Kansas Evolution Hearings Day 1, segment 1 of 5

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

wow look at all those Ad hominems

[MaximusArurealius]

4. "There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis." -- Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist

[Reerrpad5515]

@MaximusArurealius "There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form."

That is the hypothesis behind abiogenesis. To call it the "general theory of evolution" is just lying (if he actually is an evolutionary scientist). The theory of evolution by natural selection posits that all life forms arose from earlier forms of life, through a process of genetic mutation and natural selection. Biology 101.

[MaximusArurealius]

@Reerrpad5515 Dummass, you can't separate the two. "To call it the "general theory of evolution" is just lying (if he actually is an evolutionary scientist)" So you don't know who Oparin is? You ignorant asshole in his time he was the top Russian evolutionist. Dam you are dumb. "The theory of evolution by natural selection posits that all life forms arose from earlier forms" that's not NS at all you moron. You just described Abiogenesis. HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR thanks for proving me right. hahaha

[MaximusArurealius]

3. The following statement by the geochemist Jeffrey Bada from San Diego Scripps Institute makes clear the helplessness of evolutionists concerning this impasse: "Today as we leave the twentieth century, we still face the biggest unsolved problem that we had when we entered the twentieth century: How did life originate on Earth?" - Jeffrey Bada, Earth, February 1998, p. 40

[MaximusArurealius]

2. Evolutionists confronted the question of the origin of life in the second quarter of the 20th century. One of the leading authorities of the theory of molecular evolution, the Russian evolutionist Alexander I. Oparin, said this in his book The Origin of Life: "Unfortunately, the origin of the cell remains a question which is actually the darkest point of the complete evolution theory."

[MaximusArurealius]

1. Professor Klaus Dose, the president of the Institute of Biochemistry at the University of Johannes Gutenberg, states: "More than 30 years of experimentation on the origin of life in the fields of chemical and molecular evolution have led to a better perception of the immensity of the problem of the origin of life on Earth rather than to its solution. At present all discussions on principal theories and experiments in the field either end in stalemate or in a confession of ignorance."

[ndrthrdr1]

Google National Center for Science Education to see why scientists know that evolution has happened and is happening.

[Reerrpad5515]

lolz, macro and micro evolution are different, and require different sets of data...thats like saying inches and yards are different, and require different size rulers...

Yeah, but they're measuring the same thing, and once you have inches, you have yards; once you have microevolution, you have macroevolution. No wonder the actual scientists didn't show up for this puff piece.

btw...origin of life has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Ph.D. via cracker-jack box for this joker.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@Reerrpad5515 macro is just a bunch of micro over a longer period of time

its the same thing as micro is to macro as feet is to miles

[Reerrpad5515]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Or inches to yards, yup.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "macro is just a bunch of micro over a longer period of time" That's a lie you've been suckered into believing. If you knew anything about evolution you'd know it's bullshit.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius no its completely true, Micro is changes in the genes, and Macro is changes in the species and characteristics CAUSED by gene changes.

Also Macro evolution has been observed and repeated in a lab setting, I am a biology major and its not that hard to reproduce.

[MaximusArurealius]

@Reerrpad5515 You're a follower I see. You believe all the bullshit that evolutionists have propagandized to cover the fact that evolution is pure fantasy. The fact that you think micro and macro are the same makes you an uneducated moron. Next, Abiogenesis IS part of evolution theory just like mutation theory is.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius No if YOU knew anything about Abiogenesis it is not included in the Scientific study of Evolution.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD you dumshit. DID you bother to read my comments below proving that Abiogenesis is part of evolution? Are you completely stupid? Tell me who holds Abiogenesis as a theory? Evolutionists or Creationists. Do you think it's a creationist theory you moron?

FAIL DUE TO IGNORANCE OF SCIENCE. you stupid little fucking moron.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius You're visibly upset with all these Ad Hominems coming from you.

and no, there aren't any peer reviewed papers in evolution that related to Abiogenesis, just because you say it does doesn't mean it is.

ID is a creation theory, thats why the REPUBLICAN judge banned it in kitzmiller vs dover

where do you get your arguments? the discovery institute?

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto, Hey dummass, evolution is a creation myth of the atheists. Where do you get your arguments? TALK ORIGINS? HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR I thought so. "there aren't any peer reviewed papers in evolution that related to Abiogenesis" You uneducated little nitwit, you DO know the name of Darwin's book, right? Origin of Species. hahahahaha figure it out asshole and don't even begin to tell me that origin of species isn't Abiogenesis.

YOU LOSE ASSHOLE

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius creation myth? in the 1800's when charles darwin explored the islands almost the entire world was a theist in one way.

Origin of species isn't abiogenesis you're riding on the word origin.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KuubiNoobie, "Origin of species isn't abiogenesis" Yes it is.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius Hay guess what guess, I guess its not true just because he said it isn't

see what you just said "yes it is" and don't even explain why.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD I already explained why dummass. If you didn't understand the first time why would I assume you'd understand the second time.

FAIL

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD actually no you didn't, I did go back in my last post to make sure my last post was sufficient and you just said "Abiogenesis is included in evolution" then "rant rant rant swear ad hominem" and then "you don't know anything about science"

if evolution is so false how come it can be replicated with a mathematical algorithm for efficiency?

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "if evolution is so false how come it can be replicated with a mathematical algorithm for efficiency?" SO? That proves jack shit.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius Watch me prove it, Biology is applied chemistry, chemistry is applied physics, physics is applied Math, Math is the most basic form of logic, Evolution can be explained in terms of math through an algorithm that pseudo-predicts change, it basically says For any value of y, the change in x as a function of time are not exactly the same.

this can be compared through Geological Eras down to Generations between people down to the change in you and you parents.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto, hey dummass, You still didn't prove it. AND besides, evolution fits every test put to it. That means that even contradictory tests evolution fits into. THAT MEANS that it's not science.

EPIC FAIL

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius No, I never implied that and you should never infer that, what contradictory tests?

evolution has been open to every stipulation people have thrown at it and it fails to be "disproved" or "less reliable than before"

if any science is true, it can be mathematically explained.

but how can your christian or creation science or your ID theory be tested and mathematically suggested if it doesn't even provide any examples or evidence

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto, truth doesn't need a test. "evolution has been open to every stipulation people have thrown at it and it fails to be "disproved" or "less reliable than before"" That's proof that it's not science. It can't be falsified. You really haven't dug deep enough have you? You really aren't very bright. The fact is, it had been completely disproven. The evolution scientists know that, but they don't admit it. Too many atheists in important positions.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius HOW CAN IT BE SCIENCE IF EVERY THEORY IS FALSIFIABLE?

if everything is falsifiable then nothing in science is true.

Germ theory isn't true

Atomic theory isn't true

gravitational theory isn't true

electrical theory isn't true

Collision theory isn't true

are you really going to say that although we know SO MUCH about all of these things that they aren't true?

In atomic theory, do you think atoms are even real if that is not true?

do you think medical theory isn't true either

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD You apparently know nothing about falsifiability. hahahahahahhaaaaa According to falsifiability a theory MUST be falsifiable to be valid. Evolution isn't falsifiable. It's not valid.

MEGA FAIL

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius thats circle logic, you just went in a circle

Falsifiability proves a theory true because falsifiability proves a theory must be true.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto, you apparently don't know what circular logic is either. You're a failure. Just face it. You can't even read. I didn't say falsifiability proves a theory. I said it makes the theory valid. Big difference. 

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius you said "must be falsifiable to be valid"

are "proven" and "valid" not synonyms?

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto, BTW moron, you failed on this one "if evolution is so false how come it can be replicated with a mathematical algorithm for efficiency?" 1. you failed to prove it can be 2. you failed to prove it means anything. And YOU keep talking about evidence. Where's the evidence?

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto, NEXT, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Think macro not micro. OH I FORGOT. Once again scientists gave up on finding a transitional so they invented the common ancestor. AND since they can't prove a common ancestor they don't dare give a name to the common ancestor. They know it will be another embarrassing situation if they do. SO they failed on the fossils, they failed on missing links, so we're just waiting for the news media to announce the failure of evolution.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto, NEXT, there is no such thing as a common ancestor. Think macro not micro. OH I FORGOT. Once again scientists gave up on finding a transitional so they invented the common ancestor. AND since they can't prove a common ancestor they don't dare give a name to the common ancestor. They know it will be another embarrassing situation if they do. SO they failed on the fossils, they failed on missing links, so we're just waiting for the news media to announce the failure of evolution.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius No common ancestor is completely true, how can you deny that your parents parents parents parents parents didn't exist?

if it wasn't how come we share 99.6 percent of our DNA with apes and bonobos?

[MaximusArurealius]

@NoobiKauut, "No common ancestor is completely true" HAR HAR HAR You idiot. I told you to think micro not macro ya dummass. You don't know what you're talking about. Now go back to your high school and tell your teachers to PROVE it.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto, "if it wasn't how come we share 99.6 percent of our DNA with apes and bonobos?" Because like everything else with evolution that statement is pure bullshit. The latest studies show that you aren't even 90% the same DNA as another human. SO there's another big fail for evolution. You're not a fucking ape, but you believed that bullshit didn't you? You're a non thinker like the rest of your classmates.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto, evolution is false because the fossil record shows that life appears all at once. No transitionals. That's evidence of creation. Extinction of species shows that entropy is a live and well. Things are grinding to a halt not evolving to something higher. NEXT, the theory itself is easily disputed because 1. Natural Selection doesn't do anything more than keep the gene pool clean. 2. Mutations are harmful and fail to be of any use. The two together haven't done anything evolve. FAIL

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius No it doesn't it doesn't show any of that

There are fossils from 100,000 years ago, there are fossils from 50,000,000 years ago none of the fossils all "show up" at once.

There are transitional fossils, there may not be many fossils because fossilization is a rare and delicate process. but they are there

The fossils of Homo-habinus to erectus, to neanderthal, to sapians don't show transition? they most certainly do.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto, Ya know something dummass. You need to finish high school before coming here and telling us how stupid you are for believing every bullshit thing they tell you. You're just embarrassing yourself. THE SCIENTISTS SAY that they all appeared suddenly. They cannot find any ancestors. The animals alive today are all found in the fossils and guess what? No matter how old they are they show NO CHANGE.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius LOL CAN YOU NAME ANY OF THOSE SCIENTISTS?

you just say they say that and stop there?

dinosaur fossils exist, they can be over 100,000,000 years old

we see change all the time, we saw the fossils that showed where certain species of dinosaur are linked to todays birds

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

you didn't explain why, you just asserted, you're a troll, you don't cite anything you denounce everything based on a play on words, you don't acknowledge real thing

you don't acknowledge the evolution from Homo-erectus, Homo habinus, Homo neanderthal and right into Homo-sapiens, do you think none of those existed?

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD Yeah, they're all hoaxes you idiot.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius so the Staph infection virus that evolved into the new species MRSA is not an example of speciation or micro evolution

there is Staph infection which can be killed with antibiotics, and then theres MRSA which cannot be killed with penicillin.

where are you going south here?

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD You're talking about microevolution.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto, I DID explain. Go back and re-read. Abiogenesis IS evolution. PERIOD. You cannot separate the two. Don't you know ANYTHING about science?

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD "You're visibly upset" HAR HAR HAR HAR is that your best argument proving evolution? hahahahahahahaa you nincompoop.

FAIL

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius you ignored the entire post and focused on that phrase?

obvious troll. there is no evidence for ID, or creation.

Evolution is a science, it has been up to every spec that people have thrown at it. more and more evidence has been thrown ontop of the mountain that already exists, you can't find one flaw, probably because there are no flaws

Abiogenesis and Evolution are two different things, one is life from non-life and the other is how that life changes.

[Reerrpad5515]

@MaximusArurealius I'd bet all the money in the world that you're a christian. Now ask yourself (since you are a christian), why is it so easy to identify your faith by your position on evolution?

Your position is incoherent: if you make the distinction between micro and macro evolution, you obviously accept the former and reject the latter. But how can you do that if you think the whole thing is a fantasy?

Abiogenesis is ASSUMED, but a god could have started it, without impugning evolution.

[MaximusArurealius]

@Reerrpad5515 "I'd bet all the money in the world that you're a christian" Is this your best argument for evolution? HAR HAR HAR HAR yes I'm a Christian, but my denomination doesnt' forbid a belief in evolution. Therefore I believed it for years until I actually started looking at the opposition. I felt stupid for being duped into believing a hoax. You should too asshole.

EPIC FAIL

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius lol what opposition could you have possible came across that disproves evolution and if it was SO true how come all of the scientific community hasn't heard or began redoing everything?

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto1337XD dummass, the scientific community is always LAST when it comes to science discovery. Don't you know that? The purpose of science is one investigator proving the other 99.99% wrong. Evolution was disproven by real science before it was even conceived of. Why don't YOU know this? You've been brainwashed into accepting it because the atheist community needs it for their religious dogma. Abiogenesis has been completely defeated. When it fell so did evolution.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius Why don't you know to post a source to any of this?

Why is it that we can obviously observe macro evolution and micro evolution? we know microevolution is true because we see that the Flu virus evolves to be come resistant to the last vaccine, and we know macro evolution is true because we've observed ring species.

where are you saying that either of these are not true? when we clearly have evidence for them.

[MaximusArurealius]

@KyuubiNaruto "Why don't you know to post a source to any of this?" To what dummass? You think I can read your rabbit mind? "Why is it that we can obviously observe macro evolution and micro evolution?" NO we don't obviously observe you fucking moron. Even creationists agree that micro can be observed. Do you know anything about genetics? Nothing turns into something else (macro). Micro is NOT evolution. It is variation within a species. Why don't you know that? Macro is not observed. Ever.

[MaximusArurealius]

@RearPad "yap yap yap" You know jack shit about this you dipshit moron. I have been studying this for 40 plus years and only recently have evolutionists disclaimed Abiogenesis as part of evolution. It's a lie. Abiogenesis has been completely disproved. So like they always do evolutionists distance themselves from it and claim it has nothing to do with evolution, but we saw what happened and know they are lying to cover their asses. So fuck off with your idiotic sheep following.

[Reerrpad5515]

@MaximusArurealius You say abiogenesis is part of evolution, and it's truth is inextricably bound to evolution's truth. Lets look at an analogy: Can you study the workings of a watch, determine how it tells time, and come away with knowledge about that piece of technology? Yes, of course. Now explain how any of that changes if it turns out that you thought one watchmaker made it rather than another. Was anything you learned in your study of that watch predicated on the specific watchmaker? NO.

[MaximusArurealius]

@Reerrpad5515 I suggest you get a new watch and try not to think of how it works. It's fucking up your mind.

[Reerrpad5515]

@MaximusArurealius If you're not just a troll, then you embody everything that is worrisome about creationists. You would watch the world burn, and all of it's inhabitants consigned to the flames, if it kept your private comforts and delusions from being questioned. Judging by the anger you show here, you might even light the fire yourself. The study of the facts of the world, evolution included, have done far more good than thousands of years of earnest piety. Your faith's history mocks you.

[MaximusArurealius]

@RearEnd, hahahaha did you stay up all night thinking up the unimaginative pile of bullshit? HAR HAR HAR HAR. BTW numnutz, there is no evolution. FAIL

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius Abiogenesis was never apart of it.

and no Abiogenesis hasn't been disproved even in the Miller Urey experiments, they still yeilded amino acids, and guess what? ON THE SECOND TRY they got a base chemical for DNA

[DS127]

Q"What is ID?"

A"ID is uhh... evolution is wrong!"

[toobsucker]

Ill send you some Adenine, Thymine, Cytosine and Guanine along with some sugars and phosphate to stick them together. then you try to write the code for a biological machine. NO WAIT. thats far too complex for you. OK just try making a single cell. NO WAIT! , that is also far to complex for you. maybe some of your evolutionist scientist buddies could help you. NO WAIT! , they don't have the intellect to do it either. hhmm. where could we find a intellect sufficient to do

this, maybe a God?

[DS127]

Argument from ignorance.

[toobsucker]

Argument from fact. it would take the intelligence of a God to do it

[DS127]

The first "cell" (which would've been much simpler than a modern bacterium) only would've had to come into existence once in any one out of billions of galaxies.

There are 342 million cubic miles of water on earth. I think that plenty of chemical reactions that haven't been produced artificially yet could've occurred in a few hundred million years of sloshing around with organic chemicals.

If the first cell was made by God evolution still would be true.

[toobsucker]

@DS127

You still need a mechanism to BUILD all the molecular machines within the cell from random chance WITHOUT the aid of natural selection.

whats the theory on that one.?

time?.

time is not a scientific theory.

[DS127]

This is a lazy answer but, google abiogenisis. That should show you some of the ideas that are floating around. Most of the molecular machines /have/ been built with natural selection. Like I said, the first "cell" would've been much simpler than modern life.

Chemicals react with each other and form new compounds.

If you had a million gallons of the necessary chemical in advantageous conditions what would you say the chance of a pre-cell being formed by chance in a million years would be.

[toobsucker]

@DS127

The problem with that is. natural selection only works when

1. You have coherent information to select from to begin with. there is no DNA information to select from as this "HYPOTHETICAL" self assembly of the single cell takes place. all the molecular machines and RNA and mtDNA as well as DNA must assemble themselves before N.S. can even exist

2. An organism that does not mutate and replicate can not benefit from N.S., because N.S. passes the BEST info to the nest generation.

[DS127]

What is your answer to the to the question in my last post?

NS works on viruses that don't contain DNA. The first pre-cell may have not even had RNA, but that wouldn't mean that it didn't replicate or get mutations. Also, could you tell me your definition of "information"?

Abiogenisis is kinda speculative. There are some plausible hypotheses for the natural origin of life that people are looking into, but the evidence for the evolution /OF/ life is astonishing.

[toobsucker]

@DS127 Not sure where your getting your info from.

From Wiki

"A virus (from the Latin virus meaning toxin or poison) is a small infectious agent that can only replicate inside the cells of another organism"

"Unlike prions and viroids, viruses consist of two or three parts: all viruses have genes made from either DNA or RNA"

They can only reproduce in a HOST organism and they DO have DNA and or RNA

N.S. can only select FOR info that already exists. thats the extent of its power.

[DS127]

They have /either/ DNA or RNA. I said NS works on RNA viruses after you said NS needs DNA. RNA is a candidate precursor for DNA (see wiki for "RNA world hypothesis").

Just because life uses DNA now doesn't mean it didn't use something else (like RNA) at first.

[toobsucker]

@DS127

I said N.S. can only work on organisms that are reproducing. because you said

"Most of the molecular machines /have/ been built with natural selection."

All the molecular machines inside the cell must be made inside the cell without natural selection because there is no reproduction/mutations/N.S. unless the organism can reproduce and pass on the naturally selected information to the next generation.

Thats why Darwin never got in to abiogenesis. N.S. has no part in it

[DS127]

/ALL/ that is needed is reproduction. DNA would not have been the genetic material of the first pre-cell. Most of the "machines" inside the modern cell wouldn't have existed then.

Evolution doesn't /NEED/ abiogenesis, it just needs reproduction with variation.

Quote by Darwin:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one..."

Of course the ToE has moved on in the 150 years since "The Origin".

[toobsucker]

@DS127 . Darwin was an atheist. and did not believe in a creator (when he died)

Your "hypothesis" can not work. You need the molecular machines to build the proteins, and you need the instructions to give to the machines so they know what needs to be built. and you also need a medium for the instructions to be written on ,DNA or RNA.

This is the reason why you separate the two theories, because abiogenesis is patently ridiculous. ToE starts with abiogenesis in every college course

[DS127]

Darwin lost his faith over the course of his life. He still wrote that.

RNA can duplicate and serve some of the functions of proteins by itself There is nothing different about RNA, as opposed to other compounds, that prevents it from being made naturally.

The /Theory/ of Evolution and the various /hypotheses/ of abiogenesis are /different things/. Abiogenesis may be mentioned in biology courses, but that doesn't make it part of the ToE.

You still haven't answered the question I asked.

[toobsucker]

@DS127

Thats a unsubstantiated hypothesis. you can say

"There is nothing different about RNA, as opposed to other compounds, that prevents it from being made naturally."

But you need the evidence to show it's made naturally outside the cell wall. ..and we have no such evidence.

In fact not one of the molecular machines within the cell wall form naturally outside the cell wall. this is one of MANY huge problem for abiogenesis. and why it is rarely talked about by biologists

[toobsucker]

@DS127

"You still haven't answered the question I asked."

What was the question again?

[jisaid08]

@DS127 Darwin didn't know what RNA was since he lived in the 19th century....Also just because Darwin didn't know something does not negate evolution. This entire "hearing" is ridiculous and mirrors the Salem witch trials, the Spanish inquisition, and the general hearings that Galileo and Kepler had to endure with the church and the flat Earthers. There seriously is no controversy. Why does religion impede science? You cannot admit your wrong?

[DS127]

@jisaid08 Are you sure you meant to reply to me?

[toobsucker]

@DS127

Information is the same type that exists in PC programs

The molecular machines need the proper info for what they are building. how else do they know if they are building a brain cell or a liver cell etc

When wings or eyes or any other appendage is being created, it needs to know all the particulars for the appendage. how long will it be, how wide will it be, how will it interact with the brain and when to STOP building the appendage All this needs a detailed information input

[DS127]

I'll accept that definition for now.

DNA gets arranged in ways that encode useful information through evolution, i.e. variation and selection.

[BiteHunter]

If we can have Rock N Roll classes and The History of the Electric Guitar and Beginning Golf taught at University campuses throughout America, doesn't it follow that we should be open enough to teach everything from THEORIES of Evolution and of Creationism? Of course. No need to get your panties all up in a bunch, y'all! WTF!

[thekiller678]

There is ZERO evidence behind creationsism and calling it a "scientific theory" is just a smokescreen into violating Separation of Church and State.

[CanadianNew]

Evolution is a Scientific Theory. A scientific Theory explains A scientific Fact! Creationism is religion based!

[BiteHunter]

Let us do not show our lack of education because then we will all lose credibility. It is a fact that both Creationism and Evolution are THEORIES. Evolution is not based on fact. Evolution is based upon projected suppositions which logically flow, but do not prove anything.  That is why it is a theory. It is not proven that man came from apes, just hypothetically suggested. So, thekiller678 and CanadianNew are educationally bankrupt.

[sidexwalk]

Creationism is not a scientific theory because it's not falsifiable. It can't be tested. Evolution IS a fact. It happens. HOW it happens, however, falls into the realm of theory, IE, the theory of evolution by natural selection, which explains the FACT of evolution.

Humans ARE apes. Apes are any members of the superfamily hominoida, and that included homosapiens. This means, not only did we come from apes, we still are apes. Study some taxonomy.

[BiteHunter]

if man descended from apes, why is anyone who believes that so adamant about it. how about we go have sex with apes. let's let the white guys go have sex with them first, since it is predominantly the Brits who love to believe humans descended from apes. let them go have sex with the apes. and what is the real argument about coming from the apes? ah yes, brits still trying to dismiss the vatican cause they are still ouching from excommunication. waaa.

[SecularSaracen]

What's wrong with being descended from apes? Apes are some on the smartest creatures alive. Just look at humans and look at apes. He both have opposable thumbs and fingers, we both have nails instead of claws, we have a similar body shape, similar charactaristics, they HAVE found fossils of homo erectus which are between ape and man. So there is a ton of proof that your great (times a thousand) grandfather WAS a hairy ape.

[hetsomani]

so they actually teach creationism in kansas? or ID? or whatever you want to call it? People there dont seem that stupid

[uberownagemonkey]

i live in kansas and they teach evolution but they dont say much about macroevolution

[ThatOneQuestion]

Crulefate45, if you dont know what the Dover trial is, go look it up.

Who won that trial and why? Why did a number of "witnesses", chief players and supporters for the "theory", not bother to even show up at the trial?

If you cant accept what happened at this trial, you wont get anything more than our pity... after we laugh at you.

[ThatOneQuestion]

It really is damn funny to hear this guy start off with "We need a balanced view", etc.

What he's not saying is that just because current science wasn't there to watch Evolution begin, the Magic Man must have done it.

The alternative he isn't saying is that the Magic Man poped everyone into existence with a handful of dust and some breath.

And he complains about intellectual dishonesty!?! What a joke.

[cruelfate45]

The Magic Man? God doesn't have anything to do with this. You can be a die hard Darwinian Evolutionist and a Roman Catholic. It's about design vs. accident. Id is a theory about design in living things, that is it. What are you afraid of anyways? That evolution is really what is apparent and design is real? By the way God is not a man, nor does God need to perform magic. Get your concepts right. You sound like a 2nd grade tard child

[ThatOneQuestion]

"It's about design vs. accident. "

And right here you prove you dont have a clue what evolution is.

"Id is a theory about design in living things, that is it."

No its not, its pushing religion as science.

Dont you have a clue?

"What are you afraid of anyways? "

This great country becoming a Theocracy.

[Smokin3215]

Its just frustrating listing a such a joke an idiot like this. HOW AND WHY is this being pushed when its not science.

Believe what you want, but leave science alone, it works, it proves that it works, if you cant work within a system that has proven itself, dont mess with it.

[cruelfate45]

You don't know anything about ID do you? It is a theory that pulls from historical science, forensic science, information theory, and so on, and much of it's remarkable work will come in the form of reverse engineering of the nanotechnology in cells. Peep the Discovery Institute, you should check both sides of this intriguing story

[cruelfate45]

In our country we have the right to free speech and to pursue the truth so thanks for your worthless opinion.

There are tests and processes.  Design detection, reverse engineering, gene manipulation on biological systems to see if they could have evolved or if they have always been there, it goes on. You just don't like the implications, you will remain ignorant in order to stay convinced you are just an accident...fine by me

[ThatOneQuestion]

"so thanks for your worthless opinion."

No, thank you for your blatant ignorance, Cruelfate45.

"Design detection"

Laughable.

"You just don't like the implications, you will remain ignorant in order to stay convinced you are just an accident...fine by me"

Do your homework little boy, ID is dead.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"You don't know anything about ID do you? "

You certainly dont, Cruelfate45.

I suggest doing some research into it first, before you open your mouth.

"It is a theory that pulls from historical science, forensic science, information theory, and so on, and much of it's remarkable work..."

You are an idiot.

The "remarkable work" was presented at the Dover trial, and it failed, miserably.

[geneUA]

It's nice to hear that someone put that fairy tale on trial. I believe it should've been done a long time ago, before the evolution theory took over our system.

This is not the only time it happened. In Ohio, 2002, Intelligent Design also had to be placed in the State standard because of the debate similar to this.

And it probably won't be the last time. Creationism is a respectable and growing community all over the internet.

[KittyGotSued]

haha..this has been done a couple of times, and every time the ID people lost. Remember the Dover trial?

Evolution is science, ID isn't, just like the court decided several times.

just read some books, you will be enlightened, once you understand evolution, the world will be more wonderful.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"Remember the Dover trial?"

Indeed. Not only that, but lots of the ID key witnesses didn't even show up to the trial!

What a joke. ID supporters should be ashamed

[cruelfate45]

do you believe the theory of evolution is a proven fact through and through? every aspect of it? if so do you take it on faith or do you know first hand through in depth research and education into the matter? If not, you are just a believer on the other side and should also be ashamed...

[ThatOneQuestion]

"if so do you take it on faith or do you know first hand through in depth research and education into the matter?"

Yes, my own research and work have defined my conclusions.

"If not, you are just a believer..."

For others who havn't done the work, this doesn't apply. Faith is belief without proof. Dont be a fool.

You can go out to the lab right now, this instant, and reproduce the tests that define the current theory, and get the same results.

You fail.

[cruelfate45]

ID is the new rebel on the block. Of course the establishment is gonna fight it. Just like Darwinism was the rebel going up against the establishment in his day. This is the real way science advances. Something scoffed at will replace the old. It's just a matter of time before much of Neo-Darwanism falls to the way side

[lightupaJ]

ID isn't new, in fact its been around since before darwin, just in different names. ID is not a theory, it fails to even explain something as simple as the human appendix...while evolution can explain things as detailed as the reason humans have one less chromosome pair than the other great apes, as well as countless other facets of our genes, physiology, and anatomy.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"ID is the new rebel on the block. Of course the establishment is gonna fight it. "

....ID has already died, nor is it "new", child.

Before it was called ID, it was called "Creation Science". Now it will be called "Critical Analysis".

You are behind the times, and you look stupid trying to argue your points the way you are.

[ThatOneQuestion]

"This is the real way science advances. Something scoffed at will replace the old. It's just a matter of time before much of Neo-Darwanism falls to the way side"

...you dont have a clue, child.

"Neo-Darwanism"... what a fucking hick you must be.

You dont have the first clue about evolution. You should give up and go back to your snake handling and book burnings.

[lolzomgz1337]

@KittyGotSued Or much more hopeless, meh >.>

[MaximusArurealius]

@KittyGotSued Hey dummass, courts don't decide science. Courts are a political tool and that is all. AND fyi evolution is NOT science you moron. If you knew anything about science you'd know that. Science is open to opposing views. Evolution is NOT. That makes it a dogma, not science. ID IS science as science uses design in everything it does. It assumes design by definition. Ever heard of forensic science? Archaeology? Paleontology? They all function under the assumption of design you idiot.

[KyuubiNaruto1337XD]

@MaximusArurealius Evolution is a subject in Biology which is the study of life,

there is no design in the universe, you can't name one thing that hasn't been debunked yet that requires design.

[tesey04]

2005 I think...

[Rafaelpicc]

When did it took place theblur?

[Rafaelpicc]

Sorry didn't read the last part...lol

[studio7manga]

Wow this ID guy is such a fucking joke...