Descent BB

 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

   Descent BB Forum Index > Ethics and Commentary > My Last Year! Post new topic   Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:01 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Thorne wrote:
Is there any evidence, outside of someone's mind, that should compel me to believe that these birds will ever be anything but birds? Or domestic dog, cats, horses, etc, anything but dogs, cats, and horses?


Just a quicky before i tackle the rest.

The literal answer to your question regarding clasifications is NO. Anything that evolves from a Cat - we will still categorise as a Cat - always, no matter how much it changes. This is a central theme of common ancestry.

Because due to how we categorise clades, every sub-species that diverges from it's pre-cursor species - will never escape it's pre-cursor's categorisation.

There's Monkeys
-- Primates diverged from Monkeys
----- and Humans diverged from Primates.

But Primates are still categorised as Monkeys,
And humans are still categorised as both Primates and Monkeys.

It's just like how we Humans are still categorised as Mammals. Animals never "out grow" their species roots.

A Video explaining this is here, it also explains some of the limitations of Linnaean taxonomy i was talking about earlier (although i didn't use the term).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tz52ivJgVx8
You may notice that this is a mirror and not on AronRa's youtube channel, that's because Creationists have an ongoing campaign of dishonest underhanded tactics against anything that they don't like on youtube. They use underhanded tactics like falseflagging (which can have videos removed automatically) and votebot attacks. To ensure videos stay up, other activists typically mirror videos so that if the original goes down it is still available for others to watch. We have also written programs that catch active votebot attacks in progress.
If you want to know more about these dishonest Creationist practices you can read more.
It is things like these that should show most people what this debate is really all about. Ignorance vs Knowledge. For the truth does not fear criticism.

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 12:07 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Ok i think Grendel has been answering your other questions.
The only thing i'd like to add, is that you need to define your terms.

What exactly the Bible is referring to when it talks about "kinds" in Genesis, is debatable. If you could first flesh out what your definition is, then it will help us avoid any possible future goal-post moving.

for an example: please say what characteristics of birds makes them categorised as "birds" in your mind. Make special note that your characterisations should exclude characteristics of bats, flying insects, gliding sugergliders and frogs (yes some frogs glide through the air - i watch a lot of nature documentaries ), etc. Unless you wish to also categorise all of these things as "birds" (and maybe you will - you can if you want), then "things that fly" is not a specific enough category.
Welcome to the world of taxonomy, a profession which predates the theory of Evolution by a loooong time.
It was essentially taxonomists who came up with the theory of Evolution, to explain what they saw as they tried to categorise things and share their collective knowledge. The more they saw, the more and more evidence they collected that all seemed to point to one inevitable explanation that made sense of it all: Evolution.


here's a video explaining micro and macro evolution.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

I am noticing that this seems to be how the thread is going:
- Someone asks a highschool level biology question.
- Someone else then explains the correct answer, using one of the top results in a Google or Youtube search as a reference or learning aide.

I'm happy to be helping people educate themselves i guess. But it would be appreciated if you'd also take some effort to educate yourself, youtube is full of good short videos on the subjects in question.

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 1:27 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Heavy burden being you.

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
Smotie
The Wombat




PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:50 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

roid wrote:
If you want to know more about these dishonest Creationist practices you can read more.
It is things like these that should show most people what this debate is really all about. Ignorance vs Knowledge. For the truth does not fear criticism.


Wow, in one fell swoop you've managed to tar all of Christianity with dishonesty and ignorance.

Science= Truth and Knowledge
Christianity= Deception and Ignorance

Shocked And science never deceived anybody???

Thank you Wikipedia for enlightening the world to the great deception of Christianity!!

roid wrote:
I am noticing that this seems to be how the thread is going:
- Someone asks a highschool level biology question.
- Someone else then explains the correct answer, using one of the top results in a Google or Youtube search as a reference or learning aide.


I am sure this is the case because most of us are not evolutionary professors and would like things to be explained in laymans terms.

This is the instance where Romans 1 is totally applicable. "Thinking themselves to be wise..."
Floyd
Hotshot




PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 4:57 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Smotie wrote:
I am sure this is the case because most of us are not evolutionary professors and would like things to be explained in laymans terms.

if you're really interested - watch these videos: From Big Bang to Us -- Made Easy (for laymans)
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 8:08 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I never took highschool biology, and i was a Creationist until only a few years ago.
Youtube was my evolution education. highly recommended.

(fuck off spidey)

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Thorne
Ace




PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 10:14 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I'm not looking for an education from you. I don't know why you're so intent on giving me one when I haven't been far off yet, my only fault being that I have not stated the issue in as precise of terms as you and your links. I thought that maybe it was possible that in my ignorance of some of the finer points of biology that there was actually some sort of evidence in favor of macro-evolution. I don't want to cut you guys off right here or anything, but understand that all I'm seeing so far is a lot of talk to basically say that micro-evolution will become macro-evolution even though it is in fact only proven in the form of micro-evolution. I say that the notion that a reptile is related to a bird is pure fantasy, supported only by imagination in the presence of similarities. I suppose you could say that since all living animals have eyes they must come from a common ancestor. Is there such an insurmountable problem with that statement? Throw a few fillion (new word score!) years in there and give you the grade you need to be a winner and get on with your life and everything's cool. I'll pass.

_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
Smotie
The Wombat




PostPosted: Sat Mar 13, 2010 11:12 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

All I see is statements contradicting other statements made and a whole lot of links to videos etc. Information overload. I have been asking questions to legitimately try to understand what evidence if any there is for evolution etc. But I still don't have any. When previous comments were made by me regarding historical evidence and experiential evidence and creation itself proving evidence for a creator, the response I received is that these are not scientifically valid because they cannot be proven in a scientific way...recreated in a lab experiment.
When I mention the accuracy of the Bible in terms of prophecy and fulfillment and historical accuracy I get the response that there are thousands of errors in the Bible however when I asked for examples evolution/creation is brought up. Now that's circular reasoning for you.
When I asked what evidence scientifically there is for the big bang (ie: recreating in a lab) I was told there is none by one person and there is by another and that "observed" evidence in the field is enough. And that evolution is observed right before our eyes. Also that there really is no difference between macro and micro evolution even though there is. And also that the universe is evidence for the big bang theory.
I am confused...observed evidence and the universe is not enough evidence for a creator but it is for evolutionary theory.
I made the comment that there is very little fossil evidence and I was told there is thousands of fossil evidence however if you read back earlier I put a link up that proves there is a lack of fossil evidence and this was accepted as fact.
We talked about languages changing and evolving over time, The tower of Babel given as an example of error in the Bible, that all languages could not have come from one incident. However when discussed further I was told that it was possible that all languages came from one, but that it was not a direct descent.
Comments were even made that people held beliefs that had little or no evidence, but they were subject to change. However Christians stating that they had beliefs but held little or no evidence were told they were ignorant and following blindly a set of beliefs that were outdated and had no evidence.
Speciation...this is a good one. The Bibles term that reproduction is "like for like" is not accepted by the scientific community because of macro-evolution, however I am told that the changes in species are not complete. That a monkey will always be called a monkey, even though it can now talk etc... "like for like"?

Very contradicting and confusing indeed...I don't have the patience to go back and copy and paste all of the comments to validate what I have shown here but you can go back and read it for yourself if you don't think what I am saying is correct.
Spidey
Hotshot




PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 12:16 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

That “monkey” video is pretty much sarcasm, in the form of a fondness for calling people monkeys. From all I can gather our common ancestor was a proto primate much more like a lemur, but that doesn’t have the same ring does it?

Lemur, lemur, lemur

Lemur boy…nah, better stick with monkey.

_________________
Better to be pissed off, than to be pissed on.
Grendel
Ninja Admin




PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 2:17 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Thorne wrote:
I say that the notion that a reptile is related to a bird is pure fantasy, supported only by imagination in the presence of similarities. I suppose you could say that since all living animals have eyes they must come from a common ancestor.

DNA analysis makes it pretty clear. See also Origin of birds and Reptiles.

_________________
Borders? I have never seen one. But I have heard they exist in the minds of some people. -- Thor Heyerdahl
Durch einen Stich bereits geschafft, erschlafft und ohne Saft und Kraft! -- Donald, examining a Deflator Dextrospirillus
Floyd
Hotshot




PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 4:05 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Smotie wrote:
Information overload.

that is because everything you asked for is incredibly complex. the playlist i gave in my last post only scratches the tip of the iceberg (but is very easy to understand). in fact, that is with most of the info you'll find on the net or in books. if you want to go deeper, you should read all the related scientific papers and thesis about the desired topic. there can be several to one topic alone, which is broken into subtopics.
that is it with science: you find something out and in the same time raise more questions. you find answers to these new questions, which raise even more new questions. asking someone to answer everything for you is impossible today, that's why there are so many fields of science today, compared to universal scholars from 200+ years ago.
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Sun Mar 14, 2010 8:55 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Thorne wrote:
...I thought that maybe it was possible that in my ignorance of some of the finer points of biology that there was actually some sort of evidence in favor of macro-evolution. I don't want to cut you guys off right here or anything, but understand that all I'm seeing so far is a lot of talk to basically say that micro-evolution will become macro-evolution even though it is in fact only proven in the form of micro-evolution. I say that the notion that a reptile is related to a bird is pure fantasy, supported only by imagination in the presence of similarities.


I have already given examples of macro-evolution (speciation).
I mentioned vinegar flies and ring species. Both are examples of speciation happening before your very eyes.

Drosophila via selective breeding in the lab, have been split into sub-speices that no longer inter-breed with their neighbours. This is an example of speciation, where a gene pool has genetically "split off" from it's parent group. All of the "missing links" were created along the way in the lab, and are thus obviously not really "missing" at all.

And ring species are observable in the field. Members of ring species can all successfully interbreed with their respective neighbouring species - but cannot interbreed with species further along the ring. This is another example of speciation. Again, this is an interesting example because the ring contains all required "missing link" species, still alive.

Speciation is the first step of macro-evolution, and is the defining moemnt when micro-evolution becomes macro-evolution. Bigger changes in morphology of course require longer periods of time.

Thorne wrote:
I suppose you could say that since all living animals have eyes they must come from a common ancestor. Is there such an insurmountable problem with that statement? Throw a few fillion (new word score!) years in there and give you the grade you need to be a winner and get on with your life and everything's cool. I'll pass.


The evolution of the eye is interesting.
Although all eyes use some common components that have only evolved ONCE, eyes on animals have actually evolved multiple times on multiple occasions - each one being different.
A typical example of this is the eye in Vertebrates (like we humans) and Octopuses. They evolved separately (the common ancestor to both Vertibrates and Invertibrates had no eyes), yet in the end the eyes of both Humans and Octopuses are very similar.
The differences are apparent under study though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
There are also Youtube videos about the evolution of the eye.

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Mon Mar 15, 2010 6:30 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Bunyip wrote:
"Macro" evolution is a convenient lie that creates a false distinction which creationists use to deny observed facts.


Grendel, there was a reason I said this the way I did. What you quoted has the virtue of being more accurate, and the fault of seeming to validate the false impressions common to creationists. Evolution is evolution.

Thorne, I see you keep raising the bar Smile Just out of curiosity, according to your notions of how the world works, is a Tiger different in KIND from a Lion?

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Thorne
Ace




PostPosted: Tue Mar 16, 2010 10:04 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I really couldn't say. But that would have less to do with my "notions of how the world works", and more to do with their biological relationships (or lack thereof). I think you're jumping to a wrong conclusion somewhere there.

Just out of curiosity, "raising the bar" wouldn't happen to be a good thing, would it? Wink It sounds awesome!

_________________
"Whatever your hand finds to do, do it with your might;
for there is no work or device or knowledge or wisdom in the grave where you are going."
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 6:00 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Before I say anything let me say this first. I'm the type of person that likes to make my own observations and then my own conclusions. I don't believe jack shit until I can observe it with my own eyes. I also don't think it matters how old the earth is or where man originated from, because I got to get up every morning and brush my teeth and shit. I'm not gonna pretend I read any of those links you posted Roid. I don't care at all what somebody else's findings are 1).because it affects my life in no way.
2).because I don't care because now I'm busy wiping my ass. ( I jest)
I live a simple life so I can afford to live the whole thing making my own observations and coming to my own conclusions, so I'm not gonna go and overload myself on contradictory evidence just to silence the nagging . I'll live 70-80 years maybe then I'll die, but you can be damn sure when I do. I will die with a mind completely of my own making, based on those things I can see, feel and touch myself.
Floyd
Hotshot




PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:52 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Flip wrote:
I don't care at all what somebody else's findings are 1).because it affects my life in no way.

you mean it doesn't change your perception of life. but it affects you in multiple ways, unless you live half naked in a cave, communicate with smoke signals, hunt your own food on your feet with self made tools, never visit a doctor etc., you wouldn't even have a computer to be posting messages on the internet Wink
that's because all these modern things are taken for granted, so no one actually recognizes them anymore, but everyone in the western world would be hopelessly lost without them. for an example, just remember the last big blackout.
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:08 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Thorne wrote:
Macro evolution, as I've heard it described, is the notion that one species can evolve into a separate species.


Lions, Tigers ...separate species. I just find it rather telling that they can interbreed if forced.

Interestingly enough, and I think some of us may not be aware of this: There exists "complete" fossil records for hundreds of species, the horse being a good example. There have been multiple observed (in modern times) occasions of a new species arising in organisms from bacteria to mammals to plants. There are massive amounts of non-fossil evidence from DNA analysis to Morphology to Comparative anatomy...

I kind of look at it as like a modern Galileo situation, without the heresy trials...

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:34 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

What has any of that got to do with philosophical questions Floyd? I'm no idiot and I value science highly, but what's being discussed here is the unknown and yes that has every thing to do with perception. Even the scientists themselves are limited to what they will allow themselves to believe.
Thinking outside the box and determining your view of how things are is what brought those innovations about and most of the people we magnify today as genius, were considered kooks and outcasts at the time for not just accepting what everybody else believed and called science. You would never have had your Ipod stuck in your ear if it wasn't for people who sought out things for themselves.
Flip
Ace




PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 9:40 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Quote:
I just find it rather telling that they can interbreed if forced.


I was thinking along these same lines earlier this morning. iI know a lot was posted of macro evolution, micro, so on. I didn't read much of it. The thought I had was if all this was found naturally occurring or if all these changes were things forced in a lab. I mean you can cross pollinate plants and create desirable traits but most of the time they cannot reproduce a second time. I actually think it's a very dangerous practice because the wrong combination could be deadly while if just let alone we would have been fine. Is it really natural selection, something that would happen on it's own, or are these the results of tampering?
Floyd
Hotshot




PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:17 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

ok, then maybe i got you wrong, sorry. you obviously see it the same way i do.
Perediablo
Ace




PostPosted: Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:42 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Just be.

_________________
"To design is to communicate clearly by whatever means you can control or master." _Milton Glaser
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 8:51 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Flip wrote:
The thought I had was if all this was found naturally occurring or if all these changes were things forced in a lab.


There are examples of both.
Field evidence: Things like the fossil record, and ring species.
Lab evidence: Artificial selection (eg: domestication).

Some common examples are how we bred modern corn from an ancient grass. Here are comparison images:


And how we bred modern bananas from their wild originals. This is what a wild banana looks like, note the large seeds.

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Grendel
Ninja Admin




PostPosted: Thu Mar 18, 2010 10:24 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

And I thought bananas are the atheists nightmare.. Razz

_________________
Borders? I have never seen one. But I have heard they exist in the minds of some people. -- Thor Heyerdahl
Durch einen Stich bereits geschafft, erschlafft und ohne Saft und Kraft! -- Donald, examining a Deflator Dextrospirillus
Smotie
The Wombat




PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 3:03 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

LOL Richard Dawkins believes we could possibly have been created by aliens form another planet. even the interviewer was gobsmacked. He couldnt believe his ears hahaha.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaSZtf5I1k&feature=related
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 4:09 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

No, Dawkins does not subscribe to the hypothesis of Panspermia.

You just showed me a video of Dawkins trying to educate Stein on what the concept of Panspermia was - to illustrate why the "God did it" explanation ultimately fails as it suffers the same problems as the Homunculus argument - It does not answer anything, instead just moving the explanation backwards one step, the next obvious question being: If God made it, who made God?

If Panspermia (ie: pre-existing alien lifeforms) was the source of life on Earth, then you still have yet to explain where the alien lifeforms came from. Dawkin's point is that if we didn't evolve from non-life, then our creators did, or their respective creators, or theirs. "If God exists - then God came about via evolution".

Dawkins does not subscribe to Panspermia. Stein's documentary, being of a typical intellectually dishonest creationist flavour, has been pulled apart countless times in youtube vids.

Or to quote the youtube comment that was posted directly after my comment on that video:
Quote:
OMG he didn't say he believes aliens designed us! He said its possible but he doesn't believe it, and that even if it turned out to be true it would only push back the question of how the aliens were designed. You quotemining scam artist douche.

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:08 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

I love how Smotie's video uses the "calm guy" voice to pretend to be unbiased. Not that the same tactics aren't used on both sides... I just think one side tends towards more critical thinking.

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
roid
Inane!




PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 6:35 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

i'm quite amazed to see they arn't screening the comments though. Could this be the first glimer that Ray Comfort is finally toying with the idea of intellectual honesty? Long way to go

_________________
i'm here to ... uh,
Smotie
The Wombat




PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:15 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

roid wrote:

Quote:
OMG he didn't say he believes aliens designed us! He said its possible but he doesn't believe it, and that even if it turned out to be true it would only push back the question of how the aliens were designed. You quotemining scam artist douche.


That's what I said:
"LOL Richard Dawkins believes we could possibly have been created by aliens form another planet."
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 11:34 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Smotie, you keep saying that like it's significant - and it is, but not for the reason you think. Basically, you're castigating Dawkins for his INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. Apparently that is not looked upon with favor by the followers of Joshua Christ...

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Smotie
The Wombat




PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 12:56 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Bunyip wrote:
Smotie, you keep saying that like it's significant - and it is, but not for the reason you think. Basically, you're castigating Dawkins for his INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. Apparently that is not looked upon with favor by the followers of Joshua Christ...


Nah you have me all wrong. I think it is commendable he is being honest. It actually shows that the evidence Dawkins has at hand is not even enough to rule out other possibilities and he is not afraid to say it.
The mere fact that he said it is possible brought that look of horror to the interviewers face. Like he just revealed a cover up or something. It was hilarious.
I have no problems being intellectually honest. I can honestly say that God touched me and that he IS real, however science has some claim to some evidence which I am unable to refute. Whether that is because of my unlearned status or my lack of delving deeper or science IS misleading us I don't know. That is why I made the statement about the earth being created old, I am trying to understand logically how science can read something that doesn't fit with the Bible but not trying to blindly discredit parts of science that contradicts with the Bible. Does that make sense??
Bee
Miss Priss




PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 1:26 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Smotie wrote:
That is why I made the statement about the earth being created old....


No offense Smotie, I'm just ranting, but there is no evidence that the earth was created old. However, it's a good example of how wild the explanations have gotten in trying to merge the God that's having a harder and harder time finding a place to fit in.. with real science. It isn't the atheist that's going to destroy religion, it's theism. The religious people will kill it themselves.

It bothers me that some still believe the earth is the center of the universe. Usually this is caused by listening to republicans, visiting the creation museum, or being within 50 miles of the Texas school system. Earth was under constant bombardment by meteorites and comets so it's not impossible that we were seeded by building blocks of life that were alien to earth.

No God created me. I rode in on a hot comet.

End of rant

Bee
Smotie
The Wombat




PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 7:43 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Bee wrote:
Smotie wrote:
That is why I made the statement about the earth being created old....


No offense Smotie, I'm just ranting, but there is no evidence that the earth was created old. However, it's a good example of how wild the explanations have gotten in trying to merge the God that's having a harder and harder time finding a place to fit in.. with real science. It isn't the atheist that's going to destroy religion, it's theism. The religious people will kill it themselves.

It bothers me that some still believe the earth is the center of the universe. Usually this is caused by listening to republicans, visiting the creation museum, or being within 50 miles of the Texas school system. Earth was under constant bombardment by meteorites and comets so it's not impossible that we were seeded by building blocks of life that were alien to earth.

No God created me. I rode in on a hot comet.

End of rant

Bee


No worries Bee, there is no evidence the earth was created old except scientists date the earth and billions of years old....
Bunyip
DBB Staff




PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:20 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Bee wrote:
...there is no evidence that the earth was created


I think she could have stopped there, if she'd used a capital 'C' in "created". =)

_________________
BELIEVE NOTHING, no matter where you read it, or who has said it,
not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason
and your own common sense. - GAUTAMA BUDDHA
Perediablo
Ace




PostPosted: Fri Mar 19, 2010 10:23 pm View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

Bunyip wrote:
Bee wrote:
...there is no evidence that the earth was created


I think she could have stopped there, if she'd used a capital 'C' in "created". =)


Kind of reminds me of this one from the great Douglas Adams...
"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move."

_________________
"To design is to communicate clearly by whatever means you can control or master." _Milton Glaser
Smotie
The Wombat




PostPosted: Sat Mar 20, 2010 1:03 am View user's profile Reply with quote Send private message

It is also just as annoying when the evolution videos state "3 billion years ago there was a big bang..." And that has made a lot of people angry...
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
All times are GMT - 6 Hours
Post new topic   Reply to topic
Jump to:  
   Descent BB Forum Index > Ethics and Commentary > My Last Year!

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Image hosting by postimage.org Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group