It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Evolution. The proof you've been requesting.

page: 2
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 06:38 PM
link   
There was no insult, just reality.

If your reality is an insult to you maybe you should take a look at it again. Your the one living it.

There are many scientific means and studies that I agree with and most Christians do. The thing that "we" have issues with is the origin on how we go here and anything that science have put out I have just called BS on their theories that leaves God out of the picture.

Once you bring God into the picture of that it challanges the theories that are out there and what people are taking at face value. In the end they will lose their control they have over you because they were spitting lies at you the whole time.

The governments want to be the ones that makes new discoveries so you will continue to believe them and follow them because they keep showing you new things.

So good luck on your quest to live in the world of darkness, it has consumed you and your soul and your end will come. When it does God will ask you if you believe in him now.

Having God in your life is really a benefit, you really have to know it to expiriance it.

Once again for those that do not know, I am not a Christian or in any other religious groups. Now read the next part carefully if you want to know who I am.

I believe in PARTS of the BIBLE.
I believe the Bible was ALTERED after it was released.
The ORIGINAL BIBLE was a survival MANUAL for TODAY and told you what you were DEALING with and HOW YOU GOT HERE.
You Evolutionist get your Aethiesm from the ALTERD BIBLE but you will never know that BECAUSE YOU WERE TOLD WHAT THEY WANTED YOU TO KNOW and your parents are CATHOLICS AND CHRISTIANS also thats where you got your morals and AETHISM from.
I believe in GOD, THE CREATOR, YAHWEH.
I believe that JESUS was here.
I believe that SATAN is an ALIEN life form that are the UFO's you are seeing, that the Bible told you about, but again it was ALTERED so you wouldn't know that.
I believe that SATAN created the world we live in today by creating the systems we use so we think that we are free. This is ultimate control to keep you doing what you are doing until he decideds it's time to reveal himself.... 2012? does that ring a bell?
I believe OIL and GOLD are just materials and hold now power.
I believe PEOPLE are the POWER and we are WORTH everything and anything.

We are in interesting times and if you sit and wait for the government to show you something, it will be to late, look where you are now in life, is it good, do you know what next year will be like? Continue to worship authority and having no freedoms, the other sheep will get lonely.

Real life people will be on the outside looking in wondering when you will get out of the barn house.




posted on Jun, 19 2008 @ 06:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by uknow_me72

I believe in GOD, THE CREATOR, YAHWEH.



I don't believe it!

Could it really be?
Is that you Profit Yahweh?
Please let it be you or someone that knows you.
I reaaaaaaly want the hat! Where can I get Profit's fantastic hat?

Listen, believe in anything you want. The real darkness comes when you look for god through belief. God is inside not outside. But this has nothing to do with god.
This is about evolution.

Now please give me the hat!



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:08 PM
link   
For those who actually enjoy looking into scientific research before they make up their minds, I would like to introduce a third bit of research on this thread.
Univ. of Manchester



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Evolution? No doubt about it. It did happen, does happen, will happen I'm sure. Evolution doesn't necessarily denounce God. Could it also be the method God used to Create us? Thoughts?



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
For those who actually enjoy looking into scientific research before they make up their minds, I would like to introduce a third bit of research on this thread.
Univ. of Manchester



Years ago I used to use this example to refute Darwinists argument that evolution took millions of years. Then Evolutionists changed the theory to fit such arguments making it their argument to substantiate Darwinian evolution. Problem with this referance is it has already been proven such adaptations are already inherant in their DNA which is why such variation adaptation happened so fast in the first place.

I think it's a scandalous bit funny you are creating a thread with such a title. Who requested proof of micro evolution? I think most of us know when you lay out in the sun you micro-evolve a tan. Most people know when you start lifting weights you micro-evolve stronger muscles which increase in size to handle the new level of stress placed on the body.

Secondly, I thought their was mountains of evidence no Tons and Tons of evidence with an entire Scientific community supporting it.

Wasn't that proof enough?

Or did you think this thread showing further proof of micro-evolution was going to impress all of us as if to prove molecules to man Darwinian macro evolution?


It gets pretty anti climatic after the title

*yawn*

- Con





[edit on 20-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dienekes
Evolution? No doubt about it. It did happen, does happen, will happen I'm sure. Evolution doesn't necessarily denounce God. Could it also be the method God used to Create us? Thoughts?


will happen i'm sure? Their is the dead giveaway HA HA HA HA

Keep wishin

- Con



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:37 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


The point of the thread is to introduce the "latest" research relevant to this issue. What is boring in my opinion is when people use term such as "micro-evolution" or "adaptation" counting on the fact that the layman might get misdirected on what is actually happening.
Just because you've decided to use such terms does not mean that you are correct. It is standard operating procedure for skeptics of evolution to suppress new research using such terms.
The point of this thread is to supply new information and research.
If you do not wish to consider it or if you disagree with it's conclusions that is your right.
I'm sorry if we are boring you.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 10:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


The point of the thread is to introduce the "latest" research relevant to this issue. What is boring in my opinion is when people use term such as "micro-evolution" or "adaptation" counting on the fact that the layman might get misdirected on what is actually happening.
Just because you've decided to use such terms does not mean that you are correct. It is standard operating procedure for skeptics of evolution to suppress new research using such terms.
The point of this thread is to supply new information and research.
If you do not wish to consider it or if you disagree with it's conclusions that is your right.
I'm sorry if we are boring you.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]


Spare me your mundane platitudes about micro and macro wrapped in your slippery circular semantics layman. This stuff isn't new.

It may be to you but it isn't to me.

This is just what I said it is

More of the same



- Con



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Despite your tone and your indignity, once again you are completely mistaken.
The three articles I have cited have been published: June 4, 2008, June 19, 2008, January 07, 2008.
So you can hold you breath and stomp your feet at your hearts content, the fact remains that nothing you say is so just because YOU say so.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Conspiriology
 


Despite your tone and your indignity, once again you are completely mistaken.
The three articles I have cited have been published: June 4, 2008, June 19, 2008, January 07, 2008.
So you can hold you breath and stomp your feet at your hearts content, the fact remains that nothing you say is so just because YOU say so.


I think you lost the right to be talking about anyones tone after you mocked the poster above with your condescending sardonic sense of humor.



Is that you Profit Yahweh?
Please let it be you or someone that knows you.
I reaaaaaaly want the hat! Where can I get Profit's fantastic hat?


Secondly, I don't care if your data was as early as this morning, it is STILL nothing new just latest of the great aggregation of many examples evolutionists put forth that doesn't prove Jack Squat.

- Con



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:34 PM
link   
Man, I really like the Angel and Powder avatars.

Don't like dude using "their" when he meant "there"

Where is the debate? are creation people and evolution people at odds these days?

I must be out of the loop on this. Other than some Bible literalist does anybody have an issue with evolution?

Micro? Macro? what in the F does that have to do with this?

Do people still believe that there was an "Adam" and "Eve" and they are the first sentient beings in the Universe? No way. I can't believe that there are still people that believe that.

Are there people that believe that evolution is proof that there is no God?
That can't be possible either, is it? I must have been living in a cave.

I guess there were some morons that believed blacks were property too and that they "evolved" from apes, while the rest of us just were the off spring of "Adam and eve".

How does this topic have weight these days? What is wrong with people that have an issue with it?

Speaking for sane moderate Christians....evolution is just fine. The intention is Divine.

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Res Ipsa]



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Res Ipsa
 


Thank you. There is this knee jerk reaction from so many to anything scientific regarding evolution which has always been a mystery to me. The same people will accept science in all other respect in their life but for this issue.


Creationism in the West is usually based on creation according to Genesis, and in its broad sense covers a wide range of beliefs and interpretations. Through the 19th century the term most commonly referred to direct creation of individual souls, in contrast to traducianism. However, by 1929 in the United States the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist opposition to human evolution and belief in a young Earth.[2] Several U.S. states passed laws against the teaching of evolution in public schools, as upheld in the Scopes Trial. Evolution was omitted entirely from school textbooks in much of the United States until the 1960s. Since then, renewed efforts to introduce teaching creationism in American public schools in the form of flood geology, creation science, and intelligent design have been consistently held to contravene the constitutional separation of Church and State by a succession of legal judgements.[3] The meaning of the term creationism was contested, but by the 1980s it had been co-opted by proponents of creation science and flood geology.[2]
When scientific research produces conclusions which contradict a creationist interpretation of scripture, the strict creationist approach is either to reject the conclusions of the research,[4] its underlying scientific theories,[5] and/or its methodology.[6] For this reason, both creation science and intelligent design have been labeled as pseudoscience by the mainstream scientific community.[7] The most notable disputes concern the effects of evolution on the development of living organisms, the idea of common descent, the geologic history of the Earth, the formation of the solar system, and the origin of the universe.[8][9][10][11] Wikipedia


I was born christian but later in my life chose my own spiritual path. I am sure that many may disagree with my spiritual views, but I don't look to science for validation.
Why creationists do with such anger and venom is beyond me.



posted on Jun, 20 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Res Ipsa
Man, I really like the Angel and Powder avatars.


Don't like dude using "their" when he meant "there"

Must be my bad. Hey res ipsa how ya doin.



Where is the debate? are creation people and evolution people at odds these days?


Ostensibly



I must be out of the loop on this. Other than some Bible literalist does anybody have an issue with evolution?


Some of it.



Micro? Macro? what in the F does that have to do with this?


Just when micro is used in the same conext as macro



Do people still believe that there was an "Adam" and "Eve" and they are the first sentient beings in the Universe? No way. I can't believe that there are still people that believe that.



Believe it



Are there people that believe that evolution is proof that there is no God?
That can't be possible either, is it? I must have been living in a cave.


You said it, I didnt.



I guess there were some morons that believed blacks were property too and that they "evolved" from apes,


Darwin comes close when he speaks of race



How does this topic have weight these days? What is wrong with people that have an issue with it?


Opinions vary


Speaking for sane moderate Christians....evolution is just fine. The intention is Divine.


Like I said,, opinions vary

- Con

]

[edit on 20-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:00 AM
link   
I think one of the reasons for this fierce antagonism between some people who have no problem with evolution and creationists, is that over time, and I am sure I'm partly to blame, the issues have been blurred by words and definitions that are not well understood.
There are zealots on both camps. There are strict creationists that believe in Adam and Eve. And on the other side there are scientists and naturalists who are equally dogmatic. So the rest of us get caught in the middle, where a reasonable conversation is always highjacked by extremists.
It is unfortunate but rather commonplace, especially on ATS.



[edit on 21-6-2008 by schrodingers dog]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by Conspiriology
 
The three articles I have cited have been published: June 4, 2008, June 19, 2008, January 07, 2008.


actually he's really not mistaken here . . . he said that the information is nothing new, and in value, it technically isn't. Most people accept micro-evolution and more likely than not, will also accept most new evidence that supports it.

I have a pencil; i hold it above my desk. I hypothesize that when i drop it, it will make a noise. I do so, and it does. I perform this experiment several times. Every time I drop the pencil it makes noise.

After repeating the experiment many times, i can say with reason (based on the data obtained through the experiment and inference.) That the pencil will make a noise (without speculation).

Most people agree that when i drop the pencil it makes a noise.

Now i have a pen. Are you saying that i need to go through that entire procedure again? just to say within reason that the pen will make a noise when i drop it on the desk? Are you saying that if a new experiment finds that the pen also makes noise, that it adds significant weight to the findings that the pencil makes noise?

I personally don't believe that there's a big enough difference between the two.

The pens' experiment does not require or deserve the time or attention, if you consider the preceding data drawn from a similar trial


the same applies to the article and it's findings.

[edit on 6/21/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
the same applies to the article and it's findings.


It doesn't J.

Yourself and con can shell-game this, but this article directly relates to claims made by ID creationists, such as Behe.

This is why people like Behe and others are squirming. Even the dope who runs conservapedia is squirming (he asked Lenski for the data, heh. As if he'd have a clue what to do with it).

I assume you don't know this because you don't follow this issue so closely. There are previous papers which show Behe to be talking tripe in various ways, but the more evidence the better.

We have known this stuff is not an issue for a long-time (e.g., new functions in nylon bugs). But in Lenski's article we have evidence of at least 3 mutations producing a new function - a process which Behe said was beyond the 'edge' of evolution not so long back.

And so Waterloo is postponed for another year, and creationists retreat to 'I want rat to bat in the lab' and continuing to attack science via school boards and media - they are a science free-zone. The Lenski article is a big fat piece of phail pie for Behe and ID creationists.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by schrodingers dog
reply to post by AshleyD
 


Now that's what I call a courteous, intelligent, and respectful post.
Thank you!
We don't have to agree but we can play nice.
you think she might be hot, too






don't mind me



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 10:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by JPhish
the same applies to the article and it's findings.


It doesn't J.

Yourself and con can shell-game this, but this article directly relates to claims made by ID creationists, such as Behe.

This is why people like Behe and others are squirming. Even the dope who runs conservapedia is squirming (he asked Lenski for the data, heh. As if he'd have a clue what to do with it).

I assume you don't know this because you don't follow this issue so closely. There are previous papers which show Behe to be talking tripe in various ways, but the more evidence the better.

We have known this stuff is not an issue for a long-time (e.g., new functions in nylon bugs). But in Lenski's article we have evidence of at least 3 mutations producing a new function - a process which Behe said was beyond the 'edge' of evolution not so long back.

And so Waterloo is postponed for another year, and creationists retreat to 'I want rat to bat in the lab' and continuing to attack science via school boards and media - they are a science free-zone. The Lenski article is a big fat piece of phail pie for Behe and ID creationists.

[edit on 21-6-2008 by melatonin]


Lenski admited this was a failure and since has had doubts about Darwinian evolution. Mel gets excited about things like this J, WHY? Because he thinks it makes creationists squirm. The edge of evolution Behe talks about in his book has nothing to do with this *BLOCK BUSTER* of inherant functionality under the most encouraging conditions. The ONLY thing that is interesting about lenski's experiment is that we find out e-coli can eat citrate. Anotherwords it adapted to eat the only thing it could eat. New function? perhaps. New information added to the DNA?

Nope

Indicative of molecules to man evolution

Far from it

Behe squirming

GaFaW!! HA HA HA

Mel dreaming?
without a doubt.

Mel leaves out all the disappointments lenski notes in this experiment and like the Nylon Bugs, the conclusion is nothing to write home about.

Sorry,, these kind of experiments all pan out the same and like this one the e-coli is STILL e-coli. We have seen new adaptations appear in much of living creatures but the edge of evolution is when it hits the wall where Lenski wanted it to go past and show NOT merely a new fucntion but a solid case of increase information.


Mutations have been scientifically observed to give an organism a new function or something which makes it more survivable under the given environment. They have not however been observed to make the organism more complex, in that a mutation literally introduces, thus building upon the existing DNA. There must be introduction of truly new information for evolution to truly advance from a fish to man and create vastly more complex genomes.

The fact is mutations only scramble the existing DNA of an organism to achieve a different read-out, resulting in (at times) a beneficial adaptation to the environment producing a type of ecological niche ultimately. This is all mutations have been scientifically observed to do, but with implications of naturalists coupled with evolution it becomes something much more. Observations of these results are then extrapolated to declare unobserved change, such as what evolution ultimately predicts, molecules-to-man.

I have literally asked evolutionists, "Where is a real-world scientifically observable example of a mutation producing new information, thus increasing and building upon the existing DNA resulting in a new organism emerging from what was originally there?" They, fully believing the evolution theory as scientific fact have claimed that a bacterium, called the nylon bug here on out by me, with its adaptation to consuming nylon waste, is scientific evidence of evolution.

Having this bacteria being able to have waste products of nylon as their only source of carbon and nitrogen is quite remarkable but let us focus on just two species of this bacteria.

Flavobacterium K172 and Pseudomonas NK87.

There are three enzymes that are responsible for this ability in Flavobacterium K172, which are; F-EI, F-EII and F-EIII and there are two in Pseudomonas NK87, which are; P-EI and P-EII. The genes for these enzymes are located on three plasmids which are Plasmid pOAD2 in Flavobacterium and pNAD2 and pNAD6 in Pseudomonas.

I will admit that this specific mutation is advantageous for the bacteria as it is able to use the broken down nylon as a new food source but as far as added new functional genetic information to the gene pool, therefore ultimately it is proof of large scale evolution of the genome, it is not.

This type of mutation was a frame-shift and the change in the bacteria was a base pair deletion so that all the bases after that are read differently. Essentially, when the bacteria started to adapt and consume this nylon waste, they passed down the mutated genes to the next generation and ultimately a generation became fully adapted to it genetically at birth.

Here is a simple example of how a frame-shift mutations works:

ONE FAT FOX ATE THE CAT

The frame-shift would delete the first T and would then cause the genes to shift over to replace it, thus it would read:

ONE FAF OXA TET HEC AT

Indeed this example doesn't make the sentence say anything, but in the case of the nylon metabolising enzyme’s it worked. Because of the environment the bacteria were in it demanded natural selection, they were either able to adapt or die out. In most other cases a frame-shift mutation is not a good thing and causes a disruption to the genes, this is a rare example.

The evolutionist would claim that the bacteria has indeed increased information as it produced a new read-out. But this new read-out is still a subset of the already existing DNA in that organism. The frame-shift mutation did not add onto the existing DNA rather it only scrambled what was there and because it is in an environment to adapt to, it worked! There is no way around it, the variation or changes cannot become massive if all it does is re-arrange the existing DNA, it is severely limited to that.

That the bacteria mutate so that they can break down nylon waste as their food sources can still fall under the creationist model until the bacteria literally become something else. Then and only then will evolution have a strong case in the realm of mutations being the mechanism for the massive changes needed




"We" have known this stuff is not an issue for a long-time"

" in Lenski's article "we" have evidence of at least 3 mutations producing a new function"


Who the hell is "WE" Mel? Huh? Get off that BS. YOU AIN'T a Biology Scientist so quit misleading everyone.



- Con







[edit on 21-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Conspiriology
Lenski admited this was a failure and since has had doubts about Darwinian evolution.


This Richard Lenski?


Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.

Linky

or this Richard Lenski?


At its core, evolution involves a profound tension between
random and deterministic processes. Natural selection
works systematically to adapt populations to their prevailing
environments. However, selection requires heritable variation
generated by random mutation, and even beneficial mutations
may be lost by random drift. Moreover, random and deterministic
processes become intertwined over time such that future
alternatives may be contingent on the prior history of an evolving
population.

Blout, Borland, & Lenski, 2008.

Please, stop. I have no sides left to split.


Mel gets excited about things like this J, WHY? Because he thinks it makes creationists squirm. The edge of evolution Behe talks about in his book has nothing to do with this *BLOCK BUSTER* of inherant functionality under the most encouraging conditions. The ONLY thing that is interesting about lenski's experiment is that we find out e-coli can eat citrate. Anotherwords it adapted to eat the only thing it could eat. New function? perhaps. New information added to the DNA?

Nope


I'm not even going to go there with you, con.

I've already pulled apart a likely sockpuppet with this sort of 'information' game.


We have seen new adaptations appear in much of living creatures but the edge of evolution is when it hits the wall where Lenski wanted it to go past and show NOT merely a new fucntion but a solid case of increase information.


You don't even understand the study. So what you say about its aims is meaningless to me. The study is a fantastic illustration of the hollow claims of IDers like Behe. J said this is just old-hat, yet Behe is making claims just a year ago that suggested these findings were beyond evolution. Indeed, he has even recently stated the study didn't challenge his claims - although he completely misinterpreted the findings, suggesting there is something not quite right in 'Behe-world'.

At least 3 mutations are likely involved. New function. Easily within reach of evolution. Behe said otherwise. Behe is wrong...again.


Who the hell is "WE" Mel? Huh? Get off that BS. YOU AIN'T a Biology Scientist so quit misleading everyone.

- Con


Your mindreading is as bad as your scientific understanding. Here I was speaking about people who follow this issue. 'We' as in the people like me who spend time reading the literature showing the vacuity of the anti-evolutionary position. Even you could do that. I even highlighted this earlier in my piece with J - that I don't think he follows the issue that closely. I do. Others do. 'We' do. We know IDers have nada but religious fervour and socio-politcal shennanigans.

'We' is just an indication of more than one person. I could have said 'I', but there are more than just little old me who know how vacuous anti-evolution arguments are. Amazing, eh?

[edit on 21-6-2008 by melatonin]



posted on Jun, 21 2008 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by melatonin


This Richard Lenski?


Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth. And biologists have identified and investigated mechanisms that can explain the major patterns of change.

Linky

or this Richard Lenski?


At its core, evolution involves a profound tension between
random and deterministic processes. Natural selection
works systematically to adapt populations to their prevailing
environments. However, selection requires heritable variation
generated by random mutation, and even beneficial mutations
may be lost by random drift. Moreover, random and deterministic
processes become intertwined over time such that future
alternatives may be contingent on the prior history of an evolving
population.

Blout, Borland, & Lenski, 2008.

Please, stop. I have no sides left to split.


Oh gee Mel,, do you really think anyone expected you to post quotes supporting my argument?



I'm not even going to go there with you, con.

I've already pulled apart a likely sockpuppet with this sort of 'information' game.


You wouldn't go there?? Mel Gimme a break, Ill give you a star for cleverness for backing off someone you couldn't pass up humiliating if you knew you wouldn't get owned in a argument like that because you know it's true so if you think you can hide behind the fear of a losing argument while looking like you're doing me a favor not crushing me with your staggering superior intellect, I ain't buyin it. You think you're all that, I'm callin your bluff and lets see how smart you really are.



You don't even understand the study. So what you say about its aims is meaningless to me. The study is a fantastic illustration of the hollow claims of IDers like Behe. J said this is just old-hat, yet Behe is making claims just a year ago that suggested these findings were beyond evolution.


Oh really?? care to show us the exact quote Mel?



Indeed, he has even recently stated the study didn't challenge his claims - although he completely misinterpreted the findings, suggesting there is something not quite right in 'Behe-world'.


He didn't misunderstand Jack Mel,, it was lenski that was back peddaling. Everyone knows what Behe wants to see and if he is guilty of anything it was expecting more than what they ended up with.



At least 3 mutations are likely involved. New function. Easily within reach of evolution. Behe said otherwise. Behe is wrong...again.


If it's so easy why did he quit! Why did he switch to the computer model which was as tweaked as Dawkins weasel. C'mon mel! I mean for god sake if it is that damn close,, WHY STOP THERE?

Ill bet you I know why,, Ill save that for your re-post I wouldn't want to see you disembowled from your sides splitting but rather from stuffing your argument with all that "stuff I don't understand" then we will see whos sides are splitting from laughter smart guy


Your mindreading is as bad as your scientific understanding. Here I was speaking about people who follow this issue. 'We' as in the people like me who spend time reading the literature showing the vacuity of the anti-evolutionary position. Even you could do that. I even highlighted this earlier in my piece with J - that I don't think he follows the issue that closely. I do. Others do. 'We' do. We know IDers have nada but religious fervour and socio-politcal shennanigans.


I guess it's easier than saying "Scientists" have known this" but then again you could say "They" have known this" with "They" contextually meaning "Scientists".

Ill give ya the benefit of the doubt

- Con





[edit on 21-6-2008 by Conspiriology]



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join