The mystery has been solved

[my2002lightning]

It all makes sense now. http://www.filedump.nl/files/Evolution.wmv :d (http://www.filedump.nl/files/Evolution.wmv)

Clever marketing and very cool CG work! :tongue:

Ronald

[98Cobra]

Best. Commercial. Ever.

Also would have conservatives absolutely stir crazy if it were on TV here, which I surmise it isnt.

[Sixpipes]

That makes as much sense as Darwin's Theory IMO. Interesting that Darwin's last book was on the earthworm. I guess he figured out with all his high-level thinking that the worm eventually wins in the end. http://www.talonclub.com/forum/images/smilies/biggrin.gif

[Lyfisin]

Don't believe in Evolution either, but that was really funny.

[98Cobra]

I love these hot button debate topics we occassionally have at TALON. I believe in evolution, and I'll leave it at that. :)

[tliss]

I believe my new dog evolved from some sort of pigeon, because no matter how much correction she gets she still can't quite grasp the concept of how NOT to sh!t on everything. I also believe lawyers evolved from hunched-over cave dwellers that fed on bat guano and other scum that fell to the bottom of the cave and spoke the fine languange of Lying BS. I also believe Dodge owners evolved from those Hemi-loving idiots on the commercials....oh wait, evolution kinda passed them up! So to add my two cents, I believe in some kind of evolution. :tongue:

Tom

[Sixpipes]

I think Darwin had some great theories, some of which I believe are probably pretty close to correct (natural selection for one). But to stretch so far as to say we all came from an ameoba or some other kind of protozoan is laughable. However, I don't think it is too hard for some of us to believe that the Glenn Clan evolved from some sort of cave dwelling carnivorace biped who amused themselves by sitting around campfires making fart noises with their hand under their armpits. :cool:

[98Cobra]

I think we could have evolved from a low form of life. When you look at how far we have evolved in the last 2000 years, through societal, scientific, and other changes, and multiply that out by how old the Earth is...what I do know for sure is that the Earth was not created 5000 years ago. :D Do you think that Intelligent Design is something that should be taught in a science class?

[Sixpipes]

Who says the earth is 5,000 years old? :rll: Regarding intelligent design, Darwin himself couldn't get around it...

"Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.

These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?


Being a biologist myself, I open-mindedly looked into all kinds of theories when I was in school and believe intelligent design cannot be reasonably explained away. My answer to your question is this... if theories are to be taught in school, then I think none with merit should be excluded... and that includes intelligent design and Darwin's theories. :cool:

[tliss]

Who says the earth is 5,000 years old? :rll:

Did you see the movie Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy? I think they made a new Earth in about a month or two...

Tom

[Sixpipes]

Did you see the movie Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy? I think they made a new Earth in about a month or two...

Tom

That's pretty slow, I read it only takes a day. :D

[Flats Man]

Who says the earth is 5,000 years old? :rll: Regarding intelligent design, Darwin himself couldn't get around it...

"Long before having arrived at this part of my work, a crowd of difficulties will have occurred to the reader. Some of them are so grave that to this day I can never reflect on them without being staggered; but, to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to my theory.

These difficulties and objections may be classed under the following heads:-Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?

Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?

Thirdly, can instincts be acquired and modified through natural selection? What shall we say to so marvellous an instinct as that which leads the bee to make cells, which have practically anticipated the discoveries of profound mathematicians?


Being a biologist myself, I open-mindedly looked into all kinds of theories when I was in school and believe intelligent design cannot be reasonably explained away. My answer to your question is this... if theories are to be taught in school, then I think none with merit should be excluded... and that includes Darwin's theories. :cool:

I know Dennis and this isn't Dennis! I fear he has been kidnapped and some evil, but intelligent, person has stolen his password and is posing as Sixpipes. Whoever this is, I must admit, is pretty accurate about the Glenn clan sitting around the fire and farting thing. That is info that can only be obtained by brain washing one of the Glenn clan............wait a minute......that is impossible! Never mind!

[98Cobra]

Problem is, a lot of the pro-ID movement(or at least the ones that get the camera time) does think that the world was created 5,000 years ago, and that the fossil record, carbon dating, and all the other science that says otherwise is just made up, or placed in the ground as a test by God of our faith. Those people seriously damage true discourse on the subject.



Being a biologist myself, I open-mindedly looked into all kinds of theories when I was in school and believe intelligent design cannot be reasonably explained away. My answer to your question is this... if theories are to be taught in school, then I think none with merit should be excluded... and that includes Darwin's theories. :cool:

The problems with calling ID a true theory though are many. Just because we don't understand the mysteries of how bees make honeycombs or how the eye evolved to the point it has (and science has made a LOT of progress since Darwin was published) does not mean that there was some great hand at work. This stuff really belongs in maybe a philosophy class, or perhaps a religious studies course, but as a true scientific theory, it just falls flat every time you try it out.

[Sixpipes]

I will just say that neither theory is mutually exclusive. I happen to believe that by studying nature, there is undeniable proof that intelligent design is incorporated into the universe. However, ID is not a science, but a theory or explanation of things that science cannot explain. I have said that much of Darwin's work I believe has merit. However, liberals have taken his work and moved it far to the left to try and disprove or discredit other viewpoints. In the same vein, I believe conservatives have taken ID and tried to use it as a science to discredit Darwinian theory. I think both arguments are seriously flawed. :cool:

An interesting read from today's Yahoo news...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051104/ap_on_sc/vatican_science