reply to post by noobfun

---

Well I certainly can so there you are.


I have found his stuff to be better than all the other ones, mainly because of his style and form in the videos, bordering on sarcasm. A man after your own heart, noob.

reply to post by Good Wolf

---

i shall look forward to tommorrows viewing then ^_^

his sarcasm is what makes thunderf00t so amusing to watch

thanks for the heads up

[edit on 24/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun

---

Thunderf00t is not quite as interesting to listen to as he could be unfortunately but yes, I know what you mean.

Aron Ra's video series "The Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism" is a bit longer than 2 hours if I recall.

It's amazing. Every time I respond to a post made by theindependentjournal, he never has anything else to say (such as on page 5 of the Open Letter to Creationists thread and another awhile back where I repeatedly asked for a response but never received one).


Hardly, when the theory presented in that video was not evolution. Refer to my earlier post detailing all of the errors, and how it's a straw man argument.


Crazy. Next thing you know children will be indoctrinated with teachings that the solar system is heliocentric and the Earth is the third planet from the sun.


Evolution is possibly the greatest unifying theme in the biological sciences. It is very much needed to study biology. Evolution explains the biodiversity of life, which is of course central to every field of biology. If I were a student in your son's biology class, you can bet I'd be levying a complaint with the principal.


You should really stop getting your arguments from Hovind and VenomFangX. Neither is qualified to speak on the theory of evolution, neither has any scientific training. I'm not sure about VenomFangX, but Hovind doesn't even have a valid undergraduate degree, and the unaccredited degrees he does have are in a field totally unrelated to science. So I really have no idea why you'd consider him a reliable source for information on the actual theory of evolution.

The same goes for Thomas Kindell, the person in this video. He's a theologian. He has no scientific training.


That's not the idea of evolution. Two species of one kind do not give birth to species of another kind. Evolution does not work that way. Imagine a situation along these lines:
10,000 Zebra are born on the savannah. Of these, 50 have a genetic mutation that causes their hides to be much thicker. Some chance event causes the temperature of the savannah to lower a few degrees, causing most the zebra with hides of normal thickness to die. Now, the zebra with the thickened hides are the only ones surviving to reproduce, and they pass this trait on to their offspring when they breed. The others, with no favorable mutation, die off and only the mutated ones are left to reproduce.

The population has just evolved.

If such changes continue accumulating, this population of zebra will be be unable to breed with the "original" zebra, found in differing habitats.

Not that the savannah would necessarily ever suffer a temperature decrease, or that there is such a mutation, but that's a very basic rundown on how the evolution of populations occurs. There are often other factors involved such as competing species, predator/prey relationships, physical barriers separating environments, etc.


Evolution has been observed (and tested experimentally, also- if you actually respond to this post I'll provide you details as a reward). Creationism has not.


We'd better stop teaching children about the nature of the solar system and gravity too then- because evolution is equally as accepted among scientists as all of these other theories.


If evolution was impossible then people who've spent their entire lives studying biology would not accept it as truth.


If by "scientific" you mean ignorant and biased and completely unscientific, then you're right.

reply to post by SamuraiDrifter

---

It's amazing how much reality these people will deny to support their archaic belief system.

Creation stories were invented to fill in the gaps of knowledge we had a long time ago. We have the information that goes into those holes now, but people cling to the familiar.

"Scientific creationisim? Institute for creation research? Are you saying ANY scientific knowledge at all? May be he's very nice, and a sincere man but would you want him to take out your appendix?

Why do people get so worked up to a lather when it is stated, that we evolved not from apes which offends many people to no end, but more primitive humans who long ago looked like apes. Hell chimps, our closest genetic cousin make war, use tools, show complex planning, commit murder, rape, and infanticide. Sounds a lot like us to me.

In a previous post I mentioned you observe, even experience your self, evolution by bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. Its easy to see because bacteria, and fungi reproduce so much faster then complex life. Strict Darwinisim is only part of the story, and the so called "missing link" may be out there but I would amazed if we found it. Because in one generation we have a fact could "punctuated equalibium" (please forgive spelling). Thats when a mutation happens in one or a few generations.

We know 50,000 years ago we had a radical change in human development, as we did about 8-10,000 years ago at the end of the last ice age. Interesting food for thought. Any one out there should not be offended if they really have faith. I think God can handle people thinking, at least from time to time... Don't forget the Buddha loves a good laugh.

Ultimately, evolution is about desire driving change. Desire is spirit under the influence of body and mind via karma and habit. The percent of spirit here is too small. Spirit is very weak here. The tendency for change is lateral or descending. Life devolves not evolves. If anything monkeys came from humans but more likely the karma was such that a life form becomes needed that currently doesn't exist and it is simply manifest to fill the need. Various threads and topics like the "Skinwalker Ranch" and the books of Charles Fort have shown that like forms are being introduced into the world rather than all of them being a process of modification of an existing form.

no it isnt

its nothing to do with it, this is on par with things change because they want to which was an alternate to darwin's orginal hypothesis (early Id in the making)

but now your going to have to supply evidence for karma and spirit


you dont share my belief your not worthy yet, stop with the condescention

you beleive in the unprovable we dont, it doesnt make you better then us in anyway it makes us more logical and open to what is as we dont fixate on the what isnt

got evidence?

you have got to be kidding me

extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence .... got any?

if they had shown it they would have won nobel prizes, chances are its god of the gaps and false logic sold for the masses in the hope they dont know enough to laugh

and what happens when the existing form modifies so much it becomes somthing different?

sounds like Id and its micro yes macro no without understanding they are the same thing just on a different extreme

[edit on 27/11/08 by noobfun]