tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Ignore Seahawk, and we're pals again. I'll let you play with my marbles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Ignore Seahawk, and we're pals again. I'll let you play with my marbles. ok, that sounds good. you go first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 E rock you like that article huh??? That guy is alot smarter that you fuck head. Did you read it??? I bet not becuase you like your head in your ass. Internet fight!!! Vowels and consonants flying at high speed and in no particular order! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 E rock you like that article huh??? That guy is alot smarter that you fuck head. Did you read it??? I bet not becuase you like your head in your ass. Internet fight!!! No fight as I'm Not defending a position. I don't beleive either side can be proved. The listing of the article was mearly to prove a point that there is another side that can be scientifically upheld also. Maybe even better but that for each person to decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Prove it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Ignore Seahawk, and we're pals again. I'll let you play with my marbles. ok, that sounds good. you go first. I'm already there. It's kind of like a cat playing with a mouse that's already in a coma. Steelie? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Vowels and consonants flying at high speed and in no particular order! Quick...duck. Here comes a consonant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevbone Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 No fight as I'm Not defending a position. I don't beleive either side can be proved. The listing of the article was mearly to prove a point that there is another side that can be scientifically upheld also. Maybe even better but that for each person to decide. Seahawks. Im risking a great internet bond by talking to you. But I thought is was important enough to do it. So here it goes FUCK OFF BITCH! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 No fight as I'm Not defending a position. I don't beleive either side can be proved. The listing of the article was mearly to prove a point that there is another side that can be scientifically upheld also. Maybe even better but that for each person to decide. Seahawks. Im risking a great internet bond by talking to you. But I thought is was important enough to do it. So here it goes FUCK OFF BITCH! Coming from you, Thanks, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lI1|1! Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 did anyone figure out how the Grand Canyon was created yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 (edited) did anyone figure out how the Grand Canyon was created yet? LOL your name says "Lover" That comment is trouble. Edited January 12, 2007 by Seahawks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 The Grand Canyon pre-existed itself; it was a hole to begin with, except with air around it. Over millions of years, or maybe hundreds, sediments piled up around, but not in it, because Nature abhors a vacuum, creating the scenic wonder that it is today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 (edited) The Grand Canyon pre-existed itself; it was a hole to begin with, except with air around it. Over millions of years, or maybe hundreds, sediments piled up around, but not in it, because Nature abhors a vacuum, creating the scenic wonder that it is today. . this is a picture of two california condor's soaring above the great hole. Edited January 13, 2007 by pink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 seecocks! you rule the lower worlds. you are .007 incarnate! not a zero,but close enough. there is a decimal point in your existence that you do not see. good luck with that shitcreek thing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 did anyone figure out how the Grand Canyon was created yet? some millions of years after the creater unbored himself , something must of ripped a big crack in the ground. i guess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 Maybe Jeezus used the Corrosive Properties of Water to Make It. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joblo7 Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 its BC at least. how long ago was krishna around? no must be BK as well... it may be natural. old. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstach Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 BTW Crux, if you really believe science as produced comparable levels of proof for gravity and evolution, you're a perfect example of what I am talking about. Just keep on uncritically believing whatever the High Priests of the scientific establishment tell you. Today's lesson: Gravity is a fact. Evolution is a fact. Class dismissed. (Oh, and Cretin, please cut loose from the big wad of drivel -- you know the one, it's hanging from your mouth and mixed with words like "science" and "religion" as though they were concepts you just couldn't keep down.) You're just proving my point. Show me a fossil record that demonstrates a species evolving into another species. It doesn't exisit. Everyone knows that a species is able to adapt to its environment (e.g. grow a longer beak). Thats adaptation. I'm not suggesting evolution did not happen. I'm saying people talk about it as if it has been proven because they have placed their *faith* in Science. And they argue very passionately (dare I say with religious fervor!!)as evidenced in this thread. My point has been made. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 The Grand Canyon exists because God doesn't use fluoridated water. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 You're just proving my point. Show me a fossil record that demonstrates a species evolving into another species. It doesn't exisit. Everyone knows that a species is able to adapt to its environment (e.g. grow a longer beak). Thats adaptation. I'm not suggesting evolution did not happen. I'm saying people talk about it as if it has been proven because they have placed their *faith* in Science. And they argue very passionately (dare I say with religious fervor!!)as evidenced in this thread. My point has been made. Yawn. You really need to get out more. I can't believe I'm reading the 'missing link' argument in 2007. You can observe evolution directly in the lab using any population that breeds fast enough and in large enough numbers within a short enough time scale. Like bacteria, yo. Your talking hours or days to observe evolution in action. It's also been observed directly in the field in larger creatures populating new environments, such as the anoles lizard in the Caribbean. DNA analysis provides the generation roadmap for tracking. Duh. It's been done a bazillion times. No fossils required. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 You're wasting your breath and time on this one. As JayB said, "You can't reason a man out of something he didn't reason his way into". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 You're right, but it's a bit annoying how many christians who've obviously never cracked a science book (or googled anything scientific, for that matter) present themselves as expert critics of the scientific process. They get their talking points spoon fed to them by their pet websites and they're off to the races ready for the 'debate', completely unaware that much of anything has occured in the past 100 years. Whatever happened to doing your homework before giving the lecture? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seahawks Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 You're just proving my point. Show me a fossil record that demonstrates a species evolving into another species. It doesn't exisit. Everyone knows that a species is able to adapt to its environment (e.g. grow a longer beak). Thats adaptation. I'm not suggesting evolution did not happen. I'm saying people talk about it as if it has been proven because they have placed their *faith* in Science. And they argue very passionately (dare I say with religious fervor!!)as evidenced in this thread. My point has been made. Yawn. You really need to get out more. I can't believe I'm reading the 'missing link' argument in 2007. You can observe evolution directly in the lab using any population that breeds fast enough and in large enough numbers within a short enough time scale. Like bacteria, yo. Your talking hours or days to observe evolution in action. It's also been observed directly in the field in larger creatures populating new environments, such as the anoles lizard in the Caribbean. DNA analysis provides the generation roadmap for tracking. Duh. It's been done a bazillion times. No fossils required. Your on crack. Your claim of evolution being seen in a lab is a fucking lie. First of all, the lack of a case for evolution is clear from the fact that no one has ever seen it happen. If it were a real process, evolution should still be occurring, and there should be many "transitional" forms that we could observe. What we see instead, of course, is an array of distinct "kinds" of plants and animals with many varieties within each kind, but with very clear and — apparently — unbridgeable gaps between the kinds. That is, for example, there are many varieties of dogs and many varieties of cats, but no "dats" or "cogs." Such variation is often called microevolution, and these minor horizontal (or downward) changes occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution. Evolutionary geneticists have often experimented on fruit flies and other rapidly reproducing species to induce mutational changes hoping they would lead to new and better species, but these have all failed to accomplish their goal. No truly new species has ever been produced, let alone a new "basic kind." A current leading evolutionist, Jeffrey Schwartz, professor of anthropology at the University of Pittsburgh, has recently acknowledged that: . . . it was and still is the case that, with the exception of Dobzhansky's claim about a new species of fruit fly, the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.1 The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foraker Posted January 13, 2007 Share Posted January 13, 2007 FYI: anthropology != evolution science. Your claim of evolution being seen in a lab is a fucking lie. Ah, anger, denial, and lack of evidence. You are in serious need of a science class. Preferably one with a book that wasn't around during the Inquisition. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.