Originally posted by galveston75This Forum is the Science Forum. Here I can say that I doesn't give a sh-t about your precious bible. You have the right to be fundamentalist, but you have not the right to call evolution non-science, and some theory based on a few verses in some old book as science.
How in your wildest dreams do you think only evolutionist are the only ones who know what evolution is about? How can you so blindly assume that? What a foolish statement to make...
Do you know everything about the Bible but yet you say it can't be true? How arrogant as most who believe in evolution usually are.
Now, If you want to discuss religion, then do it in Spiritual Forum. If you want to discuss evolution, then for gods sake, learn something about it instead of dismiss it!
Originally posted by galveston75How in your wildest dreams do you think only evolutionist are the only ones who know what evolution is about?
How in your wildest dreams do you think only evolutionist are the only ones who know what evolution is about? How can you so blindly assume that? What a foolish statement to make...
Do you know everything about the Bible but yet you say it can't be true? How arrogant as most who believe in evolution usually are.
You so far have failed to demonstrate a basic fundamental understanding of evolution, so i think it's fair to say you don't know what your talking about. I don't think that's a foolish statement, and if you think it is could you be so kind as to point out to me how?!
Do you know everything about the Bible but yet you say it can't be true?
I believe some parts of the Bible to be true, i believe some parts not to be true. Can't say fairer than that.
How arrogant as most who believe in evolution usually are
Accepting 150yrs of evidence from numerous scientific fields is now arrogance?! What do you call dismissing 150yrs worth of scientific evidence as rubbish without actually presenting any evidence of your own? I call that arrogance.
Maybe you'd like to take this opportunity to present your case as the alternative to evolution, because so far all you've done is effectively call evolution a load of rubbsih without actually presenting any evidence for your alternative theory.
I look forward to your alternative theory.
Originally posted by Proper Knobmy goodness you people are touchy, and here we arrive at the evolutionary protagonists favourite mantra, 'you do not understand evolution', Lol. we have discussed the basis for your adoption of this theory, based on, the fossil record, based on the case for mutations. You can state nothing with regard to 'this is the science forum', for you persistently fill the 'spirituality forum', with non spirituality and pretence of knowledge, shall we add hypocrisy to the ever growing trait of misdemeanours?
[b]How in your wildest dreams do you think only evolutionist are the only ones who know what evolution is about?
You so far have failed to demonstrate a basic fundamental understanding of evolution, so i think it's fair to say you don't know what your talking about. I don't think that's a foolish statement, and if you think it is could you be so k ...[text shortened]... any evidence for your alternative theory.
I look forward to your alternative theory.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieRobbie when you shoot down evolution, and then display a basic lack of understanding with regards to evolution, i think it's fair to point out that you don't know what your talking about.
my goodness you people are touchy, and here we arrive at the evolutionary protagonists favourite mantra, 'you do not understand evolution', Lol. we have discussed the basis for your adoption of this theory, based on, the fossil record, based on the case for mutations. You can state nothing with regard to 'this is the science forum', for you persis pretence of knowledge, shall we add hypocrisy to the ever growing trait of misdemeanours?
Evolution is defined as -
change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
Do you accept that?
As i said to Galvo, maybe you would now like to take this opportunity to present your case for the alternative to evolution?!
4 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobnoobster you may talk of definitions all you like, we are concerned with the evidence for the premise in the very first instance, not how it is termed, couched, presented, theorised or defined.
Robbie when you shoot down evolution, and then display a basic lack of understanding with regards to evolution, i think it's fair to point out that you don't know what your talking about.
Evolution is defined as -
change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.
Do you accept that?
As i sa ...[text shortened]... ould now like to take this opportunity to present your case for the alternative to evolution?!
For example, you may define a position on the chess board as 'unclear', yet it says nothing about the specifics, does it? it is only when one examines the specifics, the tactical nuances, the positional characteristics, the mobility of the pieces etc etc, that one may arrive at a proper understanding. this appears to me to be the same with science and theology, or any other discipline for that matter. No one is stating that they can disprove evolution, nor that they can prove the existence of God, it cannot be done, therefore the only alternative that seems to remain, is to make an evaluation of these things for oneself. You cannot state that someone is stupid, simply because their evaluation may differ, can you? Yet that is quite clearly the case, as is self evident from this thread. All one can state with any certainty is that there are different levels of understanding.
Take the case for art, people like to hang pictures of Jack Vitriani in their living rooms ( you know the thing, couple dining on a beach, with fiddler and umbrellas, etc etc). why?, because it is a romantic image and thus purely decorative, however those concerned with education and the fine arts in art schools would not have one in the house. why is that? simply because there are different levels of understanding. Are we to term the person who likes a purely decorative print, stupid because they are uninitiated in the history of painting and what constitutes a work of art? hardly, can we?
Originally posted by Proper KnobIf a person is in the judicial system and is investigating the facts in a murder case and has two suspects and one has weak if any evidence against him and the other has over whelming evidence that points to his guilt, then which should the investigator persue?
[b]How in your wildest dreams do you think only evolutionist are the only ones who know what evolution is about?
You so far have failed to demonstrate a basic fundamental understanding of evolution, so i think it's fair to say you don't know what your talking about. I don't think that's a foolish statement, and if you think it is could you be so k ...[text shortened]... any evidence for your alternative theory.
I look forward to your alternative theory.[/b]
This is a very simplistic example as to why when one's see that the evidence just doesn't stack up as with evolution, it's not worth persuing.
This is the way evolution is to open minded people like myself that are open to the Bible and such a theory as evolution. Have I ever said I never looked into or studied evolution as an option? I'm not a stupid person but just because I may not see it in your way does not mean I'm ignorent or that your blessed with any special mental insight. The proof no matter what it may means to you, just does not add up to me.
And I agree with Robbie, if you guys don't want us here, fine. You guys stay out of the spiritual forums.
Originally posted by galveston75I suggest you turn Fabian loose. You don't know who you're dealing with.
If a person is in the judicial system and is investigating the facts in a murder case and has two suspects and one has weak if any evidence against him and the other has over whelming evidence that points to his guilt, then which should the investigator persue?
This is a very simplistic example as to why when one's see that the evidence just doesn't st ...[text shortened]... h Robbie, if you guys don't want us here, fine. You guys stay out of the spiritual forums.
GRANNY.
Now back to bats-
*courtship rituals can take days even weeks
*Female bats have a twin-horned uterus which they can use either side-so there's always a spare
*They can store sperm until conditions are right for fertilization
*They can put a foetus on hold if conditions become unfavourable for birth-then start it up again(just like the kangaroo)
*The clan live in close caring families , share food and chores and often leave their young at home in creche with a few aunties and the rest go off to bed.
Now imagine if women could put their foetuses on hold until conditions were right. No more abortion problems?
Originally posted by karoly aczelCool stuff. The handy work of a designer no doubt.
Now back to bats-
*courtship rituals can take days even weeks
*Female bats have a twin-horned uterus which they can use either side-so there's always a spare
*They can store sperm until conditions are right for fertilization
*They can put a foetus on hold if conditions become unfavourable for birth-then start it up again(just like the kangaroo)
*Th ...[text shortened]... women could put their foetuses on hold until conditions were right. No more abortion problems?
Originally posted by karoly aczelA hen can recieve sperm and reject it if she doesn't like the cock.
Now back to bats-
*courtship rituals can take days even weeks
*Female bats have a twin-horned uterus which they can use either side-so there's always a spare
*They can store sperm until conditions are right for fertilization
*They can put a foetus on hold if conditions become unfavourable for birth-then start it up again(just like the kangaroo)
*Th ...[text shortened]... women could put their foetuses on hold until conditions were right. No more abortion problems?
I don't know if this applies to hens: A female (of some specie) can recieve a load of sperm and keep through her whole life to fertilize eggs, batch after batch. (Does anyone know what animal I refer to?)
Evolution is fantastic!
Originally posted by galveston75I must point out here that more than half of all Christians are officially 'evolutionists'. Odd that you think that so many Christians 'put down the Bible'.
Also most evolutionist are hypocrites in the fact that they put down the Bible and say it was just written by men. Thanks funny, who writes your books ...Lol
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI fail to see what the problem is in defining evolution, for surely if we are going to discuss something then it helps to know what it is we're are talking about. A chess analogy - If we wish to talk about the Nimzo-Indian defence, then it helps if we both agree on the moves that lead to the NID, otherwise the disscusion will be meaningless regardless of how much evidence you present.
noobster you may talk of definitions all you like, we are concerned with the evidence for the premise in the very first instance, not how it is termed, couched, presented, theorised or defined.
For example, you may define a position on the chess board as 'unclear', yet it says nothing about the specifics, does it? it is only when one examines t ...[text shortened]... re uninitiated in the history of painting and what constitutes a work of art? hardly, can we?
The same applies in this discussion, it would help if how i view evolution and you view evolution are the same. At the moment you haven't even demonstrated a clear basic understanding of the evolutionary process.
You cannot state that someone is stupid, simply because their evaluation may differ, can you?
That is true. But you think you know better, when you haven't even demonstrated a clear understanding of what it is you are supposed to be evaluating.
And lets be honest here, you're an out and out Christian fundamentalist, i could present you with a complete fossil record, a complete mapping of the genetic evidence for evolution, even if i had a time machine and sent you back through the ages to watch the evolutionary process happen you still won't accept it. You're an indoctrinated Christian fundamentalist who's happy to accept all the human advancements through science that enrich your life, but obviously the ideas that contradict your Christian faith are inherently wrong.
Arrogance to the extreme, nothing more nothing less.