Sep 7, 2008)

12 gauge said:


> The reason your getting irate is because you thought science had all the answers, science has put man on the moon so it must know everything, right? Wrong, you and many like you are living under the misconception that science has proved their is no creator, the fact is science itself makes no such claims, the data is interpreted by humans who then draw their own conclusions, now if you think you've got all the answers and are not interested in finding out more on this subject make like a tree and leave, no one is forcing you to read or post in this thread, I myself am interested by this subject and find discussing it in this way pushes me to look further and deeper. Each to their own.


Irate Moi? Not me.Just my opinion.Im entitled to have one, if your going to post threads, thank you very much.Science doesnt have to prove ANYTHING.If your assumption is that a "superior being" (pftt) exists, then please put foward evidence of such.Just making alternative reasons for a hypothesis , without evidence is of no value whatsoever.

Do you use science convieniently?


----------



## Lotte (Feb 10, 2014)

12 gauge said:


> The reason your getting irate is because you thought science had all the answers, science has put man on the moon so it must know everything, right? Wrong, you and many like you are living under the misconception that science has proved their is no creator, the fact is science itself makes no such claims, the data is interpreted by humans who then draw their own conclusions, now if you think you've got all the answers and are not interested in finding out more on this subject make like a tree and leave, no one is forcing you to read or post in this thread, I myself am interested by this subject and find discussing it in this way pushes me to look further and deeper. Each to their own.


Best troll ever.

Got to give the guy credit for being quite spectacular in his total ignorance.


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

> Best troll ever.
> 
> Got to give the guy credit for being quite spectacular in his total ignorance.


OP fails to see the irony that his way of thinking refutes intelligent design - as the designer would have to be fu**ing stupid.


----------

