a



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/15/2014 03:29PM by wrongg.

I wonder if any of you crazy folks have even bothered to check your own scientists facts about evolution. I always am amazed by the arrogance. How hard could it be to find out that evolution scientists have discovered very little they can prove.

Among the things they can prove, man did not evolve from apes. Your own scientists!

None dispute the evidence that man did not evolve from apes. Yet you smug asses can't even be bothered to look it up and continue to run around claiming evolution means man evolved from apes.

Maybe in your heritage...

The supernatural is real.
Attachments:

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder if any of you crazy folks have even
> bothered to check your own scientists facts about
> evolution. I always am amazed by the arrogance.
> How hard could it be to find out that evolution
> scientists have discovered very little they can
> prove.
>
> Among the things they can prove, man did not
> evolve from apes. Your own scientists!
>
> None dispute the evidence that man did not evolve
> from apes. Yet you smug asses can't even be
> bothered to look it up and continue to run around
> claiming evolution means man evolved from apes.
>
> Maybe in your heritage...

Wronng are you that stupid?

It amazes me all the bat shit crazy stuff republicans will make up to support backass crazy county fuck ideas.

.
Attachments:

Libby Wrote:

>
> It amazes me all the bat shit crazy stuff
> republicans will make up to support backass crazy
> county fuck ideas.


Here are examples of "bat shit crazy" people that believed in God.

Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
Copernicus was the Polish astronomer who put forward the first mathematically based system of planets going around the sun. He attended various European universities, and became a Canon in the Catholic church in 1497. His new system was actually first presented in the Vatican gardens in 1533 before Pope Clement VII who approved, and urged Copernicus to publish it around this time. Copernicus was never under any threat of religious persecution - and was urged to publish both by Catholic Bishop Guise, Cardinal Schonberg, and the Protestant Professor George Rheticus. Copernicus referred sometimes to God in his works, and did not see his system as in conflict with the Bible.
Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627)
Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)
Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
Kepler was a brilliant mathematician and astronomer. He did early work on light, and established the laws of planetary motion about the sun. He also came close to reaching the Newtonian concept of universal gravity - well before Newton was born! His introduction of the idea of force in astronomy changed it radically in a modern direction. Kepler was an extremely sincere and pious Lutheran, whose works on astronomy contain writings about how space and the heavenly bodies represent the Trinity. Kepler suffered no persecution for his open avowal of the sun-centered system, and, indeed, was allowed as a Protestant to stay in Catholic Graz as a Professor (1595-1600) when other Protestants had been expelled!
Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
Galileo is often remembered for his conflict with the Roman Catholic Church. His controversial work on the solar system was published in 1633. It had no proofs of a sun-centered system (Galileo's telescope discoveries did not indicate a moving earth) and his one "proof" based upon the tides was invalid. It ignored the correct elliptical orbits of planets published twenty five years earlier by Kepler. Since his work finished by putting the Pope's favorite argument in the mouth of the simpleton in the dialogue, the Pope (an old friend of Galileo's) was very offended. After the "trial" and being forbidden to teach the sun-centered system, Galileo did his most useful theoretical work, which was on dynamics. Galileo expressly said that the Bible cannot err, and saw his system as an alternate interpretation of the biblical texts.
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Descartes was a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy. His school studies made him dissatisfied with previous philosophy: He had a deep religious faith as a Roman Catholic, which he retained to his dying day, along with a resolute, passionate desire to discover the truth. At the age of 24 he had a dream, and felt the vocational call to seek to bring knowledge together in one system of thought. His system began by asking what could be known if all else were doubted - suggesting the famous "I think therefore I am". Actually, it is often forgotten that the next step for Descartes was to establish the near certainty of the existence of God - for only if God both exists and would not want us to be deceived by our experiences - can we trust our senses and logical thought processes. God is, therefore, central to his whole philosophy. What he really wanted to see was that his philosophy be adopted as standard Roman Catholic teaching. Rene Descartes and Francis Bacon (1561-1626) are generally regarded as the key figures in the development of scientific methodology. Both had systems in which God was important, and both seem more devout than the average for their era.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Pascal was a French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer and theologian. In mathematics, he published a treatise on the subject of projective geometry and established the foundation for probability theory. Pascal invented a mechanical calculator, and established the principles of vacuums and the pressure of air. He was raised a Roman Catholic, but in 1654 had a religious vision of God, which turned the direction of his study from science to theology. Pascal began publishing a theological work, Lettres provinciales, in 1656. His most influential theological work, the Pensées ("Thoughts"), was a defense of Christianity, which was published after his death. The most famous concept from Pensées was Pascal's Wager. Pascal's last words were, "May God never abandon me."
Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
In optics, mechanics, and mathematics, Newton was a figure of undisputed genius and innovation. In all his science (including chemistry) he saw mathematics and numbers as central. What is less well known is that he was devoutly religious and saw numbers as involved in understanding God's plan for history from the Bible. He did a considerable work on biblical numerology, and, though aspects of his beliefs were not orthodox, he thought theology was very important. In his system of physics, God was essential to the nature and absoluteness of space. In Principia he stated, "The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being."
Robert Boyle (1791-1867)
One of the founders and key early members of the Royal Society, Boyle gave his name to "Boyle's Law" for gases, and also wrote an important work on chemistry. Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "By his will he endowed a series of Boyle lectures, or sermons, which still continue, 'for proving the Christian religion against notorious infidels...' As a devout Protestant, Boyle took a special interest in promoting the Christian religion abroad, giving money to translate and publish the New Testament into Irish and Turkish. In 1690 he developed his theological views in The Christian Virtuoso, which he wrote to show that the study of nature was a central religious duty." Boyle wrote against atheists in his day (the notion that atheism is a modern invention is a myth), and was clearly much more devoutly Christian than the average in his era.
Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
Michael Faraday was the son of a blacksmith who became one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century. His work on electricity and magnetism not only revolutionized physics, but led to much of our lifestyles today, which depends on them (including computers and telephone lines and, so, web sites). Faraday was a devoutly Christian member of the Sandemanians, which significantly influenced him and strongly affected the way in which he approached and interpreted nature. Originating from Presbyterians, the Sandemanians rejected the idea of state churches, and tried to go back to a New Testament type of Christianity.
Gregor Mendel (1822-1884)
Mendel was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics, in what came to be called "Mendelianism". He began his research in 1856 (three years before Darwin published his Origin of Species) in the garden of the Monastery in which he was a monk. Mendel was elected Abbot of his Monastery in 1868. His work remained comparatively unknown until the turn of the century, when a new generation of botanists began finding similar results and "rediscovered" him (though their ideas were not identical to his). An interesting point is that the 1860's was notable for formation of the X-Club, which was dedicated to lessening religious influences and propagating an image of "conflict" between science and religion. One sympathizer was Darwin's cousin Francis Galton, whose scientific interest was in genetics (a proponent of eugenics - selective breeding among humans to "improve" the stock). He was writing how the "priestly mind" was not conducive to science while, at around the same time, an Austrian monk was making the breakthrough in genetics. The rediscovery of the work of Mendel came too late to affect Galton's contribution.
William Thomson Kelvin (1824-1907)
Kelvin was foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics. His work covered many areas of physics, and he was said to have more letters after his name than anyone else in the Commonwealth, since he received numerous honorary degrees from European Universities, which recognized the value of his work. He was a very committed Christian, who was certainly more religious than the average for his era. Interestingly, his fellow physicists George Gabriel Stokes (1819-1903) and James Clerk Maxwell (1831-1879) were also men of deep Christian commitment, in an era when many were nominal, apathetic, or anti-Christian. The Encyclopedia Britannica says "Maxwell is regarded by most modern physicists as the scientist of the 19th century who had the greatest influence on 20th century physics; he is ranked with Sir Isaac Newton and Albert Einstein for the fundamental nature of his contributions." Lord Kelvin was an Old Earth creationist, who estimated the Earth's age to be somewhere between 20 million and 100 million years, with an upper limit at 500 million years based on cooling rates (a low estimate due to his lack of knowledge about radiogenic heating).
Max Planck (1858-1947)
Planck made many contributions to physics, but is best known for quantum theory, which revolutionized our understanding of the atomic and sub-atomic worlds. In his 1937 lecture "Religion and Naturwissenschaft," Planck expressed the view that God is everywhere present, and held that "the holiness of the unintelligible Godhead is conveyed by the holiness of symbols." Atheists, he thought, attach too much importance to what are merely symbols. Planck was a churchwarden from 1920 until his death, and believed in an almighty, all-knowing, beneficent God (though not necessarily a personal one). Both science and religion wage a "tireless battle against skepticism and dogmatism, against unbelief and superstition" with the goal "toward God!"
Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
Einstein is probably the best known and most highly revered scientist of the twentieth century, and is associated with major revolutions in our thinking about time, gravity, and the conversion of matter to energy (E=mc2). Although never coming to belief in a personal God, he recognized the impossibility of a non-created universe. The Encyclopedia Britannica says of him: "Firmly denying atheism, Einstein expressed a belief in "Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of what exists." This actually motivated his interest in science, as he once remarked to a young physicist: "I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details." Einstein's famous epithet on the "uncertainty principle" was "God does not play dice" - and to him this was a real statement about a God in whom he believed. A famous saying of his was "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Troll Libby is such an idiot, he doesn't even know that man did not evolve from apes is an argument now used by evolutionists to prove evolution.

Nice picture birdbrain, why don't you dig a little further.

Your scientists have proven man did not evolve from apes. Who is denying science now?

> Among the things they can prove, man did not evolve from apes. Your own scientists!

This is actually true. Man and apes evolved from a common ancestor. At some point, the ancestors of apes and men took different paths on the evolutionary tree. This doesn't disprove evolution.

wcjmD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This doesn't disprove evolution.


If someone ever comes along and disproves evolution, it will be a scientist, not some idiot Republican.

adam had'em Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> wcjmD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > This doesn't disprove evolution.
>
>
> If someone ever comes along and disproves
> evolution, it will be a scientist, not some idiot
> Republican.


Again,a leftist that believes he is much smarter than he is. Dipshit, don't you think there are republican scientists? If you are still butthurt because you just found out you didn't evolve from an ape, don't be. You sound as if you could easily be the missing link.

wcjmD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Among the things they can prove, man did not
> evolve from apes. Your own scientists!
>
> This is actually true. Man and apes evolved from
> a common ancestor. At some point, the ancestors
> of apes and men took different paths on the
> evolutionary tree. This doesn't disprove
> evolution.


Thank you. I never said it disproves evolution. I spent way too much time trying to explain to the lemmings that kept mocking people who believe in creationism that they didn't evolve from apes.

They continued to insist that they did. Maybe these folks did,I don't know.

I know science has proven that humans did not evolve from apes. Look at the title of the thread, then look at all smug leftists who comtinued to deny science and insist that they and there moms and dads are evolved from apes.

And proud of it! Amazing they aren't even intelligent enough to see the irony.

wcjmD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Among the things they can prove, man did not
> evolve from apes. Your own scientists!
>
> This is actually true. Man and apes evolved from
> a common ancestor. At some point, the ancestors
> of apes and men took different paths on the
> evolutionary tree. This doesn't disprove
> evolution.

So when did evolution stop? Apes are still apes and have been since recorded history. Recent archaeological findings prove that there has only been one species of human, but of course you know that because you are up to speed with "science".

> So when did evolution stop? Apes are still apes and have been since recorded history. Recent archaeological findings prove that there has only been one species of human, but of course you know that because you are up to speed with "science".

*sigh*

Evolution for a particular species can stop if there isn't any pressure to adapt. Sharks, as an apex predator, haven't really changed much in tens of thousands of years. It a rough life at the top of the food chain. But besides this, evolution is slow--Even though there is still some debate about the exact time scales.

Recorded human history is about 40,000 years. But 40,000 years ago, man wasn't bothering to make detailed studies of species in hopes that someone could use those records 40,000 years hence. They just drew some (not very detailed) pictures on a cave wall.

There have been several species of "humans". Homo sapiens is currently the latest. There is really no pressure for us to adapt to our environment--We adapt our environment now. But if you narrowly define "human" as homo sapiens, then yes, there is only one species of human but that would be by definition not by any failing in the theory of evolution.

76DTG Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > So when did evolution stop? Apes are still apes
> and have been since recorded history. Recent
> archaeological findings prove that there has only
> been one species of human, but of course you know
> that because you are up to speed with "science".
>
> *sigh*
>
> Evolution for a particular species can stop if
> there isn't any pressure to adapt. Sharks, as an
> apex predator, haven't really changed much in tens
> of thousands of years. It a rough life at the top
> of the food chain. But besides this, evolution is
> slow--Even though there is still some debate about
> the exact time scales.
>
> Recorded human history is about 40,000 years. But
> 40,000 years ago, man wasn't bothering to make
> detailed studies of species in hopes that someone
> could use those records 40,000 years hence. They
> just drew some (not very detailed) pictures on a
> cave wall.
>
> There have been several species of "humans". Homo
> sapiens is currently the latest. There is really
> no pressure for us to adapt to our environment--We
> adapt our environment now. But if you narrowly
> define "human" as homo sapiens, then yes, there is
> only one species of human but that would be by
> definition not by any failing in the theory of
> evolution.


Okay 'libtard sigh' so you are an idiot. SHOCKER!
Try keeping up with today's discoveries or just STFU! you're a fucking idiot.

>Okay 'libtard sigh' so you are an idiot. SHOCKER!
>Try keeping up with today's discoveries or just STFU! you're a fucking idiot.

Is this what passes for rhetoric in the conservative world? I am very sad.

They like their own brand of "science". As you can see here some are still stuck on the U.S.S. Beagle with Darwin.

They don't umderstand that evolution is still a theory.

They don't understand that just because you point this out to them doesn't mean you are arguing the biblical definition of creationism.

They still want to believe that they came from apes. Imagine.

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They like their own brand of "science". As you can
> see here some are still stuck on the U.S.S. Beagle
> with Darwin.
>
> They don't umderstand that evolution is still a
> theory.
>
> They don't understand that just because you point
> this out to them doesn't mean you are arguing the
> biblical definition of creationism.
>
> They still want to believe that they came from
> apes. Imagine.

You can't be serious that you don't think evolution explains how humans evolved micro orgasmism?????? DNA clear shows the evolution of species. Now you can even have your DNA tested to see where you originated from.

A perfect example of what's wrong with conservatives, republicans and the GOP party in general.

Some republican Senator or House representative makes a whacked out statement and brain dead republican zombies start creating all sorts bat shit excuses for why the wingnut is justified.

/
Attachments:

>They don't umderstand that evolution is still a theory.

Being a theory doesn't make it wrong. It isn't the hypothesis of evolution. Being a theory means there isn't any evidence to disprove it.

>They still want to believe that they came from apes. Imagine.

Well... Forgive them. They are partly correct. We did evolve but not from apes directly. Some of the proto-humans look vaguely ape-like.

I never said because it is a theory,it is wrong. Learn to read.

they are not partly correct. WE DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES!

Hey seriously. Spend a little more time reading and a little less time talking. You are an ignorant lemming.

None of your DNA rhetoric has anything to do with evolution.

The fact that evolution makes sense doesn't mean it has been proven. If in fact it had been proven,there would be no discussion. Simple as that.

In fact the theory began with the assumption that humans evolved from apes. Science has disproven this. It is not true. That is a scientific fact!

Another lemming who fails to see the irony of the thread title,and wants to call names.

Every time when of you leftist fascists wants to call names. Refrain. Do a little research.

I have only argued here that most of the leftist posters,including you,have no real understanding of the relationship between science and evolution.

I know you all crave to believe you came from an ape.You did not.

No matter how much you act like you did.

Humans evolved from ape-like ancestors. Ancient people had no scientific insight to this, so they created mythological stories to explain where they came from. A lot of conservative Americans still believe in those myths. This makes reasoning with them very difficult.

Here are the usual steps in conservatives\republicans\GOP arguing about science:

1) Say that the science is completely wrong.

2) Try to come up with some small tangent lame fact to disprove the overall science

3) Deny that you every said the science was completely wrong

4) Make up some elementary school name for the person and completely avoid the topic

5) Say liberal always blah blah to avoid the facts

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never said because it is a theory,it is wrong.
> Learn to read.
>
> they are not partly correct. WE DID NOT EVOLVE
> FROM APES!

Aside from if humans are direct descendants of apes, chimpanzees or the gorilla, the blue dolphin, or seimale burma lizard species...

Are liberals correct that evolution is a correct theory?
Attachments:

Capt'n Reading Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Here are the usual steps in
> conservatives\republicans\GOP arguing about
> science:
>
> 1) Say that the science is completely wrong.
>
> 2) Try to come up with some small tangent lame
> fact to disprove the overall science
>
> 3) Deny that you every said the science was
> completely wrong
>
> 4) Make up some elementary school name for the
> person and completely avoid the topic
>
> 5) Say liberal always blah blah to avoid the facts


You think it is a small tangent to belive that your mother evolved from apes when she did not.

Leftist practice; lie your fucking ass of while smirking at others.

You are all so stupid it is laughable. I am not arguing for any other explanation as to the beginning of life. I am trying to get you idiots to understand you did not evolve from apes.

"ape-like" really? flying fish are "bird like" does that make them birds?

Spiders are "insect like" does that make them insects?

You idiots continue to argue for a science you prove you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!

As far as whether it is a "correct" theory, what a dumb-ass question. I don't know the answer. Neither do you. Neither do scientists that spend their entire career trying to turn evolution from a theory to a science.

Have any of you ever read Albert Einsteins thoughts of how the universe was created?

Capt'n Reading Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> H



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/16/2014 02:18PM by wrongg.

Not sure if this stage 4 or 5
> 4) Make up some elementary school name for the
> person and completely avoid the topic
>
> 5) Say liberal always blah blah to avoid the facts



wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are all so stupid it is laughable. I am not
> arguing for any other explanation as to the
> beginning of life. I am trying to get you idiots
> to understand you did not evolve from apes.
>
> "ape-like" really? flying fish are "bird like"
> does that make them birds?
>
> Spiders are "insect like" does that make them
> insects?
>
> You idiots continue to argue for a science you
> prove you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!
>
> As far as whether it is a "correct" theory, what a
> dumb-ass question. I don't know the answer.
> Neither do you. Neither do scientists that spend
> their entire career trying to turn evolution from
> a theory to a science.
>
> Have any of you ever read Albert Einsteins
> thoughts of how the universe was created?

My bad, it's stage two

> 2) Try to come up with some small tangent lame
> fact to disprove the overall science

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are all so stupid it is laughable. I am not
> arguing for any other explanation as to the
> beginning of life. I am trying to get you idiots
> to understand you did not evolve from apes.
>
> "ape-like" really? flying fish are "bird like"
> does that make them birds?
>
> Spiders are "insect like" does that make them
> insects?
>
> You idiots continue to argue for a science you
> prove you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!
>
> As far as whether it is a "correct" theory, what a
> dumb-ass question. I don't know the answer.
> Neither do you. Neither do scientists that spend
> their entire career trying to turn evolution from
> a theory to a science.
>
> Have any of you ever read Albert Einsteins
> thoughts of how the universe was created?

Ok. I concede. You clearly evolved from an ape. But not very far.

> Have any of you ever read Albert Einsteins thoughts of how the universe was created?

Yes. He was pretty upset he predicted a non-inflationary universe and used a cosmological constant to offset the inflation his equation predicted.

And no, humans didn't evolve from apes. Again, apes and humans share a common ancestor in the distant past. As I recall (it has been a while), it was a small primate similar to a modern lemur. So if some people confuse all these primates as apes, monkeys, whatever you can forgive them a bit -- no one here is a biologist. They believe in evolution but get the specific details wrong. Your argument that these people now nothing about evolution is pedantic based on sloppy terminology by laymen.

If someone can't explain the details of the Carnot cycle (in technical terms) should we allow them to operate an internal combustion engine or even advise people to buy a car? You do know that the Carnot cycle is just a theory.

>You idiots continue to argue for a science you prove you KNOW NOTHING ABOUT!

I haven't heard your explanation for the origin of humans. Until I see a competing theory as complete as evolution I will continue to believe. Evolution does have some predictions and these (so far) have been correct. What is the competing theory that explains these same predictions?

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ok. I concede. You clearly evolved from an ape.
> But not very far.

Don't worry, the God who wrote the Book of Genesis will return within our lifetimes to smite down all these scientific people who think genetics, time, and real world observation are facts. Our Christ is King! That can't be denied.

And you sir have also evolved from an ape. And may i ask, what real world observation have you made that confirms evolution? And may i ask what part you believe genetics play in your mockery of God?

You smug shitheads better hope you are right, that an infinite system of universes with perfect order just happened. I understand that you leftists believe that we are the supreme beings in creation, i do not.

I know this. Your science used to say we evolved from apes. I know your science said the world was flat.

Neither are true.

There is a God.

And why, pray tell, would you care enough to fight God so much? Do you never stop to think maybe you are wrong?

>I know this. Your science used to say we evolved from apes. I know your science said the world was flat.
>
>Neither are true.

Oddly enough, you are right, wrongg - neither of these is true. But not in the way you meant. Nobody who knows what they're talking about ever said we 'evolved from apes' - we are apes. 'Science' also never said the world was flat - the idea that the earth is round is as old as 'science' and, contrary to popular belief, no europeans of any learning thought the earth was flat, even in Columbus' time.

>So if some people confuse all these primates as apes, monkeys, whatever you can forgive them a bit -- no one here is a biologist.

I am. What would you like to know?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/18/2014 01:18AM by abelard.

God Saves Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why Do Republicans Refuse to Believe Science and
> Evolution?


Stop sucking your boyfriend's dick and come up for air.

>we are apes.

Negative. We are primates. Apes are in the same family/order but on a different branch. This is wrongg's argument -- your belief in evolution is wrong because you are using the wrong word for primate. It is a rather pedantic argument.

>>So if some people confuse all these primates as apes, monkeys, whatever you can forgive them a bit -- no one here is a biologist.
>I am. What would you like to know?

Oh good, so you will already be aware of these predictions by evolution:

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html

Can I get an alternative explanation for them?

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And why, pray tell, would you care enough to fight
> God so much? Do you never stop to think maybe you
> are wrong?


If your faith is strong enough, facts are irrelevant.

> And why, pray tell, would you care enough to fight God so much? Do you never stop to think maybe you are wrong?

I wrestle with the anthropic principle.

If evolution really worked, there would be no blonde women...

Evolution wins again...
Attachments:

Go fuck a lemur and reproduce morons.

>Go fuck a lemur and reproduce morons.

Hey you learned something!

Hussein Obama- Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Go fuck a lemur and reproduce morons.

On the bright side you got that extra chromosome thing going for ya.
Attachments:

Satan encourages you to listen to the evolutionist preachers here. After all, they have you best interest at heart. They're such loving and kind folks don't ya know. LOL

Alias Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> God Saves Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Why Do Republicans Refuse to Believe Science
> and
> > Evolution?
>
>
> Stop sucking your boyfriend's dick and come up for
> air.

Why don't you try waking up early and hauling ass. Then you wont wonder why we have a problem paying for someone's free healthcare.

>>we are apes.

>Negative. We are primates. Apes are in the same family/order but on a different branch.

Let's go down the list shall we.

Humans are:

Kingdom:Animalia - we're animals, we move about
Phylum: Chordata - we have backbones
Class: Mammalia - we're also mammals, boob bearers.
Order: Primates - Yep, we're primates but we're also ...
Family: Hominidae - Us, chimps, gorillas, orangs, gibbons and siamangs.

Good old Hominidae, in the vernacular: apes. We're apes.

>Can I get an alternative explanation for them?

I'd frame the answer differently - the best thing evolution has going for it is that it's an extraordinarily useful way of looking at the world. So much makes sense in the light of evolutionary theory that without it, biology itself is difficult to account for. Like all of biology.

The 'alternative' theory is that the biological world is an artifact constructed at one time by an intelligent agent. This basically explains everything with the same explanation ('God did it'), which is another way of saying it explains absolutely nothing. Why do some species go extinct while others flourish? God did it. What explains speciation in fruit flies (or apes, or whatever) over the last million years? God did it. Not a useful theory.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/19/2014 04:08PM by abelard.

Never argue with unsviriguf, they have their own way of turning religios fiction into "facts ".

work for a living Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Why don't you try waking up early and hauling ass.
> Then you wont wonder why we have a problem paying
> for someone's free healthcare.

retard alert !

>Good old Hominidae, in the vernacular: apes. We're apes.

Actually, I would accept the usage great apes. Apes is still too general if you are being pedantic (like some).

>Actually, I would accept the usage great apes. Apes is still too general if you are being pedantic (like some).

That would exclude the hylobatidae. I like gibbons, by far the most graceful ape.

The theory of evolution has nothing to do with science and everything to do with racist atheism and the teachings of Stan. He is the ultimate deceiver leading humanity away from the Bible and our Creator.

>The theory of evolution has nothing to do with science and everything to do with racist atheism and the teachings of Stan.

Who the fuck is Stan? And where'd he get his Ph.D.?

wrongg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And why, pray tell, would you care enough to fight
> God so much? Do you never stop to think maybe you
> are wrong?

Says the poster who calls himself "wrongg."

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >The theory of evolution has nothing to do with
> science and everything to do with racist atheism
> and the teachings of Stan.
>
> Who the fuck is Stan? And where'd he get his
> Ph.D.?


666 HAIL STAN!!

Evolution neither proves or disproves the concept of God. When someone tries to expand the theory of evolution to disprove God, that's where the wheels come off. Macro-evolution has a lot of holes. It has been neither proved nor disproved. It is a theory. No more, no less. Posters on both sides of this argument demonstrate zealotry. The difference is that science should not require faith or produce zealots. Those who defend science as if it were a replacement for religion only try to replace God with science. No real scientist would condone such behavior.

You can't disprove "god". You can only point out that religionists lack any evidence that proves their outlandish claims about god are real.

Evolution is NOT "Just a theory." There are fossil remains and solid proof that evolution is fact.

If you think evolution is some crazy theory you must not be have graduated high school.

The Professor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Evolution is NOT "Just a theory." There are
> fossil remains and solid proof that evolution is
> fact.
>
> If you think evolution is some crazy theory you
> must not be have graduated high school.


No one wrote that it was a "crazy" theory. Why must you lie? And yes, it is "just a theory". Sorry, but you post like a nutty zealot trying to defend their religion. Seek help.

Occam Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You can't disprove "god". You can only point out
> that religionists lack any evidence that proves
> their outlandish claims about god are real.


There is evidence. Miraculous recoveries. After-death experiences. Life-changing behavior after "finding God". In addition, the illogic of the position that there is no God is hard to defend.

Duck Duck Moose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Professor Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Evolution is NOT "Just a theory." There are
> > fossil remains and solid proof that evolution
> is
> > fact.
> >
> > If you think evolution is some crazy theory you
> > must not be have graduated high school.
>
>
> No one wrote that it was a "crazy" theory. Why
> must you lie? And yes, it is "just a theory".
> Sorry, but you post like a nutty zealot trying to
> defend their religion. Seek help.

Duck face, if examine organisms from prehistoric times and today you find big differences and more developed organisms.

The organisms are more advanced because they have evolved. That's called evolution.

anyone who thinks evolution is "just a theory" must think the concept of god is a totally wild ass guess about the origins of mankind and the universe.

The Professor Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duck Duck Moose Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The Professor Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Evolution is NOT "Just a theory." There are
> > > fossil remains and solid proof that evolution
> > is
> > > fact.
> > >
> > > If you think evolution is some crazy theory
> you
> > > must not be have graduated high school.
> >
> >
> > No one wrote that it was a "crazy" theory. Why
> > must you lie? And yes, it is "just a theory".
> > Sorry, but you post like a nutty zealot trying
> to
> > defend their religion. Seek help.
>
> Duck face, if examine organisms from prehistoric
> times and today you find big differences and more
> developed organisms.
>
> The organisms are more advanced because they have
> evolved. That's called evolution.


Or they went extinct. And now you call names as well. Do you not see the zealotry of your posts? What is a fact is that macro-evolution is not a fact, no matter how (bizarrely) angry that makes you.

Ever notice how "miraculous recoveries" never involve an amputee re-growing their missing limb, or someone regenerating themselves after being blown up in an explosion. Instead, it's ALWAYS something that could've just gotten better on its own or with the help of medicine.

religion = a lot of hot air Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> anyone who thinks evolution is "just a theory"
> must think the concept of god is a totally wild
> ass guess about the origins of mankind and the
> universe.


Your illogical argument seems to be caused by a lack of critical thinking. Perhaps you're too angry to engage in a civil discussion.

miracle on 34th st Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ever notice how "miraculous recoveries" never
> involve an amputee re-growing their missing limb,
> or someone regenerating themselves after being
> blown up in an explosion. Instead, it's ALWAYS
> something that could've just gotten better on its
> own or with the help of medicine.


No, I've never notice that. Do you have some conclusive study (peer reviewed of course) that shows this? Or are you just stating opinion as fact?

I don't believe in macro-aging either. No one has ever seen an infant turn into a full-grown adult.

macro evolution retarded Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't believe in macro-aging either. No one has
> ever seen an infant turn into a full-grown adult.


A lie. Billions have seen this. Why must you lie?

miracle on 34th st Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ever notice how "miraculous recoveries" never
> involve an amputee re-growing their missing limb,
> or someone regenerating themselves after being
> blown up in an explosion. Instead, it's ALWAYS
> something that could've just gotten better on its
> own or with the help of medicine.

Evolution means the next species born has a better way to adapt to surrounding. It's not about an amputee re-growing a missing limb.

End Is near Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> miracle on 34th st Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Ever notice how "miraculous recoveries" never
> > involve an amputee re-growing their missing
> limb,
> > or someone regenerating themselves after being
> > blown up in an explosion. Instead, it's ALWAYS
> > something that could've just gotten better on
> its
> > own or with the help of medicine.
>
> Evolution means the next species born has a better
> way to adapt to surrounding. It's not about an
> amputee re-growing a missing limb.

I know. And "miraculous recovery" means that Jesus, who knows every person on earth, comes down and makes your cancer cells go away shortly after you've undergone radiation treatment. It's easier for him to do this than say, prevent the cancer from even growing in the first place, or not intelligently designing cancer at all to begin with.

Yahweh Ben Yawheh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> End Is near Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > miracle on 34th st Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Ever notice how "miraculous recoveries" never
> > > involve an amputee re-growing their missing
> > limb,
> > > or someone regenerating themselves after
> being
> > > blown up in an explosion. Instead, it's
> ALWAYS
> > > something that could've just gotten better on
> > its
> > > own or with the help of medicine.
> >
> > Evolution means the next species born has a
> better
> > way to adapt to surrounding. It's not about an
> > amputee re-growing a missing limb.
>
> I know. And "miraculous recovery" means that
> Jesus, who knows every person on earth, comes down
> and makes your cancer cells go away shortly after
> you've undergone radiation treatment. It's easier
> for him to do this than say, prevent the cancer
> from even growing in the first place, or not
> intelligently designing cancer at all to begin
> with.


No, it appears that you don't know at all.

>Evolution means the next species born has a better way to adapt to surrounding.

Not quite. Evolution says that there will be individuals in a species that are better adapted to their environment and that these individuals are more likely to survive to reproduce and pass on their traits to latter generations.

I stopped drinking and being a dick to my wife because I found God. Therefore God must exist.

I left my family for a stripper and they finally came to their senses to take me back after 15 years because of Jesus. The kids don't remember me though. :(

Science is fake. It's not real. Why? Because "science" can change.

1. Two decades ago "science" told us Pluto was a planet. Now, "science" says it's not a planet.

2. For dozens of decades "science" told us the atom was the smallest molecule in the world. Just within the last few years it's been found that there is a smaller molecule than the atom.

How can anyone 100% believe science when it seemingly changes. Science isn't suppose to change right? It's always right and there's not suppose to be debatable. But, how can science NOT be debatable if it keeps changing its mind.

.
Attachments:

Truth77 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Science is fake. It's not real. Why? Because
> "science" can change.
>
> 1. Two decades ago "science" told us Pluto was a
> planet. Now, "science" says it's not a planet.
>
> 2. For dozens of decades "science" told us the
> atom was the smallest molecule in the world. Just
> within the last few years it's been found that
> there is a smaller molecule than the atom.
>
> How can anyone 100% believe science when it
> seemingly changes. Science isn't suppose to
> change right? It's always right and there's not
> suppose to be debatable. But, how can science NOT
> be debatable if it keeps changing its mind.


Science is, at it's core, a methodology of discovery. It uses repeatable processes to attain knowledge about things. Often, scientists use that knowledge to build new or different things, although an inventor does as well.

Any decent scientist will acknowledge that discovery of "truth" is a journey. That journey has many dead ends and wrong turns. Only evangelical scientists (and their acolytes) trump theories as facts and display the amount of zealotry that we see in this thread. A true scientist would be revulsed at this display.

There is no reason to not trust science. Trusting a scientist is, however, certainly understandable. Scientists are people and no better or worse than the rest of us.

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> .


Your stupid graphic, like your sig line, is lame.

There is no reason to not trust [that the] science [of today will be proven wrong tomorrow].

I'm surprised that republicans aren't trying to prove the Earth is the center of our solar system and the Earth is really flat.

Obuma Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no reason to not trust [that the] science
> [of today will be proven wrong tomorrow].


There is certainly a good possibility of many of the theories are incorrect (to varying degrees). We can not image the discoveries that await us over the next few centuries. No doubt many of those will set what is currently accepted science on its head. Science is not the problem. Misinterpretation of science and half informed sheeple are the problem. Scientists who advocate instead of learn are the problem, not the science. Science seeks truth and knowledge. For many sientist, not so much.

"I'm surprised that republicans aren't trying to prove the Earth is the center of our solar system and the Earth is really flat."


Tomorrow we can laugh at the beliefs of yesterday. But today we are right.

Flat Earth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm surprised that republicans aren't trying to
> prove the Earth is the center of our solar system
> and the Earth is really flat.


What surprises the uninformed is often entertaining. They are fascinated by simple thoughts and half-witted jokes.

Perhaps the most outspoken candidate on the topic of teaching evolution in schools, Mr. Perry has declared several times he does not believe in the theory of evolution and has even said that they teach intelligent design and creationism in Texas public schools (which is an untrue statement). After declaring that evolution is just a "theory that's out there", he could not seem to escape questions at most campaign stops about science related topics.

ODama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "I'm surprised that republicans aren't trying to
> prove the Earth is the center of our solar system
> and the Earth is really flat."
>
>
> Tomorrow we can laugh at the beliefs of yesterday.
> But today we are right.


Yes, the biggest laughs are the ones "science" has proven. Oops!

jsoon joining that list;man made global warming. Just like science proved cooling about 20 years ago.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 01/20/2014 04:09PM by wrongg.

> Science seeks truth and knowledge.

Why bother seeking truth and knowledge when religion already has all the answers? Specifically, the Christian religion.

Duck Duck Moose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obuma Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > There is no reason to not trust [that the]
> science
> > [of today will be proven wrong tomorrow].
>
>
> There is certainly a good possibility of many of
> the theories are incorrect (to varying degrees).
> We can not image the discoveries that await us
> over the next few centuries. No doubt many of
> those will set what is currently accepted science
> on its head. Science is not the problem.
> Misinterpretation of science and half informed
> sheeple are the problem. Scientists who advocate
> instead of learn are the problem, not the science.
> Science seeks truth and knowledge. For many
> sientist, not so much.

For many, science is their religious substitute. It explains the unexplainable. They have faith in their scientist preachers. The schools and universities are their church. The media is Sunday school. With little effort on their part, it gives their meaningless life a false purpose and makes them feel good as they wait for this year's Superbowl commercials. Its easier because science doesn't ask much of them in return. Self proclaimed martyrs using recycled toilet paper as their shield.


There are as many science lemmings as religious sheep.

OMama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Duck Duck Moose Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obuma Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > There is no reason to not trust [that the]
> > science
> > > [of today will be proven wrong tomorrow].
> >
> >
> > There is certainly a good possibility of many
> of
> > the theories are incorrect (to varying degrees).
>
> > We can not image the discoveries that await us
> > over the next few centuries. No doubt many of
> > those will set what is currently accepted
> science
> > on its head. Science is not the problem.
> > Misinterpretation of science and half informed
> > sheeple are the problem. Scientists who
> advocate
> > instead of learn are the problem, not the
> science.
> > Science seeks truth and knowledge. For many
> > sientist, not so much.
>
> For many, science is their religious substitute.
> It explains the unexplainable. They have faith in
> their scientist preachers. The schools and
> universities are their church. The media is Sunday
> school. With little effort on their part, it gives
> their meaningless life a false purpose and makes
> them feel good as they wait for this year's
> Superbowl commercials. Its easier because science
> doesn't ask much of them in return. Self
> proclaimed martyrs using recycled toilet paper as
> their shield.
>
>
> There are as many science lemmings as religious
> sheep.

Really? Because even the Catholic church now says evolution is a valid theory and science is acceptable.

It's just batshit crazy republican presidential candidates like Bachmann, Palin and Rick Perry that are fucked in the head.

Edrf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OMama Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Duck Duck Moose Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Obuma Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > There is no reason to not trust [that the]
> > > science
> > > > [of today will be proven wrong tomorrow].
> > >
> > >
> > > There is certainly a good possibility of many
> > of
> > > the theories are incorrect (to varying
> degrees).
> >
> > > We can not image the discoveries that await
> us
> > > over the next few centuries. No doubt many
> of
> > > those will set what is currently accepted
> > science
> > > on its head. Science is not the problem.
> > > Misinterpretation of science and half
> informed
> > > sheeple are the problem. Scientists who
> > advocate
> > > instead of learn are the problem, not the
> > science.
> > > Science seeks truth and knowledge. For many
> > > sientist, not so much.
> >
> > For many, science is their religious
> substitute.
> > It explains the unexplainable. They have faith
> in
> > their scientist preachers. The schools and
> > universities are their church. The media is
> Sunday
> > school. With little effort on their part, it
> gives
> > their meaningless life a false purpose and
> makes
> > them feel good as they wait for this year's
> > Superbowl commercials. Its easier because
> science
> > doesn't ask much of them in return. Self
> > proclaimed martyrs using recycled toilet paper
> as
> > their shield.
> >
> >
> > There are as many science lemmings as religious
> > sheep.
>
> Really? Because even the Catholic church now says
> evolution is a valid theory and science is
> acceptable.
>
> It's just batshit crazy republican presidential
> candidates like Bachmann, Palin and Rick Perry
> that are fucked in the head.

You must be one of those lemmings.

Don't spew hate, seek truth and knowledge.

My Christ is King! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > Science seeks truth and knowledge.
>
> Why bother seeking truth and knowledge when
> religion already has all the answers?
> Specifically, the Christian religion.


The Christian religion does not have all the answers. The Bible (Old and New Testaments) have answers about the history of God's people and what God expects from us to have a relationship with Him, but it doesn't explain how a bird flies or how to treat cancer or how to build a rocket. Science is useful. But when people use terms like "believe" or "faith" when it comes to science, they are crossing a line into religion. Scientists are not science, they are practitioners in science. Just as an artist is not art.

Edrf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> OMama Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Duck Duck Moose Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Obuma Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > There is no reason to not trust [that the]
> > > science
> > > > [of today will be proven wrong tomorrow].
> > >
> > >
> > > There is certainly a good possibility of many
> > of
> > > the theories are incorrect (to varying
> degrees).
> >
> > > We can not image the discoveries that await
> us
> > > over the next few centuries. No doubt many
> of
> > > those will set what is currently accepted
> > science
> > > on its head. Science is not the problem.
> > > Misinterpretation of science and half
> informed
> > > sheeple are the problem. Scientists who
> > advocate
> > > instead of learn are the problem, not the
> > science.
> > > Science seeks truth and knowledge. For many
> > > sientist, not so much.
> >
> > For many, science is their religious
> substitute.
> > It explains the unexplainable. They have faith
> in
> > their scientist preachers. The schools and
> > universities are their church. The media is
> Sunday
> > school. With little effort on their part, it
> gives
> > their meaningless life a false purpose and
> makes
> > them feel good as they wait for this year's
> > Superbowl commercials. Its easier because
> science
> > doesn't ask much of them in return. Self
> > proclaimed martyrs using recycled toilet paper
> as
> > their shield.
> >
> >
> > There are as many science lemmings as religious
> > sheep.
>
> Really? Because even the Catholic church now says
> evolution is a valid theory and science is
> acceptable.
>
> It's just batshit crazy republican presidential
> candidates like Bachmann, Palin and Rick Perry
> that are fucked in the head.


The Catholic Church, like many churches, has many times lost its way throughout the centuries. The Catholic Church no longer preaches the Bible, only certain dogma pulled from the Bible. And they only speak for Catholics, not the other half of the country's Christians who aren't Catholic.

I would say that evolution is a valid theory. I don't believe it is correct, but it is valid.

Cussing indicates irrational anger. Why are you irrationally angry? Sane people don't engage in discourse with irrational people, angry or otherwise.

"I would say that evolution is a valid theory."

Agreed, a theory, but not the truth.

MLK didn't belive in evolution.

>Agreed, a theory, but not the truth.

I expect you're confused by the terminology. A theory is anything unproven even when there's overwhelming evidence that it's probably right. Thus gravity is a theory, even though it's a pretty good one and easy to demonstrate. The 'interior of a brick' is theoretical - nobody has ever seen it, as cracking open a brick just makes a new 'exterior'. Even so, we've pretty good reason to believe that bricks do have an interior (since we've cracked open a lot of them) and that it's made of, well, brick.

Getting confused by the word 'theory' leads to all kinds of misapprehension, such as the notion that any wild-ass 'theory' ('Bigfoot exists', 'the world is a stack of giant turtles') is on par with any other 'theory'. Nope - some theories are utterly unsupported and laughably nonsensical while others have a mountain of evidence on their side yet remain 'theories' because scientific types have learned not to speak in absolutes.

Duck Duck Moose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Cussing indicates irrational anger. Why are you
> irrationally angry? Sane people don't engage in
> discourse with irrational people, angry or
> otherwise.

I'm sorry. I will not curse or use any more bad language.

I am heading to the sink right now to wash my mouth out with soap. I feel terrible.

Except you can prove the interior of a brick is brick.

>Except you can prove the interior of a brick is brick.

How?

abelard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >Agreed, a theory, but not the truth.
>
> I expect you're confused by the terminology. A
> theory is anything unproven even when there's
> overwhelming evidence that it's probably right.
> Thus gravity is a theory, even though it's a
> pretty good one and easy to demonstrate. The
> 'interior of a brick' is theoretical - nobody has
> ever seen it, as cracking open a brick just makes
> a new 'exterior'. Even so, we've pretty good
> reason to believe that bricks do have an interior
> (since we've cracked open a lot of them) and that
> it's made of, well, brick.
>
> Getting confused by the word 'theory' leads to all
> kinds of misapprehension, such as the notion that
> any wild-ass 'theory' ('Bigfoot exists', 'the
> world is a stack of giant turtles') is on par with
> any other 'theory'. Nope - some theories are
> utterly unsupported and laughably nonsensical
> while others have a mountain of evidence on their
> side yet remain 'theories' because scientific
> types have learned not to speak in absolutes.


A very reasonable response which I agree with ~ until the last few words. Unfortunately, "scientific types" now speak more and more in absolutes. That is why they have lost so much credibility. Man-caused global warming is just one recent example of the absolutes that scientific types now rant and rave about. Scientists are moving more and more into political activism. Partisan scientists are no more trustworthy than partisan politicians. Anyone with an agenda should be suspect if the agenda is partisan in any way.

A brick is man made.