Dear Anti-Evolutionists: Human & Bonobo Genomes Differ By 1.3%

[wurd2]

Evolution is a theory with people who like to make huge assumptions, and those same people pushing people to believe illogical ideas. The pride of atheism...The only peer review, is Atheist/Evolutionist review. The system today is flawed, and clearly biased in the realm of origins.

Scientific peer-review involves disinterested scientists devising identical experiments and testing for the expected results. There is no opinion or bias involved here.

Is it also too much to ask for you to recognize that evolutionist does not imply atheist?

Anyone against the secular atheistical...mindset is clearly uneducated, a fool, or a wicked man in your eyes, and every atheist eyes in the realm of science. The pride of atheism. Pure and honest my ass.

Is there any humility in claiming to know the mind of God?

:shrug:

.

 

[wurd2]

Evolution is a theory that attempts to explain certain facts that we believe based on our knowledge today.

Evolutionary theory is based on scientific facts. And scientific facts are observations.

Peer review is not something that you can use to prove truth because those peers make decision based on the things that they already believe to be true.

This is nonsense. The peer-review process involves disinterested scientists testing to see if described experiments produce the documented results. This is the component of science that inevitably weeds out the garbage.

It is quite presumptuous to assume that humans which admittedly know very little are somehow experts. On a world that was not created by them nor were we consulted in its creation. As if our inability to understand something changes the existence of truth. We can't understand in our feeble minds an almighty God, and can't prove him with our limited processes so he must not be true.

Presumptuous is claiming to know the mind of God with no evidence at all.

.

 

[wurd2]

Haha! You're like the thing that wouldn't shut up! Give it up already

Am I somehow forcing you to click on this thread?

:shrug:

.

 

[wurd2]

Keep trying to make Natural Selection sentient too...when it isn't. It is dumb luck, because otherwise you make it sentient. You act like it decides, when it doesn't.

Per the biology community, Darwinian natural selection is a blind unguided process that is non-random.

.

 

[wurd2]

I find it massively entertaining that anti-evolutionists have to argue with and dismiss the significance and application of scientific theory because to do otherwise is to recognize that evolutionary theory, as having survived the rigors of scientific scrutiny for over 150 years, necessarily rests upon a mountain of evidence per the very definition of scientific theory and the process of scientific investigation.

op:

.

 

[P49Y-CY]

I find it massively entertaining that anti-evolutionists have to argue with and dismiss the significance and application of scientific theory because to do otherwise is to recognize that evolutionary theory, as having survived the rigors of scientific scrutiny for over 150 years, necessarily rests upon a mountain of evidence per the very definition of scientific theory and the process of scientific investigation.

i've got to hand it to you wurd2, another knockout. plus you've got the patience of a saint lol. it is amusing (but very sad) that so many people who believe despite insufficient evidence will lash out by name-calling (violence) or dismissal when presented with evidence that is so irrefutable but contrary to their position.

what really bugs me though, is when they'll attempt to somehow intertwine the undeniable evidence with their dogma, implying that it strengthens it even more. that's just taking credit for other peoples work. but, what else is new.

As evidence for evolutionary theory, the fossil record is merely icing on the cake. The real heavy-weight evidence lies in the field of molecular genetics which is a far cry above and beyond extrapolation.

kind of like the icing before the cake, no?

 

[suaveflooder]

Hmmmmmm......all the compliments when it comes to me working on cars, Chris, and suddenly I'm "sad." It'll be interesting to meet you someday, sir

The "fun" part is that it is bound to happen since we live so close and go to many of the same functions

 

[P49Y-CY]

Hmmmmmm......all the compliments when it comes to me working on cars, Chris, and suddenly I'm "sad." It'll be interesting to meet you someday, sir

The "fun" part is that it is bound to happen since we live so close and go to many of the same functions

dude! i am not singling you out, brian! sorry you took it that way man. actually i think you are one of the more "less reactive" believers, and present your case alot better than most. this thread shows that.

religion and politics are things that most people have different viewpoints about and will usually not change no matter how much discourse, but i try to never treat a person differently because of it. in my years iv'e have come to realize that these are the types of things we have to just learn to agree to disagree. but i have always been impressed with wurd2's logical thinking - he has been bringing it for many years on this board.

and yes i still think your work on cars kicks ass, and i do hope to meet you someday soon! :beer:

 

[germeezy1]

This thread was never intended to only be a discussion about evolution, and it is obvious to anyone what the real intent of this thread is. This thread has ran its course, and after 26 pages everyone still believes exactly what they believed on page 1.

 

[wurd2]

This thread was never intended to only be a discussion about evolution, and it is obvious to anyone what the real intent of this thread is.

:lol:

How many times are you going to say this?

This thread has ran its course, and after 26 pages everyone still believes exactly what they believed on page 1.

In terms of one changing his or her mind about evolutionary theory, you may be right. But there were in fact conversations here and people were in fact forced to think and respond. I learned a few things from this thread and I am confident that others can say the same.

.

 

[wurd2]

i've got to hand it to you wurd2, another knockout. plus you've got the patience of a saint lol.

Thank you. And thank God for the backspace key.

it is amusing (but very sad) that so many people who believe despite insufficient evidence will lash out by name-calling (violence) or dismissal when presented with evidence that is so irrefutable but contrary to their position.

I am no stranger to frustration towards someone who outright rejects or ridicules something I believe to be true. And nor am I a stranger to feelings of disappointment in learning the hard way that I am wrong. When I was younger I believed all sorts of mumbo jumbo nonsense in the absence of evidence but thankfully I had a truly amazing philosophy professor, a real-life Indiana Jones type that investigated religions and exposed cults in his spare time, who made a simple statement that had a profound impact on me: doubt everything because that which is true will survive your doubts. This slowly and eventually put me on the path of subscribing to reason, logic, and the all-important scientific method.

As it turns out, this subscription greatly reduces my frustration in being opposed and it also drastically decreases my odds of being wrong about something.

what really bugs me though, is when they'll attempt to somehow intertwine the undeniable evidence with their dogma, implying that it strengthens it even more. that's just taking credit for other peoples work. but, what else is new.

I think when people view the natural world through a lens tainted with faith-based preconceptions, they leave themselves with no choice but to adjust their lens or their understanding such that incoming data is compliant with their un-overthrow-able theories. And in the case where adjustments cannot suffice, the incoming data is rejected and regarded as an active threat.

kind of like the icing before the cake, no?

I don't see why not. The fossil record as evidence for evolution could be the colorful sprinkles applied to the icing on the cake.



.

 

[dynasty_v6]

we share 99% of a our DNA with a worm as well, a million years ago the earth would have been on the out edge of the sun (sun shrinks over time), guess the op never knew

 

[thomas91169]

Uhh, the sun expands as it grows older....

Unless thats sarcasm then im just having a case of the mundayz.

 

[DaleM]

we share 99% of a our DNA with a worm as well, a million years ago the earth would have been on the out edge of the sun (sun shrinks over time), guess the op never knew

HS was tough on you I can tell.

 

[low03tb]

we share 99% of a our DNA with a worm as well, a million years ago the earth would have been on the out edge of the sun (sun shrinks over time), guess the op never knew

 

[Jack Burton]

we share 99% of a our DNA with a worm as well, a million years ago the earth would have been on the out edge of the sun (sun shrinks over time), guess the op never knew

The sun hasn't reached red giant stage yet which is what you are thinking of. The sun is still a young star. Shrink will happen in the white dwarf and black dwarf stages. This is 6th grade stuff.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2