that site rocks madame.
jag,
So far I have always found evolution to be just another form of religion.
why? because people are passionate about it? or because you *want* it to be another religion?
so lemme see here. when we take something that reliugion tells us about the world or the universe, and we test for it, nothing comes of it. i actually mean, nothing. god floods the entire earth, noahs ark lands on a mountain and humanity comes from seven individuals. geology and genetics support neither.
a scientific theory tells us something about the world. we go out and test it, and lo' and behold, it works (actually the *reason* why there are such fields called geology and genetics and not jehovgology and chrisnetics)!
this should be something that is appreciated, not depreciated.
it is not religious zealotry to defend something which is defesensible. it is called reason, and the defense of reason. if you do not like what i just said, it may be because of cognitive dissonance. check yourself before coming back it me for saying it.
Too many missing links.
check this out:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=0003EFE0-D68A-1212-8F3983414B7F0000
you'll see that the so-called missing links are not the clinchers for the theory you think they would be. but even so, the concept of a missing link shows a misunderstanding of the way evolution works. and please no, "no, tetra, i do understand", because if you did, you wouldn't spout garbage like that. your comment assumes that humans are a pinnacle of evolution, when technically they are not. they are equal on the tree with all living things. there is no "half human" because every fossil that has ever been found is a full version of whater organism it represents.
but, if you really, really, really want a missing link, then here are several:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
and this faq on transitional vertebrate fossils should clear up this "missing link" misunderstanding based on the fact that all data and evidence we have produced and uncovered thus far support the theory of evolution by natural selection:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
if you don't think so, then you'd do well to tell us all what technical problems you have with such data.
Too much grasping for straws.
do you have an example, or are you just talking for the sake of saying words?
ot takes as much or more faith to believe evolution as it does religion or the bible.
really? wow, interesting. so jag here thinks that it is equally if not even more plausible to believe that samson pushed the walls down with his strength and that YHVH split the sea and drowned pharroh's army in comparison to actual fossils, genetic data and observed instances of speciation.
gee golly gosh. what motive are you carrying around with you that you would feel compelled to make such an unsupportable assertion as that?
so uh, the fact that we share 90+% of our genome with chimpanzees is some sort of fluke for you? or could it be, just hypothetically now because i wouldn't want you to feel uncomfortable about what you might be, that we share a common ancestor with them? or could it just be that god is an extremely lazy programmer, since you bring up the "bible" being believable? hmmm, i wonder which is more plausible? data that points at a certain hypothesis with greater accuracy, or no data for a different hypothesis all together? hmmmm, this is a tough one.
I would think the truth shouldn't be that difficult to ascertain unless someone or something is trying to cover it up.
really? like god or satan working to coverup missing links? like god planting fossils in the ground? or creationists covering fossils up? lol.
Maybe life is just a clusterfxxk and everyone is working their angle to make their dollar.
so, i think here you are confusing existential philosophy with geology, biology, genetics, paleontology and athopology. what does the above have anything at all to do with evolutionary science?
All theories that I have encountered lead to someone making a dollar. Scientist particularly phd's must publish or perish.
and so as a result, you only trust things that are published for free? or don't trust anything where a dollar was exchanged? whatever happened to finding religion more believable that evolution?
scientists must publish, therefore all the information they publish is unbelievable? you think it's hard to find reliable things to publish? then you obviously know nothing about peer review.
That goes the same for the Watchtower society. And anyone who operates a printing press, or publishing company. The institute for Creation research ICR, who devote their existence to debunking evolution also must publish or perish. Money may someday lead to the truth, in the meantime it will take us all around it.
really? what date have you been informed of when we may begin trusting published sources that give us data?
Who will have the presence of mind to know the truth when they see it?
a future event hey? well, since i am obviously totally deluded by relying on peer reviewed journalism for a representation of knowledge/science, then it obviously would be someone like you who had the foresight to see the great lies of today, but give us hope for a future time when "truth" will be seen. who will see it? i dunno, you maybe?
I guess God not speaking up is a bad mark for his side.
actually, it's not a "bad mark for his side", because ther is no side since he obviously does not exist. i would call it a lack of a mark. hey, maybe a new term may come of this waste of my time: "amark". i'm now refered to as an amarkeist.
If he exist he must be a cosmic joker watching man try to figure this all out. Then again maybe we are all part of God who gave up our diety to come down here and have a human experience.
a cosmic joker? must be. of course, i am unaware of any transitional data from the joker god to the toaker god.
how is it we went from talking about the theory of evolution by natural selection to the discussion of the existence of gods? did you not know from your exhaustive research into this theory that the two have no technical relation at all? or are you just talking for the sake of words?
This, the earth may be the only game in town. Or maybe this is the pleasure planet for some, the pain planet for others. The struggling planet. The forum for many truths planet.
from a philospohical perspective, sure. from a biological one, technically, no. we have a lot of information about life's history on this planet, based on the parameters and variables we are working within and with, respectively. to confuse the two doesn't help anyone who knows less than you do about the theory. perhaps you should revisit some of your exhaustive research into the theory before spouting off about technical principles when you are really talking about a branch of philosophy.
you may wonder why i even see the need to reply to you. well, trust me, it's not because i actually enjoy it. any jokes or sarcasm are the result of trying to ease some of the drudgery of the exercise. i do it because when there are people who come on the board and say that all the scholars in the world who think that jerusalem fell in 587 are deluded and only interested in publishing for money, and that the actual real date is totally open for debate (as if it was some sort of real debate), there are people on this board who will come and speak up and remind the individual that peer reviewed consensus, data and evidence do not support 607 or any other date. that is why. it is simply not a matter of philosophical principle with evolution. some people would like to give you, or lurkers on the board that the theory is in some sort of disrepute, and that it is equally as believable as anything else. but this is not true. and i don't really care who you are. if you say something that is not true, that could influence someones view of life on planet earth for the sake of some other philosophy, then they should at least know that you do not have data backing up your assertions. data and rhetoric: two different things. sorry. tetra
