Creation v Evolution argument can end

a reply to: LABTECH767

those country's that formerly regarded themselves as predominantly christian nations and the effect can be seen in an erosion of opinion driven social care and morality among the generations growing up in these country's and the effect this less altruistic animalistic outlook has upon there group mentality.

Iceland
It maintains a Nordic social welfare system that provides universal health care and tertiary(college) education for its citizens. Iceland ranks high in economic, political and social stability and equality.
...
Iceland is a very secular country: as with other Nordic nations, religious attendance is relatively low.
...
According to a study published in 2001, 23% of the inhabitants were either atheist or agnostic.

The article doesn't specifically go into details of what is taught in their biology classes. Perhaps a native may inform us.

Evolution in Iceland
In a survey of 34 countries, the people of Iceland were most likely to believe man evolved from apes.

You no doubt have seen the results of opinion polls showing that fewer Americans believe the theory of evolution now than several years ago. Now, a study in the journal Science shows that a smaller percentage of Americans believe in evolution than nearly every other civilized nation studied.

They used two subtle tricks in the graph on the left to make America look bad. They put the United States near the bottom of the heap, and lots of red to imply danger. Simply turning the graph on its side and using different colors makes the United States appear to be the second best country, and Iceland the worst.

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
The evolution of whales is interesting.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

This vestigial hindlimb is evidence of basilosaurids' terrestrial heritage. The picture below on the left shows the central ankle bones (called astragali) of three artiodactyls, and you can see they have double pulley joints and hooked processes pointing up toward the leg-bones. Below on the right is a photo of the hind foot of a basilosaurid. You can see that it has a complete ankle and several toe bones, even though it can't walk. The basilosaurid astragalus still has a pulley and a hooked knob pointing up towards the leg bones as in artiodactyls, while other bones in the ankle and foot are fused. From the ear bones to the ankle bones, whales belong with the hippos and other artiodactyls

Those bones are used for giving birth as well as pooing.
Thats site is blatantly lying, you want to believe it

Where is the empirical evidence, its all assumption, all of it

originally posted by: Jonjonj
a reply to: Raggedyman

So, end the argument, offer some empirical evidence, evidence that cant be refuted, scientifically.

Animals that exist now didn't exist in the past, animals that existed in the past don't exist now.

Evolution.

There are no Tyrannosaurus now, there were no chickens then.

Thats a very interesting statement.
Empirical evidence to back it up

Thanks

originally posted by: LABTECH767

Evolution is as much a religion as it is a science and I know that will rile up many here but it is a simple truth,

No, that's what's known as a falsehood.

Why do people use this as a debating technique? I've seen it used by a militant vegans all the time who claim the best way to annoy oa meat eater by telling them the truth (some of us know where our food comes from and while not exactly happy about it accept it).

Evolution is as much a religion as Christianity is a Science. Your error is your problem, not mine so it's not.even slightly irritating nevermind enough to rile me up...

originally posted by: oblivvious
a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

I truly haven't been big on evolution or God creating us as we are too much, so I didn't realize that variation-evolution mistake I made ~ I figured a change = step in evolution.

I'm wondering if OP means something like a "super power" for lack of better wording?? Like breathing underwater, wings, x-men

, etc. @Raggedyman ??

Its a hard question to answer unless one sees it
Thats why I asked

originally posted by: LABTECH767
Indoctrination, deliberate or otherwise is caused when education states theoretical as factual, this form's knowledge, which form's faulty understanding and this in turn solidify's as belief.

Like the indoctrination of children by the Church? Gotcha...

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: LABTECH767

The article you linked says people don't spontaneously develop fish gills doesn't it? I wouldn't expect that, or associate it with Darwinian evolution.

If people did suddenly develop fish gills, that wouldn't be evolution, that would be supernatural and in the realm of creative design and would probably help the OP in his quest...

a reply to: Raggedyman

Thing is, there is a god. An almighty, all seeing, omniscient consiousness.

The problem is, many people look everywhere except within themselves..

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: logicsoda

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: logicsoda

Sorry, we dont have gills, nothing even simmilar, they are...
Go learn to research information.
They are not gills, never where, never will be
its silly

You're probably the most ignorant person I've ever had the displeasure of conversing with. Cheers.

Well I think that about you, show me the gills we are supposed to have before birth, embryonic gills, goodness me
Please can some atheist evolutionist send this guy a pm, help him out, this is cruelty, to star that nonsense

I asked for evidence not hearsay or 1800 science fiction

Embryos have gills at birth... evidence please, and I get called ignorant

I never said that embryos "have gills at birth".

What I said was that in our embryonic stage we have something similar to gills which, admittedly, probably was the incorrect terminology to use--we have something similar to gill slits.

Additionally, it's not "1800 science fiction" nor is it hearsay. This is stuff that can be repeatedly observed in a controlled setting, subscribing to the tenets of empiricism. If you choose to ignore this, that is fine; there are others with an open mind who I am sure would have enjoyed reading what I have written thus far and may have developed a different perspective on things as a result.

Carry on with your willful ignorance. You are entertaining us. Watching you squirm and grasp at straws is actually hilarious.

a reply to: NarcolepticBuddha

Didn't you know? T Rex had those tiny little arms because they were perfect for holding bananas.

a reply to: logicsoda

Ok
In what way are they simmilar, do we use them to breathe as embryos, flush water, in what way are they simmilar, I am all ears, its an adaptation
So I dont miss anything

How are these embryo gills similar to fish gills, please

Oh sorry, they are like gill slits, so they are slits in the embryo then, slits for what purpose, any idea, what do these slits do.
Like really, slits in the embryo neck, not like sacks, not like

What are the “slits”?

As an embryo begins to develop its three dimensional structure and its body organs start to form the tissue between the head and torso starts to grow around and as it does this it forms a series of ridges and hollows. For a brief time (28 days to 44 days) the grooves between the ridges have a superficial resemblance to slits when viewed from the outside.

However, as the Web of Life textbook admitted, they do not form holes that penetrate from the inside to the outside as gills in a fish do. Neither do they ever develop any of the structure of a fish gill. The correct name for the series of ridges and grooves is “pharyngeal arches and clefts” and they develop into parts of the face and the throat region, including the jaws, chewing muscles and larynx (voicebox). The only groove that remains as an indentation is the one closest to the head end of the embryo. It forms the external earhole. The others are incorporated into the structures of the face and neck.
askjohnmackay.com...

If you want better
www.rae.org...

Thanks for playing, its a pity another evolutionist didnt help you, its a very common mistake made by the, what was it you said about me earlier

a reply to: Raggedyman

So, end the argument, offer some empirical evidence, evidence that cant be refuted, scientifically.

So suppose someone built a time machine, and you got to ride in it.
The journey starts 65 million years ago, and stops each 10,000 years for 1 minute. That would take 6,500 minutes or 108 hours. Probably better take plenty of food and water. So you're looking out the window the whole time.

After the journey ends there is still nothing to prevent you from calling it a hoax. Not really windows, just projection screens with elaborate cinematography. So yeah, might as well end the argument.

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: Akragon

Yeah its cool and all but its just a fish wriggling isnt it
Not exactly empirical

Well you should really watch the video...

It explains how the skeletal structure of said fish changed when it was introduced to land... as opposed to the same species in water...

Has the OP gone on about how many atheists have killed 100 million blah blah blah? yet?.
Hey OP you can not even fathom the concept of evolution and have been shown countless pieces of evidence you are just too ignorant and brainwashed to understand it.
Why respond to him eh? he will never accept anything we say.

a reply to: TheKnightofDoom

There's no point responding to him. He has done exactly as I said he would. Dismissed everything.

I just find it truly ironic that he says he doesn't understand it, asks for evidence, then has the gall to say it's not evidence. How would someone who doesn't know what evolution is, know what evidence for it is?

He then argues that adaptations isn't evolution. That's precisely what evolution is.

He's nothing but predictable.

a reply to: TerryDon79

what he is actually asking for is "Proof"... and getting said word confused with "evidence"

a reply to: Akragon

I reckon he wipes his elbow after going to the bathroom too.

a reply to: TerryDon79

I don't know what to do with that statement

Oh It sure can end OP.
Evoltion is accepted by most and has the evidence to back it up.
The end.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

Thats a very interesting statement.
Empirical evidence to back it up

Thanks

You're a big fan of empirical evidence.
Unless you can sense it you won't believe it. I can understand that.

By definition you are incapable of abstract thought so you can never have this explained.

This is why the argument must be frustrating. You are constantly telling people you only accept empirical evidence and we keep expecting you to be capable of abstract thought. Two clearly opposite sides of the spectrum.

My sincerest apologies, you keep saying it and we keep ignoring it.

Unless of course it's only this circumstance in which you oppose abstract thought.