Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout

bambu

LOL @Vibe..... and his humdrum crew.... "The neanderthal is running scared"

VIBE wrote: »

Post that video you day you posted.

Piltdown Man was one skull, I figured you were talking about the whole thing though.

Did no one read Golds post?

VIBE wrote: »

bambu wrote: »

^^^^^....FOH with that Piltdown man shit.............

Silly Europeans.........

Which one is that in my image?

VIBE wrote: »

Say*

Say???

The True Flesh

ALL OF THE FOSSIL EVIDENCES THAT ARE BEING PASSED OFF AS TRANSITIONAL HAVE BEEN DEBUNKED AS BEING SUCH.......EVERY SINGLE ONE


Archaeopteryx characteristics of a bird and a reptile.......BUT, if it was a transitional form between the two, why have multiple fossils of the middle phase of the transition been found and not a single fossil of any other stage of this particular transition have been found? and if that's not enough howcome fossils of both birds and reptiles have been found in the same general area of the Archaeopteryx fossils that are OLDER?????


Transitions happen in stages.......supposedly over millions of years, so whether it's tiktaalik, archaeopteryx, mudskippers, platypus lol, or any other creatures that are being claimed to be transitional are TOTALLY inconsistent with how the long transitions occur.



How many of y'all insistent negroes have met anybody who has met anybody who has come close to examining so much as a cast or a mold of these fossils that prove inter-class evolution?........NONE


The keepers/custodians of such artifacts keep telling you dumb niggaz......."we've studied them,we've examined them, and they're legit, no we cant show you, but take our word for it, go dissect a frog or something and continue to let us fill in the rest of the story for you"



Y'all keep the faith though!



PEACE

whar

The True Flesh wrote: »

Archaeopteryx characteristics of a bird and a reptile.......BUT, if it was a transitional form between the two, why have multiple fossils of the middle phase of the transition been found and not a single fossil of any other stage of this particular transition have been found? and if that's not enough howcome fossils of both birds and reptiles have been found in the same general area of the Archaeopteryx fossils that are OLDER?????

There exists 12-18 different transitional species between saurians and avians some proceed Archaeopteryx some follow. Go to talk.origins.com and search for transitional forms for a more complete listing.

How then do you explain the existing of a dozen transitional forms between saurian and avians? If you deny they exist then you are delusional. If they are not transitional please explain what is a transitional form and why those remains that are identified as transitional are not?

If anyone is interested in studying the fossils they may though they may need to demonstrate an understanding of fossil handling. That is one of the powers of science people share their work and build upon previous contributions.

Oceanic

Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, dumb ass

Oceanic

For arguments sake, even if life emerged with divine interference, evolution from that point is still possible. Let me make it clear for you, dummy. DISPROVE EVOLUTION OR SHUT THE FUCK UP

bambu

VIBE wrote: »

Post that video you day you posted.

O'tay

@Vibe,@Jaded Righteousness, Et al.

I think this video sums up some of brother Judah's comments...In European terms..but they are still playing catch up....

bambu wrote: »

"In his theory of evolution, Charles Darwin never sought to unravel the mystery of where biological information comes from. For him, the origins of life remained shrouded in impenetrable obscurity. While the digital code in DNA first came to light in the 1950s, it wasn’t until later that scientists began to sense the implications behind the exquisitely complex technical system for processing and storing information in the cell. The cell does what any advanced computer operating system can do but with almost inconceivably greater suppleness and efficiency."

Oceanic

Who gives a fuck? Evolution can and does take place within whatever possible explanation there is for life emerging in the first place. This is not a debate about the origin of life but the origin of species. Smarten up, Bimbo

bambu

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

Who gives a fuck?

Log off then nigga!!!!

Nice diversion pal....

The debate is I.D. v. evolution.... jackass..

Oceanic

Then the original question is stupid and not well thought out for the simple fact that both can exist at the same damn time. There are plenty creationists who support evolution so you creationists dont even have to prove I.d. Just disprove evolution. Oh, thats right.. You can't. Sorry.

Oceanic

Smarten up, Bimbo

bambu

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

Who gives a fuck? Evolution can and does take place within whatever possible explanation there is for life emerging in the first place. This is not a debate about the origin of life but the origin of species. Smarten up, Bimbo

Look at how this nigga @Jaded Righteousness is playing himself....

Again, fool ass nigga.... the thread is about creationists (I.D.) v. evolution(anti-creationist).....

If you cant respond without getting overly homotional.... kick rocks...........

Oceanic

Here's a question for theists who do not believe in evolution: why did God create so many animals and life forms only to see them become extinct?

Oceanic

I already responded to that, Bimbo. Too soon to celebrate.

judahxulu

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, dumb ass

abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common fucking sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. nigga the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a FUCKING THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, dumb ass, i used scientific standards, lil' nigga. by its very nature n the world of science as a fucking theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. nigga you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist sissy windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.

whar

judahxulu wrote: »

abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING.

Except that evolution takes life is a priori. Life is assumed by evolution. Life could have arose through divine miracle or natural processes. Life is inseparable from evolution. What started that life is independent of evolution.

Oceanic

judahxulu wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, dumb ass

abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common fucking sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. nigga the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a FUCKING THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, dumb ass, i used scientific standards, lil' nigga. by its very nature n the world of science as a fucking theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. nigga you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist sissy windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.

blah blah blah. You still haven't disproven anything, G.

Ha. Frank Ocean Jr. Clever. And I'm saying that with extreme sarcasm. Because it wasn't clever at all. Calling me gay doesn't make me gay neither does it stop you from being homosexual. Pussies like you forever trying to prove some type of manhood that you lack. Insecure Judah?

Gold_Certificate

judahxulu wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, dumb ass

abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common fucking sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. nigga the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a FUCKING THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, dumb ass, i used scientific standards, lil' nigga. by its very nature n the world of science as a fucking theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. nigga you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist sissy windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.

What do you think the definition of "evolution" is?

Because it seems as though you are referring to something else.

Oceanic

Oh look. I'm being flagged by an overly sensitive geek

bambu

Gold_Certificate wrote: »

judahxulu wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, dumb ass

abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common fucking sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. nigga the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a FUCKING THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, dumb ass, i used scientific standards, lil' nigga. by its very nature n the world of science as a fucking theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. nigga you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist sissy windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.

What do you think the definition of "evolution" is?

Because it seems as though you are referring to something else.

Oceanic

Judah, nice try. Think long and hard about your next post please

Gold_Certificate

bambu wrote: »

Gold_Certificate wrote: »

judahxulu wrote: »

Jaded Righteousness wrote: »

Judah, you did not disprove evolution. That was your attempt to disprove life emerging with no divine interference. Try again, dumb ass

abiogenesis is central AND inseparable to the theory of evolution. EVERYTHING HAS TO START WITH SOMETHING. common fucking sense. how can you explain a process of something changing without being clear on how it began. nigga the damn theory from the 19th century and has changed drastically in some ways but its still a FUCKING THEORY. i like how youre subtly shifting from the theory of evolution to the very concept of evolution itself. either way, dumb ass, i used scientific standards, lil' nigga. by its very nature n the world of science as a fucking theory, it is falsifiable or it would be known as the LAW OF EVOLUTION. nigga you looking like larry holmes, flabby and sick. you just throwing limp wrist sissy windmills at this point, frank ocean jr.

What do you think the definition of "evolution" is?

Because it seems as though you are referring to something else.

Where in this twenty-nine minute and fifty-four second video is the definition mentioned?

bambu

you could skip to 1:35 -2:40 if you like....

whar

No definition of Evolution appears at the time stamp you mention. Instead one of the concept of evolution is discuss namely that with evolution there is no need for a designer. While it is possible a designer exists the process of natural selection an take place without one. Here is a respected biologists definition.

"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

Gold_Certificate

bambu wrote: »

you could skip to 1:35 -2:40 if you like....

If you're referring to "natural selection"--which was mentioned in the timeframe you specified--that is only an explanation of one of the mechanisms behind the observable process of biological evolution; however, "natural selection" is not the definition for "biological evolution".

Is that what you were referring to as the definition for "evolution"?

If so, it would be incorrect.

bambu

LOL........

I'm not going to argue semantics buddy......

"Natural selection is the gradual, non-random, process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of differential reproduction of their bearers. It is a key mechanism of evolution."