Jessie Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 No Jessie, just your condemnation of yourself about it.I know… couldnt resist… my crap sense of humour… Victimorthecrime 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 both.i'm no scientist,but if evolution was anything more than just a theory,not even one scientist would refute it.Thats not quite true… its natural for theories to be improved and modified over time and the fact that scientists are willing to argue against a consensus is evidence of critical self evaluation which is a strength not a weakness.There is a good fossil record (even with explainable gaps) to substantiate the theory and an observable mechanism to drive the effect.Its true that many decades ago some scientists were not 100% convinced because they felt the earth was too young for evolution to have manifested such diversity but now we know the earth is much older and is more than old enough to account for the slow change evolution actually is.Have you read up on the Galapagos Islands? Survival of the fittest? Genetic Mutation?, Adaptation?The CT boundary and dinosaur extinction?Its very interesting? Cell division and meiosis and mitosis is amazing! DNA is amazing! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resolute Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 They'd at least be some evidence of a monkey that's evolved into a human. Another thing. Why did some monkeys evolve and some didn't?so freud and other "great minds" would have something to which they'd feel intellectually superior. p.s.,no offense to anyone,just some humor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 They'd at least be some evidence of a monkey that's evolved into a human. Another thing. Why did some monkeys evolve and some didn't?evolutionary pressures…This aspect is very well understood…its a bit simplistic to say we descended from monkeys - but this isn't the forum really to explain all this…Rather than get an imperfect explanation from me, if you are really interested, go onto a school website and then graduate to a good book or specialist site.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victimorthecrime Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Jessie, 10-4 message transmitted and received across the Atlantic about the penis removal. Jessie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resolute Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Thats not quite true… its natural for theories to be improved and modified over time and the fact that scientists are willing to argue against a consensus is evidence of critical self evaluation which is a strength not a weakness.There is a good fossil record (even with explainable gaps) to substantiate the theory and an observable mechanism to drive the effect.Its true that many decades ago some scientists were not 100% convinced because they felt the earth was too young for evolution to have manifested such diversity but now we know the earth is much older and is more than old enough to account for the slow change evolution actually is.Have you read up on the Galapagos Islands? Survival of the fittest? Genetic Mutation?, Adaptation?The CT boundary and dinosaur extinction?Its very interesting? Cell division and meiosis and mitosis is amazing! DNA is amazing!i haven't read up much on that stuff you listed,but i've seen some documentaries,nature films etc.to be honest,my knowledge on the specifics of the subject is quite limited,but there are inconsistencies.there are a lot of interesting and amazing things in the universe,but doesn't mean scientists can just come up with theories and try to force them upon everyone as fact.as for the religious scientists who proponents of the theory,i really don't know what their position is on adam and eve. were they monkeys as well? or perhaps single cell organisms,then fish then reptiles and so on?i for one refuse to accept that i've descended from monkeys or fish etc.,or even cavemen for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Klingsor Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resolute Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Unless you can change a frog into a pepper pot by sheer willpower alone, the universe really doesn't care what you choose to accept or don't accept or how you try to reprogram yourself into denial.klingsor,that statement was meant for those who believed in god; those who don't,may believe or accept what they choose.besides,a frog turning into a pepper pot is more plausible than it turning into a monkey,in my humble opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Klingsor Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victimorthecrime Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 There is a huge difference between theory and scientific theory.A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.A non scientific theory is little more than speculative horse shit. There are few laws in science. If you don't believe in scientific theory then you don't believe in science. Which is ok w me, and in fact, at least it helps clarify where some folks are coming from. Jessie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resolute Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 No that statement was meant to illustrate that you better come to me with a damn sight more than just "I believe", "I accept", "I think" because I KNOW I don't give a shit what you or anybody else chooses to "believe", "accept", or "think".I'm only interested in ontological reality, and WHY - and how I have come to overwhelmingly detest this fucking phrase as symbolizing like nothing else the emptiness of our times, and not least because it's my ignorant boss's favorite phrase - "it is what it is". If I KNOW WHY, I can CHANGE it.first of all klingsor,calm down.if you think anyone can tell you "exactly why" certain things (that aren't of your own doing and fucking up) are the way they are,then i regret to inform you that there really is no such person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resolute Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 There is a huge difference between theory and scientific theory.A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.A non scientific theory is little more than speculative horse shit.There are few laws in science. If you don't believe in scientific theory then you don't believe in science. Which is ok w me, and in fact, at least it helps clarify where some folks are coming from.i believe in science when it's irrefutable; such as "water is h2o"; that's irrefutable science. lead weighs more than oil,and so on.but to claim that our ancestors were monkeys and fish and frogs- is fact,i don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resolute Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Resolute, talking logic with you is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how intellectual my move is, you knock over the pieces, shit on everything, then strut around the board like you won.while i like the analogy,i've yet to see anything logical from you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victimorthecrime Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 I would rather believe what evolution says which is not that we descended from monkeys but that we descended from a common ancestor to the great ape than to believe God created this mess. I believe in God, I don't believe any concept of God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 i believe in science when it's irrefutable; such as "water is h2o"; that's irrefutable science. lead weighs more than oil,and so on.but to claim that our ancestors were monkeys and fish and frogs- is fact,i don't think so.Well it is called the 'theory of evolution'… on the other hand we also have the 'theory of gravity'….and thus far, in my experience, whenever I take a dump, the sh*t falls vertically downwards…… so I guess I'm with Darwin & Newton on these issues…. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 ps does anyone know how much genetic code we share with a monkey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Klingsor Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 ps does anyone know how much genetic code we share with a monkey?We share just as much or more with pigs which I find very telling. In my experience, get a bunch of humans together outdoors socially and they devolve to sex, gluttony, and wallowing happily in the mud just like their genetic cousins. Think of an outdoor music concert in the rain.Can't beat a crowd at a sports match though for doing their absolute best to imitate a forest canopy full of howler monkeys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Resolute Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Well it is called the 'theory of evolution'… on the other hand we also have the 'theory of gravity'….and thus far, in my experience, whenever I take a dump, the sh*t falls vertically downwards…… so I guess I'm with Darwin & Newton on these issues….of course i believe in gravity as fact.and you didn't answer my question about adam and eve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 of course i believe in gravity as fact.and you didn't answer my question about adam and eve.well maybe you shouldn't because Newton only had a 'theory' of gravity… and guess what … its WRONG(however in our restricted plane of observation its close enough)it was superseded by Einsteins general theory of relativity..and guess what … THATs been superseded by the theory of graviton exchange…(my apologies to any physics guys out there- Im going for brevity)Adam & Eve- it could be metaphorical? or symbolic? Maybe it means God caused a mutation of a particular type- Adam was born and his genes were successful from there on…but here is no getting around that fact that we can manipulate genes and that we share 99% of genes with apes.There is no getting around the fact that the fossil record shows species evolving over time- the horse being a classic example.UNLESS a competing God has put false skeletons and imprints all over the planet to confuse us,,,, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Klingsor Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 . Jessie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Klingsor Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 . Jessie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Victimorthecrime Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 I did not believe in evolution either until a couple years ago when I took the time to read several books that explain in simple terms the fossil record and what natural selection really means. The problem comes in when people on both sides have not done their homework and do not understand the basics. For example "survival of the fittest" is often taken to mean "physically fit" whereas it actually means "the best fit" to overcome the challenges of the moment as in the case of white mice surviving on the beach better than brown mice which are easier for predators to spot. Jessie 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 yes the phrase should be 'best adapted to the current environment"… ha - right now Im not suited to the uk environment AT ALL….. 51 Years of Misery 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessie Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 Klingsor- your writing is both perverse and magnificent- you should be published somewhere… Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Klingsor Posted October 5, 2014 Report Share Posted October 5, 2014 . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.