28-11-2001 19:40									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo That is so stupid... that state can't even look at the proven facts of evolution. Thanks for pointing that out.

If I'm not mistaken it is still called the Theory of Evolution. By definition a theory has not or cannot be proven (else it would be called a law).

	28-11-2001 19:48									#62
	Increase Your PM Length

And it will continue to be a theory since you only have laws in maths...

	28-11-2001 19:51									#63
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I must admit I do find it amusing that so many 'scientists' (actually not real scientists) believe in evolution but then claim that having belief in a supernatural being is silly.

	28-11-2001 19:58									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

I must admit I do find it amusing that so many 'scientists' (actually not real scientists) believe in the existence of atoms but then claim that having belief in evolution is silly.

	28-11-2001 20:01									#65
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Tolls And it will continue to be a theory since you only have laws in maths...

semantics...
doesn't change the point that evolution cannot be proved.

	28-11-2001 20:05									#66
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless I must admit I do find it amusing that so many 'scientists' (actually not real scientists) believe in the existence of atoms but then claim that having belief in evolution is silly.

I suspect you will find that 99% of scientists do believe in evolution - even real ones.

	28-11-2001 20:10									#67
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The simplest mathematical model for population growth is:

dx = kx - sx²
dt

That formula works just fine. What formula was the mathematician using?

	28-11-2001 20:19									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

FACT: The human population growth rate cannot be expressed in any mathmatical form. You can "predict" future population based on current numbers, but you cannot look more than about 2,500 years ago and have ANY concrete #'s on which to base a mathmatical formula. WE simply have no idea what the population growth was before 500BC.

We can look at fossils and artifacts, but we cannot possibly hope to understand the WORLD WIDE population of humans before 500BC. So ANY math that you try to use is based on numbers that somone is pulling out of their ass.

I, for one, don't care about the source of Faded Glory's information. Whatever/whoever the source is, is simply ignorant and stupid.

I don't know if man was created or evolved from apes, but we sure don't have more than 6 billion people on the earth these days. If your mathmaticians predict there should be more than that, then it is their assumtions that are incorrect. Not the theory of evolution! What the hell are you talking about population being a disprover of evolution. It makes NO SENSE at all!

	28-11-2001 20:20									#69
	Tired of ads?

PR:
"doesn't change the point that evolution cannot be proved."

Neither can gravity, or relativity, or any other theory you care to mention...they can however be shown to fit the data, and as more data comes in that doesn't contradict the theory then the stronger the theory is. If something comes in that doesn't fit then the data is looked at again and the theory has to be re-evaluated...

Evolution though Natural Selection has been shot at for 150 years and no data has come up to show it to be false...that makes a very strong theory, which is why the rather feeble attacks on it by creationists and the like are generally laughed off.

	28-11-2001 20:27									#70
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by PatRussell semantics... doesn't change the point that evolution cannot be proved.

At least we agnostics and atheists have a theory instead of assumptions. This theory is purported by observations. Microevolution is proven, and it is a element of evolution itself.

	28-11-2001 20:46									#71
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Microevolution is proven, and it is a element of evolution itself.

Yes, microevolution (adaptation) is observable, but there is NO evidence that this leads to macroevolution nor are there any transitional fossil records to support a macroevolutionist view.

	28-11-2001 20:54									#72
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by PatRussell Yes, microevolution (adaptation) is observable, but there is NO evidence that this leads to macroevolution nor are there any transitional fossil records to support a macroevolutionist view.

Are you out of your mind? There are records to show macroevolution. It is a theory that is proven. Creation is long dead and has been proven wrong.

	28-11-2001 20:59									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo At least we agnostics and atheists have a theory instead of assumptions.

Why 'agnostics and atheists'? Many Christians believe in evolution too.

Evolution itself contains many assumptions too....

quote: This theory is purported by observations.

That doesn't make it right. I have seen lots of really beautiful and predictive theories that have been disproven.

In scientific practice one generally makes predictions based apon the theory and then investigates to see if they are correct or not. If they are correct, your confidence in the theory increases - if they are wrong you throw the theory away.

Now evolution by natural selection is actually rather hard to test in this way since it is usually built around facts which are already known. However there are still some new 'results' coming in which increase our confidence in it. Compared to the evidence for theoies in other fields (which are often subsequently proven wrong) I would not say that the evidence for evolution by natural selection is exceptionally strong. I personally hold the opinion that it will be wrong, but only in minor details and the actually mechanism will be some form of evolution, but possibly not even via natural selection.

The reason why creation is not a pleasing scientific theory is not that it can be proven wrong. Quite the contrary - the displeasing thing is that it cannot be proven wrong, because it has no predictive power. Being scientifically displeasing however, doesn't mean that it isn't right (although I personally don't think it is).

	28-11-2001 21:01									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ok I wasnt going to re-visit thread. The truth is I was filled wit beer last night as Ashur had suggested (right he was)and watched the news.


eh but still? TV doesnt lie

	28-11-2001 21:04									#75
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by aaglo By the way, Mr. Faded Glory: You happen to live in Kansas by any chance? For what I've heard their education emphasis currently SUCKS BIG TIME! A few years ago the state of Kansas eliminated Darwin from their curricula altogether. And the state won an AIR-award that year for this dropping... Here is a link for more of the Annals of Impropable Research (AIR)

No I live in Racine Wisconsin...

I have already stated that believe Darwin made up Evolution and Creation was along the same lines.

There will be a 3rd theory one of these days. And you all are going to look like fools for believing in this Evolution crap.

	28-11-2001 21:55									#76
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo There are records to show macroevolution. It is a theory that is proven. Creation is long dead and has been proven wrong.

And those would be ???

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Creation is long dead and has been proven wrong.

Again, where is the proof ?

	28-11-2001 22:09									#77
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by PatRussell Yes, microevolution (adaptation) is observable, but there is NO evidence that this leads to macroevolution nor are there any transitional fossil records to support a macroevolutionist view.

"Micro" evolution is a little evolution, "macro" is a lot. Millions of years of micro gives macro. This is one of the most pathetic of all creationist arguments. Everything required for "macro" to operate (mutation, natural selection, increased information in the genome, the formation of new species) has been observed.

And there are thousands of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Creationism is false, it HAS been disproven. Creationism cannot account for the sequence of the fossil record, which clealrly shows species appearing in the evolutionary "tree of life" sequence, not the Genesis sequence.

	28-11-2001 22:16									#78
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Creationism is false, it HAS been disproven. Creationism cannot account for the sequence of the fossil record, which clealrly shows species appearing in the evolutionary "tree of life" sequence, not the Genesis sequence.

It has not been disproven because you can always argue that God planted the fossils to test the faithful. How do you know that you are not in a big Virtual Reality computer simulation a la The Matrix?

	28-11-2001 22:19									#79
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless "Micro" evolution is a little evolution, "macro" is a lot. Millions of years of micro gives macro.

You are simply restating the same assumption without any evidence.

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless This is one of the most pathetic of all creationist arguments. Everything required for "macro" to operate (mutation, natural selection, increased information in the genome, the formation of new species) has been observed.

Observation of a new species being formed? When? Where?

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless And there are thousands of transitional fossils in the fossil record.

Then it should be easy for you to post a few references to these.

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Creationism is false, it HAS been disproven. Creationism cannot account for the sequence of the fossil record, which clealrly shows species appearing in the evolutionary "tree of life" sequence, not the Genesis sequence.

Again, evidence please.

	28-11-2001 22:29									#80
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Pat, I suggest you spend some time at www.talkorigins.org, then study some paleontology.

You want speciation? Talkorigins has examples.

You want transitional forms? Tetrapods (fish/amphibian), therapsids (reptile/mammal), Arhaeopteryx (reptile/bird), Ambulocetus (early whales that could walk on land), many hominids between humans and apes (Australopithecines, Homo Habilis, Homo Erectus and so forth). I could go on, but how many would be enough? Twenty? Fifty? Two hundred?

I am curious to know why you believe this evidence does not exist. Do you seriously think that agents of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy are inventing all this?

	28-11-2001 22:42									#81
	Inflate your Upload Space

It has not been disproven because you can always argue that God planted the fossils to test the faithful. How do you know that you are not in a big Virtual Reality computer simulation a la The Matrix?

...but for that to be true the old testament has to be a pack of lies!! are you called God a lair???

	28-11-2001 22:43									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

http://mcb.harvard.edu/BioLinks/Evolution.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-evolution.html

The two links above contains a large number of links to evolution related material.

Here is some about fossil records:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

	28-11-2001 23:09									#83
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by PatRussell Observation of a new species being formed? When? Where?

Er, say what? Have you ever actually bothered to read up on the evolutionist argument? Yes, there is evidence of geographically separated populations not being able to produce fertile offspring due to a number of small evolutionary changes that eventually made them incompatible (no micro/macro distinction enters into it). For example, the evidence that "there are different species" is a pretty decent one.

	29-11-2001 00:01									#84
	Inflate your Upload Space

Thank you, Yog sothoth for providing the evidence against this bible thumping Russell. I am sorry Russell, but does the old testament account for fossil records? No it does not, infact it proposes something completely different which incidentally is not true. The whole entire theory of creation is founded by the creation of life on earth and life that does not change, however fossils collected in the past century disprove that whole theory therefore creationism is downright false. Evidence is provided in the links by the post of Yog SotHoth.

quote: Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless Do you seriously think that agents of the Evil Atheist Conspiracy are inventing all this?

You don't know about that.

	29-11-2001 01:47									#85
	Inflate your Upload Space

There is of course, a difference between a 'belief' and a 'prediction'.

There is of course, a difference between a 'laymans theory' (a.k.a. 'scientific hypothesis') and a 'scientific theory'.

Confuse them and I will think (predict) you a fool.

	29-11-2001 02:06									#86
	Support Apolyton

quote: Mathematicians have set it is impossible that man could have walked the earth for 3 million years. According to them.if this was the case..the population should be roughly around 500,000 per SQUARE mile ...putting the total population on earth well above 5 trillion instead of billion.....

Nice Troll Source please?

Also remember, one of the original arguments against evolution came from mathematicians as well. They argued that the Earth was too young for evolution to take place. Of course, that argument proved incorrect. If this argument isn't a poor troll, then I'm sure it will be proven wrong soon enough.

	29-11-2001 02:27									#87
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Mark L Nice Troll Source please? Also remember, one of the original arguments against evolution came from mathematicians as well. They argued that the Earth was too young for evolution to take place. Of course, that argument proved incorrect. If this argument isn't a poor troll, then I'm sure it will be proven wrong soon enough.

There is also evidence that the earth is nearly 6 billion years old (was it not?), the bible on the other hand concludes that it is 6,000 years old.

I sorta like your argument style, Mark L... and we found something we argee on... which is strange.

	29-11-2001 03:09									#88
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by reds4ever ...but for that to be true the old testament has to be a pack of lies!! are you called God a lair???

Why would you say that? What does it contradict in the bible? Even if it were to, many Christians do not believe that your translation/version of the bible is necessarily the correct one.

	29-11-2001 03:21									#89
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Sigh... You do have to take the bible into metaphorical terms, you know. There is a reason everything in it seems "scientifically" incorrect at face value. It was simplified at the hands of man, to best communicate to man. We are slightly flawed creatures compared to God, afterall

I'm a Christian who believes in evolution, as most do.

	29-11-2001 09:01									#90
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Giancarlo Thank you, Yog sothoth for providing the evidence against this bible thumping Russell. I am sorry Russell, but does the old testament account for fossil records? No it does not, infact it proposes something completely different which incidentally is not true. The whole entire theory of creation is founded by the creation of life on earth and life that does not change, however fossils collected in the past century disprove that whole theory therefore creationism is downright false. Evidence is provided in the links by the post of Yog SotHoth.

I have looked at several of the links posted (including the transition FAQ) and still state, based on several key gaps in the fossil records, that you cannot prove species to species evolution. I do credit the site for it's honest regarding these gaps, but they are significant enough to reenforce my original point - macroevolution cannot be proved.