Evolution has got to go!
First Prev
of 15
Next Last
DID

United States

#1 Feb 23, 2010
We can no longer stomach this load of garbage being dumped on us. Either get it right or get it gone. If devolution is more closley describing reality then teach it.
SupaAFC

UK

#2 Feb 23, 2010
Alright, so what's the problem and how do YOU suggest we fix it?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#3 Feb 23, 2010
DID wrote:
We can no longer stomach this load of garbage being dumped on us. Either get it right or get it gone. If devolution is more closley describing reality then teach it.
Shubee? Is that you?
DID

United States

#4 Feb 23, 2010
SupaAFC wrote:
Alright, so what's the problem and how do YOU suggest we fix it?
Admit that most of this evolution junk is just that, it is simply bad science. Be more to the point with new finds , and be honest with th people. Come clean and everyone wins. Let the tale go with the hyde and get it right.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#5 Feb 23, 2010
DID wrote:
Admit that most of this evolution junk is just that...
We do not. If you have a specific criticism, present it.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#6 Feb 23, 2010
DID wrote:
<quoted text>Admit that most of this evolution junk is just that, it is simply bad science. Be more to the point with new finds , and be honest with th people. Come clean and everyone wins. Let the tale go with the hyde and get it right.
Let's get specific. What _EXACTLY_ are you claiming is incorrect?
mrbananas

Amherst, MA

#7 Feb 23, 2010
DID wrote:
<quoted text>Admit that most of this evolution junk is just that, it is simply bad science. Be more to the point with new finds , and be honest with th people. Come clean and everyone wins. Let the tale go with the hyde and get it right.
I will admit that most of what creationist teach you about evolution is junk. But else would you expect from someone opposed to evolution. Strawmans help make their side seem more reasonable.

If evolution = change in populations, then devolution = static unchanging populations. But thats just silly. We all know that populations change over time.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#8 Feb 23, 2010
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's get specific. What _EXACTLY_ are you claiming is incorrect?
Umm... his understanding of science in general??
SupaAFC

UK

#9 Feb 23, 2010
DID wrote:
<quoted text>Admit that most of this evolution junk is just that, it is simply bad science. Be more to the point with new finds , and be honest with th people. Come clean and everyone wins. Let the tale go with the hyde and get it right.
Give us a good reason as to why evolution is junk science. Just saying so is not enough.
DID

United States

#10 Feb 23, 2010
mrbananas wrote:
<quoted text>
I will admit that most of what creationist teach you about evolution is junk. But else would you expect from someone opposed to evolution. Strawmans help make their side seem more reasonable.
If evolution = change in populations, then devolution = static unchanging populations. But thats just silly. We all know that populations change over time.
We know now that life is very complex. When a cell begins division and goes through stages of growth it is following a complex set of instructions. We know that not all species develop to a more advanced stage. We have seen species declining from a higher to alower level of effective power or vitality, and this is passed down through successive stages of time.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

#11 Feb 23, 2010
DID wrote:
<quoted text>We know now that life is very complex.
And we ALSO know that it didn't start out that way. The earliest forms of life were very simple and there are even examples of life today that are NOT very complex (prions and viruses come to mind).
DID wrote:
<quoted text>When a cell begins division and goes through stages of growth it is following a complex set of instructions.
Yes, and how is this a problem for evolution?
DID wrote:
<quoted text>We know that not all species develop to a more advanced stage.
And we also know that if there is no environmental pressures that select for adaptive changes then there are NO large evolutionary changes necessary and none will occur (although normal reproductive variation will continue to occur).
DID wrote:
<quoted text>We have seen species declining from a higher to alower level of effective power or vitality, and this is passed down through successive stages of time.
And we know that that is usually caused by an environmental change that the species is NOT adapting to quickly enough.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#12 Feb 23, 2010
DID wrote:
We know now that life is very complex. When a cell begins division and goes through stages of growth it is following a complex set of instructions. We know that not all species develop to a more advanced stage. We have seen species declining from a higher to alower level of effective power or vitality, and this is passed down through successive stages of time.
What would be the units of measurement for a species' "level of effective power or vitality"? I am unfamiliar with these terms.
Millard

Englewood, CO

#13 Feb 23, 2010
DID wrote:
<quoted text>We know now that life is very complex. When a cell begins division and goes through stages of growth it is following a complex set of instructions. We know that not all species develop to a more advanced stage. We have seen species declining from a higher to alower level of effective power or vitality, and this is passed down through successive stages of time.
But this is a fly in the face of the theory of evolution. This is like saying apes will never become humans.
DID

United States

#14 Feb 23, 2010
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
And we ALSO know that it didn't start out that way. The earliest forms of life were very simple and there are even examples of life today that are NOT very complex (prions and viruses come to mind).
<quoted text>
Yes, and how is this a problem for evolution?
<quoted text>
And we also know that if there is no environmental pressures that select for adaptive changes then there are NO large evolutionary changes necessary and none will occur (although normal reproductive variation will continue to occur).
<quoted text>
And we know that that is usually caused by an environmental change that the species is NOT adapting to quickly enough.
Early stages of growth being a prodiuct of transference is more like devolution, this science is not Darwinian Evolution.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#15 Feb 23, 2010
DID wrote:
<quoted text>Admit that most of this evolution junk is just that, it is simply bad science. Be more to the point with new finds , and be honest with th people. Come clean and everyone wins. Let the tale go with the hyde and get it right.
May I ask, what scientific alternative do you propose?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#16 Feb 23, 2010
DID wrote:
<quoted text>We know now that life is very complex. When a cell begins division and goes through stages of growth it is following a complex set of instructions. We know that not all species develop to a more advanced stage. We have seen species declining from a higher to alower level of effective power or vitality, and this is passed down through successive stages of time.
SCPID is bollox.

Sorry if you don't like it.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#17 Feb 23, 2010
DID wrote:
<quoted text>Early stages of growth being a prodiuct of transference is more like devolution, this science is not Darwinian Evolution.
Transference is a psychological term. It has no meaning here. Anymore than the rest of the sentence.
Millard

Englewood, CO

#18 Feb 24, 2010
MIDutch wrote:
<quoted text>
And we ALSO know that it didn't start out that way. The earliest forms of life were very simple and there are even examples of life today that are NOT very complex (prions and viruses come to mind).
<quoted text>
Yes, and how is this a problem for evolution?
<quoted text>
And we also know that if there is no environmental pressures that select for adaptive changes then there are NO large evolutionary changes necessary and none will occur (although normal reproductive variation will continue to occur).
<quoted text>
And we know that that is usually caused by an environmental change that the species is+NOT+adapting+to+quickly+eno ugh.
How+do+you+know+that+these+env ironmental+systems+were+not+al ways+the+way+they+are+now?+Aft er+the+earth+formed,+how+long+ do+you+think+it+took+or+these+ systems+to+sustain+life?+How+d o+you+know+these+species+are+c hanging+to+a+more+complex+form ?+Do+you+think+apes,+given+eno ugh+time,+will+become+advanced +human+like+beings?

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

La Quinta, CA

#19 Feb 24, 2010
Millard wrote:
<quoted text>How+do+you+know+that+t hese+environmental+systems+wer e+not+always+the+way+they+are+ now?+After+the+earth+formed,+h ow+long+do+you+think+it+took+o r+these+systems+to+sustain+lif e?+How+do+you+know+these+speci es+are+changing+to+a+more+comp lex+form?+Do+you+think+apes,+g iven+enough+time,+will+become+ advanced+human+like+beings?
First of all, lurn 2 type.
Second, you don't know enough about evolution to participate in this debate.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Bradenton, FL

#20 Feb 24, 2010
It was some sort of goofy cut and paste.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 15
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Samuel Patre 168,055
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 3 hr Rose_NoHo 6,080
Almost ALL Evolutionists are Anti-Conspiracy Ad... 4 hr Davidjayjordan 4
Womans Birth Cycle absolutely Proves Design and... 4 hr Endofdays 77
The Design of Time is Prophecy and is absolute ... 5 hr Davidjayjordan 40
What's your religion? (Sep '17) 5 hr Davidjayjordan 1,168
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 5 hr Endofdays 93,435