Rockin' in the free world since 2005.

[Total: 269    Average: 4.3/5]
116 Comments - View/Add
Hits: 46462
Rating: 4.3
Category:
Date: 09/30/07 02:44 AM

116 Responses to Evolution Graffiti

  1. Profile photo of Snoogans
    Snoogans Male 30-39
    869 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 2:02 am
    Link: Evolution Graffiti - The evolution of man, on a wall (scroll right).
  2. Profile photo of Bass_Bitch
    Bass_Bitch Male 13-17
    36 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 3:13 am
    ...Heavy
  3. Profile photo of TAP
    TAP Male 13-17
    21 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 3:15 am
    Freaky, not really anything else....
  4. Profile photo of Khast
    Khast Male 30-39
    184 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 3:30 am
    I find it ironic, but says something. Mostly at the point which the humans have weapons, then starts digressing backwards. Mankind could learn from the idea...it`s not the technology which makes us advanced, but our attitude.
  5. Profile photo of RoCKeR69
    RoCKeR69 Male 13-17
    2 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 3:36 am
    wow......
  6. Profile photo of NorwayFTW
    NorwayFTW Male 13-17
    145 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 3:37 am
    Grafitti with a message... I like it.
  7. Profile photo of SarahofBorg
    SarahofBorg Female 18-29
    3564 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 3:42 am
    Evolution never works backwards, they got that part wrong.
    Also, they forgot the part about all the nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants going off and melting down and killing everything that has a vertabre.
  8. Profile photo of xboxman
    xboxman Male 13-17
    381 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 3:50 am
    Sarah they are saying we are de-evolving through our actions (killing = primitive). Not scientifically.
  9. Profile photo of SarahofBorg
    SarahofBorg Female 18-29
    3564 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 3:58 am
    Everything about it was scientific up until then, I`d rather they kept to it rather than using false science to make some political point.
  10. Profile photo of Drahcir
    Drahcir Male 13-17
    144 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 3:59 am
    so true...
  11. Profile photo of Pabasa
    Pabasa Male 18-29
    4014 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 4:29 am
    Awesome, I wonder where it is.

  12. Profile photo of BigBonny
    BigBonny Male 18-29
    2216 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 4:41 am
    ...wow

    and SarahofBorg, do realise that we also didnt evolve from dinosaurs, who seemingly evolved from other breeds of dinosaurs, its just a bit of artistic and political license.

  13. Profile photo of Declan191919
    Declan191919 Male 13-17
    1275 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 4:50 am
    It seemed a bit rushed at the end, with the humans evolution, they had no detail on that one
  14. Profile photo of brutalnz
    brutalnz Male 30-39
    1386 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 7:21 am
    nice
  15. Profile photo of gigglygiggle
    gigglygiggle Male 18-29
    225 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 7:49 am
    WOAH

    Took A LOT of paint...

  16. Profile photo of metter
    metter Male 13-17
    1016 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 8:35 am
    they did it backward so people going the opposite way could see it from the beginning
  17. Profile photo of thegreatbana
    thegreatbana Male 13-17
    91 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 9:09 am
    ^^ actully no the reason they painted like that is because of devolution yes, i am christian but i do know alot about the evolution things. The reason they go back like that is because there are no natural preadeteors causeing a devolution supposeible
  18. Profile photo of deaf_woman
    deaf_woman Male 30-39
    2721 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 9:16 am
    ^ spoken like a true.
  19. Profile photo of gorgack2000
    gorgack2000 Male 13-17
    4683 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 9:30 am
    Must have taken a while... the dinosaur part was my favourite.
  20. Profile photo of icantthink41
    icantthink41 Male 18-29
    350 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 10:06 am
    wow cool
  21. Profile photo of BabiiGirl93
    BabiiGirl93 Female 13-17
    441 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 10:54 am
    that was frickin SWEET!! i luv grafitti
  22. Profile photo of GummyWurmz
    GummyWurmz Female 13-17
    1412 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 11:32 am
    I like it =] Who cares if it isnt scientific...Not me =]
  23. Profile photo of CZX11
    CZX11 Male 13-17
    179 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 11:34 am
    Wow no religion vs. evolution fight this time WOW!
  24. Profile photo of RecycleElf
    RecycleElf Male 18-29
    3622 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 11:45 am
    I liked it allot, i find it amazing that they started at the buss stop and actually made it end at the end of the wall.
  25. Profile photo of DBtG
    DBtG Male 18-29
    330 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 11:49 am
    Just wait for it CZX11.
  26. Profile photo of SnaveNareik
    SnaveNareik Male 13-17
    244 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 12:14 pm
    good, but we didnt evolve from apes, we evoled form somethig which apes aslo came from, but we didnt come from apes.

    BUT WHO GIVES A poo! MAN< THAT WAS CLASS!

  27. Profile photo of jhonmayer1
    jhonmayer1 Male 18-29
    1289 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 12:34 pm
    thats really deep.
  28. Profile photo of LadyIsis
    LadyIsis Female 18-29
    403 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 12:34 pm
    that was really cool, I liked it
  29. Profile photo of Giligadi
    Giligadi Male 40-49
    356 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 1:13 pm
    ashes to ashes, rust to dust.
  30. Profile photo of omgitssam
    omgitssam Male 13-17
    384 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 1:14 pm
    why does it go backwards
  31. Profile photo of phloof
    phloof Female 13-17
    2 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 1:38 pm
    It`s kind of strange how the graffiti is perfectly lined up but the pictures aren`t...
  32. Profile photo of Stentorian
    Stentorian Male 13-17
    426 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 1:40 pm
    What the? Humans didn`t evolve from dinosaurs. Boo.
  33. Profile photo of mintsponge
    mintsponge Male 18-29
    54 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 2:12 pm
    took to long to load so i didnt get to see it :(
  34. Profile photo of -NeonCarrot-
    -NeonCarrot- Male 13-17
    1498 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 2:23 pm
    Widest. Link. Ever.
  35. Profile photo of Custom_hobo
    Custom_hobo Male 13-17
    737 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 2:47 pm
    That was really ace.
  36. Profile photo of ilikepizza
    ilikepizza Male 18-29
    437 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 2:52 pm
    So...we`re going to turn into sushi.
  37. Profile photo of Concetra
    Concetra Male 18-29
    2051 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 2:56 pm
    Mintspong. get rid of your 56k modem
  38. Profile photo of HoneyBaby62
    HoneyBaby62 Female 13-17
    273 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 4:01 pm
    That was really neat-o
  39. Profile photo of LKJSlain
    LKJSlain Female 18-29
    648 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 4:34 pm
    I just have one question...if we evolved from sushi... where did the SUSHI come from? ...

    www.godandscience.org/answers

  40. Profile photo of poematik13
    poematik13 Male 13-17
    21 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 4:48 pm
    It wasnt scientificcaly accurate. After the amphibious period the animals branched off and evolved independently.

    Otherwise, all living things would be humans.

  41. Profile photo of justKatrina
    justKatrina Female 13-17
    1007 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 5:01 pm
    I wanna be a giant tail-humping turtle again.
  42. Profile photo of Pooptart19
    Pooptart19 Male 18-29
    2442 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 5:14 pm
    D@mn it. Now all the nutty creationists are going to flood this with comments. The graffiti is, of course, not scientifically correct, but evolution sure as hell is. I`m so glad I`m not religious. : )
  43. Profile photo of Thyrm
    Thyrm Male 13-17
    58 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 5:24 pm
    Amazing message.
  44. Profile photo of WHOISIT12345
    WHOISIT12345 Male 18-29
    4397 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 5:54 pm
    wow good job
  45. Profile photo of Maelstrom_x
    Maelstrom_x Male 18-29
    1883 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 5:55 pm
    "good, but we didnt evolve from apes, we evoled form somethig which apes aslo came from, but we didnt come from apes."

    If you even believe in evolution. Sorry, but even "aliens put us here as an experiment" is a million times more feasible than "everything evolved from bacterium".

  46. Profile photo of cjyogi65
    cjyogi65 Male 13-17
    33 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 6:06 pm
    how the drat did he get away with that?... i mean...someone would see that
  47. Profile photo of Lost_In_Time
    Lost_In_Time Male 18-29
    317 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 6:09 pm
    thegreatbana, you seriously made me laugh my ass off. As for the graffiti art, I liked it. Devolution isn`t possible. If anything, we would evolve into something completely different from anything that has ever existed... oh and Jesus was an alien and all things live to serve Bill Gates: Supreme Ruler of the Galaxy. ALL HAIL BILL GATES!
  48. Profile photo of Geek13
    Geek13 Male 13-17
    5 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 6:45 pm
    Devolution is actually possible. Some people think that it is already happening because the stupid people just keep poping kids out while smart people set out to change the world for the better and they need no attachments if they want to do this.
  49. Profile photo of SilentxEm
    SilentxEm Female 60-69
    670 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 6:50 pm
    Not quite accurate (we didn`t evolve from dinosaurs, birds did), but still cute.
    Yes, I said cute.
  50. Profile photo of BlueAdept
    BlueAdept Male 18-29
    75 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 7:39 pm
    lol every time I see something like this, it makes me laugh and wonder how people can really believe in Evolution.

    Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that.

  51. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 8:10 pm
    I`ve been biting my tongue because this is a cool post, which is not meant to be scientific, just a clever statement on human nature using the medium of grafitti.

    But I can`t hold back when comments like "Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that." (^^BlueAdept) start appearing.

    When scientists use the word "Theory" it has very special meaning. It usually means an accepted scientific understanding of how things work (until then it is just a hypothesis).

    Saying evolution is "just a theory" is wrong. Newton`s ideas about gravity is called by scientists the "Theory of Gravity", just like Darwinian ideas are called the "Theory of Evolution". But no reasonable person would suggest that gravity is not science, or that it doesn`t exist.

    Anyway, not trying to stoke the fires of a science vs religion debate, just trying to blow the myth about the whole "Evolution is just a theory" false debate.

  52. Profile photo of crump199
    crump199 Male 18-29
    139 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 8:19 pm
    Evolution IS just a theory... the only reason people accept it as fact is because it`s the theory that makes the most sense.
    When somebody comes up with a better theory with more facts to back it up than evolution has, then people will be saying "how can all those nuts believe in evolution when this theory is so much more plausible?"

    When scientists use the word "Theory" yes they`re saying it`s an accepted scientific understanding of how things work as you so put it, but they`re not saying it`s 100% correct...
    And the theory of gravity is just a theory too, we can measure it, but we have no idea why or what causes gravity, just theories.

  53. Profile photo of almightybob1
    almightybob1 Male 18-29
    4290 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 8:21 pm
    Exactly, davymid. Pythagoras` Theorem is still called a theorem but it`s set in stone.

    I like how BlueAdept knows for certain that evolution is "incorrect" and yet we`ve heard nothing in the press that it has been conclusively disproven. What you mean is, YOU think it`s incorrect. I think it is correct. Neither of us knows for sure because, surprise surprise, neither of us was there. Don`t pass off your opinion as fact when it is no more valid than anyone else`s.

  54. Profile photo of joeyhndc
    joeyhndc Male 18-29
    332 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 8:49 pm
    Alright, evolution IS a theory, but it`s a theory with proof. If someone were to reorganise the evidence we have and made another theory that made sound scientific sense, then we`d have a debate.
    But as it stands, we have a theory with evidence against a theory that intrinsicaly can never have evidence for or against it. I`m not siding with anyone, but this is comparing apples to oranges people!
  55. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 8:49 pm
    crump199, you`re 100% right in that a theory can always be disproven and shouldn`t be taken as fact, agree completely. To call it a "Theory" is a kind of escape-hatch built in by science in case a better idea comes along later.

    Newton`s "Theory of Gravity" lays out the laws of physics. That is, when I drop a ball it falls, and when I drop another ball it falls, and when I drop another ball it falls. If one day I drop a ball and it flies upward out of my hand, then indeed we will have to revise the "Theory of Gravity". Pythygoras` Theory (thanks for the reminder almightybob1) lays out the laws of geometry. If we one day find a triangle which doesn`t obey Pythagoras` "Theory", we`ll have to re-evaluate that one.

  56. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 8:49 pm
    In the same line of reasoning, the "Theory of Evolution" can explain all life on earth. If one day a six-headed fire-breathing sponge-beast which eats sand shows up, with no evidence ancestors, fossils, or any way in which it could have evolved, then we`ll have to re-think the "Theory of Evolution".

    And crump, saying "we have no idea why or what causes gravity" isn`t correct. Indeed, Newton came up with the "Theory of Gravity" as an accurate wy to predict the behaviour of bodies, without knowing why or what caused it. We now understand that Quantum Physics (Einstein et al) is the "engine" of the "Theory of Gravity" (Newton`s original idea), just like we know understand that Genetics (Mendel et al) is the engine of the "Theory of Evolution" (Darwin`s original idea).

  57. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 8:57 pm
    Either way, the grafitti was pretty cool. Isn`t that what we`re supposed to be discussing here?
  58. Profile photo of 2D-Gorillaz
    2D-Gorillaz Male 13-17
    180 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 9:35 pm
    DAM
    thats down
  59. Profile photo of 643197
    643197 Male 18-29
    1078 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 9:46 pm
    thats awesome
  60. Profile photo of MikePiano
    MikePiano Male 18-29
    1425 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 9:51 pm
    holy wowzers!
  61. Profile photo of DemonCurtain
    DemonCurtain Male 18-29
    244 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 9:55 pm
    ""Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that."

    Someone doesn`t know the definition of "Scientific Theory."

    Also, graffiti was cool, obviously not scientific, but very cool.

  62. Profile photo of Lost_In_Time
    Lost_In_Time Male 18-29
    317 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 10:07 pm
    "Devolution is actually possible. Some people think that it is already happening because the stupid people just keep poping kids out while smart people set out to change the world for the better and they need no attachments if they want to do this."

    Actually, evolving into a stupider form of life is still evolution, not devolution. Devolution would be returning to a form of primate life that has already existed... IF, that is, evolution has actually happened (just to please all you creationists out there).

  63. Profile photo of anyano1
    anyano1 Female 18-29
    208 posts
    September 30, 2007 at 10:34 pm
    with all this talk of Devolution i have the urge to listen to some Devo- "whip it good".
    oh right, the graffiti- it was cool people, lets leave it at that
  64. Profile photo of crump199
    crump199 Male 18-29
    139 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 12:13 am
    oh yeah... cool graffiti was what i meant to say
  65. Profile photo of Bekll
    Bekll Female 18-29
    1984 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 12:50 am
    --"good, but we didnt evolve from apes, we evoled form somethig which apes aslo came from, but we didnt come from apes."

    If you even believe in evolution. Sorry, but even "aliens put us here as an experiment" is a million times more feasible than "everything evolved from bacterium".--
    maelstrom_x, evolution is a scientific fact and theory. It is the most plausible theory we have.

  66. Profile photo of BroadwayLove
    BroadwayLove Female 18-29
    187 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 1:20 am
    If I believed in evolution, I would think that devolution would be possible.
    It goes along with that law of Science that I`m too lazy to look up that says that the universe will always go towards chaos and disorder.

    And a theory is defined as unprovable. We may have EVIDENCE but we have no PROOF therefore, you who believe in evolution, have fun.
    You who believe in Creationism, woot woot!
    and you who believe in Alium theories, call me, we`ll get coffee sometime.

    Stop Fighting

  67. Profile photo of Lost_In_Time
    Lost_In_Time Male 18-29
    317 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 1:50 am
    A theory is NOT defined as `unprovable.` A theory is an incorporation of facts, hypotheses and laws that lead to a given conclusion.

    For example: I theorize that you are an idiot. It doesn`t mean you ARE an idiot, but the given facts lean in the direction that you are. If now, you give me an IQ test proving you aren`t an idiot; then my theory has been blown out of the water. However if that IQ test comes back showing you are of lower intelligence, my theory just became a fact. Almost anything can be a theory when you look at from a certain point of view. (And I wasn`t talking to anyone directly, it was just an example, so don`t take offense anyone)

  68. Profile photo of Lost_In_Time
    Lost_In_Time Male 18-29
    317 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 1:57 am
    And also to finish my statement, a fact can be disproven as well. A theory is just a loose term created to use instead of the phrase an `educated guess.` Facts are one thing, theories are another. Just because something has been proven factual doesn`t mean there is a possibility it may be incorrect as well. Welcome to the world of science, where nothing has to make sense; but if it`s proven and you disagree, we`ll burn you at the stake. :-D
  69. Profile photo of ledzep360
    ledzep360 Male 18-29
    164 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 1:57 am
    Of course it turned into an anti war thing.
  70. Profile photo of thecite
    thecite Male 13-17
    554 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 1:58 am
    A bit average.
  71. Profile photo of Invalok
    Invalok Male 18-29
    724 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 4:59 am
    Hats off to who ever made it.
  72. Profile photo of extreamh
    extreamh Female 13-17
    251 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 5:22 am
    cool BUT EVELUTION IS SO FAKE!IT IS FAKE I TELL YOU FAKE!!!!!!AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
  73. Profile photo of Eichenkatze
    Eichenkatze Male 18-29
    780 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 6:16 am
    I started watching this and kept commenting "I don`t remember the idea of us coming from that dinosaur" or things like that but as it got to the guns and then went down it was kinda like.. "Ohhh... neat!" its actually pretty cool, and gives wonder to the mind.
  74. Profile photo of philippic
    philippic Male 18-29
    1704 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 8:58 am
    **READ**

    If only i got first post on this...

    really wanted everyone to see that the pictures have bin mirrored (check the bus stop pic (the advert is backward) so really we should be startin from the other side and scrolling left!

  75. Profile photo of ZoKtorR
    ZoKtorR Male 18-29
    177 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 9:12 am
    If you look at the posters in the bus stop, you can see that the picture is flipped. So you actually need to read it from right to left.
  76. Profile photo of ZoKtorR
    ZoKtorR Male 18-29
    177 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 9:15 am
    What he said.
  77. Profile photo of joeyhndc
    joeyhndc Male 18-29
    332 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 9:56 am
    Technically it would still tell the same story whether the picture has been flipped or not, depending on where you start walking... I think they just drew it right to left and put it up left to right because that`s the way we read and it makes more sense.
  78. Profile photo of JAXLEY
    JAXLEY Male 18-29
    988 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 11:20 am
    oh, it`s political. Damn, i was enjoying it.
  79. Profile photo of kairobert
    kairobert Male 18-29
    1626 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 1:56 pm
    dude thats the best graffiti ive ever seen
  80. Profile photo of Ilbeltz
    Ilbeltz Male 18-29
    108 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 6:00 pm
    Creationists are idiots. Do you even know what the word "theory" means in scientific terms? A testable observation derived from FACT. That`s right, FACT. Evolution is widely accepted in all respectable scientific circles. I can`t even blame it on you living in the backwoods, because there is plenty of evidence in support of evolution if you`d just look instead of blindly accepting what you`ve been taught.
  81. Profile photo of denea
    denea Female 13-17
    224 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 6:38 pm
    its just too hard to grasp the concept that humans were once fishes
  82. Profile photo of Bekll
    Bekll Female 18-29
    1984 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 7:17 pm
    "its just too hard to grasp the concept that humans were once fishes"
    They`re two different species - we`re RELATED, but to phrase it as homo sapiens were once fishes is ignoring the concept of the word "species".
  83. Profile photo of PayN8tention
    PayN8tention Male 18-29
    907 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 8:04 pm
    I absolutely agree with Sarah:
    "I`d rather they kept to it rather than using false science to make some political point."

    There is science and then there is politics. When you start creatively mixing something pure facts with something pure choice, you get a confusing message.

  84. Profile photo of slurba
    slurba Male 13-17
    132 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 9:20 pm
    I was disapointed that the evolutionary line was inaccurate on a scientific basis, but then I noticed that it actually is because its flipped.

    Also, for the whole "fact vs theory" thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_a...

  85. Profile photo of BlueAdept
    BlueAdept Male 18-29
    75 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 10:05 pm
    Theory - "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact." (taken from Dictionary.com)

    I follow actual science. When the second Law of Thermodynamics(laws which are uncontested by scientists) states basically that all matter tends towards entropy(chaos, or disorder), and the theory of Evolution says otherwise...I`m going with the real Science.

  86. Profile photo of Galol
    Galol Male 13-17
    80 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 10:53 pm
    What`s with the thing right after the mammoths? )-|
  87. Profile photo of sporka
    sporka Female 18-29
    818 posts
    October 1, 2007 at 11:06 pm
    Impressive.
  88. Profile photo of davymid
    davymid Male 30-39
    12151 posts
    October 2, 2007 at 3:35 pm
    BlueAdept,

    The Second Law of Thermodynamics does not disprove evolution, the two have nothing to do with each other. This is to do with the fact that the second law of thermodynamics only applies to closed systems (the earth is an open system due to solar energy input). I have better things to do than to explain the whole thing to you- go look it up.

    This (Second Law of Thermodynamics disproves Evolution) argument you put forward was first proposed by the "Young Earth Creationist" David Gish. This is the same David Gish who argued that the Grand Canyon was created in a day by Noah`s Flood. This should set some mental alarm bells ringing.

    Needless to say, both arguments have long ago been shot down by the respected, international scientific community as being utter bunk.

  89. Profile photo of urkuhlicious
    urkuhlicious Female 18-29
    9 posts
    October 2, 2007 at 7:11 pm
    you know.. SARAH OF BORG, and all of you who think this is stupid graffiti.. Graffiti, if the motif is correct... sends out messages. Sometimes clear as glass... or subliminal. This piece is clearly set out there for a "blind".
    Dont you see?

    the world of man started out.. natural. evolution happened. All living beings were part of the food chain.. only normal right? That`s hwo the world started out. It was peaceful. When "man" was created or evolved.. it should have stayed that way, the way of life. But with weapons.. firearm.. We dont follow the way of life.. instead... we are killing each other. Sooon enough mankind will be diminished and it will be back to the way it was meant. It`s a message.. instead of finding resources, we find trouble.

    P.S. Grow up, get wise. Open your eyes to the real world. You will be surprised. =]

  90. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 2, 2007 at 8:34 pm
    Davymid, I`ve thought that in ecological terms, the Earth is a closed system? But even in physics terms I thought a closed system is one that can accept inputs but cannot project outputs?

    In any case, regardless which system Earth indeed is, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that energy (and thus matter) declines towards entropy as opposed to organization, meaning that energy tends not to be concentrated in a given area for very long. However, this does not conflict with evolution for several reasons, a significant one being that if evolution failed under the 2nd Law of Thermo., life itself would not be possible. Hmm.

    Just because there tends to be a general decline towards entropy does not mean that individual concentrations of energy cannot be stable. Life is possible because every chemical bond involved in life is at a stable level or is made to be at a stable level.

    According to BlueAdept, we shouldn`t be able to build buildings...

  91. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 2, 2007 at 8:54 pm
    "Evolution IS just a theory..."

    Davymid, myself, and any others that take issue with others who say evolution is *just* a theory are fully aware that evolution is a theory. We know and appreciate this fully. What we take issue with is the suggestion of belittlement by saying evolution is *just* a theory. A theory in scientific nomenclature is the second most powerful explanatory statement, behind `law`. Being able to categorize evolution as a theory should speaks volumes for its potency.

  92. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 2, 2007 at 9:00 pm
    BroadwayLove:

    "If I believed in evolution, I would think that devolution would be possible."

    Devolution implies an organism reverting to a precursor species (traits, chemical make-up, all), something which at this time has not been reflected in the evidence.

    "It goes along with that law of Science that I`m too lazy to look up that says that the universe will always go towards chaos and disorder."

    Wrong. You`re thinking that an organism, because of entropy, will break down to *exactly* the same species it was before (devolution), when in actually if evolution was incompatible with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, we`d lose whole organ systems and limbs and life as a whole would not be possible. See my post here on page 4 addressed to BlueAdept.

    I expect, BroadwayLove, that unless you thoroughly familiarize yourself with scientific premises, you and I will have a rather serious row on these forums sometime in the future.

  93. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 2, 2007 at 9:05 pm
    "I just have one question...if we evolved from sushi... where did the SUSHI come from?"

    The broader question you should be asking, LKJSlain, is not from what other organism an organism evolved - as that only pushes the question further - but rather how did an individual cell (eukaryotic or prokaryotic) form. If scientists can suggest the means by which the first cell formed and demonstrate such in a lab, explaining all subsequent life would be a piece of cake. We need not look for answers at www.godandscience.org as, assuredly, it yields none.

    "Evolution is not a science...it is a theory, and an incorrect one at that."

    BlueAdept... I swear...

    If you can prove evolution to be false, I promise you the scientific community will gradually abandon evolution. However, evolution as a theory has to this day not been proven false, which coincidentally is why it is so widely accepted.

  94. Profile photo of Brokenbones
    Brokenbones Male 18-29
    223 posts
    October 2, 2007 at 10:10 pm
    Blue Adept is a retard. -.-
  95. Profile photo of BroadwayLove
    BroadwayLove Female 18-29
    187 posts
    October 2, 2007 at 10:57 pm
    ah see, I don`t care that much to have a row with someone.

    Devolution was a bad term to use. By Devolution I mean that rather than evolving into a more complex organism, one evolves into a less complex organism.

    It was just my personal (and I will admit uneducated) opinion.

    As for the person who made the digs at me being an idiot:
    It is rather perplexing that you would venture so far as to make a guess at my intelligence from a single post on a dinky little internet site.
    If you must know. (and I know that you will not believe me) I scored a 130 on the Stanford-Binet IQ test.

  96. Profile photo of BangYourDead
    BangYourDead Female 13-17
    158 posts
    October 2, 2007 at 11:54 pm
    that was pretty sweet.
  97. Profile photo of Suicism
    Suicism Male 18-29
    3625 posts
    October 3, 2007 at 6:04 am
    Ha ha, I think I recognize your writing-style up there, Mr. `unnamed poster -` it`s been doing that to me lately as well.

    Broadway, cut "Lost_in_time" some slack, eh? He went through great pains assuring everybody that the post in question wasn`t directed towards any particular individual, especially you!

  98. Profile photo of unintrasting
    unintrasting Female 18-29
    1121 posts
    October 3, 2007 at 8:07 pm
    that was pretty cool but i can`t imagne how a bird would turn into a bear or imagine a dinosaur walking around on its knees..
  99. Profile photo of NumbuhZero
    NumbuhZero Female 18-29
    878 posts
    October 4, 2007 at 8:12 pm
    That kind of art creeps me out.
    Just the way it`s drawn.
    Like.
    I don`t know.
  100. Profile photo of BlueAdept
    BlueAdept Male 18-29
    75 posts
    October 4, 2007 at 8:51 pm
    lol I`m retarded? As this is coming from a 13-17 yr old, I won`t take offense. Like Broadwaylove(and I actually kinda don`t want to mention it, cause it`s so similar that it may appear I`m being spurious) all the I.Q. tests I`ve taken have put me in the 120-140 range. So my intelligence is not in question, merely what I believe.

    You tell me how the woodpecker, or how the human eye evolved(and that`s only a couple of the many things evolution can`t explain), and I`ll back Evolution. Until then, I`ll believe what I`ve found to be the most logical explanation.

  101. Profile photo of wtfstoner55
    wtfstoner55 Male 13-17
    167 posts
    October 5, 2007 at 8:02 am
    heh... my I.Q tests say 155 to 160... I say you`re wrong Blue Adept. Evolution is true and I go with that guy who said once they can prove how to make a cell, evolution is set in stone, pretty much. Did anyone else notice that the pictures were perfect, but they had been put together from different pictures? If you look at the rail on the bridge, you`ll see that it must be different photos taken from different angles, yet the graffiti matches up perfectly. And all this evolution v creationist crap, if you`re happy in blindly following something that covered its ass by saying "god is mysterious, you can`t prove or disprove that" you can`t go ridiculing evolution because it`s "just a theory" and may be wrong. I believe it`s right, because scientist made an informed decision on it, not decided to tell some people stories that they had no idea would have such a big effect. Go watch that episode of Penn and Teller: Bullpoo on Creationism.
  102. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 5, 2007 at 4:38 pm
    "You tell me how the woodpecker, or how the human eye evolved..."

    That you even need ask how the human eye evolved puts you rather in a bad position. This is a popular case for creationists to refer to because they cannot even conceive of how the development of an eye can be broken down into a step-by-step process. It`s been done before and I`m not an optometrist but if you really wanted an answer, I can direct you towards those who can, yes, fully defend evolution`s processes in respect to the eye.

    What you`re not considering is really how simple the eye indeed is. If an omnipotent being (God) designed the eye, why did it only enable the eye to process light radiation from such a limited spectrum? Wouldn`t an omnipotent, caring being want its creation to have the best sight possible? Creationism just doesn`t add up.

  103. Profile photo of BlueAdept
    BlueAdept Male 18-29
    75 posts
    October 8, 2007 at 3:44 pm
    Even disregarding the human eye(which I have never heard anyone prove for evolution...it is not so simple as you think), there are too many things that don`t work with Evolution for me to ever follow it.

    And speaking of following, I`m willing to bet that there as many "blind" followers of Evolution as there are of Creationism. But that doesn`t make me one of them, as hopefully this points out. I`ve asked myself all the questions, I`ve thought of things through both viewpoints and still Creationism makes more sense.

    That`s not to say I`m going to condemn you guys and tell you that you`re all going to Hell...I keep an open mind. Too many people take the stereotypical `holier-than-thou, look down my nose at every other belief` as the way all Christians act, and I`m certainly not like that.

  104. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 9, 2007 at 12:11 pm
    "Even disregarding the human eye(which I have never heard anyone prove for evolution...it is not so simple as you think)"

    It`s not as complex as you think. Anything can be broken down to its sum parts but in doing so we`ll only find that some parts rely upon others to work. All this means is that those structures existed before the others were formed upon them and so on and so forth. Anyone who says it`s too complicated hasn`t either done adequate research or is deliberately neglecting the potency of evolution.

    "And speaking of following, I`m willing to bet that there as many `blind` followers of Evolution as there are of Creationism."

    Of course. This is nothing new. But do note that the validity and truthfulness of an argument is mutually exclusive from how many people happen to accept it. History is filled with so many former popular ideas (supported by the majority) that have since been debunked by science.

  105. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 9, 2007 at 12:15 pm
    "...and I`m certainly not like that."

    That is certainly appreciated, but I don`t feel you are keeping as open a mind as you claim to.

    Think about this: an omnipotent being creates a creature with the intention of that creature being in his (omnipotent being`s) image. One would then conclude that this being would want to make that creature as perfect as possible so as to adequately reflect his (omnipotent being`s) image, assuming of course that this being is vain, which is a fair assumption to make if we further assume this is the Judeo-Christian God found in the Bible. Okay. So why, indeed, is the creature not perfect? Why do we need myelin sheaths around our neurons to help send signals when a perfect being shouldn`t need such support? Why does protein production require multiple STOP codes rather than just one?

  106. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 9, 2007 at 12:19 pm
    To me it makes more sense that, yes, we were shaped and developed by the environment and yes, in that sense, *designed* from the environment, but that this designing is necessarily *unintelligent*. Life has every appearance of having been designed step-wise and unintelligently, with each further development thus enabling yet further development, which builds upon itself again and again to form an organism. It`s useful thinking of ourselves as nothing more than the sum of an arrangement of groups of different cells that perform different yet complimentary functions.

    I fear perhaps your rejection of evolution stems from, *perhaps*, your misinterpretation of it, and so I would ask that you explain, in your own words, what you feel evolution is.

  107. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 9, 2007 at 12:21 pm
    On final note: *why* and on what grounds do you consider the eye too complex? Surely you can present some physiological evidence and knowledge that backs up that claim? I feel you`re just regurgitating what you`ve been told by the popular religion community or a pastor. (Ted Haggard made the same claim that the eye is seemingly impossible without intelligent design and has actually, albeit unwittingly, demonstrated he knows next to nothing of the processes of evolution.)
  108. Profile photo of BlueAdept
    BlueAdept Male 18-29
    75 posts
    October 10, 2007 at 11:40 pm
    *sigh* Where to begin...to save myself time and space, I`ll point you to this video which does a fairly good, if not complete take on the complexity of the eye. It might not prove the existence of God as the title states, but it proves the complexity of the eye.

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/380760/does_god_exist_the_eye/

    Now about God and Us. There`s nothing to state that God is vain. He created us in His image, yes, but there is nothing that says He wanted us to be perfect. If we were to be perfect, we would be the same as God, and that`s not what He was trying to do. And there has been no human who has existed without myelin sheaths and stop codes and such, so who is to say a perfect human wouldn`t need them or at the least, have them? There is no comparison.

  109. Profile photo of BlueAdept
    BlueAdept Male 18-29
    75 posts
    October 10, 2007 at 11:41 pm
    My thoughts on what evolution is? It is a process over a long period of time that a given organism participates in that takes that organism from a state of relative simplicity to a more complex state, through things such as natural selection and mutation.

    Now, I will say this…parts of evolution are correct. A simple example – if two tall people have a kid, that kid is very likely to be tall. The same can be said for if two short people have a child. That is a semi-example of Natural selection, taking out that there really is no obvious advantage to being tall over being short. Since we still have short people in the world, we see that as true.

  110. Profile photo of BlueAdept
    BlueAdept Male 18-29
    75 posts
    October 10, 2007 at 11:41 pm
    But just because parts of evolution have validity to them does not make it wholly correct. The chance that this whole planet, whole universe was created by coincidence, that my (rather remarkable, if I do say so myself lol) body was a product of time…I don’t care how long it took, the chance that all this could come together just so, is too infinitesimal.

    An atheist friend of mine once told me that he wished he could have the faith I do to believe in God, but in my mind, it takes much greater faith to believe in the minute chances represented by evolution.

  111. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 12, 2007 at 12:53 pm
    "It might not prove the existence of God as the title states, but it proves the complexity of the eye."

    We already *know* the eye is complex, as is all life. The question is not whether it is complex, but whether said complexity could have arisen in nature without intelligent interference. According the evolution, the answer to that question is yes.

    "If we were to be perfect, we would be the same as God, and that`s not what He was trying to do."

    If God wanted us to be created in His image, then, yes, we would be the same as God. As you have and I have already pointed out, we are not, and so there exists a paradox, or at least a contradiction. Let me guess: that part of the Bible wasn`t literal either?

  112. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 12, 2007 at 12:56 pm
    "And there has been no human who has existed without myelin sheaths and stop codes and such, so who is to say a perfect human wouldn`t need them or at the least, have them?"

    You just implied no human is perfect, which reinforces the contradiction in my previous post.

    "It is a process over a long period of time that a given organism participates in that takes that organism from a state of relative simplicity to a more complex state, through things such as natural selection and mutation."

    Your definition should negate why you think the complexity of the eye is incompatible with evolution. If indeed evolution is capable of transferring organisms to a higher state of complexity, why couldn`t evolution apply the same principle to the eye?

  113. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 12, 2007 at 1:00 pm
    "A simple example – if two tall people have a kid, that kid is very likely to be tall."

    BlueAdept, please. That`s not evolution, that`s genetics. If two parents are heterozygous for the genes that determine a tall or short phenotype, then theoretically 1/4 of their children will be short. Genetics is responsible for why we have variation, but it is not responsible for why there exists a wild-type of each organism, which is attributed to natural selection which *does* fall directly under the domain of evolution. You should educate yourself some more.

    "That is a semi-example of Natural selection"

    It`s not even "semi".

    "But just because parts of evolution have validity to them does not make it wholly correct."

    Agreed, except that the greater parts of evolution have not as of yet been proven false, therefore it is accepted as true. This is how science works.

  114. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 12, 2007 at 1:07 pm
    "The chance that this whole planet, whole universe was created by coincidence..."

    It`s convenient to think of the universe as having been developed by coincidence but it`s not strictly coincidence. Coincidence implies that the universe contains a vast range of possibilities and that we happened to form from an endless chain of accidents. This is *not* so. Every event or process the universe undergoes limits the succeeding results in a linear fashion.

  115. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 12, 2007 at 1:08 pm
    "...it takes much greater faith to believe in the minute chances represented by evolution."

    Evolution does *not* depend on chance but rather processes that are in turn limited by other processes. We didn`t *happen* to come together as we did; the processes that preceded us simply made it an inevitability.

  116. Profile photo of Overmann
    Overmann Male 18-29
    2600 posts
    October 12, 2007 at 1:11 pm
    Addendum: Note that my Genetics example implies only two alleles determining height. Multiple alleles will skew the probability accordingly.

Leave a Reply