Man's Biggest Mistake.

[mushroom 12,920]

 

 

 

 

 

"It'll be ok Heir just a little ruck with the English won't hurt" - Goering August 1939

 

Also my personal favourite - Allowing that fuucking Louis Spence on the Television, UK'll be drowning in them in 10 years time

 

"Them"? What are "Them?"

Dirty great shirtlifting, everyone needs to know I love manarse cnuts

 

'Kinell can you imagine running around bitching on about hetrosexual rights or strutting down the street like John Travolta in Saturday Night Beaver just coz you love gash

 

Well aren't "dirty great shirtlifting (you knwo the rest)" a direct result of hetero-John Travolta Saturnday night beaver-sexual relationships? If heterosexuals stopped having sex then there wouldn't be any homosexuals as only heterosexuals can produce homosexual offspring, let alone ones with lisps (who had the sick idea of calling it a lisp anyway?).

 

Life is a sexually transmitted disease.

Just to point out my brother is as bent as a Welsh £35 note, does that mean one of my parents is infected and I could possibly be a carrier???

 

One more great mistake is thinking that we know what mistakes we've made

 

Biggest mistake I ever made was to decide not to get sprinkles on my ice-cream never fully recovered from that really

 

A carrier of what? Infected how?

Er Herpes. there's another biggest mistake bet the first guy that let his lass go down with that scab on her lip regretted it :laugh:

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

 

Embracing the theory of evolution. .

I am just wondering what your defenition of evolution is?

 

TC

 

By evolution, I mean macroevolution i.e. the idea popularised by Darwin that there was a big bang at some point in the past, that some how gave rise to life so on and so on and eventually we evolved from apes and here we are having a discussion on an internet forum. . I personally (after a lot of research) think that the idea is absurd.

 

I believe in microevolution, which essentially is genetic variation within a species e.g. changing in dogs, birds so on. . That’s fine by me.

 

ATB

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

 

 

 

Embracing the theory of evolution. .

It wasn't embraced, it was recognised after being proven by scientific facts, unlike a story from a book that if anyone else wrote they'd be locked up for being a fecking loony...

It was embraced. Proven by scientific facts? You'd have to name a few, I'm not aware of any. It's a theory, that's been so well publicised and promoted by media and propaganda that the large majority of society has accepted as a fact and scientific, it simply isn't. Facts cannot be denied and science is observational and operational. I'm well learned on the subject amigo and always willing to share my thoughts with anyone who's interested.

 

Ps if you care to share, what book are you talking about?? Could be one of twenty dozen. .

 

This should be interesting, especially the bit about how the main character in these books (that are only fifteen hundered years old) created "all things" from billion year old stars, dinosaurs, archaeopteryx to science and carbon dating which proves time and time again how old things actually are.

 

Do you know how magnets work as well?

 

No offence, but if you’re talking about Carbon-14 dating and millions of years, it is apparent that you have not all that well researched on the matter. Carbon-14 dating has nothing to do with millions of years. The potassium argon dating method is the popular one used for millions of years. Regardless, neither is reliable and both are often controversial and heavily depend on the input and interpretation of those involved. I’m familiar with the leading dating methods.

 

I saw some dinosaurs last year at Longleat, Rhinoceros, Elephants, fantastic creatures!

 

I would elaborate further, but probably not much point.

 

ATB

[Born Hunter 17,763]

Regards evolution, the 'fact' is the majority of the scientific community follow it therefore it is THE theory to explain life on Earth. Now when I say the scientific community I'm talking about research fellows, people with a reasonable level of intelligence and a natural curiosity and tendency to question everything they are told. Not the sort of person that can be brainwashed with complex garbage. It's no more controversial than the Big Bang theory.

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

@the field Marshall . Are you a born again Christian ?

I'd have to ask you what you meant by that term before I answered marshman. . Am I a happy, clappy looney toon? Afraid not, though I have been called Elmer Fudd on a couple of occasions

[Born Hunter 17,763]

 

 

 

No offence, but if you’re talking about Carbon-14 dating and millions of years, it is apparent that you have not all that well researched on the matter. Carbon-14 dating has nothing to do with millions of years. The potassium argon dating method is the popular one used for millions of years. Regardless, neither is reliable and both are often controversial and heavily depend on the input and interpretation of those involved. I’m familiar with the leading dating methods.

 

I saw some dinosaurs last year at Longleat, Rhinoceros, Elephants, fantastic creatures!

 

I would elaborate further, but probably not much point.

 

ATB

 

You believe in microevolution but not macroevolution........................... Now are these not essentially the same just over very different time scales? You dispute the currently accepted theory for life on Earth but offer no alternative hypothesis? Genuinely interested TFM................

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

Regards evolution, the 'fact' is the majority of the scientific community follow it therefore it is THE theory to explain life on Earth. Now when I say the scientific community I'm talking about research fellows, people with a reasonable level of intelligence and a natural curiosity and tendency to question everything they are told. Not the sort of person that can be brainwashed with complex garbage. It's no more controversial than the Big Bang theory.

Quite right Born Hunter. But I'm not inclined to be swayed by the majority, after all the majority once thought the world was flat. . There are some heavyweight scientists who reject the Big Bang theory. Essentially, I must believe what makes sense to me.

[marshman 7,757]

@ the field Marshall . No I don't mean are you a happy clappy loon lol . It's just you sound like a cousin of mine that is a Born again Christian .

[mushroom 12,920]

@ the field Marshall . No I don't mean are you a happy clappy loon lol . It's just you sound like a cousin of mine that is a Born again Christian .

Cos jesus he knows me

And he knows Im right

Ive been talking to jesus all my life

Oh yes he knows me

And he knows Im right

And he's been telling me

Everything is alright

[Born Hunter 17,763]

 

Regards evolution, the 'fact' is the majority of the scientific community follow it therefore it is THE theory to explain life on Earth. Now when I say the scientific community I'm talking about research fellows, people with a reasonable level of intelligence and a natural curiosity and tendency to question everything they are told. Not the sort of person that can be brainwashed with complex garbage. It's no more controversial than the Big Bang theory.

Quite right Born Hunter. But I'm not inclined to be swayed by the majority, after all the majority once thought the world was flat. . There are some heavyweight scientists who reject the Big Bang theory. Essentially, I must believe what makes sense to me.

 

True, but you could hardly call the majority back then scientists................. We follow a different set of principles these days.

 

I know of a few of the hypotheses competing with the current big bang one and most of them follow a very similar line of thought, not many are radically different and taken seriously. As with all science, it's the most credible explanation for the observable facts...................... that's not to say it's 100% correct as future observation can and sometimes are made that require an 'adjustment' of the theory.

 

For the forseeable future though I'm a firm 'darwinist'.

[Blackbriar 8,569]

Let's get something crystal clear.

Darwin's theory does not state that Man evolved from apes. It states that Man and apes have a common ancestor - that ancestor is what is commonly referred to as the "missing link".

Darwin's theory remains, to this day, exactly that - a theory. In science, a theory only becomes fact when it has been proved to be true. If it is proved untrue, it must be put aside anda new theory formulated, then the process begins again. If it can be neither proved nor disproved, as in this case, then it remains a theory. Science is based on one thing and one thing only - provable, quantifiable facts.

 

As things currently stand, the theory of evolution is generally accepted to offer the best explanation for the appearance and continuation of life on earth. there are some who do not believe in it, but no alternative has been offered, that does not rely on the idea of creation or intelligent design.

Sadly, it is usual for religion to raise it's hand and ask common sense to tip-toe quietly out of the room !

 

If anyone would like to read further, i can heartily recommend anything by Professor Richard Dawkins.

[Blackbriar 8,569]

 

Regards evolution, the 'fact' is the majority of the scientific community follow it therefore it is THE theory to explain life on Earth. Now when I say the scientific community I'm talking about research fellows, people with a reasonable level of intelligence and a natural curiosity and tendency to question everything they are told. Not the sort of person that can be brainwashed with complex garbage. It's no more controversial than the Big Bang theory.

Quite right Born Hunter. But I'm not inclined to be swayed by the majority, after all the majority once thought the world was flat. . There are some heavyweight scientists who reject the Big Bang theory. Essentially, I must believe what makes sense to me.

I prefer to believe what is true.......

[Dan_Mercian 27]

 

 

Scientific facts like the remains of animals dug up from the ground from different time periods that are the same animal yet have evolved, that is a scientific fact! Any religious book is utter madness, all of them are bonkers.

 

Nobody needs a religion to tell them how to live like a normal human being, I don't kill, rape, steal etc and I'm not religious one bit....but near enough every war it seems is to do with what religion you are and what crazy book you follow.

No disrespect, but no facts come with digging up bones, they dont come with tags telling us how old they are or what they are. The transitional fossil record is inconclusive, hence missing links

 

And if you believe in evolution how do form a real basis for whats right and wrong anyway? Is it a coincidence that the rules we live by were also given to Moses in tablets of stone? Food for thought I think.

We can leave it there if you prefer.

 

ATB

The thing is, you believe in 'god'

 

The Hindus believe in many gods, but not your god.

 

Buddhists? Again they believe in god, but none of the above.

 

Mayans? They were believing in god thousands of years before your god was even created.

 

And guess what, future generations will believe in new gods that haven't been invented yet.

 

Whos praying to the right one?

 

Also it turns out if a guys waking about talking to his imaginary friend he's a mental case, but thousands of people walking round talking to their imaginary friend are religious.. Where's the logic in that?

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

 

 

Regards evolution, the 'fact' is the majority of the scientific community follow it therefore it is THE theory to explain life on Earth. Now when I say the scientific community I'm talking about research fellows, people with a reasonable level of intelligence and a natural curiosity and tendency to question everything they are told. Not the sort of person that can be brainwashed with complex garbage. It's no more controversial than the Big Bang theory.

Quite right Born Hunter. But I'm not inclined to be swayed by the majority, after all the majority once thought the world was flat. . There are some heavyweight scientists who reject the Big Bang theory. Essentially, I must believe what makes sense to me.

 

True, but you could hardly call the majority back then scientists................. We follow a different set of principles these days.

 

I know of a few of the hypotheses competing with the current big bang one and most of them follow a very similar line of thought, not many are radically different and taken seriously. As with all science, it's the most credible explanation for the observable facts...................... that's not to say it's 100% correct as future observation can and sometimes are made that require an 'adjustment' of the theory.

 

For the forseeable future though I'm a firm 'darwinist'.

I quite agree. . The set of principles science uses today is "observe, test and repeat" hence we have medicines and antibiotics. . Evolution cannot be observed tested or repeated so it cannot be called science. . Most scientists believe in evolution, is that a true reflection and testament to the truth of the theory or is man inclined to want to believe in a religion that doesn't have a God and they can choose to live I life by and large as they please with no moral obligation or accountability attached. I'm inclined to believe the latter.

 

Regardless of difference, I respect your opinion.

[*The*Field*Marshall* 674]

@ the field Marshall . No I don't mean are you a happy clappy loon lol . It's just you sound like a cousin of mine that is a Born again Christian .

Ah I see! Well, you never know, I could well be haha