You've just ripped an article by some other bloke to pieces here. Nothing in the post is any of ~JESUS~' own words.

Classy first post though. And now I understand why you started raving about fruit bats. :p

Lenny if I "rip" and article by someone else, I post a link. Nothing I said today was stolen.

Fruit bats? You need to get off the computer. Go get some exercise. It does the body and mind wonders!:)

Are you Lenny?:p

Nope, he's one of my friends. Christian too.

-----

I'm not talking about today. Bat-Melon isn't talking about today.

Look at your first post in this thread. THAT was an article taken from another site with no words of your own voicing your opinion.

no it cant. Proteins are formed by combinations of amino acids, precise combinations dicated by information only...and environmental factors that select from present genes to survive.


proof of concept? lol


There are alot of them out there!


When it was discovered, scientist thought the earth was no longer then 10,000 years old. There are no intermediates! Bats are found fperfectly complete with sonar hearing and fully extended bat wings! There are no intermediates! there should be hundreds of thousands if not millions! what a lucky time to be alive I guess, nothing is evolving anymore I guess...


Nor will they ever! But they do try to...


dude, there are thousands of textbooks written over the last 150 years! Are you joking? Get some like every 20 years and you will laugh!


...again another opinion with no foundation. Lets debate facts and not discuss what people would or wouldnt do...


oh but it is. My nephew has it in his textbook!


Oh yeah? where are the rest?

..and it wont be, iits been proven a hoax!


..oh is that it, hence? lol...yes that MUST be the reason. Such an exact science!


another played out hoax!


point about what? Its not evolution, its adapting to the environment! This is not evolution, you cant have the best of both worlds! The definition of evolution sure has come along way in the last 150 years, WAY more than the actual proof for the original theory! Its ALL information that had to have had a designer.

..and by the way, its still a bear!!!!


yes it does, which is why its used.


Natural Selection actually is the exact opposite of survival of the fittest as a means of explaining "evolution"..but the definition has evolved to include it as well..with a twist of couse.

Natural selection occurs, but nothing evolves. Nature “selects” genetic characteristics suited to an environment and, more importantly, eliminates unsuitable genetic variations. Therefore, an organism’s gene pool is constantly decreasing. This is called natural selection.

Notice, natural selection cannot produce new genes; it only selects among preexisting characteristics. As the word “selection” implies, variations are reduced, not increased.

People think that because natural selection occurs, evolution must be correct. In actually, natural selection PREVENTS major evolutionary changes!


Not improvments for say... Just the goal MANS INTERVENTION deliberatley set out to accomplish by taking one gene and mixing it with others. This is FAR from explaining orgins or evolution for that matter!

amazing also that everything just so happens to be fool proof just as it is, the way God made them huh? lol


Or not found, we as humans have imaginations. Plant an image, it stays. Very useful tool for proaganda.

The examples givin were proven that the people were told to make the drawings!

opinion and false.

what? Are you joking? Are you just bending rules to fit the mold? lol

Say the entire name of the book. "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life"

..its because it HAS to be. Do research on who controls the museums, research funding, boards and everything under...

Evolution is a tool for control.


Obviously.


Another opinion. He said and did alot of things. Big deal. Most HURT his "theory"


you got that right...


Another opinion that doesnt hold. Look at the scientific community then, what influence did it have compared to today? lol


Useless to you. Another unfounded opinion.


what something is regarded as means nothing.


what something is regarded as means nothing. Facts are facts. If you teach one as ABSOLUTE when it isnt, there is a reason...


yes because not being absolute it is faith based that worships time that can not be proven, how convenient!

By saying "other concepts such as creationism",

what?

Lets say I actually know what you are talking about, thats not what Im implying Im sure.
Dont divert attention from the facts. One is taught as absolute without ANY regard for the other, facts, or what people believe or want! It and its concepts are constantly changing and expanding for lack of evidence and the dumbing down and unknowingly ignorant acceptence by the controlled masses. Obviously.


give me a break dude..:haha:


wonder why...lol

spin spin

when you START with a conclusion and warp what you find to fit the mold it isnt science. Its propaganda.

-----
I BET!

He sounds christian...

honesty is best Lenny...

you like speaking for others dont you..wishfull thinking or delusion?

honesty is best Lenny...

what about it?
It was an article. Do you know how things work Lenny?

My opinion is known Lenny, if you cant figure it out, go back and read...and read, and read...

then try to find some information that disputes the facts because quite frankly you sound like an ignorant little boy on a computer. ..and thats all.

Dog = God backwards.

I don't believe you. I don't believe you at all!

What is it with you?! He IS a Christian! Ask him if you don't believe me.

The only difference between you and he is that HE takes the Bible with a pinch of salt. You, however, take every word as the pure truth.

The usual thing to do is post the article, than voice your opinions. Not just post the article and leave it at that. For all I know you could be posting the article because it is absolutely ludicrous. Look through the News and Debates threads, see how many voice opinions in the first post? Look at the News threads I post, see how I voice my opinions?

I AM being honest you dimwit. Read the post. Comprehend the post. Or do you work on a special Bible time that means every day is the same day?

LOL, ~Jesus~ vs. Lenny, LOL. Anyway, I just got on and did a quick reveiw of all the recent posts.Lemme say this, This thread seems to be the most happining thread in opinion and debate(YAY!),however, name calling is for the Flame forum.Now my 2 cents about evolution vs. creation in textbooks.This one is for ~Jesus~.The BIBLE(100% accurate) talks about deaf ears.If they simply will not receive the Truth no matter what you say, then kick the dust off your feet and go on.Now to Lenny, the BIBLE has NEVER been proven wrong in its scientific facts, evolution has, big bang theory has.Some people say the BIBLE is wrong, but never give solid facts in why they think that, all they do is comment on their theory in why they think it is.Evolution and the 'ol Big Bang Theories made their houses in the sand so to speak, not on a solid foundation.We have given studies, movies, ect. that have been SOLID FACTS and the most anyone can say is ,oooo you cut and copier.Common dude, I enjoy seeing ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC FACT even if it is a cut and copy.As long as his point gets accross about evolution should not be in schools unless creation is,then I wouldn't mind seeing every word he posted a C&Copy.

The bible has never been proven TRUE! You dimwit. You can't say that damn thing is 100% accurate in any way shape or form. It's been rewritten and re-translated so many times. Plus it's a fucking book! Anyone can have written it for any purpose they had in mind. Ugh. Stop saying it's all facts. You obviously don't know what a fact is. None of it has been proven.

Lmao, I've never seen Lenny so livid.

[QUOTE=Kaneda]Sorry buddy, but this is simply out of line. We are animals, we have no purpose other than survival and procreation. Do dogs have a purpose other than survival? Do they have morals? Do chickens have morals? No, therefore they are meaningless?[QUOTE]

LOL I was just fucking around I just wanted to see what people would say. I just made up all that bull, and I really dont care about all this

It happens to the best of us. :weird:

He can insult me all he wants, I don't care. But when he starts calling me a liar, in such a condescending way, and insults my friends at the same time, well, if he wasn't in America I'd be tempted to play a good old fashioned game of Fisticuffs at dawn.

-----

Talking about books and that "anyone can have written it for any purpose they had in mind", the Books of Lenny pop into mind as being very relevant.

Lenny should pen a bible.

Wow, has this strayed from the topic! I take my bible with a pinch of salt, like Lenny kindly phrased. In Genesis(no I won't post Genesis, I'm not god or anything...pun! Jesus was posting it!) Anywayz, in genisis it says that the world was made in 7 days. Go ahead, believe that! But back when the Bible was written, they didn't write like we do now. Back then they didn't wright lliterally, but more philosophically. I mean, if you do take the bible with no salt, but moreover a Popsicle, which has been proven to make you more diehard so to speak...Mebe... Well, you would find the fault...'Who the hell told Adam and Eve it was 7 days?' God? I don't think so. We're a very curious race, and in being so curious, we have found that faith requires alot...alot, of leaps. There are holes in the bible, and although it seems to be your religion, I think it's better to base your religion on something... That way you'll never be totally wrong. And since when did Jesus start calling people liars? If you want that name, Lord, you'd better go new testament on them and be forgiving. Really...Why teach any of this at school? Why bother kids with another subject, life science. Just teach crap like formulas, forensics, physics, and leave the kid's damn religion to himself.

I learnt where that phrase came from t'other day. :)

In Medieval times people believed that Salt was a cure for all poisons. So they put a lot of salt on their food (which also explains why we put salt on everything) - ie. took everything with a pinch of salt to avoid being poisoned.

-----

I agree with you there - that the Bible is written not literally but as an idea.

And you tell the kid what for! :p :)

-----

Maybe one day, if I get really bored.

I actually thought that the phrase came from when superstitious people throw a pinch of salt over their shoulders, but the medieval thing sounds right.

http://www.picaroni.com/holy_bible_copy.png

Rofl, I'm loving the "Ineffallible". :p Two of my best sides in one word. ;)

Haven't seen ~JESUS~ for a few days... and just when it was getting interesting. :(

Shh! You're not supposed to mention that!

Btw, which is it:

Ineffable
Ineffallible
Ineffallable

?

I've been:

Inflatable
Inedible
Inflammable
Ineffable
Infallible
Ineffallible
and Ineffallable

I'm flexible that way. :)

Hahaha...Inflatable...

That's always everyone's favourite. :(

My new nickname: Lendrip Brocolli-Head on account of my hair spouting from my head like Brocolli, apparently.

They should teach about Lenny in the classrooms.

LOL, that is pretty funny.Is that pic on you site(Lenny) really you?

Inane grin? Giant hairdo? Weird hats?

'Tis indeed.

lol, I hate it when my hair gets curly...At one inch it's straight, 2 curly, 3 curly, 4 semi curly and 5(which actually looks like 3 because my hair is curly)
is my favorite. lol...guess I just can't have what I can't have!

Alas. Twas a good thread while it lasted.

Out of sheer boredom, I've decided to reply to every one of Jesus' posts in this thread. Why? Because most of them make no sense. And I hate that. Lenny already did a hell of a job. I think I was on a temporary hiatus when all of this went down otherwise I would have been all over this. However the fact that this moron decided to copy and paste most of his shit bugs me.

Anyway. most of my replies are going to be what I like to call common sense. There's really no point reading anything I write past this point unless by some chance this guy decides to come back. I just feel like arguing with somebody, so I'll use the shit he's already posted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

First of all, we need to define what evolution is, so we can have some basic premise to build upon. In the biology community, evolution is defined as a gradual change in allele frequencies in a population. It's that simple. Macroevolution and microevolution are generally not distinguished in a biology class. They are based on the same mechanism. So-called macroevolution is nothing more than the cumulative effect of microevolution.

Now that definitions are not in the way, we need to look at the ideologies driving the institutes that you quote, and what drives the scientific community. The scientific community looks for the truth. As new evidence comes in, scientists tweak and modify their theories to fit the truth to the best knowledge that humanity has gathered. We may not yet have a crystal clear picture of the truth, however the detail in the picture becomes finer and finer as new evidence piles on. Your institutes are driven by religion. They come in with a pre-conceived notion of the truth, and then try to find evidence to fit that. When that fails, they twist, or outright fabricate evidence to fit their pre-conceived ideas.

Scientists may seem dogmatic about their theories. That is because the evidence is so pervasive. Evidence found so far in nature fits the evolutionary paradigm. Any evidence found contradicting that paradigm is usually unverifiable, or only seems to contradict the paradigm on the surface. This is why scientists generally don't question evolutionary theory. Now, if there was any evidence against evolution, such as a human being born to a monkey, scientists would seriously have to rethink their position. However, no such evidence exists.

The arguments that the discovery institute advocates are simply tautologies of the past 50 years that are constantly being rephrased. Over the next few days I will point out these tautologies in the posts that you have copied and pasted, and I will also attempt to show how your evidence against evolution is either fabricated, as it contradicts an enormous amount of already verified evidence, unverifiable, or how it can fit the evolutionary paradigm.

Before the questions presented in the article that follows the above quote are answered, I would like the creationist to consider a concern of my own. You want your theory in my science class? Fine. Make it a scientific theory, and follow the process of science. Convert your tautologies into a scientific theory. Submit your theory to peer-reviewed journals. Have it gain some acceptance in an academic setting before it is taught in school. That is, after all, the process that any scientific theory must go through before it becomes rightly acknowledged. You, however, want to skip this well established process, and simply have your theory accepted and taught as fact. This is not science. It is, however, the epitome of religion.

Creationist, you are too preoccupied with the details of the experiment, which has caused you to overlook its overall significance. What the real environment of the Earth was like 4 billion years ago is not all that important. The significance of this experiment is that it shows how organic matter can rise from inorganic matter through purely natural processes. It voids the prerequisite of a supernatural cause for abiogenesis.

Creationist, you are maliciously deceiving those who read your article. Most textbooks discuss the Cambrian explosion at length. Furthermore, they provide viable explanations of the Cambrian explosion that entirely fit the evolutionary paradigm. Creationist, I recommend you learn about punctuated equilibrium. I also suggest that you learn some basic geology so that you may understand the process of fossil formation.

One person exaggerated about embryonic similarity. That is shameful. However, it is also primal human instinct to desire fame, and thus this exaggeration may have been based on that. That said, no reputable biology books show that picture anymore except to point out that at one point in time someone over-exaggerated embryonic similarities. Though not quite to the extent of the pictures you allude to, many embryonic similarities do exist. Once again, I suggest that the creationist educate himself on modern embryonic anatomy of various species.

The archaeopteryx is almost certainly an ancestor to modern birds. You are simply decreeing by fiat that there is probably no link between the two. However, morphological homologies don't lie. A link almost certainly exists.

Creationist, why do you cite one esoteric piece of information, and then induce that if your guesses are true about this piece of information then the entire structure of science is overthrown? As a matter of fact, what does this have to do with evolution?

Dear creationist, you are sadly misinformed. Nobody claims that beak changes in Galapagos finches explains the origin of species by natural selection. We simply say that it is an example of natural selection. It is also an example of the common lineage of the various finches. Also, beaks did not shrink after the drought ended. You need citation for this claim. It seems absolutely bogus to me. More likely than that happening, you are employing a mischievous tactic which has you fabricating some information on an esoteric subject making it difficult for me to verify. A citation on this particular claim would help explain your case.

Textbooks use evidence of fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence for DNA mutation because probably is DNA mutation, if again, this isn't one of your "fabricated facts." Whether or not this mutation is deleterious is irrelevant. What is significant is that it is an example of a mutation.

Because all fossil experts agree that our ancestors were primates. They simply don't agree on detail. As an analogy to explain this phenomenon, consider the following question: What did one of your ancestors look like 6 generations back? We could ask you and a sibling of yours. If you were asked to draw, their would probably be certain similarities between your drawing and that of your sibling's. For instance, we can assume that both drawings would consist of arms, legs, hair, head, and other common features. We can assume that both drawings would be a depiction of a human. However the drawings would differ in detail. This is what happens when fossil experts try and understand who our ancestors were. Make no mistake, though, everybody agrees that they were primates. Everybody agrees that modern apes and humans descended from them.

This is simply a lie. While it is true, Darwin himself was incorrect about certain things, those have been corrected over the last 150 years. Even in Darwin's time, the theory of evolution was based off of scientific fact. It is much more so in our time.

Creationist, I find your ignorance on scientific vernacular disturbing, especially since your are advocating your own scientific theories. In science, the term theory does not necessarily imply any uncertainty.

Also, "this quotation has been lifted completely out of context. Darwin is not stating that his theory was no better than its opposite. Quite the contrary. Examine Darwin's full statement below, which includes the sentences that directly preceded the above quotation: "This abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect. I cannot here give references and authorities for my several statements...I can here give only the general conclusions at which I have arrived, with a few facts in illustration, but which, I hope, in most cases will suffice. No one can feel more sensible than I do of the necessity of hereafter publishing in detail all the facts, with references on which my conclusions have been grounded; and I hope in a future work to do this. For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question; and this is here impossible."

In context, Darwin was merely admitting that it was "impossible" for him to state his case completely, and balance it out by raising and answering all possible objections, since the Origin was merely an "abstract." For instance, elsewhere in the introduction he stated, "...it will take me many more years to complete it [my work], and as my health is far from strong, I have been urged to publish this abstract." Being merely an "abstract," he expected that people would raise questions, "adducing facts...apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived." Note his use of the word "apparently." But once "both sides of each question" had been "fully stated," Darwin was confident that a "fair result" would vindicate his theory rather than "the opposite." Darwin also stated in his introduction, "I have not been hasty in coming to a decision," a "decision" built on many years work, many more examples, and finely tuned arguments, than he could possibly fit between the covers of his little "abstract."

In fact, Darwin was so certain that a "fair result" would favor his view, that he ended his introduction with these words: "I can entertain no doubt, after the most deliberate study and dispassionate judgment of which I am capable, that the view which most naturalists until recently entertained, and which I formerly entertained -- namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous. I am fully convinced that species are not immutable [changeless]; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendant of some other and generaly extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged variations of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the most important, but not the exclusive means of modification." Why don't the editors of The Revised Quote Book cite that summation of his introduction? Don't they want their readers to know what Darwin said in full context? Perhaps they are ignorant of it themselves."

This is a lie propagated by Lady Hope. Even if it is not, science does not rest on the authority of one man. We have great scholars, we don't have prophets. If Darwin considered his work akin to religion, it is most certainly not that anymore as it has been tested, and empirically verified.

There is no scientific theory with more conclusive evidence than the theory of evolution. Germ theory of disease, or the theory of gravity do not come close to being nearly as conclusive as the theory of evolution. I am deeply sorry that science contradicts your holy book, dear creationist, however it is not science's job to appease you, no matter how belligerent you become. If anything deserves scientific law status, it is the fact of evolution.

I wholeheartedly concur. Investigate. When you have a proper scientific theory, we will have something to discuss.

How the hell did I miss this thread? Oh wait, I was internetless...right.

You obviously never understood evolution.

I was perusing some websites and found a rebuttal to all these:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/art...11_28_2001.asp

Are you only posting questions or are you also providing answers? Seems to me you're just a confused school child.

Jesus Christ, when will you fuckers understand that the Flintstones was not meant to be a documentary?

Nice. BTW, Thanks a lot MJ. I am just now writing an essay on this subject and your posts really have helped me along.

Heh, np.

I have a lot more information in the other thread: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41798

I'd be interested in reading your essay.

Also, you could try this one: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=44145

Thanks a lot. I turned out to be one of only four people who handed the extra credit in.