#34 RE:Gonzo – “ . . . until his burning phallus was near the mouth of her quivering quim . . . “

40. your point?

#37

Just needling only because I had that drilled into me over and over, LOL.

My stance is that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, but it's up to each person to believe what they want. Whether we arrived here from divine intervention or from random luck over the last 4.5 billions years of having the right chemicals in the right place to "spark off life" is something no one knows, nor do I think anyone will ever know. Whatever the origin of life, the evolutionary path seems valid to me.

What I know is that the evidence of evolution has me convinced. My main question regarding the creationists view is why life (as we know it) only exists (to our knowledge) on one location in the known universe. That seems odd, and borderline selfish, to only have life in one single place in such a vast space... it's kind of a waste of all that's out there in my opinion.

-JT

#39 – A difference indeed. These are the best thoughts, ideas, and conclusion of the day. But not proven as fact. There are may theories that cannot be fully tested to the point of fact.

Evolution is a theory. Are there any other true theories on the origin of our speices?

33. Author: FuzzNJ

Robert, because Darwin never said life evolved from a single cell organism.

_________________________________________________

I never said he did. I was merely asking Brewha to clarify exactly what Darwin DID say (he said a lot of things) that he was referring to. Your ASS/U/Mption is showing.

Teach a room for of Nat. American students and see if there aren't...try to prove them wrong with a theory

I dare you lol

there is more we don't know than what we think we know

we don't even know what we are...a pile of cells? a water bag of intelligence?

we don't have full knowledge of dimensions or physics

Um, you do think that gravity does exist, right? But it's still defined as a theory. Meaning that the science behind the definition and explanation can still change. Doesn't mean that gravity doesn't exist, it means that we can still refine the scientific explanation of it.

From what science has observed and dna and genetics and evolutionary science has been able to observe though painstaking research, there has been an obvious and scientific link between dinosaurs and modern day birds. When the science shows that the theory is no longer just a theory, it does become fact. More research can and will be done to refine it.

People who forge crap will be found out and that data will be thrown out. It's the way it works.

"obvious and scientific link between dinosaurs and modern day birds"

really? and if the fossil was a flightless bird?

45: It doesn't matter what Darwin said or believed. It matters what he observed. It started a new way of thinking. He wasn't a prophet. Science took over from his original observations. I don't care if he started speaking in tongues and saw angels on his death bed. It just doesn't matter. What he observed and documented started a new way of thinking about the world.

48: We still have flightless birds, right?

and if the theory of gravitation = stuff falls toward the center of the earth...sure

Newton's theory presents the strength of gravity...not the source

dimensions may affect gravity

do we know all we could know of dimensions...no

therefore, the theory of gravitation is a theory...not fact

50. so fossils that may be flightless birds could be evidence that flightless birds evolved from flightless birds

49.

Again, not sure what you're assuming. I don't disagree with post 49. But going back to my original point and question for Brewha, it's incorrect to think that Darwin did not believe that life, at some form or stage, had been "created" rather than evolved from materiale.

52: Were there flying dinosaurs?

God Damn this is tiring.

53: Who the f cares what Darwin 'believed'?

Fuzz- read my last question in 48. one more time

55. Yes, this is getting tiring.

56: Do you understand the concept of DNA?

58. if the fossil evidence was of a flightless bird, the DNA would be quite similar

wouldn't it?

59: You are of the impression that there is a DNA marker that indicates 'flight'?