Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- JazX0
imo, that which scientists call absolute dating is relative dating and relative dating is absurd dating.
- Nairn0
..ruining this thread.
- flagellum0
oh good gawsh, mimio. That's it. I agree to disagree. Just wasting my time now. If you can't see that NS which would eliminate the very components needed to build a flagellum because it would have no immediate need for them and if you won't read the research on IC... then poo on you. ;)
You're just disagreeing with me for the sake of disagreeing.
- JazX0
discipler, where is that link man?
- KuzIII0
The problem is, if homo sapien possessed the full cognitive potential that he does today, it is rediculous to posit that he existed for over 100,000 years with essentially no progression except for primitive tool construction.
discipler
(Jan 6 06, 05:19)OMG, You're not that stupid are you??? did you read my post???
look, you idiot
"The killer application that led to humanity's rise is easy to identify. It is agriculture. When the glaciers began to melt and the climate to improve, several groups learned how to grow crops and domesticate animals. Once they had done that, there was no going back. Agriculture enabled man to shape his environment in a way no species had done before"
The neolithic revolution coincided with the end of the ice-age. it wasn't about mental capacity it was about certain environmental conditions that were met.
Look at the analogy i made you fucking idiot - look at the amazing technological advances that have been made in the last 200 years with the onset of the industrial revolution and the shift from feudal to capitalist societies. For 10,000 years the world changed little from an agrarian system based on feudalism to what we see today. Yet the cranial capacity of the homo sapien has changed very little. Does this mean, by your idiotic logic that men could not have existed until 200 years ago?
really, how stupid are you?
plus what about the point i made, this one:
"plus you are undersestimating the potential of pre-neolitihic man who produced vastly complicated and sophisticated tools, as well as art and music. you should also note that there are societies out there who practice a prehistoric form of hunting-gathering, and have not seen it necessary to adapt to the agricultural methods of 7-10,000 years ago, or the industrial methods of 200 years ago"
don't be a dumbass dicklpler, your argument is stupid and holds no water. it only convinces monkeys and children.,
- Mimio0
So what?, the cornerstone of his criticism is in that "research" and in that book, which was produced completely outside any scientific community.
The point is more than valid because you mention IC in most of your reponses.
- Nairn0
thbbbt.
- JazX0
it's starting to grow a lil' old. how about another topic like hmmmm.... each one of you sending JazX $5.00 via PayPal.
- flagellum0
Not true at all, mimio. There is tremendous peer pressure in the scientific community which is not friendly to dissenters. In many ways, scientists are like old religious types who won't listen to new ideas. That being said, the number of ID scientists is growing and growing because of the new and undeniable discoveries.
- TheTick0
you guys are too polarized. more understanding and less hating.
JazX
(Jan 6 06, 11:05)
--------------------------
JazX, we'll have to disagree on this one. I am of the opinion that the Enlightenment - and the philosophies and approaches derived from it - ar emankinds great hope from rescuing itself from the self-delusional mess it is usually prone too.People take the Enlightenment - democracy, science, free markets - etc. for granted as if they'll last forever. On the contrary I believe they are an incredibly tenuous adventure, and the weight of human civilization wrapped in mythology and priestly rulers utilizing myths to dominate other sections of mankind and limit creative, critical thinking and yes freedom is more our normal mode of expression.
I happen to like modern enlightenment based civilization and would like to keep it away from those that wish to drag us back to the past, darkly through that mirror.
I don't know anything about Discipler, but his argument and where he is coming from is diametrically opposed to where I am and what I believe. Don't mistake passionate defense of the Enlightenment for hatred.
- Mimio0
Sorry I can't evolve one for you.
- todelete__20
K0na you're missing the point! the male model issue, merely proposes that after the reduction of our environmental challenges evolution is currently being reversed. Really man, get with hte programme!
kelpie
(Jan 5 06, 07:48)Not sure what you are trying to say, but if you're saying anything bad about male models I'm going to have to break dance fight you until you die from it.
- KuzIII0
Why would he wait a thousand centuries before using the same skills to
record history? And is it probable that none should discover that plants grow from seeds.
discipler
(Jan 6 06, 05:26)eugh, your a dumbass. It was the agricultural revolution that necessitated time keeping, the recording of the lunar calendar, etc.. to plant crops and bring in the harvest - it was all part of the same process.
plus, the world only came out of an ice age 10,000 years ago! you can't do agriculture on glaciers you dumb fuck!
- JazX0
some things can't be measured and when they can, they make no sense.
- discipler0
Sorry, which one jazX?
- flagellum0
DrHuxtable... what?
You misunderstand what ID is. It can only point to specified complexity in biological systems and make the logical inference to a designing intelligence. Period. It can't say who or what the designer is. Learn more here:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
For peer reviewed papers, go here:
- flagellum0
exactly. Not even Darwin can. ;)
- todelete__20
quick question to all of you:
why don't you stick to one thread for once. ie...
Intelligent design-648
Darwinist-469and many more with a couple hundred posts...
can you please... for me... and your god or no god... stick to one thread so i can see one hit 1000 posts. please?
i think that would be damn cool.
thank you.
- paraselene0
haha. i was gonna say something yesterday but got distracted.
or something.
.
- pavlovs_dog0
lol at a fucking flagellum...
ya why wonder the id whackos choose something wonder why only something so mocroscpoic?
fewer fossils to condernd with!
they used a similar argument for whales...
unitl paleontologists started diggins up fossils showing their clear dissention from land mamals...
after the flagella is argument is worn out, they'll move on to something else...