Thread: Short, not to be answered by atheists question.

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

Because it seems to me that mainstream science, no matter how much proof, will never accept that God exists.

This is a totally meaningless statement. Science doesn't pick and choose what it accepts, if there's proof then it's accepted. I do agree that science will most likely never be able to demonstrate that God exists, because by definition God is supernatural, therefore cannot be investigated by science.

Science is the study of nature. Nature is the universe, all matter and energy, and everything in nature is subject to the laws of nature (gravity, inertia, etc). By definition, a being who's definition places him outside of nature or who fails to be subject to the laws of nature is supernatural (literally above nature, or outside of nature). And since science is not capable of investigating anything supernatural, it can't possibly ever investigate God. I provide this because you still don't seem to understand what I mean when I say God is magic. By definition, he is.

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

Also, we're talking about proving definitively that a creator exists. While I don't think we can prove God himself personally is real, I think we can prove that some biblical stories really did occur, thus lending validity to the Bible, and Christianity in general--hope that clears that up.

~SilverWolf~

Oh, there's no doubt that many things in the bible are real. For instance, I don't doubt the existence of Jerusalem, Bethlehem or Nazareth. And we know there were guys named Jesus (Jesu I think actually), and plenty of Josephs and Marys etc. None of that is actually under question, it's the magical claims that are. Was Jesus actually the son of God, and God made flesh? Did he really resurrect 3 days after being crucified? That kind of stuff. Those claims are supernatural, ergo invulnerable to scientific investigation. Nobody has ever been found to rise from the dead or to be the offspring of a deity, because those things are supernatural in origin and there's no way the investigation of the natural world (ie science) can look into them. That's why belief in such things can only ever be a matter of faith, unless God decides to show us some miracles, and those would probably also be immune to scientific investigation.

I agree with you, Darkmatters. Just would like to point out that, unless I'm mistaken, the name is Yeshu.

God bless you!

Quote Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf View Post
Because it seems to me that mainstream science, no matter how much proof, will never accept that God exists.
This is a totally meaningless statement. Science doesn't pick and choose what it accepts, if there's proof then it's accepted.

Have you forgotten the persecution MANY people faced in the ancient times, who stepped a single toe out of the mainstream science view? What about the guy (I forgot his name and am being lazy and not Googling it. Sue me :p ) who first proposed the earth was round instead of flat? Or the first person to propose that WE revolve around the SUN instead of the sun and planets revolving around US? Yes, science can and DOES choose what it accepts, by choosing what to fund for study and which scientific papers to publish. If you are a scientist and decide you want to study something that isn't considered "mainstream" and accepted by the wider body of science, (or if you do--and heaven forbid find something that mainstream science doesn't want to accept) then you will be shunned for it, and people will not take your work seriously because of it.

~SilverWolf~

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

Have you forgotten the persecution MANY people faced in the ancient times, who stepped a single toe out of the mainstream science view? What about the guy (I forgot his name and am being lazy and not Googling it. Sue me :p ) who first proposed the earth was round instead of flat? Or the first person to propose that WE revolve around the SUN instead of the sun and planets revolving around US? Yes, science can and DOES choose what it accepts, by choosing what to fund for study and which scientific papers to publish. If you are a scientist and decide you want to study something that isn't considered "mainstream" and accepted by the wider body of science, (or if you do--and heaven forbid find something that mainstream science doesn't want to accept) then you will be shunned for it, and people will not take your work seriously because of it.

~SilverWolf~

What in the world??!!

It was Galieleo, and it wasn't 'mainstream science' he was disagreeing with - he was actually a scientist and it was the Pope who condemned him for heresy and had him imprisoned for the rest of his life and the book in which he had published his findings was banned...

Because at the time, Catholicism *was* science. We still see the same sort of thing in science today, only it's no longer Catholicism that is controlling scientific progress. If you can honestly say you don't see where mainstream science is selective of what it chooses to publish and fund for research, then I just flat don't know what to say to you about that. Difference of opinions I guess :s

~SilverWolf~

Catholicism was never science! The fact that you think it was makes it utterly clear that you have no understanding at all of how science functions. Science investigates through experimentation and accepts what the evidence says is true - religion does the exact opposite. It begins with an assumption and then twists facts to try to make it seem like the assumption is true, and ignores any facts that contradict it.

And why do you keep saying 'mainstream science'? What other kind is there? The only other thing I can think of would be psuedosciences, which actually aren't science at all but other things trying to dress themselves up as science in order to seem more respectable.

It's not a difference of opinion, it's fact, and the fact is that believing science and religion are in any way the same thing is complete nonsense. It's funny how the people who believe in untenable positions always try to act like facts and opinions have the same validity.

At the time, Catholicism controlled scientific progress, ergo Catholicism, for all intents and purposes, was science. THAT is the point I was making by that statement, and I have to wonder if you knew that and were just nit-picking, arguing over semantics :s

And, I never said science=religion or religion=science. I said the two are not exclusive. I said one can be both a believer in science AND religion both. Science need not exclude religion and religion need not exclude science. There comes a point where science will be unable to, as you said, prove that God is a real being--for that, we'd have to actually meet God, snap a picture or film it, and show the world (and even then you'd have hard-headed individuals who'd just say the whole dang thing was faked).

Still, science can prove certain religious stories, which can lend validity to the religious texts. Science can also examine the complexity of nature, and the universe, and we can understand just how astronomically low the odds are of life just randomly popping into place.

Look, if the chances of me winning the lottery are less than 1 in a billion, are you going to tell me to keep playing for the rest of my life, because eventually I'll win? Of course you wouldn't, because the odds are not in my favor. If the odds of life evolving as it supposedly has in our universe is such a low number, then the odds favor an alternate explanation. Science can help us understand these odds, therefore science can again help lend validity to Christianity.

As for what you call pseudo-science, define that. Because there are many fields labeled pseudo-science that do have some evidence to at least make the idea worth looking into--remote viewing for instance, or telepathy. This is EXACTLY what I mean though, science shuns these fields, because the mainstream--what MOST scientists believe, the scientific field at large, doesn't even want to consider the possibilities, and therefor anyone who chooses to study and attempt to publish any findings on the subject(s) are ridiculed--and THAT is not what science is supposed to be about.

~SilverWolf~

Darkmatters, the more I read your posts, the more I fall in love with you. Just wanted to get that out of the way to start with.

TheSilverWolf, throughout the ages religion has ridiculed scientists when their theories did not comply with their ancient stories of wisdom. Be it Galileo and Copernicus with their ideas of a heliocentric universe as opposed to a geocentric universe or Darwin with his theory that we evolved from the same ancestors as apes with evolution. If it did not fit with the "fables" (quotation marks because we don't have any proof that they happened or did not happen) in a book written many hundreds of years ago, they were publicly shamed for going against ideas of the church. Darwin especially suffered from this reaction to his work because people could not even think that a being as mighty and brilliant as those created from God's image could possibly have evolved from such primitive creatures! That's when the lack of education comes in. You get people even to this day asking "If we evolved from monkeys, why don't the ones in the zoo evolve then?" and it really pains me to see it. This isn't just from religious people, but combined with the stories of religion it becomes a dangerous weapon. People do not know, or desire to know, the mysteries of this universe because they can count on some stories that may or may not be true that don't really have any evidence to back them up.

Here's Richard Dawkins again to explain why that frustrates me:


"Of course you wouldn't, because the odds are not in my favor."
Odds do not have to be in your favor for them to be possible. Going by your idea, nobody would ever win the lottery. Where do you stand on life on other planets? Do you truly believe that we are the only forms of life in the universe? If other life exists, is that not proof that we are not special, that God did not decide to make one special species with consciousness to look after his creations?

Darkmatters, the more I read your posts, the more I fall in love with you. Just wanted to get that out of the way to start with.

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

At the time, Catholicism controlled scientific progress, ergo Catholicism, for all intents and purposes, was science.

Um, no. While it's true that catholicism controlled scientific progress, it did so through coercion and threats and repression. Being able to control science is not the same as being science. If it was then your parents are you.

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

And, I never said science=religion or religion=science.

This is too bizarre. can you be for real? I must be dreaming right now... here, let me google that for you..

These are your posts from a bit higher up n this page. Remember them?

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

At the time, Catholicism controlled scientific progress, ergo Catholicism, for all intents and purposes, was science.

Because at the time, Catholicism *was* science.

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

Look, if the chances of me winning the lottery are less than 1 in a billion, are you going to tell me to keep playing for the rest of my life, because eventually I'll win? Of course you wouldn't, because the odds are not in my favor. If the odds of life evolving as it supposedly has in our universe is such a low number, then the odds favor an alternate explanation. Science can help us understand these odds, therefore science can again help lend validity to Christianity.

Wow, if this is your level of understanding concerning evolutionary biology, then there's no point even continuing this until you educate yourself better. What you just said is so ridiculously simplistic it literally sounds like a child came up with it.

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

As for what you call pseudo-science, define that. Because there are many fields labeled pseudo-science that do have some evidence to at least make the idea worth looking into--remote viewing for instance, or telepathy. This is EXACTLY what I mean though, science shuns these fields, because the mainstream--what MOST scientists believe, the scientific field at large, doesn't even want to consider the possibilities, and therefor anyone who chooses to study and attempt to publish any findings on the subject(s) are ridiculed--and THAT is not what science is supposed to be about.

Well, you do have a point, but you're not expressing it very well, and I think you're overstating it. It's true that many (most) scientists scoff at the idea of legitimate studies into the metaphysical, just as they did at studies into lucid dreaming pre-Laberge (and whoever else was involved). And yes, that's not really a very scientific mindset. It's very human in fact, and a bit arrogant. But as you yourself have already said, there actually HAVE been many studies into these subjects - some more scientific than others.

BUT - if (when) one of those fringe sciences does actually make a breakthrough, as LaBerge did, then even though scientists (as people) might still ridicule it, science accepts it. The findings will be published in the journals and other scientists are then free to try to make themselves famous by disproving the work if they can. If they can't then it's well on its way to being fully accepted as lucid dreaming now is. If, on the other hand, a scientist who has spent a good deal of time working on some fringe subject fails to turn up any convincing evidence, then it's inevitable he'll be ridiculed. That's not a failing of science, just human nature. Evidence stands or falls on its own, and it's on evidence that science relies, not on being kind to people who tried but failed to prove some theory. The problems with remote viewing and telepathy aren't that science ridicules it, but that no scientist who has tried has been able to show any reliable results.

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

Because at the time, Catholicism *was* science.

Science is bad, except when religion is bad, in which circumstances religion is actually science, and science is bad. Okay.

You are totally missing my point. I recently took a class, the history of art/music/theater. (Next time you try to insinuate I don't even have high-school level biology, Darmatters, remember that I probably have taken several biology classes so I am not, as you like to insinuate, uneducated. Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are uneducated, and I take offense at these repeated insinuations). Catholicism had a great deal to do with science. Not only did the Catholics control what was allowed to be studied at one point, but they also had a great deal of control over what we could consider the "media" of the time. Paintings, plays, architecture, all of that was largely influenced by the Catholic Church, who decided that they needed to bring more attention to themselves and away from another movement that was taking place, a shift if you will, away from Church doctrine.

You can say that science and religion were separate all you want, but at the time, Catholics controlled science--it's not an opinion it is a FACT. If you control something like science, and everything scientific must go through you, then science becomes solely a reflection of YOUR ideas and beliefs--in essence, science becomes *you.* Did the Catholic Church not control science at the time? Did they not execute or persecute those who dared go against their doctrine? When i say that Catholicism was science at the time, that is what I mean--but Darkmatters and Xei likes to twist words, and turn their meaning in a way it was never intended, I've noticed--and I don't think that is a good way to make your point about something.

~SilverWolf~

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

In short, the ONLY reason we exist at all, is because of some minute 1 in trillions or more chance of life actually evolving on it's own, with NO help whatsoever from any higher being, be you call Him God (my belief), or some sort of extra-terrestrial being (ancient astronaut theorists belief). You believe that life simply came into existence, due to random collisions of particles and planets and galaxies, to somehow, someway form the EXACT formula needed for life to survive (as we know it). You honestly, truly believe that our Earth is random, our existence is random, all life on planet earth and beyond, if there is life beyond, is simply random.

I say that's reaching, but that's just me.

You don't know the chances, nor do you have any of the required variables. To say it is unlikely that life would form accidentally is a baseless statement. You don't know the usual outcome, hence you have nothing to compare to.

As it stands, evolution fits the picture perfectly, it may not be right, but it has explained everything in unprecedented accuracy.

Most religions are based on the unprovable premise that a god exists, there is no way for science to co-exist with it. Science cannot build an accurate world model if everything can be attributed to "god" causing it, it refutes the very nature of science.

You don't know the chances, nor do you have any of the required variables. To say it is unlikely that life would form accidentally is a baseless statement. You don't know the usual outcome, hence you have nothing to compare to.

Then tell me where scientists come up with the numbers when they say what the odds of life evolving are (it's not just Christian scientists that have stated this, mind you)? If religion can't know this, then neither can science, correct?

Why is it people are so adamant that science and religion have to be separate? As a Christian, I still believe in the laws of physics. Heck, I believe in evolution up to a point. I don't believe a dang human could have come from a dang fish, that makes absolutely no sense to me. But I believe in adaptation to the environment, which is different from the evolution that most people are referring to in a religious debate; that one animal or organism can, over time, eventually transform into another.

If that were the case, wouldn't we see this now? Humans aren't turning into anything non-human. I don't see people sprouting wings, even though it would be advantageous for us to fly. We humans would REALLY have an advantage over predators or even other humans, if we had better night vision, akin to cats or animals that can see in infra-red like snakes. Yet we don't have that, nor are we on the road to getting it. I can't say to myself, "hmmmm, I think I'd like webbed feet because I live on the coast and want to be amphibious" and generations down the road, my ancestors magically obtain them. Think about what evolution is stating. It is saying that somewhere down the road, all life evolved from single-celled organisms. So, these little amoeba's suddenly decide to start reacting more to their environment. They suddenly start to form things to give them an advantage over other amoeba's, and eventually over other organisms that evolved. It just doesn't make sense to me, it's really like my examples above (I know, that was super oversimplified, but the basic premise of evolution is still there).

As for science and religion, there's nothing saying a Christian cannot be a scientist, or any good scientist cannot be a Christian or religious. It just means that said scientist must accept there are things that they won't be able to explain scientifically--and that's something I think even the most atheist of scientists would do well to remember anyway.

~SilverWolf~

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

You can say that science and religion were separate all you want, but at the time, Catholics controlled science--it's not an opinion it is a FACT. If you control something like science, and everything scientific must go through you, then science becomes solely a reflection of YOUR ideas and beliefs--in essence, science becomes *you.* Did the Catholic Church not control science at the time? Did they not execute or persecute those who dared go against their doctrine? When i say that Catholicism was science at the time, that is what I mean--but Darkmatters and Xei likes to twist words, and turn their meaning in a way it was never intended, I've noticed--and I don't think that is a good way to make your point about something.

~SilverWolf~

"then science becomes solely a reflection of YOUR ideas and beliefs"
Then quite simply, it is not science. That's the end to that argument.

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

Then tell me where scientists come up with the numbers when they say what the odds of life evolving are (it's not just Christian scientists that have stated this, mind you)? If religion can't know this, then neither can science, correct?

Why is it people are so adamant that science and religion have to be separate? As a Christian, I still believe in the laws of physics. Heck, I believe in evolution up to a point. I don't believe a dang human could have come from a dang fish, that makes absolutely no sense to me. But I believe in adaptation to the environment, which is different from the evolution that most people are referring to in a religious debate; that one animal or organism can, over time, eventually transform into another.

If that were the case, wouldn't we see this now? Humans aren't turning into anything non-human. I don't see people sprouting wings, even though it would be advantageous for us to fly. We humans would REALLY have an advantage over predators or even other humans, if we had better night vision, akin to cats or animals that can see in infra-red like snakes. Yet we don't have that, nor are we on the road to getting it. I can't say to myself, "hmmmm, I think I'd like webbed feet because I live on the coast and want to be amphibious" and generations down the road, my ancestors magically obtain them. Think about what evolution is stating. It is saying that somewhere down the road, all life evolved from single-celled organisms. So, these little amoeba's suddenly decide to start reacting more to their environment. They suddenly start to form things to give them an advantage over other amoeba's, and eventually over other organisms that evolved. It just doesn't make sense to me, it's really like my examples above (I know, that was super oversimplified, but the basic premise of evolution is still there).

As for science and religion, there's nothing saying a Christian cannot be a scientist, or any good scientist cannot be a Christian or religious. It just means that said scientist must accept there are things that they won't be able to explain scientifically--and that's something I think even the most atheist of scientists would do well to remember anyway.

~SilverWolf~

Evolution isn't decided upon simply because something looks appealing. Otherwise we'd have evolved to have wings and shoot lasers from our eyes. Evolution is a series of mutations that either provide an advantage or disadvantage in your life. If they provide an advantage, you are more likely to survive and breed and pass on that new mutated gene while the others die out. Many many of these changes add up until over time an entirely new species of animal is formed.
Here are two threads I'd like you to check out:
http://www.dreamviews.com/philosophy...evolution.html

http://www.dreamviews.com/religion-s...dont-know.html

Read through the ideas on these threads and see if you understand a little more.

I understand that these aren't cosmetic in nature, but genuinely, would us humans having wings give us a huge advantage over other species we share the earth with? (Granted, they'd have to be REALLY huge wings to support our weight, but you see my point?). There are a wide variety of things that would give us advantages, if not over other species, over other humans--and that is one of the reasons that is proposed for the evolution of creatures, yes? To gain some kind of advantage for their survival, either over another species OR over other members of their own species. This being the case, why do humans seem to be stuck? There are many, many things, from sharper, longer teeth or claws for defense, to gills or webbed feet that would give us an easier time in the water (or allow us to live in more locations on the planet, thus increasing the odds of our species surviving).

~SilverWolf~

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

I understand that these aren't cosmetic in nature, but genuinely, would us humans having wings give us a huge advantage over other species we share the earth with? (Granted, they'd have to be REALLY huge wings to support our weight, but you see my point?). There are a wide variety of things that would give us advantages, if not over other species, over other humans--and that is one of the reasons that is proposed for the evolution of creatures, yes? To gain some kind of advantage for their survival, either over another species OR over other members of their own species. This being the case, why do humans seem to be stuck? There are many, many things, from sharper, longer teeth or claws for defense, to gills or webbed feet that would give us an easier time in the water (or allow us to live in more locations on the planet, thus increasing the odds of our species surviving).

~SilverWolf~

As I said, the mutations are almost random in nature and happen by chance. If a mutation happens in an organism and it is beneficial, it is more likely to survive and pass on the mutation to further offspring while the other versions of the species are dying out because the ones with the mutations have the upper hand. It's known as natural selection.

Because you don't seem to have checked out the first link, I will bring the specific post here:

Originally Posted by Araishu

Originally Posted by Dianeva

What scientists say that? Without really thinking about this topic before, it's obvious to me that we'll keep evolving as long as the following conditions hold true:
- Certain types of people will always reproduce more than others. Ex: More physically attractive people, or people who tend to believe in religions that don't allow contraception.
- Even if everyone reproduced at an equal rate, random genetic drift would change that eventually.

Mankind Has Stopped Evolving | Michio Kaku | Big Think
There's basically not enough divergence or any evolutionary pressure for us to have a dramatic evolution again.

I did read through your posted links. It is my understanding of the theory of evolution, that it is supposed to be constant, that as long as an organism lives, it will be evolving for survival. It can't be both ways, can it? If evolution is the answer to life, then why would it just stop? That doesn't make very much sense to me. As you said, it is completely random, things that may or may not benefit the species. Non-beneficial evolution is generally called mutation and not considered a good thing, good evolutionary traits are likely to be kept by the species in question.

But it wouldn't just stop with us. And it's not just us, either. I don't see other animals evolving in the way that we were supposed to have done. I don't see Monkey's, for instance, gradually becoming humans. Monkeys are monkeys, apes are apes, a dog is a dog. There's a great deal of diversity in these species, but they are still, as a whole, their same species. You don't see any dogs that walk on two legs, or dogs that can speak, or dogs that have evolved self-awareness in the same way we humans have; which would REALLY benefit them given the time dogs spend in human care. My point being here, that there doesn't seem to be examples of this changing from one species to the next, only adaptations within the species.

~SilverWolf~

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

I did read through your posted links. It is my understanding of the theory of evolution, that it is supposed to be constant, that as long as an organism lives, it will be evolving for survival. It can't be both ways, can it? If evolution is the answer to life, then why would it just stop? That doesn't make very much sense to me. As you said, it is completely random, things that may or may not benefit the species. Non-beneficial evolution is generally called mutation and not considered a good thing, good evolutionary traits are likely to be kept by the species in question.

But it wouldn't just stop with us. And it's not just us, either. I don't see other animals evolving in the way that we were supposed to have done. I don't see Monkey's, for instance, gradually becoming humans. Monkeys are monkeys, apes are apes, a dog is a dog. There's a great deal of diversity in these species, but they are still, as a whole, their same species. You don't see any dogs that walk on two legs, or dogs that can speak, or dogs that have evolved self-awareness in the same way we humans have; which would REALLY benefit them given the time dogs spend in human care. My point being here, that there doesn't seem to be examples of this changing from one species to the next, only adaptations within the species.

~SilverWolf~

The reason evolution is not happening at such a rate as it was? Allow me to quote again.

There's basically not enough divergence or any evolutionary pressure for us to have a dramatic evolution again.

And there seems to be further evidence for your lack of education in this area as even earlier in this very thread I said this:

Darwin especially suffered from this reaction to his work because people could not even think that a being as mighty and brilliant as those created from God's image could possibly have evolved from such primitive creatures! That's when the lack of education comes in. You get people even to this day asking "If we evolved from monkeys, why don't the ones in the zoo evolve then?" and it really pains me to see it. This isn't just from religious people, but combined with the stories of religion it becomes a dangerous weapon. People do not know, or desire to know, the mysteries of this universe because they can count on some stories that may or may not be true that don't really have any evidence to back them up.

The part about the monkeys specifically I'm looking at here.

As for dogs and self awareness, dogs are self aware. Not to the extent of humans, no. But they are self aware. You seem to also be confusing survival with becoming the dominant species. It doesn't really happen like that.

I am not trying to ridicule you, but if you truly don't understand evolution, I will be happy to talk to you about it either through the IRC or some other chat medium when I have time and send you some good resources on it. There's no shame in not knowing, if you intend to do something about it.

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

Next time you try to insinuate I don't even have high-school level biology, Darmatters,

I never said that. I believe what I said was that 'if you want to get an understanding of evolutionary biology above the high school level then you should read Climbing Mount Improbable by Richard Dawkins'. I never ventured any kind of opinion on what your actual educational level in biology is. Though you have been making it more than clear that it's pretty low.

Originally Posted by TheSilverWolf

remember that I probably have taken several biology classes

You.. Probably have??! You don't know?

If you did have even the most rudimentary college level education in evolutionary biology you'd know that species don't evolve because an individual decides it wants to. It happens because of changes in the environment that make survival difficult. When these changes occur large segments of a given species, which had been doing well until the change, will die out, while those who's mutations are well adapted for survival under the new conditions will thrive and pass on their DNA to future generations.

Humans have absolutely no need to grow fangs or wings because we developed a far more effective weapon than any of those; human technology, which means we effectively have no predators now. No longer do we flee terrified from tigers or wolves. We're now their predators. When a species exists comfortably at the top of the food chain as we do now, there's no evolutionary pressure to evolve. This is why sharks and crocodiles have remained unchanged since prehistoric times.

You say you thought every species is always evolving? Again, reading just one book on evolutionary biology will very quickly clear up such basic misunderstandings. A species evolves when it's under a great deal of environmental pressure to do so. When things are going well they don't evolve.

And why do you keep arguing that Catholicism was science? Do you understand what the scientific method is? Does or did Catholicism, at any time, practice the scientific method? No.

You keep claiming to understand science but then reveal a complete and profound lack of understanding of it. If you want to be taken seriously in a conversation about science, then you need to educate yourself in it. That's not hard at all in this computer age. We've already pointed out a number of areas in which you're wrong and explained basically why, it would only take a little followup on your part.

As for why we don't see evolution today - we do! For the most obvious examples, look at dog breeds. They're all descended from the wolf, and yet there are breeds today that look nothing like wolves. This clearly demonstrates how species can change drastically in just a few hundred years. If you want to you can actually observe it even faster in planarian worms, who's generations are only a matter of days or something.

You.. Probably have??! You don't know?

Typo, that. I was going to say something, but reworded my post, and didn't realize I left "probably" in there. Should've been an obvious typo, but I guess not.

I am getting tired of your insults, Darkmatters. Debating is one thing, but personally insulting the individual, claiming them to be stupid and ignorant is another, and has no place in a civil discussion.

~SilverWolf~

So - we're done here then - agreed?

Sounds good to me, that way we don't end up irritated with eachother. I like to keep things civil and not personally attack the individual I'm debating with :/