NationStates Jolt Archive

I've heard many people say there is proof for evolution. Collect the reward then!

$250,000 Offer (http://www.drdino.com:8080/Ministry/250k/index.jsp)

It's impossible to do what he asks without a time machine.

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.

It will always be 'possible' that a god created humanity. Whether or not that is probable, however, is another matter entirely.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Oh God. You actually trust that lying, child abusing convicted felon? He doesn't have the money, and he's worded the bullshit that he calls a "challenge" so that it's impossible to win. I thought that there were no more people gullible enough to believe the nonsensical shit that he sprays out of his mouth, but I guess I was wrong.

Shenanigans!

I call shenanigans!


http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_challenge.htm

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_phony_challenge.htm

http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/kent_hovind's_bogus_challenge.htm


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html

Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence.In other words, prove there is no god.

As there is absolutely no way to prove a negative, it's a completely disingenuous offer.

Very moral of the website owner, eh?

The man doesn't even know what evolution is.
3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.
Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

In other words, prove there is no god.

As there is absolutely no way to prove a negative, it's a completely disingenuous offer.

Very moral of the website owner, eh?
You're 4 minutes late :p

I've heard many people say there is proof for evolution. Collect the reward then!

$250,000 Offer (http://www.drdino.com:8080/Ministry/250k/index.jsp)

Priceless.

1. Hovind doesn't HAVE $250,000. ("A wealthy friend of mine has money in the bank" my ass).
2. Hovind doesn't even know what evolution IS. So proving it happened to his satisfaction would be difficult to say the least. This is what that incompetent thinks evolution is:

1 Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.

Yeah, because BIOLOGY has tons to say about the origins of the freaking universe... and how it all came from "nothing". :rolleyes:

2 Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)

Actually, it's often referred to as GRAVITY.

3 Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).

Abiogenesis, NOT evolution.

4 Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5 Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

Almost kind of correct on the last two points... if you ignore the horrid terminology.

AND, he doesn't just require that someone prove to him that all this DID happen. Oh no, he wants someone to prove to him that all this is THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY it COULD happen! How exactly anyone is supposed to be able to definitevely prove the impossibility of an infinite range of hypothetical alternatives is never hinted at of course, since it's impossible.

Please say you didn't take that moron seriously and only posted this as humor.

Peppered Moths!



Have 1,000s of small changes like that over a couple million years, it should look completely different.


Also, look up this computer program called Atla (?) or something. I accidently threw out the magazine [Scientific American or Skeptical Enquirer. Probably SA... SE is more like saying Intelligent Design is full of holes]. Computer program that demonstrates evolution. It's rather interesting and is beginning to prove the possibility of evolution.

Peppered Moths!
Peppered moths go well with salted butterflies.

So in the views of the linked writer, we should not teach math. Or history. We do not know that any of our math is true, we can only prove it with itself(1 + 1 equals 2, only because all known examples show this, and we can fit many equations into the rule of addition). We cannot prove that there is no other force which makes this true, and that adding one thing to another equals two is not only a coincidence. Moreso, we cannot prove that JFK was shot by lee harvey oswald, though the books teach it. We cannot prove that george washington existed and did what he did, except by physical remains and accounts, which could be falsified. The only things we could teach are things like language, which have nothing to do with facts but only learning a skill, or gym, which is physical, not factual.

Maybe I should put a bounty on god's head.

aye - the whole web site reeks of douche baggery

KENT HOVIND-- A FRAUD AND A TAX REBEL (right-wing Christians vs. Hovind) (http://www.blessedquietness.com/journal/housechu/hovind.htm)

About Kent Hovind (http://www.skepticslv.org/about_kent_hovind.htm)

Kent Hovind FAQs (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/)

Maintaining Creationist Integrity (or why his fellow creationist can't stand Kent Hovind) (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/1011hovind.asp)

Other Evangelicals ragging on Hovind for "false teachings" (http://www.evangelicaloutreach.org/hovind.htm)

This is fun!

Originally Posted by Inebri-Nation
aye - the whole web site reeks of douche baggery
Did NOT want to hear that comparison.

More like bull shittery.

*Swearing Pastor alert!!!*

Why is it that people think that evolution at all pertains to the creation of the universe? That is a completely seperate theory.

I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt every part of evolution.

As for planetary evolution, minerals clump together and are caught in the Sun's gravity, more gets added on, volia a planet, that there are 9 is just a coincedence. There we go proof beyond a doubt that there is cosmic evolution, that and our cosmos is constantly changing. Cosmic evolution is not the creation of space and time, it has nothing to do with time and only explains the changes of space.

Life was created in a laboratory through abiotic reactions:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/1072266/DC1
Proof of chemical evolution.

Biological Evolution is random genetic mutation, my DNA is different from a monkey's, that alone is concrete proof of biological evolution.



As for the beginning of the universe, a beginning is utterly and completely impossible for a human to even consider. You ask me how everything was created, I ask you, how was God created? We cannot know, your theory has the same flaw as mine, so thus any creation ideal is flawed and its a tie.

So for the theory of Evolution and Big Bang:
Big Bang: Impossible
Cosmic Evolution: Proven
Chemical Evolution: Proven
Biological Evolution: Proven
Fundamental Flaws: None, luck is not a flaw

For Creation:
God Created Everything: No Facts
Nothing has changed since God created us: False, everything is constantly changing
Fundamental Flaws: No concrete evidence of God; Many myths stolen from previous religions (Noah's Ark, Adam and Eve, the Conflict between Satan and God); What created God.
Proof: None, the best proof one can find are texts written by fledgling societies (Ancient), crack pots (New Age), bronze age theives (Christian religions).

So all in all Evolution has 100%; Creationism has 0%. Even if we can't prove through evolution the creation of Everything, we can prove everything else. Compared to Creationist, who can't prove anything.

And all this for a lousy quarter-million bucks? I couldn't run a student-operated grant-driven archeological site for two weeks on that.

I'm just gonna call this one an internet troll and let it go at that. Zotaland, I'm watching you too.

Also, look up this computer program called Atla (?) or something. I accidently threw out the magazine [Scientific American or Skeptical Enquirer.

Avida...

I've heard many people say there is proof for evolution. Collect the reward then!

$250,000 Offer (http://www.drdino.com:8080/Ministry/250k/index.jsp)
And another reason this guy offering the awward is an idiot


*NOTE:
When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves.
2. Planets and stars formed from space dust.
3. Matter created life by itself.
4. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves.
5. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).



1-3 More then HALF of what he calles evolution IS NOT EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

What an idiot he is not asking you to prove evolution he is asking you to prove his deluded strawman

Maybe I should put a bounty on god's head.

Lobo went after a Contract on Gawd and look what happened.

:cool:

Avida...
Kudos!
Also
Ambulocetus natans.
I've posted these quite a bit but everyone else here seems to be doing well.
Peppered moth ... biston betularia. Try (for those interested) article in Skeptical Inquirer, Vol 29 Mar/Apr 05 ... Defending the Peppered Moth studies
I had the Afar findings as well but now i'm submitting memory fragments since my compie right now is incapacitated.
N'joy!
;)
$250,000 spread out amongst a bunch of people ... from a guy who has to give IOU's now. Yay!

Lobo went after a Contract on Gawd and look what happened.

:cool:

I remember reading that comic once...I can't remember what happened though.

Is that the guy that wants you to prove it so that its scientific law?


Sweet, give me a fresh universe and a few billion years to kick around with, and I'll see what I come up with..

Is that the guy that wants you to prove it so that its scientific law?


Sweet, give me a fresh universe and a few billion years to kick around with, and I'll see what I come up with..
Pffft all the stipulations in there he wants you to prove fake strawman theorm's beyond the scope of evolution not to mention wrongly stated and into area's that evoltuon was never met to go

Not only is it imposible its idiodic

Peppered Moths!



Have 1,000s of small changes like that over a couple million years, it should look completely different.


Also, look up this computer program called Atla (?) or something. I accidently threw out the magazine [Scientific American or Skeptical Enquirer. Probably SA... SE is more like saying Intelligent Design is full of holes]. Computer program that demonstrates evolution. It's rather interesting and is beginning to prove the possibility of evolution.
Sorry, I hadn't noticed this thread in time (note mine above). I'm at a friend's currently, one who coincidentally as i got on this thread, mentioned his dislike of the Smithsonian mag because of their stance on this issue. How bizarre, how bizarre!

Peppered Moths!



Have 1,000s of small changes like that over a couple million years, it should look completely different.


If you had thousands of changes like that it would still be a moth. That doesn't show how a reptile became a bird, for example.

If you had thousands of changes like that it would still be a moth. That doesn't show how a reptile became a bird, for example.
Dosent matter the challange is worthless anyways

And another reason this guy offering the awward is an idiot

You spelled "award" wrong. ;) :D

Dude!
I Won!i Won!

Iiiiiii Woooooooooooooooooooooooooooon!

You spelled "award" wrong. ;) :D
Yay would you like a cookie? and that has to do with the glaring holes in his proposition how?

Well, you called him an idiot, then you spelled a word wrong in the same sentence. I see no glaring holes.

Well, you called him an idiot, then you spelled a word wrong in the same sentence. I see no glaring holes.
Aside from asking to prove a negative, making an offer that can't be proven, and tons of other shit?

I smell a troll.

Well, you called him an idiot, then you spelled a word wrong in the same sentence. I see no glaring holes.
Thats fine mental capacity is hardly exclusivly expressed through spelling. If I was commenting about his spelling then I would expect a spelling responce

And glaring holes ... you dont think the fact that he is not asking us to prove evolution is a "hole"?

It's his money. If he wants to make an "impossible offer" then he can.

It's his money. If he wants to make an "impossible offer" then he can.
Well he is not asking us to prove evolution and really has not much to do with it

So what is the point to this thread then?

ok... I'm asking you to prove biological evolution here then. Not variations within species, I mean reptiles to birds and apes to humans.

ok... I'm asking you to prove biological evolution here then. Not variations within species, I mean reptiles to birds and apes to humans.
1) that has nothing to do with the crappy challange first posted
2) evolution the theory is not nor ever will be limited to reptiles ot bird nor apes to humans so if you wish for proof you have to go beyond your narrow deffinition of what you want proof for because the theory is much bigger then that

(not to mention you did not specify which theory of evolution you wished proved)

ok... I'm asking you to prove biological evolution here then. Not variations within species, I mean reptiles to birds and apes to humans.
Again i say ambulocetus natans. They're the transitional species of a land mammal to a whale. Look it up and argue from an informed perspective.

I Won!

I was using apes to humans as an example. Any change between species would apply.

I was using apes to humans as an example. Any change between species would apply.
You still did not specify the type of evolution you wished proved (here is a hint there are three seperat theories (some overlap at places some cover different area's))

I already said biological evolution, ie changing from one species to another.

I already said biological evolution, ie changing from one species to another.
TRY POST #38, TROLL.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
Straughn Quote:
Originally Posted by Zotaland
ok... I'm asking you to prove biological evolution here then. Not variations within species, I mean reptiles to birds and apes to humans.


Again i say ambulocetus natans. They're the transitional species of a land mammal to a whale. Look it up and argue from an informed perspective.

I already said biological evolution, ie changing from one species to another.
Sorry incorrect that is not one of the three prevaling theories care to try again (all evolution deals with biology except for social which is not covered by any of thoes theories)

I already said biological evolution, ie changing from one species to another.
Well, assuming you want evidence of speciation, I found a paper that summarizes a good number of directly observed cases: link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). Obviously the examples are of relatively short lived species which breed a lot since that's what can be observed in a reasonable amount of time.

The evidence for speciation in mammals and other longer lived animals is obviously mostly circumstatial, but it is overwhelming. Archaeopteryx is an excellent example of a documented transition species between dinosaurs and birds, which I believe is one of the things you asked for earlier.

But really, this is all silly, since I'm willing to bet that you can't offer evidence against evolution, or offer a competing theory that has even a noticeable fraction of evidence in support of it as evolution has.

It's just common sense that if you have an explanation for something that works fantasitcally both predictively and in terms of accounting for observation, and despite lengthy efforts have been unable to come up with a reasonable alternative, that your explanation is most likely right.

Well, assuming you want evidence of speciation, I found a paper that summarizes a good number of directly observed cases: link (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). Obviously the examples are of relatively short lived species which breed a lot since that's what can be observed in a reasonable amount of time.

The evidence for speciation in mammals and other longer lived animals is obviously mostly circumstatial, but it is overwhelming. Archaeopteryx is an excellent example of a documented transition species between dinosaurs and birds, which I believe is one of the things you asked for earlier.

But really, this is all silly, since I'm willing to bet that you can't offer evidence against evolution, or offer a competing theory that has even a noticeable fraction of evidence in support of it as evolution has.

It's just common sense that if you have an explanation for something that works fantasitcally both predictively and in terms of accounting for observation, and despite lengthy efforts have been unable to come up with a reasonable alternative, that your explanation is most likely right.


I was still trying to figure out which of the big three he wanted "proved" lol

I'm not sure how ambulocetus natans proves evolution. Sounds just like a crocodile to me. And I mispoke. I meant variations between kinds. Obviously dogs and wolves can interbreed. I apologize for my mispoken claim.

I'm not sure how ambulocetus natans proves evolution. Sounds just like a crocodile to me.
Then you did not spend your time doing your homewor :p dont expect us to hold your hand you were the one that asked for an example

I'm not sure how ambulocetus natans proves evolution. Sounds just like a crocodile to me.
A crocodile? A crocodile?! A GODDAMN CROCODILE?!

It's a fucking mammal!

Well, at least we've pinpointed why he doesn't accept evolution.

I didn't look at it that closely.

How can you know it's a mammal from looking at the bones?

1. They are endothermic vertebrates.
2. They have hair, which varies greatly among species.
3. Most have sudoriferus (sweat) glands.
4. They have mammary (milk-secreting) glands.
5. They have sebaceous (fat-secreting) glands.
6. They have heterodont dentition (different types of teeth).

Did they find hair or glands with the fossil?

I didn't look at it that closely.
Well, the whole it being a transitional between land mammals and whales thing should have tipped you off. Seriously. By just seeing the skeleton, anyone with even a cursory knowledge of biology would know that it doesn't look like a crocodile.

How can you know it's a mammal from looking at the bones?

1. They are endothermic vertebrates.
2. They have hair, which varies greatly among species.
3. Most have sudoriferus (sweat) glands.
4. They have mammary (milk-secreting) glands.
5. They have sebaceous (fat-secreting) glands.
6. They have heterodont dentition (different types of teeth).

Did they find hair or glands with the fossil?
Jesus fucking Christ. Are you really this goddamned ignorant?! There are dozens of traits that are shared by mammals and not any other animals. Details in dentition, jaw structures, structure of the nares, and that's just in the skull.

Jesus fucking Christ. Are you really this goddamned ignorant?! There are dozens of traits that are shared by mammals and not any other animals. Details in dentition, jaw structures, structure of the nares, and that's just in the skull.
ok while I am to geting upset at his density I would hate to see ya get a warning for starting the flame :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

ok while I am to geting upset at his density I would hate to see ya get a warning for starting the flame :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:
Yeah, I know.

I apologize to Zotaland. Just please learn some biology before claiming that Ambelocetus is a crocodile. It makes everyone's life easier.

A crocodile? A crocodile?! A GODDAMN CROCODILE?!

It's a fucking mammal!

Well, at least we've pinpointed why he doesn't accept evolution.
*rofl* I think you've worked it out! Heh, I'm still laughing.

I was using apes to humans as an example.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=411693

Read.

Enjoy.

Any change between species would apply.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Repeat.

Maybe I should put a bounty on god's head.
If you are using the word "god" as a proper noun, be so good as to capitalize the "G". Even if you don't believe in the existence of said being the word, as you used it, is still a proper noun and should be capitalized.
If you wished to talk about a god, or the god, or the gods, then there is nothing wrong with not capitalizing the word.
I'm sorry, I realize that was rather off topic and a little incendiary, but it annoys me.

1. I accept your apology.
2. You say there are many differences between mammals and other animals. Doesn't this amke evolution unlikely? Wouldn't many changes be neccesaru to change from say a reptile to a bird? Changes in bone structure, digestive organs, etc.?
3. I still think it makes more sense that humans have always been humans than that we came from a rock.

I mispoke. I meant variations between kinds. Obviously dogs and wolves can interbreed. I apologize for my mispoken claim..

2. You say there are many differences between mammals and other animals. Doesn't this amke evolution unlikely? Wouldn't many changes be neccesaru to change from say a reptile to a bird? Changes in bone structure, digestive organs, etc.?
3. I still think it makes more sense that humans have always been humans than that we came from a rock.
Ugh. There are differences. There are also similarities. This is actually evidence for evolution, if you would actually take the time to learn.

Evolution doesn't say we came from a rock. Learn about the theory before criticizing it.

250,000 USD? Errr... 1) 250,000 isn't nearly enough to cover my expenses in such a research, and 2) USD? I want it at least in Euro.


And...

Folks, it's pointless to argue about evolution. There are people dealing with it who're far smarter than everyone here.

If it doesn't say a rock, then what does it say?

If it doesn't say a rock, then what does it say?
First of all, you're confusing evolution with abiogenesis.
Second of all, abiogenesis states that self-replicating molecules formed. Over time, they became more and more "complex". (Not actual complexity, merely the best word for the situation that I could think of.) Eventually, they developed into what would be classified as life, and then evolution kicked in.

Where did the self-replicating molecules come from?

Where did the self-replicating molecules come from?
Atoms have a tendency to combine into molecules.

Besides, abiogenesis has fuck-all to do with evolution. Do us a favor and stop shifting the goalposts.

So you don't believe in the Big Bang?

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAA

What a fucking dipshit.

250,000 USD? Errr... 1) 250,000 isn't nearly enough to cover my expenses in such a research, and 2) USD? I want it at least in Euro.


And...

Folks, it's pointless to argue about evolution. There are people dealing with it who're far smarter than everyone here.
I refuse to admit that the people working on this stuff are all that much smarter than me, if they are smarter than me at all. :D

Seriously, though, that sort of argument from authority is no better than appeals to the bible. Besides, to my constant amazement, there are some surprisingly smart people on the creationist side of the argument. Even smart people can be selectively blind.

But I don't think many people at all would believe the arguments against evolution if they actually made the effort to understand evolution instead of just leaving it to the smart people - it's not all that dificult a theory to understand.

ok... I'm asking you to prove biological evolution here then. Not variations within species, I mean reptiles to birds and apes to humans.You can participate in an experiment with just a brief bit of background research to do beforehand. All you have to do is google "Klein Ring," and then come back to me an explain them once you think you understand.

Then, unleash a rain of fire and death upon the rock Mountains, being very careful not to spill over into to the surrounding area East-West. North-South, though, being a little sloppy is alright, even recommended.

Congratulations! You have just created speciation within a close relative of the common gecko. While there could have been much intermediate breeding within one particular ring surrounding the mountains, those on opposite sides are both physically and environmentally incapable of interbreeding with eachother. Thus, what was one species with several small variations has now become two.

"But they didn't change anything! There was just a lot of Micro-evolution, and they were still the same species, until environmental hardships made the survivors unable to interbreed!" You might say. To which I reply, "That's all speciation ever is- microevolution in different strands, until they're too different to produce fertile offspring together. Adding a small environmental challenge might seem unfair, but since humans are a part of nature, we're an evolutionary force in and of ourselves.


This lesson in infinite recursive thinking brought to you by The Mycon™. The More You Know

Cosmology and evolution are two completely diifferent sciences.
Sorry, but if you are interested in the theory of evolution, the Big Bang has nothing to do with it. One attempts to explain the origin of matter in the universe, and the other, life.
I can see how ignorance might confuse the two. But, how a planet or galaxy was created has nothing to do with how you or I came to be, since the macrocosm of gravity has little in common with the microcosm of biology. :rolleyes:
Of course this is really just a waste of time. If it wasn't for the amount of beer I have drunk which makes it seem worthwhile to respond to such a tired and useless discussion, you would have been ignored. ;)

Pass the Bong.

You can participate in an experiment with just a brief bit of background research to do beforehand. All you have to do is google "Klein Ring," and then come back to me an explain them once you think you understand.
Ah ha! Thanks! I was trying to find this exact example to post earlier and couldn't remember what it was called. It's probably my favorite example of evolution at work. :D

While your first statement is technically true (via Godel's Uncertainty Axiom), your aside is not. Using the Peano Axioms, Bertrand Russel was able to prove (http://mathforum.org/library/drmath/view/51551.html) that 1+1=2. It's shown in the Principia Mathematica, page 362, which is the first thing returned when you google ("1+1=2" +proof)- a scanned image of the page. The version I linked is a bit easier to understand, and far more legible.

[quote=Greater Yubari]Folks, it's pointless to argue about evolution. There are people dealing with it who're far smarter than everyone here.
I contest that Zeppistan, were he still around, would be more intelligent than your average Ph.D. Biologist/Evangelical profiteer. Not smarter than the smartest ones, but had he chosen to study Evolutionary microbiology instead of Mathematics, he'd be able to teach the average professor a few things. Beyond that, I claim it's not pointless to argue, as we must at least make a fun and entertaining attempt to fight ignorance

Quorm... same thing could go for astrophysics... I wouldn't argue about it, since I don't know nearly enough about it to really understand it. I leave that to people like Stephen Hawking.

Certain authorities have to be there, but the difference it, people like Hawking have studied a science, they can calculate stuff and demonstrate things in experiments. They can draw logic conclusions. Some high ranking religious guy has what? Sure he studied too, but not really a science, more like a nice story.

Hawking has scientific data to prove his point, the, let's say, pope has... a book. Impressive, not.

'Sides, why is the thought of evolution so appalling?

Is it so bad that with it we're not "god's image"?

Honestly, if we're god's image... what kind of bastard is this god then? Take human history and answer me that.

Quorm... same thing could go for astrophysics... I wouldn't argue about it, since I don't know nearly enough about it to really understand it. I leave that to people like Stephen Hawking.

Certain authorities have to be there, but the difference it, people like Hawking have studied a science, they can calculate stuff and demonstrate things in experiments. They can draw logic conclusions. Some high ranking religious guy has what? Sure he studied too, but not really a science, more like a nice story.

Hawking has scientific data to prove his point, the, let's say, pope has... a book. Impressive, not.

'Sides, why is the thought of evolution so appalling?

Is it so bad that with it we're not "god's image"?

Honestly, if we're god's image... what kind of bastard is this god then? Take human history and answer me that.
Hmm, I don't seem to have expressed myself very well. First off, I'm a devout believer in evolution and an athiest, in case there was any confusion. :D

I just don't like the attitude that people should leave science to the scientists - I think everyone should try to understand it. The theory of evolution isn't all that complicated, and I think most the people who don't believe in it just haven't ever been taught it properly, and that frustrates me. I wish these people would make an effort to really understand it instead of leaving it to the experts.

Of course, I'm a physicist myself, so understanding science is my business, but I don't think it's something that should just be left to people like me. Even Stephen Hawking is wrong from time to time - in fact there's a famous bet he made with a colleague that he lost a few years back.

EDIT: just for entertainment value, here's a link to an article about Stephen Hawking's bet: link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking#Losing_an_old_bet)

I've heard many people say there is proof for evolution. Collect the reward then!

$250,000 Offer (http://www.drdino.com:8080/Ministry/250k/index.jsp)

OMG what an incredible piece of bullsh*t. Again, like virtually all Creationists do, the author of that text makes a distinction between "Good Science" and "Bad Science".

I've seen tons of evidence for evolution, and no evidence whatsoever that the book of Genesis could be taken literal.

1. I accept your apology.
2. You say there are many differences between mammals and other animals. Doesn't this amke evolution unlikely? Wouldn't many changes be neccesaru to change from say a reptile to a bird? Changes in bone structure, digestive organs, etc.?
3. I still think it makes more sense that humans have always been humans than that we came from a rock.

LOL, amusing. Typical feature of Creationist: you have no idea what you are talking about.

The evolution from reptile to bird for example has many steps in between, and it's relatively well documented. Also, the DNA evidence suggests that birds and crocodiles are genetically close related, which fits into one piece with what paleontologists say. Oh, and have you heard about Microraptor?

(picture) (http://online.sfsu.edu/~uy/AnimDiv/lab/Lab9/microraptor.jpg)

So you don't believe in the Big Bang?
STOP SHIFTING THE GODDAMN GOALPOSTS!

Jesus Christ! We're talking about evolution. Not abiogenesis. Not the Big Bang. Evolution. Is it that fucking hard to stay on topic?

So you don't believe in the Big Bang?
I want to re emphasize that has NOTHING to do with evolution

Hee hee. Maybe Zotaland is working for this guy whose offering the "Mission Impossible" award.

Give ME the money!

I'm a biotech student, and I see natural selection going on on a regular basis. For example, when we plate out bacteria on to agar plates with antibiotics to select out antibiotic resistant clones, we usually get a few that just spontaneously mutated to become antibiotics resistant without having taken up any foreign DNA.

Give ME the money!

I'm a biotech student, and I see natural selection going on on a regular basis. For example, when we plate out bacteria on to agar plates with antibiotics to select out antibiotic resistant clones, we usually get a few that just spontaneously mutated to become antibiotics resistant without having taken up any foreign DNA.
If you read the requirements he wants you to not only prove evolution but the big bang and abiogenisis ... it is bogus :p

Yeah, i got that idea when I read what he was saying...

I just wanted to say "give it to me!" in case it was going to happen *shrug*

heehee :p :)

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any [B]empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution. My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.
can some1 tell that twat that empirical is not same as scientific! that a thing that is empirical is not scientific! :headbang:

here is my evedice (aka sicentific proff) that he is a twat
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=25419&dict=CALD

I sent the amazing Randi an email about this to see if he would take the challenge, but he said it wouldn't enter a contest to prove evolution on this guy's terms and judged soley by him. I was suprised though to actually get an apparently personally written reply email from the amaizng randi though, and quite promptly as well.

Bumping this, in the hopes that Zotaland comes back.

If you are using the word "god" as a proper noun, be so good as to capitalize the "G". Even if you don't believe in the existence of said being the word, as you used it, is still a proper noun and should be capitalized.
If you wished to talk about a god, or the god, or the gods, then there is nothing wrong with not capitalizing the word.
I'm sorry, I realize that was rather off topic and a little incendiary, but it annoys me.
Technically, it should always be capitalized. You say Hitler, a Nazi, the Nazi party, Nazis. Same goes for the God strains, God, a God, the God of, the Gods of; as they are all proper nouns.

UpwardThrust, you can prove abiogenesis. Look for my original post, it's got a link to it.

Technically, it should always be capitalized. You say Hitler, a Nazi, the Nazi party, Nazis. Same goes for the God strains, God, a God, the God of, the Gods of; as they are all proper nouns.

UpwardThrust, you can prove abiogenesis. Look for my original post, it's got a link to it.
Im not saying it dosent ... I am still saying it is a bogus challange because he consideres abiogenisis under the umbrella of evolution which is VERY incorrect

UpwardThrust, you can prove abiogenesisYou can prove it's possible. You can prove it's reproducible. You can prove that it damn near had to happen in the conditions that the earth had billions of years ago.

But, as my (pre-med) roommate proved to me, you can never convince people who think the earth's only a few thousand years old, which is (legitimately) not enough time to explain the changes.

You can prove it's possible. You can prove it's reproducible. You can prove that it damn near had to happen in the conditions that the earth had billions of years ago.

But, as my (pre-med) roommate proved to me, you can never convince people who think the earth's only a few thousand years old, which is (legitimately) not enough time to explain the changes.
Your roommate is right, but one must try, because there is that one person that may be willing to change, and that makes the effort worth it.

You're 4 minutes late I wanted to spell disingenuous right! :(

$500,000 reward for proof of creation.

Damn you that's what I was going to say!

Creationists constantly say "well, you can't prove evolution exists".
I challenge them to prove that creation exists;
I'm willing to bet we end up with Bible quotes and that'll be it.

Just 'cuz my patience is mighty thin on this subject of late, i'm gonna post a few. Forgive my redundance, if you can.

Remains may be of oldest walking hominid
By Anthony Mitchell, Associated Press Writer | March 6, 2005
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia -- A team of U.S. and Ethiopian scientists has discovered the fossilized remains of what they believe is humankind's first walking ancestor, a hominid that lived in the wooded grasslands of the Horn of Africa nearly 4 million years ago.
The bones were discovered in February at a new site called Mille, in the northeastern Afar region of Ethiopia, said Bruce Latimer, director of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History in Ohio. They are estimated to be 3.8-4 million years old.
The fossils include a complete tibia from the lower part of the leg, parts of a thighbone, ribs, vertebrae, a collarbone, pelvis and a complete shoulder blade, or scapula. There also is an ankle bone which, with the tibia, proves the creature walked upright, said Latimer, co-leader of the team that discovered the fossils.
The bones are the latest in a growing collection of early human fragments that help explain the evolutionary history of man.
"Right now we can say this is the world's oldest bipedal (an animal walking on two feet) and what makes this significant is because what makes us human is walking upright," Latimer said. "This new discovery will give us a picture of how walking upright occurred."
The findings have not been reviewed by outside scientists or published in a scientific journal.
Leslie Aiello, an anthropologist and head of the Graduate School at University College in London said, however, that the new finds could be significant.
"It sounds like a significant find, ... particularly if they have a partial skeleton because it allows you to speculate on biomechanics," Aiello, who was not part of the discovery team, told The Associated Press by telephone from Britain.
Paleontologists previously discovered in Ethiopia the remains of Ardipithecus ramidus, a transitional creature with significant ape characteristics dating as far back as 4.5 million years. There is some dispute over whether it walked upright on two legs, Latimer and Aiello said.
Scientists know little about A. ramidus. A few skeletal fragments suggest it was even smaller than Australopithecus afarensis, the 3.2 million-year-old species widely known by the nearly complete "Lucy" fossil, which measures about 4 feet tall.
Scientists are yet to classify the new find, which they believe falls between A. ramidus and A. afarensis. The fossils would help "join the dots" between the two hominids, said Yohannes Haile-Selassie, an Ethiopian scientist and curator at the Cleveland Museum of Natural History as well a co-leader of the discovery team.
"This discovery will tell us much about how our 4-million-year-old ancestors walked, how tall they were and what they looked like," he said. "It opens the door on a poorly known time period and (the fossils) are important in that they will help us understand the early phases of human evolution before Lucy."
The specimen is the only the fourth partial skeleton ever to be discovered that is older than 3 million years. It was found after two months of excavation at Mille, 37 miles from the famous Lucy discovery.
"It is a once in a lifetime find," Latimer said.

-
Futhermore ....

New Human Ancestor Fossil Discovery In Afar Region Of Ethiopia
A team of researchers digging in Ethiopia has unearthed hominid fossils are likely between 3.8 to 4 million years old -- earlier than the famous "Lucy" skeleton.

The team, led by Drs. Yohannes Haile-Selassie and Bruce Latimer of the Cleveland Museum of Natural History, Cleveland, Ohio, has been conducting a paleoanthropological survey in the Mille-Chifra-Kasa Gita area of the Afar Region. The survey was conducted under a permit from the Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (ARCCH) of the Ministry of Youth, Sports, and Culture and was financially supported by the Leakey Foundation and the Wenner-Gren Foundation of the United States of America. The team located new hominid-bearing localities in the Burtele Kebele of Mille district in Zone One of the Afar Regional State.
MAJOR LOCALITIES
The survey team has designated 14 new fossil bearing localities. Three of the localities have yielded early hominid remains. Major fossiliferous areas are around the Mille River east of Mille Town. Mille is 520 Km northeast of Addis Ababa, and the new site is approximately 60 kilometers north of the famous Lucy site. Several additional areas have been documented as fossiliferous although localities were not designated and fossils were not collected.
THE FOSSILS
The survey team collected a number of fossils that were exposed on the ground▓s surface. In their exposed position, these specimens could be subjected to erosional forces and had to be collected before they were seriously damaged or destroyed. A total of 12 early hominid fossil specimens were discovered, including parts of one individual's skeleton. Portions recovered thus far include a complete tibia, parts of a femur, ribs, vertebrae, clavicle, pelvis, and a complete scapula of an adult whose sex and stature are yet to be determined, although it is already clear that the individual was larger than Lucy. In addition to this discovery, skeletal parts of other individuals were found in different localities in the area. These discoveries include isolated teeth, and elements from below the neck (arm bones, leg bones, phalanges). The non-hominid fossil assemblage includes animals such as monkeys, horses, large and small carnivores, a variety of antelopes multiple species of pigs, giraffes, rhinoceros, elephants, and deinotheres. Among small mammals, porcupines, cane rats, and other species of rats were discovered. The faunal assemblage also includes crocodiles, fish, and hippopotamus.
GEOLOGY AND DATING
Exposed sediments in the new fossiliferous area are mostly silty sand and silty clay horizons interbedded with a number of volcanic tuffs and basaltic flows suitable for dating. The total section in the area is estimated to be about 50 meters thick. Geochronologist Dr. Alan Deino has collected 16 rock samples and the most critical samples above and below the fossiliferous horizon will be dated soon at the Berkeley Geochronology Center in Berkeley, California. The estimated age of the site, based on preliminary field analysis of the associated animal fossils is roughly 3.8 to 4 million years. However, confirmation has to await radiometric dating of the rock samples.
SIGNIFICANCE
Based on the associated animal remains, the team believes that the hominid fossils are likely between 3.8 to 4 million years old. This will place the new fossils in time between the earlier 4.4 million year old Ardipithecus ramidus partial skeleton and the younger 3.2 million year old ⌠Lucy■ partial skeleton of A. afarensis. The team hopes that the new discoveries will allow scientists to connect the dots - furthering our knowledge of this important time period in human evolution. Numerous highly important scientific issues will be tackled by the researchers as work continues. However, it is already clear that planned scientific studies of this once in a lifetime discovery will tell us much about how our four-million-year-old ancestors walked, how tall they were, and what they looked like.
Haile-Selassie says that it is too early to tell what species is represented by these hominids. This is because the remains are embedded in adhering silt and stone, which now must be removed under a microscope. Comparative studies are then planned, and will be conducted as excavation proceeds. The associated plant and animal fossils and embedding sediments will also be subjected to study by specialists in order to further refine the age and environmental conditions.
FUTURE PROSPECTS
The team emphasizes that this discovery and its announcement represent the opening of a new door on a poorly known time period. Years of research lie ahead. The new fossiliferous areas are very promising. There is a high chance of recovering more fossil hominids. These hominids will be important in terms of understanding the early phases of human evolution before Lucy. With permit from the Authority for Research and Conservation of Cultural Heritage (ARCCH), the team will continue the search and collection of additional fossil hominids and also excavate next year in an attempt to find the rest of the bones of this skeleton.



-
More to come! Ciao!

This is in further vein, as i'd said before .... since some people don't bother researching, i'll post this.
As per the ambulocetus natans transitional fossil ....

Ambulocetids are large, powerful animals, with short limbs, but big feet, and a strong tail. They are only found in northern Pakistan and western India in rocks that indicate that the environment was nearshore marine and swampy. These rocks cannot be dated with great accuracy, but they are clearly younger than the sediments in which pakicetids are found. Although ambulocetids could walk on land as well as swim, it is clear that they were not fast on either terrain. The post-cranial skeleton of ambulocetids is well known thanks to the discovery of a very complete skeleton of the species Ambulocetus natans. The name of this whale means ⌠the walking and swimming whale,■ and indicates that it was amphibious. Ambulocetus was first described by Thewissen et al. (1994), and later, in more detail, by Thewissen et al. (1996)
http://darla.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Thewissen/whale_origins/whales/Ambulocet.html
-

...and the anopheles .....
THE ANOPHELES GENOME AND COMPARATIVE INSECT GENOMICS

The following points are made by T.C. Kaufman et al (Science 2002 298:97):

1) The Phylum Arthropoda is the most species-rich and morphologically diverse animal group on the planet. Since their appearance in the Early Cambrian and their subsequent radiation, arthropods have come to inhabit and dominate the vast majority of ecological habitats. From the many different arthropod groups that existed in the Early Cambrian, only four have survived to the present: the Chelicerata, Myriapoda, Crustacea, and Insecta. Members of these four groups plague us, transmit diseases, benefit us, and feed us. The genome sequence of the African malaria vector, the mosquito Anopheles gambiae, recently reported (1), coupled with the Drosophila melanogaster genome sequence (2), provides us with new insights into the genetic makeup of two members of the Insecta, arguably the dominant group of arthropods.

2) The genome sequences of A. gambiae and Plasmodium falciparum, the malaria parasite it transmits (3,4), will yield fresh insights into parasite and vector biology that will lead to more efficient disease control strategies. A new approach to vector-borne disease control based on the genetic manipulation of the mosquito has already received considerable attention (5). The A. gambiae genome sequence will accelerate efforts to identify molecules that can inhibit parasite development in the vector and subsequently prevent transmission to humans. Stable germline transformation has been demonstrated for several vector mosquitoes. This is encouraging news given that transgenic anopheline mosquitoes engineered to express an anti-Plasmodium molecule turn out to be inefficient vectors for disease transmission in the laboratory.

3) Of the ~3500 mosquito species, molecular information exists for only a small number, and even this is limited. The Anopheles sequence will facilitate elucidation of biological processes unique to mosquitoes, including genes and pathways associated with blood feeding, host-seeking behavior, and immune responses to pathogens. Comparison of orthologous genes should help to illuminate the crucial and vexing issue of interspecific variability in vector competence. Why is one species of mosquito a fully competent vector for a given pathogen, whereas another is completely refractory to infection?

4) The Anopheles genome sequence forms the foundation for comparative genomic analyses across mosquito species. A. gambiae represents the subfamily Anophelinae, which contains the primary vectors of malaria parasites. But it is the subfamily Culicinae that contains the majority of mosquito species, including the primary vectors of several emerging or reemerging arbovirus diseases (yellow fever, dengue fever, and West Nile encephalitis) and also of lymphatic filariasis. These two mosquito subfamilies appear to differ significantly in genomic structure -- gene order conservation between A. gambiae and the culicine mosquito Aedes aegypti (the primary vector of yellow and dengue fever viruses) is characterized by extensive local rearrangements within chromosomal arms. This is similar for the Drosophila and Anopheles genomes, which show conservation of whole chromosome arms but considerable local rearrangement within arms.

And, for sake of argument, since there's probably SOMEONE out there who wants to argue this stuff ...

http://edwardtbabinski.us/whales/whale-pelvis.html

Punch that one up if you want to argue about the creationist agenda versus the evolution "agenda". Kind of interesting.

I'll punch up Avida some time here soon for y'all, although i'm not promising more than 45 minutes of performance at a time til my compie's back up.

I'm not sure how ambulocetus natans proves evolution. Sounds just like a crocodile to me. And I mispoke. I meant variations between kinds. Obviously dogs and wolves can interbreed. I apologize for my mispoken claim.
It may sound like that to you, that's fine, i don't imagine that other languages are intelligible to people who don't speak them. Consider that when prompting an argument requiring factual bases.

I'll punch up Avida some time here soon for y'all, although i'm not promising more than 45 minutes of performance at a time til my compie's back up.

Hey, what all do you need to run that program anyway?

We can't prove that evolution is 100% true

nither can we prove that there is a God

What do we do?

Offer impossible prizes to an impossible contest!

I want to bring Kent Hovind to my town....oh how fast he'll be shot

Technically, it should always be capitalized. You say Hitler, a Nazi, the Nazi party, Nazis. Same goes for the God strains, God, a God, the God of, the Gods of; as they are all proper nouns.
Now I'm curious as to the exact rule. I know many a text book that, when speaking of the ancient greek and roman myths, does not capitalize the word. *wanders off makeing a mental note to ask her favorite English prof*

It's worth noting one of the measures of a theory's fitness is it's ability to make accurate predictions. Creationism has utterly failed in this respect. But crafty Darwin, and not just the theory, the man made a prediction that took 150 years to prove. The Comet Orchid (http://www.rbgkew.org.uk/archive/events/orchids2002/images/Angra.jpg) is something of an unusual plant. It hides it's nectar down a very narrow 12" long tube. Ol' Darwin correctly predicted that there then MUST be an insect with a 12 inch tongue to service it. He was naturally ridiculed for this. The world was big and sometimes odd, but certainly not that big or odd they claimed. But Madagascar, even after so much deforrestation still is all these many years later.

Also, species can occasionally interbreed, rarely producing fertile offspring, but it does happen. Again, proof positive of their innate similarities even though seperated by untold millenia of subtle change.

The problem most hard core creationists seem to have is they haven't really looked into the fundemental character of chance, and suffer from a kind of poverty of imagination. Speculation as to the cause of that aside, dispariging or simply curious, the end result is the same. They're not concerned about the governance of the physical world, by whatever powers plans or no, they're just looking for a kind of spiritual certainty in an endeavor that is by its nature uncertain. Faith requires belief without proof. With proof it's simply knowledge, and not nearly so magical.

Did anyone see the Ali G Show episode where he accuses kent hovind of using the facilities without flushing?

I didnt know it was kent hovind until the second time i saw it, which made it 10x more funny.