Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Oh lord.
You're not very bright, are you? Here we go.

1. By your standards, there is no evidence to support anything at all. Evolution can not be proven because we can't actively observe something that happens over the course of millions of years, but scientists can draw logical conclusions about things based on other things. Supporting evidence for evolution can be found by comparing the bones of ancient animals to modern ones, and the changes that were made in order to adapt to their surroundings. "The Island Effect" and many isolated areas such as the Galapagos and Africa also have animals that, when studied, show clear signs of evolving (such as bone and muscle growth over time). Evolution is not directly provable, but neither is anything else in the universe. Do you believe in gravity?

2. Religion tends to get dissed in science because while science is about rational inquiry and updating information, religion is basically about making stuff up and believing it for thousands of years. I refer you to this perfect example: http://duggmirror.com/general_sciences/Scienc e_Vs_Faith_A_simple_picture_says_it_all/scien cevsfaith.png

3. Earth did not just "happen" to do anything. The Singularity explosion created many things, including stars and planets. All planets were either destroyed, or they fell into the orbit of the massive stars like all others. Again, gravity at work.

4. I don't understand where you're getting your idea about "comets impacting Earth and creating life". That is not accepted science.

5. You keep talking about life as some ridiculously complicated and abstract concept. It's not. The building blocks of life came along with Earth. It had a one in nine chance (along with the other planets) of getting the best conditions for life, and it won out. Earth began as a molten world, another simple matter of odds, and then cooled down to a reasonable level. Because of its size and proximity to the sun, Earth developed an atmosphere, ergo rain, ergo water, the most fundamental necessity of life. Water naturally fosters life, and life was born in water.

6. At first you talk about the low credibility of evolution, but then you say:

"chemicals spontaneously arranged themselves into bacteria, then they morphed over millions of years"

That's evolution.

Your logic is grossly flawed.

Ok bravo, since this debate could carry on forever, I'll just respond to your diagram (or the diagram you put in, whatever). You (it) says that religion has some idea, then completely rejects all evidence that doesn't support that idea. science, on the other hand, has a theory, then uses tests to prove or disprove that theory, then people all use that theory to better understand, and the cycle repeats. but, I have one thing to say. THE WORLD DON'T WORK LIKE THAT!!!!!! IF YOU DAMN STEP BACK AND LOOK AT SCIENCE AND RELIGION EQUALLY, YOU'LL HAVE TWO COMPLETELY IDENTICAL CHARTS! Scientists in support of your completely aetheistic science reject any evidence not supporting evolution or the big bang, even though there is evidence against it! yes, there are birds on the galapagos islands that are 'evolved' with increased muscle growth and whatnot. but I ask you, given time, will those birds, if put in the evniornment of say, a sparrow, will they in millions of years be sparrows? NO! they will just ADAPT to their enviornment to have a higher chance of survival, but they don't turn into anything else.

---

At 4/14/07 11:05 PM, Thorgold wrote: yes, there are birds on the galapagos islands that are 'evolved' with increased muscle growth and whatnot. but I ask you, given time, will those birds, if put in the evniornment of say, a sparrow, will they in millions of years be sparrows? NO! they will just ADAPT to their enviornment to have a higher chance of survival, but they don't turn into anything else.

Evolution, is, as you've unintentionally perfectly put it, about ADAPTING, not about becoming sparrows.
Nobody has ever said that evolution grants the amazing power of turning non-sparrow birds into sparrows. Nobody but yourself, that is. Just because you can grossly misinterpret a theory in order to make it easier for you to be against it, doesn't mean that evolutionists actually believe that.

Also:

Scientists in support of your completely aetheistic science reject any evidence not supporting evolution or the big bang, even though there is evidence against it!

Scientists do not reject evidence against evolution or the Big Bang, they investigate said evidence and find the relation between both things. That's why they are STILL looking for the missing link and such.

Anyway, what's with all these morons pretending that religion and science are two analogue, rivalizing things? You can't build a computer out of Bible versicles, and you can't create a laser beam that leads you to a higher level of spirituality. This whole thread is, therefore, retarded.
And you, sir, are not clever.

---

At 4/14/07 10:52 PM, Thorgold wrote:

1. There is a religious theory explaining fossils (in fact there are many)

A religious theory... That doesn't make sense; Religion isn't science.

first, I did not say the big bang is shit. I said it was highly improbable.

Ok, and the rest of the academic world disagrees with you. I dough I'll get a serious answer from this, but how is it so improbable? What exactly is it about the theory that you find unlikely,
nucleosynthesis, redshift, the Cosmic Microwave Background, Universe Expansion , tell me if its not on the list.

Secondly, there is the great flood (noahs flood). aethiests sue me, but there is COMPLETELY UNQUESTIONABLE scientific evidence supporting it.

Ok, I'm going to use the word bullshit here. As far as I've seen there's zero evidence of a global flood, there was never any time in our worlds history in which a global flood happened, it's just not possible. But wait let me go up to the geology department and as some of my friends there what they think. They agree! It's effectively impossible! Your great flood has no evidence to support it, and if your so cretin it dose show me evidence.

there are fossils showing one fish frozen in time as a fossil with another fish (both prehistoric fishies) in its mouth! this means that both of them must have been nearly instantly covered with silt, which is easily explained by noahs flood.

Wow, way to jump to conclusions. I assume your talking about the Fossil fish, Xiphactinus ? If so then the answer is actually quite simple, the one fish ate the other, Xiphactinus was a predator which feasted on other fishes so it's quite natural that the other fish found in the fossilized remains; especially when it was known for swallowing whole prey.

the flood was also accompanied by earthquakes, creating underwater rockslides quickly burying the fishies.

OK, still doesn't explain why the species get older as they go down, or how the shall deposits form in almost perfectly correct layers of yearly deposits, or that earth strata shows no signs of massive rock slides, which would have unearth older portions of rock, in the past 50k years. I can't wait to see your great answer for these things...

they get older as they go down for two reasons. soem weren't buried during the flood, so they might be younger/older. the older ones would have to be buried, well, sooner, so the rock surrounding them would be below the fossil of a newer fossil.

Hun? Thats it? So your answer is basically magic! That some how for some reason the fish died off in exactly the right order going from oldest species to youngest, and makes no mention on any of the geological phenomena which are lacking from your explanation... Oh, well never got a good answer before, don't see why I should get on this soon into the game.

secondly, carbon dating isn't all that acurate! there was a test in 1996 using carbon dating to date the age of a recently (according to scientists and their evolution progress charts about 1million years old) formed fossil, but according to the carbon dating it said it was over 2billion years old!

I see, so your using carbon dating on a rock which probably has little carbon in it, and is probably far older then the ~50k years in which you can use carbon dating. I'm not surprised at all actually, seeing as how you would use a different form of radiometric dating to date the sample, say like potassium argon dating. After seeing this example your ether completely ignorant to geology, and quite possibly ever other field of science or just dishonest.

and lastly, YOU CHILL!!!

At 4/14/07 10:58 PM, Thorgold wrote:

one simple word: PRIMATE DNA!!! techincally, we (humans) are primates. so are chimpanzees and monkeys. the dna that makes us up, obviously, must be some 'small likeness' or else we or they wouldnt be primates!

Only its not small. We share 98% of our DNA, including Endogenous Retroviral Sequences, which can only be explained by having a shared ansester a couple of million years ago.

and secondly, I DIDN'T DAMN SAY THAT THE BIG BANG ISN'T A PLAUSIBLE THEORY, I ONLY SAID IT WAS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE!!! I only said that the big bang supporters used the few facts they had (including those heat and radiation remnants I'll mention later) and blow them up so wildly its stupid!

Yeah, see my above post.

those heat and radiation remnants, also, could be the remnants of a supernova!!!

Put simply, No. supper nova produce centralized energy patterns with vary high specific E&M radiation, the background we see in the sky is VERY uniform, and low energy indicative of a non centralized energy release and when red shift is taken into account, it occurred about 13.7 billion years ago.

there is no evidence that these are from the big bang, so they can't be counted as real evidence for the bing bang theory.

Despite everything I've posted thus far...

and evolution isn't that wild a concept,

Only by the ignorant populous. 99% of all biologist agree with evolution.

yes, survival of the fittest and natural selection are good and supported theories (I do agree with that!) but scientists trying to say 'i'm right, you're wrong, so shut up!!' use the facts the have and blow them up to stupid levels! were are your missing links? if evolution is true (in a way, it is) we'd have dozens of chimp-humans or fishies with feet!

We do:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?fil e=/c/a/2006/04/06/MNGCGI4CAD1.DTL
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/
03/0325_0322_asiaevolution.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/flores.h tml
http://www.asu.edu/clas/iho/lucy.html
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s8 77478.htm

And a nice 3D gallery of human fossils:
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/

And thats just what I have in my favorites folder. Give me an hour or two and I could double it.

---

At 4/15/07 03:08 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Ok, and the rest of the academic world disagrees with you. I dough I'll get a serious answer from this, but how is it so improbable? What exactly is it about the theory that you find unlikely,

Actually, it's just the best theory they have. And even then the evidence of it is extremely small.

Ok, I'm going to use the word bullshit here. As far as I've seen there's zero evidence of a global flood, there was never any time in our worlds history in which a global flood happened, it's just not possible.

Sure. Our planet can reverse it's polarity, go throught multiple ice ages (some much bigger than other's), seperate the continents (Pangea!) and produce a protective barrier from the sun's rays, yet a global flood at some point in the 4 billion year history of earth is impossible.

...right...

Haha, looks like we got another dumbass on the forum.

---

At 4/15/07 03:18 AM, Memorize wrote:

Actually, it's just the best theory they have. And even then the evidence of it is extremely small.

It is the best theory we have, thats why its still being used. As for evidence, theres not much more that is possible to give, everything we need we have, short of actually going back to the singularity it self theres not much more, so I ask you what further evidence do you need?

Sure. Our planet can reverse it's polarity, go throught multiple ice ages (some much bigger than other's), seperate the continents (Pangea!) and produce a protective barrier from the sun's rays, yet a global flood at some point in the 4 billion year history of earth is impossible.

Yes. It's impossible. Given everything we know about, chemistry, geology, and physics, it's impossible. You think its so possible then explain to me how.

Haha, looks like we got another dumbass on the forum.

So any one that disagrees with you is a dumbass, then?

---

At 4/15/07 03:59 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

It is the best theory we have, thats why its still being used. As for evidence, theres not much more that is possible to give, everything we need we have, short of actually going back to the singularity it self theres not much more, so I ask you what further evidence do you need?

I didn't need anymore. I didn't deny it. I just said it was flimsy.

Yes. It's impossible. Given everything we know about, chemistry, geology, and physics, it's impossible. You think its so possible then explain to me how.

Haha, it's just so ironic that you'll believe anything except that which you don't want. The earth can do all of these things, yet can't pull off a flood. It doesn't make the slightest sense, especially considering how much the water covers when just looking at the planet alone. Which, by the way, is about as much evidence as all the Big Bang needs as a theory. Afterall, it's the "best we have" right?

Go ahead. Pick and choose. It doesn't bother me any.

So any one that disagrees with you is a dumbass, then?

Haha, just about.

---

At 4/15/07 04:31 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/15/07 03:59 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

It is the best theory we have, thats why its still being used. As for evidence, theres not much more that is possible to give, everything we need we have, short of actually going back to the singularity it self theres not much more, so I ask you what further evidence do you need?

I didn't need anymore. I didn't deny it. I just said it was flimsy.

Then explain to me how its flimsy, such wording implies a lack of data, or incorrect data. So which is it, and what more would you like to see?

Yes. It's impossible. Given everything we know about, chemistry, geology, and physics, it's impossible. You think its so possible then explain to me how.

Haha, it's just so ironic that you'll believe anything except that which you don't want. The earth can do all of these things, yet can't pull off a flood. It doesn't make the slightest sense, especially considering how much the water covers when just looking at the planet alone. Which, by the way, is about as much evidence as all the Big Bang needs as a theory. Afterall, it's the "best we have" right?

It has nothing to do whit believing what I want, its what the data says, its what physics tells me. The earth can change geologically in many ways, but for a flood to happen would require everything we know about geology to be wrong. There have to be vast reserves of water some where on earth, there aren't, the water would have to go somewhere; and don't bring up that the earth had a smooth surface which water covered. There was no point in earth history where it would have been flat enough. Sigh, theres just no evince for it. If you can't bring anything forward if you can't show any thing that contradicts the current model then stop. Saying the system we have is flimsy doesn't due anything when you wont even explain whats so flimsy about it.

Go ahead. Pick and choose. It doesn't bother me any.

I don't pick and chose; Ether what I have works or it doesn't.

Haha, just about.

lol

---

At 4/15/07 04:47 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Then explain to me how its flimsy, such wording implies a lack of data, or incorrect data. So which is it, and what more would you like to see?

Funny, you didn't seem to disagree with me before. In fact, you agreed. Why do you suddenly want this evidence? I'm just going by what the scientists say about it. I'm no scientist after all.

Sigh, theres just no evince for it. If you can't bring anything forward if you can't show any thing that contradicts the current model then stop. Saying the system we have is flimsy doesn't due anything when you wont even explain whats so flimsy about it.

I didn't say a global flood happend or not, what I have a problem with at the moment is how at first you agreed that the big bang was flimsy, and are now switching your position demanding that I show what is flimsy. What's wrong?

Your problem is that just because there's no evidence of it, you're just going to brush it off, even with so many things being discovered at these times.

I dont' know if it is real or not, and I don't care. I just love it when people pick and choose. I like seeing their reactions.

lol

And, you're one of them.

---

I think there is plenty of adequate proof of revolution.

Hooray for Gore!

---

At 4/13/07 05:06 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Also.

Indeed.

Me thinks this topic starter is looking for attention

---

I've gone though astronamy class and the big bang is the top theory right now and there is prove that this could be ture, just look it up.

---

At 4/15/07 12:04 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/15/07 04:47 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

Funny, you didn't seem to disagree with me before. In fact, you agreed. Why do you suddenly want this evidence? I'm just going by what the scientists say about it. I'm no scientist after all.

But I never said it was flimsy, nether have any astrophysics that I'm aware of. Perhaps you've misinterpreted? The big bang has ether the most or perhaps second most evidence of existence in all of astronomy. What I would like to know is why you believe it to be flimsy, ether who has told you (please don't say me, I've never said such a thing), what sites you got it off of, or what books you've read.

I didn't say a global flood happend or not, what I have a problem with at the moment is how at first you agreed that the big bang was flimsy, and are now switching your position demanding that I show what is flimsy. What's wrong?

Again, to the best of my knowledge I've never said the big bang was flimsy (if I did then I'm completely mistaken), perhaps you've miss understood what I wrote, and whit the way I write its certainly possible. Is it possible to point out the post(s) in question?

Your problem is that just because there's no evidence of it, you're just going to brush it off, even with so many things being discovered at these times.

Yes, because there is no evidence, thats how science works; But its not just that theres no evidence, for a flood to have happened would require a good deal of we know about geology, and geophysics to be flat out wrong. Whit out even a small amount of evidence, I can't support this hypothesis. Additionally if there was a global flood there would be massive amounts of evidence for one, everything from missing rock, to a uniform shale deposited around the world at a constant depth. You see its not just the lack of evidence but also the inconsistency, with the evidence we do have.

I dont' know if it is real or not, and I don't care. I just love it when people pick and choose. I like seeing their reactions.

And, you're one of them.

Hey, I've been called worse.

---

At 4/15/07 04:06 PM, EndGameOmega wrote:

What I would like to know is why you believe it to be flimsy, ether who has told you (please don't say me, I've never said such a thing), what sites you got it off of, or what books you've read.

Flimsy = "It doesn't have much but it's the best we got" flimsy.

Again, to the best of my knowledge I've never said the big bang was flimsy (if I did then I'm completely mistaken), perhaps you've miss understood what I wrote, and whit the way I write its certainly possible. Is it possible to point out the post(s) in question?

I didn't put flimsy at first. But you did say that it was "the best they have" which I agreed with. The best they have doesn't exactly mean much when they claim "it's not a lot".

But i'm not denying it either.

Yes, because there is no evidence, thats how science works;

Pick and choose. Pick and choose.

Hey, I've been called worse.

And... you deserve it.

---

At 4/12/07 02:14 PM, Thorgold wrote: (where are your missing links?)

Missing. When they are not, you ignore them.

---

At 4/15/07 05:54 PM, emmytee wrote:

Missing. When they are not, you ignore them.

What an excellent source you posted there!

---

At 4/15/07 03:08 AM, EndGameOmega wrote:

At 4/14/07 10:52 PM, Thorgold wrote:

and evolution isn't that wild a concept,

Only by the ignorant populous. 99% of all biologist agree with evolution.

99%??? yah, whered you get that statistic? aethiestbiologistswhothinkthey'rerightinevery thing.com? if not, did you know that 58% of statistics are made up on the spot? I swear, if you actually went out and didn't just survey all the evolution supporting biologists, you'd actually get a decent statistic! it's like those nerds in the un saying 'a team of scientists has met and decided that global warming is caused by human activity' (yada yada and more yada). who were those scientists? pretty much anyone who says 'I'm a scientist and I think global warming is real... (yada yada)'

---

At 4/15/07 12:27 PM, SyntheticTacos wrote: I think there is plenty of adequate proof of revolution.

Hooray for Gore!

damnit; why didn't i have a pic when i noticed the revolution?

---

At 4/16/07 12:21 AM, Thorgold wrote:

99%??? yah, whered you get that statistic? aethiestbiologistswhothinkthey'rerightinevery thing.com? if not, did you know that 58% of statistics are made up on the spot? I swear, if you actually went out and didn't just survey all the evolution supporting biologists, you'd actually get a decent statistic! it's like those nerds in the un saying 'a team of scientists has met and decided that global warming is caused by human activity' (yada yada and more yada). who were those scientists? pretty much anyone who says 'I'm a scientist and I think global warming is real... (yada yada)'

Curious, of everything I've said this is the one you attack. Well seeing as how you have no ground to stand on, at lest from a scientific perspective, I can see why. Well, I don't have any charts or graphs, and any of the web pages I could point out to you (http://www.talkorigins.org ) you would ignore. So I'll be more then fair and rephrase what I wrote from “99% of all biologists”, to perhaps more correctly “the vast and overwhelming majority of biologists”; There feel better.

Now I have a challenge for you, bring me the names of any biologists (this includes professions such as genetics, biophysics, etc...) who reject evolution and I will counter with 2 who are named Steve, sounds good right? I mean clearly the majority of the biological community must reject or at lest question evolution so you should have no problem here. But for some reason I don't think you'll take me up on my offer, call me a pessimist, but you wont. You see I found most people when confronted with my challenge simply craw into a little corner and stop moving, or switch the topic of conversation, much like you've done here actually.

Lastly, to respond to some other points in your post, evolution has nothing to do with atheism. In fact most religious people accept evolution as scientific fact, you see science and religion aren't the same thing so there's realty no conflict. So then I ask if so many other religious followers have no problem accepting evolution, why do you? What scientific faults do you see in evolution, please point them out so I can explain why they and you are incorrect. Please do reply, I enjoy these “debates” ever so much.

---

At 4/15/07 04:52 PM, Memorize wrote:

Flimsy = "It doesn't have much but it's the best we got" flimsy.

But as I've said we do have allot, and I wanted to know where you got it in your head that we don't, was it a web site, a book, a person, a magical leprechaun you saw after you ate some bad shroms?

I didn't put flimsy at first. But you did say that it was "the best they have" which I agreed with. The best they have doesn't exactly mean much when they claim "it's not a lot".

But nether they nor I said that “it's not a lot”, quite the opposite really, there is a shit ton of evidence for the big bang. If you would like I will point it out to you.

But i'm not denying it either.

No but your saying its flimsy which has a decidedly negative connotation to it, and implies there is little if any evidence for it when this isn't the case.

Pick and choose. Pick and choose.

I see what you mean now, and your right I do pick and choose. I choose the theory that has the most evidence behind, is the most logical, and fits best with in what we know of physics. Your right I completely agree with you on this point now. I pick and choose between non-science and science, thanks for clearing that up.

And... you deserve it.

Meh, possibly I really don't care what others think about me. Hell I insult my self on a regular basis, and my existence it self is an insult to humanity!