I heard theologist say the exact same arguments about God ^
Printable View
I heard theologist say the exact same arguments about God ^
but the snkehead fish didQuote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
..proven fact.....look it up
im not talking bout a axolotls...damn y u got to change things lol
what u cant explain it lol
cant handle the truth
and they are still evolving as each born fish....can stay out of the water longer and longer each time
no lungs
the spiese is growing now 25 diff kinds of snakeheads are found as they are evolving to diffrent fourms......
soon the fish will possably grow a lung and dosnt have to live in water
the new type found here in md
have grown small back legs so it can move on land....
3 years ago they didnt have this
its could evolution
but the diff is that they have no objective evidence.. evolution is founded upon carloads of OBJECTIVE evidence.. not someones personal disbelief or beliefQuote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
more importantly to the "bottom line" is that evolution has no burden of proof.. all the evidence points this way and it is testable and provable... so the evolutionists have no burden of proof... it is those who disbelieve evolution who have the burden of proving their claim hat it does not exist...
so prove ur case ......
p.s.. u dont prove ur case by asking questions of evolution
asking questions doesnt show proof of anything.. all it does is show that u have questions.
all of which are very answerable.
You're an idiot. You have no objective evidence...
And 100 proof sorry if I don't look things up when some one who posts with every third word mispelled tells me about a "snakehead fish" - "I think that's the name..."
LOl fuckin idiot...but I will look into it if you insist.
Come On Man Timbs Has Been In This Thread Answerin Everybody's Questions Elobratly And Just Cause You Dont Agree With Him He's An Idiot He's Doin All The Explaining Of All Your Doubts And Why They Are Inaccurate Everytime But He's Stupid I Dont Get That.
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
atleast i bring evidincea ...were is urs...to disprove what we are talking.....
how come every body that fights this dosnt bring nothing but q's
what no facts to throw in are face
o sorry for the misspelld words...but im at work so i have to do this shit fast befor the boss finds out what i am doing
i dont have time to speel check likke u
Where the fuck have you been? Read my previous threads. I typed out things from fucking books that were pages long.
And I would continue to do so on each topic except no one (like yourself) reads them. Every time I bring evidence on a particular issue the other side switches subjects.
lol all i see is a copy of some shit that deals with horsses hahahahaha
all the rest is u just complaining.....lol
see i bring pics
sites
facts.....u bring uhhhhh ,................your thoughts...............lol
well befor u go on u check up on what we said look up on what we talk about...couse u aint getting it...u bring q's we bring facts.....
flew.................
super insects.....................
snakehead fish..........................
every couple years all of these thangs evolve....................fact
flew..............getting stronger every year......hince y u have to get a flew shot every year...couse the flew .....keeps comming back stronger more emune to the shit we fight it with
insects.............every year...we are spraying large amounts of posions to get rid of them .......but more and more we did it.....the faster they evolve witch now they are emune to the posions we spray and cant die from it
the fish.............u know what i said check a page back
evolution happen all the time.............
we bring facts ...u just bring ur q's that dont explain ur theories ..............
first... take that list i gave u ....search...and try to disprove them..........and say they didnt evolve................
then u will be doing some thing besides bring ur own thoughts and q's
lol well said
i am so tired of hearing about the horse issue.
it seems like year after year creationists cling to the horse phylogeny issue as if its the be all and end all of evolution....
evolution is a science.. science always has the goal of improving on its former self! (thats what makes it science!)
if some horse phylogenies were incorrect many many decades ago.. this has no bearing on the theory of evolution.. this issue has been put to rest for so so so long and horse phylogeny is indeed known.
this is a time tested strategy by the creationists.. to keep rehashing old outdated science instead of the new stuff that is known and improved upon.
if u think thats amazing and insane.. u have no idea how far the rabbit hole of evolution goes and explains everything......Quote:
Originally Posted by Legato
i bet u in some time in 500 years...africa will be imunne too aids couse of the big out break thier
thats very plausible and probable... this could occur but it will only occur and sustain itself if there is no outside interference (ie the genetic gene pool is allowed to "weed itself out)... in every population there is always variance.. lets say in every 10,000 women in Uganda.. 1 % possess the protein that makes the HIV virus not "take"... this 1% of the population must be the progenitors of the new evolved HIV resistant population.
this type of evolution happens all the time.. its called a genetic bottleneck, but takes a while.. but it can happen
ignorance is blissQuote:
Originally Posted by soul controller
You would know ^
And changing the proportion of a fucking ALREADY PRESENT GENETIC TRAIT in a population such as women who don't take HIV is not evolution. Those genes are already present, the proportion of women with it has changed because the one's without it were dying.
This is like the bullshit moth example you give. Ofcourse the proportion of dark moths increased. The light one's were fucking picked of and the color carries in their genes!
NOW LISTEN - you don't seem to comprehend the majority of what I have said so far.
The darker moths existed BEFORE the population shift to more darker moths. NOTHING EVOLVED. In the same way women already exist who don't take to HIV. So if this gene EXISTS in us and is active in some of us...how does it surving in a higher proprtion of people due to necessity display evolution?! IT DOESN'T! That is survival of the fittest to strengthen the genetic code of humans. IT DOES NOT CHANGE IT!
I will deal with 100proof when he learns the right spellings and contexts of "Flew" and "FLUE" LMAO.
And the horse thing was relevant to the discussion. NO ONE has offered an explanation STILL for the abscence of transitional forms in the fossil record.
lol i know how its spelld ...i do it to piss u off...haha
i told u not to talk unless u can disprove every thing i told u to disprove
damn hardheaded...ur wasting space
i gueeeeees u cant do it ..lol
yea i think we are done here
close thread
Man has devolved or deteriorated into this present form. Far from the original creation. And this devolution continues....
and what exactly is "de evolution"?
The Original creation built things like the pyramids and other things to help them coexist with the earth and not pollute destroy what allows them and everything else to live.
Devolve is in the American standard dictionary it means to deteriorate.
it maybe in the american standard dictionary but it isnt in any scientific lexicon.
i c what u mean now... but that is more of a cultural societal issue.. not a scientific one pertaining to human evolution.
I think we maybe getting off the subject but I must ask who determines "scientific lexicon"? Whether or not it is scientific lexicon is another topic but the truth remains that people have devolved.Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
how so?Quote:
Originally Posted by WamukotaX
peer reviewed scientists who publish in peer reviewed journalsQuote:
Originally Posted by WamukotaX
science is built upon a framework of validity, verification and reproducibility..
thus u cant just have any old joes throw words around and expect them to be widely used, understood and applicable to science.
de-evolution makes no sense according to the scientific discipline of evolution and genetics.. however it makes sense in everyday jargon.. but scientifically it is incorrect
according to the definition being used of "devolving" any change for the "perceived" worse can be seen as devolving, but how do we determine which changes are for the worse?
"How so?" That depends on your current mind state. If you think that going from Kings and Queens to becoming Pimps and whores is an advancement or is it something more sinister.
see this is the thing.. u cant judge a change. a perceived change for the worse could ultimately provide great benefit. (in the long run)
im talking from an objective scientific mindst.. not a cultural, societal and emotional one.
and this si why the word devolve cant be accepted by the scientists!
because evolution does not imply "progress" !
but the word devolve used in lay jargon implies advancement and progress vs, deterioration!
we are on 2 difff planes
exactly legato.. ur gettin it! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Legato
see we humans are biased ! our definition of progress is skewed toward whatver benefits us and we perceive as advancement!
evolution simply means change!
whether that change works out for the good or bad is irrelevant and ultimately totally subjective to the species we are talking about!
so is the chimpanzee less evolved than the human? according to the american dictionary and the jaargon of "devolution" you would assume so!
but scientifically thats not the case by a long shot!
the chimpanzee isnt "less evolved" than you or me... its simply different!
lol,, i just went back and read these posts.. didnt c them before.. LMAO !Quote:
Originally Posted by SubtleEnergies
i still asked questions that never got answered in this thread
dammit
We have gotten off the subject. First, as a Scientist I don't consider myself "any old joe". If the root of the word in de-evolution is evolution how can you say it is scientifically inncorrect? "Peer reviewed scientist" are no different from anyone else they add and take away words only because they are in a position to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
i know this is off topic, but u should know that a word that makes sense in normal american speak could have totally different meaning (and in this case no meaning) in a scientific discipline from which this word is derived.
thats my point..
i could have a definition of a theory in normal speak, but within the realm of the science, it can have a totally different meaning (or lack there of).. thats my point... and in this thread we are discussing the science!
I am positive that there are plenty of words that had a different meaning before "peer reviewed scientist" gave them a scientific meaning. I take a more universal approach in dealing with this amalgamation that we call the English language.Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
yes.. there are some words that are in scientific lexicons that have their basis in normal english language...but these words do not define or explain a discipline!
thats why the word "devolve" arouses so much disgust to evolutionists because it totally contradicts the true biological meaning of "evolve".
now first and foremost.. donrt get me wrong.. there is nothing wrong with the word devolve.. im just saying it has no place in biology. i understand totally the cultural and societal definition it has, but this type of definition and what it implies goes against the biological understanding of evolution.
To devolve would contradict its root word evolve. De- in devolve brings about the contradiction. Evolutionist shouldn't get so emotional ,"the word "devolve" arouses so much disgust to evolutionists," if there is truth in a word.Quote:
Originally Posted by My First Timbs
If I were a "peer reviewed scientist" would you accept it?