Computer cast doubt on evolution!!!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: Computer cast doubt on evolution!!!

  1. #1
    larryjs
    Guest

    Computer cast doubt on evolution!!!

    hehe.....not really I just thought it would atract more posters

    I say that evolution is based on FAITH on not on fact
    What say you?
    Share on Google+

  2. #2
    Token drunken Irish guy
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    2,813
    You make your own faith, who controls faith, nobody its just coninsidence and so on. Then again Im a damn wannabe nihilist so I just darn pessimistic about the big picture.
    Share on Google+

  3. #3
    larryjs
    Guest
    Well what about evolution Ennis? Is the theory provable by the scienctic method's aspect of observation. I challenge any one to bring me one transitional fossil of the hominind variety that I cannot refute. I believe evolution is absurd and I wish to debate the point. Any takers??
    Share on Google+

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    101
    Originally posted by larryjs
    I challenge any one to bring me one transitional fossil of the hominind variety that I cannot refute.
    Ha, you and every other anthropologist. Seriously, take some classes, do some reading, then come back and give me a good reason why evolution didn't happen. Of course, to do that you would have to give me proof of a God, and I would like to see that.
    - Stronzo

    \"Vini, Vici, Vidi\"
    I came, I saw, I conquered.
    - Julius Caesar
    Share on Google+

  5. #5
    larryjs
    Guest
    I beg to differ sir. I have issued the challenge..NOW someone prove to me that evolution did happen. Or at least post why you *snicker*BELIEVE*snicker* it happened!
    Share on Google+

  6. #6
    Senior Member Ouroboros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Superior, WI USA
    Posts
    628

    Babel fish

    Proof denies faith, therefore proving that there is a "Supreme Being" would negate the need for faith in it; therefore if one could prove the existence of such a being, the faith in that being would be negated, thus rendering all belief in it void.

    And there is no spoon.

    soroburO

    "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

    "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

    -Occam's Razor

    Share on Google+

  7. #7
    Old-Fogey:Addicts founder Terr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    2,007
    Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence.

    What's this about being able to refute any hominid remains? The defense of "You prove it first." is not very helpful...

    Anyone can always refuse to believe something. As said in the Princess Bride:

    "It must be just some local fisherman out for a pleasure cruise alone at night through shark-infested waters."

    "Inigo has not lost to the man in black, he has defeated him. And to prove it he has put on all the man in black's clothes and masks and hoods and boots and gained eighty pounds."
    Why bother to present any arguement when they can always be shot down? Even Socrates was illogical on his best of days

    Then again, 'logic' in a non-mathmatical sense is a lot more variable than most people like to believe.

    "We have now decided the poisoned cup is most likely in front of you. But the poison is powder made from iocane and iocane comes only from Australia and Australia, as everyone knows, is peopled with criminals and criminals are used to having people not trust them, as I don't trust you, which means I can clearly not choose the wine in front of me."
    [HvC]Terr: L33T Technical Proficiency
    Share on Google+

  8. #8
    larryjs
    Guest
    Well Terr I think the fossil evidence has been mis- represented.
    Lets look at australiopithicus afrensis for example. The evolutionist use this fossil(Lucy) to show the earliest upright hominid...I have a few issues with that and heres why. The place where the spinal cord enters the skull is known as the foreman magnum. The angle that the spine enters this determines if an animal can walk upright or not. This entire area is missing from the lucy find. And that's not the worse thing , the leg bone they used (its curvature looks like it would in a bipedal animal) was found three miles from the rest of the fossil!! I can say without worry that Lucy was nothing but an extinct species of monkey and it walked on all fours.
    Share on Google+

  9. #9
    Senior Member Ouroboros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Superior, WI USA
    Posts
    628

    Post Lucy

    The scientific community at large has dismissed Lucy as being the first fully bipedal animal in favor of A. Africanus, see Biological Jargon. Lucy was dimorphic(occuring in 2 distinct forms)...so you are right, larryjs, but that doesn't exclude the other possible form of a Lucy-like animal... Lucy was in-between a knuckle-dragger and a humpbacked bipedal...

    Ouroboros
    "entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

    "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity."

    -Occam's Razor

    Share on Google+

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    355

    Post

    God help you all......Also God=Dog....Who know's
    \"SI JE PUIS\"
    Share on Google+

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •