You are here

Log in or register to post comments
Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Here we go again. Show me the evidence. Particularly in the fossil record. You don't have it? That is because nobody has it. I suppose you're a member of the Church of Latter Day Darwins.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 6 days ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
Show me the evidence. Particularly in the fossil record.

Incredibly easy.

Go to any reasonably sized library and have had it.

Thousands of articles, books, treatises - from beginning texts to complex technical studies - all just waiting for you to read.

Merely because you have chosen to close your eyes to it doesn't mean the evidence does not exist. If you really want to learn, all you need to to do is go take a look.

I could put together a summary exegesis for you here, but it would be much longer than even Jan's posts.

Edit: even easier, here is a friendly, clear, concise website at Tufts University that explains evolution and the facts supporting it: Answers in Science

If you are particularly interested in the fossil record, click on - you guessed it - "fossil record."

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:

Quote:
So, the science still hasn't found any tangible evidence that Darwin was correct.

Huh? That's not the case.

I think Lamont considers "tangible" to be a chimp giving birth to a human, directly.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Stop the diversion and show me the fucking evidence in the fossil record that supports Darwin's Theory.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
So, the science still hasn't found any tangible evidence that Darwin was correct.

Huh? That's not the case.

I think Lamont considers "tangible" to be a chimp giving birth to a human, directly.

If you guys can come up with that I will STFU forever.

Monty
Monty's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Sep 16 2005 - 6:55pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Would you settle for a Rhino giving birth to Jim Carrey?

Heh!

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
So, the science still hasn't found any tangible evidence that Darwin was correct.

Huh? That's not the case.

I think Lamont considers "tangible" to be a chimp giving birth to a human, directly.

If you guys can come up with that I will STFU forever.

I can do better than that!

This 23 chromosome haploid cell has now been proven to be able to be crossed with another unrelated haploid cell containing 23 different chromosomes to make a resulting 46 chromosome diploid organism that comes in two distinct phenotypes!

The other strange cell type:

Interestingly, the first cell only lives about 3-6 days, and the second kind can live 50 years. Two totally different single celled organisms can somehow undertake an exchange of genetic material and make a completely different cell type - in only one generation.

Surely that should get you to STFU!

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Buddha, you once showed me some pictures of an abnormal pap smear result and said that is what is wrong with my eyes. And I believed you until somebody else, strangely, noticed what it really was.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
Buddha, you once showed me some pictures of an abnormal pap smear result and said that is what is wrong with my eyes. And I believed you until somebody else, strangely, noticed what it really was.

What I posted above is absolute 100% truth; no kidding; no jive.

I can explain it to you after you give the thought of its plausibility some consideration and report back on your credulity.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
Stop the diversion and show me the fucking evidence in the fossil record that supports Darwin's Theory.

There isn't enough disc space on this server to detail part of the evidence.

Grow up, and stop repeating what your minister taught you in Sunday School.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
Buddha, you once showed me some pictures of an abnormal pap smear result and said that is what is wrong with my eyes. And I believed you until somebody else, strangely, noticed what it really was.

Would you accept the fact that I can take two different sets of 23 chromosomes and make a living being from it?

If not, go look in the mirror, and admit you lost.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Show me the fossil record instead of acting like you really have something in your hand behind your back. That goes for global warming as well.

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
Here we go again. Show me the evidence. Particularly in the fossil record. You don't have it? That is because nobody has it. I suppose you're a member of the Church of Latter Day Darwins.


Before you summon up sufficient courage to confront the evidence yourself can I suggest, in the interests of preserving your spiritual well-being, that you read Bishop John Shelby Spong's "The Sins of Scripture:Exposing the Bible's Texts of Hate to Reveal the God of Love"
Publ' Harper Collins.
Additionally, just as I imagine you wouldn't criticize the Wright Brothers for not inventing the jumbo jet, please devote some research into the variations, developments and non-biblical alternatives to Darwin's theory.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
Show me the fossil record

Go read the enormous volumes of literature, denier.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
Show me the fossil record instead of acting like you really have something in your hand behind your back. That goes for global warming as well.

Bring your intelligent designer and we'll show him....you don't seem capable of understanding the material.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 6 days ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
Show me the fossil record instead of acting like you really have something in your hand behind your back.

It's laid out on a platter for you. All you have to do is take some time to read what is available.

It won't hurt. I promise.

"Sites with simple clear logic so that even creationists can understand."

"You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."
- Dorothy Parker

ncdrawl
ncdrawl's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 4 months ago
Joined: Oct 18 2008 - 9:18am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

as a "searching theist" I am here to say that it does not have to be a "one or the other" proposition. Science and Religion can exist harmoniously.... what I cannot imagine...for the life of me...is how one can see Nature in all its glory, the patterns, the insane odds and proclaim, pigheadedly "eh, it just happened bro"

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
as a "searching theist" I am here to say that it does not have to be a "one or the other" proposition. Science and Religion can exist harmoniously.... what I cannot imagine...for the life of me...is how one can see Nature in all its glory, the patterns, the insane odds and proclaim, pigheadedly "eh, it just happened bro"

1. The existence of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation.


The presumption that our species will ever fully understand all of existence could be seen as overreaching arrogance.

Quote:
2. The existence of the universe is thus either:
a. unintelligible or
b. has an explanation


No, we may explain parts of it and find parts forever unintelligible.
We also need to define 'explain'. From my perspective 'belief' is not 'explanation'.

Quote:
3. No rational person should accept premise (2a) by definition of rationality


What is a 'rational person' ? On the surface an obvious definition can be given but within the context of human psychology, especially in relation to belief systems, it ain't so simple.

Quote:
4. A rational person should accept (2b), that the universe has some explanation for its being.


Can maybe but why 'should'?

Quote:
5. There are only three kinds of explanations:
a. Scientific: physical conditions plus relevant laws yield the Event explained.
b. Personal: Explanations that cite desires, beliefs, powers and intentions of some personal agent.
c. Essential: The essence of the thing to be explained necessitates its existence or qualities (for example, if you ask why a triangle has 3 sides, I would respond that it is the essence and necessity for a triangle to have 3 sides by its definition.


B: is not an explanation, it's a belief system.

Quote:
6. The explanation for the existence of the whole universe can
Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 6 days ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
as a "searching theist" I am here to say that it does not have to be a "one or the other" proposition. Science and Religion can exist harmoniously....

Absolutely. Many scientifically trained individuals believe in a God.

One can however set up a belief structure that directly conflicts with observed facts. A young earth creationist (God created the earth and all its content 6,000 years ago at one time) will have a great deal of difficulty with modern science.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:

Quote:
Show me the fossil record

Go read the enormous volumes of literature, denier.

Show me the evidence.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

You can't cite one study that proves in the fossil record that Darwin was correct. You know why I know this? Because everybody would stop fucking complaining about this shit. That's why.

What I've seen thus far is no different than religion. You've been taught Darwin's Theory at some point from a text book. You believe it. End of story. No different than Creationism.

Let me take the Darwin part out so you fucking idiots will pay attention to the topic


Quote:
...there is data that leads us to conclude that the Medieval Warming Period did exist. It was determined in the 1930s that the period existed between the 16th and 19th centuries. But the causes have never been proven. Nevertheless, the best scientific guesses are low solar radiation, volcanic activity, and oceanic circulation. All three of which have been impacting the climate of the Earth to this day. So, where are the plagues, destruction of crops, and deaths associated with the current global warming that can be compared to the Medieval Warming Period? Also, scientists that are not in a rush to prove man-made global warming naturally realize, through their scientific regiment, that sudden tendency in fluctuations of Earth's climate might explain past variability. If so, as the argument concludes, what is currently being brought before the table is not caused by man but is the normal ebb and flow of the variability Earth's climate. I'm not saying that man is not contributing to the climate. He may just well be but there is nothing in the data that suggests mother nature is not the overwhelming and uncontrollable influence. That if man stopped everything we would see no difference in Earth's climate other than the smell of death from all the rotting corpses.

randyb
randyb's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 3 months ago
Joined: May 17 2007 - 1:20pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

As of 2008 a Gallup poll indicated that 36% of US adults agreed with the statement "human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.", 14% believed that "Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process." and 44% of US adults agreed with the statement "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

I would guess that the 44% are members of churches considered fundamentalist.

By the way, if you look-up Young Earth on wikipedia, it tells the churches that a young earth is part of their doctrine. As far as Southern Baptist, the reason there was a controversy is because one of their own professors stated that he thought old earth was a possibility. Make no mistake they (the leadership and 99% of the flock) believe that the bible is a literal history text. They feel if it is not, then it is not the "word of God" and the whole shebang falls apart. Even if it is not in the doctrine per se, the inerancy (sp) of the bible is in the doctrine.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:

What I've seen thus far is no different than religion. You've been taught Darwin's Theory at some point from a text book. You believe it. End of story. No different than Creationism.

The giving of equal consideration to unequal idease is an age old way to sneak bullshit past people, Lamont. Evolution is as well established, maybe more so, than the "theory" of gravity.

At least there isn't less evolution on the moon, for instance!

Cease your angry thumping and try reading something.

Go learn. Or, did you stop after Jesus madrasah school?

Your hatred of evolution diminishes how your other opinions should be considered.

Really your creepiest work, Lamont.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 6 days ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
You can't cite one study that proves in the fossil record that Darwin was correct.

Actually, I can cite thousands but I am comfortable you wouldn't look them.

A better option is to read a single good book on one aspect of evolution. Here is a great example: Written in Stone Brian Switek is well qualified and writes in an informative and entertaining style.

I also have a pre-publication excerpt, complete with endnotes, which I can send you.

Another option is a great lecture series. Evolutionary biologist David Kingsley delivers lecture number 3, Fossils, genes, and embryos specifically examines the original objections to Darwin's theory and shows how modern evidence supports the theory.

Closing your eyes, plugging your ears and shouting "NAH, NAH, NAH" does not make the facts go away. Take a look and an honest shot at understanding the science.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Hey, you guys keep saying you have so much evidence. Where is it? What is it? I think I go through this each year and you all act like a bunch of Christian Fundamentalists. You can't prove shit but at least those crazy Bible Belt hillbillies can quote the Bible. So, where in the fossil record is the damn evidence that Darwin is correct? Last year I was shown cartoons. What is it this year? More cartoons, shit under a microscope, a blowjob on a stick, blah blah blah.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Dude, you need to be a little more interested than asking on one forum post - "supply me the record."

With your bullshit approach, no one could satisfy you as to the existence of gravity, Oxygen, or the Planet Mercury.

Add to that, you've shown zero ability to learn or adapt, yourself, so why would we expect you to start thinking straight at any point?

Go cling to your gun and religon.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 6 days ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
Hey, you guys keep saying you have so much evidence. Where is it?

I've already held your hand as much as I can stand. You are not getting anymore without buying me dinner. A good one.

You now have to actually go read. Or watch the video at the link I provided. It's even free.

You can spend the rest of your life studying the proof for evolution and only begin to explore what's out there.

Get going! The clock is ticking!

Or stick your head back in the sand.

Your choice.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

You all are full of shit. Like I said, you're acting like a bunch of those fundamentalists your criticize. Fucking great. I'm impressed. Everybody is full of shit.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
You all are full of shit. Like I said, you're acting like a bunch of those fundamentalists your criticize. Fucking great. I'm impressed. Everybody is full of shit.

Dude, even thse guys find your tired schtick boring...

Greater than 96% similarity in DNA.

I guess the intelligent designer stepped in to make up the impossible 4% difference. (Maybe a smaller spread for you, buddy.)

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

What I find stupid is the fact that there is no holy grail for Darwin and yet you idiots keep acting like the very people you criticize. At least the fundamentalists will quote shit to kick your ass. Fucking people think they know science. What a bunch of bullshit. The answer is there is no evidence in the fossil record that kills all other theories. Darwin is not all that. In fact, it is forced to be taught in public schools. By law. You would think you fucking progressive thinkers would find that a little suspicious. But, nooooooooooo. Darwin is correct because there is a mountain of fucking bullshit nobody can really cite. It has to be correct. Talk about fucking sheep.

You guys are not as smart as you think you might be. In fact, I'm beginning to think you guys live in a fucking vacuum. Darwin was a geologist. He was all about the fossil record. Until he reached a snag. It was the fossil record. So, he explained it away. Why didn't you ask in class, like I did, how can he just explain away the fossil record? All my science teacher could do was quote Darwin. No different than a fucking Christian Fundamentalist quotes the Bible. There is nothing in the fossil record for the geologist that wrote a bunch of crap about natural selection. He knew that. He took it on the chin for the rest of his life. He is the Jesus Christ of how man was created. How is explaining away a snag in his theory, which he explained away, is going to help you explain away that there is no evidence in the fossil record. Did you guys listen in class during that part of biology?


Quote:
Charles Darwin: He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory.

Darwin himself admitted his explaining away of the fossil record is just his view and that if you don't buy it than the right thing to do is to reject it entirely.

So, where is the holy grail in the fossil record that will finally lay to rest Darwin's theory?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Lamont, you show no brain wave activity.

All of science lacks "holy grails."

All is theory, which I guess is what scrambles your brain, and you equate this with "faith."

Look, go worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster - at least there is concrete evidence he exists - people have painted pictures.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Same old shit. Nothing. Next time you limp dicks are crying about the fundamentalists screwing shit up I'm going to remind you morons that you all are no different. You all think the same. Darwinists! Creationists! Dummies! Oh, my!

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
Same old shit. Nothing. Next time you limp dicks are crying about the fundamentalists screwing shit up I'm going to remind you morons that you all are no different. You all think the same. Darwinists! Creationists! Dummies! Oh, my!

You talk alot, but you don't say anything.

Been listening to Talking Heads '77 lately?

tomjtx
tomjtx's picture
Offline
Last seen: 7 months 2 weeks ago
Joined: Nov 12 2006 - 2:53pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
What I find stupid is the fact that there is no holy grail for Darwin and yet you idiots keep acting like the very people you criticize. At least the fundamentalists will quote shit to kick your ass. Fucking people think they know science. What a bunch of bullshit. The answer is there is no evidence in the fossil record that kills all other theories. Darwin is not all that. In fact, it is forced to be taught in public schools. By law. You would think you fucking progressive thinkers would find that a little suspicious. But, nooooooooooo. Darwin is correct because there is a mountain of fucking bullshit nobody can really cite. It has to be correct. Talk about fucking sheep.

You guys are not as smart as you think you might be. In fact, I'm beginning to think you guys live in a fucking vacuum. Darwin was a geologist. He was all about the fossil record. Until he reached a snag. It was the fossil record. So, he explained it away. Why didn't you ask in class, like I did, how can he just explain away the fossil record? All my science teacher could do was quote Darwin. No different than a fucking Christian Fundamentalist quotes the Bible. There is nothing in the fossil record for the geologist that wrote a bunch of crap about natural selection. He knew that. He took it on the chin for the rest of his life. He is the Jesus Christ of how man was created. How is explaining away a snag in his theory, which he explained away, is going to help you explain away that there is no evidence in the fossil record. Did you guys listen in class during that part of biology?


Quote:
Charles Darwin: He who rejects this view of the imperfection of the geological record, will rightly reject the whole theory.

Darwin himself admitted his explaining away of the fossil record is just his view and that if you don't buy it than the right thing to do is to reject it entirely.

So, where is the holy grail in the fossil record that will finally lay to rest Darwin's theory?

Why all this BS about the fossel record, Lamont?

You can look up fossel's record online. Hell, check their SEC filings.

And what the hell does a watch company have to do with evolution anyway? Get with the program, Lamont.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Same old answer. There is a ton of evidence and an empty paper sack to show for it.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

It's hard to accept the theory of evolution but it's easy to accept the theory of things coming into existence magically?

So. DNA is a fixed an immutable substance, eh?

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Getting back to J_J's original post:

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

I'm exhausted. When all else fails just fucking give up.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
I'm exhausted. When all else fails just fucking give up.

Dude, we eagerly await your alternative to evolution and the voluminous and irrefutable evidence you are about to provide!

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Essentially & in the long run, none of this really matters as our species, being so intelligent, is about to engineer its own extinction. A truly unique claim to fame.
Arthur Koestlers' "The Ghost in The Machine" refers........ ... ... ...

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 6 days ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

I find inexplicable repeated demands for evidence, being provided with sources, and the repeatedly asserting "there is no evidence."

Weird.

I assume your mantra of lack of evidence is a claim that there exists no fossilized evidence of transitional forms.

This is not the case; there are many many transitional fossils. For example, there are fossils of transitional organisms between modern birds and their theropod dinosaur ancestors. The book I cited for you details this evidence.

Now it is possible that God made the world 6,000 years ago, with all its creatures in their present form - and then scattered millions of pieces of evidences around the earth to the contrary just to confuse us.

Nasty sense of humor, this God.


Quote:
All my science teacher could do was quote Darwin. No different than a fucking Christian Fundamentalist quotes the Bible.

Is this occurred you had a dreadful teacher. Darwin's writing merely presented the hypothesis. His works are not "scripture" in any sense. Instead, he/she should have presented an example or two (like the materials I cited for you).

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

You find it weird because you haven't shown me anything but more bullshit. The truth is Darwin explained away his own theory. I even quoted him. Nothing has changed since he died. There is no evidence that proves Darwin was correct. The only way to prove through the fossil record is for the fossil record to be complete. Since it isn't complete you can't prove Darwin through the fossil record. And yet it is the only way to prove natural selection. You can't even prove through the fossil record exactly how Homo Sapien come into being. All you got is bullshit ideas based on the incomplete fossil record. Since we can't prove how Man evolved through natural selection in the fossil record how are you going to prove Darwin overall? Why you are finding this weird is the same way creationist find Darwinists weird. I'm not arguing creationism. I'm arguing that there is too much hype about Darwin. People just except it because they were taught in school no different than creationists were taught in sunday school. One is really no better than the other. Neither have scientific evidence. Both may be wrong. One thing that is for sure is the conflict of interest manner through the court system in which Darwin was forced to be taught in public school and religion was banned. You can't legally teach creationism but you are forced to teach natural selection. Darwin's natural selection. Why is that? It is a black eye on Darwinists to have to use the courts instead of the science to have it taught in public school. And nothing is going to change that the courts prevailed where the science could not.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Lamont, Lamont, Lamont.

For all the time you watse opining that evolution can't exist, you should go read one book.

Please, also, stop with the Darwin bullshit as though he wrote scripture.

E-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n.

We don't call it gravity "Newtonism" or say "Watsonian DNA."

Plain old "evolution."

Now, please provide us with your alternative or tell us what evolution lacks in terms of a theory....especially vs. the alternative.

After you jerk off tonight, check your knuckle glaze (unless all you get is dust) and try to decide if a person could ever come of that plus a thing called an "egg."

JSBach
JSBach's picture
Offline
Last seen: Never ago
Joined: Nov 28 2008 - 1:25am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Boys, boys, boys. This is all getting very , very boring.

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 6 days ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
One thing that is for sure is the conflict of interest manner through the court system in which Darwin was forced to be taught in public school and religion was banned. You can't legally teach creationism but you are forced to teach natural selection.

No court has ever ordered that evolution must be taught, nor has a court ordered that creationism cannot be taught.

Creationism cannot be taught as science - only as religion. Thus a class on comparative religion including creationism would be fine.

Whether or not evolution is taught is for state and local school boards to decide. As evolution is the foundation of modern biology school boards recognize that their students should learn evolution, just as they should learn about electricity and gravity.

In my experience, the vast majority that are threatened by evolutionary theory misunderstand it. It does not state there is no God, it does not hold that God did not create the universe and all that is in it. Instead, evolutionary theory is consistent with the teachings of all major Christian denominations.

For example, Pope John Paul II specifically embraced evolution as consistent with the teachings of the church. This is a significant statement by an exceedingly conservative Christian leader.

Keep in mind that evolution is not a "theory of origin;" it does not address the question of how life began. The theory of evolution does not refute the existence of God.

Rather evolutionary theory explains observed facts. This is the role of a theory. A theory is never an article of faith or mere "belief." A scientific theory stands until proven wrong -- it is never proven correct. All theories may at some point be shown to be incorrect by conclusive facts to the contrary, including the theory of gravity and the theory of germ propogation of disease.

While you have not been specific, it occurred to me that you may be claiming there isn't evidence for human evolution in the fossil record. Here's a little start for you. Clicky

Elk
Elk's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 months 6 days ago
Joined: Dec 26 2006 - 6:32am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:
Boys, boys, boys. This is all getting very , very boring.

It should be.

Evolutionary theory should be as understood and non-controversial as the germ theory of disease.

j_j
j_j's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 4 months ago
Joined: Mar 13 2009 - 4:22pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.


Quote:

Quote:
One thing that is for sure is the conflict of interest manner through the court system in which Darwin was forced to be taught in public school and religion was banned. You can't legally teach creationism but you are forced to teach natural selection.

No court has ever ordered that evolution must be taught, nor has a court ordered that creationism cannot be taught.

You can't use facts on Lamont. He's just repeating what his masters told him to drone when challenged by reality.

Denying evolution is like arguing that the rock isn't going to fall down when you let it go (in our usual situations, of course).

But then again, somebody mentioned germ theory of disease as another slam-duck, and there are nitwits out there who deny that, as well. The guy who denies that HIV causes AIDS, for instance, is a tiny example. Then we have all the "energy" and "flux" and "crystal" and "homeopathic" people who prey on the sick and dying...

Denying evolution is denying one of the basis on which the USA was founded, ironically, for these "USA FOREVER" types, they are denying the entire enlightenment movement, and its followup, the scientific method. In short, they are showing that they HATE AMERICA the whole time they argue "god bless america".

I have no idea what their malfunction is, but they are simply neither good citizens nor patriots, and this is not one nation under god.

Lamont Sanford
Lamont Sanford's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 5 days ago
Joined: Mar 31 2006 - 8:32pm
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

This what gets me. If you never heard of the "Monkey Trial" you're in no position to stand fast to something as simple as the fossil record, or lack thereof. I suppose you've never heard of he ACLU as well. The whole thing was a kangaroo court to get evolution into public school. And yes, religion is prohibited in public school. Period.

Also, there is nothing in the fossil record starting from homo sapien backward that supports a goddamn thing about Darwin.

Buddha
Buddha's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 11 months ago
Joined: Sep 8 2005 - 10:24am
Re: Another nitwit who doesn't understand the constitution.

Waiting for your alternative hypothesis, Lamont.

Pages

  • X
    Enter your Stereophile.com username.
    Enter the password that accompanies your username.
    Loading