Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Intermediary Fossils. There are none. If evolution was true we should have tons of them.

Evolution also has an issue with life arising from inorganic compounds. The probability of Amino Acids being formed from inorganic compounds, and the next layer of complexity of those amino acids forming into Proteins by random chance. And then those proteins randomly forming even the simplest single celled organism, which isn't so simple. the mathematical probability of that occurring is a number approaching zero. You'd have a better chance of getting a winning lottery ticket each day in a row for 20 years.

And DNA. Information is not going to occur by random chance.

Then you have some organisms that have body structures that are irreducibly complex. If any part doesn't function the organism cannot survive(or is severely hampered and thus will fall prey to natural selection)

This is exactly the reason UKIP have done so well. whilst strangers on the internet argue over evolution, UKIP will continue to steal seats within local councils.

Coconut eating T-Rex could stop racist political parties gaining a foothold in our parliament. Fact.

Grey Templar wrote:Intermediary Fossils. There are none. If evolution was true we should have tons of them.

You don't get tons of fossils because fossilisation is quite rare, besides our fossil record covers less than 1% of all species.

Evolution also has an issue with life arising from inorganic compounds. The probability of Amino Acids being formed from inorganic compounds, and the next layer of complexity of those amino acids forming into Proteins by random chance. And then those proteins randomly forming even the simplest single celled organism, which isn't so simple. the mathematical probability of that occurring is a number approaching zero. You'd have a better chance of getting a winning lottery ticket each day in a row for 20 years.

There are lots of galaxies in the sky, with lots of stars, which have lots of planets. doesn't really seem that improbable when you factor that in.

And DNA. Information is not going to occur by random chance.

Infinite number of monkeys with typewriters...

Then you have some organisms that have body structures that are irreducibly complex. If any part doesn't function the organism cannot survive(or is severely hampered and thus will fall prey to natural selection)

Incremental steps. Also, look up preadaptation, and scaffolding.

Mr. Burning wrote:This is exactly the reason UKIP have done so well. whilst strangers on the internet argue over evolution, UKIP will continue to steal seats within local councils.

Coconut eating T-Rex could stop racist political parties gaining a foothold in our parliament. Fact.

Well the dinosaurs of the Tory party don't seem to be doing that good a job of it.

All fossils are intermediary fossils, except for wiener dogs of course-but thats because they are evolution's ultimate end game.

What about Wiener dogs with Lasers?

Good point there.

 Mr. Burning wrote:
This is exactly the reason UKIP have done so well. whilst strangers on the internet argue over evolution, UKIP will continue to steal seats within local councils.

I fail to see how persuading people to vote for them is 'theft' under any reasonable definition of the word...

 dæl wrote:

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:

Now, what do you think happened with religion, which lead us to the enlightenment?

The Catholic Church became indebted which led to indulgences hence the reformation as well as the Catholic Church not being taken seriously in Catholic nations such as France. Unlike most of the Protestant world England took the brunt of the enlightenment mainly because of its proximity to the secular Catholic state of France and because of Puritans which oddly enough were very capitalistic and pro enlightenment most likely because of their lack of leadership.

Useless people like Voltaire who sat around doing nothing but hating everyone around them.

By the way the enlightenment did not lead to reason, it led to superstition.

They had the history of sex on the history channel and they talked about the bizarre beliefs that English doctors had about sexuality as well as the fact that distributing information about STD's was a criminal offence. This is the enlightenment? What about America, perhaps the greatest creation of the enlightenment and yet its one of the few nations where the teaching of evolution is contested, interestingly not in reactionary states like Spain and Austria who fought the enlightenment at every turn.

Religion became corrupted and was used as a means of keeping the elite from being questioned, that is what caused it's decline.

Of course the enlightenment lead to reason, it brought us the scientific method, without which it would highly unlikely we would have such things as computers. What did religion give to technological progress? Oh yeah, the dark ages.

Actually that's not entirely totally true the first universities were run by the church (including Oxford, Cambridge, and the university of Paris), religion also inspired many renaissance artists (both greco-roman and christian beliefs), it brought Gothic architecture, etc so religion has

contributed to some technological, cultural, educational and artistic advances, that being said the Enlightenment is still more relevant and important to modern society and yes there has been plenty of bad things done in the name of religion.

 dæl wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:This is exactly the reason UKIP have done so well. whilst strangers on the internet argue over evolution, UKIP will continue to steal seats within local councils.

Coconut eating T-Rex could stop racist political parties gaining a foothold in our parliament. Fact.

Well the dinosaurs of the Tory party don't seem to be doing that good a job of it.

How many seats in parliament do UKIP have again? It's also pretty rich to make a comment like that after a week in which a Labour peer was shown the door for making anti-semitic comments.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grey Templar wrote:
Intermediary Fossils. There are none. If evolution was true we should have tons of them.

Evolution also has an issue with life arising from inorganic compounds. The probability of Amino Acids being formed from inorganic compounds, and the next layer of complexity of those amino acids forming into Proteins by random chance. And then those proteins randomly forming even the simplest single celled organism, which isn't so simple. the mathematical probability of that occurring is a number approaching zero. You'd have a better chance of getting a winning lottery ticket each day in a row for 20 years.

And DNA. Information is not going to occur by random chance.

Then you have some organisms that have body structures that are irreducibly complex. If any part doesn't function the organism cannot survive(or is severely hampered and thus will fall prey to natural selection)

I'm not going to bother with picking all the nonsense in this post apart, so I'll just address the most glaring statement: If the body structures of some creatures are so irreducibly complex as to preclude their having arisen as a result of evolution by natural selection, who 'created' them? Would such a being not also be 'irreducibly complex'? How did that being spontaneously spring into existence?

Also, 'irreducibly complex' is just a fancy way of saying 'resulting from a process I don't understand and don't want to understand, so I'll just give my sky-friend the credit'. It's ignorance, basically.

Tell me Albatros, who am I really attacking by just pointing out a historical fact?

Grey Templar wrote:Intermediary Fossils. There are none. If evolution was true we should have tons of them.

Do you mean like all these?


Now, you have said "Evolution is only in the theory stage, not a fact". This implies that there is a scientific fact out there. The trouble is that there is not. All science is based on the idea of the Scientific Theory. The Scientific Theory is essentially "the most accurate explanation possible given the evidence available". This definition implies that it is the top of the scale, so to speak. A Scientific Theory can never be upgraded, because there is nothing to upgrade to. You are essentially asking for "better than the best" which is a mistake that denotes not understanding what the term "best" means.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Intermediary Fossils. There are none. If evolution was true we should have tons of them.

Only a tiny fraction of animals and plants that have lived have a fossil record as they need to have died in a place suitable for the immediate preservation of the body and in an area where the creation of fossils through geological processes would happen, and where those fossils could then be seen and dug up by people. There is a lot of rock on earth, certainly, and we have not even scratched the surface when it comes to digging through it all looking for fossils. New species and better preserved samples come to light all the time. Hell, remember when dinosaurs didn't have feathers?

Evolution also has an issue with life arising from inorganic compounds.

No, it doesn't.

The probability of Amino Acids being formed from inorganic compounds, and the next layer of complexity of those amino acids forming into Proteins by random chance. And then those proteins randomly forming even the simplest single celled organism, which isn't so simple. the mathematical probability of that occurring is a number approaching zero.

You clearly have very little understanding of either chemistry, maths or biology.

You'd have a better chance of getting a winning lottery ticket each day in a row for 20 years.

Sure, if you assumed the entire chain had to form at once and only one reaction could occur at once, rather than the molecules being built up from much simpler molecules coming together to create more complex ones, etc, etc, with trillions upon trillions of reactions taking place in every drop of the primeval soup until you end up with those molecules forming a bible thumping creationist who denounces how life came into existence and thinks it is much more likely some imaginary being spirited it all into place over a long weekend.

And DNA. Information is not going to occur by random chance.

Information doesn't have to occur by random chance. The formation of certain molecules predisposes the formation of others, which in turn predispose the formation of yet more molecules. Once the simple building blocks are in place, life (of some sort) becomes inevitable.

Then you have some organisms that have body structures that are irreducibly complex.

Ah, a term that many think proves much but in reality means nothing.

If any part doesn't function the organism cannot survive(or is severely hampered and thus will fall prey to natural selection)

Not so. There are many organs and structures in your body that are poorly "designed" and are an accident waiting to happen or are downright pointless or even redundant.

This might help give a sense of time how long evolution takes.

edited for rule #1 - MT11

 Cheesecat wrote:
This might help give a sense of time how long evolution takes.

That can't be right... the scale should say "years" not "millions of years"... and why isn't it broken into days rather than eras? Plus we all know that T-rex was once a friend of man in the gardens of Eden, where they used to feed each other coconuts!

So, is this the Independence Party thread, the evolution thread, the religion thread, the communism thread, the weenie dog thread, or the getting bent thread?

kronk wrote:So, is this the Independence Party thread, the evolution thread, the religion thread, or the getting bent thread?

Soon it'll be the locked thread

Ye Olde Cowbell Threade.

 kronk wrote:
So, is this the Independence Party thread, the evolution thread, the religion thread, the communism thread, the weenie dog thread, or the getting bent thread?

Politics corrupts absolutely.

I just want to know if I'm allowed to get bent here. I have a new bottle of bourbon, I'm free for once, and I have a bunch of models to paint.

Meh, I get high here all the time. I'm pretty sure the smoke-detectors don't work, Kronk.

 SilverMK2 wrote:
That can't be right... the scale should say "years" not "millions of years"... and why isn't it broken into days rather than eras? Plus we all know that T-rex was once a friend of man in the gardens of Eden, where they used to feed each other coconuts!

Yeah, it's also missing fungi (which came before plants) and crustaceans but still it's fairly solid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh worms and mollusks as well.

Get bent, commie. If you think you have an ally in me then you are sorely mistaken, chum.

I don't mistake you for a friend, what's getting bent, I don't understand English insults. In America we insult people by telling them to run their teeth along the curb.

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:

Get bent, commie. If you think you have an ally in me then you are sorely mistaken, chum.

I don't mistake you for a friend, what's getting bent, I don't understand English insults. In America we insult people by telling them to run their teeth along the curb.

"get bent" is a pretty common phrase. I'm not really familiar with that last one, though... is that regional?

 Albatross wrote:

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:
Tell me Albatros, who am I really attacking by just pointing out a historical fact?

Get bent, commie. If you think you have an ally in me then you are sorely mistaken, chum.

I believe he was asking you who you thought he was really talking about when he was railing against usury a couple pages ago.

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:

Get bent, commie. If you think you have an ally in me then you are sorely mistaken, chum.

I don't mistake you for a friend, what's getting bent, I don't understand English insults. In America we insult people by telling them to run their teeth along the curb.

You're making this American's head hurt.

I think mine might be regional

That's not really an insult...
It's an insult in the same way telling someone to go play in the road is an insult.

ZSO, SAHAAL wrote:

Get bent, commie. If you think you have an ally in me then you are sorely mistaken, chum.

I don't mistake you for a friend, what's getting bent, I don't understand English insults. In America we insult people by telling them to run their teeth along the curb.

I believe Albatross was trying to point out the fact that the condemnation of usury in Medieval Europe and in Medieval Islamic nations was simply an excuse for anti-Semitism. Honestly, if you couldn't make that connection, your historical knowledge must be pretty limited.

Cheesecat wrote:Actually that's not entirely totally true the first universities were run by the church (including Oxford, Cambridge, and the university of Paris), religion also inspired many renaissance artists (both greco-roman and christian beliefs), it brought Gothic architecture, etc so religion has

contributed to some technological, cultural, educational and artistic advances, that being said the Enlightenment is still more relevant and important to modern society and yes there has been plenty of bad things done in the name of religion.

Religion did provide us with some learning, but only as a means of maintaining their superiority. The moment it challenged religion you saw the kind of things that happened to Gallileo and Bruno. Religion also did a lot of good and gave us some very important things, but it had had it's time and ceased to be useful.

Albatross wrote:

 dæl wrote:

Mr. Burning wrote:This is exactly the reason UKIP have done so well. whilst strangers on the internet argue over evolution, UKIP will continue to steal seats within local councils.

Coconut eating T-Rex could stop racist political parties gaining a foothold in our parliament. Fact.

Well the dinosaurs of the Tory party don't seem to be doing that good a job of it.

How many seats in parliament do UKIP have again? It's also pretty rich to make a comment like that after a week in which a Labour peer was shown the door for making anti-semitic comments.

None, not one. Now compare that to the Greens, who have one (which could be considered reasonably safe) and could easily gain a couple more at the next general. Which party is all over the media?
And the funny thing is that the Green's actually have an economic policy which could bring us out of recession, and prevent it from happening again. But instead you have UKIP, who want to take us out of Europe, which would destroy the economy of this country.