[HotSnoJ]

Wanna earn $250,000? Then head over here to find out more http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k

[EDIT]I'd like to see what CP would send in.

[Stealth]

hey how come you have a shivan swarm avatar and i don't

[phreak]

http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/pandemics/flu3.htm

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Stealth
hey how come you have a shivan swarm avatar and i don't

'Cuz they never took it away from me. The project is dead you know.

Anyway, back on topic.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by PhReAk
http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/pandemics/flu3.htm

I don't get it.

[Stealth]

yeah i know it's been dead.  one of many.  and due to a lazy leader.

yeah, i don't believe in evolution myself, so i won't even try

[Woolie Wool]

Mike Wong's site is my evidence. Read ALL OF IT. The theory is much stronger than you think.

Oh, here's something: give me hard evidence for creationism. The Bible DOES NOT QUALIFY AS EVIDENCE. I mean real FACTS, not just a religious text whose only support is the faith of its followers. I don't care if the entire fucking WORLD believes it; it is not valid evidence because the only "proof" of its claims are the faith of hundreds of millions of human sheep.

[HotSnoJ]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
Mike Wong's site is my evidence. Read ALL OF IT. The theory is much stronger than you think.

I noticed something about that sites title "Creationism vs Science". If creationism is a faith and science is an absolute, then what is evolution? If it should be titled anything it should either be "Creationism vs. Evolution" since that is what it is. Science is pre-technology or better put, technology is applied science.

Oh, here's something: give me hard evidence for creationism. The Bible DOES NOT QUALIFY AS EVIDENCE. I mean real FACTS, not just a religious text whose only support is the faith of its followers. I don't care if the entire fucking WORLD believes it; it is not valid evidence because the only "proof" of its claims are the faith of hundreds of millions of human sheep.

Now why one earth would I do that (use that bible to prove itself)? The only reason I'd do that is if I was trying to prove that it is coherant in all it says. The article I pointed to says

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution.

Someone once told me, "Evidence does not equal proof. It is how you interpert the evidence."

[Flipside]

I think that what Phreak is trying to point out is that Flu is continually evolving and changing, visually, and within a short time frame. These are not different Bacteria, these are the same Bacteria changing, not conciously I might add, it is merely the axiom of 'survival of the fittest'. That does not mean things evolve to be 'fit to survive' it just means that millions of tiny mutations take place and the ones that are lucky enough to change in the right way at the time are the ones that survive.

This could be defined as 'Micro Evolution' which is only one of the 6 points mentioned, but what the writer of the website fails to understand is that the bigger the change, the longer it takes. And also fails to understand that we do NOT take the other 5 for granted and that it is HE who is conciously dividing the types of evolution up, to me they are just several levels of the same thing. The cells in our own bodies are mutating constantly, when it goes wrong you get such things as Cancer. So to ask someone for 'Hard evidence' makes me wonder what he wants, a film of a frog evolving into an elephant perhaps?

I have stated this before, but as an evolutionist, I can say that man was once far more primitive millions of years ago, until his brain evolved, my evidence is primitive cave drawings, stone tools etc. Carbon dating etc helps back up my claim.

A creationist will believe otherwise, and they are perfectly entitled to, but when I ask about the stone tools and cave drawings, they were apparently put there to test my faith.

Well.... it's tested

We may not be 100% right about how evolution works, but in my own opinion, we have a lot more evidence for evolution than creation

Flipside

[karajorma]

Waste of time. You'll never prove to this guy that creationism is wrong. No matter what evidence you present him with he will just ignore it or refuse to believe it. I urge you not to waste your breath even attempting it.

That is the saddest thing about this whole debate. Present a scientist with empirical proof of something and they'll examine it. Present a creationist with any kind of proof and they'll ignore it or come up with some cock and bull story about it.

The simple fact is that evolution has been proved. Phreaks link is a great example of this as you can follow the evolution of drug resistant strains of bacteria and virii over the course of the last 100 years. There is no other credible explaination. All other explainations hide behind the shield of "God did it" which is a rejection of science.

[phreak]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I noticed something about that sites title "Creationism vs Science". If creationism is a faith and science is an absolute, then what is evolution? If it should be titled anything it should either be "Creationism vs. Evolution" since that is what it is. Science is pre-technology or better put, technology is applied science.

a rather large article on the site is devoted to the title

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/AttackScience.shtml

[phreak]

i want to find that article about the bacteria found in nuke reactors

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by karajorma
Waste of time. You'll never prove to this guy that creationism is wrong. No matter what evidence you present him with he will just ignore it or refuse to believe it. I urge you not to waste your breath even attempting it.

That is the saddest thing about this whole debate. Present a scientist with empirical proof of something and they'll examine it. Present a creationist with any kind of proof and they'll ignore it or come up with some cock and bull story about it.

The simple fact is that evolution has been proved. Phreaks link is a great example of this as you can follow the evolution of drug resistant strains of bacteria and virii over the course of the last 100 years. There is no other credible explaination. All other explainations hide behind the shield of "God did it" which is a rejection of science.

exactly:

a scientist will take the evidence and make a theory with it (and changing the theory in light of new evidence)
a creationist will take the 'theory' and make the evidence fit (ignoring all evidence thatdoes not fit the 'theory').

oddly enough they're nothing different from die-hard communists in that respect (who'll gladly ignore the truth in favour of propaganda).

[karajorma]

Besides all this the reward for creationists proving their arguement is bigger.

Prove God exists under laboratory conditions and this guy will give you one MILLION dollars rather than a poxy quarter of a million.

[Grey Wolf]

It's quite impossible to prove that microevolution doesn't exist. And if macroevolution doesn't exist, then God really likes practical jokes to have planted all that evidence

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ

Now why one earth would I do that (use that bible to prove itself)? The only reason I'd do that is if I was trying to prove that it is coherant in all it says. The article I pointed to says

There are some creationists stupid enough to use that form of circular logic. Then again, that's no surprise, as the majority of the population is composed of stupid people. Just look at the ratings of "reality TV" shows and American Idol.

[HotSnoJ]

*rips hair out*

You guy's are totally missing the point. My point is that evolution is a faith not a science. No one has ever seen a kind change into another kind (think cat and dog two different kinds).

[Knight Templar]

well in that perspective, no-one ever saw god create the universe either

[Grey Wolf]

Originally posted by HotSnoJ
*rips hair out*

You guy's are totally missing the point. My point is that evolution is a faith not a science. No one has ever seen a kind change into another kind (think cat and dog two different kinds).

Au contraire, my friend. In actuality, we have seen cats and dogs evolve over the last few millenia. Specifically, we have seen dogs evolve from Canis lupis, (the grey wolf) to Canis familiaris, the common dog. Admittedly, this was selective breeding as opposed to natural selection, but the same truth remains. We have caused wolves to evolve into dogs.

And if you want natural selection, just take a look at diseases. The cold, for example. People, as you know, develop antibodies when exposed to a virus. In a world without evolution, the cold would swiftly be caused to become extinct, as all people would develop antibodies to it. But we have suffered from colds for thousands of years. The reason? The cold mutates, causing the antibodies to be ineffective. The cold evolves to beat our protections. And unlike the example of the dog, this one IS natural selection.

[phreak]

Evolution theory does not describe one species suddenly transforming into a species of a completely different family. In fact, such an event would be eloquent disproof of evolution theory, because it would contradict the evolutionary concept of inter-species homology within families and the need for evolutionary processes to explain such homology.

Woolie. this site is amazing.  i've seen it before, but never told you


edit: just because something is observable doesn't mean we know how it works.  we can observe gravity, but we haven't found the force carrier (gravitons) yet.  yes, we have observed some forms of evolution, but we still have to find the mechanism which causes it.  im no biological scientist. are there any here?