Turtle on 20/11/2006 at 17:53
Have we decided if I'm wasting my time with these sheep yet?
David on 20/11/2006 at 18:38
You're never wasting your time if it is with a sheep.
Pyrian on 20/11/2006 at 20:51
Quote:
There are many objections against the evolution and neo-darvinistic theory at all.
Yes, but all told they don't hold any water whatsoever. Let me explain to you the actual weaknesses of evolutionary theory:
1) Nobody knows how life started. It clearly did. The processes involved are unknown. Some have taken this to mean that some form of spontaneous generation is
impossible, but that's simply not the case, and the attempts to prove that have been ridiculous at best (they tend to assume that an initial organism would be similar to a modern one, when it would be far more reasonable to assume that it would be very little akin).
2) The processes by which genetics result in organisms are incompletely understood. Many such processes are known, some are still being found, and presumably some have yet to be discovered. Some have taken this to mean that the processes are impossible, but as above, this is a ridiculous conjecture in the face of the evidence to date.
Quote:
For example, a lot of organs are thought to be homologic, however, genetics and molecular biology confirms that it's not a matter of homology, but analogy.
That statement doesn't even make any
sense outside of evolutionary theory. Regardless, insofar as it's true (which isn't very far), it doesn't actually present any problem with the theory, which encompasses both homology and analogy. It's worth noting specifically that very few absolute statements can be made about the genetic roots of morphology given that stem cell signals are at best incompletely understood.
Okay, let me rephrase that in words you're more likely to understand: Anybody who claims that genetics and molecular biology say a lot about organ formation is
lying because those links are not yet well known and nowhere near completely understood.
Printer's Devil on 20/11/2006 at 22:59
I know it's nitpicking, but shouldn't there be two T-Rexes rampaging on the deck of the Ark?
Turtle on 20/11/2006 at 23:14
Hello?
There's a reason there are no more T-Rex's running around.
Para?noid on 20/11/2006 at 23:45
Quote Posted by Printer's Devil
I know it's nitpicking, but shouldn't there be
two T-Rexes rampaging on the deck of the Ark?
I know it's nitpicking, but look at the size of the Ark! There's no way Noah had room to fit two of every kind of animal on that little boat!
I know it's nitpicking, but how exactly did a T-Rex manage to start a fire?!
I know it's nit-SHUT UP
Printer's Devil on 21/11/2006 at 13:54
Turtle wins.
PigLick on 21/11/2006 at 14:57
no you win
TF on 21/11/2006 at 15:02
Quote Posted by Gorgonseye
Got that right....because I'l do it....Stabbin time!
quoted for thread first prize
th|3f on 21/11/2006 at 15:12
God: And take two of each animal, one of each sex...except those T-rex things, those were just a bad idea.
Noah: Can I just not take any dinosaurs in general?
God: Yeah, that's cool I guess. Make <i>sure</i> to take some crocodiles and other smallish lizards, along with the emus and other large birds. That will really screw with people's heads in a couple thousand years.
