Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by bl4ke360
Consciousness only feels special because we have it...there are many other traits we among other primates have that somehow do not come up on the *special* radar.Although people may like to think of being conscious ie the realization of self is special...it really isn't.It is simply like many other things the product of evolution which has helped us immensly as a species.Sure it is a complex and baffling trait,but that by no means distinguishes itself from any other trait we have.
Originally posted by thegagefather
5 out of 10 Americans still believe a 2000 year old guy that preached meditation and reincarnation is going to come save them, even though it's clear his messages were altered completely 800 years later by some guy named Paul.
Yes, the majority of Americans are slightly retarded.
Does this really surprise you?
Originally posted by PieKeeper
You are wrong about everything you just said.
1. Evolution is not a theory.
. It is an observable phenomena. It's a 100% undeniable scientific fact. We know it happens, we see it happen. It has been proven countless times.
The Theory of Evolution is an explanation as to why and how evolution happens. It also attempts to give us a means of predicting when evolution will happen. A Theory, in terms of science, is an explanation of an observable phenomena.
Your understanding of a Scientific Law is flawed. Theories do not become Laws.
Not surprisingly, most laws are mathematical equations, and the Theory of Evolution doesn't contain any math that I know of.
You do not know how life started, and evolutionists are not claiming that is how it started. It is merely a guess as to where a source of energy may have come to form a self sustaining organism. This energy could have put together a molecule essential for life. It is merely a hypothesis.
5. We do have transitional fossils. .
6. Species are evolving and changing constantly. This has been observed.
Whales have leg bones. That itself proves that whales evolved from creatures that had four limbs instead of 2. So evolutionists don't have to admit anything.
MILLIONS OF YEARS FOR THE COW TO CHANGE INTO A WHALE
I am still worried about that cow. She had to stay out in that water, swimming, and chomping on orchard grass that might, by chance, float by while her calf nursed underwater; and she and her descendants had to continue on like that for A MILLION YEARS before that cow could change into whale!
"It takes a MILLION YEARS to evolve a new species, ten million for a new genus, one hundred million for a class, a billion for a phylum and that’s usually as far as your imagination goes.
"In a billion years [from now], it seems, intelligent life might be as different from humans as humans are from insects . . To change from a human being to a cloud may seem a big order, but it’s the kind of change you’d expect over billions of years."—*Freemen Dyson, 1988 statement, quoted in Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 93 [American mathematician; caps ours].
Another evolutionist agrees: millions of years before the cow would change into a whale.
"The change in gene frequencies of populations over the generations in time produces new species. Darwin called it [the change of one species to another] ‘descent with modification’: a slow process, usually operating over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, and even MILLIONS, of years."—*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 157 [caps ours].
Oh, you’re worried about the calf? Needn’t fear. It was holding its nose shut with its hoof while it nursed. Calves have to be persistent, you know, or they don’t live very long.
www.pathlights.com...
www.tccsa.tc...
5. We do have transitional fossils. Archaeopteryx.
Dr. Lee Spetner of the Weizman Institute, Israel, long suspected that the London specimen was a fake and eventually persuaded the British Natural History Museum authorities to let him examine the actual specimen. Museum specimens of the calibre of the Archaeopteryx are securely squirreled away in vaults only accessible to the eye of certified believers; the public sees a mere plaster copy. British scientist Sir Fred Hoyle had also expressed reservations about the London specimen's authenticity and Dr. Spetner invited him to co-operate in the examination of this fossil. Just before Christmas 1984 the precious artifact was exposed, perhaps for the first time in this century, to the skeptical eye of unbelievers. To forestall charges of fraud, an International Archaeo Archaeopteryx Conference had been held at Eichstatt just three months earlier where 80 of the faithful had gathered but they were denied the chance to see either the London or the Berlin specimens; the London Specimen was claimed to be "too fragile to travel" and the Berlin Specimen was said to be "in Japan" [16].
During Spetner and Hoyle's examination physical contact was not permitted but a great many photographs were taken using techniques intended to highlight the contours. This was important because the surface upon which the fossil impression lies is three dimensional; published photographs leave the viewer with the impression that the fossil lies on a two-dimensional plane. The results were most revealing but when it came to publication the ranks and hinds of the scientific press were solidly closed! In the end, Hoyle and Spetner and their associates published their findings in a series of photographic articles in The British Journal of Photography [17-20]. The charges led to counter-charges by Alan Charig and others of the British Museum [21]. In the meantime, the public press, reminded of the Piltdown affair at the same museum in 1953, smelled the makings of another scandal and eagerly fanned the flames of contention. Sir Fred Hoyle quickly published a little book containing some very interesting photographs and documentation of the charges and counter-charges [22]. Finally, in late 1987, the museum put their most famous fossil on display with a list of rebuttals to the charges of hoax in an attempt to regain the public confidence. From that day to this the public had heard nothing more of the debacle.
Hoyle and Spetner concluded that the London Specimen was actually a genuine fossil of the Compsognathus, an extinct reptile,
www.talkorigins.org...
Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
reply to post by stuff1
1. That the historical Jesus existed
The "historical Jesus" term used by scholars is a vague idea. There are hundreds of candidates as to who the real life inspiration for the character of Jesus in the Bible was.
2. That he did die on the cross
Crucifixion was the Romans preferred way of execution. Any man trying to instill a revolt against the empire would have suffered this fate.
3. That eyewitnesses gave EARLY testimony to his resurrection
Please show me one credible source, that isn't using apologetics, that there is historical testimony to the resurrection of Jesus. That can go for 4 and 5 as well.
oubleday, 1991) 
Originally posted by apacheman
Evolution is unproven?
Tell that to the farmers and ranchers who selectively breed pigs/cows/horses.
Tell that to the virologists who literally watch viruses evolve.
Edward C. Holmes
Department of Zoology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, UK OX1 3PS
Available online 30 October 2003.
Abstract
RNA viruses are often thought of as possessing almost limitless adaptability as a result of their extreme mutation rates. However, high mutation rates also put a cap on the size of the viral genome by establishing an error threshold, beyond which lethal numbers of deleterious mutations accumulate. Herein, I argue that a lack of genomic space means that RNA viruses will be subject to important evolutionary constraints because specific sequences are required to encode multiple and often conflicting functions. Empirical evidence for these constraints, and how they limit viral adaptability, is now beginning to accumulate. Documenting the constraints to RNA virus evolution has important implications for predicting the emergence of new viruses and for improving therapeutic procedures.
Tell that to the dog breeders who selectively create new breeds.
Tell that to the rose enthusiasts who create new rose varieties through practical application of evolution.
There's quite literally tons of evidence supporting evolution. If you argue that it is only a theory, it simply broadcasts your ignorance of scientific terminology.
What kind of proof are you looking for?
