Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

HOME | FORUMS | GALLERY | CHAT | EVENTS | PRINCEPEDIA | BLOG | ORGNOTES | MY ORG

Thu 23rd May 2013 4:34am

Forums > Politics & Religion > Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

« Previous topic

Page 4 of 4 <1 2 34

Printable (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)

Reply #90 posted 06/07/12 7:44am

avatar

Beautifulstarr123 said:

ufoclub said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it at all

How do you explain more and more simple organism fossils the deeper you go into the layers of strata (which were orginally sediment)?

Or the fasttrack evolution model: Bacteria that evove to become resistent to antibiotics presented by man due to natrual selection?

Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action.

Imagine over miilions of years instead of 5 years.

Let me just say that there are similarities in cells, but I do not believe they're identical. I do not believe that though, cells can be similar, will you get identical results in mutations. Mammals, reptiles, amphibians in seperation are similar, but are they identical? Not at all.

Is this type of closed-circus thinking difficult, or.does income naturally? I'd really like to be able to open up to it and try it out. Any tips?

You used to ride on the chrome horse with your diplomat
Who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat
Ain't it hard when you discover that
He really wasn't where it's at
After he took from you everything he could steal.

This is yo conscience muthafucka

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #91 posted 06/07/12 8:03am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

BobGeorge909 said:
Beautifulstarr123 said:

Let me just say that there are similarities in cells, but I do not believe they're identical. I do not believe that though, cells can be similar, will you get identical results in mutations. Mammals, reptiles, amphibians in seperation are similar, but are they identical? Not at all.

Is this type of closed-circus thinking difficult, or.does income naturally? I'd really like to be able to open up to it and try it out. Any tips?

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #92 posted 06/07/12 10:34am

avatar

shrug Based on the Long Term Evolution Experiment (LTEE), and it’s the brainchild of Dr Richard Lenski at Michigan State University.

One of the defining features of E. Coli is that it is unable to use citrate as a food source. The food used to culture the strains, however, has a large amount of citrate in it – a potential food source that remained beyond the reach of the evolving strains. For tens of thousands of generations, no variants arose that could make use of this potential resource – even though every possible single DNA letter mutation (and every possible double mutation combination) had been “tested” at some point along the way. There seemed no way to for the populations to generate “specified information” to use citrate as a food source – they couldn’t “get there from here.” Then one day, the fateful change occurred in one of the 12 populations. Lenski puts it this way:

Although glucose is the only sugar in their environment, another source of energy, a compound called citrate, was also there all along as part of an old microbiological recipe. One of the defining features of E. coli as a species is that it can’t grow on citrate because it’s unable to transport citrate into the cell. For 15 years, billions of mutations were tested in every population, but none produced a cell that could exploit this opening. It was as though the bacteria ate dinner and went straight to bed, without realizing a dessert was there waiting for them.

But in 2003, a mutant tasted the forbidden fruit. And it was good, very good.

Details, details

Tracking down the nature of this dramatic change led to some interesting findings. The ability to use citrate as a food source did not arise in a single step, but rather as a series of steps, some of which are separated by thousands of generations:

The first step is a mutation that arose at around generation 20,000. This mutation on its own does not allow the bacteria to use citrate, but without this mutation in place, later generations cannot evolve the ability to use citrate. Lenski and colleagues were careful to determine that this mutation is not simply a mutation that increases the background mutation rate. In other words, a portion of what later becomes “specified information for using citrate” arises thousands of generations before citrate is ever used.
The earliest mutants that can use citrate as a food source do so very, very poorly – once they use up the available glucose, they take a long time to switch over to using citrate. These “early adopters” are a tiny fraction of the overall population. The “specified information for using citrate” at this stage is pretty poor.
Once the (poor) ability to use citrate shows up, other mutations arise that greatly improve this new ability. Soon, bacteria that use citrate dominate the population. The “specified information for using citrate” has now been honed by further mutation and natural selection.
Despite the “takeover”, a fraction of the population unable to use citrate persists as a minority. These cells eke out a living by being “glucose specialists” – they are better at using up glucose rapidly and then going into stasis before the slightly slower citrate-eaters catch up. So, new “specified information to get the glucose quickly before those pesky citrate-eaters do” allows these bacteria to survive. As such, the two lineages in this population have partitioned the available resources and now occupy two different ecological niches in the same environment. As such, they are well on their way to becoming different bacterial species.

Don’t tell the bacteria

The significance of these experiments for the Intelligent Design Movement is clear. Complex, specified information can indeed arise through natural mechanisms; it does not need to arise all at once, but rather accrue over thousands of generations; independent mutations that do not confer a specific advantage can later combine with other mutations to produce new functions; new functions can be quite inefficient when they arise and then be honed through further mutations and selection; and the entire process can occur without ever reducing the fitness of a specific lineage within a population. Moreover, these findings have been demonstrated with a full historical record of the genetic changes involved for the entire population they occurred in, as well as full knowledge of their fitness at every step along the way.

In other words, what the IDM claims is impossible, these “tiny and lowly” organisms have simply been doing – and it only took 15 years in a single lab in Michigan. Imagine what could happen over 3,500,000,000 years over millions of square miles of the earth’s surface.

"Twinkle, twinkle little star how I wonder what you are."
Not "Save the Planet", but "Save Life"
"The Price one pays for entering a profession or calling is an intimate knowledge of its ugly side." James Baldwin

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #93 posted 06/07/12 12:51pm

Ex-Moderator

avatar

ufoclub said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it at all

How do you explain more and more simple organism fossils the deeper you go into the layers of strata (which were orginally sediment)?

Or the fasttrack evolution model: Bacteria that evove to become resistent to antibiotics presented by man due to natrual selection?

Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action.

Imagine over miilions of years instead of 5 years.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #94 posted 06/07/12 1:50pm

avatar

Beautifulstarr123 said:

ufoclub said:

How do you explain more and more simple organism fossils the deeper you go into the layers of strata (which were orginally sediment)?

Or the fasttrack evolution model: Bacteria that evove to become resistent to antibiotics presented by man due to natrual selection?

Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution. It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics. This is because of the random nature of mutations.

When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics. In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic. This is natural selection in action.

Imagine over miilions of years instead of 5 years.

Let me just say that there are similarities in cells, but I do not believe they're identical. I do not believe that though, cells can be similar, will you get identical results in mutations. Mammals, reptiles, amphibians in seperation are similar, but are they identical? Not at all.

Wait, what? I didn't say anything about species being similar. I said the deeper you go the simpler the lifeforms get, and that germs have changed to become stronger due to "natural" selection unintentionally caused by antibiotics in just a few years.

Fresh New Short Film! https://vimeo.com/66070570

VIDEO WORK: http://sharadkantpatel.com
MUSIC: http://www.soundcloud.com/ufoclub1977

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #95 posted 06/07/12 1:53pm

avatar

Oops
[Edited 6/7/12 13:54pm]

You used to ride on the chrome horse with your diplomat
Who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat
Ain't it hard when you discover that
He really wasn't where it's at
After he took from you everything he could steal.

This is yo conscience muthafucka

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #96 posted 06/07/12 1:54pm

avatar

Beautifulstarr123 said:

BobGeorge909 said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Let me just say that there are similarities in cells, but I do not believe they're identical. I do not believe that though, cells can be similar, will you get identical results in mutations. Mammals, reptiles, amphibians in seperation are similar, but are they identical? Not at all.

Is this type of closed-circut thinking difficult, or does income naturally? I'd really like to be able to open up to it and try it out. Any tips?

?

You used to ride on the chrome horse with your diplomat
Who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat
Ain't it hard when you discover that
He really wasn't where it's at
After he took from you everything he could steal.

This is yo conscience muthafucka

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #97 posted 06/08/12 5:17am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

Observation and Experiments

Apart from the theoretical weaknesses mentioned above, the theory of evolution by natural selection comes up against a fundamental impasse when faced with concrete scientific findings. The scientific value of a theory must be assessed according to its success or failure in experiment and observation. Evolution by natural selection fails on both counts.

Since Darwin's time, there has not been a single shred of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living things to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that natural selection has never been observed to have the ability to cause things to evolve:

No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.11

Pierre-Paul Grassé, a well-known French zoologist and critic of Darwinism, has these words to say in "Evolution and Natural Selection," a chapter of his book The Evolution of Living Organisms.

The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years].12

A close look at a few "observed examples of natural selection" presented by biologists who advocate the theory of evolution, would reveal that, in reality, they do not provide any evidence for evolution.

http://www.darwinismrefut...sms03.html

Colin Patterson, Ph.D.
Paleontologist

Imperial College, London (1955–1957)
Zoology, First Class Honors

University College (1961)
Ph.D.

British Museum of Natural History, London (1962-1993)
Senior Principle Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department
Missing Transitionals

Patterson, an avowed evolutionist, jolted a distinguished audience of scientists assembled at New York's American Museum of Natural History, November 5, 1981.

Dr. Colin Patterson, distinguished evolutionist researcher and author, shocked colleagues by expressing serious doubts about evolution theory in a 1981 lecture. To the dismay of colleagues committed to Darwinian thought, Patterson publicly questioned whether evolution should be taught in high schools.

Patterson, sent shivers through academic establishments when he publicly released his range of reservations about evolutionism, including personal doubts about missing transitionals. His blunt assessment raised eyebrows.

"Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils… I will lay it on the line---there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."¹

He described "evolution as faith…evolution does not convey any knowledge, or if so, I haven't yet heard it...One morning I woke up, and something had happened in the night, and it struck me that I had been working on this stuff for twenty years, and there was not one thing I knew about it."

"It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow… Most of us think that we are working in evolutionary research. But is its explanatory power any more than verbal?…Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge, apparent knowledge which is actually harmful to systematics… During the last few years, if you had thought about it at all, you've experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith. I know that's true of me, and I think it's true of a good many of you in here."²

References
1. . Colin Patterson letter to Luther D. Sunderland, 10 April 1879, quoted by Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems (San Diego: Master Books, 1988) 89, cited by James Perloff, The Case Against Darwin (Burlington, Massachusetts: Refuge Books, 2002) 40.
2. See Colin Patterson, lecture, "Can You Tell be Anything About Evolution," as transcribed by Wayne Frair and reported in "Bridge to Nowhere," CreationDigest.com, Autumn, 2004 Edition. Some of Patterson's comments were excerpted for publication in Warren L. Johns' Beyond Forever as published in November 2006. In August, 1993, Patterson offered some afterthoughts.

Colin Patterson

http://genesisfile.com/Vo...erson.html

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #98 posted 06/08/12 6:14am

avatar

Observing something that takes millions of years for the smallest of changes cannot be done in a couple of centuries. You have to understand the fact that humans have been here for the tiniest amount of time relative to the age of the planet. And the time is even more miniscule when you consider how long we have been here with a brain that actually started taking interest and studying these things.

However, because we have a brain that can quantify and calculate probabilities based on ancient evidence, we can get over that hurdle of direct observation. That is how it works. If we only took what we can directly observe as being true, we wouldnt know anything at all!

We know our sun will die in around 6 billion years time. We know it has been shining for a little less than that. How do we know this? We certainly havent been here long enough to observe any decay or change in the sun, but what we do have is the aquired knowledge, mathematical formulas and laws of physics to be able to extrapolate, interpret and conclude this.

We know our galaxy will collide with the andomeda galaxy in something like 4 billion years time. How do we know this when we see absolutely no observable movement of andomeda's proximity towards us? Because we have the science to be able to calculate this.

We know the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. But surely we cant know the speed of something we cant see, touch or capture? Why, funny you should ask, because certainly we can!

We can tell a lot of things about things that cant be directly observed. We do it all the time from aging trees that are millenia old without cutting them up, to seeing what the climate of the earth was like at any given time in the distant past. We can guage the rate at which the universe is expanding to how particles that cannt be seen react with each other.

By the argument of your creationist "scientists" whom you have quoted, all this knowledge and advancement in our understanding is all nonsense because we just cant physically observe any of it.

Utter trite!

Come and see me in Zambia! http://www.safpar.net, http://www.webdesignzambia.net, http://www.webuildspace.com. Zambia, a Prince-free zone.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #99 posted 06/08/12 7:25am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

Rebeljuice said:

Observing something that takes millions of years for the smallest of changes cannot be done in a couple of centuries. You have to understand the fact that humans have been here for the tiniest amount of time relative to the age of the planet. And the time is even more miniscule when you consider how long we have been here with a brain that actually started taking interest and studying these things.

However, because we have a brain that can quantify and calculate probabilities based on ancient evidence, we can get over that hurdle of direct observation. That is how it works. If we only took what we can directly observe as being true, we wouldnt know anything at all!

We know our sun will die in around 6 billion years time. We know it has been shining for a little less than that. How do we know this? We certainly havent been here long enough to observe any decay or change in the sun, but what we do have is the aquired knowledge, mathematical formulas and laws of physics to be able to extrapolate, interpret and conclude this.

We know our galaxy will collide with the andomeda galaxy in something like 4 billion years time. How do we know this when we see absolutely no observable movement of andomeda's proximity towards us? Because we have the science to be able to calculate this.

We know the speed of light is 186,000 miles per second. But surely we cant know the speed of something we cant see, touch or capture? Why, funny you should ask, because certainly we can!

We can tell a lot of things about things that cant be directly observed. We do it all the time from aging trees that are millenia old without cutting them up, to seeing what the climate of the earth was like at any given time in the distant past. We can guage the rate at which the universe is expanding to how particles that cannt be seen react with each other.

By the argument of your creationist "scientists" whom you have quoted, all this knowledge and advancement in our understanding is all nonsense because we just cant physically observe any of it.

Utter trite!

But yet, overlooked the article above your comment about an contemporary evolutionist, debunking evolution. Yeah, ok.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #100 posted 06/08/12 7:32am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

I would like to say to all that it's our free will to believe what we believe. That's all.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #101 posted 06/08/12 8:15am

avatar

Beautifulstarr123 said:

I would like to say to all that it's our free will to believe what we believe. That's all.

Maybe. But whether or not someone "chooses" a belief does not alter whether or not that belief is correct or not. Instead, I think one should allow beliefs to become apparent as new knowledge and understanding is thought over, and not something that one should actively "choose". Allowing yourself to "choose" a belief might lead to self-bias...

Toejam @ Peach & Black Podcast: http://peachandblack.podbean.com
Toejam's band "Cheap Fakes": http://cheapfakes.com.au, http://www.facebook.com/cheapfakes
Toejam the solo artist: http://www.youtube.com/scottbignell

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #102 posted 06/11/12 8:06am

avatar

Beautifulstarr123 said:

No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection

NO NEW SPECIES?!?!

heaven help.... what planet are you from? you are ignorant on evolution, okay, that's one thing. but the sad thing is, you also know jack shit about YOUR side, Creationism lol

lookyhere, if no new species had been produced, then you have a problem. cause you can not account for all the MILLIONS of species that have appeared since Noahs Ark in a few thousand years! that's speciation at a speed that would make any biologist shudder eek

but don't take my word for it. ask Creationists

AIG and other Creationist sites list that always under "arguments Creationists should not use"

that's like shooting fish in a barrel again lol

http://www.answersingenes...e-dont-use

Arguments that should never be used
[...]
8.No new species have been produced
[...]

http://creationwiki.org/A...n_produced

No new species have been produced
Not true. Species have been observed to form, and Biblical creationism requires rapid speciation following the Flood. Speciation is not evolution, however.

[Edited 6/11/12 8:28am]

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #103 posted 06/11/12 8:22am

avatar

Beautifulstarr123 said:

... Charles Darwin was baking, and sold a bill of goods to the world that man evolved from apes, then backtracked his theories on his deathbead when he said this:

"Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."

another whopper made of tasty BULLSHIT

Creationists also list this under :drumroll:.... "Arguments Creationists should not use" dunce

http://creationwiki.org/A...s_deathbed

Darwin recanted on his deathbed

It is almost certainly not true, and if it is true, has no relevance

http://www.answersingenes...ion-legend

[...]

Unfortunately, when the full text of the report is examined, there are many inconsistencies that make the story untenable. While it is possible that Lady Hope did visit Darwin’s home in late 1881, this was almost seven months before his death.⁵ He was certainly not bedridden for six months before his death. Further, there was nothing to indicate that he was always studying the Bible.

[...]

Beyond these denials, if the tale were true, why did Darwin’s wife Emma not rejoice in this? She was always troubled by what she perceived as the godless nature of his views. If he indeed repented, why did she not make this known? Also, if the story were credible, why did Lady Hope wait 33 years before relating it, and even then, relating it in a country across the ocean?

Given the weight of evidence, it must be concluded that Lady Hope’s story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution. As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn’t. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution when many other great arguments exist, including the greatest: the Bible.

just for a change, do you have any reliable source at hand? or exclusively complete and utter nonsense and LIES? doesn't your God tell you it's a sin to spread lies? so why do you sin against him? do you WANT to go to hell or what?

[Edited 6/11/12 8:30am]

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #104 posted 06/11/12 9:11am

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

Dancelot said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

... Charles Darwin was baking, and sold a bill of goods to the world that man evolved from apes, then backtracked his theories on his deathbead when he said this:

"Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."

another whopper made of tasty BULLSHIT

Creationists also list this under :drumroll:.... "Arguments Creationists should not use"

http://www.answersingenes...ion-legend

[...]

Unfortunately, when the full text of the report is examined, there are many inconsistencies that make the story untenable. While it is possible that Lady Hope did visit Darwin’s home in late 1881, this was almost seven months before his death.⁵ He was certainly not bedridden for six months before his death. Further, there was nothing to indicate that he was always studying the Bible.

[...]

Beyond these denials, if the tale were true, why did Darwin’s wife Emma not rejoice in this? She was always troubled by what she perceived as the godless nature of his views. If he indeed repented, why did she not make this known? Also, if the story were credible, why did Lady Hope wait 33 years before relating it, and even then, relating it in a country across the ocean?

Given the weight of evidence, it must be concluded that Lady Hope’s story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution. As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn’t. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution when many other great arguments exist, including the greatest: the Bible.

just for a change, do you have any reliable source at hand? or exclusively complete and utter nonsense and LIES? doesn't your God tell you it's a sin to spread lies? so why do you sin against him? do you WANT to go to hell or what?

[Edited 6/11/12 8:30am]

Explain the 'bs' in post #97. The Lady Hope chick could be telling the truth, but deemed her a liar to cover his reputation, but naw you don't want to think of that. If you want to believe evolution is real, knock yourself out. I don't.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #105 posted 06/11/12 12:32pm

avatar

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Dancelot said:

Beautifulstarr123 said:

... Charles Darwin was baking, and sold a bill of goods to the world that man evolved from apes, then backtracked his theories on his deathbead when he said this:

"Not one change of species into anothero is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."

another whopper made of tasty BULLSHIT

Creationists also list this under :drumroll:.... "Arguments Creationists should not use"

http://www.answersingenes...ion-legend

[...]

Unfortunately, when the full text of the report is examined, there are many inconsistencies that make the story untenable. While it is possible that Lady Hope did visit Darwin’s home in late 1881, this was almost seven months before his death.⁵ He was certainly not bedridden for six months before his death. Further, there was nothing to indicate that he was always studying the Bible.

[...]

Beyond these denials, if the tale were true, why did Darwin’s wife Emma not rejoice in this? She was always troubled by what she perceived as the godless nature of his views. If he indeed repented, why did she not make this known? Also, if the story were credible, why did Lady Hope wait 33 years before relating it, and even then, relating it in a country across the ocean?

Given the weight of evidence, it must be concluded that Lady Hope’s story is unsupportable, even if she did actually visit Darwin. He never became a Christian, and he never renounced evolution. As much as we would like to believe that he died with a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ, it is much more likely that he didn’t. It is unfortunate that the story continues to be promoted by many sincere people who use this in an effort to discredit evolution when many other great arguments exist, including the greatest: the Bible.

just for a change, do you have any reliable source at hand? or exclusively complete and utter nonsense and LIES? doesn't your God tell you it's a sin to spread lies? so why do you sin against him? do you WANT to go to hell or what?

[Edited 6/11/12 8:30am]

Explain the 'bs' in post #97. The Lady Hope chick could be telling the truth, but deemed her a liar to cover his reputation, but naw you don't want to think of that. If you want to believe evolution is real, knock yourself out. I don't.

And I believe the earth is flat...now go walk off the end of it. Sadly...if I believe it or not, the truth remains the truth. To my dismay, u will just continually walk(and swim) in circles.

You used to ride on the chrome horse with your diplomat
Who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat
Ain't it hard when you discover that
He really wasn't where it's at
After he took from you everything he could steal.

This is yo conscience muthafucka

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #106 posted 06/11/12 8:05pm

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

BobGeorge909 said:
Beautifulstarr123 said:

Explain the 'bs' in post #97. The Lady Hope chick could be telling the truth, but deemed her a liar to cover his reputation, but naw you don't want to think of that. If you want to believe evolution is real, knock yourself out. I don't.

And I believe the earth is flat...now go walk off the end of it. Sadly...if I believe it or not, the truth remains the truth. To my dismay, u will just continually walk(and swim) in circles.

And I'm willing to believe that you have a flat ass. Kiss mines. Bye wave

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #107 posted 06/11/12 8:21pm

Beautifulstarr
123

avatar

^^^Don't respond to this thread, if you don't like my beliefs. Now take your gorilla ass out of here. How's that for evolution.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #108 posted 06/11/12 8:49pm

avatar

Beautifulstarr123 said:

^^^Don't respond to this thread, if you don't like my beliefs. Now take your gorilla ass out of here. How's that for evolution.

Fat chance.

You used to ride on the chrome horse with your diplomat
Who carried on his shoulder a Siamese cat
Ain't it hard when you discover that
He really wasn't where it's at
After he took from you everything he could steal.

This is yo conscience muthafucka

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #109 posted 06/13/12 5:02pm

avatar

Dren5 said:

It's odd to me that Evolution-Nazis always assume that the concept of evolution, disproves creation.

Simply because, maybe there was a creator, who made evolution. I think God exists, and he made everything, and that evolution is basically his chosen method, if I'm making any sense.

I believe as you believe.

Why would a force that has all of eternity do something in 6 days and then rest?

I most deffinately believe in a spiritual power in the universe that is all connected.

Maybe some of what scientists discover proves certain things said in certain religions are not word for word factual but they do not disprove the existence of a God.

There came a time when the risk of remaining tight in the bud was more painful than the risk it took to blossom. Anais Nin.

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #110 posted 06/28/12 1:16am

avatar

Beautifulstarr123 said:

^^^Don't respond to this thread, if you don't like my beliefs. Now take your gorilla ass out of here. How's that for evolution.

you just want replies that agree with you? you don't really get the meaning of a public forum, do you confused

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #111 posted 06/28/12 1:29am

avatar

Beautifulstarr123 said:

Dancelot said:

...

Explain the 'bs' in post #97.

I did explain it, in #102 lol

again, the claim that "No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural selection" is false, a complete stinker. if it were true then it disproves the story about Noahs Ark. Creationists desperately need rapid speciation to explain billions of new species occuring since the flood.

so do you want to disprove the Bible with post #97 lol

The Lady Hope chick could be telling the truth, but deemed her a liar to cover his reputation, but naw you don't want to think of that. If you want to believe evolution is real, knock yourself out. I don't.

The Lady Hope chick could be lying but naw you don't want to think of that neutral

see, I heard a very credible story from a certain Lady Hipp, she confirmed various eye witeness accounts that Jesus recanted on the cross, saying he was not the Son Of God, but naw you don't want to think of that

anyway it's completely irrelvant what Lady Hope or even Darwin said, evolution as a scientific theory and thereofre independent from individuls and opinions, but only relies on facts and evidence. and those leave no doubt. so I do not have a choice to "believe" or not to "believe" in evolution, since it is happening, that is a fact. like I have no choice to believe or not to believe in gravity

[Edited 6/28/12 1:33am]

“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.” Han Solo

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do, because I notice it always coincides with their own desires. " Susan B. Anthony

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Reply #112 posted 06/28/12 11:50am

OldFriends4Sal
e

avatar

moderator

post by Beautifulstarr123: “Please close this posting. Second request. Thank you.”

Now where I come from
We don't let society tell us how it's supposed 2 be
Our clothes, our hair, we don't care
It's all about being there...

- E-mail - orgNote -

Report post to moderator

Page 4 of 4 <1 2 34

Printable (Log in to 'subscribe' to this topic)

« Previous topic

Forums > Politics & Religion > Scientist: Evolution debate will soon be history

copyright © 1998-2013 prince.org. all rights reserved.

about · terms of service · privacy · contact us