I hate to stir anything more up but I can't resis

---

First before I post the link to this article I would like to know if anyone doesn't want me to post this. I know Damien was getting a little irritated that I kept bringing up articles on evolution and creation and all that.So what's the deal? HCl, if you're out there reading this, please don't flood me with a million questions.Pick out a few very important questions and ask those. I don't have all the time to answer 500,000 questions.

I suppose you can post whatever you want here. However, telling someone to not post whatever they wish is a bit unfair. What's the point in sharing ideas if we can't ask questions?

The deal is that most of us would rather not have that discussion again. It's been done a ton of times on this forum, and it invariably starts all sorts of fights some of which get nasty and offensive. It really serves no purpose at all to reopen the issue for the umpteenth time.

Well it's just often when I post articles it turns into this rampaging tangent. Especially with HCl, he asks a bunch of questions and then leaves for a week and never even looks at the answers. But regardless, here's the article:http://www.evanwiggs.com/articles/reasons.htmlPM me if you want to discuss it one on one and share your thoughts and ideas.

Well, certain articles can open up new doors so it's not the same repeatable shit all the time. When I come across new articles I like to share them with people and this site is a great place for it.

That doesn't really answer my question, but whatever.Do what you wish, though I agree with Thoughtful, these types of things have been discussed to hell and back.Unless it's a new idea, why bother?  Quote:PM me if you want to discuss it one on one and share your thoughts and ideas. Why? What's wrong with the board?

I don't like getting people pissed off. I just like stirring up a good discussion.

When I say "I hate to stir anything more up" I meant in the sense that I didn't want people to get to the point of actually hating another one for their beliefs.

If you feel like that's gonna happen, don't join the discussion

My advice is if you want to share ideas without stepping on each other's beliefs, then link an article that isn't hosted on a biased website.

Carry on. :smile:

Well I'd like to keep this discussion purely evolution. And you can't find an unbiased site talking about evolution, simply because it's either evolution or creation. But what you can do is discuss each sides' theories, which is what the guy did.

Cooldawg2, I would gladly accept your offer for a discussion on one of my favourite topics. I have spent a lot of my free time learning about evolution simply out of my own personal interest and fascination with the topic. If you want, I can go through each individual topic in order and help you research and find a solution. Or, you can simply refer me to whichever you feel are the strongest points and we'll take it from there. Originally Posted By: cooldag2 And you can't find an unbiased site talking about evolution, simply because it's either evolution or creation. But what you can do is discuss each sides' theories, which is what the guy did. Here is a big problem that I have found with these arguments. The assumption that if one option is wrong then the other must be right. Creation and Evolution are the only 2 theories that we have thought of yet, who is to say that there isn't a third, more accurate one? One being wrong doesn't automatically make the other one right. Just because 2 plus 2 doesn't equal 5, it doesn't mean that it must equal 3.But anyway, I look forward to your response. I probably won't be able to respond until tomorrow evening when I'll be back from Sweden but I'll give this all of my attention. And don't worry, nobody will be hurt or offended here, its just science. If I call you an ape its ok, I'm one too.

i dont know about anyone else really, but i think these topics have been brought up enough, and im kind of tired of hearing about it. (though people will say "dont read it then") meh.

Well its not really that hard to not read a thread. There are loads of threads in the Community forum alone that I just don't bother even opening because I'm just not interested. So if anyone else feels like this thread needs someone else stating that they won't be posting in it, feel free to do so now. Not trying to sound mean, I'd just prefer it if people did it now rather than when we're in the middle of a discussion.

This part of the article is the first part I'd like to discuss. Were Darwin's Galapagos Finches Evolution? What does happen in a population as the genome reacts to the environment? Darwin looks at the finches on the Galapagos Islands and notices variations in beak size. He thought that the harder seed in the dry time was causing the beaks of the finches to grow stouter from the use of the part. But what was happening was that natural selection or a long term drought in the islands was causing the seed cases to harden. The heavier beaked finch allele in the genome was favored and the lighter beaked finch allele was not. The heavier beaked finch became more dominant because it passed on the heavy beak alleles. The heavy beak was not the result of a mutation! It was already an allele in the genome and was just brought out as a result of the environment. When the rains came back the lighter beak became the more efficient beak and the number of heavy beaks reduced. This is microevolution at its best. But there was no change in the genome of the finch and certainly no new species has arisen from this. The genome expresses its variety by recombination of the alleles and causing the phenotype to show its wonderful God given types.

Quote:The genome expresses its variety by recombination of the alleles and causing the phenotype to show its wonderful God given types. See, this is my problem.No scientist would ever put the word "God" in any scientific theory, evidence, or research. Any decent scientist would say that evolution is a theory, not the answer to how life came to be today. Evolution is simply the most logical possibility without the idea of some unknown, magical force or being having some influence.

Well, even he uses the word God in his article, he is using scientific evidence to disprove or at least disturb the foundations of evolution. Maybe you'll find this 2 part article better..http://www.realtruth.org/articles/080502-004-eedfs.html

why can;t some one come up with something to discuses other than something on religion or politicks???

dogs or cats? your pick ...why is it better... ok nvm that too would start a fuss i bet. haha

i don;t care if you post the link or what ever o not.. personally i'm not going to take the time to read the crap.

took the "words right out of my mouth".

good for you guys. don't look at it, if you don't want to. I'm going to find a different site to post this stuff, so you guys dont all go insane on me.

i'm not going insane.. i'm already insane.  Quote:before I post the link to this article I would like to know if anyone doesn't want me to post this. why get all huffy when you asked. i just answerd. that's all. thanks much.. happy posting. good day.. my eye iches.

lol, but before you go, answer me this. looking at the physical reality in the world, no matter how many times you slice it down, you're still going to have physical matter. so the only way this physical matter could have been created is by a non-physical object or being.