quotes by leading evolutionary scientists

[Juan_Bottom]

See, now this I like. It's much better than your OP. This seems much more from the heart. More honest. Atrocious. But honest. I can respect that. I have a hunch though that you'll catch four or five posts trying to dissect it though.

Lack of imagination has always been a problem with those who do not want evolution to be real, or simply just can't understand evolution.

Which is funny because they surely love to have imaginary friends.

[Juan_Bottom]

either way no matter how you look at it, you're being surrounded by evolutionist propaganda. i'm not sure how it is where you live, but here in holland all the school, even so-called christian school, teach evolution when they teach you history AND when they teach biology.

[Haggis_McMutton]

this treat proofs that even when you show proof to atheists, they still cry.

stick your head in the sand deeper and deeper but you can't bury the truth.

Proof?
Maybe look up the word in a dictionary.

Also, do you realize quotes are worth shit? Do you even know what science is? We don't have prophets, we don't have divinely revealed truth, it is completely irrelevant if after proposing the theory of evolution Darwin then promptly went to believing in the existance of magical fairies.
Can you really not grasp this concept?

[zimmah]

this treat proofs that even when you show proof to atheists, they still cry.

stick your head in the sand deeper and deeper but you can't bury the truth.

Proof?
Maybe look up the word in a dictionary.

Also, do you realize quotes are worth shit? Do you even know what science is? We don't have prophets, we don't have divinely revealed truth, it is completely irrelevant if after proposing the theory of evolution Darwin then promptly went to believing in the existance of magical fairies.
Can you really not grasp this concept?

point is, that even those scientist who beleive in evolution KNOW and ADMIT that there's many things wrong with evolution, yet many choose to close their eyes for it.

and that's not a double negative that's Artistic license (in the case of "we don't need no education").

and education in itself is fine, but don't mind-control kids with lies and hypothesis based on nothing. that's forcing science into one direction.

[mviola]

the same counts for animals. they can change fur, colors, they can vary in strenght, size and condition, they can have slightly different measures (like some may have slightly larger ears or larger nose, etc.) but there's bounderies. and they can still reproduce. if you put a chinese with a blonde european, they can produce offspring. even though a chinese and a chinese would most likely produce a yellow-ish small human with black hair and small eyes (that's what you expect from two stereotype chinese at least, you don't expect a black person to be born from two chinese) while with two blonde europeans you expect a blonde haired child, probably rather tall, most likely blue or green eyes, maybe hazel, etc. you don't expect a chinese rolling out there. but if you put a chinese and blonde european together you'll get a mixture that looks kinda simular to a chinese but also not quite. and what's even more important, the halfbreeds can give birth as well. and it doesn't technically matter how often you repeat this, because no matter how different humans may appair, we're all human. It's like if you build a huge wall around china so that noone can go in or out, and put all the chinese and everyone with even the slightest amount of chinese-dna there and lock them up there for a billion years or so, and after those billion years, you could in theory still reproduce with those chinese. (well, not you but your offspring would, unless you plan on living 1 billion years). i bet in the course of a billion years they may look a little different, not sure how far you can go with this, but they'll always be humans. they won't suddenly change to birds.

Holy shit, this thread is hilarious.

I hate to even put it like this, but different races in humans are kind of like the different breeds of dogs. They have the same DNA because they derived from one ancestor, but are divergently evolving. At some point they will unable to reproduce and can then be considered different species. I have no idea how long it would take, but any organisms with mutations that would allow for a better chance of survival will survive longer. This is the driving force behind the theory of evolution.

Also, humans to birds? That right there is the key that you have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about. Evolution is gradual so the two species would probably look very similar to each other, like a wolf and a dog.

[natty dread]

The whole "macroevolution vs microevolution" argument is kind of like claiming that you can't fill a bucket with a pipette. You take a pipette and start filling the bucket drop by drop, and after 5 minutes you're like "see, the bucket's still not full, obviously it's impossible" while ignoring the fact that if you do it long enough the bucket will eventually be full...

[pmchugh]

Zimmah, why did you lie about having read up on evolution?

well i did but i don't know the names, probably something by dawkins, and i also read up a lot about darwinism itself,

Sounds legit.

darwinism just doesn't make sense, what little evidence we have points to things like a Cambrian explosion and whatnot

You are aware that the Cambrian explosion is a period of time lasting tens of millions years? It is not 6 days.. that much is sure.

[kentington]

Also, humans to birds? That right there is the key that you have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about. Evolution is gradual so the two species would probably look very similar to each other, like a wolf and a dog.

Not jumping into this thread completely, because I don't know enough.
But I noticed you suggested that wolves and dogs are different species. I thought they recently found out that wolves and dogs are actually still the same species and can breed fertile children easily. This is why a lot of counties and states are having to change the wording of their restrictions on wolf hybrids. If they are the same species hybrid is no longer correct and people were owning wolf-domestic dog mixes. Now they say that it can't be a wild animal.
Is fertile breeding the only designation of being the same species?

[natty dread]

I thought they recently found out that wolves and dogs are actually still the same species

Actually there really aren't any clear-cut dividing lines on what constitutes the same "species" and what doesn't. It's rather a continuum of genetic differences, and any classifications and groupings we use to classify organisms are necessarily artificial.

[kentington]

I thought they recently found out that wolves and dogs are actually still the same species

Actually there really aren't any clear-cut dividing lines on what constitutes the same "species" and what doesn't. It's rather a continuum of genetic differences, and any classifications and groupings we use to classify organisms are necessarily artificial.

So, they can be fertile but classified as separate. But by the time there is lack of fertility they are surely different species?

[mviola]

Also, humans to birds? That right there is the key that you have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about. Evolution is gradual so the two species would probably look very similar to each other, like a wolf and a dog.

Not jumping into this thread completely, because I don't know enough.
But I noticed you suggested that wolves and dogs are different species. I thought they recently found out that wolves and dogs are actually still the same species and can breed fertile children easily. This is why a lot of counties and states are having to change the wording of their restrictions on wolf hybrids. If they are the same species hybrid is no longer correct and people were owning wolf-domestic dog mixes. Now they say that it can't be a wild animal.
Is fertile breeding the only designation of being the same species?

I was using the classical definition of species where the only factor is if they can safely breed. There are other pairs like this, like the tiger and lion or the horse and donkey, but the offspring of those are completely sterile, which is why mules and ligers aren't considered species. They don't continue the species' survival after they die.

If the offspring of a wolf and dog can breed with members of either race, then it is entirely possible that they are just different breeds. I don't know what the result of that is though.

The definition of a species is kind of a vague term though.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Also, humans to birds? That right there is the key that you have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about. Evolution is gradual so the two species would probably look very similar to each other, like a wolf and a dog.

Not jumping into this thread completely, because I don't know enough.
But I noticed you suggested that wolves and dogs are different species. I thought they recently found out that wolves and dogs are actually still the same species and can breed fertile children easily. This is why a lot of counties and states are having to change the wording of their restrictions on wolf hybrids. If they are the same species hybrid is no longer correct and people were owning wolf-domestic dog mixes. Now they say that it can't be a wild animal.
Is fertile breeding the only designation of being the same species?

No. Horses and asses can produce a mule. The limitations to reproduction between any species isn't just because they're different species, but the compatibility of their genetics and physiology. So hypothetically, any organism could mix DNA and produce an offspring, but mechanical, physiological, and genetic differences prevent that. So, a mule can result from a donkey and horse, or a wolf can procreate with a domestic dog (I've had a wolf/coyote hybrid before), but say a lion/domestic cat offspring isn't viable.

This is also evident in the ability of bacteria of horizontal gene transfer with other bacteria or other organisms.

-TG

[Haggis_McMutton]

well i did but i don't know the names, probably something by dawkins, and i also read up a lot about darwinism itself, either way no matter how you look at it, you're being surrounded by evolutionist propaganda. i'm not sure how it is where you live, but here in holland all the school, even so-called christian school, teach evolution when they teach you history AND when they teach biology.

That's because evolution is a pretty basic fact of life and widely accepted as the best explanation for the diversity of life we see today.
Of course that doesn't make it 100% true or anything, but if you want to prove that the whole scientific community is somehow brainwashed you're going to have a long road ahead of you.

darwinism just doesn't make sense, what little evidence we have points to things like a Cambrian explosion and whatnot and even scientist that support (or supported) evolution admit that the Cambrian explosion is completely what you would NOT expect when you're looking for evolution. Darwin tought that more searches would eventually result in more reliable data that would prove his theory, but the opposite is true.

What exactly is the problem with the Cambrian explosion?

Also, your second claim is completely innacurate. Proof for evolution has been found in many areas since the theory was proposed.
One of the biggest ones is that the theory of evolution was proposed before we knew how DNA works. We then discovered that the basic building blocks of life do allow for evolution through replication and mutations.

There's loads and LOADS of such things that support evolution. You can easily find them online if you're interested. Here's a random list list I got on google: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Complex life suddenly appeared out of nowhere, and there's still no fossils or any proof at all that even suggest that one specie slowly or suddenly evolved into another.

No complex life came from simple life.

And we have a shitload of transitional fossils http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

and besides, when you dig up a fossil you can't even tell for sure if the fossil ever had childs in the first place.

No idea what you're saying here.

natural selection and variation within species is not proof of evolution, it just proofs that the designer was smart enough to create animals that can adapt to some amount of change. For example bacteria can become immune to some vaccins because most vaccins kill like 99,9% of the bacteria, the other 0,1% can reproduce and a majority of them will be resistant (the rest will instantly die if the vaccin is still around) but this comes at a tradeoff. when the vaccin is removed, the bacteria may be less suited for life then the original bacteria, and eventually the normal bacteria may overwhelm the resistant species again. does this proof natural selection and variation? definitly! does this proof evolution? no! because they have limited amount of variations. they will still remain bacteria, in fact, they still remain a very specific type of bacteria.

What is the ammount of variations limited by? Why can't there be one variation, then another, then another till you end up with something pretty different from what you started with?

the same counts for animals. they can change fur, colors, they can vary in strenght, size and condition, they can have slightly different measures (like some may have slightly larger ears or larger nose, etc.) but there's bounderies. and they can still reproduce. if you put a chinese with a blonde european, they can produce offspring. even though a chinese and a chinese would most likely produce a yellow-ish small human with black hair and small eyes (that's what you expect from two stereotype chinese at least, you don't expect a black person to be born from two chinese) while with two blonde europeans you expect a blonde haired child, probably rather tall, most likely blue or green eyes, maybe hazel, etc. you don't expect a chinese rolling out there. but if you put a chinese and blonde european together you'll get a mixture that looks kinda simular to a chinese but also not quite. and what's even more important, the halfbreeds can give birth as well. and it doesn't technically matter how often you repeat this, because no matter how different humans may appair, we're all human. It's like if you build a huge wall around china so that noone can go in or out, and put all the chinese and everyone with even the slightest amount of chinese-dna there and lock them up there for a billion years or so, and after those billion years, you could in theory still reproduce with those chinese. (well, not you but your offspring would, unless you plan on living 1 billion years). i bet in the course of a billion years they may look a little different, not sure how far you can go with this, but they'll always be humans. they won't suddenly change to birds.

How do you know this? You are choosing to use what seems to you like common sense over what science shows is most likely to happen.

What do you think it is that limits the ammount you can change? So I can get bigger ears, and then I can get better eyes, and then I can get sharper claws, and then I can grow a bigger head, but afterwards someone comes along and says: "Hey you, stop changing, you're too different from where you started now" ?

Also, I'm sorry to say this, but it's painfully obvious you don't really know much about evolution. If you're actually interested in understanding why so many people accept it, you might want to do some more research. (again, here's a potential resource, though you can certainly find more: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html )

Alternatively you can just assume that 99% of the smartest people on the world, the people who gave you all the gadgets and technology you rely on, are hopelessly brainwashed.

[natty dread]

I thought they recently found out that wolves and dogs are actually still the same species

Actually there really aren't any clear-cut dividing lines on what constitutes the same "species" and what doesn't. It's rather a continuum of genetic differences, and any classifications and groupings we use to classify organisms are necessarily artificial.

So, they can be fertile but classified as separate. But by the time there is lack of fertility they are surely different species?

When you're 5 years old you're considered a "child", and when you're 30 years old you're considered an "adult". But when do you transform from "child" to "adult"? There's no clear dividing line - you could argue you're an "adult" when you reach sexual maturity, but most people aren't really "mature" at that age yet... so, we have this arbitrary line of "18 years" after which you are officially "adult". It's an entirely arbitrary line, but it just makes things easier to draw that line somewhere, so there it is.

It's the same thing with species - if you have the offspring of a wolf and a dog, is it then a wolf or a dog? When do two similar organisms become different species? There's no clear dividing line, but we make these arbitrary dividing lines & classifications because they make things easier.

[zimmah]

the same counts for animals. they can change fur, colors, they can vary in strenght, size and condition, they can have slightly different measures (like some may have slightly larger ears or larger nose, etc.) but there's bounderies. and they can still reproduce. if you put a chinese with a blonde european, they can produce offspring. even though a chinese and a chinese would most likely produce a yellow-ish small human with black hair and small eyes (that's what you expect from two stereotype chinese at least, you don't expect a black person to be born from two chinese) while with two blonde europeans you expect a blonde haired child, probably rather tall, most likely blue or green eyes, maybe hazel, etc. you don't expect a chinese rolling out there. but if you put a chinese and blonde european together you'll get a mixture that looks kinda simular to a chinese but also not quite. and what's even more important, the halfbreeds can give birth as well. and it doesn't technically matter how often you repeat this, because no matter how different humans may appair, we're all human. It's like if you build a huge wall around china so that noone can go in or out, and put all the chinese and everyone with even the slightest amount of chinese-dna there and lock them up there for a billion years or so, and after those billion years, you could in theory still reproduce with those chinese. (well, not you but your offspring would, unless you plan on living 1 billion years). i bet in the course of a billion years they may look a little different, not sure how far you can go with this, but they'll always be humans. they won't suddenly change to birds.

Holy shit, this thread is hilarious.

I hate to even put it like this, but different races in humans are kind of like the different breeds of dogs. They have the same DNA because they derived from one ancestor, but are divergently evolving. At some point they will unable to reproduce and can then be considered different species. I have no idea how long it would take, but any organisms with mutations that would allow for a better chance of survival will survive longer. This is the driving force behind the theory of evolution.

Also, humans to birds? That right there is the key that you have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about. Evolution is gradual so the two species would probably look very similar to each other, like a wolf and a dog.

there's no proof of that. not even any evidence at all that suggest this.

in fact, there's only so much mutations that can occur before mutations get lethal. and that variation is only very small, probably smaller then 1% of your total DNA.

and just for your info, wolfs and dogs can breed with each other ánd produce fertile offspring.

[Army of GOD]

[kentington]

I thought they recently found out that wolves and dogs are actually still the same species

Actually there really aren't any clear-cut dividing lines on what constitutes the same "species" and what doesn't. It's rather a continuum of genetic differences, and any classifications and groupings we use to classify organisms are necessarily artificial.

So, they can be fertile but classified as separate. But by the time there is lack of fertility they are surely different species?

When you're 5 years old you're considered a "child", and when you're 30 years old you're considered an "adult". But when do you transform from "child" to "adult"? There's no clear dividing line - you could argue you're an "adult" when you reach sexual maturity, but most people aren't really "mature" at that age yet... so, we have this arbitrary line of "18 years" after which you are officially "adult". It's an entirely arbitrary line, but it just makes things easier to draw that line somewhere, so there it is.

It's the same thing with species - if you have the offspring of a wolf and a dog, is it then a wolf or a dog? When do two similar organisms become different species? There's no clear dividing line, but we make these arbitrary dividing lines & classifications because they make things easier.

Got it. Also, I meant what TailGunner mentioned. Their offspring are fertile. Sorry about that. There is a reason I try not to get into these discussions.
So, then it is even possible that if somehow they were able to find dna in an old fossil of a primitive animal and clone it that it may be able to produce fertile offspring with a modern version. Not plausible, but possible. They would still be able to be classified as a separate species, because there are obvious differences and it would make things easier.
This would make sense for wolves and dogs. I may have misunderstood. Maybe them being able to produce fertile offspring only meant that their offspring was not actually considered a hybrid like a mule or liger. Which I am sure the offspring are able to reproduce with either side (as far as wolves and dogs go).

I saw recently on PBS or something. A lady in Europe, maybe Czech, maybe Russia? She took the silver fox and bred generations of them to see how long it would take to domesticate them. I think within three generations she was able to domesticate them and they started looking like dogs. She said it was amazing that the genes for behavior seemed to be linked to genes for appearance. I watched this awhile ago so I may be wrong about something.
I am trying to find a link to something about it. I see some things about it but not their sources.

[nietzsche]

the same counts for animals. they can change fur, colors, they can vary in strenght, size and condition, they can have slightly different measures (like some may have slightly larger ears or larger nose, etc.) but there's bounderies. and they can still reproduce. if you put a chinese with a blonde european, they can produce offspring. even though a chinese and a chinese would most likely produce a yellow-ish small human with black hair and small eyes (that's what you expect from two stereotype chinese at least, you don't expect a black person to be born from two chinese) while with two blonde europeans you expect a blonde haired child, probably rather tall, most likely blue or green eyes, maybe hazel, etc. you don't expect a chinese rolling out there. but if you put a chinese and blonde european together you'll get a mixture that looks kinda simular to a chinese but also not quite. and what's even more important, the halfbreeds can give birth as well. and it doesn't technically matter how often you repeat this, because no matter how different humans may appair, we're all human. It's like if you build a huge wall around china so that noone can go in or out, and put all the chinese and everyone with even the slightest amount of chinese-dna there and lock them up there for a billion years or so, and after those billion years, you could in theory still reproduce with those chinese. (well, not you but your offspring would, unless you plan on living 1 billion years). i bet in the course of a billion years they may look a little different, not sure how far you can go with this, but they'll always be humans. they won't suddenly change to birds.

Holy shit, this thread is hilarious.

I hate to even put it like this, but different races in humans are kind of like the different breeds of dogs. They have the same DNA because they derived from one ancestor, but are divergently evolving. At some point they will unable to reproduce and can then be considered different species. I have no idea how long it would take, but any organisms with mutations that would allow for a better chance of survival will survive longer. This is the driving force behind the theory of evolution.

Also, humans to birds? That right there is the key that you have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about. Evolution is gradual so the two species would probably look very similar to each other, like a wolf and a dog.

there's no proof of that. not even any evidence at all that suggest this.

in fact, there's only so much mutations that can occur before mutations get lethal. and that variation is only very small, probably smaller then 1% of your total DNA.

and just for your info, wolfs and dogs can breed with each other ánd produce fertile offspring.

SO??? what are you getting at ? you post it so proudly like you've just made a final breakthrough.

The current model of the objective method says that one must see a theory repeat itself in the real world a number of times for it to be considered proven. How the f*ck are you gonna prove mutation in humans to a point in which they can't reproduce with the rest? That shit happens in long time scales. Not talking about single DNA mutations. Mutations occur every second, even tho DNA is harder to mutate than RNA. But useful mutations, mutations that would bring so big an advantage to an individual that he will reproduce a lot more and/or not die after the aliens come and then his offsprings have more kids too and they all will move to an island where they will not have sex but among themselves to give enough time for other mutations in order to create a different race, one with 4 arms of course.


Seriously though, I wish I could get everything I have to say about this topic in order to give you (zimmah) a glimpse of what evolution theory is, but it's hard for me since English is not my mother tongue. But all I have to say I learned on books, which are available to you in your local library if you are as cheap as AoG who doesn't buy books. Darwin is of course the father of the theory but nowadays Dawkins, Jay Gould, Dennet and others are very good at explaining it and cover more ground than Darwin since 120 years have happened since his Origins of Species.

[mviola]

the same counts for animals. they can change fur, colors, they can vary in strenght, size and condition, they can have slightly different measures (like some may have slightly larger ears or larger nose, etc.) but there's bounderies. and they can still reproduce. if you put a chinese with a blonde european, they can produce offspring. even though a chinese and a chinese would most likely produce a yellow-ish small human with black hair and small eyes (that's what you expect from two stereotype chinese at least, you don't expect a black person to be born from two chinese) while with two blonde europeans you expect a blonde haired child, probably rather tall, most likely blue or green eyes, maybe hazel, etc. you don't expect a chinese rolling out there. but if you put a chinese and blonde european together you'll get a mixture that looks kinda simular to a chinese but also not quite. and what's even more important, the halfbreeds can give birth as well. and it doesn't technically matter how often you repeat this, because no matter how different humans may appair, we're all human. It's like if you build a huge wall around china so that noone can go in or out, and put all the chinese and everyone with even the slightest amount of chinese-dna there and lock them up there for a billion years or so, and after those billion years, you could in theory still reproduce with those chinese. (well, not you but your offspring would, unless you plan on living 1 billion years). i bet in the course of a billion years they may look a little different, not sure how far you can go with this, but they'll always be humans. they won't suddenly change to birds.

Holy shit, this thread is hilarious.

I hate to even put it like this, but different races in humans are kind of like the different breeds of dogs. They have the same DNA because they derived from one ancestor, but are divergently evolving. At some point they will unable to reproduce and can then be considered different species. I have no idea how long it would take, but any organisms with mutations that would allow for a better chance of survival will survive longer. This is the driving force behind the theory of evolution.

Also, humans to birds? That right there is the key that you have no idea what the f*ck you're talking about. Evolution is gradual so the two species would probably look very similar to each other, like a wolf and a dog.

there's no proof of that. not even any evidence at all that suggest this.

in fact, there's only so much mutations that can occur before mutations get lethal. and that variation is only very small, probably smaller then 1% of your total DNA.

and just for your info, wolfs and dogs can breed with each other ánd produce fertile offspring.

Yes, the majority of mutations are bad and do end up harming or even killing an organism in the form of diseases or deformities. Some are neutral, like eye color in humans (brown eyes are the normal gene, every other color is a mutation), and don't affect whether an organism will survive more than their non mutated counterpart. Others are beneficial, like having opposable thumbs over no thumbs.

Just think of all the genetic problems the human body can have. Having that disease is technically a mutation. If it kills the person before reproduction, then it's not going to be passed on. If a disease only shows up after reproductive cycles, like Huntington's disease, then that disease will be passed on through reproduction. If a mutation is not harmful, it is passed on.

Also, you know what I'm trying to say with the wolf and dog example (I think I'm the only one in this thread who didn't know that wolves and dogs could mate apparently), you're just choosing to ignore it. Pick any two other similar looking animals and the point still stands.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Got it. Also, I meant what TailGunner mentioned. Their offspring are fertile. Sorry about that. There is a reason I try not to get into these discussions.

Not always. Male mules are completely infertile, and females very, very rarely can provide offspring. A horse has 64 chromosomes, a donkey 62, but a mule has 63, and this means any embryos from a mule are usually unviable. This is an example of the physiological and mechanical differences.

in fact, there's only so much mutations that can occur before mutations get lethal. and that variation is only very small, probably smaller then 1% of your total DNA.

You're thinking about it wrong. By and large, a mutation is separate from other mutations. There isn't a threshold for a dangerous amount of mutations, only how they affect the organism. Plus, we're talking about thousands of generations.

-TG

[zimmah]

Zimmah, why did you lie about having read up on evolution?

well i did but i don't know the names, probably something by dawkins, and i also read up a lot about darwinism itself,

Sounds legit.

darwinism just doesn't make sense, what little evidence we have points to things like a Cambrian explosion and whatnot

You are aware that the Cambrian explosion is a period of time lasting tens of millions years? It is not 6 days.. that much is sure.

the bible does not suggest that it was 6 days. the 6 days are symbolic. maybe t just means that the 6 days were actually just 6 days god used to show creation to moses, who then written it in the bible.

note that this explanation does not necessarily have to be true, this is just one way that could explain the "6 days".

also funny how genesis states that water animals were created before land animals. i mean, how would moses know?

i'd also like to point out that 10 million years may sound like much, but compared to 4.6 billion it's not so much. (it's 0,217% of the age of the earth)

[Symmetry]

The Bible does indeed not "suggest" it was 6 days, it says it was 6 days. Readers can interpret that as symbolic, literal, or whatever, but the Bible says 6 days. I would lean toward a symbolic reading at best.

You should check it out though, I'd provide references, but it's pretty near the start so I think you'll find it.

[IR1SH ACE]

are you seriously this far gone..I have always avoided these off-topic discussions about religion because you would have more luck talking the hind legs off a donkey then you would convincing a "religious nut" that that there views are completely wrong....

I always love how everything that they believe about the world, the universe & life stems from ONE book written about 2000 years ago and that's it...no other evidence of god....nothing but ONE book...yet science has constantly evolved and disproved everything the church has thought for centuries...and every-time science proves something you all just push the boundary's of GOD a bit further back..

(circa 400AD-1700AD) -- the earth is the center of the universe and the havens and the stars revolve around us and god watches over us from the clouds.....WRONG....shit it took until 1992 for the Vatican to finally admit that this was wrong..Vatican admits Galileo was right but its cool GOD still created the universe and everything in it

GOD created the earth about 6000 years ago in 6 days...hmmmm WRONG...Science has shown that the Universe is maybe 15 billion years old and the earth about 4.5 billion years and it all possible began from "The Big Bang" --- "religious nut" response...

the bible does not suggest that it was 6 days. the 6 days are symbolic. maybe t just means that the 6 days were actually just 6 days god used to show creation to moses, who then written it in the bible.

note that this explanation does not necessarily have to be true, this is just one way that could explain the "6 days".

or "yeah but who created The Big Bang?".....well shit if GOD had just leaked a few spoilers into the bible we would all be believers by now..

Genesis: 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth.
actually scratch that...in the beginning there was nothing, then I snapped my fingers and BOOM I created the universe. then I kind of left it to simmer for 10 billion years or so until I thought I know there's something missing in all this vast emptiness maybe I will make a Solar System with Planets that revolve around a Star and create an Earth and populate it with some reptilian type creatures...blah, blah, blah

you know something along this line would have been perfect but hey dont let that stop you from picking out quotes that seem to show that the bible knows what its talking about..

also funny how genesis states that water animals were created before land animals. i mean, how would moses know?

well shit he had a 50/50 chance of getting that right...what are the odds..

anyway back to the topic...

Darwin could never fully prove his theory and said that it was up to future generations to do this work...and they have...DNA has proven that we are all descended from one species, here is a simple example..
they have found the gene that is responsible for creating the eye and guess what its the same gene in every spices on the planted that has an eye, it would take way too long to fully explain this but luckily I dont have to because there was a very good BBC documentary on about this...I suggest you watch it...

this is a hour and 30 mins long but should answer all your questions but Im sure you will still believe some mystical being created us and were all the off-spring of some incest crazed family that lived 6000 years ago

[zimmah]

are you seriously this far gone..I have always avoided these off-topic discussions about religion because you would have more luck talking the hind legs off a donkey then you would convincing a "religious nut" that that there views are completely wrong....

I always love how everything that they believe about the world, the universe & life stems from ONE book written about 2000 years ago and that's it...no other evidence of god....nothing but ONE book...yet science has constantly evolved and disproved everything the church has thought for centuries...and every-time science proves something you all just push the boundary's of GOD a bit further back..

(circa 400AD-1700AD) -- the earth is the center of the universe and the havens and the stars revolve around us and god watches over us from the clouds.....WRONG....shit it took until 1992 for the Vatican to finally admit that this was wrong..Vatican admits Galileo was right but its cool GOD still created the universe and everything in it

GOD created the earth about 6000 years ago in 6 days...hmmmm WRONG...Science has shown that the Universe is maybe 15 billion years old and the earth about 4.5 billion years and it all possible began from "The Big Bang" --- "religious nut" response...

the bible does not suggest that it was 6 days. the 6 days are symbolic. maybe t just means that the 6 days were actually just 6 days god used to show creation to moses, who then written it in the bible.

note that this explanation does not necessarily have to be true, this is just one way that could explain the "6 days".

or "yeah but who created The Big Bang?".....well shit if GOD had just leaked a few spoilers into the bible we would all be believers by now..

Genesis: 1:1 - In the beginning, God created the heaven and the Earth.
actually scratch that...in the beginning there was nothing, then I snapped my fingers and BOOM I created the universe. then I kind of left it to simmer for 10 billion years or so until I thought I know there's something missing in all this vast emptiness maybe I will make a Solar System with Planets that revolve around a Star and create an Earth and populate it with some reptilian type creatures...blah, blah, blah

you know something along this line would have been perfect but hey dont let that stop you from picking out quotes that seem to show that the bible knows what its talking about..

also funny how genesis states that water animals were created before land animals. i mean, how would moses know?

well shit he had a 50/50 chance of getting that right...what are the odds..

anyway back to the topic...

Darwin could never fully prove his theory and said that it was up to future generations to do this work...and they have...DNA has proven that we are all descended from one species, here is a simple example..
they have found the gene that is responsible for creating the eye and guess what its the same gene in every spices on the planted that has an eye, it would take way too long to fully explain this but luckily I dont have to because there was a very good BBC documentary on about this...I suggest you watch it...

this is a hour and 30 mins long but should answer all your questions but Im sure you will still believe some mystical being created us and were all the off-spring of some incest crazed family that lived 6000 years ago

the bible is not one book, but several books that have been combined into one at a later date. furthermore the church is not the bible. mainstream churches tell a lot of unbiblical lies and often just follow whatever philosophy is most common in that age.

with that logic you could state that the ipad evolved from the iphone, because it looks simular and uses simular technology. it has the same manufacturer, if something works, why change it?

[Symmetry]

So anyway, Zimmah, can you tell us now which site or sites you pulled those quotes in the OP from? Clearly it's not from your own reading.