evolution

[Australopithicus]

You failed to refute Evolution in the debate. And you still cling to your gut feelings.

Need I remind you that a lot of scientific advancement have come from gut feelings and opinions. I believe that they are called 'theories'. Besides, all that I have failed to refute is that chimps and humans share 98% of the same DNA. However, I could just become completely closed - minded that I could say 'It's all just one big coincidence,' or I could say that 'Monkeys were God's smartest animals at the time, and looked sort - of like him, and humans were used on some of the basic template characteristics of a monkey', couldn't I? Of course, you'd refute it, people would insult me, I'd become indignant, and it'd all go full circle like it's going on our 'debate'. Too bad I had to open my trap with that big ol' parable of Newton and his friend...maybe we'd be getting somewhere if I'd just said 'yes' to your first question...

[Enforcer Talen]

from what I've seen, science avoids gut feelings as they can't be proven. again, austra. if not evolution, what?

[Colonel Olrik]

Need I remind you that a lot of scientific advancement have come from gut feelings and opinions. I believe that they are called 'theories'.

Wrong. Gut feelings originate theories that explain the evidence or are discarded as wrong.
There are simply irrefutable facts that confirm Evolution. That's why is both a Theory and a fact. Shesh. Had to say it again..

Besides, all that I have failed to refute is that chimps and humans share 98% of the same DNA.

Excuse me? Does somebody who read the debate thinks he managed to refute something or make a point? Only you, with your Book.

However, I could just become completely closed - minded that I could say 'It's all just one big coincidence,' or I could say that 'Monkeys were God's smartest animals at the time, and looked sort - of like him, and humans were used on some of the basic template characteristics of a monkey', couldn't I? Of course, you'd refute it, people would insult me, I'd become indignant, and it'd all go full circle like it's going on our 'debate'. Too bad I had to open my trap with that big ol' parable of Newton and his friend...maybe we'd be getting somewhere if I'd just said 'yes' to your first question...

You accepted the debate. You lost. Deal with it and learn.

[Master of Ossus]

ROTFLMAO! A "gut feeling" is not even a hypothesis in science. It must be altered to be a statement and then must be experimented upon. While partially correct, many "gut feelings" are actually the result of painstaking research on the part of the scientist. A theory is a hypothesis taken to the next level. It is a hypothesis that has been supported by considerable experimentation. The Theory of Evolution is one such hypothesis that was experimented on and modified until it was formed into its present incarnation. It will continue to be modified as other experiments and findings change the way parts of the theory work, but for the most part those are just alterations of specifics instead of sweeping alterations of the whole.

Incidentally, you would be completely wrong if you said that God created people in the basic image of "monkeys." According to the Bible, God created man in his own image, and he created them before he created the other animals. Look, moron, if you don't understand evolution, then you are clearly unqualified to refute it. You have not even attempted to refute evolution in this thread. If you would like to attempt to do so, then by all means present your evidence so that it can be examined. What you have done, however, does not constitute a rebuttal. It is just you trying to say that evolution is wrong because you say it is.

[Australopithicus]

Right.
What Darwin observed that started off the theory of evolution was merely variety. The various types of finches that he observed were merely variations on a theme. They were NOT evolutionary mutations. For instance, you get several types of dogs, cats, even Humans. For instance, with dogs, you get beagles, cockerspaniels, dobermen etc. With cats, you get siamese, lions, tigers etc. With humans, you get asians, orientals, caucasians, black people etc. They are all the same species. They are merely a visual variety of the same thing. No genetic mutations, just variety.

[Colonel Olrik]

Right.
What Darwin observed that started off the theory of evolution was merely variety. The various types of finches that he observed were merely variations on a theme. They were NOT evolutionary mutations. For instance, you get several types of dogs, cats, even Humans. For instance, with dogs, you get beagles, cockerspaniels, dobermen etc. With cats, you get siamese, lions, tigers etc. With humans, you get asians, orientals, caucasians, black people etc. They are all the same species. They are merely a visual variety of the same thing. No genetic mutations, just variety.

Wrong.

Darwin observed genetic mutations. He studied birds in different islands who obviously shared a same ancestor, but were different in some details. Those differents are provoked by genetic mutations.

At the time, he didn't have the tools to provide a complete expanation on how the changes occur. Due to genetics, we have now

[Darth Wong]

Right.
What Darwin observed that started off the theory of evolution was merely variety. The various types of finches that he observed were merely variations on a theme. They were NOT evolutionary mutations.

Yes they were. You are employing a strawman definition of evolution. Evolution is the result of genetic variation. How can you say that observed examples of genetic variation are not evolution? Are you on drugs?

For instance, you get several types of dogs, cats, even Humans. For instance, with dogs, you get beagles, cockerspaniels, dobermen etc. With cats, you get siamese, lions, tigers etc. With humans, you get asians, orientals, caucasians, black people etc. They are all the same species. They are merely a visual variety of the same thing. No genetic mutations, just variety.

Actually, all variations are genetic mutations. Your DNA is different from mine; that is a genetic mutation. Small genetic differences = small structural differences. Large genetic differences = large structural differences. Isolate two populations from one another for long enough, and so many small changes will occur that the two populations are no longer compatible, ie- they become different species.

This has been explained to you before. You have ignored it. I have no doubt that you will ignore it again. You have your own strawman definition of evolution in your head, and you refuse to accept the proper definition.

Before we waste any more time, please explain exactly how evolution theory works as per YOUR understanding of it. That will help us quickly clear up most of your misconceptions (the remainder will probably require electroshock therapy, but that's another issue).

[Australopithicus]

I'm thinking...

...maybe I should crawl into a hole somewhere and die,and save you all a lot of trouble.

[Dirty Harry]

yes, yes it would.

[Australopithicus]

I thought it might.

[Darth Wong]

I'm thinking...

...maybe I should crawl into a hole somewhere and die,and save you all a lot of trouble.

It would be a lot better if you learned to think rationally, instead of relying upon hopeless non sequiturs and relentlessly attacking ridiculous strawman distortions of ideas you don't like.

[Australopithicus]

Hey, I'm English. Whaddaya expect?

[Colonel Olrik]

I'm thinking...

...maybe I should crawl into a hole somewhere and die,and save you all a lot of trouble.

Look, if you want to prove yourself right, then you have to start making points harder to refute.

Admite, at least, that your knowledge of how Evolution processes is seriously wrong.

If you don't want to discuss the topic, that's fine, but then don't make off hand comments which show ignorance and unwillingness to learn better.

Ignorance is acceptable. Fundamentalist arrogance is not

[Master of Ossus]

Right.
What Darwin observed that started off the theory of evolution was merely variety. The various types of finches that he observed were merely variations on a theme. They were NOT evolutionary mutations. For instance, you get several types of dogs, cats, even Humans. For instance, with dogs, you get beagles, cockerspaniels, dobermen etc. With cats, you get siamese, lions, tigers etc. With humans, you get asians, orientals, caucasians, black people etc. They are all the same species. They are merely a visual variety of the same thing. No genetic mutations, just variety.

ROTFLMAO! Those varieties also represent genetic variation, and are the results of genetic mutation. Genetic mutation does not necessarily create speciation. It is possible for mutations to take place without such speciation, however, large numbers of genetic mutations will result in speciation, over time. You once again show your complete inability to understand the obvious.

[Colonel Olrik]

Hey, I'm English. Whaddaya expect?

All this time thinking you were australian..
My view of the british educational system suddenly degraded..

[Australopithicus]

Admit, at least, that your knowledge of how Evolution processes is seriously wrong.

Conceded. Along with my knowledge of almost all things not covering these topics:

1. DBZ
2. Star Trek
3. Street Fighter.
4. Beliefs of JW's

Ignorance is acceptable. Fundamentalist arrogance is not

I told you before, it's not arrogance. If I were arrogant, I'd have to be overconfident first. And let me ask you something - how confident would you feel trying to debate something that you yourself know to be true, but the people you're arguing with are a jillion times smarter than you, at least 5 years older than you, with qualifications at least 3 levels above yours, and with the complete opposite thing that they know to be true?

[Master of Ossus]

I'm thinking...

...maybe I should crawl into a hole somewhere and die,and save you all a lot of trouble.

It would almost certainly be in keeping with natural selection if you did. You would also be, potentially, saving the future inhabitants of the world if you did not pass on your genes to subsequent generations.

[Master of Ossus]

Hey, I'm English. Whaddaya expect?

All this time thinking you were australian..
My view of the british educational system suddenly degraded..

It also spawned Graham Kennedy. Bad times.

[Australopithicus]

It also spawned Graham Kennedy. Bad times.

And the Monty Python boys. Good times.

[Darth Wong]

Ignorance is acceptable. Fundamentalist arrogance is not

I told you before, it's not arrogance. If I were arrogant, I'd have to be overconfident first. And let me ask you something - how confident would you feel trying to debate something that you yourself know to be true, but the people you're arguing with are a jillion times smarter than you, at least 5 years older than you, with qualifications at least 3 levels above yours, and with the complete opposite thing that they know to be true?

The fact that you "know" something to be true without having bothered to study it is arrogance.

[Australopithicus]

The fact that you "know" something to be true without having bothered to study it is arrogance.

Okay, we'll try that again...

If I were arrogant, I'd have to be overconfident first. And let me ask you something - how confident would you feel trying to debate something that you yourself believe to be true, but the people you're arguing with are a jillion times smarter than you, at least 5 years older than you, with qualifications at least 3 levels above yours, and with the complete opposite thing that they believe to be true? And at least 20 of them, on top of that?
Is that better, Mike?

[Colonel Olrik]

The fact that you "know" something to be true without having bothered to study it is arrogance.

Okay, we'll try that again...

If I were arrogant, I'd have to be overconfident first. And let me ask you something - how confident would you feel trying to debate something that you yourself believe to be true, but the people you're arguing with are a jillion times smarter than you, at least 5 years older than you, with qualifications at least 3 levels above yours, and with the complete opposite thing that they believe to be true? And at least 20 of them, on top of that?
Is that better, Mike?

You are arrogant because you desmiss an idea without ever understanding it, and then you presume to discuss it as if you did.

Not 20. In our debate you had to face just me. And I'm not an authority on the subject (way out of my field). You didn't make a point, and Lord Wong decided he had had enough

Age and qualifications do not matter if you're right. Bring on a old PHD hard creationist guy and he'll be wrong too.

Dont' you get it? You must backup what you say. And understand what's being discussed.

[Master of Ossus]

I would be even less confident in trying to debate a subject I knew nothing about.

[Darth Wong]

If I were arrogant, I'd have to be overconfident first.

You are overconfident. You deny the validity of evolution theory despite being completely ignorant of both the theory and the whole concept of science.

And let me ask you something - how confident would you feel trying to debate something that you yourself believe to be true, but the people you're arguing with are a jillion times smarter than you, at least 5 years older than you, with qualifications at least 3 levels above yours, and with the complete opposite thing that they believe to be true? And at least 20 of them, on top of that?

If I ran into 20 people who had relevant, genuine qualifications (note that the vast majority of creation "scientists" have credentials which are irrelevant or fraudulent) and who were making good points, I would immediately retreat to conduct more study. I would not arrogantly insist that I "know" I'm right.

Yet that is precisely what you have done; you insist that you "know" you are right even though every point you made has been pummeled into the dust. When handily defeated (one on one, before anyone else got involved between you and Olrik), you simply repeated your ignorant strawman distortions, thus inciting me to lose patience and speak up.

You are arrogant. When the flaws in your ideas are pointed out by people whose superior knowledge you openly acknowledge, you insist that you "know" you are right anyway! What else can we call that, if not arrogance?

[Australopithicus]

Gross ignorance on a grand scale? Seriously too far gone indoctrination? I don't know. Pick 'n' mix. Just don't call me arrogant, or I'll show you how arrogant I can be at some subjects...