What is the theory of Evolution

Originally posted by googlefudge
Your opinion however is not worth anything.

Talk origins is a good source of info on evolution and is recommended as such by a number of real
evolutionary biologists.

So if you want to know what real biologists actually think and what evolution actually is and
means as opposed to your usual strawman versions of it then you should and need to re ...[text shortened]... h the surface). (and also recommends talk origins)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U0MnBmSlhE

This is ridiculous. A person who believes in Atheism is obviously going to see things from an opposite viewpoint from someone like me, who believes in Christianity. These are opposing religions with opposite viewpoints. I do not need to prove evolution wrong becasue it has not been proven right, no matter what this idiot says. What great discoveries in science has he ever made? I don't know him but I would bet that there is none. He sounds too stupid.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is ridiculous. A person who believes in Atheism is obviously going to see things from an opposite viewpoint from someone like me, who believes in Christianity. These are opposing religions with opposite viewpoints. I do not need to prove evolution wrong becasue it has not been proven right, no matter what this idiot says. What great discoveries in s ...[text shortened]... has he ever made? I don't know him but I would bet that there is none. He sounds too stupid.

Atheism is not a religion you moron.



Ok let me explain this to you.

For religious reasons you think that the world and everything on it was poofed into existence by
a deity some few thousand years ago. Biblical Creationism.

The opposing side (my side) thinks that the origins and diversity of life on this earth can be explained
by a number of scientific theories which include evolution (which is the bit that deals with the diversity
of living things).


The problem we have with you is not so much that you believe in creationism and don't accept evolution.
Although that is an issue.


The problem is that you MAKE UP WHAT OUR POSITION IS.

You create straw men arguments against what you imagine evolution to be.



So what I am pointing you to is a good website that if you read it carefully will tell you in detail
WHAT IT IS WE ACTUALLY THINK.

I have no illusions as to the chances of you changing your mind as to whether or not biblical creation is true.

But I still have a shred of hope that you might accept that what you are arguing against is not actually the position we
hold.

I am not asking you to change your mind and accept evolution (although that would be fantastic).

I am asking you to go find out what it is I and everyone else who accepts evolution ACTUALLY think.

Rather than you perpetually making up strawman arguments.




It doesn't matter what you think of the credentials of PZ Myers or of the Think Origins website.

The relevant factor is the I am telling you that THIS IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.


So if you want to argue against what I ACTUALLY THINK rather than making up blindingly stupid straw men then
this is the site for you.




Are you really to thick to comprehend this?


What you are doing at the moment is responding to what we are saying by telling US that what we are saying is
not what WE believe/think/know.

This is both insulting and really really stupid.

Stop telling us what we think and find out what we believe and then we can discuss that rather than your idiotic
strawmen of what we think.




Of course someone with the opposite viewpoint will see things differently from you.

But the point here is that I am trying to show you what the opposite viewpoint, My viewpoint, IS.


I don't tell you what it is you believe I ask you.

Kindly show me and everyone else who accepts evolutionary theory (theists and non-theists alike) the same curtsey and
ask us what we believe and then accept what we say rather than trying to constantly tell us we think or believe something
we do not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is ridiculous. A person who believes in Atheism is obviously going to see things from an opposite viewpoint from someone like me, who believes in Christianity. These are opposing religions with opposite viewpoints. I do not need to prove evolution wrong becasue it has not been proven right, no matter what this idiot says. What great discoveries in s ...[text shortened]... has he ever made? I don't know him but I would bet that there is none. He sounds too stupid.

a person can't "believe" in atheism. atheism is not a belief. it's a word that describes a state of disbelief.

if may surprise you to learn that "theism" is also not a belief. it's a word that describes a state of belief.

but you're too stupid to understand the distinction.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I want to see the transition. For example, show me an ape change so it becomes like a man and then the next generation become more like a man and so on until there is no mistake that the final product is a man.

It would do no good if you actually saw something like that, you would find some biblical reference to wash it all away. When stuff happens on timescales of hundreds of thousands of years, you are lost right there, you can't get past your pathetic idea, well actually, not even YOUR pathetic idea, some real village idiot's pathetic idea that you just parrot, that the Earth is under 10,000 years old.

You lose it right there, so there is no actual debate going on with you just unbridled contempt for anything scientific to do with evolution which analytical thinking has shown us what really happened and not the biblical fairy tale that billions of people for some deluded reason still believe as if it were possible and real.

So thinking in such pathetic short term time frames as a few thousand years for the age of the Earth and by implication, the whole universe and when presented with solid logic about it, whatever we say was the result of a ridiculous world wide flood which supposedly happened in Noah's day, where he took dinosaurs, giraffes, elephants, Mastodons, pythons, bacteria, viruses, tigers, rhino's, bears, saber tooth tigers, wildebeests, pelicans, pterodactyls, Tyrannosaur's, Pteranodon's, Parrots, parakeets, thrushes, hippo's, alligators, monitor lizards, crocodiles, horses, cows, buffalo's, monkeys, capucian's, chimpanzee's, bonobo's, baboon's, panda bears,
crows, lizards by the hundreds, every breed of dog, from malamutes to terriers,
triceratop's, Stegosaurus, camarasaurus, brachiosaurus, which byw, is seventy five feet long, Apatosaurus, and all the rest, and of course food to feed all of them for a month. All that in a boat, less than a thousand feet long? So you believe all that BS and of course you can't get past the idea the Earth is only 10 thousand years old, so naturally your particular blindness of mind cannot accept reality. You will die and not be resurrected like you hope, hands held out, take me lord, Good luck on that.

Originally posted by googlefudge
Atheism is not a religion you moron.



Ok let me explain this to you.

For religious reasons you think that the world and everything on it was poofed into existence by
a deity some few thousand years ago. Biblical Creationism.

The opposing side (my side) thinks that the origins and diversity of life on this earth can be explained
by a numbe at we say rather than trying to constantly tell us we think or believe something
we do not.

I think you are confusing adaptation with evolution and are only proving adaptation when you think it is evolution. Just compare the definition this person you referenced gave for evolution and the one I got for adaptation from the answers website and tell me how they are different. I see no difference at all. So this guy is really defending adaption under the name of evolution.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think you are confusing adaptation with evolution and are only proving adaptation when you think it is evolution. Just compare the definition this person you referenced gave for evolution and the one I got for adaptation from the answers website and tell me how they are different. I see no difference at all. So this guy is really defending adaption under the name of evolution.

ADAPTION. New word for today. Wow. Try reading my post just before yours.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I think you are confusing adaptation with evolution and are only proving adaptation when you think it is evolution. Just compare the definition this person you referenced gave for evolution and the one I got for adaptation from the answers website and tell me how they are different. I see no difference at all. So this guy is really defending adaption under the name of evolution.

Did you read anything I just said?

Stop F****** telling me what I think or believe.

Seriously learn what evolution actually means or shut the hell up about it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I want to see the transition. For example, show me an ape change so it becomes like a man and then the next generation become more like a man and so on until there is no mistake that the final product is a man.

examples of the transition of mankind exist. google it. if you want a flip book of examples then obviously thats not going to happen due to the extreme time lines and the fact it is very rare statistically for remains to be preserved.

so if it take over a million years for man to slowly evolve how many stages would you need to see to accept it?

Originally posted by sonhouse
It would do no good if you actually saw something like that, you would find some biblical reference to wash it all away. When stuff happens on timescales of hundreds of thousands of years, you are lost right there, you can't get past your pathetic idea, well actually, not even YOUR pathetic idea, some real village idiot's pathetic idea that you just parrot, ...[text shortened]... not be resurrected like you hope, hands held out, take me lord, Good luck on that.

You are misrepresenting what was put into Noah's very large and sea worthy boat.

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/noahs-ark.htm

From my viewpoint, you seem to be the one parroting the village idoit.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/50634

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are misrepresenting what was put into Noah's very large and sea worthy boat.

http://www.allaboutpopularissues.org/noahs-ark.htm

From my viewpoint, you seem to be the one parroting the village idoit.

http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/50634

You mean mankind and dinosaurs didn't exist side by side in Noah's day?

Originally posted by sonhouse
You mean mankind and dinosaurs didn't exist side by side in Noah's day?

Probably, but I was not there to know for sure and neither were you or your dinosaur freaks.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Probably, but I was not there to know for sure and neither were you or your dinosaur freaks.

So Noah did not put any dinosaurs on the Arc?

Originally posted by sonhouse
So Noah did not put any dinosaurs on the Arc?

Yes he put little ones. I though I already covered that. Maybe It was googlefudge I told instead of you. Do you remember me saying something about the gila monster?

Originally posted by RJHinds
This is ridiculous. A person who believes in Atheism is obviously going to see things from an opposite viewpoint from someone like me, who believes in Christianity. These are opposing religions with opposite viewpoints. I do not need to prove evolution wrong becasue it has not been proven right, no matter what this idiot says. What great discoveries in s ...[text shortened]... has he ever made? I don't know him but I would bet that there is none. He sounds too stupid.

A person who believes in Atheism is obviously going to see things from an opposite viewpoint from someone like me, who believes in Christianity.

-and the more rational theists. “somebody” “who believes in Christianity” would not necessarily be as stupid as you. Remember that may theists, many of who are CHRISTIAN, are not so stupid as you to dismiss proven scientific facts and would find your fanatical insane religious rantings just as moronic, offensive and extremist as I do.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Yes he put little ones. I though I already covered that. Maybe It was googlefudge I told instead of you. Do you remember me saying something about the gila monster?

why not the big ones as well?
not enough room? ( and yet we have elephants and giraffes -many extinct dinosaurs were much smaller than them )
too ugly? ( and yet we have hippopotamuses and pigs )
or just too scary? ( and yet we have tarantulas, snakes and tigers -many extinct dinosaurs were harmless herbivores )
or what?