Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 11/26/11 08:38 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:
Also, the Grammies are a joke.

Like you.

At 11/26/11 08:38 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:

I'm stupid for presenting facts. got it.

Wait... you think those are facts?

HAHAHAHAHAHA

Also, the Grammies are a joke.

Uh oh. You know shits gonna happen now.

I agree with your evolution theory but (yes i know theres always a but, btw i dont want this to be an argument where just expressing opinions) scientists say were something high% close apes alright but howed they get us being 70% related to fish? you cant trust dna skull sizes and features may be same but think this | Crocodiles have been around since pre-historic right? Then why the only evolution we've seen from them is growing smaller but nothing else. so how could we from ape's evolve SO MUCH? to how long hair grows where it grows natural strength so much is different and I believe thats to much of an evolution for us to be related to apes | other creatures may have evolved but in small ways like the crocodile but us humans.

At 11/27/11 01:19 AM, DemonOverLord wrote: I agree with your evolution theory but (yes i know theres always a but, btw i dont want this to be an argument where just expressing opinions) scientists say were something high% close apes alright but howed they get us being 70% related to fish? you cant trust dna skull sizes and features may be same but think this | Crocodiles have been around since pre-historic right? Then why the only evolution we've seen from them is growing smaller but nothing else. so how could we from ape's evolve SO MUCH? to how long hair grows where it grows natural strength so much is different and I believe thats to much of an evolution for us to be related to apes | other creatures may have evolved but in small ways like the crocodile but us humans.

The kingdom of Animalia is very, very small, and DNA differences don't have to be vastly different to account for different looking species. I mean, we're something like 50% related to cabbages.

At 11/26/11 09:33 PM, escobargames wrote: Like you.

words without factual backup. kinda like the bible.

At 11/26/11 09:33 PM, SweetenBoy wrote: Wait... you think those are facts?

as in that's what the holy freaking bible actually says? uh, yeah.

At 11/27/11 01:19 AM, DemonOverLord wrote: I agree with your evolution theory but (yes i know theres always a but, btw i dont want this to be an argument where just expressing opinions)

Me dun thinks yous betters be readings moar biology books.

At 11/27/11 05:09 PM, The-universe wrote:

At 11/27/11 01:19 AM, DemonOverLord wrote: I agree with your evolution theory but (yes i know theres always a but, btw i dont want this to be an argument where just expressing opinions)

Me dun thinks yous betters be readings moar biology books.

"Why Evolution is True"By Jerry. A Coyne

It answers pretty much all questions.

At 11/28/11 04:52 AM, MsRukia wrote: "Why Evolution is True"By Jerry. A Coyne

It answers pretty much all questions.

I'd prefer just to read basic biology and science text books and gradually work their way up.

At 11/28/11 04:52 AM, MsRukia wrote:
"Why Evolution is True"By Jerry. A Coyne

It answers pretty much all questions.

I going to argue my logic on my posts in this thread. Also, I am going to show why that book title is logically incorrect. I will explain in as clear a manner as I can; this will be lengthy as to cover any holes or logical shortcomings. If you don't want to read this behemoth, skip to the stars at the end for my conclusion.

For the purposes of deciding a course of action based on some given condition, the condition must be clearly shown to either be true or false in order to make a clear decision. If some action relies on a condition in order to occur, the condition must be "pure." By pure, I mean it is not in some grey area like "I don't know." For example, the condition of existence: either it exists or it doesn't, regardless of what we know or the evidence. Ghosts: they either exist or they don't, regardless of the scientific evidence and popular belief. The condition of Intelligent design: either X planted seeds or X did not plant seeds. X cannot "maybe have" planted seeds; X either did or didn't. There is no maybe when it comes to the act itself, but we can say that the evidence for A did/did not B is unclear/disputable.

Now if some action (the dependent action) relies on the condition of another action (the conditional action) in order to occur, the dependent action must "know" the state of the conditional action. For example, for there to be a fire, fuel must be added/present. Assume the air and ignition requirement for fire is always present and accounted for, fuel is entirely consumed, and that there was/is actually a fire in the following cases (i.e. sparks flying 24/7 in a workshop and when something burns, we get 100% reaction; a fire will start 100% of the time just by adding fuel):
Case 1) We see a fire and the obvious ignition source. We can assume fuel is present because we can see clearly see that there is fire. We can also assume that there was fuel because there had to be fuel for the fire to start in the first place. Air=true; fuel=true; ignition=true; fire=true. Confidence: 100%. Fire's existence confirmed. This is an example of a "pure true."
Case 2) We see smoke coming from a pile of ash of unknown composition. We think there was a fire. We can see a potential ignition source nearby that could have started a fire if there was fuel present. But since the fire is no longer present, we can't know if there actually was fuel to begin with. And since for sake of simplicity we have assumed all fires leave no excess fuel (100% reaction), if there was a fire, thereisno more fuel currently present in the pile of ash. Air=true; fuel=false; ignition=true; fire=false. Confidence: 50%. Because of what we know about fire, intuition tells us that there probably was fire, but given the evidence, we can only be 50% sure that there was indeed fire. This is an example of an "everyday true."
Case 3) We see a pile of ash. There is no obvious ignition source (there is a source of ignition, but we do not see it) and no fuel is currently present. Air=true; fuel=false; ignition=false; fire=false. Confidence: 25%. This is similar to Case 2, except we have less evidence and are less certain that there was a fire. This is an example of an "unsure true," more commonly known as "maybe."
Case 4) There is nothing to indicate that there is a fire and that there was even one in the first place. Air=false; fuel=false; ignition=false; fire=false. Confidence: 0%. To claim that there was a fire seems like nonsense, but just because you don't have evidence for it doesn't mean it didn't happen. This is an example of "not false," which is roughly the same as "if a tree falls and no one notices, did a tree fall?"

To apply this logic to the topic, simply consider the following: on a strictly logical basis, is there any mutual exclusivity between evolution, intelligent design, and a god? I argue no. It might actually be all three. It could have happened like this:
God makes universe and everything in it. God makes planet Earth. Then god either designed the life seeded the globe or he also created another planet which had sentient life either come into its own existence via natural processes--evolution--or was designed by god. This E.T. life could have then learned how to make life, and seeded our planet with the most primitive of life, letting evolution take over. If you take the Bible as fact and "that's the way it happened," is it unreasonable to think that maybe E.T. has added some species after the Old Testament was written? The best evidence I have to show that evolution is real is the wide variety of dog breeds that exist. If nothing else about evolution is true, the parts concerning that cannot be denied. I see no reason why the ideas can't coexist.

Truth is based solely on confidence of evidence. Science is the pursuit of truth via the collection evidence, with the caveat of that the evidence is actually showing something else to be less confident. In my fire example, to argue whether or not the fire is actually there, showing the presence, or lack thereof one of the requirements for fire. Showing that the supposed fuel is not actually the fuel undermines the evidence, and therefore confidence that the fire is there. Now, actual science would be trying to show that the requirements for fire would are actually something else. Really you can only find evidence for a truth (we did not show that the Earth is not flat; we showed that the math gives evidence that supports the idea that the earth is a sphere which reduced the confidence in the other idea), not directly show something is false. False is the lack of confidence.

*****

In conclusion, things either happen or they don't. Something is either absolutely true or absolutely false, no exceptions. But our accounts of the something can differ, and that is where science steps in to try and find the truth. But more likely we suffer from an inability to correctly pair the answers we get to the right questions. Like so...

Oh and that book title should be changed to "Why We are Confident Evolution is Not False, Yet".

My god the time! At least 2 hours to write this...

The book is titled "Why Evolution is True" because it is trying to be provocative and grasp an audience. The definition of what truth is relies evidently on the perception of an individual. The best way to comprehend Jerry A. Coyne's argument is to read his work. It is very well presented, and enthralling.

you dont need to argue evolution. evolution is a fact, it would be like arguing what 2 + 2 would equal

At 12/10/11 07:01 AM, MsRukia wrote: The definition of what truth is relies evidently on the perception of an individual.

is everyone in taking the same damn class that just about every thread has devolved into a relativist clusterfuck at the same time?

grumble, grumble, grumble...

At 12/12/11 02:51 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 12/10/11 07:01 AM, MsRukia wrote: The definition of what truth is relies evidently on the perception of an individual.

is everyone in taking the same damn class that just about every thread has devolved into a relativist clusterfuck at the same time?

On the plus side, it's almost time for the new semester, so we should be getting another wave of marxists and nihilists in a few weeks.

yay?

I'm trying to argue that we don't need to argue. Everything in the universe either happens or does not happen, regardless of our evidence to show which way we think is right. You either were or were not born, regardless of your birth certificate. Someone has or has not died, regardless of their death certificate (faked death anyone?) God either does or does not exist, regardless of what your religious book says. Evolution either does or does not apply to life, regardless of what the evidence shows.

So really, the universe does not care about evidence--confirming, contradicting, or otherwise. The universe works on a binary principle: "do or do not, there is no try." And Yoda is likely right, unless of course you consider quantum mechanics where things get weird and yes and no become probabilities (but who knows if even that is actually right). However, if quantum mechanics is right, there are no cold, hard facts we can know. In fact, I believe that if the Uncertainty Principle is true, then we can never be certain of something without a doubt except that we can never be certain. This is the one fact by logic I believe in that I can't be shaken from.

My point is we don't need to debate something whose outcome has already happened unless there is some future action that depends on it have happened a certain way, but what action could possibly depend on whether evolution, god, or some other entity is responsible for life being on Earth? The fact of the matter is we are here--the same conclusion regardless of how it started. To me, morals are meh and logic is law. Morally, everyone is right, and everyone is wrong. My logic says "Can't we all just get along?"

Here is how I see it: the shape of my finger has been determined by the way atoms interact and come together to form and hold that shape. That shape has changed over the eons because it is determined by the interactions of many atoms over much time (DNA, reproduction, what-have-you). The shape of my finger is undeniable, but the description we use to describe the shape and the way it changed over time is what we are debating. The shape of my finger is not going to change, so to argue the description is only to clarify; to argue the method is to only gain insight and personal reassurance. If arguing the method produces neither, why are you arguing it?

At 12/14/11 02:09 PM, Tydusis wrote: I'm trying to argue that we don't need to argue. Everything in the universe either happens or does not happen,

You, sir, are neither a Buddhist nor are you well versed in quantum physics.

At 11/4/11 12:58 PM, Famas wrote:

At 11/4/11 12:50 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 11/4/11 03:19 AM, Jedi-Master wrote: Then tell them that macroevolution is microevolution but over a long period of time.

psh... i'd love to see a chicken turn into a cat.

DOGS DON'T MAKE NON-DOGS. THEY ONLY EVER MAKE MORE DOGS.

Why can't you darwinists understand this???

Maybe this

At 12/14/11 02:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/14/11 02:09 PM, Tydusis wrote: I'm trying to argue that we don't need to argue. Everything in the universe either happens or does not happen,

You, sir, are neither a Buddhist nor are you well versed in quantum physics.

Exactly! And most of the world isn't either, so I simplified. The real point I've been trying to make is toleration. There are many ways to convince anyone of anything, but only one set of logic. If more people could see the logic, the world would have less problems, in my opinion, because with logic, everyone could agree more easily. But to see logic, one needs knowledge, and there are just bunches of people who could use some more. To me, logic is knowledge, and knowledge is logic.

Morals are based in opinion. Logic is based in nature. There are many opinions, but only one nature. Therefore, morals are meh, logic is law. I didn't say I was a Buddhist; I just think the world is illogical and could use some order. Order imposed doesn't work, but maybe order enlightened will. Order is a way of thought. For example, my moral side tells me pedophiles are bad, but my logic side tells me to not give a **** about them unless I have child. I don't have one, so I don't think about them--they don't concern me. Out of mind, out of hate. I hate advertisements that pop up and scream at you, and ever since I started using Netflix instead of my TV for entertainment, ads are almost a memory. Same for iPod vs. radio.

The big point about Tolerance is: if you don't like something, either get away from it and ignore its existence or shut up and deal with it. Whining about it is not going to solve it and acting on it is likely to give more problems than solutions.

I'm stopping now because this has nothing to do with evolution anymore.

At 12/14/11 05:00 PM, Adam-Beilgard wrote: Maybe this

how dare the videos don't work! i was promised adorableness.

in Soviet Russia...

At 11/4/11 02:06 AM, PepperJoe wrote: I have been trying to debate more, but it seems I keep failing to capitalize on weak statements. It usually goes.
Me: God is an unverifiable hypothesis.
Person: So is evolution.
Me: Um, we have evidence for evolution.
Person: Can you observe it?
Me: Micro evolution yes, but macro evolution takes millions of years.
Person: You can't observe it, so I'm right! :D
Me: . . .

I usually feel like there is nothing else I can say at this point. I know we have archeological evidence for macro evolution, but I can't just take a person to a science museum. Is there any advice someone can give me to help strengthen my arguments or strengthen my knowledge?

Well, to answer this, if their is a god 'and I believe there is' why did s/he have to hand-sculpt every creature and organism, which is what people who try to adapt will say. But for me micro evolution is proven, and macro evolution is BS to me. but I wont deny that science has proven and disproved many things, but it will never disprove that there is a god. Reason, how is science supposed to explain the existence of everything. Not the material, not the bacteria's and the small organisms and all the creatures and monsters in this universe. but that we could exist at all, say all of us are water, and somewhere far into the past there was a cup, saying that the cup was this universe or another, or all of them 'if you think that more exist' we being the water, filled the cup, which was an empty void needing to be filled. how can science explain that their was a cup anyway, saying that their was a big explosion is not an answer, because before the cup, there was nothing, nothing to react with, nothing that could decompose or combust, there was absolutely NOTHING so try explaining how nothing reacted with nothing to make everything you see around you today.

I believe there is a god, but I also believe science will let us shape life eventually, soul or no soul.

Well, to answer this, if their is a god 'and I believe there is' why did s/he have to hand-sculpt every creature and organism, which is what people who try to adapt will say. But for me micro evolution is proven, and macro evolution is BS to me. but I wont deny that science has proven and disproved many things, but it will never disprove that there is a god. Reason, how is science supposed to explain the existence of everything. Not the material, not the bacteria's and the small organisms and all the creatures and monsters in this universe. but that we could exist at all, say all of us are water, and somewhere far into the past there was a cup, saying that the cup was this universe or another, or all of them 'if you think that more exist' we being the water, filled the cup, which was an empty void needing to be filled. how can science explain that their was a cup anyway, saying that their was a big explosion is not an answer, because before the cup, there was nothing, nothing to react with, nothing that could decompose or combust, there was absolutely NOTHING so try explaining how nothing reacted with nothing to make everything you see around you today.

I believe there is a god, but I also believe science will let us shape life eventually, soul or no soul.

What you're saying is "I believe in god because there's no conceivable way that all matter in the universe existed before time, and without a creator".

But you ignore your own logic.

How did this creator exist before time, and without a creator of his own? Surely something powerful enough to forge the universe and everything in it can't just appear out of nothing. I mean, obviously the universe can't. So why make an exception for god? You say 'he doesn't need a creator, he transcends that'.

This is contrary to the argument youjust posted. There was nothing to decompose into a god or combust into a god, so where did he come from?

Another point: science doesn't have to disprove god more than it has to disprove the teapot between Earth and Mars. It's your job as a believer to show evidence, whatever you can muster to prove he exists. If I go up to you and say "I have superpowers, I can fly" and when you say 'prove it', my response is "PROVE I CAN'T" - well, you won that round.

But to shed light on your query about the beginning of the universe and how something came from nothing:

Virtual particles fluctuating in a vacuum coexist as positive and negative energy, simultaneously. Constantly cancelling each other out, the net energy was zero. This is referred to as the great singularity. Since there is no light in zero energy, there was no time (since time is relative to the speed of light). And when enough positive mass had collected away from the negative energy (as a fluke), its gravity was enough to pull more inward to itself, requiring a larger and larger amount of negative matter to cancel it, which never happened. Thusly, the mass of these virtual particles became so large that it collapsed on itself in the first 'supernova', or, the big bang. Go ahead, look it up.

Also, how can you believe in micro evolution and not macro? Micro evolution over millions of years is macro evolution.

At 11/4/11 02:06 AM, PepperJoe wrote: I have been trying to debate more, but it seems I keep failing to capitalize on weak statements. It usually goes.

Stop using weak statements, the.......crap whats that word...... oh oh I guess the subtlety of the theory has worn off and people are now questioning it can becoming wise to the usual weak statements and assumptions based on faith.

Me: God is an unverifiable hypothesis.
Person: So is evolution.
Me: Um, we have evidence for evolution.
Person: Can you observe it?
Me: Micro evolution yes, but macro evolution takes millions of years.
Person: You can't observe it, so I'm right! :D
Me: . . .

Can't observe it therefore the theory is dead, microevolution isn't even really a part of the theory since it existed long before the theory, it was taken and put into it to try and make the argument "if this part is right then the rest is right," but clearly that isn't working anymore, if you ask me the whole theory needs to be scrapped and redone without the pre conclusion that mankind came from animals, I know that is asking alot since most atheists cling to that in order to attempt at justifying a disbelief in God rather than outright but honest denial.

I usually feel like there is nothing else I can say at this point. I know we have archeological evidence for macro evolution, but I can't just take a person to a science museum. Is there any advice someone can give me to help strengthen my arguments or strengthen my knowledge?

Ok, stay with me now, the fact that fossils are found in the dirt proves one thing, it died.
But for the sake of argument lets say the animal had something strangely wrong with it, you still can't say that animal had any kids or any kids that had the same defect or mutational magical good thing happen to it for no reason........ or any kids that survived.

Now lets look at some of the supposed missing links of man and ape, ok we've got piltdownman, nebraksaman, javaman, orceman and the neanderthal, all evolutionary frauds, u can look them up anywhere I'm sure and find out why.

So you want help on how to argue better for a losing argument, my best advice is to give up and stop believing in evolution because it isnt true and starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence for it is a pretty stupid thing, more so if you're an atheist trying to justify disbelief in God, thats just sel embarrassment .

I'm sure I'm not gonna get a very good response from you or many other ppl here but at least I know I tried.

people who say that evolution is just a theory don't know what they're talking about.
In science, a theory is something which has evidence beyond reasonable doubt, but these people think that Theory is the same as hypothesis. Creationism is a hypothesis, not a theory.

At 12/25/11 06:09 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: I'm sure I'm not gonna get a very good response from you or many other ppl here but at least I know I tried.

That's because you know this has been debunked to death.

At 12/25/11 06:09 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Can't observe it therefore the theory is dead, microevolution isn't even really a part of the theory since it existed long before the theory, it was taken and put into it to try and make the argument "if this part is right then the rest is right," but clearly that isn't working anymore, if you ask me the whole theory needs to be scrapped and redone without the pre conclusion that mankind came from animals, I know that is asking alot since most atheists cling to that in order to attempt at justifying a disbelief in God rather than outright but honest denial.

There is no micro evolution nor macro Evolution, only Evolution. Cell theory in itself wasn't solid until 1939, the Double Helix DNA Strand wasn't known to exist until 1953 by Watson and Crick where as Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution was introduced in 1859. Germ Theory existed in the fifteen century but wasn't actually validated until the late 19th century. So no, Evolution itself was standing and backed before the concept of evolving bacterium and cells were backed in modern Science.

Ok, stay with me now, the fact that fossils are found in the dirt proves one thing, it died.

The term 'fossilisation' refers to a variety of often complex processes that enable the preservation of organic remains within the geological record. It frequently includes the following conditions: rapid and permanent burial/entombment - protecting the specimen from environmental or biological disturbance; oxygen deprivation - limiting the extent of decay and also biological activity/scavenging; continued sediment accumulation as opposed to an eroding surface - ensuring the organism remains buried in the long-term; and the absence of excessive heating or compression which might otherwise destroy it.

Fossil evidence is typically preserved within sediments deposited beneath water, partly because the conditions outlined above occur more frequently in these environments, and also because the majority of the Earth's surface is covered by water (70%+). Even fossils derived from land, including dinosaur bones and organisms preserved within amber (fossilised tree resin) were ultimately preserved in sediments deposited beneath water i.e. in wetlands, lakes, rivers, estuaries or swept out to sea.

Fossilisation can also occur on land, albeit to a far lesser extent, and includes (for example) specimens that have undergone mummification in the sterile atmosphere of a cave or desert. However in reality these examples are only a delay to decomposition rather than a lasting mode of fossilisation and specimens require permanent storage in a climate controlled environment in order to limit its affects.

What do Fossils show us? That Organisms have changed significantly over time. In rocks more than one billion years old, only fossils of single-celled organisms are found. Moving to rocks that are about 550 million years old, fossils of simple, multicellular animals can be found. At 500 million years ago, ancient fish without jawbones surface; and at 400 million years ago, fish with jaws are found. Gradually, new animals appear: amphibians at 350 million years ago, reptiles at 300 million years ago, mammals at 230 million years ago, and birds at 150 million years ago. As the rocks become more and more recent, the fossils look increasingly like the animals we observe today.

Transitional forms occur just when one might expect to see a change from one body type to another. However, a common objection is that few transitional fossils have been discovered; thus many lineages cannot be traced smoothly.

There are several reason for these gaps in the fossil record. First, fossilization is a very rare event. Plus, transitional species tend to appear in small populations, where rapid changes in the environment can provide a stronger evolutionary drive. Finally, because fossilization itself is a rare event, smaller populations are sure to produce fewer fossils. The fact that transitional species have been found at all is remarkable, and it offers further support of gradual, evolutionary change.

Richard Dawkins: Show me the intermediate fossils
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o92x6AvxC Fg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUozZo8nO pY&feature=relmfu

But of course the biggest and most irrefutable proof of evolution does not lie in fossil record but in the human genome itself. See when it is compared with the genome of one our cousins, the Chimpanzee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBEtw7esm vg&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wh0F4FBLJ RE&feature=relmfu

Now lets look at some of the supposed missing links of man and ape, ok we've got piltdownman, nebraksaman, javaman, orceman and the neanderthal, all evolutionary frauds, u can look them up anywhere I'm sure and find out why.

Not sure how Homo neanderthalfalls into that list of pranks and hoaxes made by various joke, and you shouldn't speak ill of one of our brothers.Home sapiens (people) fall under the genus of Homo, there are many transitional variants of our genus on the fossil record which are also shown strongly in the human genome. And of course in the genus before Homoas well.

I will provide you with a fantastic link that shows our ancestors:

http://www.becominghuman.org/node/human-
lineage-through-time

So you want help on how to argue better for a losing argument, my best advice is to give up and stop believing in evolution because it isnt true and starting with a conclusion and looking for evidence for it is a pretty stupid thing, more so if you're an atheist trying to justify disbelief in God, thats just sel embarrassment .

As for Evolution, you don't have to be Atheist to actually accept it. It's an acceptance of reality, one that won't hurt you to look into. I made a previous post in this thread that provide some good sources to read from. If you wish for a more comprehensive list, do not be afraid to ask.

At 12/14/11 09:59 PM, SolInvictus wrote: in Soviet Russia...

sad thing about that. many foxes were killed for being aggressive in the past. That's what led to this. And the way they're kept in captivity is often very shitty. sleeping in metal cages with no sort of padding underneath them. Imagine lying down on a series of hard metal bars. suckage. Still, they're adorable and I'd love to "rescue" one.

Also, Shaggy, you didn't actually say anything of real substance to back up your claims.

At 12/14/11 02:13 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/14/11 02:09 PM, Tydusis wrote:

You, sir, are neither a Buddhist nor are you well versed in quantum physics.

I fucking love this comment lol

At 12/25/11 08:03 PM, MsRukia wrote:

There is no micro evolution nor macro Evolution, only Evolution.

Well that is your belief then and you can try to ignore things but it doesn't make them go away.
Also I know this has nothing to do with the topic but on a personal note I've had an ear infection for a couple days n my ear just popped its better now XD

What do Fossils show us? That Organisms have changed significantly over time.

I highly doubt that and of course the next few things I'm gonna add to that will most likely go unread but i suppose I'll put it down anyway, you can take two fossils and say one became the other and that proves nothing, you can also say they look similar and prove nothing and you can say certain parts of it are similar to completely unrelated animals, and prove nothing.

Transitional forms occur just when one might expect to see a change from one body type to another. However, a common objection is that few transitional fossils have been discovered; thus many lineages cannot be traced smoothly.

Or maybe people just want to try and push a theory so they take a couple fossils that look alike and say one turned into the other over billions of years and leave out all evidence suggesting otherwise, otherwise manufacture a blatant fraud to push the extreme only to later be exposed while the damage will have already been done.

There are several reason for these gaps in the fossil record.

and it offers further support of gradual, evolutionary change.

I'm not even going to get into that.

Richard Dawkins: Show me the intermediate fossils

I feel insulted by the video u gave me that actually worked, artist renderings (sighs here we go again) artist renderings do nothing to support your theory and the fossils shown were skulls and not complete body fossils, so once again the transitional fossil myth is busted and is based entirely on blind faith in a theory that began with a conclusion.

But of course the biggest and most irrefutable proof of evolution does not lie in fossil record but in the human genome itself. See when it is compared with the genome of one our cousins, the Chimpanzee.

DNA proves nothing since our DNA is similar to all kinds of things as well as chimps n apes, so your irrefutable proof is refuted
Also you should actually look up those arguments by yourself and not rely on what other people tell you because people tend to be wrong and people tend to lie for a belief they desperately want to believe in.

Not sure how Homo neanderthalfalls into that list of pranks and hoaxes made by various joke, and you shouldn't speak ill of one of our brothers.Home sapiens (people) fall under the genus of Homo, there are many transitional variants of our genus on the fossil record which are also shown strongly in the human genome. And of course in the genus before Homoas well.

Very funny and very sad at the same time, apes are not related to us at all and that is the truth that you don't want to accept, the fact that homo is in a scientific name for human is based on appearance and not actual relevance, and again the DNA does nothing to prove that apes turned into people or that something that turned into apes also turned into people, go back and try again because that defense is lost on me.

I will provide you with a fantastic link that shows our ancestors:

............yeah I really hope you are joking.

As for Evolution, you don't have to be Atheist to actually accept it. It's an acceptance of reality, one that won't hurt you to look into

I never said you had to be atheist and I know very well the theistic evolution theory which is no more or less false than the atheistic evo theory, and like a typical evo you would try to relate the theory with reality when the theory itself is a complete disregard of reality, surely you can do a little better than this.

But honestly I didn't expect you to convince me at all when I stated reading your reply seeing as I actually have looked into all the supposed evidence and was a sort of evo myself but that doesn't matter, I looked at the evidence and then came to a conclusion, I didn't take other people's word for it and accept what your version of educational authority told me to, maybe you should do the same
and be rid of a belief that may cost you alot more than an argument one day.

At 12/26/11 08:42 PM, Sense-Offender wrote:
Also, Shaggy, you didn't actually say anything of real substance to back up your claims.

(sighs) neither do evolutionists, well I assume they try a little bit if not hardly because most of the stuff they give me is years old and already refuted with common sense so thats what I expect from them, and why would I give them anything, they're the ones trying to convince me and if they had half a brain they could look up the info I get from several places if they took 10 seconds to actually look but we both know thats not going to happen.