Hey Christians (especially Slowmutant and iamnotaparakeet)

Page 8 of 9 [ 141 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

chever
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

17 Sep 2008, 3:05 pm

ShawnWilliam wrote:

ah, well it would damage the evolution theory because if a species that they 'know' is millions of years old turns out to be still alive, and unevolved, then that says a lot about macro evolution and it's non-existence.. if things evolve, then EVERYthing evolves, perhaps not the same way, but all things are affected by the theory.

_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"

ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,462

17 Sep 2008, 3:07 pm

chever wrote:

ShawnWilliam wrote:

what the f**k is your problem? do you have a better answere than that?

do you have any?

that picture does not prove your theory.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 40
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

17 Sep 2008, 3:09 pm

ShawnWilliam wrote:

ah, well it would damage the evolution theory because if a species that they 'know' is millions of years old turns out to be still alive, and unevolved, then that says a lot about macro evolution and it's non-existence.. if things evolve, then EVERYthing evolves, perhaps not the same way, but all things are affected by the theory.

But animals which are stable over long periods are not at all unheard. If evolution didn't deal with this, it would fall apart easily. Evolution hasn't fallen apart. Ergo...

_________________
* here for the nachos.

chever
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

17 Sep 2008, 3:11 pm

ShawnWilliam wrote:

what the f**k is your problem? do you have a better answere than that?

Yes: you don't even know what evolution means in the scientific context.

_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"

ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,462

17 Sep 2008, 3:53 pm

chever wrote:

ShawnWilliam wrote:

what the f**k is your problem? do you have a better answere than that?

Yes: you don't even know what evolution means in the scientific context.

hmm, let me think, natural selection and gene selection comes to mind.. changes in the gene pool that result in gradual evolution. But that doesn't make what I say not true, you just assume so much and forget to read what I'm actually saying.

Are you trying to tell me that after a million years, according to the evolution theory, that some animals will not evolve.. but others do? that would seem even more unlikely to me that some evlove and others dont.. doesn't seem very 'natural' to me that some animals would stay the same after that amount of time.

I've accepted the possibility, despite this debate. But your thoughts are completely obstinate despite the possibility of being wrong. And when you have nothing good to say, you hold your head in your hands and get them laughing so they forget that you have nothing good to say.

chever
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

17 Sep 2008, 4:37 pm

ShawnWilliam wrote:

Are you trying to tell me that after a million years, according to the evolution theory, that some animals will not evolve.. but others do? that would seem even more unlikely to me that some evlove and others dont.. doesn't seem very 'natural' to me that some animals would stay the same after that amount of time.

I don't care what seems 'natural' for you.

Evolution is contingent entirely on selective genetic pressure, no more, no less. Apparently those coelacanths made a good living for themselves all those years. As have oak, maple and walnut trees, which have been around since the Cretaceous period. Congratulations, I just explained Bio 101 to you.

_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"

ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,462

18 Sep 2008, 5:44 pm

Quote:

I don't care what seems 'natural' for you.

I'm sure you don't but let me tell you why I do. . everything that we have, in nature, seems like it was meant to be. The very way everything is constructed is perfect. It's not heaven, but just the way we have every kind of fruit, and every kind of animal. I don't think that we ever lived in a world without some of these animals. There's no way to prove that any animal that exists today, didn't exist when the earth was created.
In fact human tracks have been found alongside dinasaur tracks. If the appropriate science 'facts' were available then the evolution theory from where we came from, would be debunked. It doesn't explain why we're here. It's not a good theory.. micro evolution is all but proven, but not macro evolution.. it does not matter if you refuse the definition of the word and its legitimacy.. dogs may become different over time.. but they are still dogs (micro)

sure, it's possible that I've grown to accept the way things are and that is why it seems meant to be. In fact that would be downright logical.. but I feel it as an emotion, which is seperate from logic.. Im not sure if you use the emotional part of your brain yet, as you may be late in developing this particular area.

Quote:

I just explained Bio 101 to you.

congradulations

Phagocyte
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Oct 2007
Age: 36
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,757

18 Sep 2008, 5:59 pm

ShawnWilliam wrote:

what the f**k is your problem? do you have a better answere than that?

do you have any?

that picture does not prove your theory.

Evolution is about living things adapting to their environment through morphological changes. If an organism does not change drastically over long periods of time, it doesn't mean evolutionary theory is broken, it means that there are not many environmental variables influencing change. Organisms don't evolve for the hell of it.

_________________
Un-ban Chever! Viva La Revolucion!

monty
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Sep 2007
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,741

18 Sep 2008, 6:06 pm

ShawnWilliam wrote:

There's no way to prove that any animal that exists today, didn't exist when the earth was created.

Yes, there is. There is no doubt that deeper, older fossil strata contain animals that no longer exist, but do not contain many animals alive today.

ShawnWilliam wrote:

In fact human tracks have been found alongside dinasaur tracks. If the appropriate science 'facts' were available then the evolution theory from where we came from, would be debunked.

There is absolutely no credible evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted in time. None.

ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,462

18 Sep 2008, 6:44 pm

Quote:

Yes, there is. There is no doubt that deeper, older fossil strata contain animals that no longer exist, but do not contain many animals alive today.

uh, not what I said.. I know there are extinct animals under the dirt, but you can't prove that there are no regular animals under there.

Quote:

In fact human tracks have been found alongside dinasaur tracks. If the appropriate science 'facts' were available then the evolution theory from where we came from, would be debunked.

There is absolutely no credible evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted in time. None.

In fact human tracks have been found alongside dinasaur tracks.

by the way, arceologists cover up about as much as they uncover. Kind of like how you filter out the things you don't want to see while you're reading what I'm saying.

ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,462

18 Sep 2008, 6:48 pm

Quote:

Organisms don't evolve for the hell of it.

no, duely noted.

But millions of years is a long time. If humans went from a single spec, into a complex human being over biiillllliiiooonnns of years.. then millions of years should be enough to, hmm i dono.. add an eye in the middle of your head. Don't you think?.. It would be great if everyone could see with a third eye..

Unfortunately, only some can.

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

18 Sep 2008, 7:18 pm

ShawnWilliam wrote:

Quote:

Organisms don't evolve for the hell of it.

Perhaps, but perhaps there is a cost for that. For example, as humans, 20% of our daily energy use is by our brains. So (for simplicities sake) in order to evolve larger brains, we would need a little energy to spare as well as genetic changes.

Would the extra eye contribute to a net energy increase? Hard to say. A bigger brain does. Poor as I am, I eat better than all the kings of yesterday. Intelligence has shaped society to make that possible.

A creature that expends an enormous amount of energy for reproduction purposes is the moose. Each year it sheds its antlers and regrows them.. a mass of bone, blood vessels, fur.. So for that moose to effectively change, its going to need its food source to become a lot easier to gather, then perhaps a mutation to the moose, or more likely a shift in the mating requirements of the female moose. As it stands, the size of the antlers reflects overall health and bone density.

Which might be why sharks have persisted in their basic shape. Their food is sporatic and they often go days without eating, especially the open ocean sharks.

_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.

ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,462

18 Sep 2008, 7:29 pm

Like I say, I agree with micro evolution, but when you talk about sharks changing shape.. have you seen how many different shapes of dogs there are?.. There's many different shapes. . But they are all still dogs, and they still only give birth to dogs. There are varitions of people as well, and some people have a greater immunity to certain diseases depending on where you live, but they are still human beings.. whether it's a beneficial 'mutation' or not, it is still very small and doesn't effect anything.. their descendants will forever remain human.

Fuzzy
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,223
Location: Alberta Canada

18 Sep 2008, 8:02 pm

ShawnWilliam wrote:

have you seen how many different shapes of dogs there are?.. There's many different shapes. . But they are all still dogs, and they still only give birth to dogs.

Agreed. Especially the really odd sized and shaped dogs quickly return to a more basic shape when environmental pressures are let up(ie, humans breeding for traits). There really is only one species of dog. They might not look like wolves, but they will be medium sized and presumably modest in coloration. Some, like collies, have been forcibly changed even in my lifetime, creating health problems.

But no scientist ever claims that "now its a 'dog', now its something else." No reputable scientist thinks of evolution like that. The way that they are talking about evolution is more like software versions. You have Canus Lupus version 1.0, which is the grey wolf. Then Canus Lupus version 1.01A which is the dog, version 1.01B might be the coyote.

Its just that over millions of years you get to version 2.0(which doesnt have to be better, just differently adapted). If the original is still around they may or may not be able to mate. Neither one implies a new species, the labels are purely a human invention and convenience.

_________________
davidred wrote...
I installed Ubuntu once and it completely destroyed my paying relationship with Microsoft.

ShawnWilliam
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Aug 2008
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,462

18 Sep 2008, 9:09 pm

Fuzzy wrote:

ShawnWilliam wrote:

have you seen how many different shapes of dogs there are?.. There's many different shapes. . But they are all still dogs, and they still only give birth to dogs.

umm, I'm petty sure the whole idea behind the evolution theory is that humans were once something other than humans. .

which draws questions in my mind... has a human ever tried to breed with an ape, or chimp? :chin:

they should get on that shitt. .

chever
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Aug 2008
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,291
Location: Earth

18 Sep 2008, 9:26 pm

ShawnWilliam wrote:

It's not a good theory.. micro evolution is all but proven, but not macro evolution.. it does not matter if you refuse the definition of the word and its legitimacy.. dogs may become different over time.. but they are still dogs (micro)

The distinction between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution is essentially artificial. You are being fed BS. There is no 'kind barrier' and, in fact, speciation has been observed during human lifespans.

ShawnWilliam wrote:

In fact that would be downright logical.. but I feel it as an emotion, which is seperate from logic.. Im not sure if you use the emotional part of your brain yet, as you may be late in developing this particular area.

No, you pompous ass.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bC8qBQWc0Pc[/youtube]

_________________
"You can take me, but you cannot take my bunghole! For I have no bunghole! I am the Great Cornholio!"

Page 8 of 9 [ 141 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next

Jump to:

Hey Christians (especially Slowmutant and iamnotaparakeet) Post Reply New Topic

Hey Christians (especially Slowmutant and iamnotaparakeet)