Evolution is so illogical it has to be a conspiracy

a reply to: tsingtao

Again we can show you all the evidence for it and you will still bleat bs and ignore it all so why should anyone try to show you when all you show us is ignorance.
Good god some people need to goto school.

originally posted by: warrenb
I'd agree with you but as soon as you bring up the bible and that f* BS forget it.

Funny that it's the only solution you can find.

What's so far fetched about alien's seeding life on the planet or perhaps we emigrated here from some other place. Why do you have to have this closed minded approach to explaining our appearance on this planet.

That alone is way more believable than 99.9% of the bible.

Science and theology do not mix

need I bring up the flat earth belief, witch burning, the crusades or the inquisition?

I'm sorry I don't really have a dog in this fight but that is the most silly response so far. You dismiss someone elses theory (religion) with no evidence, for your own theory (aliens) with no evidence and act like the other poster is an idiot. Whoever said science was a religion was surely referencing people like you.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: vasaga

Well as it stands there is no compelling evidence to say that a god or gods definitely exists. So I cannot back the creationism stance. There is simply no evidence for it. Though, there is also no evidence to say that a god or gods couldn't exist either. So I stay ambivalent about it. So if you want to take that leap of faith and say that a god exists, I don't care. I'm just not convinced on the matter. The thing is, you just have to accept that this god or gods (probably) used the big bang to create the universe and most likely used evolution to develop life. I guess the answer of abiogenesis and biogenesis is answered there, so I didn't mention it, but life probably originated on earth from a common answer originating in the sea. This would be HOW the god or gods created the universe and seeded and developed life. Anything that denies this reality is wrong, there is just too much evidence to support this account of things.

I find it very interesting, that one of the first things you mentioned, and that we agreed on, is that evolution being right or wrong has no bearing on creationism or not, while right now, the response I get from you regarding the cambrian explosion, is that there's no evidence for God.

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

Why is it an elephant in the room?

Because the explosion challenges the notion of natural selection being sufficient for the sudden increase in the amount of species, diversity and informational development.

The time span of the Cambrian explosion was more like 70-80 million years, life being tenacious, managed to fill up the many new niches created by an ever more stable environment . Creationists always seem to conveniently leave out the time span of the Cambrian explosion and just call it an explosion to give the illusion to laymen that it all happened like overnight.
If you have such an enormous knowledge of the Cambrian Explosion that you can use your immense knowledge of this subject to prove that biologists are all wrong about biology, please tell us, in your own words, what the C.E. actually was.

Why are you acting as if creationists are the ones who invented the name cambrian explosion? Why would the name explosion be given if it wasn't considered sudden?

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

How? Do you really think 40 million years is "sudden"?

According to Wikipedia, 40 million years is sudden in evolutionary terms.

originally posted by: flyingfish

originally posted by: vasaga
a reply to: GetHyped

The biggest elephant in the room is the cambrian explosion.

The only elephant is the enormous difficulties involved in studying the ancient past of living things.

Palaeontologists are perfectly aware of the problems in studying something like the Cambrian explosion. They must make their inferences from the rocks. They are aware that the fossils do not come with convenient labels with dates. Yet they still work within these limits in order to learn as much as they possibly can. This means that they must accept the limits of their method. But does it mean that they should give up, that nothing can be learned at all?..
No, of course not.

This is where we differ in how we approach these difficulties. You seem to be suggesting, as so many creationists seem to, that we simply throw up our hands in despair of ever knowing anything about the ancient past and just give up. I think that is rather pathetic. I also think that it represents a rather naive view of how scientists operate.

I didn't suggest this at any moment.

originally posted by: flyingfish
Rather than humility, what you are advocating is a profound lack of intellectual curiosity. I can't see how that can possibly be a good thing.

I certainly do not lack intellectual curiosity. I lack the drive to conform to popular standards just because they're popular. Let's see how much intellectual curiosity you have...

Different scientists may judge the duration of the Cambrian explosion differently, depending upon how they choose to define it and how many separate events they decide to include. Depending on this it can be seen as anything between a duration of 6 million years and 80 million years. What do you have to say about that?

a reply to: vasaga

I would be delighted to continue an on topic discussion about the nature of associated methods of knowledge acquisition, but your semantic nitpicking is not going to cut it.
Are you going to answer my questions?

Can you use your immense knowledge of this subject to prove that biologists are all wrong about biology, please tell us, in your own words, what the C.E. actually was.?

According to Wikipedia, 40 million years is sudden in evolutionary terms.

What's your point? elaborate.

I certainly do not lack intellectual curiosity. I lack the drive to conform to popular standards just because they're popular.

Lol.. Your only drive is to conform to creationist pseudoscience! you yourself prove this with every post.

Different scientists may judge the duration of the Cambrian explosion differently, depending upon how they choose to define it and how many separate events they decide to include. Depending on this it can be seen as anything between a duration of 6 million years and 80 million years. What do you have to say about that?

How many times do I need to repeat myself?

The only elephant is the enormous difficulties involved in studying the ancient past of living things.

Palaeontologists are perfectly aware of the problems in studying something like the Cambrian explosion. They must make their inferences from the rocks. They are aware that the fossils do not come with convenient labels with dates. Yet they still work within these limits in order to learn as much as they possibly can. This means that they must accept the limits of their method. But does it mean that they should give up, that nothing can be learned at all?..
No, of course not.

This is where we differ in how we approach these difficulties. You seem to be suggesting, as so many creationists seem to, that we simply throw up our hands in despair of ever knowing anything about the ancient past and just give up. I think that is rather pathetic. I also think that it represents a rather naive view of how scientists operate.

originally posted by: boymonkey74

Again we can show you all the evidence for it and you will still bleat bs and ignore it all so why should anyone try to show you when all you show us is ignorance. Good god some people need to goto school.

SOME of us have enough sense to realize the difference between education and truth.

Education and the control of knowledge is a HUGE mind control technique.

Just like history, religion, science, and the MSM, etc, etc.

I always find it ironic that every time this subject comes up, no one EVER attempts to refute it.

Kinda makes one wonder...

As another man without a high school diploma, I discovered many years ago that the "educated" class is generally not educated at all, it is mis-educated. The whole purpose of American (perhaps all "western") "higher education" is obviously to bring minds into lock step with "The Agenda." As a general rule, the less official American education a person has been exposed to, the greater his/her ration of common sense.

"Education" is Spiritual Suicide

a reply to: Murgatroid

Sorry Iam following your lead I didn't read any of your post you are wrong.

originally posted by: vasaga

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: vasaga

Why is it an elephant in the room?

Because the explosion challenges the notion of natural selection being sufficient for the sudden increase in the amount of species, diversity and informational development.

This was addressed in detail already. This is why people get irked. Why do you feel that 60-80 million years is not enough time to account for the diversity? The cambrian explosion wasn't sudden. In a fast paced high pressure environment that's constantly changing, natural selection is accelerated. Look at how much the diversity of life has changed in just 65 million years since the last mega extinction level event. Can you break down the numbers and show why this cannot happen? You need to present an actual argument. Just saying, "Cambrian explosion" doesn't raise any valid logical problems with evolution in the least. Make an argument.

originally posted by: tsingtao
science has it's map, now it just has to fill in allllllll the blanks! especially regarding evolution, right?

Considering that fossilization is rare, it's pretty amazing that we have already filled the thousands upon thousands of blanks that we have. We'll never find everything, but literally is mountains of evidence.

99% of species have died out, over the course of what, 2-3 billion years? is that the number agreed upon?
did they really die out or evolve?

The ones alive today evolved. The rest died out. It's pretty simple actually.

we claim we can trace the big bang back 14 billion years but don't know what happened to kick it off.
same with life on earth, but still don't know how it started.

Actually we have a very good idea of how the earth started. It's impossible to study pre-big bang, so not knowing doesn't make either side right or wrong.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: tsingtao

Again we can show you all the evidence for it and you will still bleat bs and ignore it all so why should anyone try to show you when all you show us is ignorance.
Good god some people need to goto school.

ya got no evidence.

otherwise you would answer my post instead of attacking me.

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: vasaga

I certainly do not lack intellectual curiosity. I lack the drive to conform to popular standards just because they're popular.

Lol.. Your only drive is to conform to creationist pseudoscience! you yourself prove this with every post.

Different scientists may judge the duration of the Cambrian explosion differently, depending upon how they choose to define it and how many separate events they decide to include. Depending on this it can be seen as anything between a duration of 6 million years and 80 million years. What do you have to say about that?

How many times do I need to repeat myself?

The only elephant is the enormous difficulties involved in studying the ancient past of living things.

Palaeontologists are perfectly aware of the problems in studying something like the Cambrian explosion. They must make their inferences from the rocks. They are aware that the fossils do not come with convenient labels with dates. Yet they still work within these limits in order to learn as much as they possibly can. This means that they must accept the limits of their method. But does it mean that they should give up, that nothing can be learned at all?..
No, of course not.

This is where we differ in how we approach these difficulties. You seem to be suggesting, as so many creationists seem to, that we simply throw up our hands in despair of ever knowing anything about the ancient past and just give up. I think that is rather pathetic. I also think that it represents a rather naive view of how scientists operate.

yeah they just make it up as they go along.
you have a lot of trust and faith in them. is it the "i'll lie and you swear to it" peer reviews?

6-80 mil yrs is quite a stretch of time but that's the only explanation to evolution, i guess.

There's absolutely no proof of how anything began. That said, there's no denying the fact that evolution is a thing and can be proved.

Anyone at all still denying that evolution is real is just clueless. What part of passing strong genes to future generations which assists in survival of the fittest don't they get?

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: tsingtao
science has it's map, now it just has to fill in allllllll the blanks! especially regarding evolution, right?

Considering that fossilization is rare, it's pretty amazing that we have already filled the thousands upon thousands of blanks that we have. We'll never find everything, but literally is mountains of evidence.

99% of species have died out, over the course of what, 2-3 billion years? is that the number agreed upon?
did they really die out or evolve?

The ones alive today evolved. The rest died out. It's pretty simple actually.

we claim we can trace the big bang back 14 billion years but don't know what happened to kick it off.
same with life on earth, but still don't know how it started.

Actually we have a very good idea of how the earth started. It's impossible to study pre-big bang, so not knowing doesn't make either side right or wrong.

thanks for the civil response, barcs.

there is a crapload of species alive today and some disappearing everyday.

it's logical to believe that we would have seen some macro-evo or some written account over the last few millenia, of animals that were once there in the past with humans.

or living side by side with their "ancestors" today.

and i wasn't talking about the earth, i was talking about life on earth.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
There's absolutely no proof of how anything began. That said, there's no denying the fact that evolution is a thing and can be proved.

Anyone at all still denying that evolution is real is just clueless. What part of passing strong genes to future generations which assists in survival of the fittest don't they get?

so survival of the fittest will change a lizard into a bird

and a furry little ball into a human?

a reply to: tsingtao

No, apparently jesus did that LOL

Edit: Oops I mean god. What's your big idea on how it happened? Don't say god, I'm begging you because seriously you'll have me laughing on the floor.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
There's absolutely no proof of how anything began. That said, there's no denying the fact that evolution is a thing and can be proved.

Anyone at all still denying that evolution is real is just clueless. What part of passing strong genes to future generations which assists in survival of the fittest don't they get?

That's not exactly how it works....but I guess that's beside the point...

Hypothetically...Could I say that the Creator is THE common ancestor for ALL living organisms and not be scrutinized beyond recognition? Because you know...That's my preference....


A2D

a reply to: Agree2Disagree

That is actually pretty much how it works when you have to explain it to idiots that think god made the world in six days, 6000 years ago.

a reply to: tsingtao

I am sick of posting evidence for people who refuse to even consider it.
Tell you what do a google search eh?.
Type Proof of evolution and you will find 137,000,000 sites.
Do it yourself I refuse to waste my time going over and over the same # every time you lot post.

originally posted by: boymonkey74
a reply to: tsingtao

I am sick of posting evidence for people who refuse to even consider it.
Tell you what do a google search eh?.
Type Proof of evolution and you will find 137,000,000 sites.
Do it yourself I refuse to waste my time going over and over the same # every time you lot post.

Sadly, this is form for creationists. They arrive, shout that there's no proof for evolution and then pretend that the jury is still out on what evidence there is. Then they wilfully misunderstand or misinterpret what is provided. Then they argue about it. And then they withdraw, pouting - before turning up on another thread and start the whole thing all over again.

a reply to: boymonkey74
I am not really sure how you or anyone in this thread could be "sick of posting evidence".
Unless I missed something along the way, all you have posted is one link to a site that states 8 examples of evolution.
Barcs is the onlyone so far, that I have actually noticed, that TALKS about the evidence, instead of just throwing up a link and saying "here ya go".
It makes me truly wonder how many on the evolution side actually understand it themselves.
If you post a link at least give a synopsis in your own words or embed the part you believe important to discussion.
Quad