Crazy thought i just had...(religion)

[QUOTE="123625"]You have said you havent cared for the discussion ten times, yet you have been on for over 14 hours. You are a sad human being. Look on the internet, don't ask us the same questions all the time. jking197

No i will come back to defend myself, i have to. I am not a sad human being, you on the other hand just insult me and ridicle my beleifs. But hey whatever makes you happy.

Religious people are a dying breed.lucas_kelly

Not really at all... countries in Asia and Africa are becoming Christians left and right... in Europe and America though... you're right...

Religious people are a dying breed.lucas_kelly

Yet here it seems to be about 33% Atheist 33% Theist 33% Agnostic.

[QUOTE="jking197"]Okay I just woke up. I was on this forum 11 hours ago and you are still going on about evolution. GET A LIFE and stop going on about it, jesus. 123625

You sir need to calm down, i only came back here recently because i saw it on the front page and i had to defenc myself. You did not answer my question neither have you proved to me evolution is real. You just insult me because you cannot make valid arguments.

first, I will explain what a retrovirus is. a retrovirus is a virus that has RNA. its RNA is transcribed into DNA. this DNA is inserted into the genome of the host cell. all descendants of that cell will have this sequence of DNA, and when it activates, the cells with this stretch of DNA will start to produce the proteins needed to make this virus. after a bunch of viruses are made, the cell is destroyed. sometimes the virus doesn't activate, and the DNA stays inside the genome of the host cell. Sometimes this happens in a germ line cell (a sperm or egg). If this happens, and that sperm or egg produces offspring, then all its children and their children and their children will always have this stretch of DNA. If we find this stretch of DNA in 2 different genomes in the same place in the genomes, then those organisms share a common ancestor. If we find this stretch of DNA in the same place in 2 different species in the same genome locations, then there was a time when these 2 species were one species. This is exactly what was found in chimpanzee and human genomes.

[QUOTE="lucas_kelly"]Religious people are a dying breed.james28893

Yet here it seems to be about 33% Atheist 33% Theist 33% Agnostic.

Compared to when near 100% of people were religious in the 16th century.

[QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="jking197"]Okay I just woke up. I was on this forum 11 hours ago and you are still going on about evolution. GET A LIFE and stop going on about it, jesus. jking197

You sir need to calm down, i only came back here recently because i saw it on the front page and i had to defenc myself. You did not answer my question neither have you proved to me evolution is real. You just insult me because you cannot make valid arguments.

I answered it ten times and you still kept asking me the question. Everyone posting here knows your a nut-job, look in the mirror ffs. You never answered any of my questions because you had no answers. You've been brainwashed since birth, so I realise you can't help it. I pity you.

Please calm down. And no you didnt answer "10" times the only time you answered was once, and it was " its in the middle"

I did so answer your questions. You are an angry fellow who beleive needs help accepting you're beleif is not pure fact! it may be real, im not denying that. But the truth remains its not classified as Fact only theory! And no i have not been brainwashed since birth, thats an automatic stereo type by Atheist. I became a christian recently about 6 or so months ago.

Why do you pity me? I don't pity you.

[QUOTE="james28893"]

[QUOTE="lucas_kelly"]Religious people are a dying breed.jking197

Yet here it seems to be about 33% Atheist 33% Theist 33% Agnostic.

Compared to when near 100% of people were religious in the 16th century.

Uhh no... that was the Renaissance... and that was humanism... it was not 100% Religous! And also, even if 100% said they were Christians, hardly any truly were... look at the Dark Ages... they clearly didn't follow the N.T.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

notconspiracy

I explained i was just using an unreal example back then. Go read from start to finish. I wasnt being seroious. I know how it works but i see no real evidence for it otther than specualtion and theory.

And don't tell me evolution is fact either.

So is Evolution fact yes or no? so far only one evolutionist has been able to answer this question.

fact: there is a nested hierarchy of classification with each organism sharing a unique combinations of similar characteristics with all other organisms

explaination (theory): all organisms share a common ancestor

Bird features:

1. feathers
2. wishbone
3. big toe
4. pubis elongate and directed backwards

Reptilian features:

1. No beak or bill
2. Trunk region free (birds are always fused)
3. bones are pneumatic
4. pubic shaft with a plate-like, slightly angled cross-section
5. cerebral hemisphere elongate, slender, cerebellum situated behind the midbrain and doesn't overlap from behind or press down on it
6. spine attaches to skull from behind (birds from below)
7. center of cervetal vertebrae have simple concave articular facets
8. Long bony tail (no pygo****
9. premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth
10. Ribs slende, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum
11. pelvic girdle and femur joint are archosaurian-like
12. Sacrum occupies 6 vertebrae (in birds it's between 11-23 vertebrae)
13. Metacarpals free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible
14. Nasal opening far foreward, separated by large preorbital fenestra (hole)
15. Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles.
16. Claws on 3 unfused digits. (no modern bird has 3 claws or unfused digits)
17. The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg.
18. Metatarsals (foot bones) free.
19. Gastralia present.

here's your nested hierarchy, notconspiracy

"Another development that has undermined evolution is the spread of computers into evolutionary biology. Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind's tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say "no evolution" just as loudly as they say "evolution"; it's just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this, many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles."

intermediate forms

Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will. *

endogenous retroviruses

I already told you a few times before that humans and chimps DNA are very similar (which doesn't necessarily mean there was a common ancestor), there could be spots in our genes that are prone to be inserted, so the virus could have affected both the same way.

[QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

123625

I explained i was just using an unreal example back then. Go read from start to finish. I wasnt being seroious. I know how it works but i see no real evidence for it otther than specualtion and theory.

And don't tell me evolution is fact either.

So is Evolution fact yes or no? so far only one evolutionist has been able to answer this question.

fact: there is a nested hierarchy of classification with each organism sharing a unique combinations of similar characteristics with all other organisms

explaination (theory): all organisms share a common ancestor

Thank you that is the one thing i wanted to know. Evolution is a well supported theory, not an actual fact( or at least untill it seen and proven). Thank you. I really do not care for this disscussion any more.

[QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="jking197"]Okay I just woke up. I was on this forum 11 hours ago and you are still going on about evolution. GET A LIFE and stop going on about it, jesus. notconspiracy

You sir need to calm down, i only came back here recently because i saw it on the front page and i had to defenc myself. You did not answer my question neither have you proved to me evolution is real. You just insult me because you cannot make valid arguments.

first, I will explain what a retrovirus is. a retrovirus is a virus that has RNA. its RNA is transcribed into DNA. this DNA is inserted into the genome of the host cell. all descendants of that cell will have this sequence of DNA, and when it activates, the cells with this stretch of DNA will start to produce the proteins needed to make this virus. after a bunch of viruses are made, the cell is destroyed. sometimes the virus doesn't activate, and the DNA stays inside the genome of the host cell. Sometimes this happens in a germ line cell (a sperm or egg). If this happens, and that sperm or egg produces offspring, then all its children and their children and their children will always have this stretch of DNA. If we find this stretch of DNA in 2 different genomes in the same place in the genomes, then those organisms share a common ancestor. If we find this stretch of DNA in the same place in 2 different species in the same genome locations, then there was a time when these 2 species were one species. This is exactly what was found in chimpanzee and human genomes.

Does this information make Evolution real? Or is it just theory? Im not interested theory and strong evidence. IM interested in fact!

here's your nested hierarchy, notconspiracy

Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will. *

Revinh

here's your nested hierarchy, notconspiracy

"Another development that has undermined evolution is the spread of computers into evolutionary biology. Basically, computers have shown that the neat evolutionary trees that get drawn up are in fact based on imaginary relations of similarity and difference that owe more to the human mind's tendency to perceive patterns than to the raw biological data. Computers have shown that when the characteristics of different living things are encoded in numerical form and the computer is asked to sort them into sequences based on their similarities and differences, the computer can find any number of ways of doing so that have just as much support in the data as those drawn up by humans to fit an evolutionary tree. The data say "no evolution" just as loudly as they say "evolution"; it's just the pattern-craving human mind that gives prominence to the former way of viewing it. This is known as phenetic analysis. When the computer is constrained to push the data into an evolutionary tree, (this is called cladistic analysis) it tends to generate trees with all species as individual twigs and no species forming the crucial lower branches of the tree that evolution demands. As a result of this, many biologists have in practice stopped using the idea of ancestors and descendants when classifying new species. When the British Museum of Natural History did this a few years ago, they started a small war in scientific circles."

intermediate forms

Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will. *

endogenous retroviruses

I already told you a few times before that humans and chimps DNA are very similar (which doesn't necessarily mean there was a common ancestor), there could be spots in our genes that are prone to be inserted, so the virus could have affected both the same way.

Revinh

on intermediate forms: you only pointed out one example I myself am slightly skeptical of.

endogenous retroviruses: there are spots prone to insertion, 50 MILLION OF THEM!

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="xxDustmanxx"][QUOTE="SonKev"]

You forget one thing, natural selection is a theory, just an idea believed by people...

And no matter how many people believe it to be true, wont ever make itxxDustmanxx

Evolution is backed up by loads of evidence, go do some research.

Its not a scientific fact though.

Nothing in science is ever proven to be 100% fact,weve explained this to you.

Also a whale will never give birth to a cow, thats impossible.

Yet you believe the theory! That can't happen regardless of how long it takes. Evolutionists believe whales' ancestor was a land animal with 4 feet just like a cow! :lol: :lol: :lol: what a bunch of bull :o :lol:

[QUOTE="Revinh"]

here's your nested hierarchy, notconspiracy

Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will. *

C_Town_Soul

one problem... where did evolution start? From nothing to everything?

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="notconspiracy"][QUOTE="123625"]

When i see a whale give birth to a cow. I'll beleive you.

Also the only religion causing Holy wars is Radical Islam.

yoshi-lnex

I explained i was just using an unreal example back then. Go read from start to finish. I wasnt being seroious. I know how it works but i see no real evidence for it otther than specualtion and theory.

And don't tell me evolution is fact either.

So is Evolution fact yes or no? so far only one evolutionist has been able to answer this question.

fact: there is a nested hierarchy of classification with each organism sharing a unique combinations of similar characteristics with all other organisms

explaination (theory): all organisms share a common ancestor

Thank you that is the one thing i wanted to know. Evolution is a well supported theory, not an actual fact( or at least untill it seen and proven). Thank you. I really do not care for this disscussion any more.

No the fossil record doesnt make Evolution Fact though. You seem to miss my point, im not triyng to disprove it, only mention that its not fact! Just because it has evidence, doesnt mean it is fact.

[QUOTE="C_Town_Soul"][QUOTE="Revinh"]

here's your nested hierarchy, notconspiracy

Evolution also suffers from the problem that many putative sequences which look logical based on the progression of one set of anatomical characteristics suddenly look illogical when attention is switched to another set. For example, the lungfish superficially seems to make a good intermediate between fish and amphibian, until one examines the rest of its internal organs, which are not intermediate in character, nor are the ways in which its eggs develop. And if different species have common ancestors, it would be reasonable to expect that similar structures in the different species be specified in similar ways in their DNA and develop in similar ways in their embryos; this is frequently not so. So evolutionary relationships depend upon an arbitrary choice of which characteristics of the organisms in question are considered most important, and different relationships can be "proved" at will. *

battlefront23

one problem... where did evolution start? From nothing to everything?