Are we as a society too quick to believe ...

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:27 pm

Some of the things we read in Quack media groups like the daily mail?...

While some things are true or have at least some credibility, many are not.

The daily mail claims the first person ever has died of overdosing solely on Cannabis from some doctor, now they claim it kills 30,000 a year in the UK!

As we know, cannabis alone can not kill, only if other drugs or alcohol are also consumed, now we have these outrageous claims being made that alkali kills cancer cells...

Where is it going to stop?, it wouldn't surprise me if some gadgie were to claim that drain cleaner could kill cancer, sadly some are taken in by much of this nonsense.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:30 pm

we chose what we want to believe, we chose what we accept as reasonable evidence and what we will dismiss, everything we believe is our choice, made from what we want to believe and what we don't and what we chose to dismiss if it conflicts with that choice..

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:32 pm

They have to report cannabis is killing people to put people of using it and getting cured of cancer , that cant happen now can it Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:32 pm

The fact is Joy - if you care to follow up on the research alluded to in Mail stories that 2 young men in Germany have had full autopsies done and nothing was found - they died of heart arrhythmia and the only substance found in full tox screens was cannabis - which can indeed cause hear arrythmia.

Cannabis may be a contributory factor in 30,000 deaths but not the direct cause - although the evidence from Germany is that it is possible for it to be a direct cause.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:38 pm

VOD(original) wrote:They have to report cannabis is killing people to put people of using it and getting cured of cancer , that cant happen now can it

thats true... Smile

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:40 pm

Unfortunately for a chap I used to know the whole cannabis cures cancer thing turned out to be untrue - he regularly took cannabis and when he made the decision to stop chemo because it was not working he continued with the cannabis. He still died.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:41 pm

sphinx wrote:Unfortunately for a chap I used to know the whole cannabis cures cancer thing turned out to be untrue - he regularly took cannabis and when he made the decision to stop chemo because it was not working he continued with the cannabis. He still died.

and many with chemo still die, perhaps the chemo did its job first and left no cure.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:45 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
sphinx wrote:Unfortunately for a chap I used to know the whole cannabis cures cancer thing turned out to be untrue - he regularly took cannabis and when he made the decision to stop chemo because it was not working he continued with the cannabis. He still died.

and many with chemo still die, perhaps the chemo did its job first and left no cure.

Chemo has also saved the life of many with no real alternative,and at least bought others some precious time.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:49 pm

There are at least 4 people in my road who are alive only because of chemo. Without it they would be dead.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:54 pm

sphinx wrote:There are at least 4 people in my road who are alive only because of chemo. Without it they would be dead.

and who is to say those four would not be alive anyway, do you have some sort of crystal ball...

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:57 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
sphinx wrote:There are at least 4 people in my road who are alive only because of chemo. Without it they would be dead.

and who is to say those four would not be alive anyway, do you have some sort of crystal ball...

Hmm let me see - they were ill, then seriously ill, getting worse, then took chemo, then got better.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:58 pm

at least 10 people i know are dead because of chemo my cousin is slowly dying of a brain tumor and is receiving chemo and radiotherapy , his weight has doubled because the radiotherapy is destroying his pituitary gland and he is in a wheelchair like a vegetable .

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:59 pm

sphinx wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

and who is to say those four would not be alive anyway, do you have some sort of crystal ball...

Hmm let me see - they were ill, then seriously ill, getting worse, then took chemo, then got better.

and lets see could they have been prayed for and that made it better... Smile

if they had not took any treatment would they have got better... Smile

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:07 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:we chose what we want to believe, we chose what we accept as reasonable evidence and what we will dismiss, everything we believe is our choice, made from what we want to believe and what we don't and what we chose to dismiss if it conflicts with that choice..

While we do choose what to believe, we go about it differently. Some people choose to accept claims that are supported by logic and evidence, while others choose to believe things that make them feel better.

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:09 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
sphinx wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

and who is to say those four would not be alive anyway, do you have some sort of crystal ball...

Hmm let me see - they were ill, then seriously ill, getting worse, then took chemo, then got better.

and lets see could they have been prayed for and that made it better...

if they had not took any treatment would they have got better...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16569567

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:11 pm

sphinx wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

and who is to say those four would not be alive anyway, do you have some sort of crystal ball...

Hmm let me see - they were ill, then seriously ill, getting worse, then took chemo, then got better.

That's it Sphinx, it's the best chance for folk who have no other option and if it were one of mine, I would be urging them to go for it if certain death was on the cards anyway.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:12 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
sphinx wrote:There are at least 4 people in my road who are alive only because of chemo. Without it they would be dead.

and who is to say those four would not be alive anyway, do you have some sort of crystal ball...

...well sure as fcuk God's not gonna see them, and extremely unlikely it will just go away ffs.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:12 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:we chose what we want to believe, we chose what we accept as reasonable evidence and what we will dismiss, everything we believe is our choice, made from what we want to believe and what we don't and what we chose to dismiss if it conflicts with that choice..

While we do choose what to believe, we go about it differently. Some people choose to accept claims that are supported by logic and evidence, while others choose to believe things that make them feel better.

they chose to dismiss what they do not agree with..

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:13 pm

VOD(original) wrote:at least 10 people i know are dead because of chemo my cousin is slowly dying of a brain tumor and is receiving chemo and radiotherapy , his weight has doubled because the radiotherapy is destroying his pituitary gland and he is in a wheelchair like a vegetable .

...sorry to hear that, but without chemo they would be dead anyway.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:14 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:we chose what we want to believe, we chose what we accept as reasonable evidence and what we will dismiss, everything we believe is our choice, made from what we want to believe and what we don't and what we chose to dismiss if it conflicts with that choice..

While we do choose what to believe, we go about it differently. Some people choose to accept claims that are supported by logic and evidence, while others choose to believe things that make them feel better.

Absolutely correct Ben.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:15 pm

Nobody should be advising people not to receive chemo, the doctors know better than them.

by Ben Reilly Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:16 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:we chose what we want to believe, we chose what we accept as reasonable evidence and what we will dismiss, everything we believe is our choice, made from what we want to believe and what we don't and what we chose to dismiss if it conflicts with that choice..

While we do choose what to believe, we go about it differently. Some people choose to accept claims that are supported by logic and evidence, while others choose to believe things that make them feel better.

they chose to dismiss what they do not agree with..

You're actually that type, GIG -- you don't agree with evolution, for example, so you choose to dismiss the vast evidence for it.

If you or anyone else could prove the existence of God, I'd accept your evidence.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:24 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

they chose to dismiss what they do not agree with..

You're actually that type, GIG -- you don't agree with evolution, for example, so you choose to dismiss the vast evidence for it.

If you or anyone else could prove the existence of God, I'd accept your evidence.

Me too...I go with what is proven , not myth or fantasy...

We had a guy called Fatihah on ADO, who swore evolution was nonsense and that the earth was flat, when it gets as bad as that I just say....PPPFFFTTT! Laughing

Jesus was a pot head btw.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:27 pm

Oh god I am going to be hated for this but

While the evidence for micro-evolution (changes within a species) is solid and proven the evidence for macro evolution (the change of one species into a completely different species) is far far far more scarce and amounts to little more than speculation.

I say this not as faith based believer but as someone who simply believes that science has of yet barely scratched the surface - evolution while an essential process is not on its own anywhere near the whole answer the same way the firing of a spark plug in an engine is essential but only a part of the whole running of the engine.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:43 pm

sphinx wrote:Oh god I am going to be hated for this but

While the evidence for micro-evolution (changes within a species) is solid and proven the evidence for macro evolution (the change of one species into a completely different species) is far far far more scarce and amounts to little more than speculation.

I say this not as faith based believer but as someone who simply believes that science has of yet barely scratched the surface - evolution while an essential process is not on its own anywhere near the whole answer the same way the firing of a spark plug in an engine is essential but only a part of the whole running of the engine.

you are quite right sphinx, we do see evolution on a micro scale, it seems to be within set parameters, to a different species is never seen...

thats where the faith is required to accept evolution... Smile

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:51 pm

Joy Division wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:at least 10 people i know are dead because of chemo my cousin is slowly dying of a brain tumor and is receiving chemo and radiotherapy , his weight has doubled because the radiotherapy is destroying his pituitary gland and he is in a wheelchair like a vegetable .

...sorry to hear that, but without chemo they would be dead anyway.

But the chemo just stole what life they had left to live anyway so all is well, they could have lived the same length of time without losing their hair and being constantly sick, but at least they had the chemo which makes it okay doesn't it , i remember the last time i saw my uncle, he was laid dying no hair no energy and he said to my auntie sitting there holding his hand, ' if i knew what suffering this treatment would cause i wouldn't have agreed to it because i am nearly dead anyway '

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 7:56 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

they chose to dismiss what they do not agree with..

You're actually that type, GIG -- you don't agree with evolution, for example, so you choose to dismiss the vast evidence for it.

If you or anyone else could prove the existence of God, I'd accept your evidence.

evidence that is proving to fail to cure more often than it cures, evidence based on scientific testing and stll failing. Yeah that's great results

by eddie Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:03 pm

All,I know is simply this:

My dad had cancer.
He felt ok until he had secondary cancer.
He had chemo.
He felt very ill throughout the first two lots of chemo.
He had a scan and the chemo was killing off the cancer.
He had his third, and last bout of chemo.
He fell,very ill, potassium levels dangerously low (due to the stupidity of the doctor who gave him tablets that clashed terribly with his high blood-pressure tablets, that's another story!)
He died of chemo poisoning.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:13 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

...sorry to hear that, but without chemo they would be dead anyway.

But the chemo just stole what life they had left to live anyway so all is well, they could have lived the same length of time without losing their hair and being constantly sick, but at least they had the chemo which makes it okay doesn't it , i remember the last time i saw my uncle, he was laid dying no hair no energy and he said to my auntie sitting there holding his hand, ' if i knew what suffering this treatment would cause i wouldn't have agreed to it because i am nearly dead anyway '

..but is it not a person's right to accept or refuse chemo?

And if they choose to , do you think they deserve to be persecuted or insulted because they want chemotherapy for a chance to either live a bit longer or be cured?

Although it may not work for everyone ..
Many people have benefited from chemotherapy ,wouldn't you agree with that?

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:16 pm

eddie wrote:All,I know is simply this:

My dad had cancer.
He felt ok until he had secondary cancer.
He had chemo.
He felt very ill throughout the first two lots of chemo.
He had a scan and the chemo was killing off the cancer.
He had his third, and last bout of chemo.
He fell,very ill, potassium levels dangerously low (due to the stupidity of the doctor who gave him tablets that clashed terribly with his high blood-pressure tablets, that's another story!)
He died of chemo poisoning.

..I'm really sorry for you Eds, chemo is not for everyone...

So many people have such different tolerations, as well as factors like how advanced cancer is and where it is.

by eddie Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:20 pm

Joy Division wrote:
eddie wrote:All,I know is simply this:

My dad had cancer.
He felt ok until he had secondary cancer.
He had chemo.
He felt very ill throughout the first two lots of chemo.
He had a scan and the chemo was killing off the cancer.
He had his third, and last bout of chemo.
He fell,very ill, potassium levels dangerously low (due to the stupidity of the doctor who gave him tablets that clashed terribly with his high blood-pressure tablets, that's another story!)
He died of chemo poisoning.

..I'm really sorry for you Eds, chemo is not for everyone...

So many people have such different tolerations, as well as factors like how advanced cancer is and where it is.

Well I'm not sure JD, I think, personally, had he refused chemo he'd have lived a little longer and as long as his pain was managed, his quality of life possibly could've been better.
We will never know.
Time between diagnosis and death was three months.

I miss him so much.

Thanks for your kind words x

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:26 pm

eddie wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

..I'm really sorry for you Eds, chemo is not for everyone...

So many people have such different tolerations, as well as factors like how advanced cancer is and where it is.

Well I'm not sure JD, I think, personally, had he refused chemo he'd have lived a little longer and as long as his pain was managed, his quality of life possibly could've been better.
We will never know.
Time between diagnosis and death was three months.

I miss him so much.

Thanks for your kind words x

That's so sad Eds, I think what you have said probably is right, in that the chemo had hastened his passing over , in a way it's possibly just terrible luck ...as patronising as that sounds Eds, it could have also gone the other way, which I really wish it had for you,my our family and of course your dad.

It's either the cruel or kind hand Eds , and again that also sounds patronising Eds, bit I'm just calling it the way it is , we just don't know what chemo will or will not bring x

by eddie Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:31 pm

Joy Division wrote:
eddie wrote:

Well I'm not sure JD, I think, personally, had he refused chemo he'd have lived a little longer and as long as his pain was managed, his quality of life possibly could've been better.
We will never know.
Time between diagnosis and death was three months.

I miss him so much.

Thanks for your kind words x

That's so sad Eds, I think what you have said probably is right, in that the chemo had hastened his passing over , in a way it's possibly just terrible luck ...as patronising as that sounds Eds, it could have also gone the other way, which I really wish it had for you,my our family and of course your dad.

It's either the cruel or kind hand Eds , and again that also sounds patronising Eds, bit I'm just calling it the way it is , we just don't know what chemo will or will not bring x

Oh I know JD. There's no point in thrashing it over either.
Just hope a cure is found for this horrid disease x

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:36 pm

eddie wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

That's so sad Eds, I think what you have said probably is right, in that the chemo had hastened his passing over , in a way it's possibly just terrible luck ...as patronising as that sounds Eds, it could have also gone the other way, which I really wish it had for you,my our family and of course your dad.

It's either the cruel or kind hand Eds , and again that also sounds patronising Eds, bit I'm just calling it the way it is , we just don't know what chemo will or will not bring x

Oh I know JD. There's no point in thrashing it over either.
Just hope a cure is found for this horrid disease x

..totally agree Eds, I sometimes try to buy something out of the cancer charity shop, just to make a wee difference, and I gladly give something to collectors at the supermarkets too, can you imagine Eds,if most people gave say even £2 a month to cancer charities ,how far on scientists would progress to a cure?..even though billions have already been spent?x

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:47 pm

The trouble is some cancers get more research than others - look at that "shock" advert by the girl with pancreatic cancer "wish I had breast cancer" - she was dead within 6 weeks of that.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:49 pm

sphinx wrote:The trouble is some cancers get more research than others - look at that "shock" advert by the girl with pancreatic cancer "wish I had breast cancer" - she was dead within 6 weeks of that.

...isn't it the most common cancers which receive more funding for research Sphinx ?

by eddie Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:54 pm

Joy Division wrote:
eddie wrote:

Oh I know JD. There's no point in thrashing it over either.
Just hope a cure is found for this horrid disease x

..totally agree Eds, I sometimes try to buy something out of the cancer charity shop, just to make a wee difference, and I gladly give something to collectors at the supermarkets too, can you imagine Eds,if most people gave say even £2 a month to cancer charities ,how far on scientists would progress to a cure?..even though billions have already been spent?x

Yes it's my main charity of choice.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:07 pm

Joy Division wrote:
sphinx wrote:The trouble is some cancers get more research than others - look at that "shock" advert by the girl with pancreatic cancer "wish I had breast cancer" - she was dead within 6 weeks of that.

...isn't it the most common cancers which receive more funding for research Sphinx ?

Not completely - its actually the gender specific cancers (when was the last time you saw a campaign to raise research money for lung or bowel cancers - both common) Breast and cervical in women testicular and prostate in men (the male cancer groups copied the highly successful female cancer tactics).

The thing is if you had to have cancer but could choose what variant would you choose one with an 80% survival at 5 years or with less than 10%?

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:11 pm

Joy Division wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:

But the chemo just stole what life they had left to live anyway so all is well, they could have lived the same length of time without losing their hair and being constantly sick, but at least they had the chemo which makes it okay doesn't it , i remember the last time i saw my uncle, he was laid dying no hair no energy and he said to my auntie sitting there holding his hand, ' if i knew what suffering this treatment would cause i wouldn't have agreed to it because i am nearly dead anyway '

..but is it not a person's right to accept or refuse chemo?

And if they choose to , do you think they deserve to be persecuted or insulted because they want chemotherapy for a chance to either live a bit longer or be cured?

Although it may not work for everyone ..
Many people have benefited from chemotherapy ,wouldn't you agree with that?

I have never persecuted or insulted anyone who has had chemo , people accept what the doctors tell them and i do agree that some people get cured from chemo but it isn't many and certainly not in my family , you missed the point JD living a bit longer with vomiting daily lack of appetite , no energy , what;s the point in that and what life is that ?

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:14 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

..but is it not a person's right to accept or refuse chemo?

And if they choose to , do you think they deserve to be persecuted or insulted because they want chemotherapy for a chance to either live a bit longer or be cured?

Although it may not work for everyone ..
Many people have benefited from chemotherapy ,wouldn't you agree with that?

I have never persecuted or insulted anyone who has had chemo , people accept what the doctors tell them and i do agree that some people get cured from chemo but it isn't many and certainly not in my family , you missed the point JD living a bit longer with vomiting daily lack of appetite , no energy , what;s the point in that and what life is that ?

I agree VOD that some people are far worse with the chemo...but it is their choice and we should not advise them what to do, that is their decision just as it would be yours if you were in that terrible situation.

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:17 pm

Joy Division wrote:
VOD(original) wrote:

I have never persecuted or insulted anyone who has had chemo , people accept what the doctors tell them and i do agree that some people get cured from chemo but it isn't many and certainly not in my family , you missed the point JD living a bit longer with vomiting daily lack of appetite , no energy , what;s the point in that and what life is that ?

I agree VOD that some people are far worse with the chemo...but it is their choice and we should not advise them what to do, that is their decision just as it would be yours if you were in that terrible situation.

Nobody is advising against chemotherapy and it is their decision and sometimes it turns out positive with a remission and i say wonderful and coudlnt be happier, , but i really feel that alternative treatments don't get tested because the pharma companies can't make enough money out of them .

by Guest Sat Mar 15, 2014 9:19 pm

VOD(original) wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

I agree VOD that some people are far worse with the chemo...but it is their choice and we should not advise them what to do, that is their decision just as it would be yours if you were in that terrible situation.

Nobody is advising against chemotherapy and it is their decision and sometimes it turns out positive with a remission and i say wonderful and coudlnt be happier, , but i really feel that alternative treatments don't get tested because the pharma companies can't make enough money out of them .

I agree about the drug companies VOD, they seem money hungry, what drug would you say that guarantees a better outcome than chemo?

by Lone Wolf Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:28 am

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
we chose what we want to believe, we chose what we accept as reasonable evidence and what we will dismiss, everything we believe is our choice, made from what we want to believe and what we don't and what we chose to dismiss if it conflicts with that choice..

YOU really are 'a laugh a minute', oh heavenly_goof-off !!!

NOT ONLY do you have less-than-zero understanding of the basic concepts underlying rational thinking, logic-based observations, and facts-based evidence ~ you constantly not only keep on rejecting the truth, but also continue your wrong-minded efforts at re-defining these terms to suit your own ongoing lie-mongering and online quackery..

YOU really should have stayed in school past Year 9, heavenly' ! :/pwn://:

by Lone Wolf Sun Mar 16, 2014 3:38 am

VOD(original) wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:
You're actually that type, GIG -- you don't agree with evolution, for example, so you choose to dismiss the vast evidence for it.

If you or anyone else could prove the existence of God, I'd accept your evidence.

evidence that is proving to fail to cure more often than it cures, evidence based on scientific testing and stll failing....

DVO once again demonstrated the total lack of any of the sciences in her sparsely uneducated background...

NEXT the nasty little vixen will falsely accuse me of "trolling and spamming" on here, if she sees this..

HER constant libels against other members on the forum, only showing up her gross ignorance on even the most common internet terms ! :-:bravo:-:

by Original Quill Sun Mar 16, 2014 5:04 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

they chose to dismiss what they do not agree with..

You're actually that type, GIG -- you don't agree with evolution, for example, so you choose to dismiss the vast evidence for it.

If you or anyone else could prove the existence of God, I'd accept your evidence.

Evidence? You mean like, paw prints in the clouds? Bigfoot in the sky?

Can't wait.

by Ben Reilly Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:32 am

sphinx wrote:Oh god I am going to be hated for this but

While the evidence for micro-evolution (changes within a species) is solid and proven the evidence for macro evolution (the change of one species into a completely different species) is far far far more scarce and amounts to little more than speculation.

I say this not as faith based believer but as someone who simply believes that science has of yet barely scratched the surface - evolution while an essential process is not on its own anywhere near the whole answer the same way the firing of a spark plug in an engine is essential but only a part of the whole running of the engine.

Not hated at all, but have you delved into the research being done on the molecular and sub-molecular level on evolution?

There's a reason we know that we have at least 98 percent of our genome in common with the chimpanzee, to name one example. That isn't speculation at all -- it's solid evidence.

by Guest Sun Mar 16, 2014 8:48 am

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:Oh god I am going to be hated for this but

While the evidence for micro-evolution (changes within a species) is solid and proven the evidence for macro evolution (the change of one species into a completely different species) is far far far more scarce and amounts to little more than speculation.

I say this not as faith based believer but as someone who simply believes that science has of yet barely scratched the surface - evolution while an essential process is not on its own anywhere near the whole answer the same way the firing of a spark plug in an engine is essential but only a part of the whole running of the engine.

Not hated at all, but have you delved into the research being done on the molecular and sub-molecular level on evolution?

There's a reason we know that we have at least 98 percent of our genome in common with the chimpanzee, to name one example. That isn't speculation at all -- it's solid evidence.

Again micro evolution - which I have already said is solid and proven.

What we do not have is the differentiation of species - and there is always that elephant in the room of transitional species.

Like I said I am not rubbishing what we do know and are finding out it is simply my belief that we have judged it more complete than it actually is and assumed it is all there is when the reality is going to be it is only one part.

by Guest Sun Mar 16, 2014 11:06 am

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

Not hated at all, but have you delved into the research being done on the molecular and sub-molecular level on evolution?

There's a reason we know that we have at least 98 percent of our genome in common with the chimpanzee, to name one example. That isn't speculation at all -- it's solid evidence.

Again micro evolution - which I have already said is solid and proven.

What we do not have is the differentiation of species - and there is always that elephant in the room of transitional species.

Like I said I am not rubbishing what we do know and are finding out it is simply my belief that we have judged it more complete than it actually is and assumed it is all there is when the reality is going to be it is only one part.

it is very true that the fossil record of transitional species is extremely lacking to say the least, this is why punctuated equilibrium was invented..

we do not see species in transition in the world either, it is as if someone set parameters to keep species separate or bound to be unchangeable.

by veya_victaous Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:19 pm

Godisgoodallthetime wrote:
sphinx wrote:Oh god I am going to be hated for this but

While the evidence for micro-evolution (changes within a species) is solid and proven the evidence for macro evolution (the change of one species into a completely different species) is far far far more scarce and amounts to little more than speculation.

I say this not as faith based believer but as someone who simply believes that science has of yet barely scratched the surface - evolution while an essential process is not on its own anywhere near the whole answer the same way the firing of a spark plug in an engine is essential but only a part of the whole running of the engine.

you are quite right sphinx, we do see evolution on a micro scale, it seems to be within set parameters, to a different species is never seen...

thats where the faith is required to accept evolution...

BULLSHIT
the White tailed Tree Rat HAS EVOLVED in the Past 200 years was not here before Europeans arrived and is an New species that has adapted to live in the Daintree rainforest of Northern Queensland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_white-tailed_rat

by Guest Sun Mar 16, 2014 9:22 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Godisgoodallthetime wrote:

you are quite right sphinx, we do see evolution on a micro scale, it seems to be within set parameters, to a different species is never seen...

thats where the faith is required to accept evolution...

BULLSHIT
the White tailed Tree Rat HAS EVOLVED in the Past 200 years was not here before Europeans arrived and is an New species that has adapted to live in the Daintree rainforest of Northern Queensland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_white-tailed_rat

has it evolved from a completely different species??

by Sponsored content