sadbrownsfan Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Just because you say so? Prove it. Full Definition of MYTH 1 a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon b : parable, allegory 2 a : a popular belief or tradition that has grown up around something or someone; especially : one embodying the ideals and institutions of a society or segment of society <seduced by the American myth of individualism — Orde Coombs> b : an unfounded or false notion 3 : a person or thing having only an imaginary or unverifiable existence 4 : the whole body of myths See myth defined for English-language learners » See myth defined for kids » Kind of fits more to religions than to a science dedicated to finding how life started on this planet using fossils and remains of people/creatures 10,000+ yrs old and other tools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Please kid, you got to do better then cut and paste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sadbrownsfan Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 says the guy who has copied and pasted twice on this page alone? pls old wise master show me the ways of having an original opinion and not one dictated too you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Okay, let's take a look at this article written by a PhD in Geology (not Biology, genetics, etc). Incidentally, I'd love to ask him if all his time spent looking at old rocks, earth crust,the radiometric dating of 4 billion-year-old rocks that happens in his field, agrees with the Biblical Creationist notion that the world is 6,000 or 10,000 or whatever small number of years old. But I digress. “And while it underscores the truth that most people truly don't believe man came from rats, fish, and single-celled organisms up through the primates” The author claims something to be true (that most people don’t believe man is a result of an evolutionary process) yet provides no evidence to support that claim. That’s probably because polling the public on this will yield different results every time. Some polls support the claim, and some polls dispute it. Regardless, what most people believe is irrelevant to the truth. A long time ago, most people believed the world was flat, yet that was proven untrue. “[Evolutionists] insist that both man and the apes came from a hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the evidence for which has not yet been discovered.” and “Instead of asking why we still have apes, we should be asking why don't we have the hypothetical ape-like ancestor, the real missing link? … The fact is, we don't have them!” False, false, and false. There are several candidates for the transitional fossil. The most recent finding is this Australopithecus sediba. http://content.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,2092438,00.html Furthermore, we have transitional fossils and complete lineages for other organisms. So this whole argument about 'missing links' is moot, unless you somehow believe there are two system for life, one in which man was created, and another in which other organisms evolved. “We should also ask, how could such a transition happen? The only way we know to acquire new genes is to alter existing genes through random mutation.” Misleading. While the consequences of a mutation don’t influence the probability of them occurring (though they can influence the probability of the organism surviving) and based on this, some say mutations are random, it is untrue that they are random if you consider the fact that not all types of mutations occur with equal probability. Second, random mutation is not the only way for an organism to acquire new genes. It may be the only known way for humans, but bacteria can acquire new genes via lateral gene transfer, in which genes from two different species of bacteria hop from one to another through something called a plasmid. This, as I mentioned before, is one of the ways in which bacteria can acquire antibiotic resistance. Now, for everyone that wants to claim that either creationism or evolution are false, the fact is you cannot prove or disprove either, that is why they are both called theories. You can only weigh the evidence for both and decide which to believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VaporTrail Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Yeah, Diehard, you really shouldn't keep trying to press this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 You know me Vapor, I like to stir the pot so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Of course in order to refute creationism you must first prove that all life came from a single microbe or something lower than that right? I would suggest there's no reason to think that, if that were true, there couldn't more likely have been more than one microbe? Possibly thousands. And just from a simply logical standpoint I'd expect to see fossilized remains of the missing links from every minute step along the road to manhood. If in fact this is an ongoing process. Besides, of course, Piltdown man. But no I don't believe in creationism. I just sometimes laugh at the certainty of some folks pounding on tables and preaching the virtues of science Almighty. I imagine in a couple hundred years they will be laughing at us like we laugh at cavemen. as to the Supreme Being why not? If, as use a, evolution is the complete truth why then shouldn't there be species as far ahead of humans as we are of cats and dogs? It's a little bit vain to believe we are the end all be all. Keep in mind that cats and dogs don't understand hardly anything we do. Probably just like ourselves and whoever that next species might be. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalabazooka Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 I would posit that it is considered immoral to have as many sex partners as one can, on a survival basis, for several reasons. The first is that by remaining monogamous, the chances of survival of the offspring is increased. You will notice that in many mammals that have long gestation and maturation stages (like humans, elephants) there is more of a tendency to remain with one partner. That's because these offspring are a major investment in time and resources, and therefore the parents want to protect that investment. So it is a concept of producing quality offspring. Other animals opt for quantity over quality: fish, reptiles, turtles, that lay large numbers of eggs, for example, but do little in the way of parenting. Vultures will gang up and beat up adulterous fathers because both parents need to sit on the egg in tandem. As for homosexuality, there is ample scientific proof that it's due to genetic defects. One can note the prominent feminine traits in most male homosexuals or the machismo in most female homosexuals. They were born with unnatural hormonal ratios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalabazooka Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 It is a myth. If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes? You really have no clue. Because only the best of the genetic crop evolve, according to Darwinian theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalabazooka Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Evolution tales are pseudo-scientific stories about an imaginary history. Evolution is best understood as an anti-God origins myth, attempting to explain man's existence without a Creator. We can do better. Charles Darwin was a devout Christian. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Because only the best of the genetic crop evolve, according to Darwinian theory. Not since mankind has learned how to keep members of society alive that would otherwise be dead. Keeping an invalid alive by artificial means is not creating a stronger or better human. For what it's worth. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Of course in order to refute creationism you must first prove that all life came from a single microbe or something lower than that right? I would suggest there's no reason to think that, if that were true, there couldn't more likely have been more than one microbe? Possibly thousands. And just from a simply logical standpoint I'd expect to see fossilized remains of the missing links from every minute step along the road to manhood. If in fact this is an ongoing process. Besides, of course, Piltdown man. But no I don't believe in creationism. I just sometimes laugh at the certainty of some folks pounding on tables and preaching the virtues of science Almighty. I imagine in a couple hundred years they will be laughing at us like we laugh at cavemen. as to the Supreme Being why not? If, as use a, evolution is the complete truth why then shouldn't there be species as far ahead of humans as we are of cats and dogs? It's a little bit vain to believe we are the end all be all. Keep in mind that cats and dogs don't understand hardly anything we do. Probably just like ourselves and whoever that next species might be. WSS I don't see that the path to refuting creationism is through proving evolution. To refute creationism you have to refute the possibility of a supreme creator. There is currently more evidence on this planet against the creationist narrative than there is to support it. Creationism can remain viable so long as the narrative remains in the realm of things that can not be disproven. The evidence for the age of planet at 4.4 billion years old disproves the 6,000 year old planet part of creationism, but it doesn't disprove the idea that there is a supreme creator. And I don't really think vanity has anything to do with it. We are the species that exists at this point in time, we are superior to our distant evolutionary ancestors, and we'll be inferior to our distant evolutionary offspring. I think it is better to think of each species as being perfectly adapted in their form of survival. Cats and dogs are far superior to humans in many things. They run faster, have better senses and reflexes, and are generally better adapted for hunting their prey than we are without our tools. Our adaptation, our brains and thumbs, pretty much trump any other adaptation on the planet, however, and that's why humans are on the top of totem poll on Earth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Idk, I'm enjoying reading this. DieHard is just digging a hole deeper and deeper, Osiris is posting interesting to read posts, and Cal isn't here to make it worse. I remember reading somewhere that a homosexual offspring could be the result of a more fertile mother. So at the expense of an offspring that wouldn't reproduce, the mother herself would more easily spread her genes. It was like a side affect of something that was beneficial to their survival. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Keep in mind that dogs and cats, actually any living creature, live longer in captivity even though by doing so they lose the ability to exist at all in the wild. And I still think that the next step in evolution, should it be true, might be in a completely spiritual sense. I would guess that if there is a Supreme Being, 1 for advanced from ourselves, that we wouldn't understand his desires anymore then my cat understands mine. Oh she knows when the snacks are coming and if she wants her head scratched but I can't really read a book to her. She knows the results of interacting with me but has no idea why. Quite possibly, says I, just like me and God. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Keep in mind that dogs and cats, actually any living creature, live longer in captivity even though by doing so they lose the ability to exist at all in the wild. And I still think that the next step in evolution, should it be true, might be in a completely spiritual sense. I would guess that if there is a Supreme Being, 1 for advanced from ourselves, that we wouldn't understand his desires anymore then my cat understands mine. Oh she knows when the snacks are coming and if she wants her head scratched but I can't really read a book to her. She knows the results of interacting with me but has no idea why. Quite possibly, says I, just like me and God. WSS Cats and dogs live in captivity longer because they've been domesticated, and are small enough to live in the restricted spaces of captivity. Other animals, like elephants, live 3x longer in the wild than they do in captivity, and 40% of lion cubs born in zoos die (the statistic is 30% for wild cubs). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Idk, I'm enjoying reading this. DieHard is just digging a hole deeper and deeper, Osiris is posting interesting to read posts, and Cal isn't here to make it worse. I remember reading somewhere that a homosexual offspring could be the result of a more fertile mother. So at the expense of an offspring that wouldn't reproduce, the mother herself would more easily spread her genes. It was like a side affect of something that was beneficial to their survival. I'm feeding the fire, and your the kindling, lol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Again I think you may be mistaken again about elephants who, as I recall, are the only breed ( or at least one of a few) who live even similar lengths in the wild and the zoo. yes they live longer in the wild but just a little bit. Tigers on the other hand live a lot longer in captivity. It isn't a mystery, in a controlled environment they have food and are basically protected from predators. Not only that but they receive veterinary treatment for old age ailments. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalabazooka Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Lol, Osiris needs to brush up on his pachyderm trivia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Lol, Osiris needs to brush up on his pachyderm trivia. there may be inconsistent sources... WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted October 11, 2013 Author Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 I'm feeding the fire, and your the kindling, lol. Whatever you need to tell yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 Lol, Osiris needs to brush up on his pachyderm trivia. Nah uh, here are my sources on Elephants that say they live 2-3x longer in the wild: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081211-zoo-elephants.html http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=6449110&page=1 And on tigers: http://www.captiveanimals.org/news/2010/03/10-facts-about-zoos there may be inconsistent sources... WSS Yes, that's probably the case here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osiris Posted October 11, 2013 Report Share Posted October 11, 2013 It's not a requirement--nor even recommended--that film figures be adorable angels free of imperfections, And now this thread has officially been trolled by a bot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted October 12, 2013 Report Share Posted October 12, 2013 Nah uh, here are my sources on Elephants that say they live 2-3x longer in the wild: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081211-zoo-elephants.html http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=6449110&page=1 And on tigers: http://www.captiveanimals.org/news/2010/03/10-facts-about-zoos Yes, that's probably the case here. http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/good-question-do-animals-live-longer-in-zoos/ This says that wild tigers live substantially longer in a Zoo. And elephants only slightly longer in the wild. That one site you posted reminds me a little of PETA. Not that that makes them wrong just agenda driven. WSS WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Dog Posted October 21, 2013 Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 I mocking O'Reilly bro Or is mocking someone that thinks God talks to him mocking Christianity? Maybe mocking religion in general, sure, but Christianity? How about I mock you after I suck your dick! What a low life pos you have turned out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 21, 2013 Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 How about I mock you after I suck your dick! What a low life pos you have turned out to be. Quoted. You're going to suck his dick, then mock him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Cysko Kid Posted October 21, 2013 Report Share Posted October 21, 2013 Tell us more about your homosexual fantasies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
koalabazooka Posted October 23, 2013 Report Share Posted October 23, 2013 How about I mock you after I suck your dick! What a low life pos you have turned out to be. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA80peqz8DQ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.