I hate intelligent design

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pompey

Those 'facts' posted by BryonB are useless, and misleading.
the fact the many many trials could/would have taken place simultaneously. The likelihood of winning lotto 3 times in a row is miniscule, but not impossible .

That post is more BS than those numbers.

Quote:

Scientists generally consider any event with a probability of less than one chance in 10 to the 50th power (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion) to be impossible.

Pompey · Jun 3, 2006, 01:27 PM

Quote:

That post is more BS than those numbers.

How is it BS?

Its also interesting to note you cut out most of my post and then replied (and even then failing to reply fully), If this had been the first post of yours I read I would instantly know you were a creationists.

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pompey

How is it BS?

Because you are saying "his numbers" are "useless, and misleading"...

They aren't "his nembers".... or misleading.... or useless....

Useless to you guys maybe because they make sense?

Pompey · Jun 3, 2006, 01:36 PM

I said why they were misleading and useless, the bit you cut out.

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 01:46 PM

Quote:

All those calculations are based on the complex life that exists now forming randomly, which is not what evolution states.

What does evolution state then? Natural selection? That had to start somewhere.

Still that does not make the numbers useless or misleading in any way.

Sandok · Jun 3, 2006, 01:46 PM

Woah this thread is going to hell.. Wtf how much are you guys posting? I give up, cya around folks!

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 01:47 PM

This thread started from the pit of hell.

Pompey · Jun 3, 2006, 01:49 PM

What I was referring to was that the first life was not complex like life today, it was extremely simple. That’s the whole idea of evolution, that the simple life evolved into the complex forms we see today.

Omfg its midnight. I know its time to quit when im staying up to midnight discussing the origins of life in political forums. The only people on MSN are the weirdos in europe and stuff I spoke to like a year ago and not once since. Im going to bed.

I hope this thread doesn’t end up in hell, I don’t want it when im there!

Sandok · Jun 3, 2006, 02:14 PM

Then maybe a mod should close it beacuse I really don't think you can argue more than what we've all already done over 15 pages!!!!!!

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pompey

What I was referring to was that the first life was not complex like life today, it was extremely simple. That’s the whole idea of evolution, that the simple life evolved into the complex forms we see today.

And if you look again, the numbers state that even the most simple form of life is scientifically impossible to just randomly form.

Sandok · Jun 3, 2006, 02:21 PM

That's not true... The most simple of life still exists today... We know it and all... I dunno what you are on about

Bacetria is the simplist form of life we know (unicellulare orgaismes without any central core). Then we got eucaryotes (with a core and fragments of RNA). Then we got clusters and thus, the creation of stupid animals likes sponges and all where all the cells do the same thing. And slowly, we went into specialisation.

What's "wrong" with the general theory?

BWX · Jun 3, 2006, 02:35 PM

Quote:

the numbers state that even the most simple form of life is scientifically impossible to just randomly form.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

That's not true... The most simple of life still exists today... We know it and all... I dunno what you are on about

Still exists.. you never see it randomly pop into existence. "Thats' not true"? What's not true? Mathematics?

Zelig · Jun 3, 2006, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

Well that's wrong... Many creatures called BACTERIA don't have any DNA at all but only RNA.... So wow, that entire arguement falls apart now doesn't it? You should follow science classes mate

Sorry man, he was actually correct here for the most part, bacteria have DNA. Virii have RNA only, but aren't generally considered to be "alive".

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

BTW Einstein believed in God.

Not a Christian god or any personal god who actually cared about individual people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

To Einstein, the word God meant the cosmos, as revealed by science. He felt that society's traditional gods were far too primitive for him in light of the standard models of cosmology and particle physics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

The theory that by chance we sprung out of a puddle of goo also has been dis-proven beyond ALL doubt. Some still believe it proven by this thread. It is all part of the theory of evolution, and it is impossible by scientific standards.

Again... the theory of evolution does not deal with the origin of life.

The theory that life arose from a puddle of goo has been neither proven nor disproven... it cannot be disproven, short of proving that life has originated from some other source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Spoken like a true democrat.

Isn't democracy good?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

And if you look again, the numbers state that even the most simple form of life is scientifically impossible to just randomly form.

Okay then, please link up some sources for the numbers and information, and I'll be happy to respond, along with sources for any of my information.

Sandok · Jun 3, 2006, 03:05 PM

I'm sorry Zelig but trust me, the most basic of bacteria (procaryotes) have strands of RNA only... No DNA (in the most basic of em)

Zelig · Jun 3, 2006, 03:23 PM

Sandok: Any links?

From what I can tell, prokaryotes (you could stick with bacteria/archaea/eucarya, I'd understand

) all have DNA spread throughout their cytoplasm, in particular in the nucleoid.

Sandok · Jun 3, 2006, 03:37 PM

Well depending on which prokaryotes you look at, some have tiny fragments of RNA that they exchange and others DNA... But since RNA is the "worse" form of information translation, well that's what scientiests believe would have been in the most ancient of bacteria.

Dunno, google for links

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Spoken like a true democrat. Argue against something but provide no alternative or proof for your argument.

Spoken like a true dictorial religious fanatic.(who refuses to read. And I kept it short too)

One does NOT need to prove an alternative theory to disprove its parallel.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ByronB

[color=black]Scientists generally consider any event with a probability of less than [/color][color=black]one chance in 10 to the 50th power (1 in a 100,000 billion, billion, billion, billion, billion) to be impossible.[/color]

The WORD GENERALLY MEANS there ARE exceptions. so ITS STILL NOT PROOF OF IMPOSSIBILITY. IT MEANS IMPROBABLE NOT IMPOSSIBLE.

ANd thus, his post was meaningless in the context of anti-evo.

I DID provide proof - you choose to ignore it.

Maddogg6 · Jun 3, 2006, 09:10 PM

An example of 'impossible' like finding out the earth IS flat. NOT that we came from a 'goo' as you put it.

ID IS possible, Evo IS possible.... NOTHING IS PROVEN EITHER WAY. Both HIGHLY improbable tho. And NEITHER may be right.

But the notion and settling on 'magically' appearing is ANTI-investigative and THIS IS WRONG.

Pro- ID's ONLY proof are ANTI-EVO points, nothing more. This DOES NOT prove ID, only questions evo.

But Pro-evo has PLENTY enough evidence to convince a pope (Paul II in 1996) and be embraced by the majority in a HUGE and worldwide scientific comminity.

AttroPheed · Jun 5, 2006, 08:02 PM

Interesting to see BWX still arguing for ID. Also interesting is that he still hasn't learned that the theory of evolution has fuck all to do with the origin of life.

BWX · Jun 5, 2006, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AttroPheed

Interesting to see BWX still arguing for ID. Also interesting is that he still hasn't learned that the theory of evolution has fuck all to do with the origin of life.

Interesting to see that you, Maddogg6, sandok and Zelig apparently cannot see or read ..

I am not "arguing for ID"... I am telling you people that think macro evolution is some kind of fact are all misguided and to believe it so blindly with no proof takes more faith than someone who believes in intelligent design.

Funny that no evidence for macro evolution exist yet you all believe it like drones without brains. Think for yourself with your own logic for once.

Also interesting to see that you are the same people who believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories... that just goes along with the whole gullibility argument.

Zelig · Jun 5, 2006, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Interesting to see that you, Maddogg6, sandok and Zelig apparently cannot see or read ..

I am not "arguing for ID"... I am telling you people that think macro evolution is some kind of fact are all misguided and to believe it so blindly with no proof takes more faith than someone who believes in intelligent design.

Funny that no evidence for macro evolution exist yet you all believe it like drones without brains. Think for yourself with your own logic for once.

Also interesting to see that you are the same people who believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories... that just goes along with the whole gullibility argument.

Microevolution and macroevolution are fundamentaly the same thing, the only controversy is about how the changes predominantly occur.

The best concise reading I could find regarding macroevolution in particular. Seriously, really good article, worth the read even if you don't believe any of it.

From the three people mentioned in your post, only Sandok showed any support towards conspiracy theories regarding 9/11. This hardly shows any link between not being an creationist and believing conspiracy theories. Myself, I lump in creation/ID in as a conspiracy theory like those concerning 9//11, the moon landing, etc.

Sandok · Jun 5, 2006, 08:58 PM

I can't believe what I am reading... No facts? There are MORE facts and THEORIES (which still count for something) than for ID. And again, gullible means = believe what you are told. That's the opposite of religion (ID) and what 911, Moon, Area 51. Kennedy, etc is. I'm sorry but YOU are gullible.

You just aren't that quizzical mate.

BWX · Jun 5, 2006, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zelig

Microevolution and macroevolution are fundamentaly the same thing,

No, essentially and fundamentally they are not. Keep reading. One can be proven and happens all the time, one is a crazy unproven theory that you call evolution.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

I can't believe what I am reading... No facts? There are MORE facts and THEORIES (which still count for something) than for ID. And again, gullible means = believe what you are told. That's the opposite of religion (ID) and what 911, Moon, Area 51. Kennedy, etc is. I'm sorry but YOU are gullible.

You just aren't that quizzical mate.

So the moon landing, 9/11, Kennedy, Area 51 all have what in common? Conspiracies?

You believe all the alternate conspiracy theories on those subjects too?

No I am not quizzical.. I am inquisitive. You guys are quizzical.

Sandok · Jun 5, 2006, 09:51 PM

Dude, your country makes all the conspiracies that exist... I don't really care about any of em and they are fun to ponder but ultimately, it's your country not mine.

It's called fun and it's interesting... The problems with the Moon landings (only team of astronaughts to leave the radation protection of the earth and all... I find that intesting). Whatm you don't find it fishy that Kennedy's assasin was assinated? That happens every day in your area doesn't it? And Area 51 is a place of intense secrecy...

And about the evolutions...

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, which is microevolution over long periods of time that leads to speciation.

Thus, the same thing...

BWX · Jun 5, 2006, 09:57 PM

You guys living outside the US are all crazy if you believe those insane conspiracy theories about every single major event, good or bad.. You are the ones that are gullible, the people who know what happened are the truly informed ones.. Come on.. Think about it.. Who is telling you guys you news? People that have something to gain by getting you to believe nonsensical conspiracy theories.

edit- you added---

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sandok

And about the evolutions...

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, which is microevolution over long periods of time that leads to speciation.

Thus, the same thing...

Thus, one is VERY different from the other. One is real, one is fantasy and conjecture.

Zelig · Jun 5, 2006, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

No, essentially and fundamentally they are not. Keep reading. One can be proven and happens all the time, one is a crazy unproven theory that you call evolution.

Okay then, I guess you're skipping over the link I posted.

The vast majority of the scientific community does not and has not disputed evolution in the recent past:

Quote:

The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 140 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; NAS 2003; NCSE 2003; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

Speciation (new species formed) does occur:

Quote:

The most useful definition of species (which does not assume evolution) for sexual metazoans is the Biological Species Concept: species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups (Mayr 1942).

If branching of existing species into new species occurred gradually in the past, we should see all possible degrees of speciation or genetic isolation today, ranging from fully interbreeding populations, to partially interbreeding populations, to populations that interbreed with reduced fertility or with complete infertility, to completely genetically isolated populations.
Confirmation:

There are countless cases of distinct species which can, in unusual or limited circumstances, form hybrids. One example is the West European carrion crow (Corvus corone) and the Asian hooded crow (Corvus cornix), which have distinct ranges meeting in a narrow "hybrid zone". Another are the Platte river species of sucker fish of the Catostomus genus which live together and only rarely interbreed (Futuyma 1998, p. 454).

One of the most striking instances of partial or incomplete speciation are the numerous "ring species" (for review see Irwin et al. 2001). Ring species, such as the salamander Ensatina, form a chain of interbreeding populations which loop around some geographical feature; where the populations meet on the other side, they behave as completely different species. In the case of Ensatina, the subspecies form a ring around the Central Valley of California—the subspecies freely interbreed and hybridize on the east, west, and north sides of the valley, but where they coexist on the south side they are incapable of hybridizing and act as separate species (Moritz et al. 1982; Futuyma 1998, pp. 455-456).

Another example of a ring species is the gull genus Larus. L. argentatus and L. fuscus were originally identified as distinct species in England. However, there is a continuous ring of Larus hybrids extending to the east and west all the way round the North Pole. Only in England are they incapable of interbreeding.

The Great Tit, Parus major, similarly forms a ring species around the mountains of Central Asia, freely interbreeding everywhere except in Northern China (Smith 1993, pp. 227-230).

Many species can hybridize, but the resulting offspring have reduced fertility. One example is the English shrew (genus Sorex) whose hybrids are reproductively disadvantaged due to chromosomal differences. This has also been seen in lab experiments mating Utah and California strains of Drosophila pseudoobscura. Another example are the frogs Bombina bombina and Bombina variegata, whose hybrids have low fitness (i.e. they do not reproduce very successfully) (Barton and Gale 1993).

Many other species can mate and produce viable hybrids, but the hybrids are infertile. This has been observed in species of amphibians (like certain frog species of the Rana genus) and mammals like Equus (where matings of horse and ass result in a sterile mule). Another example is the newt Triturus cristatus and T. marmoratus, in which hybrid infertility is due to unpaired chromosomes (Smith 1993, pp. 253, 264).

Other species are able to mate with successful fertilization, but mortality occurs in embryogenesis. Such is the case with the frog species Rana pipiens and R. sylvatica (Futuyma 1998, p. 460). This phenomenon has also been observed in Drosophila. Additional examples are also found in plants such as the cotton species Gossypium hirsutum and G. barbadense (Smith 1993; Futuyma 1998, ch. 15 and 16).
Potential Falsification:

If all known species were completely genetically isolated from one another, and there were no instances of hybrids, it would be very difficult to reasonably justify the postulation of millions upon millions of gradual speciation events in the past.

Sandok · Jun 5, 2006, 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

You guys living outside the US are all crazy if you believe those insane conspiracy theories about every single major event, good or bad.. You are the ones that are gullible, the people who know what happened are the truly informed ones.. Come on.. Think about it.. Who is telling you guys you news? People that have something to gain by getting you to believe nonsensical conspiracy theories.

Wow now that's not a dumb remark at all? All of us outside the US are crazy? Pffff again I'll repeat this for the millionth time, all these conspiracy are MADE IN USA... We don't make em, we read what some people in your country say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Thus, one is VERY different from the other. One is real, one is fantasy and conjecture.

Do you need glasses mate?

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, which is microevolution over long periods of time that leads to speciation.

That's not a IF sentene or anything... It's just microevolution over long periods of time. And trust me, DNA and chromosomes don't change their way of replication over time. It's a fixed notion.

Maddogg6 · Jun 5, 2006, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

I am not "arguing for ID"... I am telling you people that think macro evolution is some kind of fact are all misguided and to believe it so blindly with no proof takes more faith than someone who believes in intelligent design.

So... what ARE you arguing in an 'I HATE ID' thread anyway? That EVO is not proven - pff. What, are you Don King? It sure seems like it, with logic like this.

Besides, I don't need a theif to admit their guilt to know it's true - do I? We have this thing called 'deduction' based on scientific 'knowledge'. Your intentions are pretty clear to me.

Again ,the definition of 'know' - infers adding - TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE. THERE IS still room for doubts. If you don't beleive in the the scientific community enough, why do you still live in a society that relies SO heavily on science.?
In a hospitol, do you ask for a doctor, or a priest/pastor/rabi..??
Does holy water fix your PC when it breaks?
Do you pray you'll end up in Florida instead of getting in a car/plane/bus to go on trips?
NO - you rely on science.

Your confusing our use of 'know' with in-disputable and undeniable facts, one such 'fact' would be; 'drop an apple, and it will fall to the ground'.

But we DID argue that; theres is SO much observation and forumula that support evo (MUCH more than the notion of a 'designer'.) - that THERE ARE MANY (most actually) SCIENTISTS who 'know' evo to have been proven at least to some extent. Enough to be taught in public schools.

You don't seem to have the most basic and simple of scientific understanding/logic here.

Maddogg6 · Jun 6, 2006, 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWX

Also interesting to see that you are the same people who believe in ridiculous conspiracy theories... that just goes along with the whole gullibility argument.

Im probably one of the LEAST gullible out there.

Pompey · Jun 6, 2006, 11:04 AM

Im over this.

Madddog, sandok, zelig we all know what the evidence points to, and so do most educated people but stop trying to convince religious people (im tempted to use another term in place of ‘people’ but I better not).

Their decision to believe in a designer was not based on facts and logic, these are not logical people. So what makes you think they change their minds based on the facts and logic they have already rejected?

*waits to be flamed*

Jun 3, 2006, 01:36 PM	#214
Pompey DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 362 Rep Power: 0	I said why they were misleading and useless, the bit you cut out. __________________ One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

Jun 3, 2006, 01:47 PM	#217
BWX unplugged Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: USNY Posts: 19,665 Rep Power: 109 System Specs	This thread started from the pit of hell. __________________

Jun 3, 2006, 01:49 PM	#218
Pompey DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 362 Rep Power: 0	What I was referring to was that the first life was not complex like life today, it was extremely simple. That’s the whole idea of evolution, that the simple life evolved into the complex forms we see today. Omfg its midnight. I know its time to quit when im staying up to midnight discussing the origins of life in political forums. The only people on MSN are the weirdos in europe and stuff I spoke to like a year ago and not once since. Im going to bed. I hope this thread doesn’t end up in hell, I don’t want it when im there! __________________ One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer. Last edited by Pompey; Jun 3, 2006 at 01:57 PM.

Jun 3, 2006, 03:23 PM	#225
Zelig HardwareHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Canada Posts: 3,187 Rep Power: 69 System Specs	Sandok: Any links? From what I can tell, prokaryotes (you could stick with bacteria/archaea/eucarya, I'd understand ) all have DNA spread throughout their cytoplasm, in particular in the nucleoid. __________________ --

Jun 3, 2006, 09:10 PM	#228
Maddogg6 Tail Razer Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Bernyurass, AZ - USA Posts: 4,027 Rep Power: 50	An example of 'impossible' like finding out the earth IS flat. NOT that we came from a 'goo' as you put it. ID IS possible, Evo IS possible.... NOTHING IS PROVEN EITHER WAY. Both HIGHLY improbable tho. And NEITHER may be right. But the notion and settling on 'magically' appearing is ANTI-investigative and THIS IS WRONG. Pro- ID's ONLY proof are ANTI-EVO points, nothing more. This DOES NOT prove ID, only questions evo. But Pro-evo has PLENTY enough evidence to convince a pope (Paul II in 1996) and be embraced by the majority in a HUGE and worldwide scientific comminity. Last edited by Maddogg6; Jun 3, 2006 at 09:20 PM.

Jun 3, 2006, 01:46 PM	#216
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	Woah this thread is going to hell.. Wtf how much are you guys posting? I give up, cya around folks!

Jun 3, 2006, 02:14 PM	#219
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	Then maybe a mod should close it beacuse I really don't think you can argue more than what we've all already done over 15 pages!!!!!!

Jun 3, 2006, 02:21 PM	#221
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	That's not true... The most simple of life still exists today... We know it and all... I dunno what you are on about Bacetria is the simplist form of life we know (unicellulare orgaismes without any central core). Then we got eucaryotes (with a core and fragments of RNA). Then we got clusters and thus, the creation of stupid animals likes sponges and all where all the cells do the same thing. And slowly, we went into specialisation. What's "wrong" with the general theory?

Jun 3, 2006, 03:05 PM	#224
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	I'm sorry Zelig but trust me, the most basic of bacteria (procaryotes) have strands of RNA only... No DNA (in the most basic of em)

Jun 3, 2006, 03:37 PM	#226
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	Well depending on which prokaryotes you look at, some have tiny fragments of RNA that they exchange and others DNA... But since RNA is the "worse" form of information translation, well that's what scientiests believe would have been in the most ancient of bacteria. Dunno, google for links

Jun 5, 2006, 08:02 PM	#229
AttroPheed DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Paris Posts: 386 Rep Power: 0	Interesting to see BWX still arguing for ID. Also interesting is that he still hasn't learned that the theory of evolution has fuck all to do with the origin of life. __________________ "Facts seldom interfere with belief." - James Randi "Where knowledge ends, superstition begins." - Some Guy "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." - David Hume [COLOR=red]Flying Spaghetti Is Lord!![/COLOR] My PC Stats

Jun 5, 2006, 08:58 PM	#232
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	I can't believe what I am reading... No facts? There are MORE facts and THEORIES (which still count for something) than for ID. And again, gullible means = believe what you are told. That's the opposite of religion (ID) and what 911, Moon, Area 51. Kennedy, etc is. I'm sorry but YOU are gullible. You just aren't that quizzical mate.

Jun 5, 2006, 09:51 PM	#234
Sandok DriverHeaven Extreme Member Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 9,472 Rep Power: 66	Dude, your country makes all the conspiracies that exist... I don't really care about any of em and they are fun to ponder but ultimately, it's your country not mine. It's called fun and it's interesting... The problems with the Moon landings (only team of astronaughts to leave the radation protection of the earth and all... I find that intesting). Whatm you don't find it fishy that Kennedy's assasin was assinated? That happens every day in your area doesn't it? And Area 51 is a place of intense secrecy... And about the evolutions... Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level. Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, which is microevolution over long periods of time that leads to speciation. Thus, the same thing...

Jun 6, 2006, 11:04 AM	#240
Pompey DriverHeaven Addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Wellington, New Zealand Posts: 362 Rep Power: 0	Im over this. Madddog, sandok, zelig we all know what the evidence points to, and so do most educated people but stop trying to convince religious people (im tempted to use another term in place of ‘people’ but I better not). Their decision to believe in a designer was not based on facts and logic, these are not logical people. So what makes you think they change their minds based on the facts and logic they have already rejected? waits to be flamed __________________ One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.