seekn4

A great deal of the answers u look for are answered in a video on u tube called "gregg braden: the language of the divine matrix", when I did my soul searching a got a whole bunch of info downloaded to my brain that I knew came from god, cause what came to me was way too smart or wise to be me, and I thought I was going crazy, until I saw the braden video and realized that I wasn't the only one to have the beliefs I have, and I also realized that there is one god, one consousness cause people all around the world were coming up with the same info. And origionally I didn't get my info from the internet, I basically locked myself in a room for a couple years and set out to find out if god was real, and it seems like everyone who goes on the spiritual journey experiences the same thing and will come out with the same information, no matter where they r in the world, proving one god. When I searched for god it was more listening and paying attention to how I felt inside.

RVCA

The moment that article cited an argument against evolution from Ann Coulter as "persuasive" it lost all credibility. What a joke.

Evolution is not a theory, it's as close to fact as it can possibly be. It doesn't take "faith in science" to see that. Read a god damn book and it becomes obvious.

Paedantic Basterd

You sound like an anti-drug campaign to me.

seekn4

Tore who u trying to fool if u were a biologist you would know that there is no transition form of humans to prove evolution, if u want to know human beginnings like I said see for yourself and study all of zacharia sitchens work, it makes more sense than anything I have ever heard .

Thanks for the heads up,but I can handle these jamokes, most of them make themselves look foolish, if it ain't on wikapedia it aint true, how do u even talk to those kind of people, I don't care about convincing them of anything, just planting seeds in their head, having some fun, its like arguing with highschoolers, just trying to give em a mind****, and maybe one day they will form an opinion all on their own, after actually seeing all views first, imagine that.

Hey children, evolution has never been accepted as fact that is why it is called the Theory of evolution, yall never learned anything after highschool did u, I might as well go argue with an 8th grade science book.

blastingas10

So you're going to dismiss it based on that one thing rather than the actual evidence it talks about?

skaltezon

ann coulter nekkid -->
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...mVljwy4hzEvXWK

__________________

CanwllCorfe

Oh this is going to be fun.

__________________
Your eyes were never yet let in to see the majesty and riches of the mind, but dwell in darkness; for your God is blind.

someonecompletelyrandom

Any fucking highschooler could tell you a theory in science terms is different from its use in popular language.

Take it from someone who went the majority of his life blindly accepting that evolution is a myth propagated by Satan, the evidence for it is overwhelming. You insist we study the works you mentioned, yet it's clear from your comments that you've never actually studied evolution in-depth, or even on the surface.

I've read a lot of material that tried to disprove evolution and advocate creationism and vice versa. I've come to the conclusion that the facts are the facts. Biologists have their jobs for a reason, they know what they're talking about. They're not out to push a social agenda.

blankety blank

thanks blaster. He is on to something. not all of it, but, definitely something.

And, who is this Steve person? I don't recall ever seeing him. I heard some things about him, but, I don't know him personally. He was probably misunderstood. I peeked. And, his rants were long. Too long, and, too wordy. He might have been a troll

It's a brand new world, so, a Brand New song is in order.





Nice to meet you blastingas.

Okay genius. Read a blankety blank book. It's called a dictionary. If the term evolution was not coined until the 19th century to mean things changing over time; Why does it appear in 1615 give or take 4 years? And, is defined as 'the unrolling of a book or books. Or, unfolding something that was previously folded up'?

No, it is still called a theory. And, then to say 'it's as close to fact as it possibly can be', means It's not a fact.

Read a blankety blank book, and it does become obvious. Things changed in 1611, and, you might to stop placing all that 'faith in science'. Oh, you don't have to you say. It doesn't take faith.

Best be grabbing some in something. Because, this definitely 'inane', 'pointless', 'null and void', and 'empty-headed' ignorance.

What a joke.

There is evidence to support it. It's not zero, but, it is not absolute fact. They are still missing a couple few links from primate to homo. They cannot prove beyond doubt, so, it remains a theory.

'Everything dissolves, or is restored into the root of its own nature alone'

You might find the modern understanding of life just may crumble. And, depending on what you believe concerning the archetypes, you may find yourself at the root of that nature. Or, possibly a quark. But, it won't take as long, so, I am told. But, don't believe me or the source of that information. I could take longer. Who knows? The burden of proof has to be placed on something that has no absolute proof. That's a nugget.

Since so many appear to be scientists, here's one. My Chemical Romance.



Except the idea that you may be immortal.

I'm impressed

Guybrush

No, there isn't, Blastingas. Epigenetics is something biologists study. Biologists know more about this than anyone and believe me, there's nothing about epigenetics that disproves evolution. It is simply how gene expression is regulated. It is part of phenotypical plasticity, which is the ability for a genotype (an organisms genes) to have several genetic expressions. A rabbit's fur turns white in winter. That's because of a change in gene regulation and expression, epigenetics. One gene turns on, another turns off as a response to environmental queues such as shorter day length or a drop in temperature. Whether or not such changes can be inherited has no bearing on the fact that DNA is selected for and evolves. Epigenetic change can only affect some of the genes that are already there and they could only pass from mothers to offspring, not from fathers. It is not possible for it to create novel genes and evolve organisms. It's just a function of the regulatory system.

If you don't understand what I mean, please, feel free to ask questions and I can help flesh it out for you.

The word theory has several uses. Unfortunately for your argument, the one used by science is something like this one :

The theory of evolution is a theoretical structure built up by hypotheses testing (just like f.ex the atomic theory) and it explains the general laws of how life develops as we know it. In science, "theory" is as close as you get to fact and there are no serious scientists today that do not believe in evolution. There may be some disagreement on the details, for example what the most common mechanisms behind speciation are or how important natural selection is vs. sexual selection as the driving force behind evolution, but all serious scientists today accept evolution. To deny it is like claiming the earth is at the center of the universe. We're past that point now.

You write there are no transitional forms. Actually, transitional forms between all living organisms have existed, whether it's between man and chimpanzee or between a dog and a species of mosquito. Each living species today is like the ends of the trouser legs of ages and if it was possible to travel through time, you could go down one leg (dog lineage f.ex) through the generations until you hit the common ancestor and forward trough time up the other leg until you hit the other species (mosquito). Not that it's really like a trouser, you would meet many crossroads on the way, but I like the analogy.

When it comes to humans and our earlier ancestors which were closer to the common ancestor we have with the modern chimpanzee, we've found lots of them so I don't know where you get the idea there are no transitional forms from. Here's a chart that shows some species. It's not the prettiest I could find, but I chose it as it features photographs of the skeletal finds which should demonstrate that it's not just someone's imagination at work.



Another example : if there are no transitional forms, why is it when going back to 150 million year old sedimentary rock formations we don't find any fossils of birds? Instead, you find stuff like this :





Animals that look like a mix between birds and lizards that have teeth and claws on their wings. The Archaeopteryx is a famous fossil. There are many other examples. And it's not like it's the only observational evidence either. For example, today, we can observe microorganisms like yeast and bacteria as they evolve in laboratories. Breeding of organisms like dogs and cabbages, which was some of Darwin's favorite evidence, changes organisms across generations by the same mechanisms natural selection does.

Don't be close minded

__________________
Something Completely Different