Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 2/6/12 02:58 AM, a21 wrote: Also Milo, to Torah is basically just the Old Testament of the Bible, which I don't understand, because they are basically just believing half of it.

I'm taking a Jewish studies class and i'm trying to figure that one out myself; also how Jesus was a Jew, and why there are so many variations of Judaism to begin with

---

At 2/6/12 03:27 AM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote:

At 2/6/12 02:58 AM, a21 wrote: Also Milo, to Torah is basically just the Old Testament of the Bible, which I don't understand, because they are basically just believing half of it.

I'm taking a Jewish studies class and i'm trying to figure that one out myself; also how Jesus was a Jew, and why there are so many variations of Judaism to begin with

well to be technical. the Torah came before the new testament so how are jews just choosing to believe half of the bible?

---

At 2/6/12 03:21 AM, Stereocrisis wrote:

At 2/6/12 03:08 AM, a21 wrote: I don't know why you think its a joke, history doesn't even go back 6000 years ago, no one really knows.

Are you being serious? Boy, there are so many things to prove that statement wrong, I just don't even know where to begin. If you're not a troll, then you really need to snap out of it. Simply type in 7000 BC into any search engine, and report back to me with your results. That is just the first thing that comes to mind to wake you up. Nevermind the dinosaurs, the formation of our planet, the formation of the solar system, of our sun, and of our galaxy. Now we are in the time span of billions of years. Time didn't start when a being said "let there be light". Come on...

Typed it in, saw the oldest mask on record. You should know that wikipedia does say 5000 years of recorded history. Ancient History

So, their are some artifacts found before this, give or take a few thousand years. Still nothing like hundreds of thousands of years as you claim.

Interesting you quote God on 'Let there be light', you may or may not know that String Theory, (the theory of everything), which is a theory formed by renown secular physicists, suggests that at the smallest scale everything is made up of waves, or sound, thus God 'speaking' the universe into existence.

Yeah, but God is in control of everything, even though it may to not appear so. I understand what you are saying, today people just use the bible to control and manipulate others, the church in the bible was different from the church of today, they would genuinely help people in those times.

I am completely aware of the higher ups, or the illuminati, they did have their part in the Bible of today, but I am not going to dismiss it for that reason.

I can't debate with you. You're not right in the head. Sorry. If you're not a troll, (which of course you must be) you just aren't right in the head.

Ok.

At 2/6/12 03:37 AM, MiloBased wrote:

At 2/6/12 03:27 AM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote:

At 2/6/12 02:58 AM, a21 wrote: Also Milo, to Torah is basically just the Old Testament of the Bible, which I don't understand, because they are basically just believing half of it.

I'm taking a Jewish studies class and i'm trying to figure that one out myself; also how Jesus was a Jew, and why there are so many variations of Judaism to begin with

well to be technical. the Torah came before the new testament so how are jews just choosing to believe half of the bible?

Well, the thing is they don't consider Jesus as the Messiah, so thats why they reject the new testament.

---

Guys... guys...

What if... okay you with me now?

What if... the Devil is really the good guy, and God is the evil one?

---

At 2/6/12 03:20 AM, bgraybr wrote:
How many fucking times...
Species do not change genetically within their lifetime. They breed with other organisms, and give birth to offspring with traits from both parents. Organisms that reproduce will spread their own genes. Over time, the genes change enough to produce a different species.

Evolution is a constant process. There are no fossils in mid-evolve because... that doesn't even make sense. A single animal doesn't evolve. Populations evolve. Their are plenty of transitional species. LOOK AN ANCESTOR OF MODERN HUMANS.

Populations? So we should be finding a ton of evolving fossils then! Checked your link, its a skull of a human.

---

Might as well say it because everyone is thinking it. "This is the obligitory, No you're wrong response everyone else is thinking and/or waiting for."

---

At 2/6/12 04:22 AM, a21 wrote: So we should be finding a ton of evolving fossils then!

Very few individuals out of an entire species ever end up as fossils, conditions have to be right for fossilization to occur.

Stop saying "evolving fossils". Just fucking stop. That's not the proper way to put it.

If by evolving fossils you mean transitional species, then yes, we've found many of those.

Checked your link, its a skull of a human.

That's like saying that a polar bear is the same as a brown bear.

It isn't a human, it's a close ancestor.

---

At 2/6/12 04:36 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 2/6/12 04:22 AM, a21 wrote: So we should be finding a ton of evolving fossils then!

Very few individuals out of an entire species ever end up as fossils, conditions have to be right for fossilization to occur.

Stop saying "evolving fossils". Just fucking stop. That's not the proper way to put it.

If by evolving fossils you mean transitional species, then yes, we've found many of those.

Transitional species, what? Like a specie in between other two species? I am not following, that would just make three species, their are no fossils of a specie transitioning into another specie.

Checked your link, its a skull of a human.

That's like saying that a polar bear is the same as a brown bear.

It isn't a human, it's a close ancestor.

What does that mean? A close ancestor, of a human! What is your point here?

---

At 2/6/12 05:18 AM, a21 wrote: Transitional species, what? Like a specie in between other two species? I am not following, that would just make three species, their are no fossils of a specie transitioning into another specie.

Yep. Organisms don't just go *poof* and turn into something else. Changes are gradual and by the generation. You seem to have trouble understanding that.

There are fossils of species transitioning into other species. Check out this image for a very broad overview. That's what you get when you group species by age and genetic relation. Here are the groups of species leading up to hominids and eventually humans.

What does that mean? A close ancestor, of a human! What is your point here?

That species ultimately evolved into us humans. What do you not understand?

---

At 2/6/12 03:37 AM, MiloBased wrote:

At 2/6/12 03:27 AM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote:

well to be technical. the Torah came before the new testament so how are jews just choosing to believe half of the bible?

This is the way my Jewish teacher broke it down:

They believe in the books of Tanach which consist of the Torah which is the first 5 books, the early Prophets which is the next 6 (Joshua - II Kings), the later Prophets of Isaiah to Malachi; then the final writings from Psalms through 1 and 2 Chronicles.

They do not, somehow believe Jesus died and came back, or basically the whole New Testament which i find odd since they believe in the first half but don't finish the story

---

At 2/6/12 05:26 AM, bgraybr wrote:

At 2/6/12 05:18 AM, a21 wrote: Transitional species, what? Like a specie in between other two species? I am not following, that would just make three species, their are no fossils of a specie transitioning into another specie.

Yep. Organisms don't just go *poof* and turn into something else. Changes are gradual and by the generation. You seem to have trouble understanding that.

Well thats what you're implying, you seem to have trouble of providing any evidence whatsoever. Thats why I don/'t understand what you're saying.

There are fossils of species transitioning into other species. Check out this image for a very broad overview. That's what you get when you group species by age and genetic relation. Here are the groups of species leading up to hominids and eventually humans.

What does that mean? A close ancestor, of a human! What is your point here?

That species ultimately evolved into us humans. What do you not understand?

First link is just a chart of different species, alrighty then.

Secondlink has images of Apes turning into humans, its amazing you people buy into this stuff, there are no fossils found that match these images, its just made up.

No reason to be mad at my ignorance, maybe you should check your own belief system, just a thought.

---

At 2/6/12 05:47 AM, Swag-in-a-Bag wrote:

They do not, somehow believe Jesus died and came back, or basically the whole New Testament which i find odd since they believe in the first half but don't finish the story

Yeah, thats what it is, at best they think he was a prophet, or a good person, but not the Messiah.

---

At 2/4/12 12:09 AM, a21 wrote: Call me stupid, but I believe in the Genesis account as well as the rest of the Fairy tail.

Okay then, you're stupid.

History does not go back further than this,

Yes it does. We have plenty of archaeological and anthropological evidence showing not only history prior to 4000bc but we even have evidence knowing when we turned from nomadic travellers to actual sedent civilisations, this roughly occurred in 12,000bc with functioning cultivations and agriculture shortly thereafter.

We were even selectively breeding wolves/dogs before 4000bc!!

also, there are no fossils that are in an evolving phase,

Yes there are.

just the same type of species, such as a brown bear, or a polar bear.

The bear analogy is a prime example of early speciation. If two groups of the same species enter different environments then different traits will be favoured and cause alterations. When these changes accumulate eventually the two groups will not be able to interbreed between themselves or their ascendant and thus need taxonomical reclassification.

There is not one fossil evolving into another species.

That's not how it works. A bear wont give birth to a new species. The changes are relatively small and accumulate through decent until it comes to a point where it requires reclassification.

Dunning kruger effect anyone?

Don't tell me there are ape fossils evolving into man, because they are not.

Nobody said they did. The term "ape" is a vague description. A more accurate term is primitive ape, or you can use their scientifically assigned name, but I bet a months wage that if I asked you what those names were off the top of your head you wouldn't know a single one.

We have the fossils. But it's not that simple. We need to analyse every single morphological trait and catalogue them so we can compare to every other creature with similar traits. If the sediment is preserved that can also gives clues to this creature. That's how we know some dinosaurs had primitive feathers because the imprint of it was preserved in the rock, not to mention that the geological study can also give us an idea of the environment they lived in. Then we need information on geological strata and tectonic plate movement to give us an idea of when this creature died and we compare that to radiometric dating techniques.

Do you want to know more about studying fossils? Everything from the carbon content to a nick in a tooth is an important discovery. The jigsaw puzzle on one single sample is almost absolutely limitless.

Do the fucking research before opening your gob because the stuff I just mentioned is an extremely brief summary and barely highschool standard education.

Yes, Apes have 98% the genome of humans, but that does not prove evolution at all.

But analysing their base pair sequence to find exactly the same genetic markers does. Unless god is purposefully planting a plethora of types of mutations in animals to make it appear they're descendants of common ancestors, then that's just deceit.

Unless you want to discredit forensic testing that puts murders away, you'd shut up because those tests are just simple versions of mapping genomes that biologists do everyday.

It just shows both species have the same make,

You're right, it came from their ancestors.

such as a Honda Accord and a Honda Civic, very similar in design, because the same Company made them.

Unfortunately a honda isn't a self replicating organism and until I see a Ford GT having sex with a Subaru, you're analogy is bunk.

For some reason, Atheists will take the similar genome of Apes and Humans,

Atheists? This is SCIENCE, it has nothing to do with Atheism.

and say we came from them, there is no logic to this.

To you there is no logic because you haven't bothered to research it. Your arguing against your own stupidity.

As far as the Universe being billions of years old, I will give you that, but appearances can be deceiving.

'appearances'? So that means we should just discredit decades of research just because the universe is pulling a prank? Grow up.

Now, before you throw the PHD curveball at me,

What Ph.D curveball?

there are scientists, with PHD's, in physics, biology, chemistry, and what have you that oppose Mr. Darwin, because it is mathematically impossible for life to have happened by chance.

....what the fuck.....

First: Evolution has nothing to do the beginning of life.

Second: What scientists with Ph.D's?

Third: How is it mathematically impossible?

Fourth: Why are they opposing Darwin? His work is over a century old! If they're going to criticise evolution why aren't they using modern research? That's like criticising medicine for using leeches.

Here's a tip. Shut up and do some homework because if all you're going to do is show that you evidently didn't look it up, then why should anyone give you the time of day when you wont put the effort in?

---

At 2/4/12 12:09 AM, a21 wrote: Now, before you throw the PHD curveball at me, there are scientists, with PHD's, in physics, biology, chemistry, and what have you that oppose Mr. Darwin, because it is mathematically impossible for life to have happened by chance.

Do you know the number of solar systems in the whole universe? Multiply it by the probability of the chance that life will be created in this planet and realize it is not infinitesimal.

---

At 1 day ago, bgraybr wrote: From what I read in his first post, he hasn't made an effort to learn shit about evolution. When I linked him to the wikipedia page on the evidence for evolution he said that it was "a lot to take in". Lol, maybe because there's a shit ton of evidence for evolution? When I presented an argument he just kept dodging my words like bullets in the fucking matrix or something and repeated "DUR YOU SAID HUMAN EVOLVE APE THAT NOT TRUE" (...and I didn't even).

He went out of his way to misinterpret the words of everyone in this thread. It's obvious that he's set his beliefs and will bend reality in which ever way it needs to go to support them.

So no, I don't agree with this statement. It might happen elsewhere but it did not happen here.

Oh, let me clarify. I was agreeing with his whole comment about atheists. The majority I met are like that. They will blindly accept evolution and the BBT, yet when I ask them about what they know about it I go "lol wat" and bring up they're acting just like the religious people, blindly accepting it. I know about evolution and shit, but on the BBT, most of the stuff goes way over my head so I'm like "Fuck it, we'll never know either way"

---

At 6 hours ago, psychicpebble wrote:

At 1 day ago, a21 wrote: Lol, why are you adamant about driving your beliefs down my throat, its very arrogant and hypocritical.
Evolution is a theory, it's a not a fact. If anyone is deluded, its you and your comrades acting like Nazis saying I am right, you are wrong. People have different beliefs, its what makes the world go around.

Not if your beliefs contradict OBSERVABLE SCIENTIFICALLY ACCEPTED FACTS. That only hurts humankind.

There are no fossils in mid-evolve, you are full of shit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

This is just a bird.

You are mistaken about Noah's Ark. There are not that many animals,

Yes, yes there are. We can prove this, you are an idiot. That's only as many as we've FOUND and know exist, there are COUNTLESS others that have gone undetected to us.

You realize ocean life does not count, did you not read that? I realize there are millions of different types of butterflies, Noah jus needed a pair of any type of butterfly, then they adapted and spread out, giving variations, very easy to understand.

" This explains why there are so 'many' animals today. They are just variations of the same animal.

Yeah, you are a troll. You did a good job I gotta say. Thank fuck people aren't actually as stupid as you, I was beginning to be worried for civilization.

I also love how you only semi answered 2 of the dozen things I brought up.

Your not bringing up much.

At 46 minutes ago, psychicpebble wrote:

At 2 hours ago, RacistBassist wrote: Oh, let me clarify. I was agreeing with his whole comment about atheists. The majority I met are like that. They will blindly accept evolution and the BBT, yet when I ask them about what they know about it I go "lol wat" and bring up they're acting just like the religious people, blindly accepting it. I know about evolution and shit, but on the BBT, most of the stuff goes way over my head so I'm like "Fuck it, we'll never know either way"

I'd say there is a difference though.

Science has no secret agenda to mass control people. Science cares about the truth, you "blindly" accept Gravity. Evolution shouldn't be scrutinized because of the mountain of evidence supporting it, it JUST HAPPENS to contradict what the Bible says which is why it's under so much fire.

It kind of does though, although, I wouldn't call it science, I would call it God haters masquerading the doctrine of evolution as science. You realize evolutionists have constructed hoaxes for museums and stuff right? They took a jaw of an ape and the top part of a human and put it together, this is just one example.

Studying the stars and solar system and concluding a heliocentric "universe" (star system) was correct was what got Galileo put under house arrest for the rest of his life, because the church taught the Earth was the center of the universe.

I don't think we should say people "blindly" believe in evolution, "blindly believing" something infers that they are believing it without ANY support of evidence and just believing. I'd calling understanding evolution KNOWING, as opposed to believing. You don't believe in the Theory of Gravity, you know it.

Religion does not have the same legitimacy as Science, and they shouldn't be thought of on the same level.

You can see something fall to the ground, you cannot see evolution. Stop saying gravity is a theory like evolution, its ridiculous.

---

At 1 minute ago, a21 wrote: This is just a bird.

Tell me exactly, what do you imagine a creature in an evolving state would look like?

You realize ocean life does not count, did you not read that? I realize there are millions of different types of butterflies, Noah jus needed a pair of any type of butterfly, then they adapted and spread out, giving variations, very easy to understand.

They adapted and spread out... giving variations. That's very similar to what evolution is, the organisms just "variated" to the point that they became something completely different.

Seriously, that's like your "bible-friendly" version of evolution. Can't believe I didn't spot this massive lol earlier.

I also love how you only semi answered 2 of the dozen things I brought up.

Your not bringing up much.

Question averted!

At 2 hours ago, RacistBassist wrote:

Oh, let me clarify. I was agreeing with his whole comment about atheists. The majority I met are like that. They will blindly accept evolution and the BBT, yet when I ask them about what they know about it I go "lol wat" and bring up they're acting just like the religious people, blindly accepting it. I know about evolution and shit, but on the BBT, most of the stuff goes way over my head so I'm like "Fuck it, we'll never know either way"

Ah, I understand now.

---

At A few seconds ago, bgraybr wrote:

At 1 minute ago, a21 wrote: This is just a bird.

Tell me exactly, what do you imagine a creature in an evolving state would look like?

It would look lie two different things, thats not even the point, that link is now identified as a true bird.

You realize ocean life does not count, did you not read that? I realize there are millions of different types of butterflies, Noah jus needed a pair of any type of butterfly, then they adapted and spread out, giving variations, very easy to understand.

They adapted and spread out... giving variations. That's very similar to what evolution is, the organisms just "variated" to the point that they became something completely different.

Seriously, that's like your "bible-friendly" version of evolution. Can't believe I didn't spot this massive lol earlier.

Your kidding me, this is basic here, variations on the same animal can be observed as micro-evolution , the theory of evolution says macro-evolution happened, which would be one animal evolving into another.

---

At 2 minutes ago, a21 wrote: It would look lie two different things, thats not even the point, that link is now identified as a true bird.

Yes, but there's subtle variations in it's physiology that make it different from other birds. You're ignoring all of the details, you're just saying "HEY THAT LOOKS KINDA LIKE A FAT DUCKY SO THAT'S WHAT IT IS". If you can't see how blind that is, then you're a blithering idiot.

Anyhow, before you get too pissed off at the above comment consider this more obvious example. It's the animal that whales eventually evolved from, it shares a similar bone and ear structure to early whales and was amphibious.

Your kidding me, this is basic here, variations on the same animal can be observed as micro-evolution , the theory of evolution says macro-evolution happened, which would be one animal evolving into another.

When one animal undergoes changes, it eventually becomes different enough that it can be considered a different species. Small variations stack up over time. Considering this, isn't it easy to see how the lines between species become blurred, and then eventually change? Micro and macro evolution are the same thing, just on different scales.

---

I prefer atari over genesis.
But NES rule's all.

---

At A few seconds ago, MisterWonderful wrote: I prefer atari over genesis.
But NES rule's all.

I agree - although, genesis has some appealing qualities to it.

---

At 21 seconds ago, EmmaVolt wrote:

At A few seconds ago, MisterWonderful wrote: I prefer atari over genesis.
But NES rule's all.

I agree - although, genesis has some appealing qualities to it.

Noob console gamers. DOS is where it's at.

---

At 1 minute ago, bgraybr wrote:

At 21 seconds ago, EmmaVolt wrote:

At A few seconds ago, MisterWonderful wrote: I prefer atari over genesis.
But NES rule's all.

I agree - although, genesis has some appealing qualities to it.

Noob console gamers. DOS is where it's at.

I prefer to keep my neck from turning into that of a giraffe.

---

At 1 hour ago, bgraybr wrote:

At 2 minutes ago, a21 wrote: It would look lie two different things, thats not even the point, that link is now identified as a true bird.

Yes, but there's subtle variations in it's physiology that make it different from other birds. You're ignoring all of the details, you're just saying "HEY THAT LOOKS KINDA LIKE A FAT DUCKY SO THAT'S WHAT IT IS". If you can't see how blind that is, then you're a blithering idiot.

No, it has been proved to be just a bird.

Anyhow, before you get too pissed off at the above comment consider this more obvious example. It's the animal that whales eventually evolved from, it shares a similar bone and ear structure to early whales and was amphibious.

Link has an extinct animal similar to an alligator. I have tried explaining this, what does an animal sharing similar traits as another animals have do to with them evolving into each other? Its very gimmicky, this animal and a whale lived underwater, so its why they have similar ear structure, theres no need to have two different ear structures if it isn't necessary, but for some reason since they do they were not designed and evolved out of each other...

Your kidding me, this is basic here, variations on the same animal can be observed as micro-evolution , the theory of evolution says macro-evolution happened, which would be one animal evolving into another.

When one animal undergoes changes, it eventually becomes different enough that it can be considered a different species. Small variations stack up over time. Considering this, isn't it easy to see how the lines between species become blurred, and then eventually change? Micro and macro evolution are the same thing, just on different scales.

They do not become blurred, thats the illusion of evolutionary theory, animals don't change into other animals, this has never been observed, them adapting to their environment has been abused and taken to a pseudo extreme, but supposedly has happened but because of billions of years of them evolving we can't observe that, so just take our word for it.

---

"Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

First off, on the topic of evolution; there is no micro evolution nor macro Evolution, only Evolution. The issue here is that Evolution is as much a fact as the Theory of Gravity, Mathematics Theory, Cell Theory and pretty anything that is actually accepted as a fact. But the overwhelming issue is that you can't prove God actually exists, you're the one with the extraordinary claim, so it is your job to provide an extraordinary evidence.

I can assure you that the Theory for Evolution is very much a well proven theory. And before you say "Just a Theory" Here is the definition of what scientific theory is, cited from the Oxford Dictionary itself:

"A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

This in terms essentially makes it a fact in the sense of how much irrefutable evidence there is behind it. It is common knowledge that us Homo sapiens evolved from primitive apes, and share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees and Bonobos. In fact we are one of the African Great Apes. We know this not only because of a comprehensive fossil record, which shows our ancestors but also because via the Human and Chimpanzee Genome we can see a direct correlation between our DNA and that of a Chimpanzees, with only some minor differences. The Genome actually shows the evolutionary path of pretty much all life, just take a look for yourself; it's honestly incredible.

Fossils are a good form of observable evidence. 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.

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.

Here are some videos that show some of the evidence in a nice and easy format:

Richard Dawkins: Why are there still Chimpanzees?
http://youtu.be/wh0F4FBLJRE

Richard Dawkins: Comparing the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes
http://youtu.be/WBEtw7esmvg

Richard Dawkins: Show me the intermediate fossils!
http://youtu.be/o92x6AvxCFg

Richard Dawkins: Diatoms: The Evolution of a New Species
http://youtu.be/EUozZo8nOpY

'Why Evolution Is True Lecture' by Jerry Coyne
http://youtu.be/w1m4mATYoig
This video I highly recommend sitting down and watching, it has the evidence you seek and if you first for more then there is also a book for you to read.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, don't you worry. If you are curious enough to ask questions about this task with a positive interest of actually learning it, then I have plenty of resources for you. And this includes videos, books, journals and more.

---

At 4 days ago, a21 wrote: Now, before you throw the PHD curveball at me, there are scientists, with PHD's, in physics, biology, chemistry, and what have you that oppose Mr. Darwin, because it is mathematically impossible for life to have happened by chance.

Nothing is impossible with an infinite amount of time with infinite amount of chances.

---

At 2 hours ago, PrincessLuna wrote: "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

Oh nice.

- Scott D. Weitzenhoffer

First off, on the topic of evolution; there is no micro evolution nor macro Evolution, only Evolution. The issue here is that Evolution is as much a fact as the Theory of Gravity, Mathematics Theory, Cell Theory and pretty anything that is actually accepted as a fact. But the overwhelming issue is that you can't prove God actually exists, you're the one with the extraordinary claim, so it is your job to provide an extraordinary evidence.

Well, I am not really trying to prove God exists, all I am saying is evolution has really no evidence behind it, thus there is no reason to discredit Genesis. You cannot observe evolution, you cannot observe a species changing into another one, it's not a fact, I guess you just don't get it.

I can assure you that the Theory for Evolution is very much a well proven theory. And before you say "Just a Theory" Here is the definition of what scientific theory is, cited from the Oxford Dictionary itself:

"A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed."

Evolutionists are presenting facts, but they don't support evolution.

This in terms essentially makes it a fact in the sense of how much irrefutable evidence there is behind it. It is common knowledge that us Homo sapiens evolved from primitive apes, and share a common ancestor with Chimpanzees and Bonobos. In fact we are one of the African Great Apes. We know this not only because of a comprehensive fossil record, which shows our ancestors but also because via the Human and Chimpanzee Genome we can see a direct correlation between our DNA and that of a Chimpanzees, with only some minor differences. The Genome actually shows the evolutionary path of pretty much all life, just take a look for yourself; it's honestly incredible.

Whats incredible is your faith in evolution, the similar genome does not 'show an evolutionary path', this is a fact that is taken out of context, the genome is very similar, so what, why does it need to be different.

Fossils are a good form of observable evidence. 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.

And not one fossil found evolving into another species.

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.

The 'lineages' cannot be traced at all.

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.

Whats remarkable is that they found dinosaur bones that were not completely fossilized.

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.

Here are some videos that show some of the evidence in a nice and easy format:

Richard Dawkins: Why are there still Chimpanzees?
http://youtu.be/wh0F4FBLJRE

Richard Dawkins: Comparing the Human and Chimpanzee Genomes
http://youtu.be/WBEtw7esmvg

Richard Dawkins: Show me the intermediate fossils!
http://youtu.be/o92x6AvxCFg

Richard Dawkins: Diatoms: The Evolution of a New Species
http://youtu.be/EUozZo8nOpY

'Why Evolution Is True Lecture' by Jerry Coyne
http://youtu.be/w1m4mATYoig
This video I highly recommend sitting down and watching, it has the evidence you seek and if you first for more then there is also a book for you to read.

This is only the tip of the iceberg, don't you worry. If you are curious enough to ask questions about this task with a positive interest of actually learning it, then I have plenty of resources for you. And this includes videos, books, journals and more.

These videos are presenting facts, then distorted to 'support' evolution by Mr. God hating Dawkins. He shows that our genome is very close to apes, then says it proves evolution, do you realize how manipulative that is? Probably not, but its okay, I am not mad. Apes are very similar to us, so by default they magically turned into humans, and the fossil record for this magically vanished as well, but thats right, most bones don't fossilize, only ones of pure species, maybe they are different?

This isn't really going anywhere.

---

At 5 hours ago, a21 wrote: No, it has been proved to be just a bird.

You're only saying that because you took a glance at it and thinking "it looks like a bird". You're ignoring all of the smaller details.

Link has an extinct animal similar to an alligator. I have tried explaining this, what does an animal sharing similar traits as another animals have do to with them evolving into each other? Its very gimmicky, this animal and a whale lived underwater, so its why they have similar ear structure, theres no need to have two different ear structures if it isn't necessary, but for some reason since they do they were not designed and evolved out of each other...

The similarities are too exact to outright dismiss as convergent evolution, which is what you're describing.

They do not become blurred, thats the illusion of evolutionary theory, animals don't change into other animals, this has never been observed, them adapting to their environment has been abused and taken to a pseudo extreme, but supposedly has happened but because of billions of years of them evolving we can't observe that, so just take our word for it.

Okay, why would animals just magically stop adapting once they reach the "species" line? Those lines aren't set in stone. Given enough time a species will change enough so that it becomes a different species. It can be clearly observed, you're just dismissing the evidence because we don't have every single step towards one species becoming another. We don't have to have every step to observe a trend.

Again, I must stress that it's not proven with 100% certainty. It's just a hell of a lot more convincing than anything in the bible.

---

At 26 minutes ago, bgraybr wrote:

At 5 hours ago, a21 wrote: No, it has been proved to be just a bird.

You're only saying that because you took a glance at it and thinking "it looks like a bird". You're ignoring all of the smaller details.

No, Dr Alan Feduccia, who is an evolutionist by the way, and a bird expert, says otherwise....

âEUoePaleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But itâEUTMs not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of âEU~paleobabbleâEUTM is going to change that.

Link has an extinct animal similar to an alligator. I have tried explaining this, what does an animal sharing similar traits as another animals have do to with them evolving into each other? Its very gimmicky, this animal and a whale lived underwater, so its why they have similar ear structure, theres no need to have two different ear structures if it isn't necessary, but for some reason since they do they were not designed and evolved out of each other...

The similarities are too exact to outright dismiss as convergent evolution, which is what you're describing.

I don't think were going to change each others minds, its like your saying that evolution is true because every species doesn't have a unique trait about them, thats not fair, marine animals are going to have similar features, because they live in a marine environment.

They do not become blurred, thats the illusion of evolutionary theory, animals don't change into other animals, this has never been observed, them adapting to their environment has been abused and taken to a pseudo extreme, but supposedly has happened but because of billions of years of them evolving we can't observe that, so just take our word for it.

Okay, why would animals just magically stop adapting once they reach the "species" line? Those lines aren't set in stone. Given enough time a species will change enough so that it becomes a different species. It can be clearly observed, you're just dismissing the evidence because we don't have every single step towards one species becoming another. We don't have to have every step to observe a trend.

But they are set in stone, at least not being able to observe them, there is not one incident of a species changing into another, it's only the same kind of species.

Again, I must stress that it's not proven with 100% certainty. It's just a hell of a lot more convincing than anything in the bible.

I don't see how it is, other than the universe appearing very old.

---

At 7 hours ago, PrincessLuna wrote: "Debating creationists on the topic of evolution is rather like trying to play chess with a pigeon; it knocks the pieces over, craps on the board, and flies back to its flock to claim victory."

You try to play chess with a pigeon, and somehow this is supposed to insult creationists.