Origins

[acatalephobic]

I'm glad you have your own interpretation of the drawing, and I'd much hear if you'd like to share your ideas. That the thread continued on to evolution is actually dandy, considering the subject is "Origins" and this particular argument has a lot to do with our views on how life began and developed. You didn't miss the point at all. You are welcome to contribute. You're right, the thread is named Origins for a reason. I guess I just assumed it had a double one; possibly because the less literal one is already something I'm interested in. Dichotomies appeal to me. I guess I just think the dichotomy that exists between theologians and scientists is an insightful one. There are obvious reasons why the two sides don't agree [as shown in your expert comic], but that doesn't mean there aren't equally obvious similarities in both their aims; the process of arriving at them is just different. But my humble opinion is that both sides are equally biased in the sense that they insist on judging the other wholly from within the confines of the process they value the most. Theists ignore/refute points that deviate from the origins of their faith, the same way nontheists ignore/refute points that deviate from anything not arrived at from the origins of theirs [the scientific method]. Now, there's nothing wrong with that if that's what you're into, I just think the purpose of discussion [rather than debate] is to learn from one another. I guess that's why I liked the OP, because finding humor in both the similarities and the differences simultaneously is sometimes the first step to learning something [however small] about someone with a different worldview than one's own.

[Carôusoul]

You're right, the thread is named Origins for a reason. I guess I just assumed it had a double one; possibly because the less literal one is already something I'm interested in. Dichotomies appeal to me. I guess I just think the dichotomy that exists between theologians and scientists is an insightful one. There are obvious reasons why the two sides don't agree [as shown in your expert comic], but that doesn't mean there aren't equally obvious similarities in both their aims; the process of arriving at them is just different. But my humble opinion is that both sides are equally biased in the sense that they insist on judging the other wholly from within the confines of the process they value the most. Theists ignore/refute points that deviate from the origins of their faith, the same way nontheists ignore/refute points that deviate from anything not arrived at from the origins of theirs [the scientific method]. Now, there's nothing wrong with that if that's what you're into, I just think the purpose of discussion [rather than debate] is to learn from one another. I guess that's why I liked the OP, because finding humor in both the similarities and the differences simultaneously is sometimes the first step to learning something [however small] about someone with a different worldview than one's own. You've touched on something I think is incredibly important here. This is why it's problematic when religious people try to argue on scientific terms, because it's absolutely self defeating. Religious belief, for me, shouldn't be talked about or viewed in this method of causation, fact etc, as it has become in most cases, because then it stops being religion, it becomes science. And it's bad science, as Noogah and O'nus show us. And then there seems to be no value left to it, another rejected scientific proposal, this one concerning the idea of a god. I think this is awfully not what religion should be about. Religion is an absolutely different kind of language and thus an entirely different kind of thought process. To talk about it in the way we have become accustomed to, as simply a factual proposal, misses the point, and like I said, reduces it merely to bad science. Talking in the way people do in debate about religion, for me is like talking about the factual value of the rules of a cricket game, or the moral implications of those rules. It doesn't make sense because it's an entirely different process and realm of thought and language. Language specifically. Which is why it always ends in tears when debates occur over the factual value of religious ideas or texts. I'm sadly not explaining myself well, and have probably misrepresented myself as ham fistedly defending religious belief. Take what you will.

[acatalephobic]

...This is why it's problematic when religious people try to argue on scientific terms, because it's absolutely self defeating... ...To talk about it in the way we have become accustomed to, as simply a factual proposal, misses the point, and like I said, reduces it merely to bad science. Talking in the way people do in debate about religion, for me is like talking about the factual value of the rules of a cricket game, or the moral implications of those rules. It doesn't make sense because it's an entirely different process and realm of thought and language. Language specifically. ...I'm sadly not explaining myself well, and have probably misrepresented myself as ham fistedly defending religious belief. Take what you will. I agree wholeheartedly. What's more, I definately think you explained what I was attempting to approach a heck of a lot better than I did. In my attempts to make my posts more concise, I sometimes tend to restrict myself to rather clinical language. You hit the nail on the head, I believe. The two sides speak entirely different languages. I think because its such a fundamental aspect of a persons worldview [how the world was created, how it works, etc], people feel that they have to prove others wrong on it; hence the overt bias. That's fine if that's what you're into. But in terms of discussion, the only issue I have with that personally is that I see a lot of people on both sides accusing the other of being more biased than they themselves are being; and I feel that's a bit hypocritical. Second issue being--as you mentioned--that in choosing to look at things in such a way, a certain amount of meaning is lost. I personally think that both sides are missing a bit of the insight that in some cases is sorely needed. That's not to say one should abandon their entire worldview, obviously, but I definately think elements of both faith and fact are valuable. Just like with anything else in life, balance is key. And I think excluding one half of any dichotomy entirely can often diminish the meaning of the half that remains. And choosing to judge one worldview based wholly on the language of the opposing other...I just can't help but feel like that's downright nonsensical.

[youssarian]

I for one to not mind the idea that matter is essentially condensed light. Now for the idea that it's from the big bang... eh heheheh. But it is interesting to note that while Creationists credit God and big bang followers credit the big bang, either way they both agree that something that existed aforehand, perhaps something that has always existed. And many theoretical physicists amongst others seem to agree that there are multiple dimensions. Now I'm still on the fence as to whether there are multiple realities where infinite copies of me exist, but the idea of 10 or 11 geometrical dimensions isn't really quite as hard to understand. So what does this leave us with? Something/someone extremely powerful created the universe. Maybe the singularity in the big bang was composed of material that was 4-dimensional or higher, so it could be perceived to be eternally existing because it wasn't bound by time like us 3-dimensional beings. Or it could have been God who, also being at least 4-dimensional (and more likely than that, because he was the one who created dimensional space he's not bound to be stuck in one, just as I could build a model of the USS Enterprise but not be confined to any decks) also appeared eternal. But alas the problem is that we can't go back the thirteen billion years or ten thousand years and watch the singularity explode or witness God form the universe or whatever the creation story is for any given religion.

[Noogah]

I am not in deep pain - please do not stoop to trying to personally attack me instead of justifying your propositions. Could've fooled me. Since you like referencing journal articles instead of science, here's one for you: It was an article ON Science, O'nus. You yourself are quoting an article. You can't quote Science, because science isn't written in text until it's written in any form, such as an article. And, as for the mutation, yes. It improved the substance to certain degree, whilst also cripling it at the same time. If that's Evolution... My point was to prove that you ditched and avoided the debate. And my point is that you wish me to debate in your Humanism thread, despite the fact that you specifically forbade it. It is impossible for a religion, conceived by a human, to not be humanistic at all. However, neither are the same things. You keep saying the same nonsensical things and I keep providing you evidence which you ignore No, I acknowledge evidence with replies that you dismess as nonsensical. I'm sorry you feel that way, but that is your own affair. I respond nonetheless. I understand that you are young, but I want you to realize that a vast majority of Christians do accept evolution. Not vast in comparison to the amounts that disagree. And even if they do, I find it ridiculous. How is this relevant? Evolution says nothing about the creation of everything. My point being; I don't know how you can be a Christian (not a literal one anyways) and believe evolution, as it seems rather clear cut to me that the Bible says the universe was created in six days. I then proceeded to say that I would not make a gigantic deal about it anyways. If you do not think evolution is fact, then you ought to also not think gravity is a fact. ...don't you think your going just a wee bit overboard there? I mean, I experience gravity, and I can acknowledge it's existence. Evolution...not so much. in fact, you are missing and ignoring a considerable amount of my posts. Yet here you are being a hypocrite and accusing me of this now. No, you're accusing me of intentionally ignoring your posts. I am suggesting that you may have missed some of mine. That's what you mean, right? Not at all. Do not get personal with me and try to attack my lifestyle. You come into these debates as an acting adult, I will treat you that way. 1.I think you can tell, I'm being sarcastic. You're getting worked up over something so small. 2.I am not pretending to be an adult. I explicitly told you I was thirteen, and never said otherwise. 3.No, I don't want you to treat me as a child, I am simply trying to get you to realize how angry you're coming across. What could prove you wrong about God? Please do tell. Neither Evolution nor God can be 100% dismissed. Yes, a considerable amount of argument can be provided to demonstrate the unrealisticness, but a theory on Evolution's scale cannot be "disproven" beyond a shadow of doubt. What's hilarious is that you are now using it to your defense! No, what's "hilarious" is that you ignored my response in that thread, and outright accused me of not responding. Now, had you told me that the response I provided was unsatisfactory to you, then that would be a different story. It does function as a crucial part of the spine, but if your father had any real medical professional education, he would know that the coccyx is a remaining part of a vestigial tail that is from our ancestral ape relatives. There is no reason to believe this. Despite the fact that the coccyx (a vital part of the body) is similar to an apes tailbone, there is no reason whatsoever to arrive at the conclusion that "Oh! That must mean we used to be apes!". It is especially not a reason to claim that you know more about the human than someone who spent 10 years in medical school, and has been a practicing physician for thirty years. But how can you reference an article that says such things when you, Noogah, refuse that the universe even existed so long? ...to demonstrate to you that even Evolutionists realize the function of the Appendix. I have provided you this before, and you ignored it, but here it is again. + http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...1&postcount=23 I'm not the only one to ignore such things Either way, your thread doesn't prove Evolution. If it did, you would be honored with...many awards. But, do you want me to respond a second time? You could just ask. If you are not a hypocrite, as you say ... I could be either. And if so, it would probably be the hypocritical part. But it isn't on purpose, and I certainly haven't tried to be on the forums. Dog breeding (wolves to chihuahua's) - Flower growing (various) - Plant growing (lettuce to cabbage) - Bacterial vs. anti-Bacterial - Animal camouflage patterns Dog breeding...is breeding two species together. If your correlate that with Evolution, then perhaps I really DON"T understand the theory. Plant growing....mixing the DNA of plants isn't evolution. Bacterial vs. Anti-Bacterial & Camouflage patterns...elaborate. I'm interested. BTW, I'm still working on the holes thread. It will be up sometime next week, I hope.

[snuzpilot]

God is the human nature of wanting to never die. Immortality !

[Universal Mind]

I drew up this expert comic to illustrate a common problem that arises between atheists and theists. I have heard quite a few times that the universe has to have come from somewhere, and that it would be "illogical" for it not to have had a maker. Well, the same question gets posed for God as well. The point is that such arguments are moot. I just thought it was funny. I should have already mentioned that I think that is hilarious and really profound. It hits the nail right on the head.

[Scatterbrain]

Noogah, here's a quick challenge for you: A few facts: - Species pass down their DNA to the progeny; - Selective pressures exist in nature, resulting in the fittest being more likely to survive and pass their DNA; - DNA mixes and mutates; - Species continue on surviving and reproducing for thousands of years or more (life on Earth as a whole is at least billions of years old). Now, are you able to provide an explanation as to how evolution can possibly NOT happen under these factual circumstances? .

[Jesus of Suburbia]

I ♥ this comic. Hilarious. It's also hilarious when I ask this question and the best answer they can come up with is, "He made himself." or they say, "I don't know." but when us atheists answer that same response to, "What made the universe" we're stupid and they're right. Fucking hypocrites.... *mumble mumble religious mumble*

[O'nus]

It was an article ON Science, O'nus. You yourself are quoting an article. You can't quote Science, because science isn't written in text until it's written in any form, such as an article. And, as for the mutation, yes. It improved the substance to certain degree, whilst also cripling it at the same time. If that's Evolution... I quoted an article in spite of you only quoting articles. I have given you a plethora of scientific journal entries. And my point is that you wish me to debate in your Humanism thread, despite the fact that you specifically forbade it. No, I said that you abandoned the other thread. Pay attention. However, neither are the same things. If you would read, you would see that I am saying every religion is humanistic, but humanism can exist independently. No, I acknowledge evidence with replies that you dismess as nonsensical. I'm sorry you feel that way, but that is your own affair. I respond nonetheless. You have no acknowledged my facts and you are still dodging them and defending yourself rather than acknowledging them. My point being; I don't know how you can be a Christian (not a literal one anyways) and believe evolution, as it seems rather clear cut to me that the Bible says the universe was created in six days. I then proceeded to say that I would not make a gigantic deal about it anyways. The universe has been proven to be older than 13 billion years old - even you quoted an article saying that humans are 8 million years old. Can you keep your own story straight? ...don't you think your going just a wee bit overboard there? I mean, I experience gravity, and I can acknowledge it's existence. Evolution...not so much. You have proven evolution in your very own birth. How do you think you evolved as a spermicide? It is a fact that evolution has more proof for itself than gravity. You go ahead and find me the proven cause of gravity and I will retract my statement. No, you're accusing me of intentionally ignoring your posts. I am suggesting that you may have missed some of mine. I am not accusing, I am proving. You are still only defending yourself and not acknowledging my facts that you have ignored. 2.I am not pretending to be an adult. I explicitly told you I was thirteen, and never said otherwise. 3.No, I don't want you to treat me as a child, I am simply trying to get you to realize how angry you're coming across. Then why did you mention your age? Neither Evolution nor God can be 100% dismissed. Yes, a considerable amount of argument can be provided to demonstrate the unrealisticness, but a theory on Evolution's scale cannot be "disproven" beyond a shadow of doubt. Yes, evolution can be disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt - I have already told you ways to do so. It is not my fault if you do not understand how. No, what's "hilarious" is that you ignored my response in that thread, and outright accused me of not responding. Now, had you told me that the response I provided was unsatisfactory to you, then that would be a different story. Oh I ignored it did I? I originally quoted, in this thread, my reply in that thread, to your reply, that you ignored. Let me make it easier for you: + The single reply you keep bring up - http://dreamviews.com/community/show...52#post1166152 My reply which you ignored, in that thread: + http://dreamviews.com/community/show...&postcount=106 Now you ought to see why I find it hilarious that you keep quoting something that you say I ignored and yet here you are ignoring my very reply to that very post of yours in that very thread. And you tell me to pay attention? You cannot even keep track of your own threads. There is no reason to believe this. Despite the fact that the coccyx (a vital part of the body) is similar to an apes tailbone, there is no reason whatsoever to arrive at the conclusion that "Oh! That must mean we used to be apes!". It is especially not a reason to claim that you know more about the human than someone who spent 10 years in medical school, and has been a practicing physician for thirty years. You yourself quoted an article that, firstly stated it is older than 8 million years old, and that it is a vestigial organ from our ancestors. What more do you need? You proved yourself wrong and ignorant. I did not actually have to do anything there. ...to demonstrate to you that even Evolutionists realize the function of the Appendix. Either way, your thread doesn't prove Evolution. If it did, you would be honored with...many awards. Noogah, do you understand that evolution is proven? Do you understand that many people, the ones I have quoted, have won awards? I did not prove it - others already did. It is proven. Evolution is fact. You can deny it all you want, but there is more proven facts about evolution than any other theory of the natural world. Can you understand why creationists are ridiculed so much? It is because evolution has been proven and yet creationists still desperately try to squirm out of it and intellectually sham people. But, do you want me to respond a second time? You could just ask. You never replied in the first place. Pay attention. Dog breeding...is breeding two species together. If your correlate that with Evolution, then perhaps I really DON"T understand the theory. All dogs are related to the wolves. Dogs have evolved due to dog breeding. Your comments only demonstrate your clear mis-understanding of evolution. Dog breeding proves evolution. Plant growing....mixing the DNA of plants isn't evolution. Plants have evolved certain patterns and lengths in response to their environment. I never said anything of mixing DNA. Plants do it on their own. Bacterial vs. Anti-Bacterial & Camouflage patterns...elaborate. I'm interested. Bacteria responds to antibiotics and evolves so that antibiotics have to constantly be changed to kill new forms of bacteria. BTW, I'm still working on the holes thread. It will be up sometime next week, I hope. Good luck - there are no holes in evolution as it is. If you find a thread to show holes in evolution, then you will win awards. I hope you demonstrate an actual understanding of evolution, or civil respect, and consider the prolific amount of evidence I have dispensed to you before you just start trying to defend yourself. However, I look forward to your sorry response that does nothing but defend yourself. ~

[Catbus]

Bacteria responds to antibiotics and evolves so that antibiotics have to constantly be changed to kill new forms of bacteria. I just figured I'd hop in and supplement this excellent point with two very good articles on the subject. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12028788 http://globalhealth.change.org/blog/...istance_anyway And from the above link: When you take an antibiotic, such amoxicillin, it kills all the bacteria that can be killed by amoxicillin. The bacteria which cannot be killed by amoxicillin survive, and now they have more food and space to breed. This is a prime example of natural selection. The bacteria that survives in the presence of Amoxicillin now has virtually free roam to propagate almost completely uninhibited.

[Jesus of Suburbia]

I'm allergic to amoxycillin. Onus mentioned it so I felt it necessary to say that. Meh, still a hilarious comic ^.^

[Maria92]

I used Amoxacillin to get over my pneumonia. Good stuff. To all those who say medicine is a placebo effect only, screw you.

[Jesus of Suburbia]

I used Amoxacillin to get over my pneumonia. Good stuff. To all those who say medicine is a placebo effect only, screw you. Who says that o_O

[Maria92]

I've come across a few people in my days saying that these "man-made chemicals" don't do a lick of good, or else that natural herbs and alternative remedies do a far better job.

[Jesus of Suburbia]

I've come across a few people in my days saying that these "man-made chemicals" don't do a lick of good, or else that natural herbs and alternative remedies do a far better job. Bunch of freaks, I'd say.... *mutter mutter conspiracy nuts mumble*

[Noogah]

I quoted an article in spite of you only quoting articles. ...what?? No, I said that you abandoned the other thread. No, you banned me from the forums immediately afterwards. You have no acknowledged my facts and you are still dodging them and defending yourself rather than acknowledging them. Enough of this. I'm sick and tired of all the hours I spent on this forum being dismissed in such a ridiculous manner! I did INDEED respond to you, and a billion other people I can hardly even remember on multiple threads on multiple occasions on multiple matters. I ignored a ton of posts, mainly because of the problematic 20/1 ratio. I did not single you out, nor did I ignore you on every occasion. I responded to you as many times as I responded to anyone else. It doesn't help that you make such long winded posts that require a good forty-five minutes to respond to. The universe has been proven to be older than 13 billion years old Dude. I think I understand your definition of "proven". I think you mean, "Logically demonstrated through evidence." Nothing has been 100% proven, or disproven about the Evolutionary theory! Why can't you understand that??? Nothing is around that says "Made in 3,000,000,000 B.C" there is no human around who says "I remember the days when little fish began to sprout legs, and walk around on land!" There are falsifiable and shaky theories made to demonstrate how it could indeed be possible. It is plain immature to say "Evolution is a FACT, and it is 100% proven". It makes you biased and silly. even you quoted an article saying that humans are 8 million years old. Enough of that! You continuously evade the point of that article, which was to demonstrate that even Evolutionists realize the function of the appendix. It was to show that even people who believe that the universe has existed for 12 billion years, or whatever, understand the use of it. You go ahead and find me the proven cause of gravity and I will retract my statement. The cause of gravity is unknown, nor is the theoretical cause of your Evolution known either. All that is known is that gravity exists. Why? Because when I drop a ball, it falls. I am open to any theories as to why it works, and how, but Gravity is just terminology for a facet of physics. Evolution is a specific terminology for a theory on how the Universe came into existence. I am not accusing, I am proving. Oh, so you can PROVE that it was intentional? Then why did you mention your age? ...because you asked me. My reply which you ignored, in that thread: + http://dreamviews.com/community/show...&postcount=106 Oh, I see. You yourself quoted an article that, firstly stated it is older than 8 million years old, and that it is a vestigial organ from our ancestors. No, that was the article about the Appendix. I was not condoning that they said it was old, I was condoning that Evolutionists such as yourself realize that the Appendix has a use to it, whether or not you believe it evolved bears no relevance to the fact that it still has an important function. Noogah, do you understand that evolution is proven? Good luck - there are no holes in evolution as it is. But I thought... Yes, evolution can be disproven beyond a shadow of a doubt - I have already told you ways to do so. It is not my fault if you do not understand how. Now your just confusing me. Can you understand why creationists are ridiculed so much? It is because evolution has been proven and yet creationists still desperately try to squirm out of it and intellectually sham people.. No, there are many respectable individuals and scientists who spend large amounts of time studying, and demonstrating the fallacies of the theory. Intellectual shamming has no more part in it then does the intellectual shamming that Evolutionists do to Creationists. And they don't "squirm". It has been done many times easily. If you find a thread to show holes in evolution, then you will win awards. No, because, in your own words, I did not prove it - others already did. Of course, in my case, it would be, disprove it. Besides that, nobody would give a flip anyways, and I would be shunned immediately. Don't act ignorant about it; you know very well that there has been a substantial amount of demonstration of Evolution's flaws. And guess what? I have a hunch that if religion had nothing to do with it, you couldn't care less. but there is more proven facts about evolution than any other theory of the natural world. ...now that's just plain silly. All dogs are related to the wolves. Correct. Related, and that's all. The DNA of dog's and wolves are almost identical. They are relations; not different species. And since it's such a big Creation and Evolution shin dig, here's another article from Answers In Genesis on the topic. And, look. I don't know why these articles annoy you. They just elaborate on what I say in a more professional way, and they save me time. I've had my fair share of copy pastes from you too. Plants do it on their own. Sounds suspiciously like a function to me. It's sometimes called a "horizontal gene transfer". Antibiotic resistant bacteria have been found in frozen bodies of humans who dies long before antibiotics. And, the bacteria who do gain this trait also have to suffer a defect in general functionality. Again, this is another common Creation/Evolution argument. We could go back and forth all day on it, and usually run around in circles. If you care, here is another Answers In Genesis article on the topic. Yes, natural selection will occur at times. No, that does not prove Evolution. However, I look forward to your sorry response that does nothing but defend yourself. Good grief. A few facts: - Species pass down their DNA to the progeny; - Selective pressures exist in nature, resulting in the fittest being more likely to survive and pass their DNA; - DNA mixes and mutates; - Species continue on surviving and reproducing for thousands of years or more (life on Earth as a whole is at least billions of years old). 1.Rarely does a creature die thanks to mutation. 2.Never has a genetic mutation occurred that was known to make an animal work better -if anything, it dies, or suffered. 3.The age of the earth is still highly debatable. Genetic mutations happen alot, but they rarely do anything. When they do, it's usually bad. A goat might be born with a human face... So far, nature has not exhibited any sort of Evolutionary progress in animals. That took me about an hour to write. I think I'm finished with this thread, O'nus. If you could perhaps crop your responses to a more doable length, I might continue correspondence, but this is just getting out of hand for me.

[Maria92]

1.Rarely does a creature die thanks to mutation. 2.Never has a genetic mutation occurred that was known to make an animal work better -if anything, it dies, or suffered. 3.The age of the earth is still highly debatable. Genetic mutations happen alot, but they rarely do anything. When they do, it's usually bad. A goat might be born with a human face... So far, nature has not exhibited any sort of Evolutionary progress in animals. 1. O'rly? Cancer is a mutation. It kills stuff all the time. 2. O'rly? Sources, please. Because, you know, I think some AIDS researchers would like to tell you about how quickly the disease adapts to whatever drug they introduce it to... 3. O'rly? Because it isn't. 4. O'rly? Again, sources. Mutations occur all the time, and can often be detrimental. Mutations within an organism produce little effect, but mutations occur constantly. Cancer, if allowed to get out of hand, is a serious result of a mutation. Gametic mutations produce much more severe problems, often for the bad, but can still happen for the better... 5. O'rly? Requesting further citation (as usual). Humans have developed livestock and such based on selective breeding, and has also developed crops in a similar fashion. The first potatoes were so small as to barely be worth one's time, and the first almonds were too poisonous to safely eat. Is this evolution? Humans are, technically, a part of nature, albeit a part of nature that can think. WE have driven evolution, and the evidence for this cannot be denied. WE are a selective pressure.

[O'nus]

No, you banned me from the forums immediately afterwards. What's holding you back now..? Enough of this. I'm sick and tired of all the hours I spent on this forum being dismissed in such a ridiculous manner! I did INDEED respond to you, and a billion other people I can hardly even remember on multiple threads on multiple occasions on multiple matters. I ignored a ton of posts, mainly because of the problematic 20/1 ratio. I did not single you out, nor did I ignore you on every occasion. I responded to you as many times as I responded to anyone else. It doesn't help that you make such long winded posts that require a good forty-five minutes to respond to. I provided evidence that you asked for. You ignored/neglected it. Defend yourself all you wish - that is the case. You spend more time defending yourself then considering the content. Dude. I think I understand your definition of "proven". I think you mean, "Logically demonstrated through evidence." Nothing has been 100% proven, or disproven about the Evolutionary theory! Why can't you understand that??? Nothing is around that says "Made in 3,000,000,000 B.C" there is no human around who says "I remember the days when little fish began to sprout legs, and walk around on land!" There are falsifiable and shaky theories made to demonstrate how it could indeed be possible. It is plain immature to say "Evolution is a FACT, and it is 100% proven". It makes you biased and silly. No fact is ever 100%, but we can be 98% certain. This is because science always gives room for falsifiability, unlike religion. Evolution is 98% fact. I have given you the evidence. You can attack me and defend yourself all you want - it just demonstrates your incapability to accept and acknowledge the facts I have provided you. Enough of that! You continuously evade the point of that article, which was to demonstrate that even Evolutionists realize the function of the appendix. It was to show that even people who believe that the universe has existed for 12 billion years, or whatever, understand the use of it. That's right. It's use is also the fact that it is a vestigial organ from our ancestors that we evolved from millions of years ago. Thank you for bringing it up. The cause of gravity is unknown, nor is the theoretical cause of your Evolution known either. All that is known is that gravity exists. Why? Because when I drop a ball, it falls. I am open to any theories as to why it works, and how, but Gravity is just terminology for a facet of physics. Evolution is a specific terminology for a theory on how the Universe came into existence. We know what causes evolution. It's called natural selection. Evolution is fleshed and proven. I have provided you the facts and still you talk as though you haven't read even a wiki article on it. Oh, I see. Look two posts down from that. Holy crap - pay attention. No, that was the article about the Appendix. I was not condoning that they said it was old, I was condoning that Evolutionists such as yourself realize that the Appendix has a use to it, whether or not you believe it evolved bears no relevance to the fact that it still has an important function. Oh I see - you can pick and choose what can prove you right and me wrong, but when I have undeniable proof you can just ignore it and pretend like I never brought it up and call others ignorant. I see. There's a word for that - hypocrisy. But I thought... Now your just confusing me. Evolution can be proven wrong but it hasn't been proven wrong. No, there are many respectable individuals and scientists who spend large amounts of time studying, and demonstrating the fallacies of the theory. Intellectual shamming has no more part in it then does the intellectual shamming that Evolutionists do to Creationists. And they don't "squirm". It has been done many times easily. Evolution has never been proven wrong yet. Go ahead, quote me a scientific article doing so. Sorry, religions website articles do not count as scientific - that would be rude and unethical to try and disprove years of work by just one pastor's column on a website he wrote on a Sunday after watching a CNN commerical on Dawkins. Of course, in my case, it would be, disprove it. Besides that, nobody would give a flip anyways, and I would be shunned immediately. Don't act ignorant about it; you know very well that there has been a substantial amount of demonstration of Evolution's flaws. And guess what? I have a hunch that if religion had nothing to do with it, you couldn't care less. You have yet to provide any of this. Go ahead - do what you have yet to do so far. You can defend yourself and attack me as much as you like - but you have still yet to acknowledge the facts I have provided you. Correct. Related, and that's all. The DNA of dog's and wolves are almost identical. They are relations; not different species. And since it's such a big Creation and Evolution shin dig, here's another article from Answers In Genesis on the topic. And, look. I don't know why these articles annoy you. They just elaborate on what I say in a more professional way, and they save me time. I've had my fair share of copy pastes from you too. How dare you quote genesis to me to disprove evolution? That's ridiculous. Do you not realize that equivocation of that website? It is incredibly pseudo-intellectual. It manipulates people like you because you obviously do not want to think for yourself. That article did not even come close to proving evolution of dogs wrong - it's just doing a pathetic weasel wording to make it sound less believable. It is the equivalent of me saying, "You're wrong - Creationists are just not as educated as the rest of us; thus, you are wrong." For someone who says that they respect science, do not be so insulting to bring up non-scientific sources to disprove scientific again please. It's sometimes called a "horizontal gene transfer". Antibiotic resistant bacteria have been found in frozen bodies of humans who dies long before antibiotics. And, the bacteria who do gain this trait also have to suffer a defect in general functionality. Again, this is another common Creation/Evolution argument. We could go back and forth all day on it, and usually run around in circles. If you care, here is another Answers In Genesis article on the topic. Yes, natural selection will occur at times. No, that does not prove Evolution. Answers in Genesis is not scientific. Answers in Genesis is not academic. Answers in Genesis is clearly bias. There are many places that make a living demonstrating the flaws and lies from AiG to people like you to expose them and manipulate your mind: + http://aigbusted.blogspot.com/ It is up to you to take such things to heart and not think for yourself. You can defend yourself and attack me as much as you like - but you have still yet to acknowledge the facts I have provided you. 1.Rarely does a creature die thanks to mutation. 2.Never has a genetic mutation occurred that was known to make an animal work better -if anything, it dies, or suffered. You can defend yourself and attack me as much as you like - but you have still yet to acknowledge the facts I have provided you. 3.The age of the earth is still highly debatable. No it is not. You can defend yourself and attack me as much as you like - but you have still yet to acknowledge the facts I have provided you. Genetic mutations happen alot, but they rarely do anything. When they do, it's usually bad. A goat might be born with a human face... So far, nature has not exhibited any sort of Evolutionary progress in animals. That took me about an hour to write. I think I'm finished with this thread, O'nus. If you could perhaps crop your responses to a more doable length, I might continue correspondence, but this is just getting out of hand for me. You can defend yourself and attack me as much as you like - but you have still yet to acknowledge the facts I have provided you. Proof that Evolution is Fact These are scientific links, peer reviewed, and unbias that prove that evolution is factual and real. You have ignored them in favour of liars and thieves that want your individuality. Make your choice in life; + http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...1&postcount=23 ~

[SnakeCharmer]

1.Rarely does a creature die thanks to mutation. It happens all the time. Most creatures die before even being born because of mutations. 2.Never has a genetic mutation occurred that was known to make an animal work better -if anything, it dies, or suffered. Are you saying that no animals 'work better' than other members of its species? As in, all individuals belonging to, for example, species Panthera leo have identical genomes and are equally fit? Or humans, are all humans equally good due to their genes, or do some have better(or worse) immunity, better (or worse) fertility, better(or worse) metabolism, better (or worse) chances when it comes to hereditary cancer and other diseases, etc? 3.The age of the earth is still highly debatable. Yes, in the same way Earth's flatness/roundness is highly debatable. So far, nature has not exhibited any sort of Evolutionary progress in animals. Are you saying that the environment has been the same since all the animals came into existence? If not, how are the animals today alive, if they didn't evolve to be better adapted to their environment? I have a question for you: Do you know why humans are susceptible to scruvy?

[tkdyo]

I have a question for you: Do you know why humans are susceptible to scruvy? because of UNintelligent design ^_^

[Scatterbrain]

1.Rarely does a creature die thanks to mutation. 2.Never has a genetic mutation occurred that was known to make an animal work better -if anything, it dies, or suffered. 3.The age of the earth is still highly debatable. Genetic mutations happen alot, but they rarely do anything. When they do, it's usually bad. A goat might be born with a human face... So far, nature has not exhibited any sort of Evolutionary progress in animals. 1. I didn't say anything about mutations killing animals. Even though it does happen, it's irrelevant to my point which was that certain mutations help a specimen survive. 2. Again you display how far your ignorance goes. In this very thread there have been shown examples of mutations helping survival. 3. The age of the earth is not debatable, this has been showed to you several times but you keep ignoring it. The fact is that there are many, completely unrelated possible dating methods, and they all come back to the same result. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html Your whole post is untrue. My challenge stands. Noogah, here's a quick challenge for you: A few facts: - Species pass down their DNA to the progeny; - Selective pressures exist in nature, resulting in the fittest being more likely to survive and pass their DNA; - DNA mixes and mutates; - Species continue on surviving and reproducing for thousands of years or more (life on Earth as a whole is at least billions of years old). Now, are you able to provide an explanation as to how evolution can possibly NOT happen under these factual circumstances?

[O'nus]

I second Scatterbrains challenge with support of my evidence. ~

[Universal Mind]

Noogah, here's a quick challenge for you: A few facts: - Species pass down their DNA to the progeny; - Selective pressures exist in nature, resulting in the fittest being more likely to survive and pass their DNA; - DNA mixes and mutates; - Species continue on surviving and reproducing for thousands of years or more (life on Earth as a whole is at least billions of years old). Now, are you able to provide an explanation as to how evolution can possibly NOT happen under these factual circumstances?

[Maria92]

I think Noogah's gone from this thread for good.