Hello, Twin-Matrix, and welcome to the real world, where people draw conclusions from observasion rather than searching for clues using a predifined conclusion!



IE, I think you are stupid and this topic is good so please don't spoil it kthanks.

Haha, holy shit, I just thought that the gravity thing was a hypothetical logic argument or whatever that was just phrased badly. Do you seriously not understand how gravity works at all? Do you even understand what the word 'gravity' means? (HINT: it's not "stuff falls down")
Also if you're seriously saying "heh moon has less gravity this disproves the idea that all planets have gravity" then, well, you've kinda answered your own question about why no-one takes any of your arguments seriously!

No it's because you're being dumb (CHANGED TO BEINGM<ORE POLITICALLY CORRECT).

Are you saying that animals are even remotely as intelligent as humans, capable of learning and freedom of deciding things against survival nature?

You didn't say "intelligent as humans". You said intelligent. Which animals are.

There aren't really big variations to humans. The variations are more in a little bit longer arms, less/more brains, etc.

You didn't say "really big variations to humans", you just said variation, to which there are now, and the Neanderthals were.

That there is gravity on earth doesn't mean there's gravity on other planets.

There is gravity on other planets.

@thecatamites: Because we all know the moon has as much gravity as the earth, of course. *sigh*

You didn't say "just because Earth has gravity, doesn't mean other planets have the same gravity".

Basically, if you're going to be an ignorant, uneducated person about the subject at hand (and rap...and black people......and everything else you manage to talk about) you could at least word what you're saying much better.

EDIT:
instead of you know, saying something and then saying something equally contradictory to what you said just to look cool because everyone isn't "answering your questions".

No one wants to, nor really enjoys, talking to silly people. It's deathly obvious you don't understand evolution, so it's no real surprise why everyone is avoiding you and not writing 15 paragraphs about why you're wrong that you could find out by going to your local library and reading up on evolution.



STEEEEEEL

- With "science != fact", I meant that proving that A is true, it doesn't automatically mean B is true. That there is gravity on earth doesn't mean there's gravity on other planets.

Actually it does.

Why aren't there variations to humans

There are. Asian, black people, 'dem jews, bad luck, etc.

Think of any trait that would have helped humans but we don't have it. Why don't we have them? Why don't we have them?

Because we haven't evolved them - yet - or it's not physically possible.

Also, it's pretty random that humans are all over the place without showing big variations.

Humans aren't isolated anymore. People off all nationalities are running around all over the world, screwing people. We WERE isolated lots of years ago, and then we DID evolve different species, but only one survived.

http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html

Courtesy of my flatmate.

"Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics."

This shows more a misconception about thermodynamics than about evolution. The second law of thermodynamics says, "No process is possible in which the sole result is the transfer of energy from a cooler to a hotter body." [Atkins, 1984, The Second Law, pg. 25] Now you may be scratching your head wondering what this has to do with evolution. The confusion arises when the 2nd law is phrased in another equivalent way, "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." Entropy is an indication of unusable energy and often (but not always!) corresponds to intuitive notions of disorder or randomness. Creationists thus misinterpret the 2nd law to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder.

However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things. If a mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can't have more usable energy still? Creationists sometimes try to get around this by claiming that the information carried by living things lets them create order. However, not only is life irrelevant to the 2nd law, but order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. In any nontrivial system with lots of energy flowing through it, you are almost certain to find order arising somewhere in the system. If order from disorder is supposed to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, why is it ubiquitous in nature?

The thermodynamics argument against evolution displays a misconception about evolution as well as about thermodynamics, since a clear understanding of how evolution works should reveal major flaws in the argument. Evolution says that organisms reproduce with only small changes between generations (after their own kind, so to speak). For example, animals might have appendages which are longer or shorter, thicker or flatter, lighter or darker than their parents. Occasionally, a change might be on the order of having four or six fingers instead of five. Once the differences appear, the theory of evolution calls for differential reproductive success. For example, maybe the animals with longer appendages survive to have more offspring than short-appendaged ones. All of these processes can be observed today. They obviously don't violate any physical laws.

Courtesy of talkorigins.org

Actually it does.
There are. Asian, black people, 'dem jews, bad luck, etc.
Because we haven't evolved them - yet - or it's not physically possible.
Humans aren't isolated anymore. People off all nationalities are running around all over the world, screwing people. We WERE isolated lots of years ago, and then we DID evolve different species, but only one survived.

this topic is gonna be awesome.

@cata: Hey, finally a post with content! Are you saying that if the earth has gravity, it automatically means all planets have gravity? NOW we know that they do. But if we didn't, then you couldn't make that assumption. Heck, there are a 1001 reasons why the earth could have gravity and not other plantes. Maybe the position of the earth between the sun and the stars gives it gravity. Maybe it's the moon circling around the earth that gives it gravity. We now know that it's because of the large mass that the earth has, but if we didn't know that you CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION all planets have gravity. You need to do research first. That was my point.

That's actually what I thought you meant, and why I didn't call you out on it earlier and just said 'this looks dumb when taken out of context'. But when you responded with "moon has less gravity ^.^", I jumped to the conclusion that you were a raving jackass who seriously thought planets don't always have gravity. So, sorry if I misunderstood your point, but you have to admit that it was a fairly reasonable assumption when you consider all the other stuff you said in this topic!

@cata: Hey, finally a post with content! Are you saying that if the earth has gravity, it automatically means all planets have gravity? NOW we know that they do. But if we didn't, then you couldn't make that assumption. Heck, there are a 1001 reasons why the earth could have gravity and not other plantes. Maybe the position of the earth between the sun and the stars gives it gravity. Maybe it's the moon circling around the earth that gives it gravity. We now know that it's because of the large mass that the earth has, but if we didn't know that you CAN'T MAKE THE ASSUMPTION all planets have gravity. You need to do research first. That was my point.

We didn't need to research this, really. Newton's law predicted the existence of Neptune due to gravity and the interactions of planets and stuff with it, ergo we knew it existed on all planets. Now we have General Relativity, but the reason we didn't need to test this much is mostly because space is an all encompassing thing. Anything that rings true on Earth, is true for all planets when it comes to how stuff works. ie: we know the amount of gravitational pull using the same formula for Earth on other planets. All planets have cores (because all planets have gravitational fields), etcccc.

It's pretty impossible for one planet to have a specific law specific to it and it only, and none of the others. Heliocentric theories  (pretty much the only type of theory that could support such a thing you mentioned) were out of date and pretty much forgotten and not noticed well into the 18th century.

This is pretty much why they are called universal laws, even without testing it or doing research on the entire universe (in fact, we apply these laws when we haven't even explored 1% of the universe, sooo, that's definitely what I'd call a "lack of research". :P)

You can argue what you said, but it's all pretty much outdated thinking from the 4th century BC that got refuted pretty easily once we discovered that, despite our egos, no, we were not at the center of the universe. Everything else just sort of came naturally.


But people have given you content, so I don't know what your problem is!! There are variations of humans, animals do have intelligence, the problem is is you say "not as intelligent as humans" or "not a big variation" as if that refutes anything, but it doesn't. Animals have intelligence, not as smart as humans no, but they do have it. Humans do have variations, maybe not big variations but I don't exactly recall the part where evolution says "big changes". Some are big, some are small.

i am extremely ashamed to admit that I enjoyed Twin Matrix's game he submitted for Sarevok's contest, being completely unaware at the time that it was made by this same illogical and ignorant guy.

there are so many great quotes i can take from this debate....

I knew from the first post this was going to start out as making fun of christians.

I think this neat, I'm not too interested in this branch of science was there no major proof for this "major evolution" before?

That's incredible they can "rewind" and go back to previous generations to see what laid the foundations for evolution. Something tells me once they find out what that is, that it will be a huge step in biogenetics.

I don't know what to say about the article. I thought they already had observed "evolution" with all those antibiotic resistant bacteria, but now that they really saw it nobody can prove they're wrong.

---

I think Twin Matrix is at least 10% right because the scientists don't know exactly what gravity is, they know that it is there and they have theories that explain it but they don't really know how and why it happens. Don't call him ignorant or illogical or insane just because what he says right now might sound that way right now.

All planets have cores (because all planets have gravitational fields), etcccc.

This you can't know for sure, one of them could be hollow in the middle and it would still have gravity because it has mass

You can argue what you said, but it's all pretty much outdated thinking from the 4th century BC that got refuted pretty easily once we discovered that, despite our egos, no, we were not at the center of the universe.

PS: This is relative because according to special relativity there is no absolute reference frame so you can't say that we aren't at the center of the universe. I could say that the center of the Universe lies beneath that street lamp over there and everything rotates around it and there is no way you could prove I'm wrong because Albert Einstein said so (ha). But then you could do the same and I'd have to believe.

The Center of Universe is wherever our imagination can take us to!

This you can't know for sure, one of them could be hollow in the middle and it would still have gravity because it has mass

Even if it's hollow it's still a core.

Maybe not a molten core like Earth, but it's still a core.

edit:
the center of the universe is my d*ck everything revolves around it......




newpick up line...."hey baby...how would you like to get f*cked by the thing the universe revolves around...??"

This is pretty swell news! I wonder why the media isn't eating this up.

Yeah this is totally awesome.  I guess there is other living evidence of evolution (mudskipper?) but to actually observe evolution before and after, and be able to recreate the event in a controlled experiment is way awesome!

Are you saying that animals are even remotely as intelligent as humans, capable of learning and freedom of deciding things against survival nature?

monkeys use tools to help with eating wait what?