Soldato
- Joined
- 2 May 2011
- Posts
- 12,324
- Location
- Woking
Do we all have to show our credentials to make comments about the scientific method? The scientific method doesn't change.
Do you believe in evolution ?
- Thread starter kaka4200
- Start date
- Status
No, just Sliver. He has a penchant for terrible debate. For example: when asking him to provide citation/a source, he will turn around and say "well where is YOUR citation?"
Yes, it is just as nonsensical as it sounds.
And before he jumps to the chance I can tell he is going to be absolute itching to jump at: here's the source for that claim.
Yes, it is just as nonsensical as it sounds.
And before he jumps to the chance I can tell he is going to be absolute itching to jump at: here's the source for that claim.
Last edited:
What genes are they?
Do those genes have any other function?
Are these genetically caused appendix issues the result of a combination of versions of genes? If each version of each gene is fine by itself and it's only a specific combination of specific versions of the genes that causes appendix issues, there wouldn't be much evolutionary pressure against those versions of the genes.
There can be reasons why even fatal conditions with a genetic cause can hang around and not be selected out of the gene pool.
Urrm pick an amphibian of your choice.
And for an example of how fish crawled out of the sea, check out mud skippers.
Snakes also have features from where they lost their legs, they evolved from lizards.
Who'd have thunk it.
Those are two very different concepts.
The kind of evolution that this thread is about is not about striving for anything. It isn't about improvement. It isn't about development. It isn't a journey. There's no goal, no purpose, no direction. Organisms don't evolve to adapt, improve, develop or journey. They don't evolve for any purpose any more than, for example, a dropped pen falls for the purpose of journeying to the ground or for the purpose of improving its closeness to the centre of the Earth, etc.
Last edited:
If you did fully (or even vaguely) understand the meaning and implications of the word, you would not think that "god did it" is a scientific theory.
Here's a nice video showing how the human eye evolved from simple beginnings. It's a common creationist argument that states 'How could something as complex as the human eye just pop into existence?' Again they show their ignorance of the subject when they espouse these facile views.
At most it would be a nonfalsifiable/untestable hypothesis. In scientific terms it...well, it isn't. A nonfalsifiable hypothesis might or might not be an interesting idea, but it's not really science. A hypothesis that can't currently be tested can be, but in this context nonfalsifiable means inherently impossible to prove false.
Exactly, a good example is certain species of moth.. Those that happened to have colours that blend in better with the bark of trees they sit on get seen by predators less, and don't get eaten as often, so more of these moths have an opportunity to breed, their less subltly decorated brethren will be picked off by sharp sighted predators more easily, so will be weeded out of the gene pool.
For the same reason predators generally have forward facing eyes so they can judge the distance to their prey, prey have eyes on the sides of their heads so they get more of a panorama to hopefully see predators approaching.
It's not effort, it's just certain accidental mutations that stack up over centuries, creatures with beneficial mutations live longer and breed more, mutations that are detrimental are eaten, starved or diseased out of the gene pool.
An increasing proportion of elephants are being born without tusks. It's an example of evolution on a human timescale. Some elephants don't have tusks because of a variation in genes. In the past, that was a disadvantage in breeding so there was selection pressure against it and it was rare. In the present and more recent past lacking tusks is an advantage in breeding so there is selection pressure in favour of it (elephants without tusks are far less likely to be killed) and it is becoming more common.
The language your referring to is actually called Netspeak, it was developed by users of the internet to save time when instant messaging and communicating via discussion forums
Txtspk is just a name the media banded around when people started using it on mobile phones too.
It's |337 5p3@k, and it has been ruined by hipsters with iphones hahaha
So basically we end up with two theories for life on Earth, one is that an invisible superbeing created the vast universe & two is that life evolved over billions of years or was possibly seeded from another planet.
Evidence for creation is simply non existant, no evidence whatsoever that God or Jesus exists other than a book called 'the bible' A book of ancient writings sorted out & contrived by the Vatican through the past 2 thousand years to suit their doctrine & spread fear into the population. This is the space age not the dark age & yet civilised & so called intelligent people still flock in their millions to worship a god
There is simply no written evidence that Jesus ever existed, not one of the gospels gives an eye witness account because they were written decades after he supposedly lived & died. Those same gospels that give entirely different accounts of the same subject I might add & which continues throughout the bible.
Take the dead sea scrolls, written around the time he supposedly lived, there are around 800 scrolls & thousands of fragments & yet no mention of Christianity or Jesus or his followers.
Look on a religious website & see things such as 'Extraordinary Evidence About Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls' this is a total fabrication, seeing things that aren't there based on deliberate false translation by a now discredited man called Allegro who's reputation was destroyed and he had to resign from his academic position. The only Extraordinary thing About Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls is that he is not mentioned
Evidence for creation is simply non existant, no evidence whatsoever that God or Jesus exists other than a book called 'the bible' A book of ancient writings sorted out & contrived by the Vatican through the past 2 thousand years to suit their doctrine & spread fear into the population. This is the space age not the dark age & yet civilised & so called intelligent people still flock in their millions to worship a god
There is simply no written evidence that Jesus ever existed, not one of the gospels gives an eye witness account because they were written decades after he supposedly lived & died. Those same gospels that give entirely different accounts of the same subject I might add & which continues throughout the bible.
Take the dead sea scrolls, written around the time he supposedly lived, there are around 800 scrolls & thousands of fragments & yet no mention of Christianity or Jesus or his followers.
Look on a religious website & see things such as 'Extraordinary Evidence About Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls' this is a total fabrication, seeing things that aren't there based on deliberate false translation by a now discredited man called Allegro who's reputation was destroyed and he had to resign from his academic position. The only Extraordinary thing About Jesus in the Dead Sea Scrolls is that he is not mentioned
And what about the one most religious people believe that being: a god set in motion the universe as we see it with the laws we discover in it and with animals on this planet that have evolved.
That one seems to be the consensus for the religious people in this thread but you conveniently ignored it. Hmm, I wonder why that is? BTW you have three theories there not two - best not belittle people when you can't get past foundation stage maths.
![[FnG]magnolia](/styles/overclockers/avatars/9.png){kind=avatar}
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
The OP has posted once and that was to start the thread. 550 posts later ...
that's only the most recent of beliefs after overwhelming scientific evidence shows the bible to be full of codswhallop. So you say the majority of Christians believe in evolution but still think a god has to be involved for some bizarre reason?
Quite frankly 'we shouldn't take the bible literally' is a now get out clause by Christians to cover embarrassment at showing incredible ignorance in believing the bible is the actual the word of god but who apparently got everything wrong in describing the evolution of the planet & universe in general that he is supposed to have created
says it all really
that's only the most recent of beliefs after overwhelming scientific evidence shows the bible to be full of codswhallop. So you say the majority of Christians believe in evolution but still think a god has to be involved for some bizarre reason?
Quite frankly 'we shouldn't take the bible literally' is a now get out clause by Christians to cover embarrassment at showing incredible ignorance in believing the bible is the actual the word of god but who apparently got everything wrong in describing the evolution of the planet & universe in general that he is supposed to have created
However, I bet they can count to 3 which seems to be more than you can. You were talking about embarrassment?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2007
- Posts
- 28,768
- Location
- Auckland
- Status