http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=poHbCOYcYmg
[spoiler]
The paleontologist Stepehen Jay Gold admits: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
Charles Darwin said in his "The origin of the species": "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [should] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such gratuated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
The Zoologist Mark Ridley says: "The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineage is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can be rarely seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example."
The paleontologist David M. Raup from "The Field Museum of Natural History", which has one of the largest collection of fossils in the whole world says: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
"The 'intermediate life forms' imagined by evolutionists never existed at any time"
I could quote many more but this video speaks for itself - the quotes are just bonus information :P
Right now I'm not talking about Islam or anything. I'm merely showing you that macroevolution is wrong.
So really... No evidence for macroevolution in fossils - where else should we look? In our imagination?
[/spoiler]
What do you think about this? Personally, I've began to doubt macroevolution(not micro!) because I haven't yet found a solid proof for it?
Please watch at least some of the video, perhaps read the quotes I have in the Spoilers... and give some feedback.
Please try to keep calm and cool - and I'll try the same.
Of course I believe in macroevolution. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMk8wuw7nek)
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 27, 2014, 05:01:57 PM
Of course I believe in macroevolution. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xMk8wuw7nek)
Why?
Did you read the quotes I quoted? Or watched at least the first 5 minutes of the video?
There's no difference between micro and macro evolution except the time scale.
Besides the fact that the video is very long, it starts out with an obvious indication that it is apologetic in nature. It is not objective, but a biased argument. I for one don't have time to watch it.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i94qZqIJolY/TcNdIM9emkI/AAAAAAAAALY/8dACHdxg6MM/s1600/the+difference+between+micro+and+macro+evolution.jpg)
When a video starts with a quote from the Quranal, you know it's shit. Simple as that.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on May 27, 2014, 05:11:23 PM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i94qZqIJolY/TcNdIM9emkI/AAAAAAAAALY/8dACHdxg6MM/s1600/the+difference+between+micro+and+macro+evolution.jpg)
That's cool...
I also like Dawkins' use of the English language changing over time (not sure if it's originally from him). No one disputes that English speaking parents could speak to English speaking kids, and yet almost no English speaking people today could carry on a conversation with Geoffrey Chaucer as evidenced by the difficulty we have reading his poems.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on May 27, 2014, 05:11:23 PM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i94qZqIJolY/TcNdIM9emkI/AAAAAAAAALY/8dACHdxg6MM/s1600/the+difference+between+micro+and+macro+evolution.jpg)
oh fuck you, dunkleseele. :lol:
(I'm colorblind)
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 27, 2014, 05:07:56 PM
There's no difference between micro and macro evolution except the time scale.
Yes there is.
Can you give me fossil evidence that macroevolution is true?
Quote from: stromboli on May 27, 2014, 05:10:06 PM
Besides the fact that the video is very long, it starts out with an obvious indication that it is apologetic in nature. It is not objective, but a biased argument. I for one don't have time to watch it.
Just watch the first 5 mins or so - just skip it and watch a minute or so. It's very breathtaking.
Out of all the fossils we've found we can see that those living creatures we have a fossil of, haven't changed a bit.
Even though we have fossils of a 500 milllion year old crab (or was it a star fish?) and a 450 million old fossil of a lot of other creatures - who still exist today - we can compare them and see they are still the one and same. No changes. How is this explained, then?
Quote from: DunkleSeele on May 27, 2014, 05:11:23 PM
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-i94qZqIJolY/TcNdIM9emkI/AAAAAAAAALY/8dACHdxg6MM/s1600/the+difference+between+micro+and+macro+evolution.jpg)
Read the post above
plus: Bacteria that "evolves" still stays bacteria. The Darwin finches still stay finches - somewhat different but still finches.
Now, give me some evidence rather than theory that supports your theory of evolution.
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
Can you give me fossil evidence that macroevolution is true?
(http://i.imgur.com/yx9Wt9q.png)
I didn't even finish the video because evolution is not a theory about how life started, but how it evolves. Even the Catholic Church accepts evolution with God's will. Also, evolution is not about accidents causing change, but genetic changes passed on to offspring. :fU: And the camel you rode in on. :biggrin2: Solitary
Quote from: PickelledEggs on May 27, 2014, 05:19:18 PM
oh fuck you, dunkleseele. :lol:
(I'm colorblind)
LOL sorry PickelledEggs!
Small changes over time produce big changes later. You're not going to see many "smoking gun" transitional fossils because the changes are so gradual. That this is so hard to understand for those that try to deny macroevolution (or "evolution", as it's more properly called) is testimony to either idiocy or intellectual dishonesty.
As per a nice "transitional" fossil: Titaalik.
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
Now, give me some evidence rather than theory that supports your theory of evolution.
You have no fucking idea what "theory" means.
I just love when people that think God is the answer for everything want you to say in a post that takes years to learn in school. http://youtu.be/K7tQIB4UdiY Solitary
If evolution is not true, where did French Poodles come from? Evolutions answers that question and a thousand more, but a belief in God does not.
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
plus: Bacteria that "evolves" still stays bacteria. The Darwin finches still stay finches - somewhat different but still finches.
Now, give me some evidence rather than theory that supports your theory of evolution.
Here, something which is worth a billion times more than your cretinous book written by a child molester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on May 27, 2014, 05:25:59 PM
Small changes over time produce big changes later. You're not going to see many "smoking gun" transitional fossils because the changes are so gradual. That this is so hard to understand for those that try to deny macroevolution (or "evolution", as it's more properly called) is testimony to either idiocy or intellectual dishonesty.
As per a nice "transitional" fossil: Titaalik.
You have no fucking idea what "theory" means.
Watch your language. I know theory is a weak word but it's a common word most people are using.
Did you read the quotes I posted? Or did you even watch a few minutes of the video?
Tiktaalik- Did you not know it is not a real "link" between them? Or did you just post it because you once about it without doing proper research?
Some cultures use very unorthodox methods to induce macro-evolution (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bjm9rFz2Muo)
Quote from: DunkleSeele on May 27, 2014, 05:30:20 PM
Here, something which is worth a billion times more than your cretinous book written by a child molester (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils)
I said to watch your language.
Now what exactly does that link prove? Nothing at all. Let's look at the sea horse. Take a look at the 100's millon of years+ fossils we have of seahorses... now look at a living seahorse - do you see any difference? I sure don't :P
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:38:21 PM
I said to watch your language.
Now what exactly does that link prove? Nothing at all. Let's look at the sea horse. Take a look at the 100's millon of years+ fossils we have of seahorses... now look at a living seahorse - do you see any difference? I sure don't :P
What language? He didn't say fuck, shit, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, OR tits.
The koran WAS written by a child molestor, and while child molestation is on my list of most offensive things ever, it does fit the description of the koran....
So there is no foul on DunkleSeele's part
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:36:02 PM
Watch your language. I know theory is a weak word but it's a common word most people are using.
Did you read the quotes I posted? Or did you even watch a few minutes of the video?
Tiktaalik- Did you not know it is not a real "link" between them? Or did you just post it because you once about it without doing proper research?
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:38:21 PM
I said to watch your language.
Now what exactly does that link prove? Nothing at all. Let's look at the sea horse. Take a look at the 100's millon of years+ fossils we have of seahorses... now look at a living seahorse - do you see any difference? I sure don't :P
I don't know who the fuck you think you are, but you don't get to tell us to watch your langauge.
If a few words rustle your jimmies you can fuck right off.
As a parting gift:
(http://wp.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/files/2009/09/muhammad-vi.jpg)
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:38:21 PM
I said to watch your language.
Now what exactly does that link prove? Nothing at all. Let's look at the sea horse. Take a look at the 100's millon of years+ fossils we have of seahorses... now look at a living seahorse - do you see any difference? I sure don't :P
Listen you self righteous twit, a word is just a spoken or written abstraction and only means what it means to who uses it. It's not some sacred magical utterance. lul! Who the fuck are you to chastise anyone for colorful language? Is it your stupid honor that is threaten, or just your stupid religious dogma that is? Your value judgments from superstitious nonsense are upside down. If your religion is more important than even your loved ones you are insane. Solitary
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:38:21 PM
I said to watch your language.
Now what exactly does that link prove? Nothing at all. Let's look at the sea horse. Take a look at the 100's millon of years+ fossils we have of seahorses... now look at a living seahorse - do you see any difference? I sure don't :P
And what are you going to do if I don't watch my language? Are you going to call a fucking jihad on me, little Muslim cunt?
As PickelledEggs already pointed out to your insignificant self, the Quranal was written by a dirty pedophile and caravan robber.
And the fact that you can't see the difference doesn't mean that the difference doesn't exist; it's just that you're too much brainwashed by your filthy Pisslam to be able to see it.
Ladies and gentlemen, have fun with our new chew toy. Anything goes, short of shooting him (last time it was a hell of a job to clean up the blood stains).
Sorry for posting this again, but I just want to make sure it is not buried under other posts. http://youtu.be/K7tQIB4UdiY Solitary
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:38:21 PM
I said to watch your language.
(http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/yo-dawg-mohamed.jpg)
FUCK PEDO MO SPSBUH(Steaming Pile of Shit Be Upon Him).
Who the fuck do you think you are talking to? Your bullshit pedophilia based crock of dog shit religions rules hold no sway here retard. If words offend you might I suggest you join pedo mo and suck my balls on your way out the door. Fucktard
Well that made my security system update. It's amazing how stupid people are from blind faith! "There is no man so blind as one that refuses to see." Solitary
Ah yes, microevolution vs macroevolution.
That is akin to saying inches do not add up to a mile.
I would like to know:
-what clear, concise, undisputed, scientific evidence is there to clearly show either the mechanism or the existing biological features that flat out build an evolutionary wall that utterly prevents one species from accumulating too many microevolutionary mutations to make it another species
-the why behind it
Typically, the person raising the argument of "no transitional fossils" or "too few", does not understand what evolution is. Otherwise they would understand that every fossil is a transitional fossil, as well as when scientists talk about transitional fossils, it doesn't mean what they think it means. One species does not have a goal to evolve into another species. There is no end-game. There is no species that is "done" evolving, or "complete". This isn't like building a castle out of legos.
Quote from: Moralnihilist on May 27, 2014, 06:04:51 PM
(http://tundratabloids.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/yo-dawg-mohamed.jpg)
FUCK PEDO MO SPSBUH(Steaming Pile of Shit Be Upon Him).
Who the fuck do you think you are talking to? Your bullshit pedophilia based crock of dog shit religions rules hold no sway here retard. If words offend you might I suggest you join pedo mo and suck my balls on your way out the door. Fucktard
have you seen my new drawing? It's a bit looser than my past work. This one is called Muhammad : Child Molester
(http://img.tapatalk.com/d/14/05/28/y7edahah.jpg)
See, sometimes when people think of Muhammad, they think about how he's a depraved hate-monger, but I wanted to focus on another aspect of the prophet of Islam. That he was not just a fighter, but also a lover.
Sent via your mom.
:rotflmao:
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
Can you give me fossil evidence that macroevolution is true?
Yes. I can also provide evidence that your supposed prophet Mohammad was a pig eating, goat fucking (with a preference bucks) pedophile.
Oh, quote mining. why that certainly is the foundation of a worthy argument.
Try learning something (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_47)
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
Yes there is.
Can you give me fossil evidence that macroevolution is true?
Yep, the eohippus. You'll say that's not evidence, but then you have your head up your ass.
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:05:41 PM
Why?
Did you read the quotes I quoted? Or watched at least the first 5 minutes of the video?
No, I didn't watch the fucking video because nothing with "macro/microevolution" in the title is worth watching.
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on May 27, 2014, 09:24:22 PM
No, I didn't watch the fucking video because nothing with "macro/microevolution" in the title is worth watching.
That and it's a video that is over an hour long.
(http://mle.mymiddleearth.com/files/2013/07/aint-nobody-got-time-for-that.png)
Quote from: Shol'va on May 27, 2014, 06:12:25 PM
Ah yes, microevolution vs macroevolution.
That is akin to saying inches do not add up to a mile.
I would like to know:
-what clear, concise, undisputed, scientific evidence is there to clearly show either the mechanism or the existing biological features that flat out build an evolutionary wall that utterly prevents one species from accumulating too many microevolutionary mutations to make it another species
-the why behind it
Typically, the person raising the argument of "no transitional fossils" or "too few", does not understand what evolution is. Otherwise they would understand that every fossil is a transitional fossil, as well as when scientists talk about transitional fossils, it doesn't mean what they think it means. One species does not have a goal to evolve into another species. There is no end-game. There is no species that is "done" evolving, or "complete". This isn't like building a castle out of legos.
TOO... :wall: MUCH... :eyes: LOGIC!!! :hang:
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 04:57:11 PM
Personally, I've began to doubt macroevolution(not micro!) because I haven't yet found a solid proof for it?
"Macroevolution" is nothing more than "microevolution" many times over.
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:19:23 PM
Yes there is.
Can you give me fossil evidence that macroevolution is true?
Tiktaalik, Archaeopterix, feathered dinosaurs, Ambulocetus, Hyracotherium, Australopithecus... the list goes on.
QuoteOut of all the fossils we've found we can see that those living creatures we have a fossil of, haven't changed a bit.
Some have changed little, others have changed a lot.
QuoteEven though we have fossils of a 500 milllion year old crab (or was it a star fish?) and a 450 million old fossil of a lot of other creatures - who still exist today - we can compare them and see they are still the one and same. No changes. How is this explained, then?
You seem to be under the common creationist misconception that evolutionary theory claims that rates of evolution are constant for all ancestral lines of organisms.
They are not.
Some organisms have changed little over hundreds of millions of years, while others have changed a lot over just a few million years, or even shorter.
You would do well not to listen to creationists. Creationists are liars.
Quote from: DunkleSeele on May 27, 2014, 05:13:15 PM
When a video starts with a quote from the Quranal, you know it's shit. Simple as that.
Just checked the source. Harun Yahya. (For those who aren't familiar with Muslim creationists, he's pretty much the Islamic world's Ken Ham)
Quote from: Hydra009 on May 28, 2014, 12:22:05 AM
Just checked the source. Harun Yahya. (For those who aren't familiar with Muslim creationists, he's pretty much the Islamic world's Ken Ham)
you mean there are two of them? Stupidity really does multiply...
Sent via your mom.
Good news everyone! You're not going to convince these idiots by pointing at fossils because:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTOla3TyfqQ
So the best way to get rid of them is to insult/describe their "prophet", as many of you already have.
Muhammad be pearl necklaced, that dude disappeared quick once you guys posted pictures :P.
Quote from: Shiranu on May 28, 2014, 02:12:34 AM
Muhammad be pearl necklaced, that dude disappeared quick once you guys posted pictures :P.
LOL we're such a bunch of meanies... :madu: :evil:
If animals don't evolve, where did poodles come from? There were no poodles before mankind was here. Are there poodles talked about in the Old or new testaments. What happened to the unicorns, or burning bushes and donkeys that talk? Where did Lilith, the first woman go after she left Adam? Who were the gods that God spoke to when he forced Adam and Eve from the Garden? Why are mythical people mentioned in the Bible if it isn't a myth too? Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Think about that one! Religion is so silly it is unbelievable that anyone past 11 years old would believe it is based on facts. :biggrin2: Solitary
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:05:41 PM
Why?
Did you read the quotes I quoted? Or watched at least the first 5 minutes of the video?
I watched the whole video. All 1 hour and 3 minutes of it.
Do you have anything to say in your defence?
Quote from: Shiranu on May 28, 2014, 02:12:34 AM
Muhammad be pearl necklaced, that dude disappeared quick once you guys posted pictures :P.
Aw :( I wanted to play with the chew toy.
Quote from: Solitary on May 28, 2014, 04:10:23 AM
If animals don't evolve, where did poodles come from? There were no poodles before mankind was here. Are there poodles talked about in the Old or new testaments. What happened to the unicorns, or burning bushes and donkeys that talk? Where did Lilith, the first woman go after she left Adam? Who were the gods that God spoke to when he forced Adam and Eve from the Garden? Why are mythical people mentioned in the Bible if it isn't a myth too? Did Adam and Eve have belly buttons? Think about that one! Religion is so silly it is unbelievable that anyone past 11 years old would believe it is based on facts. :biggrin2: Solitary
And chihuahuas and Great Danes can no longer successfully reproduce, they're different subspecies.
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 28, 2014, 07:32:04 AM
And chihuahuas and Great Danes can no longer successfully reproduce, they're different subspecies.
Blasphemy!
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 04:57:11 PM
What do you think about this?
If anyone comes up with a valid argument against evolution, it will make a big news splash. Until that happens, I'm not going to read or listen to the same old same old from deluded theists.
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:19:23 PMEven though we have fossils of a 500 milllion year old crab (or was it a star fish?) and a 450 million old fossil of a lot of other creatures - who still exist today - we can compare them and see they are still the one and same. No changes. How is this explained, then?
By one or probably both of these arguments:
1) those particular organisms didn't change much because they didn't need to, they proved good enough to survive the conditions.
2) you're not wearing your glasses again.
Quote from: Mandingo on May 28, 2014, 08:03:59 AM
By one or probably both of these arguments:
1) those particular organisms didn't change much because they didn't need to, they proved good enough to survive the conditions.
2) you're not wearing your glasses again.
There's also the fact that evolution produces similar creatures to fill similar niches. It's possible that the 500 million year old crab is not directly related to the modern one.
Quote from: anonymousMuslim
The paleontologist Stepehen Jay Gold admits: "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology."
Charles Darwin said in his "The origin of the species": "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth, [should] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such gratuated organic chain; and this, perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory."
The Zoologist Mark Ridley says: "The fossil record of evolutionary change within single evolutionary lineage is very poor. If evolution is true, species originate through changes of ancestral species: one might expect to be able to see this in the fossil record. In fact it can be rarely seen. In 1859 Darwin could not cite a single example."
The paleontologist David M. Raup from "The Field Museum of Natural History", which has one of the largest collection of fossils in the whole world says: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species, but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time."
"The 'intermediate life forms' imagined by evolutionists never existed at any time"
I could quote many more but this video speaks for itself - the quotes are just bonus information :P
Right now I'm not talking about Islam or anything. I'm merely showing you that macroevolution is wrong.
So really... No evidence for macroevolution in fossils - where else should we look? In our imagination?
What do you think about this? Personally, I've began to doubt macroevolution(not micro!) because I haven't yet found a solid proof for it?
I am unconvinced that you ever accepted macroevolution.
Your quotes are well-known quote-mines. That is, they have been taken out of context to make the writer appear to hold a position they actually don't. Darwin is particularly easy to treat in this fashion because of his habit of laying out possible objections to his position before proceeding to demolish them. Quote-mining is lying.
And macroevolution would be adequately supported by molecular biology if there were no fossils at all.
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:05:41 PM
Why?
Did you read the quotes I quoted? Or watched at least the first 5 minutes of the video?
Science is argued with evidence, not quotes about evidence. The topic is evolution, not literature.
Wasn't the author the guy who used a fishing lure as an illustration in his book?
Quote from: Gawdzilla Sama on May 28, 2014, 09:56:16 AM
Wasn't the author the guy who used a fishing lure as an illustration in his book?
Yes. Here is an image from his book.
(http://www.grahamowengallery.com/fishing/fly-tying/atlas-of-creation.jpg)
And here is another one.
(http://seedmagazine.com/images/uploads/TransitionalForms_BIG.jpg)
Shit like this is just another reason why I have such a hard time taking these fucktards seriously. Anyone that would bring this crap to the table deserves nothing but ridicule.
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:38:21 PM
I said to watch your language.
You're not very strong on the people skills, are you? Even a cretin should know what happens next when you try to control other people's speech.
Quote from: anonymousMuslim on May 27, 2014, 05:36:02 PM
Now what exactly does that link prove? Nothing at all. Let's look at the sea horse. Take a look at the 100's millon of years+ fossils we have of seahorses... now look at a living seahorse - do you see any difference? I sure don't :P
And if you, as a respected ichthyo-paleontologist can't see it, it must not exist, eh?
Quote from: Shiranu on May 28, 2014, 02:12:34 AM
Muhammad be pearl necklaced, that dude disappeared quick once you guys posted pictures :P.
Pictures are haram (sinful).
Discovery Channel
One reason there are missing link fossils is because of this:
QuoteScientists have estimated that over the course of Earth's history, anywhere between 1 and 4 billion species have existed on this planet. Be it through disease, genetic obsolescence, over-predation or any number of other factors, the overwhelming majority of these species are now extinct. Of these billions of species, roughly 50 million still survive into the modern era. While these numbers are certainly extreme at first glance, it serves as proof that extinction, while a sad occurrence, is a part of life for all living things.
And we are next from ignorance, over population, and greed! Even science can't save us from these. :wall: Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on May 28, 2014, 10:42:32 AMEven science can't save us from these. :wall: Solitary
I never knew science was supposed to bring salvation.
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on May 28, 2014, 10:07:04 AM
Yes. Here is an image from his book.
(http://www.grahamowengallery.com/fishing/fly-tying/atlas-of-creation.jpg)
:rotflmao:
Incredible! What was he thinking??
It is a very lifelike fishing lure, but the hook should have given him at least clue. More incredible is the second image. If evolution is true why dont we see this type of stuff in the fossil record is to stupid to live.
Quote from: SGOS on May 28, 2014, 11:31:38 AM
:rotflmao:
Incredible! What was he thinking??
Thinking?
Quote from: Mandingo on May 28, 2014, 10:49:36 AM
I never knew science was supposed to bring salvation.
It brings much more than religion does.
Ever get vaccinated against a disease? Science! Ever drink water from the tap and not get a horrible disease? Science! Using the internet? Science! Is food plentiful in your region? Science! Science is a powerful tool we can use to solve our most pressing problems as a species, regrettably some people see fit to deny science because their fairytales are too precious.
I like the pics in this thread.
Lol I wonder if we scared him off...
Sent via your mom.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on May 28, 2014, 01:03:47 PM
[Science] brings much more than religion does.
Agreed. But not 'salvation'.
That never was science' object in the first place.
Quote from: Mandingo on May 28, 2014, 03:47:21 PM
Agreed. But not 'salvation'.
That never was science' object in the first place.
lol what is "salvation" and why do we need it?
Quote from: PopeyesPappy on May 28, 2014, 10:07:04 AMShit like this is just another reason why I have such a hard time taking these fucktards seriously. Anyone that would bring this crap to the table deserves nothing but ridicule.
Once, when talking to a creationist over at Christian forums, he suggested that proof of common ancestry between humans and insects would be a human with four arms. I facetiously suggested Goro as a transitional.
Another one somehow thought that the common ancestor between two lineages should have all the traits of both lineages. I literally couldn't even.
Anyone, including my wife, that thinks there is a magic man in the sky has decided to never think and learn, because it's easier to stay ignorant than to learn like an adult. :biggrin2: Solitary
Quote from: Solitary on May 28, 2014, 05:04:10 PM
Anyone, including my wife, that thinks there is a magic man in the sky has decided to never think and learn, because it's easier to stay ignorant than to learn like an adult. :biggrin2: Solitary
It's the easy way out. The lazy way out. A way to shirk your human responsibilities because "they do it too, don't they?" and stifle non-conformity.
Amoral, at least. If not immoral.