NationStates Jolt Archive

I think people are just angry because they didn't get what they wanted in life and are blaming our G-d.

Why can't you just accept G-d created the earth and the sun and the sky and the water and the animals and the humans.

We didn't come from bloody monkeys.

Have some respect.

Fucking.

Are you adding "fucking" to your titles just to try to get people to look at the thread?

Are you adding "fucking" to your titles just to try to get people to look at the thread?

It's working, innit?

WTF are you talking about? Don't you know we all evolved from monkeys? and screw god! he's nothing but a pony riding, Zeus imitater!

All hail Zeus!

It's working, innit?

Hm. Good point.

WTF are you talking about? Don't you know we all evolved from monkeys? and screw god! he's nothing but a pony riding, Zeus imitater!

All hail Zeus!
Yeah Zeus is COOL!

Forcing your irrational beliefs upon others is not going to make you popular, especially amongst atheists, who (in general) are a rational bunch of people. Why don't YOU just accept that you're wrong, and that there's no God?

Zeus? Pah.

ODIN!! :D

Forcing your irrational beliefs upon others is not going to make you popular, especially amongst atheists, who (in general) are a rational bunch of people. Why don't YOU just accept that you're wrong, and that there's no God?

Heh heh, have you noticed his other thread, by any chance? :)

Forcing your irrational beliefs upon others is not going to make you popular, especially amongst atheists, who (in general) are a rational bunch of people. Why don't YOU just accept that you're wrong, and that there's no God?

This is a logical fallacy. If you're going to debate, you should avoid implying that your opponent is morally or intellectually inferior.

Actually, the logical fallacy was intentional. It was supposed to be ironic.

Also, unfortunately, not until after I'd made an irrational fool of myself.

Forcing your irrational beliefs upon others is not going to make you popular, especially amongst atheists, who (in general) are a rational bunch of people. Why don't YOU just accept that you're wrong, and that there's no God?

No! No! Don't cast your evil words on my innocent ears!

GOD IS REAL I SAY!

Forcing your irrational beliefs upon others is not going to make you popular, especially amongst atheists, who (in general) are a rational bunch of people. Why don't YOU just accept that you're wrong, and that there's no God?
Because he really believes in evoluton (possibly) and is trying to get a rize out of us?

Unfortunately, not until after I'd made a irrational fool of myself.

WELL ITS A BIT FUCKING LATE FOR APOLOGIES NOW INNIT?

No! No! Don't cast your evil words on my innocent ears!

GOD IS REAL I SAY!
YES HE IS!!!! He asked me for change the otherday on the street corner ... gave him a 10 spot

He promiced to come raze my cat from the dead 3 days from now

Because he really believes in evoluton (possibly) and is trying to get a rize out of us?

Incorrect.

I get a rise out of Jennifer Aniston and Jennifer Garner.

Because he really believes in evoluton (possibly) and is trying to get a rize out of us?

Nope. I think he's starting threads on random topics on order to celebrate the fact that we are allowed to swear on the forum.

Incorrect.

I get a rise out of Jennifer Aniston and Jennifer Garner.
Fair enough

My G-d!

You brilliant broody genius.

MY PLAN LAYS IN RUINS.

FUCKIDY FUCKIDY FUCK FUCK FUCKIDY FUDGE FUDGING FUDGE PACKING FUCK FUCKS!
I love having G-d (the "reverent" spelling that you just picked up) and Fuck all in the same post :)

We're allowed to fucking swear in these fucking topics? I fucking love the mods! :D

Come here, so i can fluffle all of ya! :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

Rules changed again have they?

Mutant Dogs 2:

Not to be insulting to you, but you are an ignorant little prick who doesn't have the wits to be able to suffocate a man with no lungs. What do you get out of simultaneously trying to piss off both religious and atheist people?

Running two threads at once with the same topic, but adamant posts from you upholding opposite ends of the spectrum is not a good idea if you expect either thread to be effective for very long. Or have you failed to notice that they are both on the same page in the forums, thus your plot is visible to all who care to pay attention?

Stop being a flamebaiter, spammer, etc, or you will end up being banned by the mods.

Surprisingly enough, people are actually talking in the threads..

I think people are just angry because they didn't get what they wanted in life and are blaming our G-d.

Why can't you just accept G-d created the earth and the sun and the sky and the water and the animals and the humans.

We didn't come from bloody monkeys.

Have some respect.

Fucking.
We are the creations of the monkey god. We are his monkey army that will drive away the demons who kidnapped his bride.

Hasn't anyone tried to mix science and religion.

The way I see it, the evolution from monkey to man is what happened when God created man and the ice age is when Adam and Eve got kicked out of the garden of Eden.

Kooking at it this way is a lot more relaxing, and you don't have to fight.

We didn't come from bloody monkeys.


If you are going to flame at least get it right. We didn't come from monkeys, we evolved from apes. Even then we did change from an ape, we share a common ancestor at one point.


Have some respect.


Respect is earned; not given.

If you are going to flame at least get it right. We didn't come from monkeys, we evolved from apes. Even then we did change from an ape, we share a common ancestor at one point.



Respect is earned; not given.
AMEN!

Why does everyone seem to take either evolution or creationism as fact?

Neither are fact. Both are theories. Both are flawed.

Why does everyone seem to take either evolution or creationism as fact?

Neither are fact. Both are theories. Both are flawed.
What are the flaws in evolution?

What are the flaws in evolution?

here's a few:
1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.

I think people are just angry because they didn't get what they wanted in life and are blaming our G-d.

Why can't you just accept G-d created the earth and the sun and the sky and the water and the animals and the humans.

We didn't come from bloody monkeys.

Have some respect.

Fucking.
Yeah!!! Why do people still buy that "evolution" crap? When it's so thoroughly debunked by the Bible!!!

here's a few:
1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.
1 Wrong. Irreducible complexity has never been demonstrated, only hypothesized.
2 Wrong again. Mutations add information. Beneficial information is retained and harmfull information removed through natural selection.
3 Simply not true. Ever see the strawberries that they sell in the grocery store? They're bigger than wild ones. That's because their polyploid. They contain an extra copy of the normal strawberry DNA. That's double the information.
4 The second law only ensures entropy in a closed system. Earth is not a closed system. The sun pumps in energy.
5 There are plenty of transitional fossils. Archaeopterix and ambulocetus come to mind. Plus the many hominid fossils. They show a gradation between ape and man.

here's a few:
1. The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created.
2. The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence.
3. No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered.
4. Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics.
5. There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true.

*sign*

These arguments will always be recycled.

Take a look at the faqs at talkorigins.org and argue those again.

Yeah!!! Why do people still buy that "evolution" crap? When it's so thoroughly debunked by the Bible!!!

So says the person destoned for hell! ;)

So says the person destoned for hell! ;)
What makes you think a pious, good Christian like myself would be destoned for hell? I beat up up 3 women today, in the name of the Lord, to teach them manners.

What are the flaws in evolution?

Did you know, when Charles Darwin came up with the idea of evolution, very little if anything about genetics or DNA was known? I could go into more detail on that one point but I'm sure you can figure out that is has a fairly big impact on it all.

Natural selection, fine, thats perfectly logical. How that idea leads from single cell organisms to humans.... not so logical. Yes, weaker types of the species die out. Stronger types stay. Animals can build up adaptations over time to suit their environment. But that does not lead to humans. The creatues most suited to their environment are probably insects that can survive through all types of weather.

(Hmm I'm tired so this probably is disjointed and not explained properly/correctly but oh well)

With the knowledge of DNA we now have, evolution just doesn't work. Mathematically, if you do the actual sums, there wasn't enough time. People wave it off and say 'oh the worlds been around for millions of years'. Yes, it has. But if you do the calculations it simply couldn't happen-the theory we have isn't up to it. Animals can't conciously change to adapt to their surroundings and because of DNA and genetics they can't change that simply. Mutations.... yeah, but for one thing they're usually bad.

I don't have the full calculations but I think, if you worked it out, starting with a single cell organism, if it mutated randomly every single second from the begining of the universe to now, it would still only become 12 times closer to being like a human. Which I'm sure, pretty obviously, isn't enough.

If I can get hold of the calculations I'll post them.

I'm not saying that evolution isn't true. There could be that missing link that everyone talks about. But, with the evidence we have at the moment (which, physically, would take up about the size of my living room) it isn't enough to back up evolution. I just hate the way everyone treats it as proven fact. It isn't. And I hate that because I'm not religious I'm assumed to believe in evolution, and because I don't believe in evolution I'm assumed to be a fundementalist Christian.

I know you can say that if it's so simple why do so many scientists agree with evolution? Well, people believed the world was flat. People believed everything revolved around the sun. People who disagreed with them were shot down and called crazy.

All the stuff I've said, comes from people I know, scientists, so it does come from somewhere more than just me and it can probably be explained a hell of a lot better.

I don't know how we came into being. No-one does. Everything we have are just theories. I try and keep an open mind and I'm not arrogant enough to say that I know for sure something that no-one knows for sure (that isn't directed at anyone personally btw)

The second law only ensures entropy in a closed system.
This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

There are plenty of transitional fossils. Archaeopterix and ambulocetus come to mind. Plus the many hominid fossils. They show a gradation between ape and man.
Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds."

3 Simply not true. Ever see the strawberries that they sell in the grocery store? They're bigger than wild ones. That's because their polyploid. They contain an extra copy of the normal strawberry DNA. That's double the information.
none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information.

I just hate the way everyone treats it as proven fact. It isn't. And I hate that because I'm not religious I'm assumed to believe in evolution, and because I don't believe in evolution I'm assumed to be a fundementalist Christian.

i agree with you there. everyone that is opposed to evolution is always assumed to be religious. i do happen to be a christian, but the fact is that evolution is not religion verse science, it is good science verse bad science.

This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.


Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds."


none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information.
1 What kind of physics book are you using?
2 Bullshit. Not every individual of every species fossilizes. Not every fossil is found. We have plenty to demonstrate that evolution has occured. And we do find the remains of species that cannot be categorized easily. For instance Archaeopterix. It is like a dinosaur in that it has teeth, bones in it's tail, claws on it's forelimbs, and lacks a crest on it's sternum for the attatchment of the very powerfull flight muscles found in modern birds. It's like a bird in that it has feathers, and it was capable of flight.
3 So you're telling me that adding an additional set of genetic material doesn't add information? Is your objection that the added material is the same as the original? Well if there are mutations accumulated in the extra genetic material it adds new information.

I think people are just angry because they didn't get what they wanted in life and are blaming our G-d.Not our god. Only your god.

Why can't you just accept G-d created the earth and the sun and the sky and the water and the animals and the humans.Prove it.

2 Bullshit. Not every individual of every species fossilizes. Not every fossil is found. We have plenty to demonstrate that evolution has occured. And we do find the remains of species that cannot be categorized easily. For instance Archaeopterix. It is like a dinosaur in that it has teeth, bones in it's tail, claws on it's forelimbs, and lacks a crest on it's sternum for the attatchment of the very powerfull flight muscles found in modern birds. It's like a bird in that it has feathers, and it was capable of flight.


We do not have plenty of evidence that demonstrates evolution. The physical evidence is actually very little. Doesn't mean evolution is false, just means it isn't close to being proven fact which is how you speak about it.

Finding fossils of something with common features of a dinosaur and bird does not come close to proving evolution. It just shows a creature with common features of a dinosaur and bird that can't be categorised easily.

We do not have plenty of evidence that demonstrates evolution. The physical evidence is actually very little. Doesn't mean evolution is false, just means it isn't close to being proven fact which is how you speak about it.

Finding fossils of something with common features of a dinosaur and bird does not come close to proving evolution. It just shows a creature with common features of a dinosaur and bird that can't be categorised easily.
Yes, Justifidians said the lack of transitional fossils is a strike against evolution. I provided examples and described one in a little detail.

Evolution is in all likelyhood true. The evidence available confirms it to a very high degree of certainty. It's a high enough degree for me to treat it as fact.

1 What kind of physics book are you using?
2 Bullshit. Not every individual of every species fossilizes. Not every fossil is found. We have plenty to demonstrate that evolution has occured. And we do find the remains of species that cannot be categorized easily. For instance Archaeopterix. It is like a dinosaur in that it has teeth, bones in it's tail, claws on it's forelimbs, and lacks a crest on it's sternum for the attatchment of the very powerfull flight muscles found in modern birds. It's like a bird in that it has feathers, and it was capable of flight.
3 So you're telling me that adding an additional set of genetic material doesn't add information? Is your objection that the added material is the same as the original? Well if there are mutations accumulated in the extra genetic material it adds new information.Why the fuss? Evolution goes on each and every day. The only requirement to see it is to keep the eyes open (and to know just a little about biology). And BTW without evolution there would be no domestic breeds of animals.

We do not have plenty of evidence that demonstrates evolution. The physical evidence is actually very little. Doesn't mean evolution is false, just means it isn't close to being proven fact which is how you speak about it.

Finding fossils of something with common features of a dinosaur and bird does not come close to proving evolution. It just shows a creature with common features of a dinosaur and bird that can't be categorised easily.
Exactly!!! On the other hand we have proof to boot for creationism!!! Just pick up your Bible!!!

For instance Archaeopterix. It is like a dinosaur in that it has teeth, bones in it's tail, claws on it's forelimbs, and lacks a crest on it's sternum for the attatchment of the very powerfull flight muscles found in modern birds. It's like a bird in that it has feathers, and it was capable of flight.

All birds are warm blooded for example, while all reptiles are cold blooded. The complete incompatibility between these two anatomy structures create a mountain of evidence that can't be overlooked because this ancient bird had teeth.

Why the fuss? Evolution goes on each and every day. The only requirement to see it is to keep the eyes open (and to know just a little about biology). And BTW without evolution there would be no domestic breeds of animals.

theres a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.

Exactly!!! On the other hand we have proof to boot for creationism!!! Just pick up your Bible!!!

like Glitziness said, dont assume everyone opposed to evolution is religious.

All birds are warm blooded for example, while all reptiles are cold blooded. The complete incompatibility between these two anatomy structures create a mountain of evidence that can't be overlooked because this ancient bird had teeth.



theres a difference between microevolution and macroevolution.
Many people theorize, with evidence to support them, that some dinosaurs were warm blooded. Mako sharks have the ability to keep their body temp a little above the temp in the water. They can't regulate it as well as most of the creatures we think of as warm blooded, but they clearly aren't exactly cold blooded. Evolution can bridge the gap between warm blooded creatures and cold blooded.

Evolution can bridge the gap between warm blooded creatures and cold blooded

theoretically, but with no evidence to assume so

theoretically, but with no evidence to assume so
Mako shark. Transitional animal that's actually still alive.

like Glitziness said, dont assume everyone opposed to evolution is religious.
Blasphemer!!! You will burn!!! BURN!!! FIRE AND BRIMSTONE!!!! AAAAAHH......!!!

I can tell you why we don't think creation is possible.

Because of the punnet square. If we had no evolution, then we would all be the same. Both have their flaws. The biggest one for evolution is, why did we evolve? It couldn't have been survival of the fittest. Then we would have bigger, faster, and stronger apes. But with creation, were not even sure if god really does exist.

But really. No one believed in heliocentric ideas when Galelio came around. They believed in geocentric.

And believing evolution is down to the core wrong, means you are like the people around Galelio's era. You don't believe it, because you were taught to believe creation. Or your just stupid.

Mako shark. Transitional animal that's actually still alive.

http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_warm_bodied.htm

I can tell you why we don't think creation is possible.

Because of the punnet square. If we had no evolution, then we would all be the same. Both have their flaws. The biggest one for evolution is, why did we evolve? It couldn't have been survival of the fittest. Then we would have bigger, faster, and stronger apes. But with creation, were not even sure if god really does exist.

But really. No one believed in heliocentric ideas when Galelio came around. They believed in geocentric.

And believing evolution is down to the core wrong, means you are like the people around Galelio's era. You don't believe it, because you were taught to believe creation. Or your just stupid.
Are you saying that the fact that humans aren't as strong as apes is a strike against evolution? It's not. We evolved to be smarter, not stronger and that gave us an advantage.

Exactly!!! On the other hand we have proof to boot for creationism!!! Just pick up your Bible!!!

I don't believe in creationism. I've already said that. Along with saying how much I hate it when people assume that (unless this is just a 'mature' way of trying to annoy me).

If forced, out of evolution and creationism I would pick evolution as the more logical answer. I just don't treat it as fact because it isn't fact. It is a theory. It has flaws. And that's how I treat it.

No! No! Don't cast your evil words on my innocent ears!

GOD IS REAL I SAY!


you're kind of creepy. G-d isn't real but the buddah is. All hail Buddha

And believing evolution is down to the core wrong, means you are like the people around Galelio's era. You don't believe it, because you were taught to believe creation. Or your just stupid.

I personally don't believe it is down to the core wrong. But the evidence given is not enough. The supposed 'proof' isn't proof and has flaws.

I don't believe in creation and have been brought up in a non-religious environment

And I wouldn't call myself stupid. I'm fairly intelligent. I just don't make assumptions and I'm not arrogant enough to talk about unproven theories as fact.

http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_warm_bodied.htm
That link is taking forever to load. I'll get back to you in a few minutes.

the fact is that evolution is not religion verse science, it is good science verse bad science.

Ahhh I have heard that many times from Christians.

i do happen to be a christian

Opps

Yes, Justifidians said the lack of transitional fossils is a strike against evolution. I provided examples and described one in a little detail.

Evolution is in all likelyhood true. The evidence available confirms it to a very high degree of certainty. It's a high enough degree for me to treat it as fact.

I don't think it's a reason agaisnt evolution. I think it's a reason not to treat it as fact.

As I've said, there are flaws such as the simple flaw of there not being enough time if you do the calculations. Ignore the flaws, ignore the unanswered questions and yes, the whole thing is fine.... :rolleyes: I don't believe evolution to be false. I just don't treat it as fact when it isn't.

http://www.elasmo-research.org/education/topics/p_warm_bodied.htm
Your site said it's not truly warm blooded. Something I stated in my original post on the subject. Your site also agrees with me that the shortfin mako can keep portions of it's anatomy warmer than the surrounding water. This means it's not exactly cold blooded either. A transitional species, like I said. Was it your intent to prove me right?

Ahhh I have heard that many times from Christians.



Opps

why does it matter if im a chrisitian?

why does it matter if im a chrisitian?

Just to back up Justifidians point, I agree with him about bad science/good secience and am not a Christian.

I don't think it's a reason agaisnt evolution. I think it's a reason not to treat it as fact.

As I've said, there are flaws such as the simple flaw of there not being enough time if you do the calculations. Ignore the flaws, ignore the unanswered questions and yes, the whole thing is fine.... :rolleyes: I don't believe evolution to be false. I just don't treat it as fact when it isn't.
What calculations?

Why do some people still ramble on about "creationism"?

"Although the Longfin Mako possesses a regionally specialized circulatory system essentially like that of other lamnids, it does not appear to significantly warm any portion of its body thereby."

"The best available evidence strongly suggests that neither the Shortfin Mako nor any other lamnid actively regulates its body temperature."

"One major source of metabolic heat in warm-bodied and other sharks that seems to have been largely overlooked by shark biologists is the huge liver, a remarkable internal chemical processing plant that generates prodigious quantities of waste heat -- probably far more than that produced by the relatively small quantity of relatively cool red muscle along the flanks."

"It is worth mentioning that red muscle is probably the major source of heat warming the eye and brain of certain lamnid and alopiid (thresher) sharks."

"makos have a number of counter-current heat exchangers (the rete mirabile--a parallel network of arteries and veins in this case) whereby warm vein blood traveling back to the gills "gives" its heat to the cold blood coming from the gills in the arteries. This retains heat and allows makos, white sharks and other lamnids to be much more active predators in cool or cold waters. "

its saying that the mako is a heat retaining species

What calculations?

I'm gonna post them when I can find them...

Basically, they show that, based on the theory we have at the moment, there simply was not enough time for single cell organisms to evolve to humans even if they mutated every single second since the beginning of the earth until now. Unless they were consciously mutating towards becoming a human. Which I find unlikely.

As I keep saying, a hell of a lot is missing before evolution is proven fact.

is this a joke thread? :confused:
you can't be serious? :headbang:
i don't belive in evolution (but i don't believe in gods), but it's the most sensible most probable thing that could have happened

"Although the Longfin Mako possesses a regionally specialized circulatory system essentially like that of other lamnids, it does not appear to significantly warm any portion of its body thereby."

"The best available evidence strongly suggests that neither the Shortfin Mako nor any other lamnid actively regulates its body temperature."

"One major source of metabolic heat in warm-bodied and other sharks that seems to have been largely overlooked by shark biologists is the huge liver, a remarkable internal chemical processing plant that generates prodigious quantities of waste heat -- probably far more than that produced by the relatively small quantity of relatively cool red muscle along the flanks."

"It is worth mentioning that red muscle is probably the major source of heat warming the eye and brain of certain lamnid and alopiid (thresher) sharks."

"makos have a number of counter-current heat exchangers (the rete mirabile--a parallel network of arteries and veins in this case) whereby warm vein blood traveling back to the gills "gives" its heat to the cold blood coming from the gills in the arteries. This retains heat and allows makos, white sharks and other lamnids to be much more active predators in cool or cold waters. "

its saying that the mako is a heat retaining species
The shortfin Mako is not simply a case of gigantothermy (in which metabolic heat is slowed by size alone) If large size were the only factor that mattered in the retention of metabolic heat the Basking Shark (Cetorhinus Maximus) would be among the very warmest-bodied of sharks; measurements reveal that this is not the case at all. In short: in addition to a very large body size, the regionally modified portions of the Shortfin Mako's circulatory system plays a significant role in further reducing it's rate of metabolic heat loss at the cost of a significantly increased metabolic rate and overall caloric energy requirement.

He's saying that it's not just retaining heat due to large size, it's evolved to retain heat through a specialized circulatory system. Also higher metabolism, as I've highlited in bold, means more heat is generated. Metabolism generates heat in true warm blooded creatures as well. The only things that a Shortfin Mako needs to be truly warm blooded are a mechanism for more precisely regulating temperature, and for the circulatory specializations to occur throughout the body. It's not cold blooded, nor is it truly warm blooded.

I'm gonna post them when I can find them...

Basically, they show that, based on the theory we have at the moment, there simply was not enough time for single cell organisms to evolve to humans even if they mutated every single second since the beginning of the earth until now. Unless they were consciously mutating towards becoming a human. Which I find unlikely.

As I keep saying, a hell of a lot is missing before evolution is proven fact.
There are multiple theories of evolution, not "the theory we have at the moment". Some claim evolution is slow and steady, some claim it happens in fast spurts. I'd be curious to see what factors into the calculations.

why does it matter if im a chrisitian?

Because a person of the faith tends to view evolution as a question against their faith.

Creationism will only be validated when you can prove the existence of God. So how do you do that? Evolution has never set about to prove and disprove such existence.

Your original arguments are ones that are parroted by people that don't know sicence or care to know about science. These people will rarely if ever change their viewpoints. So I only debate them when they are so wrong a response is required or when I am in the mood for a debate.

Glitz: Facts about evolution? Drop the factual argument as it is only a theory. A serious student of evolution will never call it fact otherwise it would be the Law of Evolution.

So for now gentlemen, I have a meeting. Have fun.

is this a joke thread? :confused:
you can't be serious? :headbang:
i don't belive in evolution (but i don't believe in gods), but it's the most sensible most probable thing that could have happened

I've already said that, out of the most common theories, if forced, I would choose evolution. Just because it's the most probable doesn't mean it's fact and doesn't mean it's right. I keep an open mind.

[QUOTE=The Black Forrest] Glitz: Facts about evolution? Drop the factual argument as it is only a theory. A serious student of evolution will never call it fact otherwise it would be the Law of Evolution. [QUOTE]

Isn't that exactly what I've been trying to say? If you look back, my first post simply said that neither should be treated as fact because both are theories and both have flaws..

hes talking about niche expansion. the shark and other laminids are not warm blooded, they have "the ability to exploit cooler environments with greater efficiency than "cold-blooded" fishes." im trying to look up nich expansion to see its components and ill post those.

There are multiple theories of evolution, not "the theory we have at the moment". Some claim evolution is slow and steady, some claim it happens in fast spurts. I'd be curious to see what factors into the calculations.

Ok then, the various theories given don't manage to overcome the problem of time and mathematical logic.

Because a person of the faith tends to view evolution as a question against their faith.

old earth creationists beleive in creation over time. i dont have a position in young or old earth creation. i beleive God created the world, but i dont put my faith in place of science.

hes talking about niche expansion. the shark and other laminids are not warm blooded, they have "the ability to exploit cooler environments with greater efficiency than "cold-blooded" fishes." im trying to look up nich expansion to see its components and ill post those.
So do you accept my original point that Mako sharks, at least the shortfin Mako, are somewhere between warm and cold blooded?

So do you accept my original point that Mako sharks, at least the shortfin Mako, are somewhere between warm and cold blooded?

Sharks, like all fish, are cold blooded - that is, they are unable to regulate their body temperature. A few shark species (and fish, like tuna),can keep their body temperature a little above that of the surrounding water. - national aquarium.co.uk

no i dont because they are cold blooded, they are not in-between.

Sharks, like all fish, are cold blooded - that is, they are unable to regulate their body temperature. A few shark species (and fish, like tuna),can keep their body temperature a little above that of the surrounding water. - national aquarium.co.uk

no i dont because they are cold blooded, they are not in-between.
But a truly cold blooded creature takes on the temperature of it's surroundings.

I think people are just angry because they didn't get what they wanted in life and are blaming our G-d.

no, i have a quite happy life and generally am satisfied with what happens in it. i'm not angry at life, let alone blaming it on something i do not believe to exist. not that this has anything to do with my thoughts on the matter of evolution.

Why can't you just accept G-d created the earth and the sun and the sky and the water and the animals and the humans.

well, if this god did so then it made it look like it all came about naturally.

We didn't come from bloody monkeys.

well, we share a common ancestor with current monkeys. and i'm sure that a bloody monkey isn't in too good shape, and if it hadn't already reproduced before getting into this bloody state, then chances are it would not be anyone's ancestor.

Have some respect.
take your own advice.

"The arteries in each rete carry cold, oxygenated blood from the gills, while the veins carry metabolically-warmed, deoxygenated blood. These small arteries and veins pass very close to one another, carrying blood in opposite directions. Because of this intimate countercurrent blood flow, most of the heat is transferred from the veins to the arteries and cycled back to the muscles and visceral organs that produced it originally. The warm-bodied lamnoid sharks have three sets of retia: one in the swimming muscles, another in the anterior viscera, and a third surrounding the brain. Lamnoid sharks with this modified circulatory system are able to maintain body temperatures well above that of the water in which they swim. (Recent studies by shark biologist Kenneth Goldman and his co-workers off South Farallon Islands, California, revealed that the White Shark is the warmest of the lamnoids, having a stomach temperature measuring as much as 25° Fahrenheit (14° Celsius) above the ambient water temperature.)" from elasmo research. they are still cold blooded but have the ability to keep thier bodies warmer than thier outside envoirnments