Al Gore will be excited!!!

Pages

422 posts / 0 new
Last post
severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 

multi-species-angler Said:

severance Said:
 

multi-species-angler Said:
 
severance Said:
 im still curious as to what came before homo sapiens

That compilation of reconstructed faces in the order of there appearance in the fossil record and in the DNA sequences.....did you not see that?

recently scientists have discovered that neanderthals may have died out thousands of years before homo sapiens came on  the scene.  a while back they had said perhaps neanderthals lived with modern man for a time before dying out.  in either of these scenarios the result is the same.........

neanderthal could not have been an earlier form of man.  unless of course you want to dispute the legions of scientists who have been involved in these studies.

wouldnt that then mean that you would be going against science to reinforce your beliefs?

you're still thinking of evolution as a single line of progression....It is multiple branches of change.

divide a group of one specie, by a river or a mountain rang or place a few on one island segregated from the rest of its own kind.  that group reproduces and passes on traits independently from its original specie eventually forming a completely new one.

After leaving Africa, Homo sapiens was well on its way to becoming 4 or 5 very different species until we developed boats and began intermixing our unique genetic traits again.  and we are still evolving, even visually, look at the average height of humans for example.

look at the scale below and show me the exact point where blue becomes red.  this is how evolution works, a Neanderthal doesn't magically give birth to a homo sapien, it is very gradual over hundreds of generations.

correct. so then where are the many samples of various sapien/previous homonid blends?  shouldnt we then have a complete set of varying samples for the claim to be accurate?

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Gst, nope. You clearly haven't read all the posts. If u had, u wouldve noticed I probably practice the same religion as u. I just don't try make the claim that faith in something spiritual is even remotely similar to trusting in science and things like evolution. One is faith by the very definition of the word because it asks u to believe without any evidence. The other asks u not to believe without evidence. Whether u or our resident biologist wants to believe it or not, the two things couldn't be at more opposite ends of the spectrum.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

Here is what I don't get... Why can't u guys just admit "I believe in Jesus Christ with no evidence at all that he was/is the son of God because I am asked to believe even though I have never seen him or watched him perform any miracles."

And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires evidence and repeated testing of that evidence over time before we are asked to believe. And even then, it invites further skepticism and testing."

The two things can co exist... Especially, if u don't take the bible literally and climb inside your shell as soon as science proves something in the bible wrong. It was written by men over 2000 years ago after all.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09
Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

"I believe in Jesus Christ with no evidence at all that he was/is the son of God because I am asked to believe"

I believe because I've been asked to believe??  This what you believe?  I don't, and neither does any other Christian, believe because we are supposed to or we've been asked to believe.  Faith and true belief is a relationship that touches one in the deepest parts of their existence, it is a tangible relationship that one can feel and experience in ways that apparently you have never accepted.

"And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires .."

The scientific process has been wrong countless times.  To think the scientific method is fool proof would make you a fool.  The scientific process is nothing more than mans attempt to understand creation and our role with what in our extremely limited resources we can measure.   We have learned much about gravity.  It is all around us, we experience it everyday.  Yet "gravity" is just a word we made up.  We really know nothing about gravity and its scientific motivation.

"if u don't take the bible literally and climb inside your shell as soon as science proves something in the bible wrong. "

The Bible speaks of a great flood.  There was not a single great flood in mans time.  There have been hundreds of great regional floods, glacial outbursts primarily.  In all religions there have been talks of a great flood.   That's because there was one in their memory or handed down to them.  I believe great floods no doubt made major changes in ecosystems and the lives of people.  The Bible talks of one of these.  Interpretation of an event in minute trems is not overly important.  The message is.

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

gst Said:
Multi, espringers, I admittedly have not read every single post since page 8, just got in from seeding, but I did read enough to see you guys have no comprehension of what faith is.

I almost feel sorry for people that have to have something they can see, feel, touch, smell, measure, sample, analyze ect.... and can not beleive in something more than that itself.

Enjoy going thru life with the "faith" you and your soul will be nothing more than worm shit when you die.

multi hows your "scientific proof" alligators have morals coming?

Its going bad actually, one bit me a couple days ago.  But here again one of the great tools of fbo keeps asking me, the keeper of all the information, for proof of things they can easily research and find themselves.

The first problem is your personal definition of morals, the ssecond problem is unless its a made up fairy tale or hypothesis you won't believe it.

Crocodilians exibit primitive moral behavior wether you like it or not.  Its obvious in their social interactions, in the way they care for their young, even in the way one individual will adopt and care for another's young or even temporarily babysit for another.  Even if I duck taped you to a chair and spent a year observing 25 crocodilian species examples of moral behavior, you would notbelieve me, you would just claim it to be part of the liberal agenda.

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
Gst, nope. You clearly haven't read all the posts. If u had, u wouldve noticed I probably practice the same religion as u. I just don't try make the claim that faith in something spiritual is even remotely similar to trusting in science and things like evolution. One is faith by the very definition of the word because it asks u to believe without any evidence. The other asks u not to believe without evidence. Whether u or our resident biologist wants to believe it or not, the two things couldn't be at more opposite ends of the spectrum.

If this is your beleif, why bother "practicing" any religion that requires faith????

Without faith, there is no reason to "practice" religion.

espringers, WHY do you "practice" religion?

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

Alpine Said:
"I believe in Jesus Christ with no evidence at all that he was/is the son of God because I am asked to believe"

I believe because I've been asked to believe??  This what you believe?  I don't, and neither does any other Christian, believe because we are supposed to or we've been asked to believe.  Faith and true belief is a relationship that touches one in the deepest parts of their existence, it is a tangible relationship that one can feel and experience in ways that apparently you have never accepted.

"And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires .."

The scientific process has been wrong countless times.  To think the scientific method is fool proof would make you a fool.  The scientific process is nothing more than mans attempt to understand creation and our role with what in our extremely limited resources we can measure.   We have learned much about gravity.  It is all around us, we experience it everyday.  Yet "gravity" is just a word we made up.  We really know nothing about gravity and its scientific motivation.

"if u don't take the bible literally and climb inside your shell as soon as science proves something in the bible wrong. "

The Bible speaks of a great flood.  There was not a single great flood in mans time.  There have been hundreds of great regional floods, glacial outbursts primarily.  In all religions there have been talks of a great flood.   That's because there was one in their memory or handed down to them.  I believe great floods no doubt made major changes in ecosystems and the lives of people.  The Bible talks of one of these.  Interpretation of an event in minute trems is not overly important.  The message is.

I fully respect your beliefs in the supernatural and you beliefs are of absolutely no concern to me, UNTIL!...you use your belief in something with no evidence, no observations, no tests, no peer review, etc, to try and disqualify something like evolution, with heaping tons of evidence, millions of observers, infinite tests, repeated global peer reviews, over and over.

You sayevery religion speaks of a great flood?  I know you're not that narrow minded.

y

sdwxman's picture
sdwxman
Offline
Joined: 4/6/07

 Al Gore approves of this thread.... He's still excited!


gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
Here is what I don't get... Why can't u guys just admit "I believe in Jesus Christ with no evidence at all that he was/is the son of God because I am asked to believe even though I have never seen him or watched him perform any miracles."

And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires evidence and repeated testing of that evidence over time before we are asked to believe. And even then, it invites further skepticism and testing."

The two things can co exist... Especially, if u don't take the bible literally and climb inside your shell as soon as science proves something in the bible wrong. It was written by men over 2000 years ago after all.

espringers, I beleive in science.

I am simply not so arrogant to beleive it can answer everything?

Like I asked before, why do you "practice" a religion at all?

As to your second emboldened statement, if that is actually true, why then are those that look with "skeptism" on evolutionists beleif that man crawled out of the premodial sludge as a single cell creature cabillions of years ago condemned as you and others do? 

Once again, I beleive in science. I believe in many things science has produced as a result of intelligent thought. 

I am simply not so arrogant to beleive it has the answer to everything. Remember "science" can't even make up it's mind if eggs are good for you or bad for you.

Therefore I have faith in something more.  

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
Here is what I don't get... Why can't u guys just admit "I believe in Jesus Christ with no evidence at all that he was/is the son of God because I am asked to believe even though I have never seen him or watched him perform any miracles."

And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires evidence and repeated testing of that evidence over time before we are asked to believe. And even then, it invites further skepticism and testing."

The two things can co exist... Especially, if u don't take the bible literally and climb inside your shell as soon as science proves something in the bible wrong. It was written by men over 2000 years ago after all.

espringers, I beleive in science.

I am simply not so arrogant to beleive it can answer everything?

Like I asked before, why do you "practice" a religion at all?

As to your second emboldened statement, if that is actually true, why then are those that look with "skeptism" on evolutionists beleif that man crawled out of the premodial sludge as a single cell creature cabillions of years ago condemned as you and others do? 

Once again, I beleive in science. I believe in many things science has produced as a result of intelligent thought. 

I am simply not so arrogant to beleive it has the answer to everything. Remember "science" can't even make up it's mind if eggs are good for you or bad for you.

Therefore I have faith in something more.  

Science has been wrong, therefore i make shit up....seems legit

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
 

gst Said:
Multi, espringers, I admittedly have not read every single post since page 8, just got in from seeding, but I did read enough to see you guys have no comprehension of what faith is.

I almost feel sorry for people that have to have something they can see, feel, touch, smell, measure, sample, analyze ect.... and can not beleive in something more than that itself.

Enjoy going thru life with the "faith" you and your soul will be nothing more than worm shit when you die.

multi hows your "scientific proof" alligators have morals coming?

Its going bad actually, one bit me a couple days ago.  But here again one of the great tools of fbo keeps asking me, the keeper of all the information, for proof of things they can easily research and find themselves.

The first problem is your personal definition of morals, the ssecond problem is unless its a made up fairy tale or hypothesis you won't believe it.

Crocodilians exibit primitive moral behavior wether you like it or not.  Its obvious in their social interactions, in the way they care for their young, even in the way one individual will adopt and care for another's young or even temporarily babysit for another.  Even if I duck taped you to a chair and spent a year observing 25 crocodilian species examples of moral behavior, you would notbelieve me, you would just claim it to be part of the liberal agenda.

Okay, you win, given the right "definition", I guess ANYTHING can have morals.

Perhaps it is only the mother alligators that have "morals" in that they try to prevent the unmoral male alligators from eating their young.

But hey, maybe with the right "definition" eating ones young might be veiwed as "moral".

"The first problem is your personal definition of morals"

This in a nutshell sums up the whole arguement.

You do not wish to follow a set of moral values, you along with a growing number of others want to simply make up the "definition" of morals as you go along.

Worked well for civilizations such as the Romans didn;t it.

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
Gst, nope. You clearly haven't read all the posts. If u had, u wouldve noticed I probably practice the same religion as u. I just don't try make the claim that faith in something spiritual is even remotely similar to trusting in science and things like evolution. One is faith by the very definition of the word because it asks u to believe without any evidence. The other asks u not to believe without evidence. Whether u or our resident biologist wants to believe it or not, the two things couldn't be at more opposite ends of the spectrum.

If this is your beleif, why bother "practicing" any religion that requires faith????

Without faith, there is no reason to "practice" religion.

espringers, WHY do you "practice" religion?

what?  where in that statement do i give you any inkling of what exactly my believe system is other than to say faith requires belief without any evidence by the very definition of the word?  also, where in that statement do i say i don't have faith?  

finally, if you think for a minute i am about to explain my personal belief system to you and the rest of the world on a frigging website, you are batchit frogging crazy!  

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
Here is what I don't get... Why can't u guys just admit "I believe in Jesus Christ with no evidence at all that he was/is the son of God because I am asked to believe even though I have never seen him or watched him perform any miracles."

And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires evidence and repeated testing of that evidence over time before we are asked to believe. And even then, it invites further skepticism and testing."

The two things can co exist... Especially, if u don't take the bible literally and climb inside your shell as soon as science proves something in the bible wrong. It was written by men over 2000 years ago after all.

espringers, I beleive in science.

I am simply not so arrogant to beleive it can answer everything?

Like I asked before, why do you "practice" a religion at all?

As to your second emboldened statement, if that is actually true, why then are those that look with "skeptism" on evolutionists beleif that man crawled out of the premodial sludge as a single cell creature cabillions of years ago condemned as you and others do? 

Once again, I beleive in science. I believe in many things science has produced as a result of intelligent thought. 

I am simply not so arrogant to beleive it has the answer to everything. Remember "science" can't even make up it's mind if eggs are good for you or bad for you.

Therefore I have faith in something more.  

Science has been wrong, therefore i make shit up....seems legit

For someone claiming to have such a science based analytical mind, you sure do not seem to exhibit it in claims such as this.

I mean you have failed to catch even the basic premise of the statement.

How about trying "science has been wrong more often than not, so I will not be so arrogant to beleive it has answers for everything"

It simply shows once again, you have no concept of faith.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 how did we get rid of mauser?

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

espringers Said:
 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
Gst, nope. You clearly haven't read all the posts. If u had, u wouldve noticed I probably practice the same religion as u. I just don't try make the claim that faith in something spiritual is even remotely similar to trusting in science and things like evolution. One is faith by the very definition of the word because it asks u to believe without any evidence. The other asks u not to believe without evidence. Whether u or our resident biologist wants to believe it or not, the two things couldn't be at more opposite ends of the spectrum.

If this is your beleif, why bother "practicing" any religion that requires faith????

Without faith, there is no reason to "practice" religion.

espringers, WHY do you "practice" religion?

what?  where in that statement do i give you any inkling of what exactly my believe system is other than to say faith requires belief without any evidence by the very definition of the word?  also, where in that statement do i say i don't have faith?  

finally, if you think for a minute i am about to explain my personal belief system to you and the rest of the world on a frigging website, you are batchit frogging crazy!  

All I asked is why you "practice" religion?

I mean if all that happens when we die is we become compost to feed some other evolving organism, why bother "practicing religion" as you have admitted you do?

severance's picture
severance
Offline
Joined: 4/14/11

 

multi-species-angler Said:
 how did we get rid of mauser?

im not sure where you are going with this but i have wondered the same thing. i miss his rivalry with plainsman

espringers's picture
espringers
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 7/25/07

 

gst Said:

espringers Said:
Here is what I don't get... Why can't u guys just admit "I believe in Jesus Christ with no evidence at all that he was/is the son of God because I am asked to believe even though I have never seen him or watched him perform any miracles."

And admit... "The scientific process works just the opposite. It requires evidence and repeated testing of that evidence over time before we are asked to believe. And even then, it invites further skepticism and testing."

The two things can co exist... Especially, if u don't take the bible literally and climb inside your shell as soon as science proves something in the bible wrong. It was written by men over 2000 years ago after all.

espringers, I beleive in science.

I am simply not so arrogant to beleive it can answer everything?

Like I asked before, why do you "practice" a religion at all?

As to your second emboldened statement, if that is actually true, why then are those that look with "skeptism" on evolutionists beleif that man crawled out of the premodial sludge as a single cell creature cabillions of years ago condemned as you and others do? 

Once again, I beleive in science. I believe in many things science has produced as a result of intelligent thought. 

I am simply not so arrogant to beleive it has the answer to everything. Remember "science" can't even make up it's mind if eggs are good for you or bad for you.

Therefore I have faith in something more.  

anybody ever say it can answer anything?  

i practice for my own personal reasons... ain't about to share them with you cause its none of your damn business.  what about anything i have said makes you think i shouldn't be practicing some sort of belief structure?

we don't condemn you for your views on evolution... we are asking you guys to present evidence to dispute it.  it is one of the most tested and accepted scientific theories of all time.  if you are going to cast doubt on it, you best bring something more than... "science can be wrong".  "the bible says otherwise."  "your faith in evolution is no different than my faith in jesus".

again... nobody is claiming science has all the answers... what is being claimed is that it is the human process for trying to get answers.  you guys keep coming back with "yeah.  but, its fallible."  no chit sherlock!  show us the fallicy in the theory of evolution and us and the rest of the world will listen with eyes and ears wide open!  there might be a bit of review done on what you have to say... but, show us the evidence its false.  thats all that is asked of you.

Born to hunt and fish... Forced to work!

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

multi-species-angler Said:
 how did we get rid of mauser?

So this is how you defend your "scientific" claims? Get rid of people who would question them with "skeptism" you can not answer?
 

Multi says "The first problem is your personal definition of morals"

Once again multi if anyone can define morals and pick and choose the definition, I guess we are ALL moral people, even Jeffery Dahmers.

So how about those male alligators eating their young any time the opportunity arises, does YOUR "definition of morals" allow that as aceptable "moral" behavior?

bobkat's picture
bobkat
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 12/16/01

 Amazing the discussion between evolution and creation!   Lots of my religiously devout friends have found intellectual ways of accepting both!  Nothing wrong with that IMO!
Its kind of scary  the number of people here who absolutely discount science, or claim to, anyway!?!  Or distrust Science and its developments and findings, too, unless they can personally benefit from them.   Seems the further right one gets in politics the more distrust and reactionary (used in the real meaning) one gets!  
Off topic a bit but a couple of examples.  No wonder third world countries are now HPV vaccinating everyone at $1.00 a dose while at least two of our presidential candidates were absolutely opposed to this for anyone!!!! Jeesh.!!  And we taxpayers are still giving billions to Africa for "just say No for aids prevention" programs! ". And all of us here on FBO bitch about govt money wasting......sorry for the rant, but we need FAR MORE Science  and more separation of church and state, IMHO!   

Tacoman's picture
Tacoman
Offline
Joined: 2/13/06

bobkat Said:
 Amazing the discussion between evolution and creation!   Lots of my religiously devout friends have found intellectual ways of accepting both!  Nothing wrong with that IMO!
Its kind of scary  the number of people here who absolutely discount science, or claim to, anyway!?!  Or distrust Science and its developments and findings, too, unless they can personally benefit from them.   Seems the further right one gets in politics the more distrust and reactionary (used in the real meaning) one gets!  
Off topic a bit but a couple of examples.  No wonder third world countries are now HPV vaccinating everyone at $1.00 a dose while at least two of our presidential candidates were absolutely opposed to this for anyone!!!! Jeesh.!!  And we taxpayers are still giving billions to Africa for "just say No for aids prevention" programs! ". And all of us here on FBO bitch about govt money wasting......sorry for the rant, but we need FAR MORE Science  and more separation of church and state, IMHO!   

These are the kind of posts that make FBO STINK!

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 gst if I thought for one millisecond you were actually interested in the social behavior of crocodilians (male and female), I would post and link and feed your yerning brain all day long, but you're not interested, you're just being a douche of such magnitude that could cleanse a whale vagina.  You wouldn't follow link, you refuse to cross refference supplied data, you just have your fingers in your ears yelling lalala faith faith faith.

Do fbo a favor and post a weather report, leave an outdoor relevant comment on a photo.  Just please post or reply with something other than your repetative bullshit.  We get it, no one comprehended faith better than you, we know, the world will end because of incrementalism, liberals suck and evolution is part of the liberal agenda invented by the Nazis.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

 so I give gst what he asked for 3 dozen times and now he say, "oh yeah, what about male alligators"

Alpine's picture
Alpine
Offline
Joined: 1/13/12

fishmahn and others seem to have great faith in "peer review" and the scientific process when it has been proven wrong many times.  Many, many times on many, many issues.   Ones faith is ones faith though.

"You sayevery religion speaks of a great flood?"

You would be ignorant to not know this.  It is spoken of in Christianity, in Islam, in Judaism, in Hinduism, and many lesser knowns and older yet religions..  The details are different, but a great flood none the less.  The planet has known great floods throughout time, certainly throughout mans time.  The geological evidence is clear.

 

Plainsman's picture
Plainsman
Offline
AMATEUR
Joined: 6/19/03
 faith requires belief without any evidence

Faith would be tough with no evidence.  I call evolution a religion because you have some evidence, but no proof.  Without absolute proof it then requires faith to believe.

Once again:  the reason I asked if you believed George Washington was our first president, or had you been to Australia was to test if you believe history and witnesses.  I don't just read the Bible.  I read historians both Christian and secular.  I read the writings of those who were there in the Bible, and the writings of those who interviewed people still alive after the life of Christ.  In the end I decided that weighing the evidence there was more in my opinion to believe in God. 

Yes there are things I don't know.  However, my ego is not so big to pretend I do like some people.  I have the curiosity of a scientist, but am also able to be satisfied with the reality I will never know all.   I can leave atheists alone as long as they don't try to convince me to go to he!! with them. 

gst's picture
gst
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 3/12/09

esprigers, I asked why you "practice" a religion because it if you do so because you have a concern where your soul may eternally rest, you have a beleif/faith in a greater power.

So if you have this belief/faith then why not have a beleif/faith that there is some connection in some way to how we all got here to this greater power that has the ability to provide for your soul after you are gone?

Now if you don;t beleive any of this and are "practicing" a religion to simply appease something or someone and have no faith that is different and we have no need to examine that.

Multi .

"The first problem is your personal definition of morals"

This statement you made clearly shows you wish to pick and choose which "morals" one maintains or are examined or are factored into your "science".

ANYTHING can be deduced in this manner by picking and choosing what you beleive is "moral behavior".

Based on this standard, I can then make the statement because Jeffery Dahmers did not rape and eat 12 year old girls he had "morals".

And if this is what your "science" is based on, it is a pretty lame arguement indeed.

So now explain how male alligators eating their young fits into your "theory" of alligators having morals? 

I mean coming from Mr. evolution himself, using an example of an evolved reproductive response developed over millions of years as an example of an alligator having "morals" and as such choosing to "adopt" anothers young as you earlier claimed they do because it is the "right" or moral thing to do is pretty lame "science".

Do you suppose the male alligator stops and ponders whether he should or shouldn;t eat the young that are scrambling for the water from their nest based on whether it is right or wrong?????????

"The first problem is your personal definition of morals"

But then again this is what we see far to often in "science". Manipulation of "evidence" based on what one wishes to use to reach a concluded "theory".

And yet people are condemned for being "skeptics".

So multi is salt good for you or bad for you based on the latest "science"?

Meelosh's picture
Meelosh
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/26/06

 I thought this thread was about global warming.

Is it impious to weigh goose music and art in the same scales? I think not, because the true hunter is merely a noncreative artist. Who painted the first picture on a bone in the caves of France? A hunter. Who alone in our modern life so thrills to the sight of living beauty that he will endure hunger and thirst and cold to feed his eye upon it? The hunter. Who wrote the great hunter's poem about the sheer wonder of the wind, the hail, and the snow, the stars, the lightnings, and the clouds, the lion, the deer, and the wild goat, the raven, the hawk, and the eagle, and above all the eulogy to the horse? Job, one of the great dramatic artists of all time. Poets sing and hunters scale the mountains primarily for one and the same reason--the thrill of beauty. Critics write and hunters outwit their game primarily for one and the same reason--to reduce that beauty to possession. The differences are largely matters of degree, consciousness, and that sly arbiter of the classification of human activities, language. If, then, we can live without goose music, we may as well do away with stars, or sunsets, or Iliads. But the point is we would be fools to do away with any of them. 

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Plainsman Said:
Multispecies don't apply for a genetics job. I forget the exact breakdown, but if I remember it's 25% of each of your parents, 12.5% each set of grandparents and on down. So 50% parents, 25% all grandparents, 12.5 % all great-grandparents etc.

No evolution is not fact. If it were fact it would no longer be theory. That is so wrong I don't know where to begin. Fact???? Maybe you better let the scientific community know that.

Wrong. Evolution is both fact and theory. You still don't understand theory and law. I haven't been on here for awhile, and it's quite obvious I missed a lot . Really don't feel like reading through all of it right now, but you acting as if the vast majority of the scientific community doesn't believe evolution leads me to believe that you have got to be trolling. There is no other explanation at this point if you are going to blatantly deny the truth.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Pascal's wager? Really? Debunked. It doesn't take into account all religions so it's a failed argument from the get go.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_scientific_theories_said_to_be_'not_just_a_theory'

“Evolution” is not the same as “the theory of evolution.” “Evolution” is the observation. “The Theory of Evolution” is an explanation for what we observe.

http://www.teachthemscience.org/scientifictheory

Pages