NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok
I want all of these awnsered
First you say the big bang happened billions of years ago who or what made those minerals
Two Louis Pasteur showed that life can only come from pre-existing life and noone since has proved him wrong
Three Evolution claims gradual mutation (adaption) explains how one species can eventualy creat another, to be believeable then it needs evidence of one creature growing to another. That evidence does not exist we do know however that mutations are harmful and lead to degeneration and five (ill stop for a bit after this one) What about the mutual dependence between plants and animals animals eat veges and veges need animals for there fertalization but your theory says that one came first then billions of year later the other came how so wouldnt it have died out and if they didnt need it then why do they need it now when that would slow the process

the big bang is nothing to do with evolution

you lose.

Ok
I want all of these awnsered
First you say the big bang happened billions of years ago who or what made those minerals
Two Louis Pasteur showed that life can only come from pre-existing life and noone since has proved him wrong
Three Evolution claims gradual mutation (adaption) explains how one species can eventualy creat another, to be believeable then it needs evidence of one creature growing to another. That evidence does not exist we do know however that mutations are harmful and lead to degeneration and five (ill stop for a bit after this one) What about the mutual dependence between plants and animals animals eat veges and veges need animals for there fertalization but your theory says that one came first then billions of year later the other came how so wouldnt it have died out and if they didnt need it then why do they need it now when that would slow the process

Holy shit, your ignorance is blinding, you should read more, really.

This question alone reveals your stupidity: First you say the big bang happened billions of years ago who or what made those minerals

:p :p :p :p :p :p :p :p

I'll leave you to the wolves now. Have a nice day!

LOL you awnser one question? and besides i know it is because if im not mistaken isnt it "true" that that happened then we all were created and evolved from apes?

Ok
I want all of these awnsered
First you say the big bang happened billions of years ago who or what made those minerals
Two Louis Pasteur showed that life can only come from pre-existing life and noone since has proved him wrong
Three Evolution claims gradual mutation (adaption) explains how one species can eventualy creat another, to be believeable then it needs evidence of one creature growing to another. That evidence does not exist we do know however that mutations are harmful and lead to degeneration and five (ill stop for a bit after this one) What about the mutual dependence between plants and animals animals eat veges and veges need animals for there fertalization but your theory says that one came first then billions of year later the other came how so wouldnt it have died out and if they didnt need it then why do they need it now when that would slow the process
Oh dear god. My eyes.

Come back when you've taken some biology and can actually spell words remotely correctly. As for your questions, they've been handled many times, but here we go again:

1 and 2: Abiogenesis is not evolution. However, you're attempting to make an argument that does not exist, as Pasteur in his experiment proved that abiogenesis does not happen as a normal function of life (ie that life springs from dead meat), however, in the miller experiments it has been shown that the atmosphere during the era when life arose was favorable to the creation of life.

3. What evidence is there that ALL mutations are harmful? I can think of a double handful of beneficial ones off the top of my head that we've observed ourselves. (eg, anti-bacterial resistance, the evolution of HIV playing games with our immune system, our skin color etc)

Four seems to have been skipped.

5. Plants do not need animals to fertilize them, they only need fertilizer (generally in the form of fixed nitrogen) when you are attempting to increase crop yields. Plants through symbiotic relationships with bacteria (legumes most notably) can fix enough nitrogen to survive. Besides, early plants lived in wet, marsh like areas that were inhabited with amphibians and fish, making your statement a bit odd as their still were animals around to produce what the plants could not.

I would like to point out that not all mutations are harmful, some allowing species to better adapt to their environment. Where as, as you stated others can cause harm, you need to look at both side.

Edit: Beat me to it.

Well man weres pants why do we still got hairy legs

Oh dear god. My eyes.
I don't know why, but this line made me crack up! :D :fluffle:

LEARN ENGLISH! That's all I have to say.

Well man weres pants why do we still got hairy legs
What on earth?


What does the pants wearing habit of man have to do with hairy legs?

Ok
I want all of these awnsered

Why don't you read a book about evolution then? You don't seem to have even a basic grasp of the theory.

Well man weres pants why do we still got hairy legs
Dolphins live in water, why do they have lungs?

Ok next one How did humans develop and start to love and all that?

Ouch. :headbang:

Ffc2, Big Bang has nothing to do with biological evolution. When i say NOTHING, i mean NOTHING. When will you ever learn that?!? I strongly recommend reading some text books.

Why don't you read a book about evolution then? You don't seem to have even a basic grasp of the theory.Tell me the theory then

Dolphins live in water, why do they have lungs?
my point why dont they change

my point why dont they change
they already did ;)

But they still have lungs.

Well man weres pants why do we still got hairy legs
its those damned scotts and their KILTS!

i know it is because if im not mistaken isnt it "true" that that happened then we all were created and evolved from apes?

Earlier today I ate a biscuit, then later I saw someone fall over. Therefore the two incidents are related, and by saying that I think the biscuit was created by God, it proves that it was God that made the person fall over.

Tell me the theory then

Or you could look it up for yourself, before coming in here and posting this ridiculous nonsense.

But they still have lungs.
and they live quite comfortably with them while in the water. They dont need to change.

But they still have lungs.
kinda hard breathing without those

Do you not tell me because you do not know?

kinda hard breathing without thoseBut if they and men were getting better we wouldn't need to breath

1) Big Bang v. Creationism is a whole other debate.

2)Hm, not quite sure what this has to do with it either. I'm no biologist or geneticist, so I'll let someone who can answer this better handle it.

3)There is evidence of gradual change in animals in the fossil record. Not all mutations are bad, degenerative, or dead ends, and modern humans are one result of just such a process. Sekeltons from all over the world, dating back millions of years, show the gradual progression of evolution in humans from a basic primate to what we are now.

4) Where's four?

5) I'm not sure exactly where evolution claims that plants and animals did not coexist. Besides, the survival of one is not dependent on the other vegetation can get fertilization from other dead plants, and animals can eat other animals to survive in an enviroment with few plants.what about herbovors

I find the thing you have to grasp to understand how evolution works is how vastly gradual it is.
This is over periods of millions and millions of years.
You'll be lucky to live as long as 100 years, and think how long it feels between just one birthday and the next; but that's nothing even to one million years, when the Earth, we're told, is billions of years old.

But if they and men were getting better we wouldn't need to breath
Are you a puppet, or are you for fucking real? I'd ask, if God was so perfect, why the hell was he bored, and needed intellectual masturbation via the human race?

Do you not tell me because you do not know?

The theory of evolution isn't something that can be explained in its entirety in three paragraphs, and I'm not going to spend all day writing a 5,000 word essay on it for your benefit.

But if they and men were getting better we wouldn't need to breathwe always need to breath ;)

Ok
I want all of these awnsered
First you say the big bang happened billions of years ago who or what made those minerals
Two Louis Pasteur showed that life can only come from pre-existing life and noone since has proved him wrong
Three Evolution claims gradual mutation (adaption) explains how one species can eventualy creat another, to be believeable then it needs evidence of one creature growing to another. That evidence does not exist we do know however that mutations are harmful and lead to degeneration and five (ill stop for a bit after this one) What about the mutual dependence between plants and animals animals eat veges and veges need animals for there fertalization but your theory says that one came first then billions of year later the other came how so wouldnt it have died out and if they didnt need it then why do they need it now when that would slow the process

Ok - first of all, without paragraphing - your post makes for awfully hard going!

1) The Big Bang occured 13.7 billion years ago. All elements can be derived from one common material - ever heard of half-lives?

2) Pasteur? The semi-drunk Frenchman? He didn't come up with the theory himself, he stole it from Friedriche Henle.

3) Ok - I'm doing A-Level Biology, and what the hell are you talking about?! Gene mutations occur naturally at random. As we get older, more and more cells will contain gene mutations. However, these mutations cannot be passed onto our kids as they do not occur in the germline cells. Mutation can occur without affecting other organisms. And even if mutations do occur in the sex cells, who is to say that a mutation in a DNA nucleotide coding for sweet raspberries instead of sour ones is a bad thing?

4) Yes, where did this go?

5) Uhhh - ever heard of photosynthetic plants? The most basic, algae and single-celled monophyletic plants were among the first organisms to 'live' on this planet. They were responsible for the conversion of the atmosphere into the oxygen/nitrogen rich system we enjoy today. They allowed single-celled bacteria to thrive, and to propagate into more complicated structures.

What on earth was your original point?

But if they and men were getting better we wouldn't need to breath
there is no reason to not breathe. Breathing has so far proved beneficial, necesary and not very hard, therefore, evolution will not rid us of the need to breathe.

What benefiets?

What benefiets?living perhaps?

But if we evolved we should get to were we dont need it. It should be useless

what about herbovors

Herbivores exist in enviroments with lots of plants and that's where they thrive. They can also live in more sparse enviroments, but usually at the expense of both size and population growth.

By the way, you should look into taking basic biology and chemistry, it would answer a lot of these questions. At least buy a textbook and read it before coming here with questions.

What benefiets?

As an experiment into the benefits of breathing I suggest you stop breathing now.

But if we evolved we should get to were we dont need it. It should be uselesswe aren't that far.

By definition, evolution is: (1.) precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population. This is the neontological (biological) definition.

Unfortunately, alleles themselves are rarely, if ever, preserved in the rock record as fossils; which are the key data units in the examination of the history of life on Earth. But, the expression of these alleles is preserved in the fossils of populations of organisms, which are readily available for examination. From this, it is readily apparent that (2.) life has developed (not 'progressed') from one or a small set of common ancestors as well as from 'simple' organisms to more 'complex' creatures over the span of geological time. This is one of the paleontological definitions of evolution.

Although already there may be some dissenters bristling over the relative merits of biological 'simplicity' or 'complexity'; I maintain that, in however a general or specific sense, a multicellular organism (say, a human, a blue whale, or a Velociraptor mongoliensis) is relatively more complex (systemically) than a unicellular blue-green alga; although I will concede that complexity is not a measure of a population of organisms success (viz.: bacteria and alga are much more voluminous and have been extant far longer than Homo sapiens), but is used here solely for purposes of differentiation between the neontological and paleontological concept of evolution.

We are not? Over 13.7 billion years man we are slow

We are not? Over 13.7 billion years man we are slow

Some of us more so than others...

But if we evolved we should get to were we dont need it. It should be useless
why?
it would just be more work to change something we dont need to change. It would require changing the whole human anatomy at a molecular level, something that is just too much work to be done for no reason.
Hell, its too much work to be done for any reason.

I could say the same for all of you.

I think Ffc2 is goofing, very few people are really that dumb.

Ok
I want all of these awnsered

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=415384

Please read it before you even consider posting anything remotely related to what you think is the subject of evolution again. Seriously.

We are not? Over 13.7 billion years man we are slow
that's the age of the universe, mankind only exists for several million.

But if we evolved we should get to were we dont need it. It should be useless

Evolution is not about producing an organism that cam survive without eating, sleeping, breathing, or any other biological function, it's about making that organism suited for survival in its enviroment. Breathing makes use of one of the planet's most abundant resources, air, to fuel the body. Since most organisms on the planet breathe, then they're making the best of what's available to survive.

I could say the same for all of you.

I have a question. How old are you?!?

I think Ffc2 is goofing, very few people are really that dumb.

Of course he is, just mock him or ignore him till he gets bored.

Well why did it take so long for us to come into play

I think Ffc2 is goofing, very few people are really that dumb.
I wish I wish I was a fish...

Evolution is not about producing an organism that cam survive without eating, sleeping, breathing, or any other biological function, it's about making that organism suited for survival in its enviroment. Breathing makes use of one of the planet's most abundant resources, air, to fuel the body. Since most organisms on the planet breathe, then they're making the best of what's available to survive.Ok then awnser my other question on page 2 i think

I have a question. How old are you?!? He's 14. Go easy on the kid, we're shattering his whole world here.

Well why did it take so long for us to come into play
because evolution doesnt happen overnight

[reads thread....]
[re-reads thread...]
[Re-reads thread again...]
[looks longingly at excedrin bottle... pissed that I didn't by a new bottle.]

Sorry FFC2... you're on your own on this one... :rolleyes:

[Sits down and gets some Hot Dogs on Skewers for the burning in progress.]

Ok, if we didn't breathe, we would still need oxygen. Then we would have to eat oxygen, which wouldn't be very efficent. Why didn't god just make us not need air? I can type just as illegibbly as you acn fc3c.

Well why did it take so long for us to come into play
evolution... ;)

He's 14. Go easy on the kid, we're shattering his whole world here.Your not shattering my world in fact im just having fun now

Well why did it take so long for us to come into play
evolution :D

darn you pie:D

Ok - I strongly suggest that you read

a) On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin

b) Anatomy of the Human Body, by Henry Gray

c) Geography An Integrated Approach, by David Waugh

Those will answer all your questions.

Oh my lord...

If you removed lungs or a method of breathing, considering humans have quite a edit: [small] volume to surface area ratio and can not absorb sufficient amounts of oxygen through the skin, we would die. Now - I imagine you would ask quite ignorantly 'why?'... Well, because God made you that way. ;)? Got a problem with that, mate? Alternatively, if you want an evolutionists point of you, you need not change what works already. We do not live in water, so we do not need gills. And if we changed our system in the body that requires oxygen for respiration, the conversion of ADP to ATP would be pointless, thus having mitochondria (I believe they are the culprits responsible for respiration?) would be pointless.

Why eat and kill things in order to survive? Is that not quite merciless? If God wanted otherwise, he would have allowed us to eat stones or something.

I am not denying God, but I am denying benevolence and I do not deny evolution. We have an argument of 'well, bacteria do it, but they are only bacteria!'... But the principle is the same. Microevolution exists. So why not in larger systems? Bacteria descrimination, anyone? Anyhow - if you don't want to be laughed away with your tail between your legs, I would just stop replying Ffc2, unless you are doing this out of interest and not trying to prove a group of people who know what they are talking about, wrong, when you can't prove otherwise.

He's 14. Go easy on the kid, we're shattering his whole world here.
was I that dumb just 6 years ago???

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Ffc2 is an idiot. He should be killed :sniper: End of discussion.
Can these thread be deleted or locked? Please?

Your not shattering my world in fact im just having fun now

Small things...

But if they and men were getting better we wouldn't need to breath
The second you find a better electron acceptor then O2 for use in respiration (that is, cellular) we'll get right on it.

:headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang: :headbang:
Ffc2 is an idiot. He should be killed :sniper: End of discussion.
Can these thread be deleted or locked? Please?Why should it be locked?

Ok - I strongly suggest that you read

a) On the Origin of Species, by Charles Darwin

b) Anatomy of the Human Body, by Henry Gray

c) Geography An Integrated Approach, by David Waugh

Those will answer all your questions.

d) An English textbook

Regarding breathing. It's simple. Cellular respiration. Look:

sugar + oxygen -> carbon dioxide + water + free energy!

This is how our organism (and that of all aerobic lifeforms) is powered. Note that this is prettymuch the vice versa process of the photosynthesis in plants, which is as follows:

carbon dioxide + water + sunlight -> oxygen + sugar
(which is a very efficent conversion of energy into usable form)

Oh my lord...

If you removed lungs or a method of breathing, considering humans have quite a edit: [small] volume to surface area ratio and can not absorb sufficient amounts of oxygen through the skin, we would die. Now - I imagine you would ask quite ignorantly 'why?'... Well, because God made you that way. ;)? Got a problem with that, mate? Alternatively, if you want an evolutionists point of you, you need not change what works already. We do not live in water, so we do not need gills. And if we changed our system in the body that requires oxygen for respiration, the conversion of ADP to ATP would be pointless, thus having mitochondria (I believe they are the culprits responsible for respiration?) would be pointless.

O2 is needed for aerobic respiration, which is about...20 times more efficent then anaerobic respiration.

LOL :p @ the textbook.

But they still have lungs.
So - on the one hand you are saying there is no evidence of transition...

and, on the other hand, you are complaining about dolphins still showing transitional elements?

Do you even believe the things you say?

Why should it be locked?

Well, i can understand he's frustrated with you because you don't want to understand. Other people have a bit more patience with you, however :)

Homo is the genus that includes modern humans and their close relatives. The genus is estimated to be between 1.5 and 2.5 million years old. All species except Homo sapiens are extinct; the last surviving relative, Homo neanderthalensis, died out 30,000 years ago, although recent evidence suggests that Homo floresiensis lived as recently as 12,000 years ago.

What im saying is if we evolved that they wouldn't need them nethier would we

Originally Posted by Skywolf
:headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang::headbang:
Ffc2 is an idiot. He should be killed :sniper: End of discussion.
Can these thread be deleted or locked? Please?
Watch yourself mate. That kind of talk is in direct violation of forum rules. You can disagree vehemently with Ffc2, but death threats and personal attacks are not permitted.

Your not shattering my world in fact im just having fun now
so you're admitting that you are trolling...

What im saying is if we evolved that they wouldn't need them nethier would we

I'm sorry? Could you please explain what exactly you mean with that?

Did you know that we share 54% of our genes with bananas?

Excuse the crappy lack of small numbers:

Aerobic:
C6H1206 + 6O2 -> 6CO2 + 6H20 + 38ATP

Anaerobic:
C6H12O6 -> C3H5O3 + 2ATP

What im saying is if we evolved that they wouldn't need them nethier would we
What?

Lungs are needed to exchange gasses in our body, it's because of evolution we have lungs, not in spite of. We need O2 to convert glucose into ATP, and if we did it the old fashioned way (through the skin) we'd most likely die, either from dehydration or asphixation.

Why should it be locked?

Because it, and you, are stupid and have given me a headache. Do you know what happens when stupid people give me headaches? I beat them up. Unfortunatly, this is the Internet, and I can not do that. So the next best thing would be to delete the thread and block you. But I don't have the power to do that. So I requested it. Now can someone please do it for me?

I just thought I'd mention three things.

Firstly, IIRC according to string theory (sorry but it's way too advanced for me to understand or explain properly) the big bang was caused by membranes crossing in the eleventh dimension. Of course this is just a theory and may be wrong but there is a mathematical basis behind it.

Secondly, a recent idea on evolution is that it consists of brief, fast periods of change spaced out with long periods of stability as animals adapt to changing surroundings, find a niche and adapt to become suited to it. Evolution occurs with organisms fitting into environmental circumstances well anthrough survival of the fittest etc. and is not about becoming detached from all surroundings as Ffc2 implies by saying we should have evolved past breathing.

Lastly, early/simple plants have free swimming gametes and need no intervention by other organisms to procreate so FFc2's point about plants and animals is total rubbish.

Okay, one question. If evolution does not occur, what would happen in an ice age? According to you, all the species would exist exactly as they did before! You ignore that they would all catch hypothermia and die. But if one percent of the animals had randomly mutated a thicker coat, they could survive, and then all of that species would be different. Please realize that this is a dumbed down example, and not the whole theory of evolution.

But the Big Bang has nothing to do with evolution.

So were does big bang come in

Because it, and you, are stupid and have given me a headache. Do you know what happens when stupid people give me headaches? I beat them up. Unfortunatly, this is the Internet, and I can not do that. So the next best thing would be to delete the thread and block you. But I don't have the power to do that. So I requested it. Now can someone please do it for me?
I think you calling him stupid and saying that he should be killed is more likely to result in a warning/ban of you and your posts being deleted.

Oh my God...the Big Bang has NOTHING (!!!!!!!) to do with Evolution!!!!

So were does big bang come in
It doesn't. That's way in the past, and highly independent of evolution. Not my field to handle the big bang though, I'm purely a biology student :)

So were does big bang come in
Nowhere in evolution

So were does big bang come in

In cosmology, the Big Bang is the scientific theory that describes the early development and shape of the universe. The central idea is that the theory of general relativity can be combined with the observations on the largest scales of galaxies receding from each other to extrapolate the conditions of the universe back or forward in time. A natural consequence of the Big Bang is that in the past the universe had a higher temperature and a higher density. The term "Big Bang" is used both in a narrow sense to refer to a point in time when the observed expansion of the universe (Hubble's law) began, and in a more general sense to refer to the prevailing cosmological paradigm explaining the origin and evolution of the universe.

Watch yourself mate. That kind of talk is in direct violation of forum rules. You can disagree vehemently with Ffc2, but death threats and personal attacks are not permitted.

::grumbles:: Fine. I disagree vehemently with him.

And to someone or other, I'm a she, not a he.

So were does big bang come in

Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago. Evolution didn't occur until billions of years later (for comparison purposes, the solar system is about 4.6 billion years old, the oldest rocks on Earth are circa 3.9 billion years old, and the earliest evidence of life is circa 3.5 billion years old). That's a lot of time later, isn't it?

::grumbles:: Fine. I disagree vehemently with him.

And to someone or other, I'm a she, not a he.Nah, skywolf... sit back, relax... enjoy the burning he's getting... have an Ice Tea. [offers glass] sorry... outta cookies tho.

I think you calling him stupid and saying that he should be killed is more likely to result in a warning/ban of you and your posts being deleted.
so i can report her for that?

so i can report her for that?
Just aiming to be the popular one on this board, no?

so i can report her for that?
Probably, yes. Dont take my word for it though.

you can do it :fluffle:

so i can report her for that? Technically yes, but I don't think it's necassary personally.

Probably, yes. Dont take my word for it though.k brb im gonna do that

So can we report you for trolling then?

Ffc2, it's been suggested many times that you do some reading. I have to add my support for this notion, since I can personally vouch for the benefits of actually picking up a book and reading through it.

I was once in a position very similar to yours. Books have been my best friends ever since they got me out of that position.

Regarding dolphins, there is great paleontological and genetic evidence of how whales evolved from land animals. You may or may not have heard that whales and artiodactyles (that group includes antelopes, bovines, giraffes, hippos, llamas, pigs and their kind) are closely related to each other.

Please go ahead and look up Ambulocetus natans. :)

so i can report her for that?Yes you can... but realize you do so, and you open yourself up to others to reciprocate. I suggest you don't, and report to the mods only the very serious offences since she was already warned by other players and seems amiable to that warning.

Dolphins live in water, why do they have lungs?

oo, leys think..hmm...could it be because they are mammals?

I agree with M_F

A Dictionary can be a wonderful thing...

So can we report you for trolling then?he apparently agrees that he is trolling with this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8790497&postcount=58)

I agree with M_F

A Dictionary can be a wonderful thing...

Yes, it just provides an opportunity to use the power of language in such a powerful and, especially, comprehensable way.

oo, leys think..hmm...could it be because they are mammals?a cookie for you :)

But if they and men were getting better we wouldn't need to breath

..what?...are you 5 years old or something?..have you ever actually had a science lesson?..on anything, let alone evolution?

he apparently agrees that he is trolling with this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8790497&postcount=58)

If he is a troll, then that whole 'oh, can I report her?' thing was very cleverly done.

a cookie for you :)

thanks bro :)

I like the way that ffc2's posts lend more doubt to the idea of intelligent design than the theory of evolution. So why didn't God design us not to need lungs, eh?

Ok Ffc2 - if you report her for something as inconsequential as that, where she has recognised that she shouldn't have said it and other members have warned her - then I will personally report you for cooking up this whole thread and just trolling. We have postal evidence, from you, that construes as trolling.

I like the way that ffc2's posts lend more doubt to the idea of intelligent design than the theory of evolution. So why didn't God design us not to need lungs, eh?

Hmm... good point. You got me thinking about something there... :)

I like the way that ffc2's posts lend more doubt to the idea of intelligent design than the theory of evolution.

LMAO!!

If he is a troll, then that whole 'oh, can I report her?' thing was very cleverly done.All he'll do is go by way of... what was his name.... Kahta?

Ok Ffc2 - if you report her for something as inconsequential as that, where she has recognised that she shouldn't have said it and other members have warned her - then I will personally report you for cooking up this whole thread and just trolling. We have postal evidence, from you, that construes as trolling.

Ffc2 is a troll and probably a puppet. Just ignore it and it'll go away.

So - have we convinced you of Evolution yet? Or are you still shrouded in darkness, ignorance and sin?

Ok next one How did humans develop and start to love and all that?

This has got to be the funniest thread i've read in ages.

I'm usually pretty good at arguing for evolution.

I can't here, because the opposing argument makes SO LITTLE SENSE that I can't even begin to attack it without --

a) collapsing into hysterical giggles,
or b) trying to read it and getting a headache.

I'm usually pretty good at arguing for evolution.

I can't here, because the opposing argument makes SO LITTLE SENSE that I can't even begin to attack it without --

a) collapsing into hysterical giggles,
or b) trying to read it and getting a headache.

Well, try to see it from the positive side: this is one of the most entertaining threads ever! :D

I'm usually pretty good at arguing for evolution.

I can't here, because the opposing argument makes SO LITTLE SENSE that I can't even begin to attack it without --

a) collapsing into hysterical giggles,
or b) trying to read it and getting a headache."So Little Sense"? so you got some glimmer of coherant thought? Damn, I really don't wanna read this again....?


BTW... got any Excedrin or Tylenol on you?

It's interesting that you don't often see anyone with ffc2's hopeless lack of grammar and laughable misunderstanding of the theory arguing for evolution. I'm surprised nobody's made a troll puppet to do that, yet.

"So Little Sense"? so you got some glimmer of coherant thought? Damn, I really don't wanna read this again....?


BTW... got any Excedrin or Tylenol on you?

It's sorta like me listening to people speaking French (I know a fair bit of Spanish). There's words there that ALMOST sound like stuff that makes sense, thrown in with a whole lot of stuff that makes no sense whatsoever.

And no, no I don't. :(

It's interesting that you don't often see anyone with ffc2's hopeless lack of grammar and laughable misunderstanding of the theory arguing for evolution. I'm surprised nobody's made a troll puppet to do that, yet.

I am fairly sure he is a troll puppet.

Thats because understanding evolution requires brain cells.

Ok
I want all of these awnsered
First you say the big bang happened billions of years ago who or what made those minerals
Two Louis Pasteur showed that life can only come from pre-existing life and noone since has proved him wrong
Three Evolution claims gradual mutation (adaption) explains how one species can eventualy creat another, to be believeable then it needs evidence of one creature growing to another. That evidence does not exist we do know however that mutations are harmful and lead to degeneration and five (ill stop for a bit after this one) What about the mutual dependence between plants and animals animals eat veges and veges need animals for there fertalization but your theory says that one came first then billions of year later the other came how so wouldnt it have died out and if they didnt need it then why do they need it now when that would slow the process

I used to be an evolutionist, but you seem to be all the evidence I need to prove there is no such thing as evolution.

"Have you ever noticed how people who don't believe evolution always look really... unevolved?"- Bill Hicks.

I used to be an evolutionist, but you seem to be all the evidence I need to prove there is no such thing as evolution.

"Have you ever noticed how people who don't believe evolution always look really... unevolved?"- Bill Hicks.why not... there are Evolutinary throwbacks... is just that in the wild, they rarely have a chance to breed... but in Human Society... :rolleyes:

Thats because understanding evolution requires brain cells.

Btw, i have a question. What would you think about some kind of award for Creationists?

If you don't beleive in evolution, you can go live with the algae, seeing as without evolution, you would be one.

If you don't beleive in evolution, you can go live with the algae, seeing as without evolution, you would be one.

I don't think this has anything to do with believe or not believe, it has much more to do with understand or not understand. :)

why not... there are Evolutinary throwbacks... is just that in the wild, they rarely have a chance to breed... but in Human Society... :rolleyes:


Ahh, so decadence and surplus in human society is shutting down evolution, leaving us with more and more idiots. Perhaps.

Ahh, so decadence and surplus in human society is shutting down evolution, leaving us with more and more idiots. Perhaps.
LOL... :D I didn't say that... I dearly Wish I Had... but i didn't. :(

After all, In Nature it's Survival of the Fittest... here that's considered "Barbaric"

Ahh, so decadence and surplus in human society is shutting down evolution, leaving us with more and more idiots. Perhaps.
I have known that for a long time. Unfortuneatly

LOL... :D I didn't say that... I dearly Wish I Had... but i didn't. :(

After all, In Nature it's Survival of the Fittest... here that's considered "Barbaric"


I wouldn't say that, I just mean that evolutionary pressures are far less since humanity (hohoho) discovered agriculture. Of course, that was barely 10,000 years ago. The time period of continued economic success and agricultural needed to have a major effect on evolution would be reaching towards the millions of years, but no-one can deny that today, you simply do not have to be fit, intelligent, quick witted or strong to survive and, therefore, breed. However, I have a theory that those who would have been intelligent enough in the past to survive are now intelligent enough to know not to have kids, and therefore we are entering a period of anti-evolution, where only the stupid survive. Ironic.

...I love threads reminding me that when it comes down to it, the Creationist position is based on two things:

1). A book said it.
2). Your way hasn't plugged all the gaps yet, so it obviously has no worth whatsoever.

Come on, Creationists. At least consider the evidence you're presented with. It's only fair.

Its like, if we have 1% of the nessesary evidence, we must be right, seeing as you still have holes in your theory.

They don't. Darwin's book is not evidence for evolution. Darwin's evidence is evidence for evolution. The Christian book is not evidence for Creationism. The Creationist mistake is to start from one viewpoint and then take every possible failing of the evolutionist standpoint as supporting evidence. Y'know something? Forget reading up on the theory and go check some of the more recent professional debate on the subject. Here's a citation which might help, from one of my more recent essays.

Plantinga, A., ‘When Faith and Reason Clash: Evolution and the Bible’, and ‘Reply to McMullin’, also McMullin, E., ‘Evolution and Special Creation’, in Hull, D. L. and Ruse, M. (eds.), The Philosophy of Biology, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998

Read those articles. Plantinga, believing Creationsim to be a Christian duty, is reduced to arguing that it's possibly more likely the Cambrian explosion is evidence that God intervened in the evolutionary process, and McMullin points out that no, it isn't.

Read the last few issues of New Scientist to see the evolutionist explanation for the Cambrian explanation; it's there in their "10 Greatest Things About Life" section.

Well man weres pants why do we still got hairy legs

Vestigal organs and other stuff which helps provide proof of evolution

...I love threads reminding me that when it comes down to it, the Creationist position is based on two things:

1). A book said it.
2). Your way hasn't plugged all the gaps yet, so it obviously has no worth whatsoever.

Come on, Creationists. At least consider the evidence you're presented with. It's only fair.at the same vein, Evolutionists claim, See it's not in the Bible so therefore Creationism is wrong.

however, ME, I believe that Evolution did occur. And that was before I started on NS.

at the same vein, Evolutionists claim, See it's not in the Bible so therefore Creationism is wrong.

however, ME, I believe that Evolution did occur. And that was before I started on NS.

...do they? I've not come across this before, except in the examples of fanatical idiots like Dawkins, who as fanatical idiots are just as bad no matter which side of any debate they're on. As far as I've ever seen, reasonable Evolutionists claim Creationism to be wrong because their theory contradicts it, which, let's be fair, is fairly standard scientific practice.

As far as I've ever seen, reasonable Evolutionists claim Creationism to be wrong because their theory contradicts it, which, let's be fair, is fairly standard scientific practice.

Pardon? We do not claim Creationism is wrong because our theory contradicts it, but because evidence (which is numerous) contradicts it. And evidence for Evolution is overwhelming.

So far NO contradictions in the theory listed (that I have seen)

There have been plenty of issues with evolution raisede but not a SINGLE contradiction in the theory

...do they? I've not come across this before, except in the examples of fanatical idiots like Dawkins, who as fanatical idiots are just as bad no matter which side of any debate they're on. As far as I've ever seen, reasonable Evolutionists claim Creationism to be wrong because their theory contradicts it, which, let's be fair, is fairly standard scientific practice.There are Fantics to any and every thought/belief/idea.

just don't assume that the Fanatics are the representatives for all.

And Evolution does not contradict Creationism... after all, who's to say that Evolution isn't the "how" God created everything.

Pardon? We do not claim Creationism is wrong because our theory contradicts it, but because evidence (which is numerous) contradicts it. And evidence for Evolution is overwhelming.

Okay, I might have explained myself better, but theories are generally put aside in favour of better theories because of the evidence for the better theory. I think I said the same thing as you, but not as well; your point is made.

There are Fantics to any and every thought/belief/idea.

just don't assume that the Fanatics are the representatives for all.

And Evolution does not contradict Creationism... after all, who's to say that Evolution isn't the "how" God created everything.
Well again to be technical creationism is the belief that the bible edition is litteraly correct (6 days and all)

But just pointing out that is the meaning of the word CREATIONSIM not to say you couldent have a creation hypothisis that uses evolution as a method

Ok
I want all of these awnsered
Will do. I'll be expecially good with the completely unrelated to evolution questions you asked. ;)

First you say the big bang happened billions of years ago who or what made those minerals
The big bang has nothing to do with evolution and I don't really understand your question. What minerals? Are you referring to metals in the astronomical sense? (i.e. everything heavier than hydrogen) Please clarify this question before I start to explain stellar nucleosynthesis.

Two Louis Pasteur showed that life can only come from pre-existing life and noone since has proved him wrong
Pasteur was talking about maggots coming from a piece of meat. He was saying that the maggots could not get there without the flies to plant the eggs. This is completely unrelated to evolution and demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of the subject on your part.

Three Evolution claims gradual mutation (adaption) explains how one species can eventualy creat another, to be believeable then it needs evidence of one creature growing to another. That evidence does not exist
Fossil record?

we do know however that mutations are harmful and lead to degeneration
Not all mutations are harmful, some are beneficial, others are neutral.

five (ill stop for a bit after this one) What about the mutual dependence between plants and animals animals eat veges and veges need animals for there fertalization but your theory says that one came first then billions of year later the other came how so wouldnt it have died out and if they didnt need it then why do they need it now when that would slow the process
Different plants, different animals existed before the codependance.

What happened to 4?

There are Fantics to any and every thought/belief/idea.

just don't assume that the Fanatics are the representatives for all.

And Evolution does not contradict Creationism... after all, who's to say that Evolution isn't the "how" God created everything.

I think the creationism we're talking about here is the whole god created the earth in 7 days, garden of eden, adam and eve thing. Since its impossible to prove one way or the other whether god set off the big bang, its generally ignored. So evolution does contradict creationism.

There are Fantics to any and every thought/belief/idea.

just don't assume that the Fanatics are the representatives for all.

And Evolution does not contradict Creationism... after all, who's to say that Evolution isn't the "how" God created everything.

Ah, but the trouble is that God intervening in the workings of this Universe at all actually has much, much bigger consequences than this debate. For starters, it seems as if it might possibly render the enterprise of science useless.

I think the creationism we're talking about here is the whole god created the earth in 7 days, garden of eden, adam and eve thing. Since its impossible to prove one way or the other whether god set off the big bang, its generally ignored. So evolution does contradict creationism.
Ah... but what's a DAY to God. 24 hours... 24 decades, 24 million years...

Granted I don't take the Bible Literally and I do laugh at those who do.

I do believe that God did create Life, the Universe and Everything. However, I also Do believe that Evolution (and other sciences) explain the HOW.

Ah, but the trouble is that God intervening in the workings of this Universe at all actually has much, much bigger consequences than this debate. For starters, it seems as if it might possibly render the enterprise of science useless.

Even if (and i dont for a minute think he has or could do) god has intervened in this universe it would nt make science useless, unless you think all of our modern technology is nothing of consequence?

Ah, but the trouble is that God intervening in the workings of this Universe at all actually has much, much bigger consequences than this debate. For starters, it seems as if it might possibly render the enterprise of science useless.Now that I Don't agree with. Science will always be needed. Through Science we can Marvel at Gods work... expand on our (man's) range and Horizons. God isn't anti-science. but is (for now) beyond it.

I think the creationism we're talking about here is the whole god created the earth in 7 days, garden of eden, adam and eve thing. Since its impossible to prove one way or the other whether god set off the big bang, its generally ignored. So evolution does contradict creationism.
Correct creationism != ID (which is what they were perposing)

Ah... but what's a DAY to God. 24 hours... 24 decades, 24 million years...

Granted I don't take the Bible Literally and I do laugh at those who do.

I do believe that God did create Life, the Universe and Everything. However, I also Do believe that Evolution (and other sciences) explain the HOW.

Thats not what i'm talking about. For the purposes of this of debates on NS a Creationist is someone who views the bible literally and says that god created the world in 7 days. This is what is in conflict with evolution, your view is not, so it isnt argued against by those think the scientific method is correct.

Ah... but what's a DAY to God. 24 hours... 24 decades, 24 million years...

Granted I don't take the Bible Literally and I do laugh at those who do.

I do believe that God did create Life, the Universe and Everything. However, I also Do believe that Evolution (and other sciences) explain the HOW.
like I said creationism by deffinition is LITTERAL iterpretation

The ideas you bring up fall under Intellegent design not creationism

Thats not what i'm talking about. For the purposes of this of debates on NS a Creationist is someone who views the bible literally and says that god created the world in 7 days. This is what is in conflict with evolution, your view is not, so it isnt argued against by those think the scientific method is correct.
Yup not just on NS eather


cre·a·tion·ism Audio pronunciation of "creationism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-sh-nzm)
n.

Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.

Ah... but what's a DAY to God. 24 hours... 24 decades, 24 million years...

Granted I don't take the Bible Literally and I do laugh at those who do.

I do believe that God did create Life, the Universe and Everything. However, I also Do believe that Evolution (and other sciences) explain the HOW.
In the bible, one day is sun rise, sun set.

Man, I don't even believe in that stuff and I know the answer to that question.

Correct creationism != ID (which is what they were perposing)

Yeah i know. Both words can mean different things depending on who uses them so i was just saying a creationist on NS is someone who beleives in the literal interpretation of the bible.

like I said creationism by deffinition is LITTERAL iterpretation

The ideas you bring up fall under Intellegent design not creationismahh well... then I shall sit back down and wait for FFC2's return...

this thread is getting far to serious now...

Now that I Don't agree with. Science will always be needed. Through Science we can Marvel at Gods work... expand on our (man's) range and Horizons. God isn't anti-science. but is (for now) beyond it.

Good Lord, no, modern technology is useful, yes, but ultimately, science is based on the idea that man can know the rules upon which the Universe is based, and if God has interfered with them at any point then they are not rules. Don't say "The Creator doesn't have to obey the rules of His Creation"; that's exactly what I'm talking about. If He doesn't, then we can't know the rules for certain, as they could be violated at any time. Maybe every time we've measured the strength of gravity, for example, God's been altering the result by blowing the object down with a mighty Divine breath. If God ever interferes at all, then science is good for approximations, but will never find the answers, which is ultimately its aim.

ahh well... then I shall sit back down and wait for FFC2's return...

this thread is getting far to serious now...
Sorry did not mean to come down on you ... just did not want us being confused on deffinitions otherwise what we debate wont aproximate real feelings or beliefs :)

Good Lord, no, modern technology is useful, yes, but ultimately, science is based on the idea that man can know the rules upon which the Universe is based, and if God has interfered with them at any point then they are not rules. Don't say "The Creator doesn't have to obey the rules of His Creation"; that's exactly what I'm talking about. If He doesn't, then we can't know the rules for certain, as they could be violated at any time. Maybe every time we've measured the strength of gravity, for example, God's been altering the result by blowing the object down with a mighty Divine breath. If God ever interferes at all, then science is good for approximations, but will never find the answers, which is ultimately its aim.
Well we COULD find out the general rules but we would just have a lot of junk data in there (anything that is bassed off of a non rule abiding intrusion of god)

Gets ready for FFC2 to return.

Sorry did not mean to come down on you ... just did not want us being confused on deffinitions otherwise what we debate wont aproximate real feelings or beliefs :) :) No that's fine... I've always felt I was a Creationist... nice to know how i'm suppose to think of myself... Maybe then I can avoid some of the more Hopeless debates...

:) No that's fine... I've always felt I was a Creationist... nice to know how i'm suppose to think of myself... Maybe then I can avoid some of the more Hopeless debates...
Yup ... always helps to find a term that roughly aproximates your feelings in an area ... that way there is not as much confusion

Ok
I want all of these awnsered
First you say the big bang happened billions of years ago who or what made those minerals
Two Louis Pasteur showed that life can only come from pre-existing life and noone since has proved him wrong
Three Evolution claims gradual mutation (adaption) explains how one species can eventualy creat another, to be believeable then it needs evidence of one creature growing to another. That evidence does not exist we do know however that mutations are harmful and lead to degeneration and five (ill stop for a bit after this one) What about the mutual dependence between plants and animals animals eat veges and veges need animals for there fertalization but your theory says that one came first then billions of year later the other came how so wouldnt it have died out and if they didnt need it then why do they need it now when that would slow the process



Not to increase the anxiety in this forum but...
Prove god exists... For all the questions about naturalist views of the world, there are just as many for religious explanations. Also, if you have questions about the big bang, I suggest you read some astrophysics books. I'm sure they will have some theories which answer your question. Also, the big bang was not made up of minerals... minerals are composites of atomic material... These atomic materials are formed from fusion reactions within stars (Mostly made up of hydrogen, which is forced together [thus fusion] to make other atoms, these atoms are forced together to make larger atoms, etc... thus making up the periodic table). By the way, I learned all of this from reading a simple science magazine this weekend. It’s not hard to find information...

Also, the first organic life is thought to have been a single cell organism which was both animal and plant... So neither came first according to popular science.

Finally, not all mutations are harmful. Years ago in the old Soviet Union a forest was so poluted that dark grey thick ash was spread everywhere. A form of moth which was normally a brilliant white mutated to a dark grey color, thus surviving preditory animals more easily. This is a pretty well documented example that may be found in highschool biology books.

Reading list,

William James,
Antonio Dimasio,
Popular Science, or some other form of science magazine...

...do they? I've not come across this before, except in the examples of fanatical idiots like Dawkins, who as fanatical idiots are just as bad no matter which side of any debate they're on. As far as I've ever seen, reasonable Evolutionists claim Creationism to be wrong because their theory contradicts it, which, let's be fair, is fairly standard scientific practice.

Just to play the devil's advocate, why is Dawkins a fanatical idiot?
Is it because he only sees one side of the coin, while furiously refusing to believe the other side exists?

If this is so, what does that make us?

Just to play the devil's advocate, why is Dawkins a fanatical idiot?
Is it because he only sees one side of the coin, while furiously refusing to believe the other side exists?

If this is so, what does that make us?

He is fanatical, but not an idiot. He fanatically follows reason and logic to its relevant conclusions, without thought for peoples deeply held irrational beliefs or faiths. Insensitive, yes, but intelligent and usually right.

Gets ready for FFC2 to return.

Like other "returns", I think you'll be waiting a LOOOOOOONG time. :)

Get some popcorn.

He is fanatical, but not an idiot. He fanatically follows reason and logic to its relevant conclusions, without thought for peoples deeply held irrational beliefs or faiths. Insensitive, yes, but intelligent and usually right.

My point was that if he is a radical idiot, what makes those on the oposite side any different...

Just to play the devil's advocate, why is Dawkins a fanatical idiot?
Is it because he only sees one side of the coin, while furiously refusing to believe the other side exists?

If this is so, what does that make us?

Dawkins draws a lot of very far-reaching conclusions from evidence which does not imply them. Like Freud, assuming, for example, that religion is dangerous and wrong and must be stamped out. The sheer ferocity with which he puts down the opposition - it's not just by scientific argument, but with rhetoric too. Now in a five-line forum post that's fine; not in a book.

Dawkins draws a lot of very far-reaching conclusions from evidence which does not imply them. Like Freud, assuming, for example, that religion is dangerous and wrong and must be stamped out. The sheer ferocity with which he puts down the opposition - it's not just by scientific argument, but with rhetoric too. Now in a five-line forum post that's fine; not in a book.

Not ok in a book?

He's polemic, sure, but he's taking a position which is as much defined by it's enemies as it is for its ideas. He sees a threat in massive organised religion, and he's a standard bearer, a preacher even, for those who don't work on faith. He's extreme, but you can't say that that is wrong, it's just different.

Dawkins draws a lot of very far-reaching conclusions from evidence which does not imply them. Like Freud, assuming, for example, that religion is dangerous and wrong and must be stamped out. The sheer ferocity with which he puts down the opposition - it's not just by scientific argument, but with rhetoric too. Now in a five-line forum post that's fine; not in a book.

You still haven't differentiated between someone like Dawkins, and someone who blindly believes in creation... They are both fanatical.

Don't get me started on Freud (I'm a doctoral candidate in clinical psych)

Interesting little fact about Freud... His original concern was that of the high prevalence of sexual molestation toward young girls, however he was almost booed off the stage in Europe... I wonder sometimes if his psychosexual theory of the psyche wasn't a direct result of this...

I'm not differentiating. I'm saying they're the same! That's what I meant when I said it didn't matter which side of the debate they're on, fanatics don't do an argument any good!

And no, of course you can't condemn someone's opinion or writing style from the point of view of Free Speech, but when, for example, it gives the opposition more straw for their Straw Man (say, that Evolutionism is a religion or religious-type belief, which some Creationists have said the fervour of Dawkins is evidence for) then yes, it can be criticised! Moreover, as I've said, fanatics do no argument any good; dismissing the other side out of hand does not lead to progress or synthesis.

Edit: Okay, I'll shut up about Freud, I know when I'm in the presence of superior knowledge.

You still haven't differentiated between someone like Dawkins, and someone who blindly believes in creation... They are both fanatical.



Dawkins doesn't 'blindly' believe, because he takes all his arguments from scientific theories and logic. Also, Richard Dawkins is a Professor of Evolutionary Theory AND Professor of Public Understanding of Science and therefore has a clue about what he's talking about, whereas I know of very few fanatical creationists who are Professors of Evolution at Cambridge University, or any other of the worlds leading universities. Also, Richard Dawkins forms his 'beliefs' on his evidence, whereas Creationist fanatics form their evidence on their beliefs.

For all those who think organisms evolve to be more adapted to their environment, I think the mechanisms of evolution need to be clarified a little more. Even though it has been said one million times already, organisms do not evolve out of need, they evolve because random mutations dictate that their changes.

To use an example, think about a group of bacteria. Say that a certain strain of bacteria infects your body, and you get sick. A doctor then gives you an antibiotic the beat the infection, however some of that particlular strain had a mutation which made them immune to all of the effects of that particular antibiotic, then obviously the mutated ones will live. They will probably be the only ones that survive, and given a long enough amount of time, they would be the only ones left. Anyway, more of that mutated batch will be spread to others than the original. So, slowly the new mutation takes over.

That is only one of the multitudes of cases that support evolution. Sometimes the mutants are less successful, and they die off. Other times they are no more successful than their predecessors. (e.g. strait and curly hair don't alter the chance for survival) In these situations, neither would take over, and the overall diversity of the system increases.

There is so much evidence for evolution, that there are only two ways you don't believe in it. One, you don't understand evolution or biology enough to properly understand its mechanisms, or you have been so forcefully indoctrinated by your parents, pastor, religious leaders, ect., you actually refuse to accept logic, reason, or science regardless of how much evidence there is. Any individual who is true to themselves will accept what is scientifically demonstrated regardless of weather or not they are comftorable with it.

Ok
I want all of these awnsered
First you say the big bang happened billions of years ago who or what made those minerals
Two Louis Pasteur showed that life can only come from pre-existing life and noone since has proved him wrong
Three Evolution claims gradual mutation (adaption) explains how one species can eventualy creat another, to be believeable then it needs evidence of one creature growing to another. That evidence does not exist we do know however that mutations are harmful and lead to degeneration and five (ill stop for a bit after this one) What about the mutual dependence between plants and animals animals eat veges and veges need animals for there fertalization but your theory says that one came first then billions of year later the other came how so wouldnt it have died out and if they didnt need it then why do they need it now when that would slow the process

Let's ignore the fact that you began your topic with an angry, deliberately inflammatory statement and that you have facts that are not facts but more like a meshing of rumors and propaganda that you no doubt heard from some highly questionable source. I am going to try and correct your post for easier reading.
// denotes my comments. Brackets and/or parentheses denote grammatical changes.


*Above post edited for content and grammar to improve readability.*
Ok[ay,] I want all of [my questions] a[nsw]ered[.]
[One:] [If] [T]he ["B]ig [B]ang["] happened billions of years ago[,] who or what made those minerals[?]

//What do these "minerals" have to do with the "Big Bang." What if there was no "Big Bang," but more like a slight *poof*?

[Two:] Louis Pasteur showed that life can only come from pre-existing life and no[ ]one [alive] since [him] has proved him wrong.

//I'm assuming you meant there to be a question here somewhere, but I couldn't find it. Also, where the hell did you hear this and what does it prove? By saying that no one has proved his theory wrong and therefore it must be right, you are employing a logical fallacy; the aptly named argumentum ad ignorantiam.

[Three] Evolution[ists] [claim] gradual mutation (adaption) explains how one species can eventual[l]y creat[e] another[.] [T]o be [believable][,] then[,] [evolution] needs evidence of one creature(species) [gradually changing] into another [creature(species)]. /*[Since] this evidence does not exist we do know however that mutations are harmful and lead to degeneration*/

//The last sentence was edited out because it was a run-on sentence and I couldn't make heads or tails of it. I changed "growing to another" with "gradually changing into another (species)" because, unlike caterpillars, most species do not have a mid-life metamorphic change.

[Five: (but surely you meant Four:?)] /*[I']ll stop for a bit after this one.*/ What about the mutual dependence between plants and animals[.] [A]nimals eat vege[tation]; vege[tation] needs animals for the[ir] fert[i]lization[.] /* but [the evolutionist] theory [claim]s that one came first then billions of year later the other came how so wouldnt it have died out and if they didnt need it then why do they need it now when that would slow the process.*/

//Firstly, what did you plan on stopping? When I first read this, I had a glimmer of hope that you would stop using logical fallacies, but I was sorely mistaken! Not all animals eat vegetation; some eat other animals.

//Secondly, You implied there's some strange sort of interdependence between plants and animals. You see, when a dog loves a tree . . . it's a beautiful thing. No member of the plant kingdom requires an animal to fertilize it. If you meant insects, then in some cases you are correct, and even those can do so without them, just less efficiently. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

//I commented out the last phrase because I couldn't find any useful additions to your previous comments, nor did I find any part sembling any sort of sense.

//Where did you hear that plants came before animals or vice versa? Some species of plants are older than some species of animals, but no general rule applies. The same process works equally on both types of life used in this example. After a long enough time, some of the plants have changed enough to be a "new" species, even though the original species still exists. This new species of plant may be more resistant to fungal diseases, and so has a better chance of surviving in another ecosystem. Just as some people never get sick, or rarely do, because of the natural immunities granted them. A specific example of this type of evolution could be that some people never grew wisdom teeth, simply because they aren't needed.

But if they and men were getting better we wouldn't need to breath
i better invent a time travelling machine for the specific purpose of making you look like a moron.

i better invent a time travelling machine for the specific purpose of making you look like a moron.
On that front, I don't think that Ffc2 really needs any assistance; he's doing a good job of that, already.

Ok
I want all of these awnsered
First you say the big bang happened billions of years ago who or what made those minerals
Two Louis Pasteur showed that life can only come from pre-existing life and noone since has proved him wrong
Three Evolution claims gradual mutation (adaption) explains how one species can eventualy creat another, to be believeable then it needs evidence of one creature growing to another. That evidence does not exist we do know however that mutations are harmful and lead to degeneration and five (ill stop for a bit after this one) What about the mutual dependence between plants and animals animals eat veges and veges need animals for there fertalization but your theory says that one came first then billions of year later the other came how so wouldnt it have died out and if they didnt need it then why do they need it now when that would slow the process
1 No minerals in the big bang. Minerals were created later through the process of fusion in stars, and the fusion of heavy elements when those stars exploded.

2 Louis Pasteur showed that organic matter doesn't grow bacteria or maggots on it's own. He didn't show that life can't form from non-living material. So far nobody's been able to create life from non-living matter, but there have been experiments that suggest it may have happened under the conditions present on earth billions and billions of years ago.

3 You're so wrong it's pitifull. First of all we have plenty of evidence that species have evolved over time. For example we have fossils of Archaeopteix, which is a transition between dinosaur and bird, we have ambulocetus, which is a transition between terrestrial mammals and whales, and we now have a bacteria that eats nylon. Obviously it hasn't been around starving until nylon was invented. It's new.

Many mutations are beneficial. Look at the peppered moth. It's new color helped it camoflauge itself and not get eaten.

Originally plants were polinated by wind. All it takes is for a mutant plant to evolve that attracts insects to it's flowers, and it will get polinated more effectively. Once that happened that plant spread far and wide and mutated into many of the modern plants we see today. With the advent of this new food source insects evolved to take better advantage of it, and became bees, wasps, etc.

Wow, you are so fucking ignorant.

Don't dispute something you know nothing about. I won't get into the evolution aspect, because biology isn't my strong point and you're already been beaten down a few times, but I can educate you on the big bang (how is it related, anyway?). I've already done it once, and don't feel like typing all that science out again, but here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8734894#post8734894) is my original post.

There is a proven way that the big bang could come about, so don't go challenging something saying "there's no proof" unless you learn a little.

...and a number of you are on this board long enough to know what is and isn't tolerated.

Ffc2 - warned for trolling
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8790497&postcount=58


Eichen -- warned for flaming, 1 week forumban
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8790274&postcount=3
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8790386&postcount=28

Pyromanstahn -- warned
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8790474&postcount=49
encouraging actions against the TOS as well as mild flaming elsewhere.

Watch yourself mate. That kind of talk is in direct violation of forum rules. You can disagree vehemently with Ffc2, but death threats and personal attacks are not permitted.Absolutely correct. And before anyone goes off on Ffc2 for reporting this: I happened on this while reading the forums myself.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8790511&postcount=63
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8790583&postcount=81
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8790583&postcount=83
Skywolf -- DEAT for flaming and threats of violence and death against Ffc2. We DO NOT tolerate threats against other posters here.