# Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?



## Mr.Right

I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.

*fact*

\ˈfakt\_noun_
: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information

*Full Definition*
1
*:*a thing done: as

a _obsolete_ *:*feat

b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>

c _archaic_ *:*action
2
_archaic_ *:*performance, doing
3
*:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
4
a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>

b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
5
*:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— *in fact

Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*


----------



## william the wie

You think the koolaid drinkers think or examine data that does not conform to their preconceptions?


----------



## S.J.

The only fact about evolution is that it is not based on facts.


----------



## cnm

So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?


----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?


Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?


Don't change the subject.  Provide your evidence or get lost.


----------



## cnm

You do know that scientific theories are never categorised as fact?

That they represent the current best available knowledge?

Do you?


----------



## Mr.Right

Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?


----------



## cnm

No worries,  batshit crazy wackos, here you go, five pieces of 'factual' evidence.

_In this article, we look at five simple examples which support the Theory of Evolution. 

by Richard Peacock _

_Five Proofs of Evolution Evolution FAQ

*

1. The universal genetic code*.  All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.





*2. The fossil record.*  The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.


Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.





*3. Genetic commonalities.*  Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past.  And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.





*4. Common traits in embryos.*  Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata.  One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine.  For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.  But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other. 


In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos.  These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.





*5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.*  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.


When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics.  In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic.  This is natural selection in action.  The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not._​


----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> You do know that scientific theories are never categorised as fact?
> 
> That they represent the current best available knowledge?
> 
> Do you?


So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.


----------



## cnm

I accept you can't tell the difference between a theory and evidence. That's why you're batshit crazy.


----------



## TheOldSchool




----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> No worries,  batshit crazy wackos, here you go, five pieces of factual evidence.
> 
> _In this article, we look at five simple examples which support the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> by Richard Peacock _
> 
> _Five Proofs of Evolution Evolution FAQ
> 
> *
> 
> 1. The universal genetic code*.  All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The fossil record.*  The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
> 
> 
> Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3. Genetic commonalities.*  Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past.  And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. Common traits in embryos.*  Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata.  One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine.  For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.  But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
> 
> 
> In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos.  These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.*  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.
> 
> 
> When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics.  In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic.  This is natural selection in action.  The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not._​


1) It could just as easily be argued that all life was created by the same Crearor. Sorry. This is nothing but an assumption.

2)  the fissil record is a joke. How do you explain a fossilized tree, standing upright, in two different geological strata? There are many other problems with the fossil record that even many scientists in the field admit too. Besides, the fossil record must be interpreted, and therefore is not a fact.

3) similar DNA means only that. It does not explain why it's similar. And our genetic resemblance to monkeys is an illusion. Our Y chromosomes are so different that they show no relation. This supposed resemblance is nothing but a flat out consstruct and a falsehood.

4) I don't have time to debunk all of those, so I'll just select two that I can destroy off the top of my head. Those embryonic gills and the tail. The gills are actually the baby's ribs. This is a medical fact. Look it up. The tail is the babies spine. It developed faster the the rest of the fetus, and simply resembles a tail. In other words, it's just more make believe.

5) the old story of bacterial resistance through evolution. What a crock. Here's what really happens. Bacteria do not become resistant through evolution. What really happens is that they lose the ability to ingest the antiviotics. This is actually devolution. The exact opposite. This is also a medical fact.

Got anything else? I'm just getting warmed up.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Got anything else? I'm just getting warmed up.


You asked for evidence, evidence is supplied, your invincible ignorance ignores it. You are not warmed up, you are batshit crazy.


----------



## TheOldSchool




----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got anything else? I'm just getting warmed up.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for evidence, evidence is supplied, your invincible ignorance ignores it. You are not warmed up, you are batshit crazy.
Click to expand...

So your argument is simply that I'm crazy because I don't agree with you. Got it. I might take you seriously if you could refute anything I said. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting.


----------



## TheOldSchool

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got anything else? I'm just getting warmed up.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for evidence, evidence is supplied, your invincible ignorance ignores it. You are not warmed up, you are batshit crazy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So your argument is simply that I'm crazy because I don't agree with you. Got it. I might take you seriously if you could refute anything I said. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting.
Click to expand...

Look it's Mr. Right and CNM:


----------



## Syriusly

cnm said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Got anything else? I'm just getting warmed up.
> 
> 
> 
> You asked for evidence, evidence is supplied, your invincible ignorance ignores it. You are not warmed up, you are batshit crazy.
Click to expand...


Really not much point in providing evidence to the anti-evolutionists- their mindsets cannot evolve. Their faith in the lack of science drives them to reject the science that points to the theory of evolution being correct.


----------



## JakeStarkey

We used to throw the Mr.Rights in our school district out of board meeting because they would stand up and start spouting the Gospel According To The Weirdies.


----------



## Mr. H.

Creation was the wink of an eye, evolution the result of eons.


----------



## MaryL

Your momma, and your daddy and a few million years. Shake them up, and we get you. You aren't  making a case for gay marriage here, are you?


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> So your argument is simply that I'm crazy because I don't agree with you. Got it. I might take you seriously if you could refute anything I said. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting.


No, batshit crazy person, you asked for 'factual' evidence then argued interpretation rather than the fact of the evidence.

Too, it's not me you're disagreeing with but the vast majority of the scientific community. And yes, I think you're absolutely batshit crazy to think your maunderings can stand for a second besides their scholarship.


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?


----------



## cnm

No one can refute anything you say. Invincible ignorance is called invincible ignorance because it is invincible.


----------



## cnm

eots said:


>


Ah. You were the one after the brain, no? You'll have to stand in line behind Mr.Right.


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So your argument is simply that I'm crazy because I don't agree with you. Got it. I might take you seriously if you could refute anything I said. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath waiting.
> 
> 
> 
> No, batshit crazy person, you asked for 'factual' evidence then argued interpretation rather than the fact of the evidence.
> 
> Too, it's not me you're disagreeing with but the vast majority of the scientific community. And yes, I think you're absolutely batshit crazy to think your maunderings can stand for a second besides their scholarship.
Click to expand...

I find those of the scientific atheist religion be laughable in their hubris


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah. You were the one after the brain, no? You'll have to stand in line behind Mr.Right.
Click to expand...


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> I find those of the scientific atheist religion be laughable in their hubris


I shall make a note to wear my ceramic underwear.


----------



## cnm

eots said:


>


I didn't notice you advance an argument.


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice you advance an argument.
Click to expand...

The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it


----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> No one can refute anything you say. Invincible ignorance is called invincible ignorance because it is invincible.


I could say the same thing about you. I have proven that at least a few of the pieces of evidence you presented have been proven to be false. The embryonic gills and the tails. there is no truth to these assertions, as per medical science, yet you cling to them.


----------



## HUGGY

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can refute anything you say. Invincible ignorance is called invincible ignorance because it is invincible.
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about you. I have proven that at least a few of the pieces of evidence you presented have been proven to be false. The embryonic gills and the tails. there is no truth to these assertions, as per medical science, yet you cling to them.
Click to expand...


There is no willful ignorance like religist willful ignorance.  The 9th post offered you in the simplest of terms some of the facts you wanted to see.  At THAT point this thread has been dead and buried yet as the zombies in the "Night of the Living Dead" you still mindlessly wander the earth.  How entertaining.


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it


No scientist claims to understand an infinite universe. I see where you got the strawman idea from.


----------



## Dante

Human Evolution Evidence The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

*Evidence of Evolution*
Scientists have discovered a wealth of evidence concerning human evolution, and this evidence comes in many forms. Thousands of human fossils enable researchers and students to study the changes that occurred in brain and body size, locomotion, diet, and other aspects regarding the way of life of early human species over the past 6 million years. Millions of stone tools, figurines and paintings, footprints, and other traces of human behavior in the prehistoric record tell about where and how early humans lived and when certain technological innovations were invented. Study of human genetics show how closely related we are to other primates – in fact, how connected we are with all other organisms – and can indicate the prehistoric migrations of our species, _Homo sapiens_, all over the world. Advances in the dating of fossils and artifacts help determine the age of those remains, which contributes to the big picture of when different milestones in becoming human evolved.​

anything else?


----------



## TheOldSchool

HUGGY said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one can refute anything you say. Invincible ignorance is called invincible ignorance because it is invincible.
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about you. I have proven that at least a few of the pieces of evidence you presented have been proven to be false. The embryonic gills and the tails. there is no truth to these assertions, as per medical science, yet you cling to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no willful ignorance like religist willful ignorance.  The 9th post offered you in the simplest of terms some of the facts you wanted to see.  At THAT point this thread has been dead and buried yet as the zombies in the "Night of the Living Dead" you still mindlessly wander the earth.  How entertaining.
Click to expand...

He has him on the "tails" and "gills."  The "gills" are NOT slits and are never used for breathing by human embryos.  The "tail" is never used as a tail and is actually just a result of the spine being too long at that stage of development or something like that.

But after that Mr. Right's argument completely collapses, as the structures that are erroneously called "gills" and a "tail" are unmistakably evident in the embryo's of almost every species on the planet.  In some animals those "gills" become actual gills.  In others, like humans, they become something else.  Sort of like how whale embryos show "hind limbs," but those are later reabsorbed to form something else.


----------



## Dante

No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded _within _the great apes.
Genetics The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program​


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> I could say the same thing about you. I have proven that at least a few of the pieces of evidence you presented have been proven to be false. The embryonic gills and the tails. there is no truth to these assertions, as per medical science, yet you cling to them.


You have proven nothing, you have made assertions, you have cited no sources, you have dribbled batshit craziness about 'medical science' while denying other science.


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
> 
> 
> 
> No scientist claims to understand an infinite universe. I see where you got the strawman idea from.
Click to expand...

Thats not true just listen to this atheist prophet and his disciples


----------



## HUGGY

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
> 
> 
> 
> No scientist claims to understand an infinite universe. I see where you got the strawman idea from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats not true just listen to this atheist prophet and his disciples
Click to expand...


Atheists don't have "prophets".  You lose.  Nor are we anyone's disciples. You lose again.


----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about you. I have proven that at least a few of the pieces of evidence you presented have been proven to be false. The embryonic gills and the tails. there is no truth to these assertions, as per medical science, yet you cling to them.
> 
> 
> 
> You have proven nothing, you have made assertions, you have cited no sources, you have dribbled batshit craziness about 'medical science' while denying other science.
Click to expand...

Here's your proof, spanky.
Human embryos never have any gills or any tails - English pravda.ru


----------



## HUGGY

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about you. I have proven that at least a few of the pieces of evidence you presented have been proven to be false. The embryonic gills and the tails. there is no truth to these assertions, as per medical science, yet you cling to them.
> 
> 
> 
> You have proven nothing, you have made assertions, you have cited no sources, you have dribbled batshit craziness about 'medical science' while denying other science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's your proof, spanky.
> Human embryos never have any gills or any tails - English pravda.ru
Click to expand...


You use the most famous lying machine the world has ever seen, "Pravda", as your source.  

WOW!  Just WOW!  Thank you for providing a good reason never to believe anything you ever have to post in the future!


----------



## CultureCitizen

Mr.Right said:


> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*


What would you call the millions of fossils around the world found by the scientific community ?
To me that is enough evidence that evolution and extinction has occured for millions of years.


----------



## eots

HUGGY said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
> 
> 
> 
> No scientist claims to understand an infinite universe. I see where you got the strawman idea from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats not true just listen to this atheist prophet and his disciples
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists don't have "prophets".  You lose.  Nor are we anyone's disciples. You lose again.
Click to expand...

well I would disagree but if you prefer leading spokesperson for organized atheism and his students then fine regardless they claimed exactly what I said claim..so I _win_


----------



## eots

CultureCitizen said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> What would you call the millions of fossils around the world found by the scientific community ?
> To me that is enough evidence that evolution and extinction has occured for millions of years.
Click to expand...

It is enough evidence to prove extinction and adaptation within species..certainly not enough to prove the whole big bang primordial soup theory..


----------



## HUGGY

eots said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
> 
> 
> 
> No scientist claims to understand an infinite universe. I see where you got the strawman idea from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats not true just listen to this atheist prophet and his disciples
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists don't have "prophets".  You lose.  Nor are we anyone's disciples. You lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well I would disagree but if you prefer leading spokesperson for organized atheism and his students then fine regardless they claimed exactly what I said claim..so I _win_
Click to expand...


I am one of the most vocal atheists on USMB and I have never heard of the guy in the video.  I'm not even sure what you mean by "organized atheism"?  There may be a handful of people that like to hear others re-enforce their anti-god viewpoints but seriously, the main point in being an atheist is that we are not in need of satisfying some kind of a "daddy complex".  AKA god and religion.  Me?  I've never so much as visited a website having to do with atheism.  It would be a waste of time...like religion.


----------



## eots

HUGGY said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
> 
> 
> 
> No scientist claims to understand an infinite universe. I see where you got the strawman idea from.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thats not true just listen to this atheist prophet and his disciples
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists don't have "prophets".  You lose.  Nor are we anyone's disciples. You lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well I would disagree but if you prefer leading spokesperson for organized atheism and his students then fine regardless they claimed exactly what I said claim..so I _win_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am one of the most vocal atheists on USMB and I have never heard of the guy in the video.  I'm not even sure what you mean by "organized atheism"?  There may be a handful of people that like to hear others re-enforce their anti-god viewpoints but seriously, the main point in being an atheist is that we are not in need of satisfying some kind of a "daddy complex".  AKA god and religion.  Me?  I've never so much as visited a website having to do with atheism.  It would be a waste of time...like religion.
Click to expand...

You have never heard of Richard Hawkins ? just  go to youtube and type atheist vs....and you will soon see  he is in fact an atheist Icon
atheist vs - YouTube


----------



## eots




----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> No scientist claims to understand an infinite universe. I see where you got the strawman idea from.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not true just listen to this atheist prophet and his disciples
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists don't have "prophets".  You lose.  Nor are we anyone's disciples. You lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well I would disagree but if you prefer leading spokesperson for organized atheism and his students then fine regardless they claimed exactly what I said claim..so I _win_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am one of the most vocal atheists on USMB and I have never heard of the guy in the video.  I'm not even sure what you mean by "organized atheism"?  There may be a handful of people that like to hear others re-enforce their anti-god viewpoints but seriously, the main point in being an atheist is that we are not in need of satisfying some kind of a "daddy complex".  AKA god and religion.  Me?  I've never so much as visited a website having to do with atheism.  It would be a waste of time...like religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never heard of Richard Hawkins ? just  go to youtube and type atheist vs....and you will soon see  he is in fact an atheist Icon
> atheist vs - YouTube
Click to expand...


Erm, that's Dawkins, not Hawkins.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not true just listen to this atheist prophet and his disciples
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists don't have "prophets".  You lose.  Nor are we anyone's disciples. You lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well I would disagree but if you prefer leading spokesperson for organized atheism and his students then fine regardless they claimed exactly what I said claim..so I _win_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am one of the most vocal atheists on USMB and I have never heard of the guy in the video.  I'm not even sure what you mean by "organized atheism"?  There may be a handful of people that like to hear others re-enforce their anti-god viewpoints but seriously, the main point in being an atheist is that we are not in need of satisfying some kind of a "daddy complex".  AKA god and religion.  Me?  I've never so much as visited a website having to do with atheism.  It would be a waste of time...like religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never heard of Richard Hawkins ? just  go to youtube and type atheist vs....and you will soon see  he is in fact an atheist Icon
> atheist vs - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, that's Dawkins, not Hawkins.
Click to expand...

lol...I know, no Idea why I typed Hawkins didn't even notice


----------



## Mr.Right

For those who still doubt, here is a scientific explanation why it is impossible for life to evolve on its own. It's an excerpt from the book "Evolution impossible" it gives 12 reasons why evolution is impossible, and backs it up with science. It's only eight pages long, so even the ones with ADD can get through it
Evolution Impossible 12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of ... - John Ashton - Google Books


----------



## HUGGY

eots said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> No scientist claims to understand an infinite universe. I see where you got the strawman idea from.
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not true just listen to this atheist prophet and his disciples
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Atheists don't have "prophets".  You lose.  Nor are we anyone's disciples. You lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well I would disagree but if you prefer leading spokesperson for organized atheism and his students then fine regardless they claimed exactly what I said claim..so I _win_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am one of the most vocal atheists on USMB and I have never heard of the guy in the video.  I'm not even sure what you mean by "organized atheism"?  There may be a handful of people that like to hear others re-enforce their anti-god viewpoints but seriously, the main point in being an atheist is that we are not in need of satisfying some kind of a "daddy complex".  AKA god and religion.  Me?  I've never so much as visited a website having to do with atheism.  It would be a waste of time...like religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never heard of Richard Hawkins ? just  go to youtube and type atheist vs....and you will soon see  he is in fact an atheist Icon
> atheist vs - YouTube
Click to expand...


I'm sorry.  I thought I made it clear I am not in search of what someone else thinks about the non-existance of a god/gods.  I prefer to think without influence on that subject.  I actually take pride in having come to my own conclusions in that area.  I have NO interest or need to have my private thoughts about some issues contaminated by people who's main interest is self glorification.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> For those who still doubt, here is a scientific explanation why it is impossible for life to evolve on its own. It's an excerpt from the book "Evolution impossible" it gives 12 reasons why evolution is impossible, and backs it up with science. It's only eight pages long, so even the ones with ADD can get through it
> Evolution Impossible 12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of ... - John Ashton - Google Books



My experience with Australian scientists is that they are either brilliant, or totally  off their rocker.  John Ashton fits the latter category.


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who still doubt, here is a scientific explanation why it is impossible for life to evolve on its own. It's an excerpt from the book "Evolution impossible" it gives 12 reasons why evolution is impossible, and backs it up with science. It's only eight pages long, so even the ones with ADD can get through it
> Evolution Impossible 12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of ... - John Ashton - Google Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience with Australian scientists is that they are either brilliant, or totally  off their rocker.  John Ashton fits the latter category.
Click to expand...

You didn't read it, did you? Typical.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who still doubt, here is a scientific explanation why it is impossible for life to evolve on its own. It's an excerpt from the book "Evolution impossible" it gives 12 reasons why evolution is impossible, and backs it up with science. It's only eight pages long, so even the ones with ADD can get through it
> Evolution Impossible 12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of ... - John Ashton - Google Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience with Australian scientists is that they are either brilliant, or totally  off their rocker.  John Ashton fits the latter category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't read it, did you? Typical.
Click to expand...


Yes I have read it.  Ashton, like so many so-called Creationist scholars, are experts at self-deception.  Ashton once declared that even if he could prove to himself that evolution was real, he would have to deny it because of his faith in the scriptures.  And that, sir, just takes my breath away.


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who still doubt, here is a scientific explanation why it is impossible for life to evolve on its own. It's an excerpt from the book "Evolution impossible" it gives 12 reasons why evolution is impossible, and backs it up with science. It's only eight pages long, so even the ones with ADD can get through it
> Evolution Impossible 12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of ... - John Ashton - Google Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience with Australian scientists is that they are either brilliant, or totally  off their rocker.  John Ashton fits the latter category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't read it, did you? Typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I have read it.  Ashton, like so many so-called Creationist scholars, are experts at self-deception.  Ashton once declared that even if he could prove to himself that evolution was real, he would have to deny it because of his faith in the scriptures.  And that, sir, just takes my breath away.
Click to expand...

Link?


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> Thats not true just listen to this atheist prophet and his disciples


You're even crazier than Mr.Right if you think I'm going to watch a 2hr video to make your argument for you. At what point in the vid is the claim to understand an infinite universe made?


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who still doubt, here is a scientific explanation why it is impossible for life to evolve on its own. It's an excerpt from the book "Evolution impossible" it gives 12 reasons why evolution is impossible, and backs it up with science. It's only eight pages long, so even the ones with ADD can get through it
> Evolution Impossible 12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of ... - John Ashton - Google Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience with Australian scientists is that they are either brilliant, or totally  off their rocker.  John Ashton fits the latter category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't read it, did you? Typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I have read it.  Ashton, like so many so-called Creationist scholars, are experts at self-deception.  Ashton once declared that even if he could prove to himself that evolution was real, he would have to deny it because of his faith in the scriptures.  And that, sir, just takes my breath away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
Click to expand...


I have a better idea.  Write him a letter asking him why he has never published a single peer-reviewed work that included these so-called 12 reasons why evolution is impossible.  You realize, of course, that he is not an evolutionary scientist, and has no field training, and very little academic experience in evolutionary biology.  He is a nutritionist.


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> For those who still doubt, here is a scientific explanation why it is impossible for life to evolve on its own. It's an excerpt from the book "Evolution impossible" it gives 12 reasons why evolution is impossible, and backs it up with science. It's only eight pages long, so even the ones with ADD can get through it
> Evolution Impossible 12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain the Origin of ... - John Ashton - Google Books
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My experience with Australian scientists is that they are either brilliant, or totally  off their rocker.  John Ashton fits the latter category.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You didn't read it, did you? Typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I have read it.  Ashton, like so many so-called Creationist scholars, are experts at self-deception.  Ashton once declared that even if he could prove to himself that evolution was real, he would have to deny it because of his faith in the scriptures.  And that, sir, just takes my breath away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a better idea.  Write him a letter asking him why he has never published a single peer-reviewed work that included these so-called 12 reasons why evolution is impossible.  You realize, of course, that he is not an evolutionary scientist, and has no field training, and very little academic experience in evolutionary biology.  He is a nutritionist.
Click to expand...

Here's an even better idea. Can you refute anything he said? Didnt think so.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I could say the same thing about you. I have proven that at least a few of the pieces of evidence you presented have been proven to be false. The embryonic gills and the tails. there is no truth to these assertions, as per medical science, yet you cling to them.
> 
> 
> 
> You have proven nothing, you have made assertions, you have cited no sources, you have dribbled batshit craziness about 'medical science' while denying other science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's your proof, spanky.
> Human embryos never have any gills or any tails - English pravda.ru
Click to expand...

Fair enough, I'm quite happy to remove that piece of so called evidence from the list, even though the author of the piece is not given. Still, you asked for one piece of evolutionary evidence and I have given you four, none of which you've accepted.


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> It is enough evidence to prove extinction and adaptation within species..certainly not enough to prove the whole big bang primordial soup theory..


You're the first to mention the big bang. It is irrelevant to evolution.


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is enough evidence to prove extinction and adaptation within species..certainly not enough to prove the whole big bang primordial soup theory..
> 
> 
> 
> You're the first to mention the big bang. It is irrelevant to evolution.
Click to expand...

irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?


It is the best current knowledge, I don't think 'cosmic evolution' fits the case, but in any event, who knows? I don't think any scientist categorically claims it is the case, merely that the evidence seems to fit the theory. In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> My experience with Australian scientists is that they are either brilliant, or totally  off their rocker.  John Ashton fits the latter category.
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't read it, did you? Typical.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I have read it.  Ashton, like so many so-called Creationist scholars, are experts at self-deception.  Ashton once declared that even if he could prove to himself that evolution was real, he would have to deny it because of his faith in the scriptures.  And that, sir, just takes my breath away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a better idea.  Write him a letter asking him why he has never published a single peer-reviewed work that included these so-called 12 reasons why evolution is impossible.  You realize, of course, that he is not an evolutionary scientist, and has no field training, and very little academic experience in evolutionary biology.  He is a nutritionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's an even better idea. Can you refute anything he said? Didnt think so.
Click to expand...


I can refute all of it.


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?
> 
> 
> 
> It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.
Click to expand...

so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science  _random accident  theory_ of creation at the primordial soup stage ?


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is enough evidence to prove extinction and adaptation within species..certainly not enough to prove the whole big bang primordial soup theory..
> 
> 
> 
> You're the first to mention the big bang. It is irrelevant to evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?
Click to expand...


While it is true that if the big bang had not occurred, we would not be here, it is not true that evolution is a necessary consequence of the big bang.  There are plenty of places in the universe we can point to where biological evolution has likely not occurred.  The universe is not finely tuned for us.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?
> 
> 
> 
> It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science  _random accident  theory_ of creation at the primordial soup stage ?
Click to expand...


Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.


----------



## eots

They tell us that. We lost our tails. Evolving up. From little snails. I say it's all. Just wind in sails. Are we not men ! we are Devo .. D-E-V-O.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?
> 
> 
> 
> It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science  _random accident  theory_ of creation at the primordial soup stage ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.
Click to expand...

the

Mutations are random

Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
Mutations are random


----------



## eots

If not by design..it is random,accidental


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?
> 
> 
> 
> It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science  _random accident  theory_ of creation at the primordial soup stage ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the
> 
> Mutations are random
> 
> Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
> Mutations are random
Click to expand...


Many (though not all) mutations are random.  The biochemical reactions that create them are not, and neither is the force (natural selection) the selects them for future generations.


----------



## eots

*design*
*Antonyms for design*

disorganization
being

foul-up mix-up
anarchy
chaos
confusion

derangement
disarray
disjointedness
disorder
disruption

dissolution
disunion
incoherence
unconnected
unholy mess


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?
> 
> 
> 
> It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science  _random accident  theory_ of creation at the primordial soup stage ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the
> 
> Mutations are random
> 
> Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
> Mutations are random
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many (though not all) mutations are random.  The biochemical reactions that create them are not, and neither is the force (natural selection) the selects them for future generations.
Click to expand...

*“Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future…the past. Old friends long gone.”*


- Yoda


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> If not by design..it is random,accidental



Utter nonsense.  Natural selection works nearly exactly like artificial selection with the exception that the former, in most cases, takes a much longer time to occur.  If disease spreads through a population such that 2/3rds die off, the 1/3 that survives usually is conferred an immunity to that disease.  And so that population has been naturally selected to survive further outbreaks from that particular disease.  And the genes of that population survive to the next generation.  There is nothing designed about it.  If a bird habitually eats a particular nut that has a soft shell, over time, the nuts with harder shells tend to survive and pass on their genes for harder shells.  In response, those birds will, over time, develop a tougher beak in order to break open the harder nuts.  And so on and so forth until at last we see a different bird from the original and a different nut from the original.  Darwin's finches and the nuts they eat did exactly this.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science  _random accident  theory_ of creation at the primordial soup stage ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the
> 
> Mutations are random
> 
> Mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for the organism, but mutations do not "try" to supply what the organism "needs." Factors in the environment may influence the rate of mutation but are not generally thought to influence the direction of mutation. For example, exposure to harmful chemicals may increase the mutation rate, but will not cause more mutations that make the organism resistant to those chemicals. In this respect, mutations are random — whether a particular mutation happens or not is unrelated to how useful that mutation would be.
> Mutations are random
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Many (though not all) mutations are random.  The biochemical reactions that create them are not, and neither is the force (natural selection) the selects them for future generations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *“Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future…the past. Old friends long gone.”*
> 
> 
> - Yoda
Click to expand...


Either you want to discuss evolution or you want to be obtuse.  You cannot do both and expect me to continue here.  You decide.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> *design*
> *Antonyms for design*
> 
> disorganization
> being
> 
> foul-up mix-up
> anarchy
> chaos
> confusion
> 
> derangement
> disarray
> disjointedness
> disorder
> disruption
> 
> dissolution
> disunion
> incoherence
> unconnected
> unholy mess



Was there a point you were trying to make?  I don't see one.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *design*
> *Antonyms for design*
> 
> disorganization
> being
> 
> foul-up mix-up
> anarchy
> chaos
> confusion
> 
> derangement
> disarray
> disjointedness
> disorder
> disruption
> 
> dissolution
> disunion
> incoherence
> unconnected
> unholy mess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was there a point you were trying to make?  I don't see one.
Click to expand...

well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science  _random accident  theory_ of creation at the primordial soup stage ?


For gods' sakes, do you take *nothing* in? This is not a discussion about creation.


----------



## Old Rocks

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?
Click to expand...

Mountains of it, dumb ass. From fossils to DNA. You silly asses are beyond stupid.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *design*
> *Antonyms for design*
> 
> disorganization
> being
> 
> foul-up mix-up
> anarchy
> chaos
> confusion
> 
> derangement
> disarray
> disjointedness
> disorder
> disruption
> 
> dissolution
> disunion
> incoherence
> unconnected
> unholy mess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was there a point you were trying to make?  I don't see one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental
Click to expand...


It may appear that way to you, and if so, it is only because you don't understand the principles and laws of physics and chemistry.  As for random mutations, they may not be as random as was once thought:

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/



> *Are mutations truly random?*
> Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones. Image: Wikimedia commons, Jerome Walker, Dennis Myts"The idea is quite interesting," said evolutionary geneticist Maud Tenaillon.


----------



## eots

I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental


What is the 'it' to which you refer?

edit...Ah, I see



eots said:


> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.


----------



## eots

Old Rocks said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mountains of it, dumb ass. From fossils to DNA. You silly asses are beyond stupid.
Click to expand...

and fossils and DNA prove the random accident theory how exactly ?


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.


So, what, are you saying evolution is by design?


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental
> 
> 
> 
> What is the 'it' to which you refer?
> 
> edit...Ah, I see
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

the .it.. would be life..something your theory has never shown can occur from the random mixing of chemicals


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.



There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.

Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what, are you saying evolution is by design?
Click to expand...

clearly.. the entire universe is inteligent


----------



## cnm

Anyway, evolution is not random, species evolve according to the environment, not a lottery.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental
> 
> 
> 
> What is the 'it' to which you refer?
> 
> edit...Ah, I see
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the .it.. would be life..something your theory has never shown can occur from the random mixing of chemicals
Click to expand...


If that were the case (that life can arise from a random mixing of chemicals) that would REFUTE evolution, not prove it.  See, this is just another thing about the theory of evolution you do not understand.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
Click to expand...

you jump from soup to living plants adapting...thats a big leap


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> the .it.. would be life..something your theory has never shown can occur from the random mixing of chemicals


You just said 'it' would be evolution.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> So, what, are you saying evolution is by design?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> clearly.. the entire universe is inteligent
Click to expand...


How much intelligence does it take for a comet to respond to the sun by offgasing water and other volatiles?


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> clearly.. the entire universe is inteligent


So species are designed to evolve according to their environment?


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you jump from soup to living plants adapting...thats a big leap
Click to expand...


You assume that the theory of evolution says something about the origin of life.  It does not.  All explains, and has ever been used to explain is the diversity of life, not its origin.  Don't confuse the theory of evolution with other hypotheses that attempt to explain the origins of life.


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> you jump from soup to living plants adapting...thats a big leap


Over 3 billion odd years or whatever that's a crawl.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mountains of it, dumb ass. From fossils to DNA. You silly asses are beyond stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and fossils and DNA prove the random accident theory how exactly ?
Click to expand...


Repeating a straw man argument only demonstrates that you are not paying attention to what we are telling you.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *design*
> *Antonyms for design*
> 
> disorganization
> being
> 
> foul-up mix-up
> anarchy
> chaos
> confusion
> 
> derangement
> disarray
> disjointedness
> disorder
> disruption
> 
> dissolution
> disunion
> incoherence
> unconnected
> unholy mess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was there a point you were trying to make?  I don't see one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may appear that way to you, and if so, it is only because you don't understand the principles and laws of physics and chemistry.  As for random mutations, they may not be as random as was once thought:
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Are mutations truly random?*
> Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones. Image: Wikimedia commons, Jerome Walker, Dennis Myts"The idea is quite interesting," said evolutionary geneticist Maud Tenaillon.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I am certain that much of the theory will be _not as was once thought:_


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mountains of it, dumb ass. From fossils to DNA. You silly asses are beyond stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and fossils and DNA prove the random accident theory how exactly ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating a straw man argument only demonstrates that you are not paying attention to what we are telling you.
Click to expand...



I think you protest my point of view because you don't find my point of view convenient.


----------



## cnm

Blind faith seems a very convenient point of view to me.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *design*
> *Antonyms for design*
> 
> disorganization
> being
> 
> foul-up mix-up
> anarchy
> chaos
> confusion
> 
> derangement
> disarray
> disjointedness
> disorder
> disruption
> 
> dissolution
> disunion
> incoherence
> unconnected
> unholy mess
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was there a point you were trying to make?  I don't see one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well its pretty simple if its not by design it is random and accidental
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It may appear that way to you, and if so, it is only because you don't understand the principles and laws of physics and chemistry.  As for random mutations, they may not be as random as was once thought:
> 
> http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/27910/title/Are-mutations-truly-random-/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Are mutations truly random?*
> Do genetic mutations really occur at random spots along the genome, as researchers have long supposed? Maybe not, according to a study published online today (January 13) in Proceedings of the Royal Society B, which proposes a mechanism for how new mutations might preferentially form around existing ones. Image: Wikimedia commons, Jerome Walker, Dennis Myts"The idea is quite interesting," said evolutionary geneticist Maud Tenaillon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am certain that much of the theory will be _not as was once thought:_
Click to expand...


One thing science will never demonstrate is that "god did it".  Sorry if this is a disappointment for you.  My point about mutations is that for all intents and purposes, they appear to be random.  But 100 years of genetic research is today changing our understanding of DNA.  That is the nature of scientific investigation.  Are we supposed to apologize for making advances in our knowledge?  Because I can tell you now that that is not going to happen, ever.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mountains of it, dumb ass. From fossils to DNA. You silly asses are beyond stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and fossils and DNA prove the random accident theory how exactly ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating a straw man argument only demonstrates that you are not paying attention to what we are telling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you protest my point of view because you don't find my point of view convenient.
Click to expand...


Protest would not be the word I would choose to use to describe the fact that I am attempting to show you how ill-informed you are wrt to evolutionary biology.  You are arguing from a point of sheer ignorance of science, the scientific method, and even what the evidence is and is not.  Perhaps you  should try to educate yourself a bit then come back and we can talk some more.


----------



## orogenicman

cnm said:


> Blind faith seems a very convenient point of view to me.



It is a lazy point of view.


----------



## Muhammed

*



			Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
		
Click to expand...

All around you. *


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?
> 
> 
> 
> Mountains of it, dumb ass. From fossils to DNA. You silly asses are beyond stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> and fossils and DNA prove the random accident theory how exactly ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating a straw man argument only demonstrates that you are not paying attention to what we are telling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you protest my point of view because you don't find my point of view convenient.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Protest would not be the word I would choose to use to describe the fact that I am attempting to show you how ill-informed you are wrt to evolutionary biology.  You are arguing from a point of sheer ignorance of science, the scientific method, and even what the evidence is and is not.  Perhaps you  should try to educate yourself a bit then come back and we can talk some more.
Click to expand...

well, aren't we the pretentious, little bitch


----------



## eots

Muhammed said:


> *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All around you. *


what a stupid answer


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mountains of it, dumb ass. From fossils to DNA. You silly asses are beyond stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> and fossils and DNA prove the random accident theory how exactly ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating a straw man argument only demonstrates that you are not paying attention to what we are telling you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I think you protest my point of view because you don't find my point of view convenient.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Protest would not be the word I would choose to use to describe the fact that I am attempting to show you how ill-informed you are wrt to evolutionary biology.  You are arguing from a point of sheer ignorance of science, the scientific method, and even what the evidence is and is not.  Perhaps you  should try to educate yourself a bit then come back and we can talk some more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well, aren't we the pretentious, little bitch
Click to expand...


I am hard headed about this, I don't make any pretentions about it.  Why?  I am a published geologist with 26 years of field experience.  So when I see the sheer ignorance you are posting, yeah, I get a little testy and have to point out the flaws in your arguments.  Is it my fault you bring a knife to a gun fight?


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All around you. *
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid answer
Click to expand...


It isn't stupid if it is right.  It is right because the evidence IS all around you.  The fact that you choose to ignore it is on you, and no one else.


----------



## Muhammed

eots said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All around you. *
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid answer
Click to expand...

Howso?


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> Blind faith seems a very convenient point of view to me.


I have total faith science is completely primitive in its understanding of the origin of life and the universe..but if the more timid draw comfort from believing otherwise so be it


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blind faith seems a very convenient point of view to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I have total faith science is completely primitive in its understanding of the origin of life and the universe..but if the more timid draw comfort from believing otherwise so be it
Click to expand...

Well, that is convenient.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blind faith seems a very convenient point of view to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I have total faith science is completely primitive in its understanding of the origin of life and the universe..but if the more timid draw comfort from believing otherwise so be it
Click to expand...


And that is why you fail utterly in your arguments.


----------



## eots

Muhammed said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All around you. *
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Howso?
Click to expand...




orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All around you. *
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't stupid if it is right.  It is right because the evidence IS all around you.  The fact that you choose to ignore it is on you, and no one else.
Click to expand...

the whole theory is based on a collection of substances and chemicals that happened to somehow become alive`


----------



## Old Rocks

eots said:


> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.


Allow? Exactly what do you mean by that? What the scientists do is look at the evidence, and see what that evidence points to. And the evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming, especially as we are already engineering organisms using the building blocks of evolution.


----------



## eots

When you can show spontaneous generation and (the emergence of life from inorganic materials you might be on to something


----------



## Old Rocks

When you learn to seperate abiogenisis from evolution, you might learn something. At present, the problem considered by those dealing with abiogenisis, is not a lack of possible paths from chemistry to life, but which of a multiplicity of possible routes did life take on this planet. Before flapping ones yap, it allways pays to have a look at where the research is at present.


----------



## Muhammed

eots said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All around you. *
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Howso?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All around you. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a stupid answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't stupid if it is right.  It is right because the evidence IS all around you.  The fact that you choose to ignore it is on you, and no one else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the whole theory is based on a collection of substances and chemicals that happened to somehow become alive`
Click to expand...

Do you lack sustance and chemicals?


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All around you. *
> 
> 
> 
> what a stupid answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Howso?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Muhammed said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> 
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All around you. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> what a stupid answer
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It isn't stupid if it is right.  It is right because the evidence IS all around you.  The fact that you choose to ignore it is on you, and no one else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the whole theory is based on a collection of substances and chemicals that happened to somehow become alive`
Click to expand...


You are confused.  The theory of evolution is not about the origin of life.  It is about the diversity of life.  Write it down.  Tape it to your computer so you don't forget.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> When you can show spontaneous generation and (the emergence of life from inorganic materials you might be on to something



Are you blind?  How may times must it be pointed out to you that spontaneous generation would be evidence AGAINST evolution, not evidence FOR it.  Moreover, the only one I know of who claims that life emerged from inorganic materials is YOU.


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can show spontaneous generation and (the emergence of life from inorganic materials you might be on to something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you blind?  How may times must it be pointed out to you that spontaneous generation would be evidence AGAINST evolution, not evidence FOR it.  Moreover, the only one I know of who claims that life emerged from inorganic materials is YOU.
Click to expand...

I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion. How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it. It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.


----------



## Moonglow

S.J. said:


> The only fact about evolution is that it is not based on facts.


I just love the facts from the Bible....very technical....


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can show spontaneous generation and (the emergence of life from inorganic materials you might be on to something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you blind?  How may times must it be pointed out to you that spontaneous generation would be evidence AGAINST evolution, not evidence FOR it.  Moreover, the only one I know of who claims that life emerged from inorganic materials is YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion.
Click to expand...


That is correct.  Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.



> How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it.



It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution. 



> It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.



And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid.  Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent.  I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light".  But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule.  You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you.  I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point?  It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth.  So be it.


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can show spontaneous generation and (the emergence of life from inorganic materials you might be on to something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you blind?  How may times must it be pointed out to you that spontaneous generation would be evidence AGAINST evolution, not evidence FOR it.  Moreover, the only one I know of who claims that life emerged from inorganic materials is YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct.  Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid.  Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent.  I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light".  But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule.  You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you.  I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point?  It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth.  So be it.
Click to expand...

I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can show spontaneous generation and (the emergence of life from inorganic materials you might be on to something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you blind?  How may times must it be pointed out to you that spontaneous generation would be evidence AGAINST evolution, not evidence FOR it.  Moreover, the only one I know of who claims that life emerged from inorganic materials is YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct.  Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid.  Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent.  I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light".  But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule.  You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you.  I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point?  It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth.  So be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.
Click to expand...


Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you can show spontaneous generation and (the emergence of life from inorganic materials you might be on to something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you blind?  How may times must it be pointed out to you that spontaneous generation would be evidence AGAINST evolution, not evidence FOR it.  Moreover, the only one I know of who claims that life emerged from inorganic materials is YOU.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct.  Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid.  Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent.  I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light".  But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule.  You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you.  I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point?  It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth.  So be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving mine, idiot.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you blind?  How may times must it be pointed out to you that spontaneous generation would be evidence AGAINST evolution, not evidence FOR it.  Moreover, the only one I know of who claims that life emerged from inorganic materials is YOU.
> 
> 
> 
> I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is correct.  Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid.  Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent.  I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light".  But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule.  You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you.  I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point?  It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth.  So be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving mine, idiot.
Click to expand...


You've proven nothing to be incorrect.  All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science.  Congratulations.


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I must say. You evolutionist guys really crack me up. One of you claim that abiogenesis is not part of evoultion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.  Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How absurd. It is part of evolution, simply because evolution cannot happen without it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is all part of an unbroken chain of events. Evolutionists disowned because they didn't have a clue how it might have happened. It's as simple as that. And your other comments... I saw a lot of 'you just dont understand', 'you're just ignorant' and ' scientists say' arguments, but I have yet to see any of you present factual evidence. This is because there is none. It's simply a bunch of made up stories. A fairy tale for adults. Nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid.  Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent.  I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light".  But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule.  You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you.  I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point?  It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth.  So be it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving mine, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've proven nothing to be incorrect.  All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science.  Congratulations.
Click to expand...

I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is correct.  Abiogenesis is an entirely different theory.
> 
> It is not, and never was a part of the theory of evolution.
> 
> And this is where we are going to part company, I'm afraid.  Some scholars say it is a waste of time to debate these issues with creationists because it only makes them more intransigent.  I have always given them the benefit of the doubt because I have in the past gotten a few to "see the light".  But it is increasingly evident to me that that is the exception, not the rule.  You have not, nor, I think, will you ever acknowledge any of the facts I've tried to lay out before you.  I could lay out plenty more, but what's the point?  It benefits me not, and you couldn't care less about the truth.  So be it.
> 
> 
> 
> I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving mine, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've proven nothing to be incorrect.  All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.
Click to expand...


If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that.  Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution.  Next.


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I proved some of that evidence to be incorrrect, yet you call me ignorant. what a crock. You say I don't want the thruth. I seek only the truth. Evolution has no truth. Everything scientists tell us about evolution is nothing but lies. It must be accepted on faith because there's no real evidence to support it. That's a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for proving mine, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've proven nothing to be incorrect.  All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that.  Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution.  Next.
Click to expand...

I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving my point.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving mine, idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've proven nothing to be incorrect.  All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that.  Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.
Click to expand...


The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are.  Congratulations.


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for proving mine, idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven nothing to be incorrect.  All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that.  Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are.  Congratulations.
Click to expand...

Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven nothing to be incorrect.  All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science.  Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that.  Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.
Click to expand...

Those who deny the fact of evolution as supported by science, that certain "grandeur in this view of life" as Darwin characterized it, should be granted a special exemption from the process predicated upon their self-evident inability to adapt and thrive. If you are incapable of recognizing the overwhelming evidence for evolution, it obviously missed you, so you're excused.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.


Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.

Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.
Click to expand...


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> *Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.*
Click to expand...

The thread topic is about evolution, not creationism.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven nothing to be incorrect.  All you've proven to anyone is that you are anti-science.  Congratulations.
> 
> 
> 
> I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that.  Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.
Click to expand...


Actually, it can.  Find a Cambrian bunny rabbit.  THAT would falsify the theory of evolution.  I wish you good luck finding one.  Your 'observation science' is nothing but a gadget invented by Ken Ham in order to convince the intellectually weak that biology is less of a science than it really is.  And your characterization of the science as being one that  creates a theory and then looks for evidence to prove it is not what any science does, much less evolutionary biology. It is, however, exactly what creationism does.  Darwin didn't create a theory and then look for evidence to support it.  He spent decades compiling data before he came up with the theory that explains the data he already had.  THAT is what all the sciences do.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Mr.Right said:


> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*



Where is this mountain of evidence for God?

*I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.

fact

\ˈfakt\noun
: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

: a true piece of information

Full Definition
1
:a thing done: as

a obsolete :feat

b :crime <accessory after the fact>

c archaic :action
2
archaic :performance, doing
3
:the quality of being actual :actuality <a question of fact hinges on evidence>
4
a :something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a fact>

b :an actual occurrence <prove the fact of damage>
5
:a piece of information presented as having objective reality
— in fact

Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.
*


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?"

It's everywhere, it's all around you – every plant and animal is proof of evolution; indeed, you are proof of evolution.  

It's just that you're likely too blinded by religious dogma to see the truth.


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I did. And I provided a credible source for it. You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that.  Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it can.  Find a Cambrian bunny rabbit.  THAT would falsify the theory of evolution.  I wish you good luck finding one.  Your 'observation science' is nothing but a gadget invented by Ken Ham in order to convince the intellectually weak that biology is less of a science than it really is.  And your characterization of the science as being one that  creates a theory and then looks for evidence to prove it is not what any science does, much less evolutionary biology. It is, however, exactly what creationism does.  Darwin didn't create a theory and then look for evidence to support it.  He spent decades compiling data before he came up with the theory that explains the data he already had.  THAT is what all the sciences do.
Click to expand...


OK, genius. Why don't you tell us how the first cell originated. What was that? Scientists don't know? How can this be? OK. Try this. How about you tell us how species evolve? That should be easy, since it's settled science. I believe that science tells us that they somehow add new information to their DNA. Is that correct? If this is true, why don't we have a single example of this ever happening? There is also the fact that that you cannot add new information to DNA. It can only work with what's available. There is also no evidence of beneficial mutations. Not a single one. Mutations actually DESTROY INFORMATION. This is a scientific fact. You can cling to your little fairy tale. People who can think for themselves know better. You believe in evolution because you WANT too. Because the alternative is abhorrent to you. A living God, that everyone must answer too. You reject Him out of sinful pride and cling to the lie. I've wasted enough time on you. I'm out of here.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 39585
Click to expand...

Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.

The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> *Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread topic is about evolution, not creationism.
Click to expand...


Like so many threads populated with the slogans and cliches' that are staples of Christian fundamentalist ministries, this thread just oozes with the anti-science agenda of the ID'iot creation cabal.


----------



## bodecea

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?
Click to expand...

Why can't you answer the simple question.  Are you a young earth creationist?


----------



## Mr.Right

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 39585
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.
> 
> The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.
Click to expand...

This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.


----------



## bodecea

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats not true just listen to this atheist prophet and his disciples
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Atheists don't have "prophets".  You lose.  Nor are we anyone's disciples. You lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well I would disagree but if you prefer leading spokesperson for organized atheism and his students then fine regardless they claimed exactly what I said claim..so I _win_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am one of the most vocal atheists on USMB and I have never heard of the guy in the video.  I'm not even sure what you mean by "organized atheism"?  There may be a handful of people that like to hear others re-enforce their anti-god viewpoints but seriously, the main point in being an atheist is that we are not in need of satisfying some kind of a "daddy complex".  AKA god and religion.  Me?  I've never so much as visited a website having to do with atheism.  It would be a waste of time...like religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have never heard of Richard Hawkins ? just  go to youtube and type atheist vs....and you will soon see  he is in fact an atheist Icon
> atheist vs - YouTube
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, that's Dawkins, not Hawkins.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?"
> 
> It's everywhere, it's all around you – every plant and animal is proof of evolution; indeed, you are proof of evolution.
> 
> It's just that you're likely too blinded by religious dogma to see the truth.


I have no religious dogma but I see the theory of evolution to be at best an observation of adaption of  species and absolutely not any kind proof of the origin of life or that the process was random chance


----------



## bodecea

Mr.Right said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 39585
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.
> 
> The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that* DNA cannot add new information to itself. *Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.
Click to expand...

The March of Dimes begs to differ.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> *Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread topic is about evolution, not creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like so many threads populated with the slogans and cliches' that are staples of Christian fundamentalist ministries, this thread just oozes with the anti-science agenda of the ID'iot creation cabal.
Click to expand...

So, about that mountain of evidence, do you have some?


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> *Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread topic is about evolution, not creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like so many threads populated with the slogans and cliches' that are staples of Christian fundamentalist ministries, this thread just oozes with the anti-science agenda of the ID'iot creation cabal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, about that mountain of evidence, do you have some?
Click to expand...


Yes. If you begin with a 7th grade course in biology and proceed from there, you will be exposed to it.


----------



## eots

bodecea said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> So are all you guys creationists? Young earth creationists?
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant. I asked for factual evidence for evolution. Got any?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why can't you answer the simple question.  Are you a young earth creationist?
Click to expand...

 If you are asking if I think  bible creation stories are literal no I do not if you are asking could _science _have an inaccurate timeline, absolutely it could


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 39585
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.
> 
> The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.
Click to expand...

Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.

If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal _Nature_ for example. 

If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.

There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute. 

Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> *Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread topic is about evolution, not creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like so many threads populated with the slogans and cliches' that are staples of Christian fundamentalist ministries, this thread just oozes with the anti-science agenda of the ID'iot creation cabal.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> *Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread topic is about evolution, not creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like so many threads populated with the slogans and cliches' that are staples of Christian fundamentalist ministries, this thread just oozes with the anti-science agenda of the ID'iot creation cabal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 39612
Click to expand...


There was no expectation that you could offer a relevant comment.

Stick with your silly conspiracy theories.


----------



## eots

*Atheist Thomas Nagel branded a ‘heretic’ for daring to question Darwinism*
The philosopher Thomas Nagel is not taking phone calls.

His secretary at New York University says there have been hundreds, all wanting to reach the modern “heretic,” as a current magazine cover labels him, but he is not taking the bait.





Handout"What has gotten into Thomas Nagel?"
All he did was argue in a new book the evolutionary view of nature is “false,” and now grand forces have descended upon him. He does not want to talk about it.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...agel-leading-atheist-branded-a-heretic-for-da


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> *Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread topic is about evolution, not creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like so many threads populated with the slogans and cliches' that are staples of Christian fundamentalist ministries, this thread just oozes with the anti-science agenda of the ID'iot creation cabal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 39612
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no expectation that you could offer a relevant comment.
> 
> Stick with your silly conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

 wow you really are dependent on the strawman...
_Darwinism offers a dogmatic system of thought that is intoxicating precisely because it offers the illusion of freeing us from religion._


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> *Atheist Thomas Nagel branded a ‘heretic’ for daring to question Darwinism*
> The philosopher Thomas Nagel is not taking phone calls.
> 
> His secretary at New York University says there have been hundreds, all wanting to reach the modern “heretic,” as a current magazine cover labels him, but he is not taking the bait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Handout"What has gotten into Thomas Nagel?"
> All he did was argue in a new book the evolutionary view of nature is “false,” and now grand forces have descended upon him. He does not want to talk about it.
> http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...agel-leading-atheist-branded-a-heretic-for-da


You need some newer material for your conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> *Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.*
> 
> 
> 
> The thread topic is about evolution, not creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like so many threads populated with the slogans and cliches' that are staples of Christian fundamentalist ministries, this thread just oozes with the anti-science agenda of the ID'iot creation cabal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 39612
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was no expectation that you could offer a relevant comment.
> 
> Stick with your silly conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> wow you really are dependent on the strawman...
> _Darwinism offers a dogmatic system of thought that is intoxicating precisely because it offers the illusion of freeing us from religion._
Click to expand...

Your conspiracy theories are getting more ridiculous. 

"Darwinism" says nothing about gawds.


----------



## rightwinger

Evolution is a....Fact

God is a theory


----------



## S.J.

rightwinger said:


> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory


A fact?  Then show us the proof.


----------



## Agit8r

You've seen fossils right?  And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.


----------



## rightwinger

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
Click to expand...


The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence

God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
Click to expand...

You need to get out of the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah more often.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


----------



## eots

Agit8r said:


> You've seen fossils right?  And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.


this does not mean they could not be off on the predictions by billions of years


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've seen fossils right?  And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.
> 
> 
> 
> this does not mean they could not be off on the predictions by billions of years
Click to expand...

Actually, yeah, it does.

Unless your space aliens were able to modify the space-time continuum


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to get out of the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah more often.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Click to expand...

you need try and and use more than  fallacy to support your weak argument


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've seen fossils right?  And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.
> 
> 
> 
> this does not mean they could not be off on the predictions by billions of years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, yeah, it does.
> 
> Unless your space aliens were able to modify the space-time continuum
Click to expand...

care to offer more than another strawman to support your assertion ?


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've seen fossils right?  And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.
> 
> 
> 
> this does not mean they could not be off on the predictions by billions of years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, yeah, it does.
> 
> Unless your space aliens were able to modify the space-time continuum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> care to offer more than another strawman to support your assertion ?
Click to expand...

Already did. 

Your anti-science, conspiracy theory addled views are best argued among those like you.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to get out of the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah more often.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need try and and use more than  fallacy to support your weak argument
Click to expand...

You have been unable to offer a single, coherent comment.


----------



## eots

Origin by Design - Harold G. Coffin Robert H. Brown R. James Gibson - Google Books

The Age-of-the-Earth Debate - Scientific American


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've seen fossils right?  And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.
> 
> 
> 
> this does not mean they could not be off on the predictions by billions of years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, yeah, it does.
> 
> Unless your space aliens were able to modify the space-time continuum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> care to offer more than another strawman to support your assertion ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did.
> 
> Your anti-science, conspiracy theory addled views are best argued among those like you.
Click to expand...

You are really pathetic in your use of fallacy and lack of substance


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agit8r said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've seen fossils right?  And you've seen the Grand Canyon, so that it is obvious that the earth is very old? Yet other explanations for the earth creation don't even acknowledge these, presumably because the gods of such mythologies never knew about them.
> 
> 
> 
> this does not mean they could not be off on the predictions by billions of years
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, yeah, it does.
> 
> Unless your space aliens were able to modify the space-time continuum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> care to offer more than another strawman to support your assertion ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Already did.
> 
> Your anti-science, conspiracy theory addled views are best argued among those like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are really pathetic in your use of fallacy and lack of substance
Click to expand...

You're so befuddled, you're flailing around like a angry conspiracy theorist.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Origin by Design - Harold G. Coffin Robert H. Brown R. James Gibson - Google Books
> 
> The Age-of-the-Earth Debate - Scientific American



Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories - HowStuffWorks


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to get out of the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah more often.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need try and and use more than  fallacy to support your weak argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been unable to offer a single, coherent comment.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion..but what is not opinion is in none of your have presented any information to support your assertions and  have been completely dependent upon fallacies


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to get out of the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah more often.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you need try and and use more than  fallacy to support your weak argument
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been unable to offer a single, coherent comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your opinion..but what is not opinion is in none of your have presented any information to support your assertions and  have been completely dependent upon fallacies
Click to expand...

Yet another of your goofy conspiracy theories.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Origin by Design - Harold G. Coffin Robert H. Brown R. James Gibson - Google Books
> 
> The Age-of-the-Earth Debate - Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories - HowStuffWorks
Click to expand...

Its sad really..your use of strawman it reeks of some kind of desperation I do not understand


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Origin by Design - Harold G. Coffin Robert H. Brown R. James Gibson - Google Books
> 
> The Age-of-the-Earth Debate - Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories - HowStuffWorks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its sad really..your use of strawman it reeks of some kind of desperation I do not understand
Click to expand...

Your meetings at the Flat Earth Society must be a real hoot.


----------



## Mr.Right

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 39585
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.
> 
> The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.
> 
> If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal _Nature_ for example.
> 
> If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.
> 
> There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.
> 
> Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.
Click to expand...

Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.


----------



## Mr.Right

eots said:


> *Atheist Thomas Nagel branded a ‘heretic’ for daring to question Darwinism*
> The philosopher Thomas Nagel is not taking phone calls.
> 
> His secretary at New York University says there have been hundreds, all wanting to reach the modern “heretic,” as a current magazine cover labels him, but he is not taking the bait.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Handout"What has gotten into Thomas Nagel?"
> All he did was argue in a new book the evolutionary view of nature is “false,” and now grand forces have descended upon him. He does not want to talk about it.
> http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...agel-leading-atheist-branded-a-heretic-for-da


I've made this argument before. Scientists are either dependent on funding for their research, and guess who decides who gets theirs, and are afraid to speak out, or they're worried about what happened to this guy happening to them. It's a conspiracy. Plain and simple.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, You are misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is "randomness and accidental". Secondly, I don't consider your silly conspiracy theories appropriate in this thread.
> 
> Why not make the case for one or more of the gawds involved in magical creation or lay out your best case for your space alien conspiracy.
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39585
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.
> 
> The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.
> 
> If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal _Nature_ for example.
> 
> If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.
> 
> There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.
> 
> Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.
Click to expand...

Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.


----------



## Mr.Right

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39585
> 
> 
> 
> Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.
> 
> The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.
> 
> If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal _Nature_ for example.
> 
> If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.
> 
> There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.
> 
> Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Evolution is not science. Never was. The theory sounded good, back in the 19th century but the more we learn, the more ridiculous it looks.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.
> 
> The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.
> 
> If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal _Nature_ for example.
> 
> If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.
> 
> There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.
> 
> Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is not science. Never was. The theory sounded good, back in the 19th century but the more we learn, the more ridiculous it looks.
Click to expand...

Correct. The theory only survives because of the global conspiracy.


----------



## Mr.Right

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.
> 
> If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal _Nature_ for example.
> 
> If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.
> 
> There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.
> 
> Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is not science. Never was. The theory sounded good, back in the 19th century but the more we learn, the more ridiculous it looks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. The theory only survives because of the global conspiracy.
Click to expand...

Glad you agree. I knew you'd come to senses.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.
> 
> If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal _Nature_ for example.
> 
> If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.
> 
> There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.
> 
> Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is not science. Never was. The theory sounded good, back in the 19th century but the more we learn, the more ridiculous it looks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. The theory only survives because of the global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Glad you agree. I knew you'd come to senses.
Click to expand...

The best way to discredit you conspiracy theory loons is to let you rattle on.


----------



## rightwinger

Mr.Right said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your befuddled about the sciences supporting evolution because you understand none of it. Your silly "randomness and accidental" comment is classic befuddlement / coaching from creation ministries.
> 
> The "randomness and accidental" description suggests an attribute that doesn't apply to the natural world. Adaptation is non-random, as it is the result of objective criteria for fitness. Genetic variation might be random, but the natural selection that acts on that variation is not.
> 
> 
> 
> This is all theory. There is not one shred of evidence that it could even happen. If you knew anything about genetics, you would know that there is strong evidence that DNA cannot add new information to itself. Since this is required for evolution to occur, you can see the problem for evolutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Darwin's Theory has withstood the rigors of the scientific method and peer review. So yes, it's provable and not in question among the relevant scientific community.
> 
> If you know otherwise, you may wish to email your work to the journal _Nature_ for example.
> 
> If you are so certain that you have the data refuting "Darwinism", put you work before peer review and let's see how you do.
> 
> There does not exist a significant "anti-evolution" movement outside of Christian creationism. This is (and you must be honest with yourself here) the source of your own arguments, and therefore it is fair game, if only from a history of the philosophy perspective. It's painfully obvious that your arguments are in lockstep with those of the Institute for Creation Research, the Center for Scientific Creationism, or the Discovery Institute.
> 
> Further, were you not essentially arguing as a classic Creationist, I would expect you to actually have a scientific alternative to propose, which (of course) Creationists and their ID brethren do not. Creationism has always consisted primarily of arguments against evolution rather than argument in favor of a different theory of origins. This is also the manner in which you are arguing. If I am mistaken regarding your perspective here, it is not because you gave me any reason to see you as unique.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we be expected to refute the theory of evolution? There is nothing to refute.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Correct. Science is a global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is not science. Never was. The theory sounded good, back in the 19th century but the more we learn, the more ridiculous it looks.
Click to expand...


Biological analysis, fossil comparisons, geologic studies and DNA analysis are all scientific proof of DNA

God is a theory unsupported by science


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you are talking about the embryonic gill thing, you didn't prove that.  Scientists did. And it doesn't disprove evolution.  Next.
> 
> 
> 
> I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it can.  Find a Cambrian bunny rabbit.  THAT would falsify the theory of evolution.  I wish you good luck finding one.  Your 'observation science' is nothing but a gadget invented by Ken Ham in order to convince the intellectually weak that biology is less of a science than it really is.  And your characterization of the science as being one that  creates a theory and then looks for evidence to prove it is not what any science does, much less evolutionary biology. It is, however, exactly what creationism does.  Darwin didn't create a theory and then look for evidence to support it.  He spent decades compiling data before he came up with the theory that explains the data he already had.  THAT is what all the sciences do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, genius. Why don't you tell us how the first cell originated. What was that? Scientists don't know? How can this be?
Click to expand...


If you had one ounce of science education, you would never have asked that question in a thread concerned with the biological theory of evolution.  Why?  Because the biological theory of evolution (and this is at least the tenth time I've pointed this out in this thread alone, so pay fucking attention, write it down) *explains and describes the diversity of life, not its origin*.



			
				wrongo mr. righto said:
			
		

> OK. Try this. How about you tell us how species evolve? That should be easy, since it's settled science.



So you are telling me that your memory is so fucking piss poor that you cannot remember all the times in this thread that people answered that question?  Damn.



			
				wrongo mr.righto said:
			
		

> I believe that science tells us that they somehow add new information to their DNA. Is that correct? If this is true, why don't we have a single example of this ever happening? There is also the fact that that you cannot add new information to DNA. It can only work with what's available.



Your argument above is creationist argument 102.  And for convenience, I'll give you the talk.origins response:

CB102 Mutations adding information



> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
> 
> If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
> A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
> Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
> RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
> Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
> The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
> According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
> The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).





			
				wrongo mr. right said:
			
		

> There is also no evidence of beneficial mutations. Not a single one. Mutations actually DESTROY INFORMATION. This is a scientific fact.



Is that right?  Well, mr. righto, perhaps you can point to some links to peer reviewed science that makes this case.  While you are finding the peer reviewed science to support your extraordinary claim, here is a response I am providing you from talk.origins since your claim here is right out of the creationist playbook, and is known as creationist argument 101:

CB101 Most mutations harmful 




> * Claim CB101:*





> Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
> 
> *Source:*
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with _E. coli_ found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
> 
> The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
> Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
> Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
> Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
> Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
> A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
> Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
> In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
> 
> Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
> High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_ are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
> Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).





			
				wrongo mr. righto said:
			
		

> You can cling to your little fairy tale. People who can think for themselves know better. You believe in evolution because you WANT too. Because the alternative is abhorrent to you.



Speaking of alternatives, I think I can speak for everyone here, supporters and critics of science that you young earth creationists have produced *no  peer reviewed scientific alternative* to the biological theory of evolution.  Your only response is "god did it".  And that is not an alternative to a scientific theory such as the biological theory of evolution because, as a religious tautology, it doesn't actually explain anything.

You know, I am really disappointed in you creationists.  One would think that after all this time, and as often as these old arguments have been refuted that you would at least have the decency to have come up with some new material to make us laugh at.  Unfortunately, you people can't *even* come up with original material, and that's just sad.[/quote]


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I proved the idiot who posted that nonsense wrong by using evidence supplied by someone else. The fact that he believed it in the first place shows what a credulous fool he is. Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that you believe evolution and the scientists who use it for everything from designing advanced medicine to determining human ancestry be a lie shows us what a willfully ignorant fool you are.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here's a news flash for you, skippy. Evolution is not Science. It cannot be falsified with the scientific method. It is what's know as observation science. What that means is that they look for evidence and try to make it fit their belief in a naturalistic theory of origins. It doesn't matter how ridiculous their claims are. The gullible will swallow it whole, because the Almighty scientists said it. Science is their religion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, it can.  Find a Cambrian bunny rabbit.  THAT would falsify the theory of evolution.  I wish you good luck finding one.  Your 'observation science' is nothing but a gadget invented by Ken Ham in order to convince the intellectually weak that biology is less of a science than it really is.  And your characterization of the science as being one that  creates a theory and then looks for evidence to prove it is not what any science does, much less evolutionary biology. It is, however, exactly what creationism does.  Darwin didn't create a theory and then look for evidence to support it.  He spent decades compiling data before he came up with the theory that explains the data he already had.  THAT is what all the sciences do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OK, genius. Why don't you tell us how the first cell originated. What was that? Scientists don't know? How can this be?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had one ounce of science education, you would never have asked that question in a thread concerned with the biological theory of evolution.  Why?  Because the biological theory of evolution (and this is at least the tenth time I've pointed this out in this thread alone, so pay fucking attention, write it down) *explains and describes the diversity of life, not its origin*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrongo mr. righto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OK. Try this. How about you tell us how species evolve? That should be easy, since it's settled science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are telling me that your memory is so fucking piss poor that you cannot remember all the times in this thread that people answered that question?  Damn.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrongo mr.righto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that science tells us that they somehow add new information to their DNA. Is that correct? If this is true, why don't we have a single example of this ever happening? There is also the fact that that you cannot add new information to DNA. It can only work with what's available.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your argument above is creationist argument 102.  And for convenience, I'll give you the talk.origins response:
> 
> CB102 Mutations adding information
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
> 
> If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
> A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
> Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
> RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
> Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)
> The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.
> According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).
> The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrongo mr. right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is also no evidence of beneficial mutations. Not a single one. Mutations actually DESTROY INFORMATION. This is a scientific fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that right?  Well, mr. righto, perhaps you can point to some links to peer reviewed science that makes this case.  While you are finding the peer reviewed science to support your extraordinary claim, here is a response I am providing you from talk.origins since your claim here is right out of the creationist playbook, and is known as creationist argument 101:
> 
> CB101 Most mutations harmful
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * Claim CB101:*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most mutations are harmful, so the overall effect of mutations is harmful.
> 
> *Source:*
> Morris, Henry M. 1985. _Scientific Creationism_. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 55-57.
> Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. _Life--How Did It Get Here?_ Brooklyn, NY, pg. 100.
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> Most mutations are neutral. Nachman and Crowell estimate around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans (2000). Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, but the fraction which are beneficial is higher than usually though. An experiment with _E. coli_ found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial (Perfeito et al. 2007).
> 
> The harmful mutations do not survive long, and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, most are beneficial.
> Beneficial mutations are commonly observed. They are common enough to be problems in the cases of antibiotic resistance in disease-causing organisms and pesticide resistance in agricultural pests (e.g., Newcomb et al. 1997; these are not merely selection of pre-existing variation.) They can be repeatedly observed in laboratory populations (Wichman et al. 1999). Other examples include the following:
> Mutations have given bacteria the ability to degrade nylon (Prijambada et al. 1995).
> Plant breeders have used mutation breeding to induce mutations and select the beneficial ones (FAO/IAEA 1977).
> Certain mutations in humans confer resistance to AIDS (Dean et al. 1996; Sullivan et al. 2001) or to heart disease (Long 1994; Weisgraber et al. 1983).
> A mutation in humans makes bones strong (Boyden et al. 2002).
> Transposons are common, especially in plants, and help to provide beneficial diversity (Moffat 2000).
> In vitro mutation and selection can be used to evolve substantially improved function of RNA molecules, such as a ribozyme (Wright and Joyce 1997).
> 
> Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996).
> High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of _Pseudomonas aeruginosa_ are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).
> Note that the existence of any beneficial mutations is a falsification of the young-earth creationism model (Morris 1985, 13).
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> wrongo mr. righto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can cling to your little fairy tale. People who can think for themselves know better. You believe in evolution because you WANT too. Because the alternative is abhorrent to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Speaking of alternatives, I think I can speak for everyone here, supporters and critics of science that you young earth creationists have produced *no  peer reviewed scientific alternative* to the biological theory of evolution.  Your only response is "god did it".  And that is not an alternative to a scientific theory such as the biological theory of evolution because, as a religious tautology, it doesn't actually explain anything.
> 
> You know, I am really disappointed in you creationists.  One would think that after all this time, and as often as these old arguments have been refuted that you would at least have the decency to have come up with some new material to make us laugh at.  Unfortunately, you people can't *even* come up with original material, and that's just sad.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]
OK. You win. You're right. Happy now? In case you missed it, that was sarcasm. You're not interested in intelligent debate. You simply want to prove you're right. I'm done with you. Good riddance.


----------



## jillian

william the wie said:


> You think the koolaid drinkers think or examine data that does not conform to their preconceptions?



science deniers are funny


----------



## Tuatara

jillian said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the koolaid drinkers think or examine data that does not conform to their preconceptions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> science deniers are funny
Click to expand...

I find them scary. How can people be so stupid. They are the modern day flat earth believers.


----------



## orogenicman

wrongo mr. righto said:
			
		

> OK. You win. You're right. Happy now? In case you missed it, that was sarcasm. You're not interested in intelligent debate. You simply want to prove you're right. I'm done with you. Good riddance.



OMG, you admit that you were wrong, then claim that all this time when you have been using all the standard creationist arguments, that suddenly when handed your hat, you feign sarcasm?  And then claim that I am not interested in debate?  That'd be hilarious if it wasn't so pathetic.

Cheers,


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Origin by Design - Harold G. Coffin Robert H. Brown R. James Gibson - Google Books
> 
> The Age-of-the-Earth Debate - Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories - HowStuffWorks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its sad really..your use of strawman it reeks of some kind of desperation I do not understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your meetings at the Flat Earth Society must be a real hoot.
Click to expand...

flat earth ? you really do live in private world of your own little Imaginings ,don't you


----------



## rightwinger

jillian said:


> william the wie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think the koolaid drinkers think or examine data that does not conform to their preconceptions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> science deniers are funny
Click to expand...


What's the deal with Gravity?

You know it is just a theory don't you?

You can't provide any scientific proof that gravity exists


----------



## rightwinger




----------



## S.J.

rightwinger said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
Click to expand...

No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
Click to expand...


I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:

Evolution Frequently Asked Questions

*1. How can one species "turn into" another?* 




  One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
Click to expand...

Nice ._.story_


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
Click to expand...

I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
Click to expand...


First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
Click to expand...

They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. The simplest explanation is usually the truth.


----------



## Mr.Right

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
Click to expand...

And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. The simplest explanation is usually the truth.
Click to expand...


I take it you also believe in reincarnation, because if appears that you have returned from a previous life as a projector.

Cheers,


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
Click to expand...


What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First of all, science is not about proof.*  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
Click to expand...

Translation:  I don't have any proof but you should believe me anyway because I'm so smart.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
Click to expand...

well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith


----------



## S.J.

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
Click to expand...

You hit the nail on the head.  Evolution requires more faith than creationism.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
Click to expand...


I am a geologist, so why would I accept the lie that evolution is not real?  What qualifications do you have to tell anyone that evolution is not real?


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First of all, science is not about proof.*  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:  I don't have any proof but you should believe me anyway because I'm so smart.
Click to expand...


Repeating a fallacy is not helping your argument.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.  Evolution requires more faith than creationism.
Click to expand...


That's the funniest accusation I've heard coming from a creationist in years.  You should take that joke to Vegas.  I'm sure you will get lots of laughs.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a geologist, so why would I accept the lie that evolution is not real?  What qualifications do you have to tell anyone that evolution is not real
Click to expand...

Appeal to authority ? What qualifications  does a butterfly have to navigate a flight of thousands of miles..what qualifications does a geologist have to deny an intelligent and infinite universe


----------



## eots




----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a geologist, so why would I accept the lie that evolution is not real?  What qualifications do you have to tell anyone that evolution is not real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appeal to authority ? What qualifications do you have does a butterfly have to navigate a flight of thousands of miles..what qualifications does a geologist have to deny
> an intelligent and infinite universe
Click to expand...


There are no authorities in science, only experts.  I have 26 years of field expertize in geology, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  I am also a longtime amateur astronomer.  What science expertize do you have?  Any at all?  Of course, you don't have any.  All you have is your faith, and we all know that faith is a belief in something not in evidence.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a geologist, so why would I accept the lie that evolution is not real?  What qualifications do you have to tell anyone that evolution is not real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appeal to authority ? What qualifications do you have does a butterfly have to navigate a flight of thousands of miles..what qualifications does a geologist have to deny
> an intelligent and infinite universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no authorities in science, only experts.  I have 26 years of field expertize in geology, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  I am also a longtime amateur astronomer.  What science expertize do you have?  Any at all?  Of course, you don't have any.  All you have is your faith, and we all know that faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
Click to expand...

I see, so ego and self value are all warped in your.. belief


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First of all, science is not about proof.*  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:  I don't have any proof but you should believe me anyway because I'm so smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating a fallacy is not helping your argument.
Click to expand...

You should take your own advice.  You haven't provided one bit of proof yet.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.  Evolution requires more faith than creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the funniest accusation I've heard coming from a creationist in years.  You should take that joke to Vegas.  I'm sure you will get lots of laughs.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for your proof.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I am a geologist*, so why would I accept the lie that evolution is not real?  What qualifications do you have to tell anyone that evolution is not real?
Click to expand...

Sure you are.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a geologist, so why would I accept the lie that evolution is not real?  What qualifications do you have to tell anyone that evolution is not real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appeal to authority ? What qualifications do you have does a butterfly have to navigate a flight of thousands of miles..what qualifications does a geologist have to deny
> an intelligent and infinite universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no authorities in science, only experts.  I have 26 years of field expertize in geology, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  I am also a longtime amateur astronomer.  What science expertize do you have?  Any at all?  Of course, you don't have any.  All you have is your faith, and we all know that faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so ego and self value are all warped in your.. belief
Click to expand...


This is where I am supposed to apologize for who I am and on what I have spent my life working.  That you decided to waste your life evangelizing instead of learning something about nature is on you, not me.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *First of all, science is not about proof.*  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:  I don't have any proof but you should believe me anyway because I'm so smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Repeating a fallacy is not helping your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should take your own advice.  You haven't provided one bit of proof yet.
Click to expand...


And I won't either, because science is not about proof.  That I have to keep telling you this simple fact tells me that you aren't very smart.  You have my deepest sympathy.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I am a geologist*, so why would I accept the lie that evolution is not real?  What qualifications do you have to tell anyone that evolution is not real?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you are.
Click to expand...


CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.  Evolution requires more faith than creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the funniest accusation I've heard coming from a creationist in years.  You should take that joke to Vegas.  I'm sure you will get lots of laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for your proof.
Click to expand...

you might want to find a way to kill some time. It may be a while.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am a geologist, so why would I accept the lie that evolution is not real?  What qualifications do you have to tell anyone that evolution is not real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appeal to authority ? What qualifications do you have does a butterfly have to navigate a flight of thousands of miles..what qualifications does a geologist have to deny
> an intelligent and infinite universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no authorities in science, only experts.  I have 26 years of field expertize in geology, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  I am also a longtime amateur astronomer.  What science expertize do you have?  Any at all?  Of course, you don't have any.  All you have is your faith, and we all know that faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so ego and self value are all warped in your.. belief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for who I am and on what I have spent my life working.  That you decided to waste your life evangelizing instead of learning something about nature is on you, not me.
Click to expand...


No need to apologize just keep it in perspective..


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am a geologist, so why would I accept the lie that evolution is not real?  What qualifications do you have to tell anyone that evolution is not real
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to authority ? What qualifications do you have does a butterfly have to navigate a flight of thousands of miles..what qualifications does a geologist have to deny
> an intelligent and infinite universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no authorities in science, only experts.  I have 26 years of field expertize in geology, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  I am also a longtime amateur astronomer.  What science expertize do you have?  Any at all?  Of course, you don't have any.  All you have is your faith, and we all know that faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so ego and self value are all warped in your.. belief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for who I am and on what I have spent my life working.  That you decided to waste your life evangelizing instead of learning something about nature is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to apologize just keep it in perspective..
Click to expand...


From my perspective, you have no real training in, experience, or understanding of science.  And yet you think you can play at the adult table when it comes to scientific issues.  Either get a real education or let the educated adults have these discussions because, frankly, I don't care whether or not you actually understand any of the evidence I've posted here.


----------



## S.J.

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.  Evolution requires more faith than creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's the funniest accusation I've heard coming from a creationist in years.  You should take that joke to Vegas.  I'm sure you will get lots of laughs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for your proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you might want to find a way to kill some time. It may be a while.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm not holding my breath.  This guy has delusions of grandeur.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appeal to authority ? What qualifications do you have does a butterfly have to navigate a flight of thousands of miles..what qualifications does a geologist have to deny
> an intelligent and infinite universe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are no authorities in science, only experts.  I have 26 years of field expertize in geology, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  I am also a longtime amateur astronomer.  What science expertize do you have?  Any at all?  Of course, you don't have any.  All you have is your faith, and we all know that faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, so ego and self value are all warped in your.. belief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for who I am and on what I have spent my life working.  That you decided to waste your life evangelizing instead of learning something about nature is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to apologize just keep it in perspective..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my perspective, you have no real training in, experience, or understanding of science.  And yet you think you can play at the adult table when it comes to scientific issues.  Either get a real education or let the educated adults have these discussions because, frankly, I don't care whether or not you actually understand any of the evidence I've posted here.
Click to expand...

*yes I see you invested many years in taking information and regurgitating it and I am not impressed, the world is full of buffoons with degrees. perhaps it is my lack of such indoctrination that allows me to see that..*

_One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population...blah blah blah etc etc etc...
if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try...._
*
Is speculation and reads like a cheap novel*


----------



## Mr.Right

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no authorities in science, only experts.  I have 26 years of field expertize in geology, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  I am also a longtime amateur astronomer.  What science expertize do you have?  Any at all?  Of course, you don't have any.  All you have is your faith, and we all know that faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so ego and self value are all warped in your.. belief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for who I am and on what I have spent my life working.  That you decided to waste your life evangelizing instead of learning something about nature is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to apologize just keep it in perspective..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my perspective, you have no real training in, experience, or understanding of science.  And yet you think you can play at the adult table when it comes to scientific issues.  Either get a real education or let the educated adults have these discussions because, frankly, I don't care whether or not you actually understand any of the evidence I've posted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *yes I see you invested many years in taking information and regurgitating it and I am not impressed the world is full of buffoons with degrees. perhaps it my lack of such indoctrination that allows me to see that..*
> 
> _One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population...blah blah blah etc etc etc...
> if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try...._
> *Is speculation and reads like a cheap novel*
Click to expand...

Ever notice how often evolutionists use words like maybe, could have and probably?


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are no authorities in science, only experts.  I have 26 years of field expertize in geology, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  I am also a longtime amateur astronomer.  What science expertize do you have?  Any at all?  Of course, you don't have any.  All you have is your faith, and we all know that faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so ego and self value are all warped in your.. belief
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for who I am and on what I have spent my life working.  That you decided to waste your life evangelizing instead of learning something about nature is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to apologize just keep it in perspective..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my perspective, you have no real training in, experience, or understanding of science.  And yet you think you can play at the adult table when it comes to scientific issues.  Either get a real education or let the educated adults have these discussions because, frankly, I don't care whether or not you actually understand any of the evidence I've posted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *yes I see you invested many years in taking information and regurgitating it and I am not impressed, the world is full of buffoons with degrees. perhaps it is my lack of such indoctrination that allows me to see that..*
> 
> _One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population...blah blah blah etc etc etc...
> if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try...._
> *
> Is speculation and reads like a cheap novel*
Click to expand...


It is not speculation. It has been observed in the field and in the laboratory many times.


----------



## HUGGY

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. *The simplest explanation is usually the truth*.
Click to expand...


The same does not go for the simplest speculation. The simplest speculation for why there are presents under the tree to a 5 year old is Santa Claus.  The truth of course is that the parents went to a lot of trouble and deception to hide the gifts and make sure the children are in the dark as they wrap these presents.  Manufacturers and retail outlets help prolong the deceit.  There is a man dressed up in a fake beard and red suit at every mall.  To a 5 year old there is overwhelming proof that Santa is real.  

When I was 5 I told my folks that I appreciated the presents but no longer wanted to get free stuff from Santa. The whole thing was made up and I wanted no part in the ruse.  It just seemed silly.  At some point in one's relationship with your parents you just would rather have a foundation based on truth and mutual respect.  A child might feel better not being lied to even if there is a monetary reward for playing along.  When a kid starts feeling like he or she is being bribed to accept playing a part it can be harmful and even foster resentment.

Many of you probably see this point of view as selfish to openly bust Santa on Christmas.  For me it actually started a personal investigation on the whole Christmas ordeal and started building a wedge into my feelings about Christianity also because of the Nativity aspect being interwoven into the holiday.  Once sure that Santa was a falsehood it made me question the rest of the whole thing including the three kings following a bright light in the sky etc.  Not long after the whole thing unraveled for me and the beginnings of a young atheist started to develop.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so ego and self value are all warped in your.. belief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for who I am and on what I have spent my life working.  That you decided to waste your life evangelizing instead of learning something about nature is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to apologize just keep it in perspective..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my perspective, you have no real training in, experience, or understanding of science.  And yet you think you can play at the adult table when it comes to scientific issues.  Either get a real education or let the educated adults have these discussions because, frankly, I don't care whether or not you actually understand any of the evidence I've posted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *yes I see you invested many years in taking information and regurgitating it and I am not impressed, the world is full of buffoons with degrees. perhaps it is my lack of such indoctrination that allows me to see that..*
> 
> _One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population...blah blah blah etc etc etc...
> if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try...._
> *
> Is speculation and reads like a cheap novel*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is not speculation. It has been observed in the field and in the laboratory many times.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

HUGGY said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. *The simplest explanation is usually the truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same does not go for the simplest speculation. The simplest speculation for why there are presents under the tree to a 5 year old is Santa Claus.  The truth of course is that the parents went to a lot of trouble and deception to hide the gifts and make sure the children are in the dark as they wrap these presents.  Manufacturers and retail outlets help prolong the deceit.  There is a man dressed up in a fake beard and red suit at every mall.  To a 5 year old there is overwhelming proof that Santa is real.
> 
> When I was 5 I told my folks that I appreciated the presents but no longer wanted to get free stuff from Santa. The whole thing was made up and I wanted no part in the ruse.  It just seemed silly.  At some point in one's relationship with your parents you just would rather have a foundation based on truth and mutual respect.  A child might feel better not being lied to even if there is a monetary reward for playing along.  When a kid starts feeling like he or she is being bribed to accept playing a part it can be harmful and even foster resentment.
> 
> Many of you probably see this point of view as selfish to openly bust Santa on Christmas.  For me it actually started a personal investigation on the whole Christmas ordeal and started building a wedge into my feelings about Christianity also because of the Nativity aspect being interwoven into the holiday.  Once sure that Santa was a falsehood it made me question the rest of the whole thing including the three kings following a bright light in the sky etc.  Not long after the whole thing unraveled for me and the beginnings of a young atheist started to develop.
Click to expand...

So the Santa myth left you scarred for life..poor kid..


----------



## HUGGY

Mr.Right said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see, so ego and self value are all warped in your.. belief
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is where I am supposed to apologize for who I am and on what I have spent my life working.  That you decided to waste your life evangelizing instead of learning something about nature is on you, not me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No need to apologize just keep it in perspective..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From my perspective, you have no real training in, experience, or understanding of science.  And yet you think you can play at the adult table when it comes to scientific issues.  Either get a real education or let the educated adults have these discussions because, frankly, I don't care whether or not you actually understand any of the evidence I've posted here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *yes I see you invested many years in taking information and regurgitating it and I am not impressed the world is full of buffoons with degrees. perhaps it my lack of such indoctrination that allows me to see that..*
> 
> _One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population...blah blah blah etc etc etc...
> if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try...._
> *Is speculation and reads like a cheap novel*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ever notice how often evolutionists use words like maybe, could have and probably?
Click to expand...


It's called honesty.  Try it sometime.  Admitting you are not absolutely sure about one small aspect of something is not stating one knows nothing about everything.  Saying god is the pat answer to everything is a dishonest and a patently weak answer to every question you have not yet resolved.  Try taking personal responsibility for your thinking process.


----------



## HUGGY

eots said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. *The simplest explanation is usually the truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same does not go for the simplest speculation. The simplest speculation for why there are presents under the tree to a 5 year old is Santa Claus.  The truth of course is that the parents went to a lot of trouble and deception to hide the gifts and make sure the children are in the dark as they wrap these presents.  Manufacturers and retail outlets help prolong the deceit.  There is a man dressed up in a fake beard and red suit at every mall.  To a 5 year old there is overwhelming proof that Santa is real.
> 
> When I was 5 I told my folks that I appreciated the presents but no longer wanted to get free stuff from Santa. The whole thing was made up and I wanted no part in the ruse.  It just seemed silly.  At some point in one's relationship with your parents you just would rather have a foundation based on truth and mutual respect.  A child might feel better not being lied to even if there is a monetary reward for playing along.  When a kid starts feeling like he or she is being bribed to accept playing a part it can be harmful and even foster resentment.
> 
> Many of you probably see this point of view as selfish to openly bust Santa on Christmas.  For me it actually started a personal investigation on the whole Christmas ordeal and started building a wedge into my feelings about Christianity also because of the Nativity aspect being interwoven into the holiday.  Once sure that Santa was a falsehood it made me question the rest of the whole thing including the three kings following a bright light in the sky etc.  Not long after the whole thing unraveled for me and the beginnings of a young atheist started to develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Santa myth left you scarred for life..poor kid..
Click to expand...


Scarred? Hardly.  It was refreshing to start unraveling some of the nonsense.  It gave me more faith in my own ability to reason things out.  It also started a 100% honest relationship with my parents which was enjoyed by them and I.


----------



## S.J.

This thread isn't about God, it's about evolution.  Why do you guys always try to change the subject?  Can't you make a case for evolution on it's own merits without trying to win the debate by default?  Do you think if you can challenge the existence of a creator that will somehow make the case for evolution?


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> This thread isn't about God, it's about evolution.  Why do you guys always try to change the subject?  Can't you make a case for evolution on it's own merits without trying to win the debate by default?  Do you think if you can challenge the existence of a creator that will somehow make the case for evolution?



This thread has never been about evolution.  It has been about you religious nut cases creating a forum in which you can babble on endlessly about how much you hate science and demonstrate to the world how completely clueless you people are.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.  Evolution requires more faith than creationism.
Click to expand...

There is no requirement for faith in the mechanisms of science. Faith is only a requirement for belief in magical spirit realms.


----------



## orogenicman

Some days I wish I had received a crappy education so the utter bullshit posted on threads like this didn't bother me so much.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Origin by Design - Harold G. Coffin Robert H. Brown R. James Gibson - Google Books
> 
> The Age-of-the-Earth Debate - Scientific American
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Top 10 Space Conspiracy Theories - HowStuffWorks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Its sad really..your use of strawman it reeks of some kind of desperation I do not understand
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your meetings at the Flat Earth Society must be a real hoot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> flat earth ? you really do live in private world of your own little Imaginings ,don't you
Click to expand...

No at all. I read the attempts at argument made by you Flat Earth Society promoters and let your own skewed arguments self-refute.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
Click to expand...


It's not at all unusual that the profoundly ignorant deniers of the physical and biological sciences typically spill out of the Henry Morris Institute for the Intellectually Crippled (AKA the Institute for Creation Research).

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

CC200 Transitional fossils

CC200.1 Transitional fossil abundance


----------



## rightwinger

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
Click to expand...

 
One species does not become another, they have common ancestors. Their comonality to those ancestors has been proven by biological, fossil and DNA evidence


----------



## rightwinger

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a geologist, so why would I accept the lie that evolution is not real?  What qualifications do you have to tell anyone that evolution is not real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appeal to authority ? What qualifications do you have does a butterfly have to navigate a flight of thousands of miles..what qualifications does a geologist have to deny
> an intelligent and infinite universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no authorities in science, only experts.  I have 26 years of field expertize in geology, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  I am also a longtime amateur astronomer.  What science expertize do you have?  Any at all?  Of course, you don't have any.  All you have is your faith, and we all know that faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
Click to expand...

 
Worse than his faith, he has his conspiracy theories


----------



## eots

rightwinger said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am a geologist, so why would I accept the lie that evolution is not real?  What qualifications do you have to tell anyone that evolution is not real
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Appeal to authority ? What qualifications do you have does a butterfly have to navigate a flight of thousands of miles..what qualifications does a geologist have to deny
> an intelligent and infinite universe
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no authorities in science, only experts.  I have 26 years of field expertize in geology, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  I am also a longtime amateur astronomer.  What science expertize do you have?  Any at all?  Of course, you don't have any.  All you have is your faith, and we all know that faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Worse than his faith, he has his conspiracy theories
Click to expand...

what a fkn moron


----------



## eots

rightwinger said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One species does not become another, they have common ancestors. Their comonality to those ancestors has been proven by biological, fossil and DNA evidence
Click to expand...

big whoop..means nothing


----------



## Old Rocks

No, Eots, the morons are you fellows that go up against literally mountains of evidence with your willfull ignorance.


----------



## rightwinger

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One species does not become another, they have common ancestors. Their comonality to those ancestors has been proven by biological, fossil and DNA evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> big whoop..means nothing
Click to expand...

 
Can we discuss gravity next?


----------



## eots

Old Rocks said:


> No, Eots, the morons are you fellows that go up against literally mountains of evidence with your willfull ignorance.


willfull ignorance?.


----------



## eots

rightwinger said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One species does not become another, they have common ancestors. Their comonality to those ancestors has been proven by biological, fossil and DNA evidence
Click to expand...




HUGGY said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I will provide you will an explanation that someone at your level of education (or lack thereof) should be able to grasp:
> 
> Evolution Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> *1. How can one species "turn into" another?*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not "turn into" another or several other species -- not in an instant, anyway. The evolutionary process of speciation is how one population of a species changes over time to the point where that population is distinct and can no longer interbreed with the "parent" population. In order for one population to diverge enough from another to become a new species, there needs to be something to keep the populations from mixing. Often a physical boundary divides the species into two (or more) populations and keeps them from interbreeding. If separated for long enough and presented with sufficiently varied environmental conditions, each population takes its own distinct evolutionary path. Sometimes the division between the populations is never breached, and reproductive isolation remains intact purely for geographical reasons. It is possible, though, if the populations have been separate for long enough, that even if brought back together and given the opportunity to interbreed they won't, or they won't be successful if they try.
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. *The simplest explanation is usually the truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same does not go for the simplest speculation. The simplest speculation for why there are presents under the tree to a 5 year old is Santa Claus.  The truth of course is that the parents went to a lot of trouble and deception to hide the gifts and make sure the children are in the dark as they wrap these presents.  Manufacturers and retail outlets help prolong the deceit.  There is a man dressed up in a fake beard and red suit at every mall.  To a 5 year old there is overwhelming proof that Santa is real.
> 
> When I was 5 I told my folks that I appreciated the presents but no longer wanted to get free stuff from Santa. The whole thing was made up and I wanted no part in the ruse.  It just seemed silly.  At some point in one's relationship with your parents you just would rather have a foundation based on truth and mutual respect.  A child might feel better not being lied to even if there is a monetary reward for playing along.  When a kid starts feeling like he or she is being bribed to accept playing a part it can be harmful and even foster resentment.
> 
> Many of you probably see this point of view as selfish to openly bust Santa on Christmas.  For me it actually started a personal investigation on the whole Christmas ordeal and started building a wedge into my feelings about Christianity also because of the Nativity aspect being interwoven into the holiday.  Once sure that Santa was a falsehood it made me question the rest of the whole thing including the three kings following a bright light in the sky etc.  Not long after the whole thing unraveled for me and the beginnings of a young atheist started to develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Santa myth left you scarred for life..poor kid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scarred? Hardly.  It was refreshing to start unraveling some of the nonsense.  It gave me more faith in my own ability to reason things out.  It also started a 100% honest relationship with my parents which was enjoyed by them and I.
Click to expand...

Really I thought it was about a person who
could not produce the mountain of evidence
referenced in the OP..and Instead  just tried to use appeal to authority by claiming how educated he is ...


----------



## cnm

Okay, invincible ignorance, the effect is much the same.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> [...]
> *Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*


Much more than just one piece of evidence has been produced. All but one piece has been willfully, or invincibly, ignored. C'est la vie when 'discussing' with the batshit crazies.


----------



## orogenicman

These evolution deniers, to a person, have no educational background in evolutionary science, have published no original work in evolutionary science, and have conducted no field or laboratory research in evolutionary science.  And yet we are supposed to believe that they know what the fuck they are talking about.  Obviously, they do not, but many others are qualified and have done the requisite work.  I am one of the latter.  Anyway, below is a list of links not all inclusive) where a lot of evidence for evolution can be found.

The evidence:

Introduction to Human Evolution The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Evolution 101 Human Evolution

TalkOrigins Archive Exploring the Creation Evolution Controversy

Understanding Evolution Resource Library

Evolution Evidence for - Biology Encyclopedia - body function human process different organisms DNA organs life used

Anne and Bernard Spitzer Hall of Human Origins

The Shape of Human Evolution The Leakey Foundation

Evidence for non-selective evolution of vertebrate genomes Human Frontier Science Program

Evolution vs Creationism Evolution Facts and Creationist Fallacies

An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Cheers,


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One species does not become another, they have common ancestors. Their comonality to those ancestors has been proven by biological, fossil and DNA evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. *The simplest explanation is usually the truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same does not go for the simplest speculation. The simplest speculation for why there are presents under the tree to a 5 year old is Santa Claus.  The truth of course is that the parents went to a lot of trouble and deception to hide the gifts and make sure the children are in the dark as they wrap these presents.  Manufacturers and retail outlets help prolong the deceit.  There is a man dressed up in a fake beard and red suit at every mall.  To a 5 year old there is overwhelming proof that Santa is real.
> 
> When I was 5 I told my folks that I appreciated the presents but no longer wanted to get free stuff from Santa. The whole thing was made up and I wanted no part in the ruse.  It just seemed silly.  At some point in one's relationship with your parents you just would rather have a foundation based on truth and mutual respect.  A child might feel better not being lied to even if there is a monetary reward for playing along.  When a kid starts feeling like he or she is being bribed to accept playing a part it can be harmful and even foster resentment.
> 
> Many of you probably see this point of view as selfish to openly bust Santa on Christmas.  For me it actually started a personal investigation on the whole Christmas ordeal and started building a wedge into my feelings about Christianity also because of the Nativity aspect being interwoven into the holiday.  Once sure that Santa was a falsehood it made me question the rest of the whole thing including the three kings following a bright light in the sky etc.  Not long after the whole thing unraveled for me and the beginnings of a young atheist started to develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Santa myth left you scarred for life..poor kid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scarred? Hardly.  It was refreshing to start unraveling some of the nonsense.  It gave me more faith in my own ability to reason things out.  It also started a 100% honest relationship with my parents which was enjoyed by them and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I thought it was about a person who
> could not produce the mountain of evidence
> referenced in the OP..and Instead  just tried to use appeal to authority by claiming how educated he is ...
Click to expand...


I have posted the requested evidence in numerous posts.  You, on the other hand, have posted nothing  other than ad hominem, and anti-science drivel.


----------



## Steven_R

If only there were some classes one could take on evolution. Maybe we could write the ideas down in textbooks and put them in libraries. We could even go so far as to put these libraries and classes in the same place...we could call it a university.

Nah, that'd never work.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One species does not become another, they have common ancestors. Their comonality to those ancestors has been proven by biological, fossil and DNA evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. *The simplest explanation is usually the truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same does not go for the simplest speculation. The simplest speculation for why there are presents under the tree to a 5 year old is Santa Claus.  The truth of course is that the parents went to a lot of trouble and deception to hide the gifts and make sure the children are in the dark as they wrap these presents.  Manufacturers and retail outlets help prolong the deceit.  There is a man dressed up in a fake beard and red suit at every mall.  To a 5 year old there is overwhelming proof that Santa is real.
> 
> When I was 5 I told my folks that I appreciated the presents but no longer wanted to get free stuff from Santa. The whole thing was made up and I wanted no part in the ruse.  It just seemed silly.  At some point in one's relationship with your parents you just would rather have a foundation based on truth and mutual respect.  A child might feel better not being lied to even if there is a monetary reward for playing along.  When a kid starts feeling like he or she is being bribed to accept playing a part it can be harmful and even foster resentment.
> 
> Many of you probably see this point of view as selfish to openly bust Santa on Christmas.  For me it actually started a personal investigation on the whole Christmas ordeal and started building a wedge into my feelings about Christianity also because of the Nativity aspect being interwoven into the holiday.  Once sure that Santa was a falsehood it made me question the rest of the whole thing including the three kings following a bright light in the sky etc.  Not long after the whole thing unraveled for me and the beginnings of a young atheist started to develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Santa myth left you scarred for life..poor kid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scarred? Hardly.  It was refreshing to start unraveling some of the nonsense.  It gave me more faith in my own ability to reason things out.  It also started a 100% honest relationship with my parents which was enjoyed by them and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I thought it was about a person who
> could not produce the mountain of evidence
> referenced in the OP..and Instead  just tried to use appeal to authority by claiming how educated he is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted the requested evidence in numerous posts.  You, on the other hand, have posted nothing  other than ad hominem, and anti-science drivel.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.


----------



## eots

Steven_R said:


> If only there were some classes one could take on evolution. Maybe we could write the ideas down in textbooks and put them in libraries. We could even go so far as to put these libraries and classes in the same place...we could call it a university.
> 
> Nah, that'd never work.


then I could regurgitate what they tell me without question and I could be smart too


----------



## Steven_R

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only there were some classes one could take on evolution. Maybe we could write the ideas down in textbooks and put them in libraries. We could even go so far as to put these libraries and classes in the same place...we could call it a university.
> 
> Nah, that'd never work.
> 
> 
> 
> then I could regurgitate what they tell me without question and I could be smart too
Click to expand...


Every single thing in those textbooks and classes is up for challenging. If you can't replicate the results, someone has some 'splaining to do Lucy. So take the classes, do the work, and see if you come up with the same answers.

Or just pretend it's all some huge conspiracy.


----------



## Mr.Right

Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.


----------



## Steven_R

Welcome to Evolution 101 

First hit on Google. Start from there.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One species does not become another, they have common ancestors. Their comonality to those ancestors has been proven by biological, fossil and DNA evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. *The simplest explanation is usually the truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same does not go for the simplest speculation. The simplest speculation for why there are presents under the tree to a 5 year old is Santa Claus.  The truth of course is that the parents went to a lot of trouble and deception to hide the gifts and make sure the children are in the dark as they wrap these presents.  Manufacturers and retail outlets help prolong the deceit.  There is a man dressed up in a fake beard and red suit at every mall.  To a 5 year old there is overwhelming proof that Santa is real.
> 
> When I was 5 I told my folks that I appreciated the presents but no longer wanted to get free stuff from Santa. The whole thing was made up and I wanted no part in the ruse.  It just seemed silly.  At some point in one's relationship with your parents you just would rather have a foundation based on truth and mutual respect.  A child might feel better not being lied to even if there is a monetary reward for playing along.  When a kid starts feeling like he or she is being bribed to accept playing a part it can be harmful and even foster resentment.
> 
> Many of you probably see this point of view as selfish to openly bust Santa on Christmas.  For me it actually started a personal investigation on the whole Christmas ordeal and started building a wedge into my feelings about Christianity also because of the Nativity aspect being interwoven into the holiday.  Once sure that Santa was a falsehood it made me question the rest of the whole thing including the three kings following a bright light in the sky etc.  Not long after the whole thing unraveled for me and the beginnings of a young atheist started to develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Santa myth left you scarred for life..poor kid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scarred? Hardly.  It was refreshing to start unraveling some of the nonsense.  It gave me more faith in my own ability to reason things out.  It also started a 100% honest relationship with my parents which was enjoyed by them and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I thought it was about a person who
> could not produce the mountain of evidence
> referenced in the OP..and Instead  just tried to use appeal to authority by claiming how educated he is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have posted the requested evidence in numerous posts.  You, on the other hand, have posted nothing  other than ad hominem, and anti-science drivel.
Click to expand...

most everything post as evidence is little more than story telling


----------



## eots

Steven_R said:


> Welcome to Evolution 101
> 
> First hit on Google. Start from there.


I did and I discovered most doctors choose camels..its science !


----------



## Steven_R

If you want to remain willfully ignorant, that's you business, but don't pretend the evidence doesn't exist when it's spoonfed to you.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only there were some classes one could take on evolution. Maybe we could write the ideas down in textbooks and put them in libraries. We could even go so far as to put these libraries and classes in the same place...we could call it a university.
> 
> Nah, that'd never work.
> 
> 
> 
> then I could regurgitate what they tell me without question and I could be smart too
Click to expand...


If students in science classes all across the planet never ever asked a question, you'd have a point.  But since that has NEVER been the case, next.  Perhaps you slept during class (or skipped out and got high with your friends) and that explains your ignorance.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only there were some classes one could take on evolution. Maybe we could write the ideas down in textbooks and put them in libraries. We could even go so far as to put these libraries and classes in the same place...we could call it a university.
> 
> Nah, that'd never work.
> 
> 
> 
> then I could regurgitate what they tell me without question and I could be smart too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If students in science classes all across the planet never ever asked a question, you'd have a point.  But since that has NEVER been the case, next.  Perhaps you slept during class (or skipped out and got high with your friends) and that explains your ignorance.
Click to expand...

right and how do write off those with higher education than yourself that question the soundness of evolutionary theory ?


----------



## Steven_R

They question it but aren't producing the work to back up their assumption (and agendas). Where are the articles in Nature and Science and PMAS that will put a stake in the heart of evolution? Answer: They aren't being written. 

If I am a biologist and can stop evolution in its tracks, I'm getting eternal notoriety and a Nobel Prize, at the very least. I'll be in every bio book with Linnaeus and Leeuwenhoek and the Human Genome Project from this day forward.

So why aren't they being written?


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.



Perhaps you should review those 25 pages, and Mr. Wrong, I posted evidence that showed you were wrong; you even admitted the errors of your ways.  I have since posted numerous examples of evolution, and provided independent links to a host of evidence.  For you to now come back and claim that there was nothing posted to demonstrate the validity of the most widely accepted scientific theory in history is disingenuous, to say the least.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> If only there were some classes one could take on evolution. Maybe we could write the ideas down in textbooks and put them in libraries. We could even go so far as to put these libraries and classes in the same place...we could call it a university.
> 
> Nah, that'd never work.
> 
> 
> 
> then I could regurgitate what they tell me without question and I could be smart too
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If students in science classes all across the planet never ever asked a question, you'd have a point.  But since that has NEVER been the case, next.  Perhaps you slept during class (or skipped out and got high with your friends) and that explains your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> right and how do write off those with higher education than yourself that question the soundness of evolutionary theory ?
Click to expand...


I now understand the problem you are having.  Before you take any other classes, it would be useful for you to first take a class in English.


----------



## HUGGY

eots said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Eots, the morons are you fellows that go up against literally mountains of evidence with your willfull ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> willfull ignorance?.
Click to expand...


You all could be possessed I suppose.


----------



## Mr.Right

HUGGY said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Eots, the morons are you fellows that go up against literally mountains of evidence with your willfull ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> willfull ignorance?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You all could be possessed I suppose.
Click to expand...

And you could be an idiot.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Eots, the morons are you fellows that go up against literally mountains of evidence with your willfull ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> willfull ignorance?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You all could be possessed I suppose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you could be an idiot.
Click to expand...


No response to my post #257?


----------



## Mr.Right

Steven_R said:


> They question it but aren't producing the work to back up their assumption (and agendas). Where are the articles in Nature and Science and PMAS that will put a stake in the heart of evolution? Answer: They aren't being written.
> 
> If I am a biologist and can stop evolution in its tracks, I'm getting eternal notoriety and a Nobel Prize, at the very least. I'll be in every bio book with Linnaeus and Leeuwenhoek and the Human Genome Project from this day forward.
> 
> So why aren't they being written?


They are being written. There are many scientists, many of them atheists, who disagree with evolution. The majority is not always correct. Especially when they must toe the party line in order to get funding. There is also the threat of retribution by ones peers for disagreeing with the establishment.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> They question it but aren't producing the work to back up their assumption (and agendas). Where are the articles in Nature and Science and PMAS that will put a stake in the heart of evolution? Answer: They aren't being written.
> 
> If I am a biologist and can stop evolution in its tracks, I'm getting eternal notoriety and a Nobel Prize, at the very least. I'll be in every bio book with Linnaeus and Leeuwenhoek and the Human Genome Project from this day forward.
> 
> So why aren't they being written?
> 
> 
> 
> They are being written. There are many scientists, many of them atheists, who disagree with evolution.
Click to expand...


Names, please.



> The majority is not always correct. Especially when they must toe the party line in order to get funding. There is also the threat of retribution by ones peers for disagreeing with the establishment.



Not only is that not true, it has never been true.  Posting lies about the scientific community is against the very religious tenants in which you profess to believe.  You do recall a certain commandment that demands that you refrain from bearing false witness, right?  RIGHT?


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, science is not about proof.  Mathematics is about proof.  Science is about verifiable, repeatable evidence.  You can't get past 5th grade science, and yet you call me a moron?  That's very funny.
> 
> 
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.  Evolution requires more faith than creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is no requirement for faith in the mechanisms of science.* Faith is only a requirement for belief in magical spirit realms.
Click to expand...

Then you should be able to give us something other than speculation.


----------



## Tuatara

orogenicman said:


> Names, please.


Yes, I would like to see them too. Until then I will listen to the crickets chirp.


----------



## rightwinger

Mr.Right said:


> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.


 
Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution

Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence

Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence


----------



## S.J.

rightwinger said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
Click to expand...

You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.


----------



## rightwinger

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
Click to expand...

 
Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats

There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats

Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design


----------



## guno

cnm said:


> I accept you can't tell the difference between a theory and evidence. That's why you're batshit crazy.




He is a *christophrenic*


----------



## S.J.

rightwinger said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats*
> 
> There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats
> 
> Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design
Click to expand...

Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims.  And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats*
> 
> There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats
> 
> Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims.  And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.
Click to expand...

There is also the fact that there are exactly zero intermediate fossils in the fossil record. If evolution is true there should be plenty of them. Where are they?


----------



## guno

Science matters because it is not dependent on faith, it depends on skepticism and doubt. Nothing is ever proven, only disproven. A prevailing theory can last for decades, centuries even, and then be cast aside. Yet science moves on, making new discoveries and eliminating possibilities that have been found wanting.

The War On Science The Creativity Post


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
Click to expand...


Holy batcrap!

Genetic testing is used in paternity tests because it is very precise in making that determination.  Likewise, if bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA, and bonobos, chimpanzees and human beings share 98.6% of their DNA, then it is more than a coincidence that they do.

Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives Science AAAS News


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats*
> 
> There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats
> 
> Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims.  And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.
Click to expand...


Breeding is simply artificial selection.  Evolution is natural selection.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats*
> 
> There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats
> 
> Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims.  And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is also the fact that there are exactly zero intermediate fossils in the fossil record. If evolution is true there should be plenty of them. Where are they?
Click to expand...


This is yet another case of creationists creating a lie (i.e., bearing false witness) and then running with it no matter how many times the lie is spelled out for them,  This argument, the 'no transitional species' argument, is false.  ALL species are transitional.


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> They question it but aren't producing the work to back up their assumption (and agendas). Where are the articles in Nature and Science and PMAS that will put a stake in the heart of evolution? Answer: They aren't being written.
> 
> If I am a biologist and can stop evolution in its tracks, I'm getting eternal notoriety and a Nobel Prize, at the very least. I'll be in every bio book with Linnaeus and Leeuwenhoek and the Human Genome Project from this day forward.
> 
> So why aren't they being written?
> 
> 
> 
> They are being written. There are many scientists, many of them atheists, who disagree with evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Names, please.
> 
> <snip>
Click to expand...


...crickets chirping....


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats*
> 
> There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats
> 
> Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims.  And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is also the fact that there are exactly zero intermediate fossils in the fossil record. If evolution is true there should be plenty of them. Where are they?
Click to expand...


It's pretty clear that "facts" are not elements that Flat Earth aficionados are   familiar with. 

There are are great many examples of transitional fossils. 

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ

CC200 Transitional fossils

CC200.1 Transitional fossil abundance


----------



## rightwinger

S.J. said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats*
> 
> There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats
> 
> Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims.  And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.
Click to expand...

Dogs and cats branched off of a common ancestor.  They didn't turn into each other.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet evolution has no verifiable, repeatable evidence. That should tell you something right there. Assuming you had a functioning brain, that is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What evidence for evolution do you believe is not verifiable, or repeatable.  Be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> well you seem refuse to accept there is no evidence or observation of  one species transition to another and try to explain it away with a story that could rival that of noah and seems to require faith
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You hit the nail on the head.  Evolution requires more faith than creationism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *There is no requirement for faith in the mechanisms of science.* Faith is only a requirement for belief in magical spirit realms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you should be able to give us something other than speculation.
Click to expand...

I did. 

You were completely befuddled and unable to refute the facts you never learned at the Jimmy Swaggert madrassah.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.


The evidence has been presented. You're entitled to live in a world of self-imposed ignorance and invented conspiracy theories, however, you are still the stuff of ridicule.


----------



## guno

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence has been presented. You're entitled to live in a world of self-imposed ignorance and invented conspiracy theories, however, you are still the stuff of ridicule.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> you are still the stuff of ridicule



And mocking


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a....Fact
> 
> God is a theory
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One species does not become another, they have common ancestors. Their comonality to those ancestors has been proven by biological, fossil and DNA evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked for proof, not speculation.  Can't you follow simple instructions, moron?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. *The simplest explanation is usually the truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same does not go for the simplest speculation. The simplest speculation for why there are presents under the tree to a 5 year old is Santa Claus.  The truth of course is that the parents went to a lot of trouble and deception to hide the gifts and make sure the children are in the dark as they wrap these presents.  Manufacturers and retail outlets help prolong the deceit.  There is a man dressed up in a fake beard and red suit at every mall.  To a 5 year old there is overwhelming proof that Santa is real.
> 
> When I was 5 I told my folks that I appreciated the presents but no longer wanted to get free stuff from Santa. The whole thing was made up and I wanted no part in the ruse.  It just seemed silly.  At some point in one's relationship with your parents you just would rather have a foundation based on truth and mutual respect.  A child might feel better not being lied to even if there is a monetary reward for playing along.  When a kid starts feeling like he or she is being bribed to accept playing a part it can be harmful and even foster resentment.
> 
> Many of you probably see this point of view as selfish to openly bust Santa on Christmas.  For me it actually started a personal investigation on the whole Christmas ordeal and started building a wedge into my feelings about Christianity also because of the Nativity aspect being interwoven into the holiday.  Once sure that Santa was a falsehood it made me question the rest of the whole thing including the three kings following a bright light in the sky etc.  Not long after the whole thing unraveled for me and the beginnings of a young atheist started to develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Santa myth left you scarred for life..poor kid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scarred? Hardly.  It was refreshing to start unraveling some of the nonsense.  It gave me more faith in my own ability to reason things out.  It also started a 100% honest relationship with my parents which was enjoyed by them and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I thought it was about a person who
> could not produce the mountain of evidence
> referenced in the OP..and Instead  just tried to use appeal to authority by claiming how educated he is ...
Click to expand...

There's no question at all about the evidence for biological evolution among the relevant science community.

You may have missed it but the science deniers are exclusively the more excitable of the religious extremists. I suppose folks like you need a special exception from having to live in a reality based world view.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy batcrap!
> 
> Genetic testing is used in paternity tests because it is very precise in making that determination.  Likewise, if bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA, and bonobos, chimpanzees and human beings share 98.6% of their DNA, then it is more than a coincidence that they do.
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives Science AAAS News
Click to expand...

however more than a coincidence does not prove your theory


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy batcrap!
> 
> Genetic testing is used in paternity tests because it is very precise in making that determination.  Likewise, if bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA, and bonobos, chimpanzees and human beings share 98.6% of their DNA, then it is more than a coincidence that they do.
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives Science AAAS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> however more than a coincidence does not prove your theory
Click to expand...

So.. we're to assume that your conspiracy is that the entirety of the relevant science community has fabricated the various disciplines of biology, chemistry, paleontology, etc., just to perpetuate Darwinian theory?

How do people like you function on a day to day basis?


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fact?  Then show us the proof.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One species does not become another, they have common ancestors. Their comonality to those ancestors has been proven by biological, fossil and DNA evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> They have no proof. It takes as much faith, if not more, to believe evolution rather than Creation. Evolution has countless impossible hurdles to jump through. Creation has just one. The existence of God. *The simplest explanation is usually the truth*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same does not go for the simplest speculation. The simplest speculation for why there are presents under the tree to a 5 year old is Santa Claus.  The truth of course is that the parents went to a lot of trouble and deception to hide the gifts and make sure the children are in the dark as they wrap these presents.  Manufacturers and retail outlets help prolong the deceit.  There is a man dressed up in a fake beard and red suit at every mall.  To a 5 year old there is overwhelming proof that Santa is real.
> 
> When I was 5 I told my folks that I appreciated the presents but no longer wanted to get free stuff from Santa. The whole thing was made up and I wanted no part in the ruse.  It just seemed silly.  At some point in one's relationship with your parents you just would rather have a foundation based on truth and mutual respect.  A child might feel better not being lied to even if there is a monetary reward for playing along.  When a kid starts feeling like he or she is being bribed to accept playing a part it can be harmful and even foster resentment.
> 
> Many of you probably see this point of view as selfish to openly bust Santa on Christmas.  For me it actually started a personal investigation on the whole Christmas ordeal and started building a wedge into my feelings about Christianity also because of the Nativity aspect being interwoven into the holiday.  Once sure that Santa was a falsehood it made me question the rest of the whole thing including the three kings following a bright light in the sky etc.  Not long after the whole thing unraveled for me and the beginnings of a young atheist started to develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Santa myth left you scarred for life..poor kid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scarred? Hardly.  It was refreshing to start unraveling some of the nonsense.  It gave me more faith in my own ability to reason things out.  It also started a 100% honest relationship with my parents which was enjoyed by them and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I thought it was about a person who
> could not produce the mountain of evidence
> referenced in the OP..and Instead  just tried to use appeal to authority by claiming how educated he is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no question at all about the evidence for biological evolution among the relevant science community.
> 
> You may have missed it but the science deniers are exclusively the more excitable of the religious extremists. I suppose folks like you need a special exception from having to live in a reality based world view.
Click to expand...

How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?" For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer. (_Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548_)

Another evolutionist authority, world renowned molecular biologist Leslie Orgel, is more outspoken on the subject:

It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL MEANS. (_Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, Vol.271, October 1994, p. 78_)


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy batcrap!
> 
> Genetic testing is used in paternity tests because it is very precise in making that determination.  Likewise, if bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA, and bonobos, chimpanzees and human beings share 98.6% of their DNA, then it is more than a coincidence that they do.
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives Science AAAS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> however more than a coincidence does not prove your theory
Click to expand...


Dude, it's 98.6% NOT a coincidence.

Moreover, as primates, we share many characteristics with other primates, and ONLY other primates, such as:

Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)
Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears
Color vision
Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)
Grasping fingers aid in power grip
Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads (fingerprints) on digits
Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones
Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars
Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex
Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire
Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes
Prolongation of postnatal life periods
Reduced litter size—usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)
Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest
Complicated social organization

We are primates descended from ancestors in common with Chimpanzees and Bonobos, bubba.  And no amount of denial is going to change this, the most documented fact in all of science.


----------



## eots

*Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution *


----------



## Mr.Right

eots said:


> *Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution *


I didn't watch that because my WiFi can't handle it, but I assume it mentions the proliferation of genetic diseases over the last century or so. I think this is proof that man has not been around as long as evolutionists claim. The number of genetic errors we're seeing would have wiped us out long ago.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The FACT that Evolution occurs is supported by biological, fossil, geologic and recently......DNA evidence*
> 
> God is just a theory......A theory unsupported by scientific evidence
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One species does not become another, they have common ancestors. Their comonality to those ancestors has been proven by biological, fossil and DNA evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> The same does not go for the simplest speculation. The simplest speculation for why there are presents under the tree to a 5 year old is Santa Claus.  The truth of course is that the parents went to a lot of trouble and deception to hide the gifts and make sure the children are in the dark as they wrap these presents.  Manufacturers and retail outlets help prolong the deceit.  There is a man dressed up in a fake beard and red suit at every mall.  To a 5 year old there is overwhelming proof that Santa is real.
> 
> When I was 5 I told my folks that I appreciated the presents but no longer wanted to get free stuff from Santa. The whole thing was made up and I wanted no part in the ruse.  It just seemed silly.  At some point in one's relationship with your parents you just would rather have a foundation based on truth and mutual respect.  A child might feel better not being lied to even if there is a monetary reward for playing along.  When a kid starts feeling like he or she is being bribed to accept playing a part it can be harmful and even foster resentment.
> 
> Many of you probably see this point of view as selfish to openly bust Santa on Christmas.  For me it actually started a personal investigation on the whole Christmas ordeal and started building a wedge into my feelings about Christianity also because of the Nativity aspect being interwoven into the holiday.  Once sure that Santa was a falsehood it made me question the rest of the whole thing including the three kings following a bright light in the sky etc.  Not long after the whole thing unraveled for me and the beginnings of a young atheist started to develop.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So the Santa myth left you scarred for life..poor kid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scarred? Hardly.  It was refreshing to start unraveling some of the nonsense.  It gave me more faith in my own ability to reason things out.  It also started a 100% honest relationship with my parents which was enjoyed by them and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I thought it was about a person who
> could not produce the mountain of evidence
> referenced in the OP..and Instead  just tried to use appeal to authority by claiming how educated he is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no question at all about the evidence for biological evolution among the relevant science community.
> 
> You may have missed it but the science deniers are exclusively the more excitable of the religious extremists. I suppose folks like you need a special exception from having to live in a reality based world view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?" For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer. (_Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548_)
Click to expand...


Erm, (cough), ahem.  A 1980 book?  Really?  Pal, genetic science has advanced by orders of magnitude since 1980.  You didn't know this?  huh.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> Another evolutionist authority, world renowned molecular biologist Leslie Orgel, is more outspoken on the subject:



There are no authorities in science, dude, only experts.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL MEANS. (_Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, Vol.271, October 1994, p. 78_)



Gee, now I know you are desperate, because you have resorted to the old creationist standard of quote mining scientists, which is the height of dishonesty in your ranks.  What you conveniently leave out that Orgel was a die hard evolutionary scientist.  In face, he devised several general biochemical rules that are in use today.  They are:

Orgel s rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

1) "Whenever a spontaneous process is too slow or too inefficient a protein will evolve to speed it up or make it more efficient."  This "rule" comments on the fact that there is a great number of proteins in all organisms which fulfil a number of different functions through modifying chemical or physical processes. An example would be an enzyme that catalyses a chemical reaction that would take place too slowly to benefit an organism without being sped up by this enzyme.

2) Evolution is cleverer than you are."

Orgel's Second Rule is intended as a rejoinder to the argument by lack of imagination. In general, this rule expresses the sometimes experienced fact that "trial and error" strategies are better than centralized intelligent human planning.

Orgel's rule can also be used to counter creationist arguments in which often the hidden and non-provable presumption is suggested, that human intelligent planning is in general superior to trial and error strategies used by evolution.[_citation needed_]

The same principle has been given as an analogy to software developed in an evolutionary sense by group collaboration, as opposed to software built to a pre-ordained design that was created without reference to previous implementation. Although, the development is not claimed to be of the same random nature as is by evolutionary genetics.

However, Orgel would never have reduced evolutionary theory to "trial and error". The complexity and evolving nature of evolutionary theory can be appreciated from Stephen J. Gould's late works.,[1][2] These works show that Orgel's second rule applies to evolutionary biologists as well as the general public, as he no doubt intended.

Moreover:

Leslie Orgel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

During the 1970s, Orgel suggested reconsidering the Panspermia hypothesis, according to which the earliest forms of life on earth did not originate here, but arrived from outer space with meteorites.

*Together with **Stanley Miller**, Orgel also suggested that **peptide nucleic acids** - rather than **ribonucleic acids** - constituted the first pre-**biotic** systems capable of **self-replication** on **early Earth**.*


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> *Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution *



You need to provide a different link if you want people to see this video.  It doesn't show up in my browser.


----------



## orogenicman

John C. Sanford - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



> Formerly an atheist[10] from the mid-1980s, Sanford has looked into theistic evolution (1985–late 1990s), Old Earth creationism (late 1990s), and Young Earth creationism (2000–present). According to his own words, he did not fully reject Darwinian evolution until the year 2000.[_citation needed_] An advocate of intelligent design, Sanford testified in 2005 in the Kansas evolution hearings on behalf of intelligent design, during which he denied the principle of common descent and "humbly offered... that we were created by a special creation, by God".
> 
> He stated that he believed the age of the Earth was "less than 100,000" years.[11] Sanford uses an analogy to illustrate evidence of design - that of a car versus a junkyard: "A car is complex, but so is a junkyard. However, a car is complex in a way that is very specific — which is why it works. It requires a host of very intelligent engineers to specify its complexity, so it is a functional whole."[12] Intelligent-design advocate William Dembski cites the accomplishments of Sanford as evidence of the scientific status of intelligent design, since Sanford is a specialist in genetic engineering and a Courtesy Associate Professor in Horticulture. *However, almost all geneticists and biologists **reject Sanford's position*. Dembski[13] endorsed Sanford's book _Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome_.[14]



I might add, that the (conservative) Dover trial judge rejected his arguments and ruled that Intelligent design was nothing more than creationism revised to make it appear to be more scientific than it actually is.  He ruled that intelligent design is a religious belief, and is not science.

Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## HUGGY

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy batcrap!
> 
> Genetic testing is used in paternity tests because it is very precise in making that determination.  Likewise, if bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA, and bonobos, chimpanzees and human beings share 98.6% of their DNA, then it is more than a coincidence that they do.
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives Science AAAS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> however more than a coincidence does not prove your theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, it's 98.6% NOT a coincidence.
> 
> Moreover, as primates, we share many characteristics with other primates, and ONLY other primates, such as:
> 
> Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)
> Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears
> Color vision
> Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)
> Grasping fingers aid in power grip
> Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads (fingerprints) on digits
> Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones
> Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars
> Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex
> Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire
> Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes
> Prolongation of postnatal life periods
> Reduced litter size—usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)
> Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest
> Complicated social organization
> 
> We are primates descended from ancestors in common with Chimpanzees and Bonobos, bubba.  And no amount of denial is going to change this, the most documented fact in all of science.
Click to expand...


Interesting you mentioned finger prints.

That alone is proof that every human body is continually developing "new" characteristics from conception.


----------



## orogenicman

HUGGY said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> 
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Holy batcrap!
> 
> Genetic testing is used in paternity tests because it is very precise in making that determination.  Likewise, if bonobos and chimpanzees share 99.6% of their DNA, and bonobos, chimpanzees and human beings share 98.6% of their DNA, then it is more than a coincidence that they do.
> 
> Bonobos Join Chimps as Closest Human Relatives Science AAAS News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> however more than a coincidence does not prove your theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dude, it's 98.6% NOT a coincidence.
> 
> Moreover, as primates, we share many characteristics with other primates, and ONLY other primates, such as:
> 
> Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)
> Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears
> Color vision
> Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)
> Grasping fingers aid in power grip
> Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads (fingerprints) on digits
> Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones
> Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars
> Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex
> Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire
> Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes
> Prolongation of postnatal life periods
> Reduced litter size—usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)
> Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest
> Complicated social organization
> 
> We are primates descended from ancestors in common with Chimpanzees and Bonobos, bubba.  And no amount of denial is going to change this, the most documented fact in all of science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting you mentioned finger prints.
> 
> That alone is proof that every human body is continually developing "new" characteristics from conception.
Click to expand...


All primates have them (but only primates have them), so they have been around for a very long time.

Human handprint on left.  Ape handprint on right:


----------



## Old Rocks

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Twenty five pages into this discussion, and still no factual evidence for evolution. All I've seen were a few talking points, one of which was debunked a century ago, insults and deflection. Surely you guys can do better than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Right: You can't provide factual evidence of evolution
> 
> Rest of the thread: 25 pages of factual evidence
> 
> Mr Right: See? I told you you can't provide factual evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're confusing evidence with similarities.  If a dog looks a little like a cat, that means they are similar, it is not "evidence" that some creature came up out of the ocean and started evolving into other creatures.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Nobody is talking dogs turning into cats*
> 
> There is ample evidence of extinct species that evolved into dogs and cats
> 
> Dogs "evolved" from wolves through creative design
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, actually you are, if it all supposedly started with one species which is what evolution claims.  And the point about dogs and wolves is a result of breeding, not evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is also the fact that there are exactly zero intermediate fossils in the fossil record. If evolution is true there should be plenty of them. Where are they?
Click to expand...

Lordy, lordy, either you are as dumb as a rock, or you are addicted to lying. Probably both.
 A few transitional fossils


----------



## Old Rocks

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.  That's just your leap.  Show us proof that one species became another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One species does not become another, they have common ancestors. Their comonality to those ancestors has been proven by biological, fossil and DNA evidence
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> So the Santa myth left you scarred for life..poor kid..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scarred? Hardly.  It was refreshing to start unraveling some of the nonsense.  It gave me more faith in my own ability to reason things out.  It also started a 100% honest relationship with my parents which was enjoyed by them and I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really I thought it was about a person who
> could not produce the mountain of evidence
> referenced in the OP..and Instead  just tried to use appeal to authority by claiming how educated he is ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's no question at all about the evidence for biological evolution among the relevant science community.
> 
> You may have missed it but the science deniers are exclusively the more excitable of the religious extremists. I suppose folks like you need a special exception from having to live in a reality based world view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How did the Genetic Code, along with the mechanisms for its translation (ribosomes and RNA molecules), originate?" For the moment, we will have to content ourselves with a sense of wonder and awe, rather than with an answer. (_Douglas R. Hofstadter, Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid, New York: Vintage Books, 1980, p. 548_)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, (cough), ahem.  A 1980 book?  Really?  Pal, genetic science has advanced by orders of magnitude since 1980.  You didn't know this?  huh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another evolutionist authority, world renowned molecular biologist Leslie Orgel, is more outspoken on the subject:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are no authorities in science, dude, only experts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is extremely improbable that proteins and nucleic acids, both of which are structurally complex, arose spontaneously in the same place at the same time. Yet it also seems impossible to have one without the other. And so, at first glance, ONE MIGHT HAVE TO CONCLUDE THAT LIFE COULD NEVER, IN FACT, HAVE ORIGINATED BY CHEMICAL MEANS. (_Leslie E. Orgel, "The Origin of Life on Earth," Scientific American, Vol.271, October 1994, p. 78_)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Gee, now I know you are desperate, because you have resorted to the old creationist standard of quote mining scientists, which is the height of dishonesty in your ranks.  What you conveniently leave out that Orgel was a die hard evolutionary scientist.  In face, he devised several general biochemical rules that are in use today.  They are:
> 
> Orgel s rule - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 1) "Whenever a spontaneous process is too slow or too inefficient a protein will evolve to speed it up or make it more efficient."  This "rule" comments on the fact that there is a great number of proteins in all organisms which fulfil a number of different functions through modifying chemical or physical processes. An example would be an enzyme that catalyses a chemical reaction that would take place too slowly to benefit an organism without being sped up by this enzyme.
> 
> 2) Evolution is cleverer than you are."
> 
> Orgel's Second Rule is intended as a rejoinder to the argument by lack of imagination. In general, this rule expresses the sometimes experienced fact that "trial and error" strategies are better than centralized intelligent human planning.
> 
> Orgel's rule can also be used to counter creationist arguments in which often the hidden and non-provable presumption is suggested, that human intelligent planning is in general superior to trial and error strategies used by evolution.[_citation needed_]
> 
> The same principle has been given as an analogy to software developed in an evolutionary sense by group collaboration, as opposed to software built to a pre-ordained design that was created without reference to previous implementation. Although, the development is not claimed to be of the same random nature as is by evolutionary genetics.
> 
> However, Orgel would never have reduced evolutionary theory to "trial and error". The complexity and evolving nature of evolutionary theory can be appreciated from Stephen J. Gould's late works.,[1][2] These works show that Orgel's second rule applies to evolutionary biologists as well as the general public, as he no doubt intended.
> 
> Moreover:
> 
> Leslie Orgel - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> During the 1970s, Orgel suggested reconsidering the Panspermia hypothesis, according to which the earliest forms of life on earth did not originate here, but arrived from outer space with meteorites.
> 
> *Together with **Stanley Miller**, Orgel also suggested that **peptide nucleic acids** - rather than **ribonucleic acids** - constituted the first pre-**biotic** systems capable of **self-replication** on **early Earth**.*
Click to expand...

And some interesting thoughts on peptides and protocells.

Steps towards the formation of a protocell the possible role of short peptides. - ResearchGate


----------



## guno




----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> *Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution *


Oh good gawd, man. 

John Sanford is a YEC'ist hack. 



*Springer gets suckered by creationist pseudoscience*
By Nick Matzke on February 27, 2012 12:27 PM
*Note: The Springer webpage for the book was taken down about 24 hours after this post; see update post.*

It looks like some creationist engineers found a way to slither some ID/creationism into a major academic publisher, Springer. The major publishers have enough problems at the moment (e.g. see the Elsevier boycott), it seems like the last thing they should be doing is frittering away their credibility even further by uncritically publishing creationist work and giving it a veneer of respectability. The mega-publishers are expensive, are making money off of largely government-funded work provided to them for free, and then the public doesn’t even have access to it. The only thing they have going for them is quality control and credibility – if they give that away to cranks, there is no reason at all to support them.

(A note: even if you bought the ridiculous idea that ID isn’t creationism, they’ve got John Sanford, a straight-up young-earth creationist for goodness sakes, as an editor and presumably author!)

Here’s the summary:

Biological Information: New Perspectives

Series: Intelligent Systems Reference Library, Vol. 38

Marks II, R.J.; Behe, M.J.; Dembski, W.A.; Gordon, B.L.; Sanford, J.C. (Eds.)

2012, 2012, XII, 549 p.

Hardcover, ISBN 978-3-642-28453-3

Due: March 31, 2012 $179.00


----------



## Steven_R

Tuatara said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Names, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would like to see them too. Until then I will listen to the crickets chirp.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

*Encyclopedia of American Loons*
Encyclopedia of American Loons 1107 John C. Sanford




John C. Sanford is a plant geneticist. He is also a young earth creationist, and as such one of the few creationists out there with real and even relevant credentials (and one of the few the Discovery Institute has found for their petition A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism). Indeed, Sanford has quite a number of real, peer reviewed publications – though none of them support creationism, of course – and was, in his time, assistant professor of Horticultural Sciences at Cornell (now retired, but still holds a position as a courtesy associate professor), something that also made him unsuitable for that shining example of cherrypicking, Expelled, of course.

His involvement in the creationist conferenceBiological Information: New Perspectives, which privately rented a room at the campus of Cornell but advertised itself in a manner that made it look like a Cornell-sponsored conference, is a bit unclear, but at least he was a coeditor of the Proceedings, gave an introductory comment and contributed to several presentations. The conference, and the subsequent brouhaha over the fact that Springer seemed willing to publish the proceedings (in the end they didn’t), is discussed here and here. Here is a discussion of Sanford’s own comments on the issues.

As a creationist Sanford is perhaps most famous for his arguments for devolution, for instance in his 2005 book _Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome_, the idea being that mutations and natural selection do not account for the information in the human genome and that instead of evolution these mechanisms are causing devolution in accordance with the myth of the Fall (also here). Indeed, one of his main pieces of evidence for devolution is the decline in lifespans among Noah’s descendants, as described in the Bible – according to Sanford this “is one of the strongest, as a scientist, one of the strongest evidences for me that Scripture is telling us, not speaking figuratively, not speaking creatively, but telling us history. And it speaks of a decline.” Indeed. No paper promoting Sanford’s concept of “genetic entropy” has ever made it through peer review (though it made it into Don Batten’s _101 evidences for a young age of the Earth and the universe_).

His other usual talking points should be familiar, and include references to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics (blithely avoiding addressing the standard responses from real scientists).

Sanford was a relatively central witness for the creationists during the Kansas Evolution hearings. A transcript of his contributions ishere.

*Diagnosis: A dangerously delusional fellow, Sanford is among the few in the religiously fundamentalist anti-science movement with real credentials (though apparently little real understanding), and as such he lends a little bit of credence to such denialism.*


----------



## Delta4Embassy

"According to a 2006 study first published in the magazine, Science, the United States ranks thirty-third out of thirty four nations (32 in Europe plus Japan and the United States) in acceptance of evolution. Iceland ranks first. *Only Turkey ranked lower than the United States in the acceptance of evolution.*"
The U.S. ranks 33rd in acceptance of evolution Ranking America

Evolution is fact. Unless agreeing, say nothing instead, you're just embarsssing yourselves.


----------



## eots

Harvard geneticist George Church has said some fascinating things on the theme of intelligent design. He's particularly interested, if I'm summarizing correctly, in the idea of biology as engineering. So is Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer. Which is why, having read some of his published remarks, we sent Dr. Church an advance copy of _Darwin's Doubt_ asking that he look in particular at the middle section of the book, "How to Build an Animal," which deals precisely with the massive engineering problems facing Darwinian evolutionary theory.

We were grateful to get back this gracious comment, which appears on the dust jacket.

Stephen Meyer's new book _Darwin's Doubt_ represents an opportunity for bridge-building, rather than dismissive polarization -- bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialog -- and bridges to span evolutionary gaps.
What George Church Famed Harvard Geneticist Says About em Darwin s Doubt em and Intelligent Design - Evolution News Views


----------



## eots

Steven_R said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Names, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would like to see them too. Until then I will listen to the crickets chirp.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

*Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?*


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Harvard geneticist George Church has said some fascinating things on the theme of intelligent design. He's particularly interested, if I'm summarizing correctly, in the idea of biology as engineering. So is Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer. Which is why, having read some of his published remarks, we sent Dr. Church an advance copy of _Darwin's Doubt_ asking that he look in particular at the middle section of the book, "How to Build an Animal," which deals precisely with the massive engineering problems facing Darwinian evolutionary theory.
> 
> We were grateful to get back this gracious comment, which appears on the dust jacket.
> 
> Stephen Meyer's new book _Darwin's Doubt_ represents an opportunity for bridge-building, rather than dismissive polarization -- bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialog -- and bridges to span evolutionary gaps.
> What George Church Famed Harvard Geneticist Says About em Darwin s Doubt em and Intelligent Design - Evolution News Views



Not sure what you think this proves.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Names, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would like to see them too. Until then I will listen to the crickets chirp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?*
Click to expand...


The great apes and Humans are all classified in the same family, Hominidae.  Why?

For all the reasons I've already elucidated and more:

Introduction to Human Evolution The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program

Evolution 101 Human Evolution


----------



## Steven_R

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Names, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would like to see them too. Until then I will listen to the crickets chirp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?*
Click to expand...


Chromosome #2 in humans is a fusion of Chromosomes #2 and #13 in chimps. There is a second centromere and a telomere in our #2 that can only be the result of a mutation that was two chromosomes joining. It's right there in black and white.


----------



## Steven_R

eots said:


> Harvard geneticist George Church has said some fascinating things on the theme of intelligent design. He's particularly interested, if I'm summarizing correctly, in the idea of biology as engineering. So is Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer. Which is why, having read some of his published remarks, we sent Dr. Church an advance copy of _Darwin's Doubt_ asking that he look in particular at the middle section of the book, "How to Build an Animal," which deals precisely with the massive engineering problems facing Darwinian evolutionary theory.
> 
> We were grateful to get back this gracious comment, which appears on the dust jacket.
> 
> Stephen Meyer's new book _Darwin's Doubt_ represents an opportunity for bridge-building, rather than dismissive polarization -- bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialog -- and bridges to span evolutionary gaps.
> What George Church Famed Harvard Geneticist Says About em Darwin s Doubt em and Intelligent Design - Evolution News Views


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> non -answer
> 
> Names, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would like to see them too. Until then I will listen to the crickets chirp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The great apes and Humans are all classified in the same family, Hominidae.  Why?
> 
> For all the reasons I've already elucidated and more:
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program
> 
> Evolution 101 Human Evolution
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*


Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.

Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> non -answer
> 
> Names, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would like to see them too. Until then I will listen to the crickets chirp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The great apes and Humans are all classified in the same family, Hominidae.  Why?
> 
> For all the reasons I've already elucidated and more:
> 
> Introduction to Human Evolution The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program
> 
> Evolution 101 Human Evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Erm, did I leave you speechless?


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
Click to expand...

Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog fertal with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> Harvard geneticist George Church has said some fascinating things on the theme of intelligent design. He's particularly interested, if I'm summarizing correctly, in the idea of biology as engineering. So is Discovery Institute's Stephen Meyer. Which is why, having read some of his published remarks, we sent Dr. Church an advance copy of _Darwin's Doubt_ asking that he look in particular at the middle section of the book, "How to Build an Animal," which deals precisely with the massive engineering problems facing Darwinian evolutionary theory.
> 
> We were grateful to get back this gracious comment, which appears on the dust jacket.
> 
> Stephen Meyer's new book _Darwin's Doubt_ represents an opportunity for bridge-building, rather than dismissive polarization -- bridges across cultural divides in great need of professional, respectful dialog -- and bridges to span evolutionary gaps.
> What George Church Famed Harvard Geneticist Says About em Darwin s Doubt em and Intelligent Design - Evolution News Views


Can you show us a peer review of his conclusions? Then he's just a 5% fringe thinker like you.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
Click to expand...


Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?

What is feral?


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
Click to expand...


Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?

What is feral?


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
Click to expand...

Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
Click to expand...

Actually you are the idiot. Dogs are the perfect example of natural selection because of or instead of it taking millions of years for dogs to naturally evolve into other species over millions of years we've sped up the process and did it in a couple generations. If we liked small dogs we bred small dogs. Cute dogs. Big dogs. The breeder unnaturally only bed the little pug like dogs next thing we have are pugs. You want a curl tail we'll only breed curled tailed dogs. You clearly dont understand what you are talking about. You need to watch the cosmos. That's your homework.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
Click to expand...

We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
Click to expand...


Polar bears and grizzleys are another great example. Two different species of bear. Happened over millions of years. Black bears didn't survive the ice age like white bears. White bears flourished.


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the idiot. Dogs are the perfect example of natural selection because of or instead of it taking millions of years for dogs to naturally evolve into other species over millions of years we've sped up the process and did it in a couple generations. If we liked small dogs we bred small dogs. Cute dogs. Big dogs. The breeder unnaturally only bed the little pug like dogs next thing we have are pugs. You want a curl tail we'll only breed curled tailed dogs. You clearly dont understand what you are talking about. You need to watch the cosmos. That's your homework.
Click to expand...

I was going to try to correct your erroneous thinking, but then I realized that you simply can't fix stupid. I pity you. I really do.


----------



## cnm

It's not his fault you can't think in millions of years time spans.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the idiot. Dogs are the perfect example of natural selection because of or instead of it taking millions of years for dogs to naturally evolve into other species over millions of years we've sped up the process and did it in a couple generations. If we liked small dogs we bred small dogs. Cute dogs. Big dogs. The breeder unnaturally only bed the little pug like dogs next thing we have are pugs. You want a curl tail we'll only breed curled tailed dogs. You clearly dont understand what you are talking about. You need to watch the cosmos. That's your homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to try to correct your erroneous thinking, but then I realized that you simply can't fix stupid. I pity you. I really do.
Click to expand...


Your anti-science / anti-knowledge agenda has been thoroughly exposed as nothing more than you pressing your extremist religious beliefs. You're now reduced to childish name-calling.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the idiot. Dogs are the perfect example of natural selection because of or instead of it taking millions of years for dogs to naturally evolve into other species over millions of years we've sped up the process and did it in a couple generations. If we liked small dogs we bred small dogs. Cute dogs. Big dogs. The breeder unnaturally only bed the little pug like dogs next thing we have are pugs. You want a curl tail we'll only breed curled tailed dogs. You clearly dont understand what you are talking about. You need to watch the cosmos. That's your homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to try to correct your erroneous thinking, but then I realized that you simply can't fix stupid. I pity you. I really do.
Click to expand...

If I'm as dumb as Neil degrasse Tyson I'll take that as a compliment.

I'll go with scientific consensus you go with Jesus.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the idiot. Dogs are the perfect example of natural selection because of or instead of it taking millions of years for dogs to naturally evolve into other species over millions of years we've sped up the process and did it in a couple generations. If we liked small dogs we bred small dogs. Cute dogs. Big dogs. The breeder unnaturally only bed the little pug like dogs next thing we have are pugs. You want a curl tail we'll only breed curled tailed dogs. You clearly dont understand what you are talking about. You need to watch the cosmos. That's your homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to try to correct your erroneous thinking, but then I realized that you simply can't fix stupid. I pity you. I really do.
Click to expand...

Pity me? Over this? Wow. Lol


----------



## HUGGY

eots said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Names, please.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I would like to see them too. Until then I will listen to the crickets chirp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Where is the proof that apes turned into humans?*
Click to expand...


What proof is there that god created dancing bananas?


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the idiot. Dogs are the perfect example of natural selection because of or instead of it taking millions of years for dogs to naturally evolve into other species over millions of years we've sped up the process and did it in a couple generations. If we liked small dogs we bred small dogs. Cute dogs. Big dogs. The breeder unnaturally only bed the little pug like dogs next thing we have are pugs. You want a curl tail we'll only breed curled tailed dogs. You clearly dont understand what you are talking about. You need to watch the cosmos. That's your homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to try to correct your erroneous thinking, but then I realized that you simply can't fix stupid. I pity you. I really do.
Click to expand...

Many in fact most christians have come to grips with evolution. Dont worry. Even long after you accept evolution you'll still believe god did it.

But I do love theists who are threatened by science. I think theists who dont believe the bible stories are real factual historical events should stop calling themselves christians. 

You are a real christian. And only real christians should go fight jihad with your retarded cousins islam.


----------



## Mr.Right

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually you are the idiot. Dogs are the perfect example of natural selection because of or instead of it taking millions of years for dogs to naturally evolve into other species over millions of years we've sped up the process and did it in a couple generations. If we liked small dogs we bred small dogs. Cute dogs. Big dogs. The breeder unnaturally only bed the little pug like dogs next thing we have are pugs. You want a curl tail we'll only breed curled tailed dogs. You clearly dont understand what you are talking about. You need to watch the cosmos. That's your homework.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was going to try to correct your erroneous thinking, but then I realized that you simply can't fix stupid. I pity you. I really do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your anti-science / anti-knowledge agenda has been thoroughly exposed as nothing more than you pressing your extremist religious beliefs. You're now reduced to childish name-calling.
Click to expand...

Lol. Whatever makes you happy, babe.


----------



## sealybobo

cnm said:


> It's not his fault you can't think in millions of years time spans.


I didnt realize what he was saying when he said fertal. Now I see his problem. All dogs are wolves and all wolves are dogs. It bothers him that we say man once was a fish then crawled out of the water and was a small mammal then monkey then man. He wants to think we were always man.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog fertal with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
Click to expand...


We took wolf pups and bred the aggressiveness out of them, and over time, bred them for certain characteristics, such as the ability to swim, the ability to herd, the ability to help with the hunt, the ability to pull heavy sleds.  They became our companions, and in so doing, became more intelligent, more docile, more gracile.  It is a classic example of domestication, artificial selection, the very first example, in fact.  There are many more.  The horse,  the cow, the domestic sheep and goat, the cat, and even more.  All of these animals are derived from wild stock, and many can no longer breed with those wild stocks, and some of those wild stocks are now extinct.


----------



## eots

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
Click to expand...

We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> It's not his fault you can't think in millions of years time spans.


funny...


----------



## Steven_R

eots said:


> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?



Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Chimpanzee human last common ancestor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Mr.Right

Steven_R said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Chimpanzee human last common ancestor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...




Steven_R said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Chimpanzee human last common ancestor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

You call that evidence? It's nothing but speculation. They cannot prove any of what they claim.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
Click to expand...


Evolution Library The Rise of Mammals


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Chimpanzee human last common ancestor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sahelanthropus - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> Chimpanzee human last common ancestor - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You call that evidence? It's nothing but speculation. They cannot prove any of what they claim.
Click to expand...


We already have.


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
Click to expand...

Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.

I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.

The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a scientific theory. The highest honor an idea can achieve. God isnt even a normal theory. Its only a hypothesis. Why do you require no proof for your theory but dont accept the mountains of evidence and reason for scientific consensus. Idiot theist. Evolution happens. Look at what we did with wolves in just a few thousand years.
> 
> Theists should be denied medicine because it came from science.
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
Click to expand...

In fact not only are we related to every other animal on the tree of life we are related to the tree. If you dont get it that's probably why you were such easy pray for your cult.

We use to think the world was still and the universe revolved around us. This is where your prehistoric religion comes from. What if there were millions of other planets with life on them and we are just to small and insignifigant and young a species to know it. God is just a gap between monkey and truly evolved humans.


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not his fault you can't think in millions of years time spans.
> 
> 
> 
> funny...
Click to expand...

What that you exposed your ignorance about the dog thing? See what happens when you shut science out because it conflicts with your religion? 

How can you say you can honestly say you csn think in terms of millions of years when you think the earth is only 6500 years old.


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
Click to expand...

More speculation. Or should I simply call it lies? There is no evidence it happened that way. You're still a clueless idiot.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> 
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More speculation. Or should I simply call it lies? There is no evidence it happened that way. You're still a clueless idiot.
Click to expand...

Plenty of evidence. The scientific community has all the research and have come up with scientific consensus.

Same with cigarettes cause cancer. Do you doubt that too? In fact your kind one time did. Same with lead poisoning. 

I have always noticed a unholy alliance between the countries ism and their religion. Capitalism and christianity in america.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> 
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More speculation. Or should I simply call it lies? There is no evidence it happened that way. You're still a clueless idiot.
Click to expand...

Well explain how you think it happened again? We want to compare your theory to why we believe in evolution. We use many scientific methods to come to our conclusions. How did you verify your theories?

You trusted the stories of the ancients? Fool.


----------



## Tuatara

Read the book!


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> You call that evidence? It's nothing but speculation. They cannot prove any of what they claim.


You keep confusing the evidence with the theory.


----------



## S.J.

Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of name calling by the idiots who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.


----------



## Tuatara

S.J. said:


> Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of *name calling by the idiots* who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.


Oh the irony.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of name calling by the idiots who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.


----------



## eots

sealybobo said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
Click to expand...

Thats what you measure evolution by...literal interpretations of bible stories


----------



## cnm

sealybobo said:


> Well explain how you think it happened again? We want to compare your theory to why we believe in evolution. We use many scientific methods to come to our conclusions. How did you verify your theories?


a) YHWH done it.

b) Verify? YHWH done it.


----------



## eots

sealybobo said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
Click to expand...




orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of name calling by the idiots who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.
Click to expand...

that would be an adaptation


----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well explain how you think it happened again? We want to compare your theory to why we believe in evolution. We use many scientific methods to come to our conclusions. How did you verify your theories?
> 
> 
> 
> a) YHWH done it.
> 
> b) Verify? YHWH done it.
Click to expand...

At least there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What does evolution have? A bunch of guesswork. That's it.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of name calling by the idiots who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.


This was the OP...


Mr.Right said:


> *Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*


You've been shown many pieces of evidence, but batshit crazies can't recognise it when they see it.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> At least there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What does evolution have? A bunch of guesswork. That's it.


Show us your historical evidence that YHWH done it, that's what we've been asking. I mean it was all here when Jesus was supposed to have been here.


----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of name calling by the idiots who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.
> 
> 
> 
> This was the OP...
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown many pieces of evidence, but batshit crazies can't recognise it when they see it.
Click to expand...

Oh, I recognize it all right. As a bunch of unsubstantiated BS. NOTHING YOU PROVIDED IS HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. NONE OF IT CAN BE PROVEN. THAT'S A FACT!


----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What does evolution have? A bunch of guesswork. That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us your historical evidence that YHWH done it, that's what we've been asking. I mean it was all here when Jesus was supposed to have been here.
Click to expand...

Creationism isn't on trial here. Evolution is. Quit deflecting.


----------



## eots

sealybobo said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of idiots, the example you gave about breeding wolves? That is not evolution. every breed of dog is feral with wolves, and with each other. No evolution has taken place, as you claim. You are an idiot. Go educate yourself. Your ignorance is offensive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact not only are we related to every other animal on the tree of life we are related to the tree. If you dont get it that's probably why you were such easy pray for your cult.
> 
> We use to think the world was still and the universe revolved around us. This is where your prehistoric religion comes from. What if there were millions of other planets with life on them and we are just to small and insignifigant and young a species to know it. God is just a gap between monkey and truly evolved humans.
Click to expand...

the universe being an  intelligent design  has nothing to do with your statements, does it


----------



## S.J.

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What does evolution have? A bunch of guesswork. That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us your historical evidence that YHWH done it, that's what we've been asking. I mean it was all here when Jesus was supposed to have been here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Creationism isn't on trial here. Evolution is.* Quit deflecting.
Click to expand...

And it's about to be found guilty, guilty of bullshit.


----------



## Mr.Right

eots said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> 
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact not only are we related to every other animal on the tree of life we are related to the tree. If you dont get it that's probably why you were such easy pray for your cult.
> 
> We use to think the world was still and the universe revolved around us. This is where your prehistoric religion comes from. What if there were millions of other planets with life on them and we are just to small and insignifigant and young a species to know it. God is just a gap between monkey and truly evolved humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the universe being an  intelligent design  has nothing to do with your statements, does it
Click to expand...

There are so many problems with the theory of evolution. They could fill a book. Why does anyone buy this crap?


----------



## eots

Tuatara said:


> Read the book!


He defends evolution by holding it up to the strawman of fundamentalist dogma


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Oh, I recognize it all right. As a bunch of unsubstantiated BS. NOTHING YOU PROVIDED IS HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. NONE OF IT CAN BE PROVEN. THAT'S A FACT!


The existence of fossils is proven. You can both see and touch them. They are hard evidence.

I note you've not fronted up with any evidence that YHWH done it.


----------



## S.J.

Mr.Right said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In fact not only are we related to every other animal on the tree of life we are related to the tree. If you dont get it that's probably why you were such easy pray for your cult.
> 
> We use to think the world was still and the universe revolved around us. This is where your prehistoric religion comes from. What if there were millions of other planets with life on them and we are just to small and insignifigant and young a species to know it. God is just a gap between monkey and truly evolved humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the universe being an  intelligent design  has nothing to do with your statements, does it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There are so many problems with the theory of evolution. They could fill a book. Why does anyone buy this crap?
Click to expand...

Notice how it's very similar to their claim of "global warming"?  Their mantra seems to be "Take our word for it and don't question it, you fucking deniers".


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Creationism isn't on trial here. Evolution is. Quit deflecting.


You're the one saying YHWH done it.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Notice how it's very similar to their claim of "global warming"?  Their mantra seems to be "Take our word for it and don't question it, you fucking deniers".


Except where we show the evidence, you batshit crazy.





Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> There are so many problems with the theory of evolution. They could fill a book. Why does anyone buy this crap?


Because it's the best knowledge available. You keep being told this but ignore it as though you can't read it.


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice how it's very similar to their claim of "global warming"?  Their mantra seems to be "Take our word for it and don't question it, you fucking deniers".
> 
> 
> 
> Except where we show the evidence, you batshit crazy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Data.GISS GISS Surface Temperature Analysis Analysis Graphs and Plots
Click to expand...

correlation is not causation


----------



## Tuatara

eots said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read the book!
> 
> 
> 
> He defends evolution by holding it up to the strawman of fundamentalist dogma
Click to expand...

Didn't watch the whole video or read the book. It's OK. We can all learn a lot by watching only the first minute of a video that provides ample evidence of evolution. It's far better to ignore it all than to educate yourself.


----------



## Mr.Right

Read the OP again, idiot. It doesn't mention God or creation. Does it? Now, shut your yap.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well explain how you think it happened again? We want to compare your theory to why we believe in evolution. We use many scientific methods to come to our conclusions. How did you verify your theories?
> 
> 
> 
> a) YHWH done it.
> 
> b) Verify? YHWH done it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> At least there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What does evolution have? A bunch of guesswork. That's it.
Click to expand...


Again, you are being dishonest here.  Christians are supposed to be honest, and more importantly, they are not supposed to bear false witness, which is a mortal sin.  Looks like you owe your god 100 lashes, Bosephus.


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are so many problems with the theory of evolution. They could fill a book. Why does anyone buy this crap?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's the best knowledge available. You keep being told this but ignore it as though you can't read it.
Click to expand...

the best knowledge available on an infinite universe and its purpose and nature is limited to say the least


----------



## S.J.

Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of name calling by the idiots who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.
> 
> 
> 
> This was the OP...
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've been shown many pieces of evidence, but batshit crazies can't recognise it when they see it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, I recognize it all right. As a bunch of unsubstantiated BS. NOTHING YOU PROVIDED IS HARD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE. NONE OF IT CAN BE PROVEN. THAT'S A FACT!
Click to expand...


Tens of thousands of scientists around the world work on and use the theory of evolution on a daily basis and have for over 150 years.  Laboratories spend untold millions of dollars conducting evolution-based research with great success.  The majority of Christians, in fact, accept the fact of evolution.  But Mr.Wrong is special.  He is right and everyone else is wrong.  Why?  Because he says so.

I'm convinced.  Oh wait...

You still haven't responded to at least ten of my posts responding to your posts?  Whatsa matta.  Cat got yer tongue?


----------



## Tuatara

Mr.Right said:


> Read the OP again, idiot. It doesn't mention God or creation. Does it? Now, shut your yap.


The OP is asking for evidence of evolution. It has been presented numerous times here. The deniers have no conception of science and rely on "creationist" sites for their rebuttals. Please actually debate the actual content provided to you. If you cannot, wave the white flag and leave with dignity and hope your grandchildren will never read what you have posted here..


----------



## Dante

Tuatara said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the OP again, idiot. It doesn't mention God or creation. Does it? Now, shut your yap.
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is asking for evidence of evolution. It has been presented numerous times here. The deniers have no conception of science and rely on "creationist" sites for their rebuttals. Please actually debate the actual content provided to you. If you cannot, wave the white flag and leave with dignity and hope your grandchildren will never read what you have posted here..
Click to expand...



here is the weird thing: people like you keep responding


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.



It would have been a favor to us if you had.


----------



## Mr.Right

I've always wondered. If evolution is a fact, why did people fabricate phony evidence to support it?


----------



## orogenicman

Tuatara said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the OP again, idiot. It doesn't mention God or creation. Does it? Now, shut your yap.
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is asking for evidence of evolution. It has been presented numerous times here. The deniers have no conception of science and rely on "creationist" sites for their rebuttals. Please actually debate the actual content provided to you. If you cannot, wave the white flag and leave with dignity and hope your grandchildren will never read what you have posted here..
Click to expand...


And they never cite those web sites, even though the information from those sites have been cited elsewhere ad infinitum.  Which means that not only are they liars, they are plagiarizers.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> I've always wondered. If evolution is a fact, why did people fabricate phony evidence to support it?



I have always wondered, and maybe you can answer this question for me?  Where in the Bible  does it say it is okay to lie for Jesus?


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> correlation is not causation


Even when the scientific community tells you so and you have no research of your own to dispute it. Fair enough, there's no ignorance like invincible ignorance.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What does evolution have? A bunch of guesswork. That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us your historical evidence that YHWH done it, that's what we've been asking. I mean it was all here when Jesus was supposed to have been here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationism isn't on trial here. Evolution is. Quit deflecting.
Click to expand...


Erm, what trial, where?  Scopes is over.  Dover is over, and you folks lost.


----------



## eots




----------



## Dante

Mr.Right said:


> I've always wondered. If evolution is a fact, why did people fabricate phony evidence to support it?


because they wanted to bait wingnutty religious nitwits?


----------



## Dante

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What does evolution have? A bunch of guesswork. That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us your historical evidence that YHWH done it, that's what we've been asking. I mean it was all here when Jesus was supposed to have been here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationism isn't on trial here. Evolution is. Quit deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, what trial, where?  Scopes is over.  Dover is over, and you folks lost.
Click to expand...

argument by comic video?  genius, you should run for Dog catcher


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> the best knowledge available on an infinite universe and its purpose and nature is limited to say the least


It is still the best knowledge available until better knowledge replaces it.


----------



## Tuatara

Dante said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the OP again, idiot. It doesn't mention God or creation. Does it? Now, shut your yap.
> 
> 
> 
> The OP is asking for evidence of evolution. It has been presented numerous times here. The deniers have no conception of science and rely on "creationist" sites for their rebuttals. Please actually debate the actual content provided to you. If you cannot, wave the white flag and leave with dignity and hope your grandchildren will never read what you have posted here..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> here is the weird thing: people like you keep responding
Click to expand...

And you are responding to me, and you keep responding in the thread. Who knew people would do that in a public forum. That's weird.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.


How come you ignore the proven fact of fossil existence as fitting the one piece of hard evidence requested in the OP?


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been a favor to us if you had.
Click to expand...

I'm sure it would have.  Then you wouldn't have to provide any evidence.


----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> How come you ignore the proven fact of fossil existence as fitting the one piece of hard evidence requested in the OP?
Click to expand...

Because it doesn't. The only fact is their existence. We simply don't agree with their interpretation of that fact.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> I've always wondered. If evolution is a fact, why did people fabricate phony evidence to support it?


I guess that's like splinters of the true cross and the Shroud of Turin, people enjoy practical jokes.


----------



## Tuatara

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> How come you ignore the proven fact of fossil existence as fitting the one piece of hard evidence requested in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it doesn't. The only fact is their existence. We simply don't agree with their interpretation of that fact.
Click to expand...

What is your interpretation of fossils? This ought to be good.


----------



## cnm

Dante said:


> because they wanted to bait wingnutty religious nitwits?


I hope you're not saying that like it's a bad thing...


----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered. If evolution is a fact, why did people fabricate phony evidence to support it?
> 
> 
> 
> I guess that's like splinters of the true cross and the Shroud of Turin, people enjoy practical jokes.
Click to expand...

More deflection.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Because it doesn't. The only fact is their existence. We simply don't agree with their interpretation of that fact.


Well, invincible ignorance *is* invincible, I think I've already admitted that.

But still, it's not like evidence being evidence there is no evidence is a new trope of the batshit crazies.


----------



## Mr.Right

Tuatara said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> How come you ignore the proven fact of fossil existence as fitting the one piece of hard evidence requested in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it doesn't. The only fact is their existence. We simply don't agree with their interpretation of that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your interpretation of fossils? This ought to be good.
Click to expand...

Why should I bother telling you? You'll simply dismiss it. Won't you?


----------



## orogenicman

Dante said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What does evolution have? A bunch of guesswork. That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us your historical evidence that YHWH done it, that's what we've been asking. I mean it was all here when Jesus was supposed to have been here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationism isn't on trial here. Evolution is. Quit deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, what trial, where?  Scopes is over.  Dover is over, and you folks lost.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> argument by comic video?  genius, you should run for Dog catcher
Click to expand...


Their arguments are only worth laughter, dude.  Take Ken Ham (please) for instance.  Now there is a nutcase if there is one.  Like Lewis Black said, those people apparently believe that the Flintstones is a documentary!  Batshit crazy, I tell ya.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> More deflection.


You don't enjoy practical jokes? Where's your sense of humour?


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> How come you ignore the proven fact of fossil existence as fitting the one piece of hard evidence requested in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it doesn't. The only fact is their existence. We simply don't agree with their interpretation of that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your interpretation of fossils? This ought to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I bother telling you? You'll simply dismiss it. Won't you?
Click to expand...


We can't dismiss it if we don't know what your interpretation is.  Oh wait, I almost forgot.  You are ignoring my posts.  Loser.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Why should I bother telling you? You'll simply dismiss it. Won't you?


Try not to let your lip quiver so much.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been a favor to us if you had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it would have.  Then you wouldn't have to provide any evidence.
Click to expand...


I would still be a geologist regardless.


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> the best knowledge available on an infinite universe and its purpose and nature is limited to say the least
> 
> 
> 
> It is still the best knowledge available until better knowledge replaces it.
Click to expand...

or until Jesus or the aliens return to smote our asses..who ever gets here first


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been a favor to us if you had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it would have.  Then you wouldn't have to provide any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would still be a geologist regardless.
Click to expand...

But you still wouldn't be able to provide any evidence, just like you can't provide any now.


----------



## Mr.Right

cnm said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I bother telling you? You'll simply dismiss it. Won't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to let your lip quiver so much.
Click to expand...

Well, look at you. Trying to be clever, and failing badly. Ain't that cute? Run along now, so the adults can continue this discussion.


----------



## Tuatara

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> How come you ignore the proven fact of fossil existence as fitting the one piece of hard evidence requested in the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because it doesn't. The only fact is their existence. We simply don't agree with their interpretation of that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is your interpretation of fossils? This ought to be good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should I bother telling you? You'll simply dismiss it. Won't you?
Click to expand...

So you can't even back up your own argument let alone provide your own argument. Why are you even here?


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been a favor to us if you had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it would have.  Then you wouldn't have to provide any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would still be a geologist regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you still wouldn't be able to provide any evidence, just like you can't provide any now.
Click to expand...


Denial is not a river in Eqypt, yet you people are willfully ignorant about science.  I can't be kind about this, because you people believe in talking snakes, for Pete's sake.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should I bother telling you? You'll simply dismiss it. Won't you?
> 
> 
> 
> Try not to let your lip quiver so much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, look at you. Trying to be clever, and failing badly. Ain't that cute? Run along now, so the adults can continue this discussion.
Click to expand...


<Crickets chirping>


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that mountain of evidence.  Glad I didn't hold my breath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been a favor to us if you had.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sure it would have.  Then you wouldn't have to provide any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would still be a geologist regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you still wouldn't be able to provide any evidence, just like you can't provide any now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denial is not a river in Eqypt, yet you people are willfully ignorant about science.  I can't be kind about this, because you people believe in talking snakes, for Pete's sake.
Click to expand...

Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Well, look at you. Trying to be clever, and failing badly. Ain't that cute? Run along now, so the adults can continue this discussion.


Ain't my lip quivering. I'm quite happy to admit when I've made a mistake and realign my opinions to the evidence. You? Not so much.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> It would have been a favor to us if you had.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it would have.  Then you wouldn't have to provide any evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I would still be a geologist regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you still wouldn't be able to provide any evidence, just like you can't provide any now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denial is not a river in Eqypt, yet you people are willfully ignorant about science.  I can't be kind about this, because you people believe in talking snakes, for Pete's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?
Click to expand...


There are 41 pages in this thread.  In nearly each of my posts you will find ample evidence.  That you don't recognize scientific evidence when you see it only demonstrates that you and your creationist cronies have no business in this discussion to begin with.  And no it was not a childish comment. The childlike behavior rests in the laps of those, such as yourself, who believe that the universe is only 10,000 years old, and that dinosaurs and people once lived side by side (hence the Flintstones analogy).  Get a grip on reality for once in your life and realize that the theory of evolution is not going anywhere anytime soon.  And I'd ask why you people are so anti-science, but all I have to do is look at the history of Christianity itself to find the answer to that question.  From the murder of Hypatia at the hands of Christians, to the abdominal treatment of Galileo, you people have been denying the findings of science since your very beginnings.  So no one should be surprised that you still deny it.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it would have.  Then you wouldn't have to provide any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would still be a geologist regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you still wouldn't be able to provide any evidence, just like you can't provide any now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denial is not a river in Eqypt, yet you people are willfully ignorant about science.  I can't be kind about this, because you people believe in talking snakes, for Pete's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 41 pages in this thread.  In nearly each of my posts you will find ample evidence.  That you don't recognize scientific evidence when you see it only demonstrates that you and your creationist cronies have no business in this discussion to begin with.  And no it was not a childish comment. The childlike behavior rests in the laps of those, such as yourself, who believe that the universe is only 10,000 years old, and that dinosaurs and people once lived side by side (hence the Flintstones analogy).  Get a grip on reality for once in your life and realize that the theory of evolution is not going anywhere anytime soon.  And I'd ask why you people are so anti-science, but all I have to do is look at the history of Christianity itself to find the answer to that question.  From the murder of Hypatia at the hands of Christians, to the abdominal treatment of Galileo, you people have been denying the findings of science since your very beginnings.  So no one should be surprised that you still deny it.
Click to expand...

You claim you're a geologist yet you act like a teenager.  I don't buy your claim because your adolescent conduct indicates otherwise.  As far as the 41 pages of "evidence", that's your bogus claim.  Also, I've never said I believe the universe is only 10,000 years old.  Quote me if I did.  The rest of your diatribe is nothing more than diversion.  Trying to make it about Christianity shows where you're really coming from and it's the same tactic you scientist wannabes always use when you can't step up to the plate and make a credible case for your ridiculous theory.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?


Hey, I've admitted your invincible ignorance *is* invincible, c'est la vie.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would still be a geologist regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> But you still wouldn't be able to provide any evidence, just like you can't provide any now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denial is not a river in Eqypt, yet you people are willfully ignorant about science.  I can't be kind about this, because you people believe in talking snakes, for Pete's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 41 pages in this thread.  In nearly each of my posts you will find ample evidence.  That you don't recognize scientific evidence when you see it only demonstrates that you and your creationist cronies have no business in this discussion to begin with.  And no it was not a childish comment. The childlike behavior rests in the laps of those, such as yourself, who believe that the universe is only 10,000 years old, and that dinosaurs and people once lived side by side (hence the Flintstones analogy).  Get a grip on reality for once in your life and realize that the theory of evolution is not going anywhere anytime soon.  And I'd ask why you people are so anti-science, but all I have to do is look at the history of Christianity itself to find the answer to that question.  From the murder of Hypatia at the hands of Christians, to the abdominal treatment of Galileo, you people have been denying the findings of science since your very beginnings.  So no one should be surprised that you still deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim you're a geologist yet you act like a teenager.  I don't buy your claim because your adolescent conduct indicates otherwise.  As far as the 41 pages of "evidence", that's your bogus claim.  Also, I've never said I believe the universe is only 10,000 years old.  Quote me if I did.  The rest of your diatribe is nothing more than diversion.  Trying to make it about Christianity shows where you're really coming from and it's the same tactic you scientist wannabes always use when you can't step up to the plate and make a credible case for your ridiculous theory.
Click to expand...


The OP made it about Christianity, and continues to make it about Christianity.  And if my frankness frightens you, then that is simply too fucking bad.  We scientists no longer have the burden of proof wrt to the theory of evolution.  It has long be an accepted tenant of science, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.  On the other hand, you Christians have NEVER proven anything, but declare yourselves martyrs to anyone who dares defy your bullshit beliefs, though in the past you people did far worse.

Fact:  Creationism is a religious belief.  Fact. Intelligent design is creationism masking as something it has been legally declared and scientifically demonstrated not to be.  You people are frauds of the worst kind, because you have convinced yourselves that your lies are true. Get over yourselves already.


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've admitted your invincible ignorance *is* invincible, c'est la vie.
Click to expand...

Fuck off and good riddance.  I noticed you didn't provide anything either.  You're worthless too.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've admitted your invincible ignorance *is* invincible, c'est la vie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck off and good riddance.  I noticed you didn't provide anything either.  You're worthless too.
Click to expand...


And what have you contributed to this thread?  Nothing.  Congratulations, loser.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> But you still wouldn't be able to provide any evidence, just like you can't provide any now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Denial is not a river in Eqypt, yet you people are willfully ignorant about science.  I can't be kind about this, because you people believe in talking snakes, for Pete's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 41 pages in this thread.  In nearly each of my posts you will find ample evidence.  That you don't recognize scientific evidence when you see it only demonstrates that you and your creationist cronies have no business in this discussion to begin with.  And no it was not a childish comment. The childlike behavior rests in the laps of those, such as yourself, who believe that the universe is only 10,000 years old, and that dinosaurs and people once lived side by side (hence the Flintstones analogy).  Get a grip on reality for once in your life and realize that the theory of evolution is not going anywhere anytime soon.  And I'd ask why you people are so anti-science, but all I have to do is look at the history of Christianity itself to find the answer to that question.  From the murder of Hypatia at the hands of Christians, to the abdominal treatment of Galileo, you people have been denying the findings of science since your very beginnings.  So no one should be surprised that you still deny it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim you're a geologist yet you act like a teenager.  I don't buy your claim because your adolescent conduct indicates otherwise.  As far as the 41 pages of "evidence", that's your bogus claim.  Also, I've never said I believe the universe is only 10,000 years old.  Quote me if I did.  The rest of your diatribe is nothing more than diversion.  Trying to make it about Christianity shows where you're really coming from and it's the same tactic you scientist wannabes always use when you can't step up to the plate and make a credible case for your ridiculous theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP made it about Christianity, and continues to make it about Christianity.  And if my frankness frightens you, then that is simply too fucking bad.  We scientists no longer have the burden of proof wrt to the theory of evolution.  It has long be an accepted tenant of science, and will continue to be so for the foreseeable future.  On the other hand, you Christians have NEVER proven anything, but declare yourselves martyrs to anyone who dares defy your bullshit beliefs, though in the past you people did far worse.
> 
> Fact:  Creationism is a religious belief.  Fact. Intelligent design is creationism masking as something it has been legally declared and scientifically demonstrated not to be.  You people are frauds of the worst kind, because you have convinced yourselves that your lies are true. Get over yourselves already.
Click to expand...

More of the same, diversion and insults and still no evidence.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've admitted your invincible ignorance *is* invincible, c'est la vie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck off and good riddance.  I noticed you didn't provide anything either.  You're worthless too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what have you contributed to this thread?  Nothing.  Congratulations, loser.
Click to expand...

Read #410.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Fuck off and good riddance.  I noticed you didn't provide anything either.  You're worthless too.


Hey, come on, I showed your ignorance was invincible, you should be proud, nothing can vanquish it. It will take on all comers and emerge victorious.


----------



## Mr.Right

Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it would have.  Then you wouldn't have to provide any evidence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would still be a geologist regardless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you still wouldn't be able to provide any evidence, just like you can't provide any now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Denial is not a river in Eqypt, yet you people are willfully ignorant about science.  I can't be kind about this, because you people believe in talking snakes, for Pete's sake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 41 pages in this thread.  In nearly each of my posts you will find ample evidence.  That you don't recognize scientific evidence when you see it only demonstrates that you and your creationist cronies have no business in this discussion to begin with.  And no it was not a childish comment. The childlike behavior rests in the laps of those, such as yourself, who believe that the universe is only 10,000 years old, and that dinosaurs and people once lived side by side (hence the Flintstones analogy).  Get a grip on reality for once in your life and realize that the theory of evolution is not going anywhere anytime soon.  And I'd ask why you people are so anti-science, but all I have to do is look at the history of Christianity itself to find the answer to that question.  From the murder of Hypatia at the hands of Christians, to the abdominal treatment of Galileo, you people have been denying the findings of science since your very beginnings.  So no one should be surprised that you still deny it.
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've admitted your invincible ignorance *is* invincible, c'est la vie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck off and good riddance.  I noticed you didn't provide anything either.  You're worthless too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what have you contributed to this thread?  Nothing.  Congratulations, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read #410.
Click to expand...


Right, nothing at all.  Adios.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.


Sorry, pointless. There's no reason for belief in the many sciences supporting evolution. The facts demonstrating biological evolution are only in doubt in the minds of religious extremists.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've admitted your invincible ignorance *is* invincible, c'est la vie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck off and good riddance.  I noticed you didn't provide anything either.  You're worthless too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what have you contributed to this thread?  Nothing.  Congratulations, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read #410.
Click to expand...

That was just representative of the disease of fundamentalist Christianity.


----------



## Mr.Right

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, pointless. There's no reason for belief in the many sciences supporting evolution. The facts demonstrating biological evolution are only in doubt in the minds of religious extremists.
Click to expand...

You know, you might want to get some knee braces. The weight of being right all the time can't be easy on the knees.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, pointless. There's no reason for belief in the many sciences supporting evolution. The facts demonstrating biological evolution are only in doubt in the minds of religious extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, you might want to get some knee braces. The weight of being right all the time can't be easy on the knees.
Click to expand...

The gawds are on my side.


----------



## Mr.Right

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, pointless. There's no reason for belief in the many sciences supporting evolution. The facts demonstrating biological evolution are only in doubt in the minds of religious extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, you might want to get some knee braces. The weight of being right all the time can't be easy on the knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gawds are on my side.
Click to expand...

Nah. I'm on God's side. God doesn't take sides.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, pointless. There's no reason for belief in the many sciences supporting evolution. The facts demonstrating biological evolution are only in doubt in the minds of religious extremists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, you might want to get some knee braces. The weight of being right all the time can't be easy on the knees.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gawds are on my side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah. I'm on God's side. God doesn't take sides.
Click to expand...

The gawds are embarrassed by people like you.


----------



## Toro




----------



## Toro




----------



## Toro




----------



## Toro




----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to.


So YHWH _did_ done it. You didn't need to be so coy.

Btw, gonna front up with some 'hard fact' evidence?


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> You know, you might want to get some knee braces. The weight of being right all the time can't be easy on the knees.


Praise the Load!


----------



## guno




----------



## guno

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you cut the childish comments and adolescent put downs and provide some fucking evidence?  You're turning out to be a monumental waste of time, you know that?
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, I've admitted your invincible ignorance *is* invincible, c'est la vie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fuck off and good riddance.  I noticed you didn't provide anything either.  You're worthless too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And what have you contributed to this thread?  Nothing.  Congratulations, loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read #410.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was just representative of the disease of fundamentalist Christianity.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> the disease of fundamentalist Christianity.



Also known as *Christophrenia*


----------



## Tuatara

Mr.Right said:


> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.


Most people who believe in god also believe in evolution so this post is null and voiid. This has also been pointed out to you before so you either are incredibly stupid or very dishonest.


----------



## orogenicman

guno said:


>



I don't do it for them.  I do it for those fence sitters who may be reading the thread.  Those can be reached.


----------



## PredFan

Mr.Right said:


> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*



It's right in front of your nose. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Your opinion doesn't really matter at all. So have fun in your ignorance.


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where do you think beagles poodles labs bulldogs German Shepherd dobermans great Danes all come from?
> 
> What is feral?
> 
> 
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of name calling by the idiots who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be an adaptation
Click to expand...

I realize ur not smart enough to talk to. Bye


----------



## S.J.

This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.


----------



## PredFan

S.J. said:


> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.



I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.

 I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.


----------



## S.J.

PredFan said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
Click to expand...

Creationists openly admit that creation cannot be proven (that's why it's called faith).  Evolutionists claim their theory can be proven but when challenged, they immediately attack faith but fail to show their proof.  You're sort of doing that right now.  The topic isn't "creation vs evolution", it is a challenge to provide evidence of evolution.  Your failure (or THEIR failure) to do that shows us that evolution is just as much faith based as creation is but they can't admit that.


----------



## PredFan

S.J. said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationists openly admit that creation cannot be proven (that's why it's called faith).  Evolutionists claim their theory can be proven but when challenged, they immediately attack faith but fail to show their proof.  You're sort of doing that right now.  The topic isn't "creation vs evolution", it is a challenge to provide evidence of evolution.  Your failure (or THEIR failure) to do that shows us that evolution is just as much faith based as creation is but they can't admit that.
Click to expand...


Actually, I haven't even tried. I was simply pointing out that what you accuse evolutionists of, creationists always do. 

I can show a LOT of evidence of evolution. I can link to  descendants of modern animals, I can link to current examples of evolution we see today. Antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one example, viral evolution is another.


----------



## eots

sealybobo said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of name calling by the idiots who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be an adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize ur not smart enough to talk to. Bye
Click to expand...

your bacteria did not evolve No new species have been produced ..loser


----------



## Mr.Right

Tuatara said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who believe in god also believe in evolution so this post is null and voiid. This has also been pointed out to you before so you either are incredibly stupid or very dishonest.
Click to expand...

You make the claim that most Christians believe in evolution, without any evidence to give such a claim legitimacy. So your reply is null and void.

I say that anyone who believe in evolution is not a Christian,  since they don't believe the word of God. My authority is the Bible. What is yours?


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.
> 
> 
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of name calling by the idiots who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be an adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize ur not smart enough to talk to. Bye
Click to expand...

Quit talking to yourself.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who believe in god also believe in evolution so this post is null and voiid. This has also been pointed out to you before so you either are incredibly stupid or very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make the claim that most Christians believe in evolution, without any evidence to give such a claim legitimacy. So your reply is null and void.
> 
> I say that anyone who believe in evolution is not a Christian,  since they don't believe the word of God. My authority is the Bible. What is yours?
Click to expand...


It's a pathology... or possibly the result of head trauma when he was very young.


----------



## Mr.Right

PredFan said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
Click to expand...

Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator. 

To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.


----------



## Mr.Right

PredFan said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationists openly admit that creation cannot be proven (that's why it's called faith).  Evolutionists claim their theory can be proven but when challenged, they immediately attack faith but fail to show their proof.  You're sort of doing that right now.  The topic isn't "creation vs evolution", it is a challenge to provide evidence of evolution.  Your failure (or THEIR failure) to do that shows us that evolution is just as much faith based as creation is but they can't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't even tried. I was simply pointing out that what you accuse evolutionists of, creationists always do.
> 
> I can show a LOT of evidence of evolution. I can link to  descendants of modern animals, I can link to current examples of evolution we see today. Antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one example, viral evolution is another.
Click to expand...

And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationists openly admit that creation cannot be proven (that's why it's called faith).  Evolutionists claim their theory can be proven but when challenged, they immediately attack faith but fail to show their proof.  You're sort of doing that right now.  The topic isn't "creation vs evolution", it is a challenge to provide evidence of evolution.  Your failure (or THEIR failure) to do that shows us that evolution is just as much faith based as creation is but they can't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't even tried. I was simply pointing out that what you accuse evolutionists of, creationists always do.
> 
> I can show a LOT of evidence of evolution. I can link to  descendants of modern animals, I can link to current examples of evolution we see today. Antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one example, viral evolution is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Denial of the fact of bioligical evolution suggests you simply choose to be an unreasonable, unthinking zealot.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
Click to expand...

So then, outline for us the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.


----------



## eots

Toro said:


>


the admission you do not have  concrete evidence will suffice ...thanx


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, outline for us the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.
Click to expand...

creation is infinite, time is non-linear,


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, outline for us the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> creation is infinite, time is non-linear,
Click to expand...

Just another of your silly conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the admission you do not have  concrete evidence will suffice ...thanx
Click to expand...

Denial on your part is just another display of your appalling ignorance.


----------



## Dante

orogenicman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least there is historical evidence for the existence of Jesus. What does evolution have? A bunch of guesswork. That's it.
> 
> 
> 
> Show us your historical evidence that YHWH done it, that's what we've been asking. I mean it was all here when Jesus was supposed to have been here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationism isn't on trial here. Evolution is. Quit deflecting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Erm, what trial, where?  Scopes is over.  Dover is over, and you folks lost.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> argument by comic video?  genius, you should run for Dog catcher
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Their arguments are only worth laughter, dude.  Take Ken Ham (please) for instance.  Now there is a nutcase if there is one.  Like Lewis Black said, those people apparently believe that the Flintstones is a documentary!  Batshit crazy, I tell ya.
Click to expand...

sad, funny, and true


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who believe in god also believe in evolution so this post is null and voiid. This has also been pointed out to you before so you either are incredibly stupid or very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make the claim that most Christians believe in evolution, without any evidence to give such a claim legitimacy. So your reply is null and void.
> 
> I say that anyone who believe in evolution is not a Christian,  since they don't believe the word of God. My authority is the Bible. What is yours?
Click to expand...


The largest Christian denomination, the Catholic church, came out in the 1960s in support of the theory of evolution.  Catholic elementary school is where I got my first exposure to it, bubba.  Other Christian religions that also accept evolution are the The Anglican Church, The United Methodist Church, The Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Episcopal Church USA, the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), the United Church of Christ (Congregationalist), the Disciples of Christ, Reformed Church in America, and Hicksite Quakers.  Virtually all Jewish denominations accept evolution, as do American Buddhists and Hindus.  Theologian B.B. Warfield and evangelist Billy Graham have both expressed openness to the theory.  All of the Christians and non-Christian faithful above have expressed support for the theory of evolution and science in general, Mr, Wrong.  They just don't take your literalist stance on such issues because that would be retarded.


----------



## PredFan

Mr.Right said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
Click to expand...


The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, outline for us the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> creation is infinite, time is non-linear,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just another of your silly conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

non-linear time and infinity are conspiracy..?


----------



## PredFan

Mr.Right said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationists openly admit that creation cannot be proven (that's why it's called faith).  Evolutionists claim their theory can be proven but when challenged, they immediately attack faith but fail to show their proof.  You're sort of doing that right now.  The topic isn't "creation vs evolution", it is a challenge to provide evidence of evolution.  Your failure (or THEIR failure) to do that shows us that evolution is just as much faith based as creation is but they can't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't even tried. I was simply pointing out that what you accuse evolutionists of, creationists always do.
> 
> I can show a LOT of evidence of evolution. I can link to  descendants of modern animals, I can link to current examples of evolution we see today. Antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one example, viral evolution is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.
Click to expand...


I already provided the proof. I sited antibiotic resistant microorganisms as an example of evolution, which it is. What's the problem? Can you not read?


----------



## eots

PredFan said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
Click to expand...

you mean you want to avoid the issue of the origin of the universe and the origin of life


----------



## PredFan

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then, outline for us the hierarchy of gawds who designed your designer gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> creation is infinite, time is non-linear,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just another of your silly conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> non-linear time and infinity are conspiracy..?
Click to expand...


She's just a nasty ignorant troll.


----------



## eots

PredFan said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationists openly admit that creation cannot be proven (that's why it's called faith).  Evolutionists claim their theory can be proven but when challenged, they immediately attack faith but fail to show their proof.  You're sort of doing that right now.  The topic isn't "creation vs evolution", it is a challenge to provide evidence of evolution.  Your failure (or THEIR failure) to do that shows us that evolution is just as much faith based as creation is but they can't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't even tried. I was simply pointing out that what you accuse evolutionists of, creationists always do.
> 
> I can show a LOT of evidence of evolution. I can link to  descendants of modern animals, I can link to current examples of evolution we see today. Antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one example, viral evolution is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided the proof. I sited antibiotic resistant microorganisms as an example of evolution, which it is. What's the problem? Can you not read?
Click to expand...

so what new species did your bacteria become ?


----------



## PredFan

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean you want to avoid the issue of the origin of the universe and the origin of life
Click to expand...


Not at all. Did you read his post? I would be glad to argue both, people just need to understand that evolution says nothing about the universe, and the Big Bang Theory does not address living organisms at all. If you are going to have a halfway intelligent debate, you should know a little about the topic.


----------



## PredFan

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists openly admit that creation cannot be proven (that's why it's called faith).  Evolutionists claim their theory can be proven but when challenged, they immediately attack faith but fail to show their proof.  You're sort of doing that right now.  The topic isn't "creation vs evolution", it is a challenge to provide evidence of evolution.  Your failure (or THEIR failure) to do that shows us that evolution is just as much faith based as creation is but they can't admit that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't even tried. I was simply pointing out that what you accuse evolutionists of, creationists always do.
> 
> I can show a LOT of evidence of evolution. I can link to  descendants of modern animals, I can link to current examples of evolution we see today. Antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one example, viral evolution is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided the proof. I sited antibiotic resistant microorganisms as an example of evolution, which it is. What's the problem? Can you not read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what new species did your bacteria become ?
Click to expand...


Which one? There are many.


----------



## Mr.Right

PredFan said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
Click to expand...

I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.


----------



## PredFan

Mr.Right said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.
Click to expand...


Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.


----------



## orogenicman

s





Mr.Right said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.
Click to expand...


No, Mr. Wrong, they are not part of the same thing (unless you consider them being scientific theories to be a part of the same thing, that same thing being science).  But what you are really saying here is that be it the big bang, abiogenesis, evolution, the theory of gravity, light theory, or thermodynamics, what you really mean is that you are against science of any kind.  And in that case, I suggest that you using a car, a computer, a stove, a washer and dryer, a hair dryer, antiperspirant, a tooth brush, an aspirin, an antibiotic, a band aid,  or any other modern convenience invented by the application of modern science place you among the most hypocritical people on the planet.  Congratulations (not that you will ever read this, but hey, you're a loser, so what else is new?).  As for debating someone, you couldn't successfully debate a 5th grader.  I have brought so much shame to your arguments that you no longer respond to my posts.  I can't say what your chances are of defeating anyone else in such a discussion, but you do have my sympathies.


----------



## eots

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Creationists openly admit that creation cannot be proven (that's why it's called faith).  Evolutionists claim their theory can be proven but when challenged, they immediately attack faith but fail to show their proof.  You're sort of doing that right now.  The topic isn't "creation vs evolution", it is a challenge to provide evidence of evolution.  Your failure (or THEIR failure) to do that shows us that evolution is just as much faith based as creation is but they can't admit that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't even tried. I was simply pointing out that what you accuse evolutionists of, creationists always do.
> 
> I can show a LOT of evidence of evolution. I can link to  descendants of modern animals, I can link to current examples of evolution we see today. Antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one example, viral evolution is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided the proof. I sited antibiotic resistant microorganisms as an example of evolution, which it is. What's the problem? Can you not read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what new species did your bacteria become ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which one? There are many.
Click to expand...

When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't even tried. I was simply pointing out that what you accuse evolutionists of, creationists always do.
> 
> I can show a LOT of evidence of evolution. I can link to  descendants of modern animals, I can link to current examples of evolution we see today. Antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one example, viral evolution is another.
> 
> 
> 
> And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided the proof. I sited antibiotic resistant microorganisms as an example of evolution, which it is. What's the problem? Can you not read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what new species did your bacteria become ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which one? There are many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species
Click to expand...


Antibiotic resistance



> Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic.
> 
> It is a specific type of drug resistance.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.
> 
> Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.
> 
> If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.
> 
> Causes Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols.
> 
> This can be a useful way of implanting artificial genes into the microorganism.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.
> 
> The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.
> 
> They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.
> 
> Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.
> 
> Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of methicillin resistance.
> 
> Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, and the use of antibiotics as livestock food additives for growth promotion.
> 
> Researchers have recently demonstrated the bacterial protein LexA may play a key role in the acquisition of bacterial mutations.
> 
> Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.
> 
> Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.
> 
> It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.
> 
> Methicillin was then the antibiotic of choice, but has since been replaced by oxacillin due to significant kidney toxicity.
> 
> MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in Britain in 1961 and is now "quite common" in hospitals.
> 
> MRSA was responsible for 37% of fatal cases of blood poisoning in the UK in 1999, up from 4% in 1991.
> 
> Half of all S. aureus infections in the US are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.
> 
> This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time.
> 
> However, strains with intermediate (4-8 ug/ml) levels of resistence, termed GISA (glycopeptide intermediate Staphylococcus aureus) or VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus), began appearing the the late 1990s.
> 
> The first identified case was in Japan in 1996, and strains have since been found in hospitals in England, France and the US.
> 
> The first documented strain with complete (>16ug/ml) resistence to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in the United States in 2002.
> 
> A new class of antibiotics, oxazolidinones, became available in the 1990s, and the first commercially available oxazolidinone, linezolid, is comparable to vancomycin in effectiveness against MRSA.
> 
> Linezolid-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus was reported in 2003.
> 
> CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.
> 
> Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most frequently identified antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogen in US hospitals.
> 
> The epidemiology of infections caused by MRSA is rapidly changing.
> 
> In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.
> 
> The 2 MRSA clones in the United States most closely associated with community outbreaks, USA400 (MW2 strain, ST1 lineage) and USA300, often contain Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and, more frequently, have been associated with skin and soft tissue infections.
> 
> Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.
> 
> CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.
> 
> Enterococcus faecium is another superbug found in hospitals.
> 
> Penicillin-Resistant Enterococcus was seen in 1983, Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in 1987, and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus (LRE) in the late 1990s.
> 
> Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus: GAS) infections can usually be treated with many different antibiotics.
> 
> Early treatment may reduce the risk of death from invasive group A streptococcal disease.
> 
> However, even the best medical care does not prevent death in every case.
> 
> For those with very severe illness, supportive care in an intensive care unit may be needed.
> 
> For persons with necrotizing fasciitis, surgery often is needed to remove damaged tissue.
> 
> Strains of S. pyogenes resistant to macrolide antibiotics have emerged, however all strains remain uniformly sensitive to penicillin.
> 
> Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin and other beta-lactams is increasing worldwide.
> 
> The major mechanism of resistance involves the introduction of mutations in genes encoding penicillin-binding proteins.
> 
> Selective pressure is thought to play an important role, and use of beta-lactam antibiotics has been implicated as a risk factor for infection and colonization.
> 
> Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible for pneumonia, bacteremia, otitis media, meningitis, sinusitis, peritonitis and arthritis.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I already provided the proof. I sited antibiotic resistant microorganisms as an example of evolution, which it is. What's the problem? Can you not read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what new species did your bacteria become ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which one? There are many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic.
> 
> It is a specific type of drug resistance.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.
> 
> Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.
> 
> If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.
> 
> Causes Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols.
> 
> This can be a useful way of implanting artificial genes into the microorganism.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.
> 
> The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.
> 
> They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.
> 
> Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.
> 
> Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of methicillin resistance.
> 
> Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, and the use of antibiotics as livestock food additives for growth promotion.
> 
> Researchers have recently demonstrated the bacterial protein LexA may play a key role in the acquisition of bacterial mutations.
> 
> Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.
> 
> Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.
> 
> It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.
> 
> Methicillin was then the antibiotic of choice, but has since been replaced by oxacillin due to significant kidney toxicity.
> 
> MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in Britain in 1961 and is now "quite common" in hospitals.
> 
> MRSA was responsible for 37% of fatal cases of blood poisoning in the UK in 1999, up from 4% in 1991.
> 
> Half of all S. aureus infections in the US are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.
> 
> This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time.
> 
> However, strains with intermediate (4-8 ug/ml) levels of resistence, termed GISA (glycopeptide intermediate Staphylococcus aureus) or VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus), began appearing the the late 1990s.
> 
> The first identified case was in Japan in 1996, and strains have since been found in hospitals in England, France and the US.
> 
> The first documented strain with complete (>16ug/ml) resistence to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in the United States in 2002.
> 
> A new class of antibiotics, oxazolidinones, became available in the 1990s, and the first commercially available oxazolidinone, linezolid, is comparable to vancomycin in effectiveness against MRSA.
> 
> Linezolid-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus was reported in 2003.
> 
> CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.
> 
> Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most frequently identified antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogen in US hospitals.
> 
> The epidemiology of infections caused by MRSA is rapidly changing.
> 
> In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.
> 
> The 2 MRSA clones in the United States most closely associated with community outbreaks, USA400 (MW2 strain, ST1 lineage) and USA300, often contain Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and, more frequently, have been associated with skin and soft tissue infections.
> 
> Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.
> 
> CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.
> 
> Enterococcus faecium is another superbug found in hospitals.
> 
> Penicillin-Resistant Enterococcus was seen in 1983, Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in 1987, and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus (LRE) in the late 1990s.
> 
> Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus: GAS) infections can usually be treated with many different antibiotics.
> 
> Early treatment may reduce the risk of death from invasive group A streptococcal disease.
> 
> However, even the best medical care does not prevent death in every case.
> 
> For those with very severe illness, supportive care in an intensive care unit may be needed.
> 
> For persons with necrotizing fasciitis, surgery often is needed to remove damaged tissue.
> 
> Strains of S. pyogenes resistant to macrolide antibiotics have emerged, however all strains remain uniformly sensitive to penicillin.
> 
> Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin and other beta-lactams is increasing worldwide.
> 
> The major mechanism of resistance involves the introduction of mutations in genes encoding penicillin-binding proteins.
> 
> Selective pressure is thought to play an important role, and use of beta-lactam antibiotics has been implicated as a risk factor for infection and colonization.
> 
> Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible for pneumonia, bacteremia, otitis media, meningitis, sinusitis, peritonitis and arthritis.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria


----------



## MaryL

Science, it is about science. Evolution is  a theory of science.... Like the atom bomb, electricity, chemistry, genetics, you name it. What has religion come up with in the last 2 millennia? Mohamed or Jesus? Please. were are we going with this?


----------



## Mr.Right

PredFan said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread proves that the atheists preferred method of making their case for evolution is to attack Christianity.  No evidence, no proof, just frustration over not being able to sell their bullshit theory.  Then when they fail to make their case, they dismiss their failure by saying "You're not smart enough to understand".  I would think that a really smart atheist who prides himself on his superior intelligence would be able to make his case but yet they always resort to adolescent personal attacks.  Funny how that works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.
Click to expand...

So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.
Click to expand...


Why don't you debate me, Mr. Wrong?  Come on grasshopper.  Show us what you are made of.


----------



## eots

MaryL said:


> Science, it is about science. Evolution is  a theory of science.... Like the atom bomb, electricity, chemistry, genetics, you name it. What has religion come up with in the last 2 millennia? Mohamed or Jesus? Please. were are we going with this?


*The English theoretical physicist and cosmologist, Stephen Hawking, surprised the scientific community last week when he announced during a speech at the University of Cambridge that he believed that “some form of intelligence” was actually behind the creation of the Universe.*
*Stephen Hawking Admits Intelligent Design Is Highly Probable World News Daily Report*


----------



## eots

*Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
*May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering. 

Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.

Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design


----------



## Mr.Right

eots said:


> *Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
> *May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
> Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
> 
> Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design


Reprobate minds.


----------



## S.J.

eots said:


> *Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
> *May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
> Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
> 
> Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design


Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.


----------



## eots

Francis Collins Personal story 6 - The beginning of a journey - YouTube

*Dr. Francis Collins is a physician and geneticist known for spearheading the Human Genome Project and for his landmark discoveries of disease genes*


----------



## MaryL

I also remember  Mother Teresa going through a long drought of theological doubt were she doubted the existence god. You have to walk that lonesome  valley all by your self. I am humbled. But I won't buy ideological  bullshit from anyone.


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
> *May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
> Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
> 
> Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.
Click to expand...

I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
> *May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
> Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
> 
> Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
Click to expand...


WTF?

Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever.  That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
> *May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
> Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
> 
> Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
> 
> 
> 
> Reprobate minds.
Click to expand...


Chicken shit creationists.


----------



## eots

Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
A world-famous chemist tells the truth there s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution Uncommon Descent


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Professor James M. Tour is one of the ten most cited chemists in the world. He is famous for his work on nanocars (pictured above, courtesy of Wikipedia), nanoelectronics, graphene nanostructures, carbon nanovectors in medicine, and green carbon research for enhanced oil recovery and environmentally friendly oil and gas extraction. He is currently a Professor of Chemistry, Professor of Computer Science, and Professor of Mechanical Engineering and Materials Science at Rice University. He has authored or co-authored 489 scientific publications and his name is on 36 patents. Although he does not regard himself as an Intelligent Design theorist, Professor Tour, along with over 700 other scientists, took the courageous step back in 2001 of signing the Discovery Institute’s “A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”, which read: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”
> A world-famous chemist tells the truth there s no scientist alive today who understands macroevolution Uncommon Descent


_Uncommon Descent_ is among the more notoriously silly ID'iot creationist sites.

Do you fundie loons realize how really pathetic your position is?


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
> *May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
> Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
> 
> Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
Click to expand...

You are totally clueless.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
> *May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
> Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
> 
> Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally clueless.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
> *May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
> Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
> 
> Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are totally clueless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 39751
Click to expand...

I understand. You feel totally emasculated due to your inability to present a coherent argument. For you loons, fear and superstition is all you understand. You're much like your looney-Toons reference to Uncommon Descent. You freely admit you don't understand the concepts you espouse and that magic and supernaturalism overwhelms your worldview.

Sandwalk A chemist who doesn t understand evolution



BTW, re: your image of the Jeebus. Do you understand that the Jeeb would not have been a tall, fair-complexioned, Caucasian looking fellow?


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all come from the same animal. Humans are related to dogs. You dont get how evolution natural selection and mutations work. Watch the cosmos with Neil degrasse Tyson. He explains perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of name calling by the idiots who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be an adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize ur not smart enough to talk to. Bye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your bacteria did not evolve No new species have been produced ..loser
Click to expand...

How do you know it happens over hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who believe in god also believe in evolution so this post is null and voiid. This has also been pointed out to you before so you either are incredibly stupid or very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make the claim that most Christians believe in evolution, without any evidence to give such a claim legitimacy. So your reply is null and void.
> 
> I say that anyone who believe in evolution is not a Christian,  since they don't believe the word of God. My authority is the Bible. What is yours?
Click to expand...

I agree. I also think everyone who doesnt believe all non christians go to hell should leave the faith. That would leave about 1/3rd of you remaining.

But to continue their control over people churches will soften their position and eventually say that's not what jeheebus meant.


----------



## eots

I believe there is no such thing as magic and supernatural..and I have no more Idea what Jesus looked like than you do


 .


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*


If christianity is a fact how come only 32% of the world buys it?


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> If christianity is a fact how come only 32% of the world buys it?
Click to expand...

More deflection?  Seriously? BWAHAHAHA! !!


----------



## eots

sealybobo said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all come from the same animal ?..lol..and what animal would that be ?
> 
> 
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thirty five pages later and we're all still waiting to see that mountain of evidence, yet all we're seeing is a lot of name calling by the idiots who don't have any evidence to provide.  They can't even agree on the basis of their theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be an adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize ur not smart enough to talk to. Bye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your bacteria did not evolve No new species have been produced ..loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it happens over hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.
Click to expand...

antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not develop over millions of years and they are not evidence of evolution


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be an adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize ur not smart enough to talk to. Bye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your bacteria did not evolve No new species have been produced ..loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it happens over hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not develop over millions of years and they are not evidence of evolution
Click to expand...

I told you I'm not having this conversation with you. I'm not a scientist but I've listened to enough of them to know your a dumb fuck.

I'd like to have a microrgasm on your face. Lol


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be an adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize ur not smart enough to talk to. Bye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your bacteria did not evolve No new species have been produced ..loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it happens over hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not develop over millions of years and they are not evidence of evolution
Click to expand...

What do they prove god exists?


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> If christianity is a fact how come only 32% of the world buys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflection?  Seriously? BWAHAHAHA! !!
Click to expand...

That's a serious question. How do you explain all the Jews athiests Hindu and Buddhists if the new testament was factual or believable? Explain


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Single cell organism. Youtube evolution in 90 seconds and they show you the stages of evolution.
> 
> I know it all conflicts with your beliefs but you are swallowing stories from the ancients.
> 
> The fact is we know the truth is much closer to the evolution story than it is to the Adam and eve story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> that would be an adaptation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I realize ur not smart enough to talk to. Bye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your bacteria did not evolve No new species have been produced ..loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it happens over hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not develop over millions of years and they are not evidence of evolution
Click to expand...

Antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not need to develop over millions of years and such evolving of organisms certainly is evidence of evolution.

You and the other science illiterate religious extremists are really ill equipped to critique the biological sciences when you don't understand even the most basic of topics and have no science vocabulary.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> I believe there is no such thing as magic and supernatural..and I have no more Idea what Jesus looked like than you do
> 
> 
> .


We're in agreement. You have no idea. You have reinforced your cluelessness with your every failed attempt at presenting a coherent comment.


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> If christianity is a fact how come only 32% of the world buys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflection?  Seriously? BWAHAHAHA! !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a serious question. How do you explain all the Jews athiests Hindu and Buddhists if the new testament was factual or believable? Explain
Click to expand...

Once again. This thread is about evidence for evolution. Religion is not up for discusion. If you want to do that, start your own thread. Now. Do you have any evidence that supports the theory of evolution?


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> that would be an adaptation
> 
> 
> 
> I realize ur not smart enough to talk to. Bye
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> your bacteria did not evolve No new species have been produced ..loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it happens over hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not develop over millions of years and they are not evidence of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not need to develop over millions of years and such evolving of organisms certainly is evidence of evolution.
> 
> You and the other science illiterate religious extremists are really ill equipped to critique the biological sciences when you don't understand even the most basic of topics and have no science vocabulary.
Click to expand...

you seem confused ..you say evolution takes millions of years ..then you say it does not..so what new species did these Antibiotic resistant  organisms evolve into ?


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> If christianity is a fact how come only 32% of the world buys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflection?  Seriously? BWAHAHAHA! !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a serious question. How do you explain all the Jews athiests Hindu and Buddhists if the new testament was factual or believable? Explain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again. This thread is about evidence for evolution. Religion is not up for discusion. If you want to do that, start your own thread. Now. Do you have any evidence that supports the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...


You religious extremists have made this thread exactly about your fundie beliefs. 

It's not at all surprising that you have been unable to refute the detailed facts concerning evolution that have been provided to you. What a shame your extremist belief system promotes the maintenance of fear, superstition and ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I realize ur not smart enough to talk to. Bye
> 
> 
> 
> your bacteria did not evolve No new species have been produced ..loser
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you know it happens over hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not develop over millions of years and they are not evidence of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not need to develop over millions of years and such evolving of organisms certainly is evidence of evolution.
> 
> You and the other science illiterate religious extremists are really ill equipped to critique the biological sciences when you don't understand even the most basic of topics and have no science vocabulary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you seem confused ..you say evolution takes millions of years ..then you say it does not..so what new species did these Antibiotic resistant  organisms evolve into ?
Click to expand...

You don't _seem_ confused, you announce your befuddlement. It must be by magical means or supernatural intervention that organisms evolve resistance to antibiotics.

Let us know if you ever emerge from your stupor.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> If christianity is a fact how come only 32% of the world buys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflection?  Seriously? BWAHAHAHA! !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a serious question. How do you explain all the Jews athiests Hindu and Buddhists if the new testament was factual or believable? Explain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again. This thread is about evidence for evolution. Religion is not up for discusion. If you want to do that, start your own thread. Now. Do you have any evidence that supports the theory of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You religious extremists have made this thread exactly about your fundie beliefs.
> 
> It's not at all surprising that you have been unable to refute the detailed facts concerning evolution that have been provided to you. What a shame your extremist belief system promotes the maintenance of fear, superstition and ignorance.
Click to expand...

Both antibiotic resistance in bacteria and warfarin resistance in rodents provide examples of selection that occurs due to a change in the environment. Study of these phenomena shows us the nature and extent of the effects of differential survival. The increase in frequency of resistance is a good example of natural selection. But this study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors. 
Development of Biological Resistance


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> your bacteria did not evolve No new species have been produced ..loser
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it happens over hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not develop over millions of years and they are not evidence of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not need to develop over millions of years and such evolving of organisms certainly is evidence of evolution.
> 
> You and the other science illiterate religious extremists are really ill equipped to critique the biological sciences when you don't understand even the most basic of topics and have no science vocabulary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you seem confused ..you say evolution takes millions of years ..then you say it does not..so what new species did these Antibiotic resistant  organisms evolve into ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem confused, you announce your befuddlement. It must be by magical means or supernatural intervention that organisms evolve resistance to antibiotics.
> 
> Let us know if you ever emerge from your stupor.
Click to expand...

you can not even answer without the use of a strawman ,I am not a "fundie" and have no belief in magic


----------



## Tuatara

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most people believe in evolution because the only other option is abhorrent to them. A living God that they must answer to. They believe the lie, so they can sleep at night. But deep down, where they are afraid to look, they know the truth. Their sinful pride will not allow them to acknowledge the truth. These people are to be pitied, for their lot is worse than death.
> 
> 
> 
> Most people who believe in god also believe in evolution so this post is null and voiid. This has also been pointed out to you before so you either are incredibly stupid or very dishonest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You make the claim that most Christians believe in evolution, without any evidence to give such a claim legitimacy. So your reply is null and void.
> 
> I say that anyone who believe in evolution is not a Christian,  since they don't believe the word of God. My authority is the Bible. What is yours?
Click to expand...


From Wiki
Many creationists act as evangelists and their organizations are registered as tax-free religious organizations.[57] Creationists have claimed that they represent the interests of true Christians, and evolution is only associated with atheism.[58][59]

However, not all religious organizations find support for evolution incompatible with their religious faith. For example, 12 of the plaintiffs opposing the teaching of creation science in the influential _McLean v. Arkansas_ court case were clergy representing Methodist, Episcopal, African Methodist Episcopal, Catholic, Southern Baptist, Reform Jewish, and Presbyterian groups.[60] There are several religious organizations that have issued statements advocating the teaching of evolution in public schools.[61] In addition, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams, issued statements in support of evolution in 2006.[62] The Clergy Letter Project is a signed statement by 12,808 (as of 28 May 2012) American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism organized in 2004. Molleen Matsumura of the National Center for Science Education found, of Americans in the twelve largest Christian denominations, *at least 77% belong to churches that support evolution education (and that at one point, this figure was as high as 89.6%*)


Move along


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If christianity is a fact how come only 32% of the world buys it?
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?  Seriously? BWAHAHAHA! !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a serious question. How do you explain all the Jews athiests Hindu and Buddhists if the new testament was factual or believable? Explain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again. This thread is about evidence for evolution. Religion is not up for discusion. If you want to do that, start your own thread. Now. Do you have any evidence that supports the theory of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You religious extremists have made this thread exactly about your fundie beliefs.
> 
> It's not at all surprising that you have been unable to refute the detailed facts concerning evolution that have been provided to you. What a shame your extremist belief system promotes the maintenance of fear, superstition and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both antibiotic resistance in bacteria and warfarin resistance in rodents provide examples of selection that occurs due to a change in the environment. Study of these phenomena shows us the nature and extent of the effects of differential survival. The increase in frequency of resistance is a good example of natural selection. But this study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors.
> Development of Biological Resistance
Click to expand...


Oh come on, a site of _twoofers_?

Really, let us know when you awake from your stupid. There's a good fellow.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it happens over hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.
> 
> 
> 
> antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not develop over millions of years and they are not evidence of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not need to develop over millions of years and such evolving of organisms certainly is evidence of evolution.
> 
> You and the other science illiterate religious extremists are really ill equipped to critique the biological sciences when you don't understand even the most basic of topics and have no science vocabulary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you seem confused ..you say evolution takes millions of years ..then you say it does not..so what new species did these Antibiotic resistant  organisms evolve into ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem confused, you announce your befuddlement. It must be by magical means or supernatural intervention that organisms evolve resistance to antibiotics.
> 
> Let us know if you ever emerge from your stupor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can not even answer without the use of a strawman ,I am not a "fundie" and have no belief in magic
Click to expand...

You are, and you do. Now, run along and scour the web for a new space alien conspiracy theory you can thrill us all with.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not develop over millions of years and they are not evidence of evolution
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not need to develop over millions of years and such evolving of organisms certainly is evidence of evolution.
> 
> You and the other science illiterate religious extremists are really ill equipped to critique the biological sciences when you don't understand even the most basic of topics and have no science vocabulary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you seem confused ..you say evolution takes millions of years ..then you say it does not..so what new species did these Antibiotic resistant  organisms evolve into ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem confused, you announce your befuddlement. It must be by magical means or supernatural intervention that organisms evolve resistance to antibiotics.
> 
> Let us know if you ever emerge from your stupor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can not even answer without the use of a strawman ,I am not a "fundie" and have no belief in magic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are, and you do. Now, run along and scour the web for a new space alien conspiracy theory you can thrill us all with.
Click to expand...

My god are you lame ..the only one to bring up aliens is you and evolutionist like dawkins...lol


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not need to develop over millions of years and such evolving of organisms certainly is evidence of evolution.
> 
> You and the other science illiterate religious extremists are really ill equipped to critique the biological sciences when you don't understand even the most basic of topics and have no science vocabulary.
> 
> 
> 
> you seem confused ..you say evolution takes millions of years ..then you say it does not..so what new species did these Antibiotic resistant  organisms evolve into ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem confused, you announce your befuddlement. It must be by magical means or supernatural intervention that organisms evolve resistance to antibiotics.
> 
> Let us know if you ever emerge from your stupor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can not even answer without the use of a strawman ,I am not a "fundie" and have no belief in magic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are, and you do. Now, run along and scour the web for a new space alien conspiracy theory you can thrill us all with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My god are you lame ..the only one to bring up aliens is you and evolutionist like dawkins...lol
Click to expand...

Just commenting on your preoccupation and fascination with conspiracy theories, space aliens and your need to promote those goofy ideas.


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If christianity is a fact how come only 32% of the world buys it?
> 
> 
> 
> More deflection?  Seriously? BWAHAHAHA! !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a serious question. How do you explain all the Jews athiests Hindu and Buddhists if the new testament was factual or believable? Explain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again. This thread is about evidence for evolution. Religion is not up for discusion. If you want to do that, start your own thread. Now. Do you have any evidence that supports the theory of evolution?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You religious extremists have made this thread exactly about your fundie beliefs.
> 
> It's not at all surprising that you have been unable to refute the detailed facts concerning evolution that have been provided to you. What a shame your extremist belief system promotes the maintenance of fear, superstition and ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Both antibiotic resistance in bacteria and warfarin resistance in rodents provide examples of selection that occurs due to a change in the environment. Study of these phenomena shows us the nature and extent of the effects of differential survival. The increase in frequency of resistance is a good example of natural selection. But this study does not give evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce the living world as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors.
> Development of Biological Resistance
Click to expand...

Maybe this study doesnt. So what? You brought up the argument and I dont think it proves anything either.


----------



## S.J.

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> If christianity is a fact how come only 32% of the world buys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflection?  Seriously? BWAHAHAHA! !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a serious question. How do you explain all the Jews athiests Hindu and Buddhists if the new testament was factual or believable? Explain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again. This thread is about evidence for evolution. *Religion is not up for discusion.* If you want to do that, start your own thread. Now. Do you have any evidence that supports the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...

Aw, c'mon man, you can't take away their only argument.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
> *May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
> Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
> 
> Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever.  That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.
Click to expand...

You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you seem confused ..you say evolution takes millions of years ..then you say it does not..so what new species did these Antibiotic resistant  organisms evolve into ?
> 
> 
> 
> You don't seem confused, you announce your befuddlement. It must be by magical means or supernatural intervention that organisms evolve resistance to antibiotics.
> 
> Let us know if you ever emerge from your stupor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can not even answer without the use of a strawman ,I am not a "fundie" and have no belief in magic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are, and you do. Now, run along and scour the web for a new space alien conspiracy theory you can thrill us all with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My god are you lame ..the only one to bring up aliens is you and evolutionist like dawkins...lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just commenting on your preoccupation and fascination with conspiracy theories, space aliens and your need to promote those goofy ideas.
Click to expand...

As I said before anytime you want a clean debate on the events of 9/11  you are welcome as far as space aliens go I find the assertions of several of the men who went to the moon and allied defense ministers that we have "unequivocal alien contact" to be intriguing but  they are certainly not my "goofy ideas"


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
> *May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
> Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
> 
> Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever.  That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
Click to expand...

I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.

What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design*
> *May 2008, Conclusion added July 2013, Last edit 30 Jan 2015*
> Intelligent Alien Design? You can't be serious? Well actually I am. Richard Dawkins, one of the world's most famous champions of Darwin's Theory of Evolution and a staunch atheist, has recently been discussing the_possibility_ that life on Earth could be the result of advanced alien engineering.
> 
> Dawkins has said that he still believes that life most likely originated on earth, but he has also said than an alien designed start is an _"intriguing possibility"_.
> 
> Richard Dawkins on Intelligent Alien Design
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever.  That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
Click to expand...


No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever.  That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" *because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.*  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
Click to expand...

Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever.  That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), intelligent design does not hide god behind some undefined "designer" because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
Click to expand...




orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's ask him where the aliens came from.  Evolution, no doubt.
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever.  That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
Click to expand...

Oh bullshit I could give rats ass what they teach in public school, they teach all kinds of nonsense .kids in public need to learn to sort that shit out regardless..and Intelligent design is not some conspiracy of fundamentalist religion it is something that looks upon all of creation as one phenomenon that is intelligent and purposeful...God can be a word to describe that and not an _entity with magical powers_


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> you mean you want to avoid the issue of the origin of the universe and the origin of life


Which is what evolution is not about.


----------



## orogenicman

cnm said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean you want to avoid the issue of the origin of the universe and the origin of life
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what evolution is not about.
Click to expand...


Exactly.  eots, if you want to discuss the origin or life or the creation of the universe, may I suggest you start threads on those topics?


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?


But we have living fossils like you to point to.


----------



## orogenicman

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> But we have living fossils like you to point to.
Click to expand...




eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever.  That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), intelligent design does not hide god behind some undefined "designer" because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever.  That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh bullshit I could give rats ass what they teach in public school, they teach all kinds of nonsense.
Click to expand...


It may be true that you could give a rats ass, but it isn't about you.  It is about those who are trying to teach religion in general in public schools, and teach a religious doctrine as science in science class.



			
				eots said:
			
		

> kids in public need to learn to sort that shit out regardless..and Intelligent design is not some conspiracy of fundamentalist religion it is something that looks upon all of creation as one phenomenon that is intelligent and purposeful...God can be a word to describe that and not an _entity with magical powers_



It is a religious belief being intentionally masqueraded as science for the sole purpose of getting religion (and not just ay religion, but a particular sect of a particular religion) taught in public schools  This has been determined by the courts, and those very same courts have repeatedly ruled that is trying to get these religious tenants taught in public schools is unconstitutional.  Get over it.


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> and Intelligent design is not some conspiracy of fundamentalist religion it is something that looks upon all of creation as one phenomenon that is intelligent and purposeful...God can be a word to describe that and not an _entity with magical powers_


I don't know, an entity with magical powers seems a good description of an intelligence that can create galaxies.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was just thinking. Atheists are always quick to use the "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" argument. Now we know the truth. Evolutionists can't explain it either. So aliens did it. Lol. Oh. The irony!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever.  That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" *because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.*  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
Click to expand...

Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries. 

Sorry to disappoint you but human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes" you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.


----------



## Hollie

Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?


----------



## orogenicman

Hollie said:


> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?



I don't know, they are pretty in your face about their goals.  No burqa required.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean you want to avoid the issue of the origin of the universe and the origin of life
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what evolution is not about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  eots, if you want to discuss the origin or life or the creation of the universe, may I suggest you start threads on those topics?
Click to expand...

Sure and can start your intelligent design conspiracy thread


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean you want to avoid the issue of the origin of the universe and the origin of life
> 
> 
> 
> Which is what evolution is not about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly.  eots, if you want to discuss the origin or life or the creation of the universe, may I suggest you start threads on those topics?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure and can start your intelligent design conspiracy thread
Click to expand...


You guys have done that for me right here, but thanks for the suggestion.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?


No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> If christianity is a fact how come only 32% of the world buys it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More deflection?  Seriously? BWAHAHAHA! !!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's a serious question. How do you explain all the Jews athiests Hindu and Buddhists if the new testament was factual or believable? Explain
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again. This thread is about evidence for evolution. Religion is not up for discusion. If you want to do that, start your own thread. Now. Do you have any evidence that supports the theory of evolution?
Click to expand...

Watch the new Cosmos series with Neil Degrasse Tyson. He explains. 

But I'm sure you wouldn't believe any of the evidence he presents because you are a flat earther.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
Click to expand...


Translation:  na na nana na.


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know it happens over hundreds of thousands of years if not millions.
> 
> 
> 
> antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not develop over millions of years and they are not evidence of evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Antibiotic resistant microorganisms did not need to develop over millions of years and such evolving of organisms certainly is evidence of evolution.
> 
> You and the other science illiterate religious extremists are really ill equipped to critique the biological sciences when you don't understand even the most basic of topics and have no science vocabulary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you seem confused ..you say evolution takes millions of years ..then you say it does not..so what new species did these Antibiotic resistant  organisms evolve into ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't seem confused, you announce your befuddlement. It must be by magical means or supernatural intervention that organisms evolve resistance to antibiotics.
> 
> Let us know if you ever emerge from your stupor.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you can not even answer without the use of a strawman ,I am not a "fundie" and have no belief in magic
Click to expand...

Then explain how all the diverse life got on this planet without evolution. What is your theory?


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
Click to expand...

They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.
Click to expand...

You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

Whenever you are ready get froggy and numb bitch!


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Intelligent design is not some conspiracy of fundamentalist religion it is something that looks upon all of creation as one phenomenon that is intelligent and purposeful...God can be a word to describe that and not an _entity with magical powers_
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, an entity with magical powers seems a good description of an intelligence that can create galaxies.
Click to expand...

 why ?..the universe ..god could express it self trough principles  that are real , knowable, measurable at least to the degree a finite human mind is capable of


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Intelligent design is not some conspiracy of fundamentalist religion it is something that looks upon all of creation as one phenomenon that is intelligent and purposeful...God can be a word to describe that and not an _entity with magical powers_
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, an entity with magical powers seems a good description of an intelligence that can create galaxies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why ?..the universe ..god could express it self trough principles  that are real , knowable, measurable at least to the degree a finite human mind is capable of
Click to expand...

Magical thinking.


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whenever you are ready get froggy and numb bitch!
Click to expand...

Oh wow! The Wittle wiberal is acting all tough. How cute.


sealybobo said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Intelligent design is not some conspiracy of fundamentalist religion it is something that looks upon all of creation as one phenomenon that is intelligent and purposeful...God can be a word to describe that and not an _entity with magical powers_
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, an entity with magical powers seems a good description of an intelligence that can create galaxies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why ?..the universe ..god could express it self trough principles  that are real , knowable, measurable at least to the degree a finite human mind is capable of
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Magical thinking.
Click to expand...

Believing that you were capable of independent thought would be magical thinking on my part.


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> why ?..the universe ..god could express it self trough principles  that are real , knowable, measurable at least to the degree a finite human mind is capable of


What is not knowable or measurable is magical.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Believing that you [Sealybobo] were capable of independent thought would be magical thinking on my part.


Haven't you some more evidence to ignore?


----------



## cnm

orogenicman said:


> I don't know, they are pretty in your face about their goals.  No burqa required.


The burqas are worn over their minds by choice.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
Click to expand...

You're free to deny the overwhelming evidence for biological evolution. That's a common trait among religious extremists and goofy conspiracy theorists. You and those like you are just at odds with the facts. That's another common trait of religious extremists and goofy conspiracy theorists. 

The anti-science, anti-knowledge agenda of you zealots is a wonder to behold.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> and Intelligent design is not some conspiracy of fundamentalist religion it is something that looks upon all of creation as one phenomenon that is intelligent and purposeful...God can be a word to describe that and not an _entity with magical powers_
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, an entity with magical powers seems a good description of an intelligence that can create galaxies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> why ?..the universe ..god could express it self trough principles  that are real , knowable, measurable at least to the degree a finite human mind is capable of
Click to expand...

Eyup. And the space aliens will be landing tomorrow.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
Click to expand...

I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.


----------



## PredFan

eots said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I haven't even tried. I was simply pointing out that what you accuse evolutionists of, creationists always do.
> 
> I can show a LOT of evidence of evolution. I can link to  descendants of modern animals, I can link to current examples of evolution we see today. Antibiotic resistant microorganisms for one example, viral evolution is another.
> 
> 
> 
> And still you have no evidence to back any of it up. It's all unproven. There is not one single fact that you point to. It's nothing but speculation and wishful thinking. Get over it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already provided the proof. I sited antibiotic resistant microorganisms as an example of evolution, which it is. What's the problem? Can you not read?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what new species did your bacteria become ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which one? There are many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species
Click to expand...


Another species? Never. But that is irrelevant isn't it.


----------



## PredFan

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already provided the proof. I sited antibiotic resistant microorganisms as an example of evolution, which it is. What's the problem? Can you not read?
> 
> 
> 
> so what new species did your bacteria become ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which one? There are many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic.
> 
> It is a specific type of drug resistance.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.
> 
> Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.
> 
> If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.
> 
> Causes Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols.
> 
> This can be a useful way of implanting artificial genes into the microorganism.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.
> 
> The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.
> 
> They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.
> 
> Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.
> 
> Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of methicillin resistance.
> 
> Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, and the use of antibiotics as livestock food additives for growth promotion.
> 
> Researchers have recently demonstrated the bacterial protein LexA may play a key role in the acquisition of bacterial mutations.
> 
> Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.
> 
> Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.
> 
> It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.
> 
> Methicillin was then the antibiotic of choice, but has since been replaced by oxacillin due to significant kidney toxicity.
> 
> MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in Britain in 1961 and is now "quite common" in hospitals.
> 
> MRSA was responsible for 37% of fatal cases of blood poisoning in the UK in 1999, up from 4% in 1991.
> 
> Half of all S. aureus infections in the US are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.
> 
> This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time.
> 
> However, strains with intermediate (4-8 ug/ml) levels of resistence, termed GISA (glycopeptide intermediate Staphylococcus aureus) or VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus), began appearing the the late 1990s.
> 
> The first identified case was in Japan in 1996, and strains have since been found in hospitals in England, France and the US.
> 
> The first documented strain with complete (>16ug/ml) resistence to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in the United States in 2002.
> 
> A new class of antibiotics, oxazolidinones, became available in the 1990s, and the first commercially available oxazolidinone, linezolid, is comparable to vancomycin in effectiveness against MRSA.
> 
> Linezolid-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus was reported in 2003.
> 
> CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.
> 
> Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most frequently identified antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogen in US hospitals.
> 
> The epidemiology of infections caused by MRSA is rapidly changing.
> 
> In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.
> 
> The 2 MRSA clones in the United States most closely associated with community outbreaks, USA400 (MW2 strain, ST1 lineage) and USA300, often contain Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and, more frequently, have been associated with skin and soft tissue infections.
> 
> Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.
> 
> CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.
> 
> Enterococcus faecium is another superbug found in hospitals.
> 
> Penicillin-Resistant Enterococcus was seen in 1983, Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in 1987, and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus (LRE) in the late 1990s.
> 
> Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus: GAS) infections can usually be treated with many different antibiotics.
> 
> Early treatment may reduce the risk of death from invasive group A streptococcal disease.
> 
> However, even the best medical care does not prevent death in every case.
> 
> For those with very severe illness, supportive care in an intensive care unit may be needed.
> 
> For persons with necrotizing fasciitis, surgery often is needed to remove damaged tissue.
> 
> Strains of S. pyogenes resistant to macrolide antibiotics have emerged, however all strains remain uniformly sensitive to penicillin.
> 
> Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin and other beta-lactams is increasing worldwide.
> 
> The major mechanism of resistance involves the introduction of mutations in genes encoding penicillin-binding proteins.
> 
> Selective pressure is thought to play an important role, and use of beta-lactam antibiotics has been implicated as a risk factor for infection and colonization.
> 
> Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible for pneumonia, bacteremia, otitis media, meningitis, sinusitis, peritonitis and arthritis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria
Click to expand...


Brilliant. But irrelevant.


----------



## PredFan

Mr.Right said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not an atheist, but I'm a believer in evolution. I also understand that things change in real science and nothing in true science is ever settled. Evidence and data may from time to time change the theory of evolution but that doesn't make it any less true.
> 
> I must respectfully point out to you that what you accuse ashes lists of doing is exactly what Creationists ALWAYS do. They never attempt to prove Creationism, they only attack evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.
Click to expand...


I can't debate someone who has no knowledge of the subject, if you want to label it backing down just to save your ignorant pride, do whatever you want.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

cnm said:


> No one can refute anything you say. Invincible ignorance is called invincible ignorance because it is invincible.



Eternal ignorance is what happens when you refuse to examine the facts that prove your "theories" are wrong.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

PredFan said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so what new species did your bacteria become ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which one? There are many.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic.
> 
> It is a specific type of drug resistance.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.
> 
> Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.
> 
> If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.
> 
> Causes Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols.
> 
> This can be a useful way of implanting artificial genes into the microorganism.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.
> 
> The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.
> 
> They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.
> 
> Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.
> 
> Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of methicillin resistance.
> 
> Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, and the use of antibiotics as livestock food additives for growth promotion.
> 
> Researchers have recently demonstrated the bacterial protein LexA may play a key role in the acquisition of bacterial mutations.
> 
> Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.
> 
> Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.
> 
> It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.
> 
> Methicillin was then the antibiotic of choice, but has since been replaced by oxacillin due to significant kidney toxicity.
> 
> MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in Britain in 1961 and is now "quite common" in hospitals.
> 
> MRSA was responsible for 37% of fatal cases of blood poisoning in the UK in 1999, up from 4% in 1991.
> 
> Half of all S. aureus infections in the US are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.
> 
> This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time.
> 
> However, strains with intermediate (4-8 ug/ml) levels of resistence, termed GISA (glycopeptide intermediate Staphylococcus aureus) or VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus), began appearing the the late 1990s.
> 
> The first identified case was in Japan in 1996, and strains have since been found in hospitals in England, France and the US.
> 
> The first documented strain with complete (>16ug/ml) resistence to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in the United States in 2002.
> 
> A new class of antibiotics, oxazolidinones, became available in the 1990s, and the first commercially available oxazolidinone, linezolid, is comparable to vancomycin in effectiveness against MRSA.
> 
> Linezolid-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus was reported in 2003.
> 
> CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.
> 
> Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most frequently identified antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogen in US hospitals.
> 
> The epidemiology of infections caused by MRSA is rapidly changing.
> 
> In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.
> 
> The 2 MRSA clones in the United States most closely associated with community outbreaks, USA400 (MW2 strain, ST1 lineage) and USA300, often contain Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and, more frequently, have been associated with skin and soft tissue infections.
> 
> Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.
> 
> CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.
> 
> Enterococcus faecium is another superbug found in hospitals.
> 
> Penicillin-Resistant Enterococcus was seen in 1983, Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in 1987, and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus (LRE) in the late 1990s.
> 
> Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus: GAS) infections can usually be treated with many different antibiotics.
> 
> Early treatment may reduce the risk of death from invasive group A streptococcal disease.
> 
> However, even the best medical care does not prevent death in every case.
> 
> For those with very severe illness, supportive care in an intensive care unit may be needed.
> 
> For persons with necrotizing fasciitis, surgery often is needed to remove damaged tissue.
> 
> Strains of S. pyogenes resistant to macrolide antibiotics have emerged, however all strains remain uniformly sensitive to penicillin.
> 
> Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin and other beta-lactams is increasing worldwide.
> 
> The major mechanism of resistance involves the introduction of mutations in genes encoding penicillin-binding proteins.
> 
> Selective pressure is thought to play an important role, and use of beta-lactam antibiotics has been implicated as a risk factor for infection and colonization.
> 
> Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible for pneumonia, bacteremia, otitis media, meningitis, sinusitis, peritonitis and arthritis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant. But irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Hardly.  Eots is right on the mark here but your pride simply refuses to admit the possibility that you are *wrong.  *


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

PredFan said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't debate someone who has no knowledge of the subject, if you want to label it backing down just to save your ignorant pride, do whatever you want.
Click to expand...


The only ignorance and pride I'm seeing here is yours, Predfan.  Your I can't debate excuse is nothing but a cop out.  The truth is you have no answers to refute the evidence that proves evolution to be a lie.


----------



## orogenicman

Jeremiah said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one? There are many.
> 
> 
> 
> When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic.
> 
> It is a specific type of drug resistance.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.
> 
> Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.
> 
> If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.
> 
> Causes Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols.
> 
> This can be a useful way of implanting artificial genes into the microorganism.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.
> 
> The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.
> 
> They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.
> 
> Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.
> 
> Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of methicillin resistance.
> 
> Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, and the use of antibiotics as livestock food additives for growth promotion.
> 
> Researchers have recently demonstrated the bacterial protein LexA may play a key role in the acquisition of bacterial mutations.
> 
> Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.
> 
> Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.
> 
> It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.
> 
> Methicillin was then the antibiotic of choice, but has since been replaced by oxacillin due to significant kidney toxicity.
> 
> MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in Britain in 1961 and is now "quite common" in hospitals.
> 
> MRSA was responsible for 37% of fatal cases of blood poisoning in the UK in 1999, up from 4% in 1991.
> 
> Half of all S. aureus infections in the US are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.
> 
> This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time.
> 
> However, strains with intermediate (4-8 ug/ml) levels of resistence, termed GISA (glycopeptide intermediate Staphylococcus aureus) or VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus), began appearing the the late 1990s.
> 
> The first identified case was in Japan in 1996, and strains have since been found in hospitals in England, France and the US.
> 
> The first documented strain with complete (>16ug/ml) resistence to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in the United States in 2002.
> 
> A new class of antibiotics, oxazolidinones, became available in the 1990s, and the first commercially available oxazolidinone, linezolid, is comparable to vancomycin in effectiveness against MRSA.
> 
> Linezolid-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus was reported in 2003.
> 
> CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.
> 
> Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most frequently identified antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogen in US hospitals.
> 
> The epidemiology of infections caused by MRSA is rapidly changing.
> 
> In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.
> 
> The 2 MRSA clones in the United States most closely associated with community outbreaks, USA400 (MW2 strain, ST1 lineage) and USA300, often contain Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and, more frequently, have been associated with skin and soft tissue infections.
> 
> Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.
> 
> CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.
> 
> Enterococcus faecium is another superbug found in hospitals.
> 
> Penicillin-Resistant Enterococcus was seen in 1983, Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in 1987, and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus (LRE) in the late 1990s.
> 
> Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus: GAS) infections can usually be treated with many different antibiotics.
> 
> Early treatment may reduce the risk of death from invasive group A streptococcal disease.
> 
> However, even the best medical care does not prevent death in every case.
> 
> For those with very severe illness, supportive care in an intensive care unit may be needed.
> 
> For persons with necrotizing fasciitis, surgery often is needed to remove damaged tissue.
> 
> Strains of S. pyogenes resistant to macrolide antibiotics have emerged, however all strains remain uniformly sensitive to penicillin.
> 
> Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin and other beta-lactams is increasing worldwide.
> 
> The major mechanism of resistance involves the introduction of mutations in genes encoding penicillin-binding proteins.
> 
> Selective pressure is thought to play an important role, and use of beta-lactam antibiotics has been implicated as a risk factor for infection and colonization.
> 
> Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible for pneumonia, bacteremia, otitis media, meningitis, sinusitis, peritonitis and arthritis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant. But irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Eots is right on the mark here but your pride simply refuses to admit the possibility that you are *wrong.  *
Click to expand...


On the mark?  The principles of evolution have allowed us to not only discover the agents of disease, but have allowed us to discover antibiotics, and how the resistance to them works so we can develop better treatments.  You don't have to believe it.  You can just thank all those tireless lab workers who are trying to make your life better.  So no he is not only not on the mark, he is flat out wrong.


----------



## orogenicman

Jeremiah said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't debate someone who has no knowledge of the subject, if you want to label it backing down just to save your ignorant pride, do whatever you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only ignorance and pride I'm seeing here is yours, Predfan.  Your I can't debate excuse is nothing but a cop out.  The truth is you have no answers to refute the evidence that proves evolution to be a lie.
Click to expand...


What evidence, where?  No one has posted any evidence here to refute evolution.  If you have some, by all means, have it published in a peer reviewed science journal so the rest of us can review it and have some input it the matter.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic.
> 
> It is a specific type of drug resistance.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.
> 
> Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.
> 
> If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.
> 
> Causes Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols.
> 
> This can be a useful way of implanting artificial genes into the microorganism.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.
> 
> The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.
> 
> They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.
> 
> Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.
> 
> Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of methicillin resistance.
> 
> Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, and the use of antibiotics as livestock food additives for growth promotion.
> 
> Researchers have recently demonstrated the bacterial protein LexA may play a key role in the acquisition of bacterial mutations.
> 
> Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.
> 
> Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.
> 
> It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.
> 
> Methicillin was then the antibiotic of choice, but has since been replaced by oxacillin due to significant kidney toxicity.
> 
> MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in Britain in 1961 and is now "quite common" in hospitals.
> 
> MRSA was responsible for 37% of fatal cases of blood poisoning in the UK in 1999, up from 4% in 1991.
> 
> Half of all S. aureus infections in the US are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.
> 
> This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time.
> 
> However, strains with intermediate (4-8 ug/ml) levels of resistence, termed GISA (glycopeptide intermediate Staphylococcus aureus) or VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus), began appearing the the late 1990s.
> 
> The first identified case was in Japan in 1996, and strains have since been found in hospitals in England, France and the US.
> 
> The first documented strain with complete (>16ug/ml) resistence to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in the United States in 2002.
> 
> A new class of antibiotics, oxazolidinones, became available in the 1990s, and the first commercially available oxazolidinone, linezolid, is comparable to vancomycin in effectiveness against MRSA.
> 
> Linezolid-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus was reported in 2003.
> 
> CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.
> 
> Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most frequently identified antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogen in US hospitals.
> 
> The epidemiology of infections caused by MRSA is rapidly changing.
> 
> In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.
> 
> The 2 MRSA clones in the United States most closely associated with community outbreaks, USA400 (MW2 strain, ST1 lineage) and USA300, often contain Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and, more frequently, have been associated with skin and soft tissue infections.
> 
> Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.
> 
> CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.
> 
> Enterococcus faecium is another superbug found in hospitals.
> 
> Penicillin-Resistant Enterococcus was seen in 1983, Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in 1987, and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus (LRE) in the late 1990s.
> 
> Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus: GAS) infections can usually be treated with many different antibiotics.
> 
> Early treatment may reduce the risk of death from invasive group A streptococcal disease.
> 
> However, even the best medical care does not prevent death in every case.
> 
> For those with very severe illness, supportive care in an intensive care unit may be needed.
> 
> For persons with necrotizing fasciitis, surgery often is needed to remove damaged tissue.
> 
> Strains of S. pyogenes resistant to macrolide antibiotics have emerged, however all strains remain uniformly sensitive to penicillin.
> 
> Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin and other beta-lactams is increasing worldwide.
> 
> The major mechanism of resistance involves the introduction of mutations in genes encoding penicillin-binding proteins.
> 
> Selective pressure is thought to play an important role, and use of beta-lactam antibiotics has been implicated as a risk factor for infection and colonization.
> 
> Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible for pneumonia, bacteremia, otitis media, meningitis, sinusitis, peritonitis and arthritis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant. But irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Eots is right on the mark here but your pride simply refuses to admit the possibility that you are *wrong.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the mark?  The principles of evolution have allowed us to not only discover the agents of disease, but have allowed us to discover antibiotics, and how the resistance to them works so we can develop better treatments.  You don't have to believe it.  You can just thank all those tireless lab workers who are trying to make your life better.  So no he is not only not on the mark, he is flat out wrong.
Click to expand...

That was not the work of .._The principles of evolution_


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

No, he is not wrong.  And neither was Dr. Kent Hovind wrong which was proven when he defeated the evolution promoters at university after university.   Perhaps that is why the Govt. trumped up charges against him and put him in prison for the past 99 months and counting - for depositing 9600 dollars into his own bank account.   Utterly ridiculous. You people cannot debate the facts and win so you put those who present them best behind bars.  What weakness!


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Dr. Hovind proves the truth about evolution.  It's a lie.:


----------



## Hollie

Jeremiah said:


> No, he is not wrong.  And neither was Dr. Kent Hovind wrong which was proven when he defeated the evolution promoters at university after university.   Perhaps that is why the Govt. trumped up charges against him and put him in prison for the past 99 months and counting - for depositing 9600 dollars into his own bank account.   Utterly ridiculous. You people cannot debate the facts and win so you put those who present them best behind bars.  What weakness!


Kent Hovind is a laughable joke.

Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for hovind


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he is not wrong.  And neither was Dr. Kent Hovind wrong which was proven when he defeated the evolution promoters at university after university.   Perhaps that is why the Govt. trumped up charges against him and put him in prison for the past 99 months and counting - for depositing 9600 dollars into his own bank account.   Utterly ridiculous. You people cannot debate the facts and win so you put those who present them best behind bars.  What weakness!
> 
> 
> 
> Kent Hovind is a laughable joke.
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for hovind
Click to expand...

Your fave link is joke


----------



## eots

funny how real science sounds like science and evolution sounds like philosophy...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he is not wrong.  And neither was Dr. Kent Hovind wrong which was proven when he defeated the evolution promoters at university after university.   Perhaps that is why the Govt. trumped up charges against him and put him in prison for the past 99 months and counting - for depositing 9600 dollars into his own bank account.   Utterly ridiculous. You people cannot debate the facts and win so you put those who present them best behind bars.  What weakness!
> 
> 
> 
> Kent Hovind is a laughable joke.
> 
> Encyclopedia of American Loons Search results for hovind
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your fave link is joke
Click to expand...

Its not at all surprising that you would defend a charlatan and a hack such as Hovind. Not surprisingly, you couldn't refute a single element of the article.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> funny how real science sounds like science and evolution sounds like philosophy...


That's due to your appalling ignorance of the subject matter.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

eots said:


> funny how real science sounds like science and evolution sounds like philosophy...


----------



## eots

the only other science so contested is man made climate change which seems also to be plagued with hidden agenda and a mixture of science.,politics and philosophy


----------



## Uncensored2008

cnm said:


> No worries,  batshit crazy wackos, here you go, five pieces of 'factual' evidence.
> 
> _In this article, we look at five simple examples which support the Theory of Evolution.
> 
> by Richard Peacock _
> 
> _Five Proofs of Evolution Evolution FAQ
> 
> *
> 
> 1. The universal genetic code*.  All cells on Earth, from our white blood cells, to simple bacteria, to cells in the leaves of trees, are capable of reading any piece of DNA from any life form on Earth.  This is very strong evidence for a common ancestor from which all life descended.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *2. The fossil record.*  The fossil record shows that the simplest fossils will be found in the oldest rocks, and it can also show a smooth and gradual transition from one form of life to another.
> 
> 
> Please watch this video for an excellent demonstration of fossils transitioning from simple life to complex vertebrates.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3. Genetic commonalities.*  Human beings have approximately 96% of genes in common with chimpanzees, about 90% of genes in common with cats (source), 80% with cows (source), 75% with mice (source), and so on.  This does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees or cats, though, only that we shared a common ancestor in the past.  And the amount of difference between our genomes corresponds to how long ago our genetic lines diverged.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *4. Common traits in embryos.*  Humans, dogs, snakes, fish, monkeys, eels (and many more life forms) are all considered "chordates" because we belong to the phylum Chordata.  One of the features of this phylum is that, as embryos, all these life forms have gill slits, tails, and specific anatomical structures involving the spine.  For humans (and other non-fish) the gill slits reform into the bones of the ear and jaw at a later stage in development.  But, initially, all chordate embryos strongly resemble each other.
> 
> 
> In fact, pig embryos are often dissected in biology classes because of how similar they look to human embryos.  These common characteristics could only be possible if all members of the phylum Chordata descended from a common ancestor.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *5. Bacterial resistance to antibiotics.*  Bacteria colonies can only build up a resistance to antibiotics through evolution.  It is important to note that in every colony of bacteria, there are a tiny few individuals which are naturally resistant to certain antibiotics.  This is because of the random nature of mutations.
> 
> 
> When an antibiotic is applied, the initial innoculation will kill most bacteria, leaving behind only those few cells which happen to have the mutations necessary to resist the antibiotics.  In subsequent generations, the resistant bacteria reproduce, forming a new colony where every member is resistant to the antibiotic.  This is natural selection in action.  The antibiotic is "selecting" for organisms which are resistant, and killing any that are not._​



I was about to post that myself!

Five Proofs of Evolution Evolution FAQ


----------



## Uncensored2008

Mr.Right said:


> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.



By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?

Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.


----------



## eots

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
Click to expand...


*its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*


----------



## Steven_R

Jeremiah said:


> No, he is not wrong.  And neither was Dr. Kent Hovind wrong which was proven when he defeated the evolution promoters at university after university.   Perhaps that is why the Govt. trumped up charges against him and put him in prison for the past 99 months and counting - for depositing 9600 dollars into his own bank account.   Utterly ridiculous. You people cannot debate the facts and win so you put those who present them best behind bars.  What weakness!



I'm convinced at this point that you're parodying the Bible Bangers.

It's been a magnificent trolling effort. No joke, I got reeled in. Kudos to you.


----------



## Steven_R

eots said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*
Click to expand...


So God can't be bothered to come up with new ideas for each and every organism and instead just relies on variations on a theme? Is God just lazy, unimaginative, or what?


----------



## eots

Uncensored2008 said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
Click to expand...




Steven_R said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So God can't be bothered to come up with new ideas for each and every organism and instead just relies on variations on a theme? Is God just lazy, unimaginative, or what?
Click to expand...

_god _


Steven_R said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So God can't be bothered to come up with new ideas for each and every organism and instead just relies on variations on a theme? Is God just lazy, unimaginative, or what?
Click to expand...

creation-god is one expressing itself in a multitude or infinite number of ways


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance
> 
> 
> 
> so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant. But irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Eots is right on the mark here but your pride simply refuses to admit the possibility that you are *wrong.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the mark?  The principles of evolution have allowed us to not only discover the agents of disease, but have allowed us to discover antibiotics, and how the resistance to them works so we can develop better treatments.  You don't have to believe it.  You can just thank all those tireless lab workers who are trying to make your life better.  So no he is not only not on the mark, he is flat out wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was not the work of .._The principles of evolution_
Click to expand...


Absolutely, it is.  If you claim that it isn't, show us that you know what you are talking about.  Demonstrate that your claim has scientific validity.


----------



## orogenicman

Jeremiah said:


> No, he is not wrong.  And neither was Dr. Kent Hovind wrong which was proven when he defeated the evolution promoters at university after university.   Perhaps that is why the Govt. trumped up charges against him and put him in prison for the past 99 months and counting - for depositing 9600 dollars into his own bank account.   Utterly ridiculous. You people cannot debate the facts and win so you put those who present them best behind bars.  What weakness!



Ken Hovind?  Bhwhahahahahaha!  You realize, of course, that he is serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted in federal court of 58 counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. In a separate federal court case in early 2015, Hovind was found guilty of contempt of court.  That you would even bring up his name in these discussions demonstrates how utterly corrupt and bankrupt your arguments are.


----------



## Uncensored2008

eots said:


> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*



DNA is an assumption?  Fossils you can put your hands on are "assumptions?" Observations of actual changes in in specimens is "assumption?"

Evolution is verified fact. There is no debate among rational people. Just like electricity, we know it well.


----------



## eots

eots said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So God can't be bothered to come up with new ideas for each and every organism and instead just relies on variations on a theme? Is God just lazy, unimaginative, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _god _
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So God can't be bothered to come up with new ideas for each and every organism and instead just relies on variations on a theme? Is God just lazy, unimaginative, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> creation-god is one expressing itself in a multitude or infinite number of ways
Click to expand...




orogenicman said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he is not wrong.  And neither was Dr. Kent Hovind wrong which was proven when he defeated the evolution promoters at university after university.   Perhaps that is why the Govt. trumped up charges against him and put him in prison for the past 99 months and counting - for depositing 9600 dollars into his own bank account.   Utterly ridiculous. You people cannot debate the facts and win so you put those who present them best behind bars.  What weakness!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ken Hovind?  Bhwhahahahahaha!  You realize, of course, that he is serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted in federal court of 58 counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. In a separate federal court case in early 2015, Hovind was found guilty of contempt of court.  That you would even bring up his name in these discussions demonstrates how utterly corrupt and bankrupt your arguments are.
Click to expand...

taxes are not relevant to what is presented in the video I have not doubt I could find a small army of evolutionist guilty of all sorts of terrible crimes far worse than tax crimes


----------



## eots

Uncensored2008 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is an assumption?  Fossils you can put your hands on are "assumptions?" Observations of actual changes in in specimens is "assumption?"
> 
> Evolution is verified fact. There is no debate among rational people. Just like electricity, we know it well.
Click to expand...

no..nothing like electricity


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> But we have living fossils like you to point to.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.


----------



## Uncensored2008

Steven_R said:


> So God can't be bothered to come up with new ideas for each and every organism and instead just relies on variations on a theme? Is God just lazy, unimaginative, or what?



What I don't understand, is why some think evolution is an affront to faith. Just say that god used evolution to create everything - problem solved.

In the dark ages they burned people who harnessed electricity as witches - an unseen force had to be of the devil. Eventually, Christians accepted electricity. They can accept evolution too.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> Atheists have NEVER used the argument "I dont understand it, so Gawd did it" ever.  That is your argument, Mr. Wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" *because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.*  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
Click to expand...

You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So God can't be bothered to come up with new ideas for each and every organism and instead just relies on variations on a theme? Is God just lazy, unimaginative, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _god _
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So God can't be bothered to come up with new ideas for each and every organism and instead just relies on variations on a theme? Is God just lazy, unimaginative, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> creation-god is one expressing itself in a multitude or infinite number of ways
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he is not wrong.  And neither was Dr. Kent Hovind wrong which was proven when he defeated the evolution promoters at university after university.   Perhaps that is why the Govt. trumped up charges against him and put him in prison for the past 99 months and counting - for depositing 9600 dollars into his own bank account.   Utterly ridiculous. You people cannot debate the facts and win so you put those who present them best behind bars.  What weakness!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ken Hovind?  Bhwhahahahahaha!  You realize, of course, that he is serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted in federal court of 58 counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. In a separate federal court case in early 2015, Hovind was found guilty of contempt of court.  That you would even bring up his name in these discussions demonstrates how utterly corrupt and bankrupt your arguments are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> taxes are not relevant to what is presented in the video I have not doubt I could find a small army of evolutionist guilty of all sorts of terrible crimes far worse than tax crimes
Click to expand...


His credibility as an honest human being IS relevant.  Moreover:

Kent Hovind - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



> In 1971, he graduated from East Peoria Community High School in East Peoria, Illinois, and later received 4 degrees from unaccredited institutions.
> 
> Patriot University
> From 1972 to 1974, Hovind attended the non-accredited Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education.[1] In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind received a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the non-accredited Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[notes 1][7] Having a website called "Dr. Dino" has provoked some academics to look closely at how Hovind presents his education and credentials. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy, expert on the history of creationism and activist in the creation-evolution controversy, wrote that Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level.[8]
> 
> Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, having unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[9][10] The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and Doctor of Ministry degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $37 per credit.[11][12]
> 
> Karen Bartelt, an organic chemistry professor who debated Hovind,[8] stated that his doctoral dissertation is evidence of the poor requirements at Patriot and that Hovind lacks knowledge of basic science. She noted that Hovind's dissertation is incomplete,[notes 2] of low academic quality, with poor writing, poor spelling, and poor grammatical style. Bartelt asserts that pages are repeated, references are absent, and it is not an original work with original ideas.[13]
> 
> In 2010, Patriot responded to Wikileaks' claim to have revealed Hovind's dissertation, writing that the Wikileaks file was not the "finished" product, but that they would not release the full dissertation,[14] which is unusual among academic institutions. As a general rule, doctoral dissertations are published by the associated university and made available to the public, so that other students conducting research may reference them.[13]



The man is a criminal and a fraud, and you apparently think he is some kind of creationist hero.  So what does that say about you?


----------



## Uncensored2008

eots said:


> no..nothing like electricity



There was HUGE resistance to electricity - it was the power of the devil. The same attitude is present regarding evolution, and in time, it will be viewed as just as nutty.

Evolution is fact, there is no question, no doubt or debate. Some mechanisms are not fully understood, but evolution simply is.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> But we have living fossils like you to point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
Click to expand...


Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN 












And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So God can't be bothered to come up with new ideas for each and every organism and instead just relies on variations on a theme? Is God just lazy, unimaginative, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _god _
> 
> 
> Steven_R said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So God can't be bothered to come up with new ideas for each and every organism and instead just relies on variations on a theme? Is God just lazy, unimaginative, or what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> creation-god is one expressing itself in a multitude or infinite number of ways
Click to expand...

"creation-god is one expressing itself in a multitude or infinite number of ways" ..._because I say so_.

There. Fixed that for you.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" *because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.*  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
Click to expand...


Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> But we have living fossils like you to point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
Click to expand...

You've proven nothing.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" *because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.*  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
Click to expand...

I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" *because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.*  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
Click to expand...




S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're not too bright, are you?  The "argument" he is referring to is that you assign that quote to Christians and Christians don't say that.  That false accusation is your argument. Now do you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> I know you think that you understood what you thought I said, but I don't think you realize that what I said isn't what I meant.
> 
> What I meant was that atheists use that argument against Christians. In other words, they claim that Christians don't understand evolution, so God must have done it. Get it now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" *because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.*  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
Click to expand...

That simply isn't true. The industry of extremist Christians is defined by earlier attempts made by "creationists" to force Christian creationism into the schools. They made no effort to conceal the agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. Those efforts were originally titled as "Biblical Creationism" with great candor. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they retreated and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design Creationism." In the process, the Christian creationist movement has become progressively less candid, more angry, more extremist and frankly more pathetic.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> But we have living fossils like you to point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing.
Click to expand...


I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" *because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.*  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
Click to expand...

Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist. 

Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Mr. Wrong.  Atheists aren't saying that Christians don't understand evolution because there are plenty of Christians who do.  They are saying that creationists and intelligent design supporters don't understand it or are willfully ignorant of it or willfully misrepresent it.  What you people are insisting on, particularly intelligent design people, is that life is too complex to have come about randomly (randomness being a mislabel of what evolutions says) and must have had a designer.  Creationists simply say god did it regardless (in 7 days of all crazy things), but intelligent design hides god behind some undefined "designer" *because they believe that in doing so they can get it taught in our public schools.*  And sorry, but that is never going to happen.  It is the god of the gaps argument.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
Click to expand...


Actually, you do.  Why?  Because the theory of evolution is the accepted paradigm for the origin of the diversity of life on Earth.  So let's discuss who has the burden of proof, shall we:

Seismic FAQ - Main Page



> 8. Burden of Proof
> Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> But we have living fossils like you to point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.
Click to expand...

expertize ?..you mean expertise...right ?


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we have living fossils like you to point to.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> expertize ?..you mean expertise...right ?
> View attachment 39770
Click to expand...


Nope, I'm not the smartest man alive.  Just smarter than you.  That much is certain.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> expertize ?..you mean expertise...right ?
> View attachment 39770
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, I'm not the smartest man alive.  Just smarter than you.  That much is certain.
Click to expand...

"last week I couldn't spell  expertize .. this week I are one" 
...must be evolving


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we have living fossils like you to point to.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> expertize ?..you mean expertise...right ?
> View attachment 39770
Click to expand...

So, your conspiracy theory is that the entirety of the relevant, global science community that accepts biological evolution as the mechanism for the diversity of life on the planet is a worldwide conspiracy. Is that about right?


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> expertize ?..you mean expertise...right ?
> View attachment 39770
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your conspiracy theory is that the entirety of the relevant, global science community that accepts biological evolution as the mechanism for the diversity of life on the planet is a worldwide conspiracy. Is that about right?
Click to expand...

No I think it is more like Scientific hubris


----------



## eots

Some scientists  should be a little more  humble as they face the unknown and the majesty of their ignorance


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> But we have living fossils like you to point to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.
Click to expand...

What subject would that be, selling a theory without providing any proof or conclusive evidence?  Yeah, I don't have any expertise at that.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Some scientists  should be a little more  humble as they face the unknown and the majesty of their ignorance



Actually, scientists are very humble when facing the unknown.  That is why they don't make claims that are unsupported with evidence, unlike you religious lot, who are certain about your claims without any evidence whatsoever to support them.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we have living fossils like you to point to.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> expertize ?..you mean expertise...right ?
> View attachment 39770
Click to expand...

So, your conspiracy theory is that the entirety of the relevant, global science community that accepts biological evolution as the mechanism for the diversity of life on the planet is a worldwide conspiracy. Is that about right?


eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> expertize ?..you mean expertise...right ?
> View attachment 39770
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your conspiracy theory is that the entirety of the relevant, global science community that accepts biological evolution as the mechanism for the diversity of life on the planet is a worldwide conspiracy. Is that about right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I think it is more like Scientific hubris
Click to expand...

Don't be shy. You have a reputation as among the more wacky of the the conspiracy theorists.

Do you hear that sound? Its the black helicopters circling around.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
Click to expand...

My position has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> But we have living fossils like you to point to.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What subject would that be, selling a theory without providing any proof or conclusive evidence?  Yeah, I don't have any expertise at that.
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's why the paper I published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology was accepted without any evidence - other than the 300+ fossils (including 8 new species) that we provided as evidence.  And your evidence is?  Right.  Nothing at all.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
Click to expand...


Liar.



			
				 SJ said:
			
		

> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.



You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
Click to expand...

There is ample proof for biological evolution. That proof being in conflict with your extremist beliefs causes you an irreconcilable dilemma versus your YEC'ist beliefs. 

Denial and invented conspiracy theories won't help you.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, idiot.  The last thing Christians want is for some fucking atheist liberal teaching our kids about God.  Neither do we want you fucktards teaching our kids that our ancestors were apes.  Comprende, asshole?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you do.  Why?  Because the theory of evolution is the accepted paradigm for the origin of the diversity of life on Earth.  So let's discuss who has the burden of proof, shall we:
> 
> Seismic FAQ - Main Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Burden of Proof
> Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Your only argument is that other arrogant and self-proclaimed intellectuals agree with your theory.  The one thing you all have in common is that you keep failing to prove anything you claim.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, the _first_ thing you zealots want is an opportunity to force your religious beliefs into the public schools. The entire false and contrived "teach the controversy" nonsense is being furthered by fundamentalist Christian creation ministries.
> 
> Sorry to disappoint you but *human ancestry does derive from a version of the "apes"* you describe although your understanding of our biological history is as ignorant and useless as the typical zealot.
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you do.  Why?  Because the theory of evolution is the accepted paradigm for the origin of the diversity of life on Earth.  So let's discuss who has the burden of proof, shall we:
> 
> Seismic FAQ - Main Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Burden of Proof
> Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your only argument is that other arrogant and self-proclaimed intellectuals agree with your theory.  The one thing you all have in common is that you keep failing to prove anything you claim.
Click to expand...


Oh poor you.  Did your mother drop you on your head as a child, or did that happen later in your life?


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
Click to expand...

And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you do.  Why?  Because the theory of evolution is the accepted paradigm for the origin of the diversity of life on Earth.  So let's discuss who has the burden of proof, shall we:
> 
> Seismic FAQ - Main Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Burden of Proof
> Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your only argument is that other arrogant and self-proclaimed intellectuals agree with your theory.  The one thing you all have in common is that you keep failing to prove anything you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh poor you.  Did your mother drop you on your head as a child, or did that happen later in your life?
Click to expand...

Your argument is rapidly deteriorating into flinging shit.  Can't you people debate like adults?


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can't prove that ridiculous claim and you call me the zealot?  And no, Christians don't want ANY religion taught in school, including the religion of evolution.  You are NOT our children's parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is ample proof for biological evolution. That proof being in conflict with your extremist beliefs causes you an irreconcilable dilemma versus your YEC'ist beliefs.
> 
> Denial and invented conspiracy theories won't help you.
Click to expand...

I see you're relying more and more on attacking religion and less and less on making your case for evolution.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
Click to expand...


It proves you sound like a wee 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, you do.  Why?  Because the theory of evolution is the accepted paradigm for the origin of the diversity of life on Earth.  So let's discuss who has the burden of proof, shall we:
> 
> Seismic FAQ - Main Page
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8. Burden of Proof
> Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your only argument is that other arrogant and self-proclaimed intellectuals agree with your theory.  The one thing you all have in common is that you keep failing to prove anything you claim.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh poor you.  Did your mother drop you on your head as a child, or did that happen later in your life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your argument is rapidly deteriorating into flinging shit.  Can't you people debate like adults?
Click to expand...


When an adult decides to post a reasonable argument here, I'll debate him/her.  The rest only get what they deserve.  Care to start acting like one?  Or will you settle for what you deserve?


----------



## foggedinn

I believe there is a mountain of evidence for natural selection, and none for evolution. 
People have a tendency to confuse the two.
My own belief is that we are a geneticly engineered species, not evolved.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves you sound like a wee 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.
Click to expand...

Ok, well I guess that's all you have.


----------



## orogenicman

foggedinn said:


> I believe there is a mountain of evidence for natural selection, and none for evolution.
> People have a tendency to confuse the two.
> My own belief is that we are a geneticly engineered species, not evolved.



You are confused.  Natural selection IS the mechanism that drives evolution.  You can't have one without the other.  Genetically engineered?  Well, in some respects we are.  Natural selection operates at the genetic level by selecting traits that confer an advantage.  Artificial selection does as well.  And in some respects, artificial selection affects our species as well.  Today, we are taller, heavier, and more intelligent than we were in the past.  And that is largely because of choices we've made as a civilization, from what we eat, how we educate our children, the types of housing in which we live, the technology we use. etc.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves you sound like a wee 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, well I guess that's all you have.
Click to expand...


It's not all I have.  It's all you deserve.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It proves you sound like a wee 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, well I guess that's all you have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not all I have.  It's all you deserve.
Click to expand...

It's all you have.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is ample proof for biological evolution. That proof being in conflict with your extremist beliefs causes you an irreconcilable dilemma versus your YEC'ist beliefs.
> 
> Denial and invented conspiracy theories won't help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're relying more and more on attacking religion and less and less on making your case for evolution.
Click to expand...

The case for evolution has been made. Your extremist beliefs are the cause of your ignorance.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is ample proof for biological evolution. That proof being in conflict with your extremist beliefs causes you an irreconcilable dilemma versus your YEC'ist beliefs.
> 
> Denial and invented conspiracy theories won't help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're relying more and more on attacking religion and less and less on making your case for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The case for evolution has been made.* Your extremist beliefs are the cause of your ignorance.
Click to expand...

And the verdict is insufficient evidence.  But keep attacking Christianity as a way of proving your theory because we all can see it's all you have.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes we can demonstrate the claim exactly through genetics, fossils, anatomy, morphology, physiology, and cladistics.  And your claim that it isn't true is via what evidence, exactly?  Please be specific.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
Click to expand...

Defending your abysmal ignorance with extremist religious dogma makes you quite the mind-numbed zealot.

Your issue is that your extremist beliefs cause you to reject a reality based worldview. You're a candidate for the Kool-Aid line.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is ample proof for biological evolution. That proof being in conflict with your extremist beliefs causes you an irreconcilable dilemma versus your YEC'ist beliefs.
> 
> Denial and invented conspiracy theories won't help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're relying more and more on attacking religion and less and less on making your case for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The case for evolution has been made.* Your extremist beliefs are the cause of your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the verdict is insufficient evidence.  But keep attacking Christianity as a way of proving your theory because we all can see it's all you have.
Click to expand...

You poor dear. I understand that you find science to be a threat to your belief in magic and superstition.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is ample proof for biological evolution. That proof being in conflict with your extremist beliefs causes you an irreconcilable dilemma versus your YEC'ist beliefs.
> 
> Denial and invented conspiracy theories won't help you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're relying more and more on attacking religion and less and less on making your case for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *The case for evolution has been made.* Your extremist beliefs are the cause of your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the verdict is insufficient evidence.  But keep attacking Christianity as a way of proving your theory because we all can see it's all you have.
Click to expand...

The evidence is insufficient only for you Benny Hinn Academy attendees.


----------



## PredFan

Jeremiah said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which one? There are many.
> 
> 
> 
> When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic.
> 
> It is a specific type of drug resistance.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.
> 
> Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.
> 
> If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.
> 
> Causes Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols.
> 
> This can be a useful way of implanting artificial genes into the microorganism.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.
> 
> The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.
> 
> They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.
> 
> Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.
> 
> Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of methicillin resistance.
> 
> Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, and the use of antibiotics as livestock food additives for growth promotion.
> 
> Researchers have recently demonstrated the bacterial protein LexA may play a key role in the acquisition of bacterial mutations.
> 
> Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.
> 
> Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.
> 
> It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.
> 
> Methicillin was then the antibiotic of choice, but has since been replaced by oxacillin due to significant kidney toxicity.
> 
> MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in Britain in 1961 and is now "quite common" in hospitals.
> 
> MRSA was responsible for 37% of fatal cases of blood poisoning in the UK in 1999, up from 4% in 1991.
> 
> Half of all S. aureus infections in the US are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.
> 
> This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time.
> 
> However, strains with intermediate (4-8 ug/ml) levels of resistence, termed GISA (glycopeptide intermediate Staphylococcus aureus) or VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus), began appearing the the late 1990s.
> 
> The first identified case was in Japan in 1996, and strains have since been found in hospitals in England, France and the US.
> 
> The first documented strain with complete (>16ug/ml) resistence to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in the United States in 2002.
> 
> A new class of antibiotics, oxazolidinones, became available in the 1990s, and the first commercially available oxazolidinone, linezolid, is comparable to vancomycin in effectiveness against MRSA.
> 
> Linezolid-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus was reported in 2003.
> 
> CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.
> 
> Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most frequently identified antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogen in US hospitals.
> 
> The epidemiology of infections caused by MRSA is rapidly changing.
> 
> In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.
> 
> The 2 MRSA clones in the United States most closely associated with community outbreaks, USA400 (MW2 strain, ST1 lineage) and USA300, often contain Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and, more frequently, have been associated with skin and soft tissue infections.
> 
> Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.
> 
> CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.
> 
> Enterococcus faecium is another superbug found in hospitals.
> 
> Penicillin-Resistant Enterococcus was seen in 1983, Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in 1987, and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus (LRE) in the late 1990s.
> 
> Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus: GAS) infections can usually be treated with many different antibiotics.
> 
> Early treatment may reduce the risk of death from invasive group A streptococcal disease.
> 
> However, even the best medical care does not prevent death in every case.
> 
> For those with very severe illness, supportive care in an intensive care unit may be needed.
> 
> For persons with necrotizing fasciitis, surgery often is needed to remove damaged tissue.
> 
> Strains of S. pyogenes resistant to macrolide antibiotics have emerged, however all strains remain uniformly sensitive to penicillin.
> 
> Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin and other beta-lactams is increasing worldwide.
> 
> The major mechanism of resistance involves the introduction of mutations in genes encoding penicillin-binding proteins.
> 
> Selective pressure is thought to play an important role, and use of beta-lactam antibiotics has been implicated as a risk factor for infection and colonization.
> 
> Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible for pneumonia, bacteremia, otitis media, meningitis, sinusitis, peritonitis and arthritis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant. But irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Eots is right on the mark here but your pride simply refuses to admit the possibility that you are *wrong.  *
Click to expand...


1. I haven't stated anything yet so how can I be wrong?
2. Eots argument is true but irrelevant to the discussion,
3. Just because you agree with him doesn't make him right.


----------



## PredFan

Jeremiah said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't debate someone who has no knowledge of the subject, if you want to label it backing down just to save your ignorant pride, do whatever you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The only ignorance and pride I'm seeing here is yours, Predfan.  Your I can't debate excuse is nothing but a cop out.  The truth is you have no answers to refute the evidence that proves evolution to be a lie.
Click to expand...


1. No evidence has been presented.
2. He knows nothing about evolution so there just isn't any way it can be discussed. I'd spend all my time trying to educate him on evolution and there would be no debate. It is what it is and I can't change that.


----------



## guno




----------



## Mr.Right

PredFan said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should we have to defend something that is so obvious? It takes a special kind of stupid to be ignorant of the obvious fact that the universe and everything in it,  is the result of an intelligent Creator.
> 
> To believe that everything created itself from nothing, without any help at all, is sheer lunacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't debate someone who has no knowledge of the subject, if you want to label it backing down just to save your ignorant pride, do whatever you want.
Click to expand...

I'll debate anyone about anything. if you want to claim that your opponent is ignorant just to save your ignorant pride, well, you could do whatever you want.the fact is that you are a craven coward.


----------



## orogenicman

Gentlemen, here is the problem as I see it.  The OP wants to know where the mountain of evidence for evolution is.  For you people to deny what is without a doubt a literal mountain of evidence supporting evolution compiled by hundreds of thousands of people over the past 150 years is simply willful ignorance.  To continue to insist that it doesn't exist when presented to you is nothing more than a pretense to claim some sort of moral victory for your wounded pride.  It is immature, at best, and an insult to all those who have dedicated their lives to advance our understanding of the world through the scientific method.  If you truly want to know what that evidence is, what it tells us, and what you can learn from it, I suggest that instead of waving your dicks in the air and declaring it "not evidence", you actually analyze that data with your brains and then tell us IN DETAIL what your objection is, and why.  Simply saying "it is not "proof" is nothing more than a cop out.  You know it. I know it, and so does everyone else here.  So please stop this charade and either decide that you want to have a serious discussion or get out of the fucking kitchen.


----------



## Mr.Right

Uncensored2008 said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> no..nothing like electricity
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was HUGE resistance to electricity - it was the power of the devil. The same attitude is present regarding evolution, and in time, it will be viewed as just as nutty.
> 
> Evolution is fact, there is no question, no doubt or debate. Some mechanisms are not fully understood, but evolution simply is.
Click to expand...

people like you say that sort of thing so often, I have to wonder if you're really trying to convince yourself.


----------



## guno

Jeremiah said:


> No, he is not wrong.  And neither was Dr. Kent Hovind wrong which was proven when he defeated the evolution promoters at university after university.   Perhaps that is why the Govt. trumped up charges against him and put him in prison for the past 99 months and counting - for depositing 9600 dollars into his own bank account.   Utterly ridiculous. You people cannot debate the facts and win so you put those who present them best behind bars.  What weakness!




*Kent E. Hovind* (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist. Hovind has spoken on creation science, aiming to convince listeners to reject scientific theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible. Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by fellow Young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.

Hovind established _Creation Science Evangelism_ in 1989, and frequently spoke on Young Earth creationism in private schools, churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted in federal court of 58 counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. In a separate federal court case in early 2015, Hovind was found guilty of contempt of court.

*Education*



Patriot University
In 1971, he graduated from East Peoria Community High School in East Peoria, Illinois, and later received 4 degrees, all from unaccredited institutions. From 1972 to 1974, Hovind attended the Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education.[1] In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind received a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[notes 1][7] Having a website called "Dr. Dino" has provoked some academics to look closely at how Hovind presents his education and credentials. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy, expert on the history of creationism and activist in the creation-evolution controversy, wrote that Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level.[8]

Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, having unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[9][10] The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and Doctor of Ministry degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $37 per credit.[11][12]

Karen Bartelt, an organic chemistry professor who debated Hovind,[8] stated that his doctoral dissertation is evidence of the poor requirements at Patriot and that Hovind lacks knowledge of basic science. She noted that Hovind's dissertation is incomplete,[notes 2] of low academic quality, with poor writing, poor spelling, and poor grammatical style. Bartelt asserts that pages are repeated, references are absent, and it is not an original work with original ideas.[13]

In 2010, Patriot responded to Wikileaks' claim to have revealed Hovind's dissertation, writing that the Wikileaks file was not the "finished" product, but that they would not release the full dissertation,[14] which is unusual among academic institutions. As a general rule, doctoral dissertations are published by the associated university and made available to the public, so that other students conducting research may reference them.[13]

Hovid is a science illiterate and clown


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> the only other science so contested is man made climate change which seems also to be plagued with hidden agenda and a mixture of science.,politics and philosophy



The only ones contesting either are people who know less than nothing about them.  You, for example, have demonstrated NO knowledge of the theory of evolution.  Simply declaring it "not proven" is not a demonstration that you understand anything about it.  Moreover, if evolution is wrong, then you must demonstrate why it is wrong, and then advance some proposal that better explains the compiled evidence than the one the entire scientific community has settled on.  Otherwise, you simply look like a fool trying to waste everyone's time.


----------



## Mr.Right

foggedinn said:


> I believe there is a mountain of evidence for natural selection, and none for evolution.
> People have a tendency to confuse the two.
> My own belief is that we are a geneticly engineered species, not evolved.


It's like looking at a skyscraper and saying, where did that come from? It's obvious that someone designed and built it, yet people have no problem believing that all of the complexity we see in nature just happened by chance. Some people will believe anything.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By "no factual evidence," you mean "overwhelming and irrefutable evidence," then?
> 
> Evolution is a fact - there is no debate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *its all assumption..it could  all be evidence of a common creator using the same source material*
Click to expand...


Really? What are the assumptions that you object to?  Be specific, and then detail why they are wrong.


----------



## guno

Mr.Right said:


> foggedinn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is a mountain of evidence for natural selection, and none for evolution.
> People have a tendency to confuse the two.
> My own belief is that we are a geneticly engineered species, not evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like looking at a skyscraper and saying, where did that come from? It's obvious that someone designed and built it, yet people have no problem believing that all of the complexity we see in nature just happened by chance. Some people will believe anything.
Click to expand...



Even though it has been expalined to you over and over you will cling to your fairy tails , It is very evident you have no education in the basic sciences


----------



## Uncensored2008

guno said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> foggedinn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is a mountain of evidence for natural selection, and none for evolution.
> People have a tendency to confuse the two.
> My own belief is that we are a geneticly engineered species, not evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like looking at a skyscraper and saying, where did that come from? It's obvious that someone designed and built it, yet people have no problem believing that all of the complexity we see in nature just happened by chance. Some people will believe anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even though it has been expalined to you over and over you will cling to your fairy tails , It is very evident you have no education in the basic sciences
Click to expand...


Nor do you, Ahmed.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> foggedinn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is a mountain of evidence for natural selection, and none for evolution.
> People have a tendency to confuse the two.
> My own belief is that we are a geneticly engineered species, not evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like looking at a skyscraper and saying, where did that come from? It's obvious that someone designed and built it, yet people have no problem believing that all of the complexity we see in nature just happened by chance. Some people will believe anything.
Click to expand...


----------



## guno

guno said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he is not wrong.  And neither was Dr. Kent Hovind wrong which was proven when he defeated the evolution promoters at university after university.   Perhaps that is why the Govt. trumped up charges against him and put him in prison for the past 99 months and counting - for depositing 9600 dollars into his own bank account.   Utterly ridiculous. You people cannot debate the facts and win so you put those who present them best behind bars.  What weakness!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Kent E. Hovind* (born January 15, 1953) is an American Young Earth creationist and conspiracy theorist. Hovind has spoken on creation science, aiming to convince listeners to reject scientific theories of evolution, geophysics, and cosmology in favor of his interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative from the Bible. Hovind's views are contradicted by scientific evidence and some of his ideas have also been criticized by fellow Young Earth creationist organizations such as Answers in Genesis.
> 
> Hovind established _Creation Science Evangelism_ in 1989, and frequently spoke on Young Earth creationism in private schools, churches, debates, and on radio and television broadcasts. Since January 2007, Hovind has been serving a ten-year prison sentence after being convicted in federal court of 58 counts, including 12 tax offenses, one count of obstructing federal agents, and 45 counts of structuring cash transactions. In a separate federal court case in early 2015, Hovind was found guilty of contempt of court.
> 
> *Education*
> 
> 
> 
> Patriot University
> In 1971, he graduated from East Peoria Community High School in East Peoria, Illinois, and later received 4 degrees, all from unaccredited institutions. From 1972 to 1974, Hovind attended the Midwestern Baptist College and received a Bachelor of Religious Education.[1] In 1988 and 1991 respectively, Hovind received a master's degree and doctorate in Christian Education through correspondence from the Patriot University in Colorado Springs, Colorado.[notes 1][7] Having a website called "Dr. Dino" has provoked some academics to look closely at how Hovind presents his education and credentials. Barbara Forrest, a professor of philosophy, expert on the history of creationism and activist in the creation-evolution controversy, wrote that Hovind's lack of academic training makes it impossible to engage him on a professional level.[8]
> 
> Patriot Bible University is a diploma mill, having unreasonably low graduation requirements, lack of sufficient faculty or educational standards, and a suspicious tuition scheme.[9][10] The school's current policies allow students to attain bachelor's degrees, master's degrees, and Doctor of Ministry degrees in months, rather than years, for as little as $37 per credit.[11][12]
> 
> Karen Bartelt, an organic chemistry professor who debated Hovind,[8] stated that his doctoral dissertation is evidence of the poor requirements at Patriot and that Hovind lacks knowledge of basic science. She noted that Hovind's dissertation is incomplete,[notes 2] of low academic quality, with poor writing, poor spelling, and poor grammatical style. Bartelt asserts that pages are repeated, references are absent, and it is not an original work with original ideas.[13]
> 
> In 2010, Patriot responded to Wikileaks' claim to have revealed Hovind's dissertation, writing that the Wikileaks file was not the "finished" product, but that they would not release the full dissertation,[14] which is unusual among academic institutions. As a general rule, doctoral dissertations are published by the associated university and made available to the public, so that other students conducting research may reference them.[13]
> 
> Hovid is a science illiterate and clown
Click to expand...



*A Review of Kent Hovind's Thesis by Karen Bartelt, Ph.D.*
*
The Dissertation Kent Hovind Doesn t Want You to Read*


----------



## guno

Uncensored2008 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> foggedinn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe there is a mountain of evidence for natural selection, and none for evolution.
> People have a tendency to confuse the two.
> My own belief is that we are a geneticly engineered species, not evolved.
> 
> 
> 
> It's like looking at a skyscraper and saying, where did that come from? It's obvious that someone designed and built it, yet people have no problem believing that all of the complexity we see in nature just happened by chance. Some people will believe anything.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even though it has been expalined to you over and over you will cling to your fairy tails , It is very evident you have no education in the basic sciences
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nor do you, Ahmed.
Click to expand...



I only have a masters in mechanical engineering with lots of physics background. And you? Waffle house cook?


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> Gentlemen, here is the problem as I see it.  The OP wants to know where the mountain of evidence for evolution is.  For you people to deny what is without a doubt a literal mountain of evidence supporting evolution compiled by hundreds of thousands of people over the past 150 years is simply willful ignorance.  To continue to insist that it doesn't exist when presented to you is nothing more than a pretense to claim some sort of moral victory for your wounded pride.  It is immature, at best, and an insult to all those who have dedicated their lives to advance our understanding of the world through the scientific method.  If you truly want to know what that evidence is, what it tells us, and what you can learn from it, I suggest that instead of waving your dicks in the air and declaring it "not evidence", you actually analyze that data with your brains and then tell us IN DETAIL what your objection is, and why.  Simply saying "it is not "proof" is nothing more than a cop out.  You know it. I know it, and so does everyone else here.  So please stop this charade and either decide that you want to have a serious discussion or get out of the fucking kitchen.



Bump.

<cricket chirping>


----------



## Uncensored2008

guno said:


> I only have a masters in mechanical engineering with lots of physics background. And you? Waffle house cook?



MBA with a focus on economics.

What school of physics do they teach at the University of Tehran? String theory and brane worlds are out - might offend Allah....

Perhaps dancing djin explain the weak attractive force of gravity?


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really, because I am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology, and have found many of those fossils you claim lack substance:
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And your scientific training, expertize and experience is what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> expertize ?..you mean expertise...right ?
> View attachment 39770
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your conspiracy theory is that the entirety of the relevant, global science community that accepts biological evolution as the mechanism for the diversity of life on the planet is a worldwide conspiracy. Is that about right?
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've proven that you have no expertize whatsoever on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> expertize ?..you mean expertise...right ?
> View attachment 39770
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, your conspiracy theory is that the entirety of the relevant, global science community that accepts biological evolution as the mechanism for the diversity of life on the planet is a worldwide conspiracy. Is that about right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I think it is more like Scientific hubris
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't be shy. You have a reputation as among the more wacky of the the conspiracy theorists.
> 
> Do you hear that sound? Its the black helicopters circling around.
Click to expand...

 *ya wacky like fox...


*


----------



## sealybobo

cnm said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> why ?..the universe ..god could express it self trough principles  that are real , knowable, measurable at least to the degree a finite human mind is capable of
> 
> 
> 
> What is not knowable or measurable is magical.
Click to expand...


Until science figures it out. Its called god of the gaps. Look into it.


----------



## orogenicman

Uncensored2008 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only have a masters in mechanical engineering with lots of physics background. And you? Waffle house cook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MBA with a focus on economics.
Click to expand...


Right.  So you have little, if any science education, and no field experience.  And that qualifies you to do what?  Manage an Arbys?



			
				uncensored_blah_blah_blah said:
			
		

> What school of physics do they teach at the University of Tehran? String theory and brane worlds are out - might offend Allah....
> 
> Perhaps dancing djin explain the weak attractive force of gravity?



They actually do teach physics there.  They don't at Liberty University.  Is that where you graduated?
Now, can we get back on topic?


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only have a masters in mechanical engineering with lots of physics background. And you? Waffle house cook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MBA with a focus on economics.
> 
> What school of physics do they teach at the University of Tehran? String theory and brane worlds are out - might offend Allah....
> 
> Perhaps dancing djin explain the weak attractive force of gravity?
Click to expand...

Actually did you see the new cosmos? Neil explains how a great man lived back then and the middle east gave us algebra and algorithms and the number zero. He preached the scientific method which includes questioning the stories of the ancients. Of course most of that was suppressed.


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gentlemen, here is the problem as I see it.  The OP wants to know where the mountain of evidence for evolution is.  For you people to deny what is without a doubt a literal mountain of evidence supporting evolution compiled by hundreds of thousands of people over the past 150 years is simply willful ignorance.  To continue to insist that it doesn't exist when presented to you is nothing more than a pretense to claim some sort of moral victory for your wounded pride.  It is immature, at best, and an insult to all those who have dedicated their lives to advance our understanding of the world through the scientific method.  If you truly want to know what that evidence is, what it tells us, and what you can learn from it, I suggest that instead of waving your dicks in the air and declaring it "not evidence", you actually analyze that data with your brains and then tell us IN DETAIL what your objection is, and why.  Simply saying "it is not "proof" is nothing more than a cop out.  You know it. I know it, and so does everyone else here.  So please stop this charade and either decide that you want to have a serious discussion or get out of the fucking kitchen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bump.
> 
> <cricket chirping>
Click to expand...


----------



## sealybobo

Uncensored2008 said:


> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only have a masters in mechanical engineering with lots of physics background. And you? Waffle house cook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MBA with a focus on economics.
> 
> What school of physics do they teach at the University of Tehran? String theory and brane worlds are out - might offend Allah....
> 
> Perhaps dancing djin explain the weak attractive force of gravity?
Click to expand...

Unless its at a great school bfd. University of phoenix?

 People with masters are full of themselves. Of course they believe a god loves them and cares and has heaven waiting.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.
Click to expand...


And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.


----------



## Uncensored2008

sealybobo said:


> Actually did you see the new cosmos? Neil explains how a great man lived back then and the middle east gave us algebra and algorithms and the number zero. He preached the scientific method which includes questioning the stories of the ancients. Of course most of that was suppressed.



I was very disappointed in it. Didn't like the Beavis and Butthead cartoons, and Tyson was preaching. Reminded me of the old Davey and Golieth cartoons. Why present facts when you can shovel dogma with a back hoe?

At any rate, I did like the original series with Sagan, which is the ONLY reason I sat through the Tyson remake.

Oh and Algebra came from China. The Arabs simply had the luck of sitting on the trade route so they absorbed rather than developed it. To his credit, Tyson DID point this out (in one of the stupid Beavis and Butthead cartoons.)


----------



## Uncensored2008

orogenicman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only have a masters in mechanical engineering with lots of physics background. And you? Waffle house cook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MBA with a focus on economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  So you have little, if any science education, and no field experience.  And that qualifies you to do what?  Manage an Arbys?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uncensored_blah_blah_blah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What school of physics do they teach at the University of Tehran? String theory and brane worlds are out - might offend Allah....
> 
> Perhaps dancing djin explain the weak attractive force of gravity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually do teach physics there.  They don't at Liberty University.  Is that where you graduated?
> Now, can we get back on topic?
Click to expand...


Actually I work in the field of IT - a solid science. My undergrad is in CIS. I'm working on my PhD. as we speak. If Guano has an education, he has never demonstrated it.


----------



## orogenicman

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
Click to expand...


They don't even do that.  Their only response, like a bunch of lemmings, is "that's not evidence".  They don't even argue the evidence, they simply declare it invalid.  And that is because they know if they did try to make a reasonable argument, they would show everybody that they really don't know what they are talking about.  And we can't have that, can we?  It's pathetic, really.


----------



## orogenicman

Uncensored2008 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually did you see the new cosmos? Neil explains how a great man lived back then and the middle east gave us algebra and algorithms and the number zero. He preached the scientific method which includes questioning the stories of the ancients. Of course most of that was suppressed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was very disappointed in it. Didn't like the Beavis and Butthead cartoons, and Tyson was preaching. Reminded me of the old Davey and Golieth cartoons. Why present facts when you can shovel dogma with a back hoe?
> 
> At any rate, I did like the original series with Sagan, which is the ONLY reason I sat through the Tyson remake.
> 
> Oh and Algebra came from China. The Arabs simply had the luck of sitting on the trade route so they absorbed rather than developed it. To his credit, Tyson DID point this out (in one of the stupid Beavis and Butthead cartoons.)
Click to expand...


Ahem:

History of algebra - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

As for Carl Sagan, if you liked his Cosmos, you're going to love this:


----------



## Uncensored2008

orogenicman said:


> [
> Ahem:
> 
> History of algebra - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia



You DO grasp that your link confirms what I (and Tyson) said, right?



> As for Carl Sagan, if you liked his Cosmos, you're going to love this:



I block videos so can't watch it. But you DO remember that I stated that evolution is an irrefutable fact, right?

One of my top ten all time favorite books is "Demon Haunted World." Sagan had a very enjoyable style.

Another of my top ten is "Warped Passages" by Dr. Lisa Randall.


----------



## orogenicman

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> guno said:
> 
> 
> 
> I only have a masters in mechanical engineering with lots of physics background. And you? Waffle house cook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MBA with a focus on economics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right.  So you have little, if any science education, and no field experience.  And that qualifies you to do what?  Manage an Arbys?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> uncensored_blah_blah_blah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What school of physics do they teach at the University of Tehran? String theory and brane worlds are out - might offend Allah....
> 
> Perhaps dancing djin explain the weak attractive force of gravity?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They actually do teach physics there.  They don't at Liberty University.  Is that where you graduated?
> Now, can we get back on topic?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I work in the field of IT - a solid science. My undergrad is in CIS. I'm working on my PhD. as we speak. If Guano has an education, he has never demonstrated it.
Click to expand...


That's great.  I'm happy for you.  That said, computers are very useful in many sciences, even biology and geology.  But being expert at IT doesn't make you an expert at the biological theory of evolution.  In fact, you could go through your entire professional career in IT without ever being exposed to a fossil or performing a dissection.  So, as I said, you don't have the education or field experience to qualify as having any kind of expertise in the field of evolutionary science.  But I would highly recommend that before you get your PhD that you learn something about how the scientific method works, because if you don't, I'm not sure what good your degree is going to be to anyone, much less yourself.


----------



## Uncensored2008

orogenicman said:


> That's great.  I'm happy for you.  That said, computers are very useful in many sciences, even biology and geology.  But being expert at IT doesn't make you an expert at the biological theory of evolution.  In fact, you could go through your entire professional career in IT without ever being exposed to a fossil or performing a dissection.  So, as I said, you don't have the education or field experience to qualify as having any kind of expertise in the field of evolutionary science.  But I would highly recommend that before you get your PhD that you learn something about how the scientific method works, because if you don't, I'm not sure what good your degree is going to be to anyone, much less yourself.



It is "computer science" for a reason. These devices aren't magic, they are science in action, AKA technology. My field of science has produced more results than any other in the field.

So do you have a point?


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anyone else noticed that the thread query "where is the mountain of evidence for evolution" is nothing more than a burqa covering the goal of the fundamentalist to denigrate science?
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
Click to expand...

You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.


I had the impression you were a substantial fossil.


----------



## orogenicman

Uncensored2008 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's great.  I'm happy for you.  That said, computers are very useful in many sciences, even biology and geology.  But being expert at IT doesn't make you an expert at the biological theory of evolution.  In fact, you could go through your entire professional career in IT without ever being exposed to a fossil or performing a dissection.  So, as I said, you don't have the education or field experience to qualify as having any kind of expertise in the field of evolutionary science.  But I would highly recommend that before you get your PhD that you learn something about how the scientific method works, because if you don't, I'm not sure what good your degree is going to be to anyone, much less yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is "computer science" for a reason. These devices aren't magic, they are science in action, AKA technology. My field of science has produced more results than any other in the field.
> 
> So do you have a point?
Click to expand...


I didn't say that they were magic.  I've worked on desktop computers myself since 1994, but took some programming in the 1970s and 1980s.  The first computer I worked on was a DEC 10, then an IBM 360.  So I know my way around them, but don't claim to be an IT expert by any stretch.  So I wouldn't pretend to tell you your business.  However, I am a published geologist who also studied anthropology for four years before I changed majors.  So when I tell you that I am an expert on the subject of evolution, you can understand that I am telling the truth.  So don't try to tell me my business.  But I guess my point is that the sciences that conduct research in evolution use the exact same scientific method that every other science does,  including computer science.  So it might be useful to have a working knowledge of the method before you get that PhD.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.


No, he doesn't have to prove anything, science does not do proof. He presents evidence as he's been invited to do, at which point you'll reject it because you are a living fossil.


----------



## orogenicman

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't have to prove anything, science does not do proof. He presents evidence as he's been invited to do, at which point you'll reject it because you are a living fossil.
Click to expand...


Just ignore him.  All he knows how to do is troll.


----------



## cnm

That's not evidence...


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's great.  I'm happy for you.  That said, computers are very useful in many sciences, even biology and geology.  But being expert at IT doesn't make you an expert at the biological theory of evolution.  In fact, you could go through your entire professional career in IT without ever being exposed to a fossil or performing a dissection.  So, as I said, you don't have the education or field experience to qualify as having any kind of expertise in the field of evolutionary science.  But I would highly recommend that before you get your PhD that you learn something about how the scientific method works, because if you don't, I'm not sure what good your degree is going to be to anyone, much less yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is "computer science" for a reason. These devices aren't magic, they are science in action, AKA technology. My field of science has produced more results than any other in the field.
> 
> So do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that they were magic.  I've worked on desktop computers myself since 1994, but took some programming in the 1970s and 1980s.  The first computer I worked on was a DEC 10, then an IBM 360.  So I know my way around them, but don't claim to be an IT expert by any stretch.  So I wouldn't pretend to tell you your business.  However, I am a published geologist who also studied anthropology for four years before I changed majors.  So when I tell you that I am an expert on the subject of evolution, you can understand that I am telling the truth.  So don't try to tell me my business.  But I guess my point is that the sciences that conduct research in evolution use the exact same scientific method that every other science does,  including computer science.  So it might be useful to have a working knowledge of the method before you get that PhD.
Click to expand...

I did peyote in the desert alone on the summer solstice and during the beautiful moment  that transitions between the late eve and early morn..dawn..I glimpsed eternity, I saw the perfection of all creation and touched the face of god ..


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
> 
> 
> 
> They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
Click to expand...


Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
Click to expand...

No offence but what soulless beast you can be


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's great.  I'm happy for you.  That said, computers are very useful in many sciences, even biology and geology.  But being expert at IT doesn't make you an expert at the biological theory of evolution.  In fact, you could go through your entire professional career in IT without ever being exposed to a fossil or performing a dissection.  So, as I said, you don't have the education or field experience to qualify as having any kind of expertise in the field of evolutionary science.  But I would highly recommend that before you get your PhD that you learn something about how the scientific method works, because if you don't, I'm not sure what good your degree is going to be to anyone, much less yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is "computer science" for a reason. These devices aren't magic, they are science in action, AKA technology. My field of science has produced more results than any other in the field.
> 
> So do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that they were magic.  I've worked on desktop computers myself since 1994, but took some programming in the 1970s and 1980s.  The first computer I worked on was a DEC 10, then an IBM 360.  So I know my way around them, but don't claim to be an IT expert by any stretch.  So I wouldn't pretend to tell you your business.  However, I am a published geologist who also studied anthropology for four years before I changed majors.  So when I tell you that I am an expert on the subject of evolution, you can understand that I am telling the truth.  So don't try to tell me my business.  But I guess my point is that the sciences that conduct research in evolution use the exact same scientific method that every other science does,  including computer science.  So it might be useful to have a working knowledge of the method before you get that PhD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did peyote in the desert alone on the summer solstice and during the beautiful moment  that transitions between the late eve and early morn..dawn..I glimpsed eternity, I saw the perfection of all creation and touched the face of god ..
Click to expand...


That explains a lot more about you than you apparently realize.


----------



## PredFan

Mr.Right said:


> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with you is an identical problem throughout the population who believes in Creationism; you don't know the first thing about evolution and you form your opinions based on ignorance. Here you are confusing the Big Bang Theory with Evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't debate someone who has no knowledge of the subject, if you want to label it backing down just to save your ignorant pride, do whatever you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll debate anyone about anything. if you want to claim that your opponent is ignorant just to save your ignorant pride, well, you could do whatever you want.the fact is that you are a craven coward.
Click to expand...


Of course YOU will debate anyone about anything. You don't know anything so it's no real effort for you. I am not afraid, that is just a lie you tell yourself. I just won't bother arguing with someone who knows nothing about the subject. It's a waste of my time. I would spend all my time educating you instead of debating. That's boring and tedious and you won't listen anyway.

You can remain stupid, I don't care. Good bye.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncensored2008 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's great.  I'm happy for you.  That said, computers are very useful in many sciences, even biology and geology.  But being expert at IT doesn't make you an expert at the biological theory of evolution.  In fact, you could go through your entire professional career in IT without ever being exposed to a fossil or performing a dissection.  So, as I said, you don't have the education or field experience to qualify as having any kind of expertise in the field of evolutionary science.  But I would highly recommend that before you get your PhD that you learn something about how the scientific method works, because if you don't, I'm not sure what good your degree is going to be to anyone, much less yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is "computer science" for a reason. These devices aren't magic, they are science in action, AKA technology. My field of science has produced more results than any other in the field.
> 
> So do you have a point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't say that they were magic.  I've worked on desktop computers myself since 1994, but took some programming in the 1970s and 1980s.  The first computer I worked on was a DEC 10, then an IBM 360.  So I know my way around them, but don't claim to be an IT expert by any stretch.  So I wouldn't pretend to tell you your business.  However, I am a published geologist who also studied anthropology for four years before I changed majors.  So when I tell you that I am an expert on the subject of evolution, you can understand that I am telling the truth.  So don't try to tell me my business.  But I guess my point is that the sciences that conduct research in evolution use the exact same scientific method that every other science does,  including computer science.  So it might be useful to have a working knowledge of the method before you get that PhD.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I did peyote in the desert alone on the summer solstice and during the beautiful moment  that transitions between the late eve and early morn..dawn..I glimpsed eternity, I saw the perfection of all creation and touched the face of god ..
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That explains a lot more about you than you apparently realize.
Click to expand...

or is it  more than you apparently realize.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offence but what soulless beast you can be
Click to expand...

No offense, but shouldn't you be somewhere else looking for new conspiracy theories?


----------



## Mr.Right

PredFan said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have confused nothing. the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and evolution are all part of the same thing. A naturalistic origin of life. I may not be an expert on evolution, but I will debate you on it anytime you like. you say I don't understand it. I assure you, that I do. so, you want to debate it? bring it on. I'll even let you choose the topic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you can't debate it if you don't know shit about it and it's obvious that you don't know shit about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you're backing down? You're refusing to debate me? You do realize how that makes you look, don't you? You've just confirmed my suspician. You're a blowhard and a coward. Otherwise, you'd jump at the opportunity to make look like a fool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I can't debate someone who has no knowledge of the subject, if you want to label it backing down just to save your ignorant pride, do whatever you want.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll debate anyone about anything. if you want to claim that your opponent is ignorant just to save your ignorant pride, well, you could do whatever you want.the fact is that you are a craven coward.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course YOU will debate anyone about anything. You don't know anything so it's no real effort for you. I am not afraid, that is just a lie you tell yourself. I just won't bother arguing with someone who knows nothing about the subject. It's a waste of my time. I would spend all my time educating you instead of debating. That's boring and tedious and you won't listen anyway.
> 
> You can remain stupid, I don't care. Good bye.
Click to expand...

You can disguise your cowardice any way you like. You're not fooling anyone. I believe that your refusal to debate me is that you know you would lose. I believe most would agree with me. I'm calling you out, coward! Debate me, or prove to everyone here that you're a liberal coward.


----------



## sealybobo

orogenicman said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> No but  I did notice however that no definitive evidence was offered  and that people like dawkins  and stephen hawking went as far as to suggest alien intervention
> 
> 
> 
> They said why rule out aliens if your gonna believe it must have been a god. Not that they believe in aliens.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know what?  The only reason I haven't ignored you yet, is because your stupidity makes me laugh out loud. It really does. Keep up the good work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don't even do that.  Their only response, like a bunch of lemmings, is "that's not evidence".  They don't even argue the evidence, they simply declare it invalid.  And that is because they know if they did try to make a reasonable argument, they would show everybody that they really don't know what they are talking about.  And we can't have that, can we?  It's pathetic, really.
Click to expand...

I feel sorry for the ones who believe for all the right reasons. I dont want to burst their bubble but when 90 of theism is bullshit I can't worry about stupid peoples feelings. It may give a lot of good people good feelings but that doesnt make it good for us or true.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand you're angry and frustrated. The question regarding evidence for evolution is demonstrated overwhelmingly by the science community. You deny it because biological history directly contradicts your YEC'ist fantasies and literal interpretation of the various bibles. It's unfortunate for you because you are the stereotype of the raving, hair-on-fire, out of control thumper, the Taliban who is marginalized by a society that keeps you on a choke collar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offence but what soulless beast you can be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offense, but shouldn't you be somewhere else looking for new conspiracy theories?
Click to expand...

apply scientific method to the collapses on 9/11
go ahead I dare you...
_
Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, Dr. Margulis is an elected member of The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization of 500 of the world’s leading thinkers, _chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. And in 2006, she was selected as one of “The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders” by the editors ofResurgence magazine.the prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public." 
In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as “this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties”


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending your abysmal ignorance with extremist religious dogma makes you quite the mind-numbed zealot.
> 
> Your issue is that your extremist beliefs cause you to reject a reality based worldview. You're a candidate for the Kool-Aid line.
Click to expand...

Please quote where I brought religion into it.  You are the only one who has done that.


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming what I said about the lack of substance in your argument.
> 
> 
> 
> I had the impression you were a substantial fossil.
Click to expand...

Confirming again, I see.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't have to prove anything, science does not do proof. He presents evidence as he's been invited to do, at which point you'll reject it because you are a living fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just ignore him.  All he knows how to do is troll.
Click to expand...

Translation:  Shut up, cnm, he's onto our strategy of name calling and personal attacks.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
> 
> 
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And its not like there is only one bit of evidence for evolution. Its a collection of a lot of reasons why we know evolution is real. You see how that one fool wanted to argue about I can't even remember what it was now but he just threw it at me like it was suppose to prove something. Something about a micro organism being resistant to antibiotics? And that means what? So you can'never give them enough evidence because they will argue anything science says. One at a time. Even if science has 1000 reasons or a million.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offence but what soulless beast you can be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offense, but shouldn't you be somewhere else looking for new conspiracy theories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apply scientific method to the collapses on 9/11
> go ahead I dare you...
> _
> Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, Dr. Margulis is an elected member of The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization of 500 of the world’s leading thinkers, _chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. And in 2006, she was selected as one of “The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders” by the editors ofResurgence magazine.the prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public."
> In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as “this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties”
Click to expand...

This is not the thread for your silly 9/11 conspiracy theories.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't have to prove anything, science does not do proof. He presents evidence as he's been invited to do, at which point you'll reject it because you are a living fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just ignore him.  All he knows how to do is troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:  Shut up, cnm, he's onto our strategy of name calling and personal attacks.
Click to expand...


Except that between the two of us, I'm the only one who has tried to stick to the topic of the thread and contribute, whereas you have made no effort to actually contribute to it.  hence - troll.


----------



## Political Junky

Mr.Right said:


> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?


What is your proof of Creationism?


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending your abysmal ignorance with extremist religious dogma makes you quite the mind-numbed zealot.
> 
> Your issue is that your extremist beliefs cause you to reject a reality based worldview. You're a candidate for the Kool-Aid line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I brought religion into it.  You are the only one who has done that.
Click to expand...




S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your denial of the many sciences that contribute to the facts of evolution entitles you to wear the badge of religious extremist.
> 
> Revel in your ignorance. Your YEC'ist beliefs will get you a reduced rate for joining the Flat Earth Society.
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending your abysmal ignorance with extremist religious dogma makes you quite the mind-numbed zealot.
> 
> Your issue is that your extremist beliefs cause you to reject a reality based worldview. You're a candidate for the Kool-Aid line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I brought religion into it.  You are the only one who has done that.
Click to expand...

Please try and be honest, at least with yourself if not others. Your tender fundie beliefs are offended by evolution and its implications toward your YEC'ist notions.


----------



## Mr.Right

Political Junky said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof of Creationism?
Click to expand...

How many times do we have to tell you mental midgets to stay on topic? If you want to discuss religion, start our own damn thread. Now, where's this evidence for evolution I keep hearing about?


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof of Creationism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do we have to tell you mental midgets to stay on topic? If you want to discuss religion, start our own damn thread. Now, where's this evidence for evolution I keep hearing about?
Click to expand...


Proving yet again my thesis that being saved requires one to lose all sense of the ironic.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offence but what soulless beast you can be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offense, but shouldn't you be somewhere else looking for new conspiracy theories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apply scientific method to the collapses on 9/11
> go ahead I dare you...
> _
> Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, Dr. Margulis is an elected member of The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization of 500 of the world’s leading thinkers, _chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. And in 2006, she was selected as one of “The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders” by the editors ofResurgence magazine.the prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the  "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public."
> In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as “this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not the thread for your silly 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can also throw shit in the air a thousand times. None of it will ascend to the heavans, to become fact. it will always obey gravity and hit you in the face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Such lovely folks you angry, self-hating fundies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offence but what soulless beast you can be
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No offense, but shouldn't you be somewhere else looking for new conspiracy theories?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> apply scientific method to the collapses on 9/11
> go ahead I dare you...
> _
> Internationally acclaimed for her ground-breaking scientific work, Dr. Margulis is an elected member of The World Academy of Art and Science, an organization of 500 of the world’s leading thinkers, _chosen for eminence in art, the natural and social sciences, and the humanities. And in 2006, she was selected as one of “The 20th Century's 100 Most Important Inspirational Leaders” by the editors ofResurgence magazine.the prominent scientists, Dr. Margulis is Distinguished University Professor in the Department of Geosciences, University of Massachusetts - Amherst. She was elected to the National Academy of Sciences in 1983 and served as Chairman of the Academy’s Space Science Board Committee on Planetary Biology and Chemical Evolution. In 1999, President Bill Clinton presented Dr. Margulis with the National Medal of Science, America's highest honor for scientific achievement, "for her outstanding contributions to understanding of the development, structure, and evolution of living things, for inspiring new research in the biological, climatological, geological and planetary sciences, and for her extraordinary abilities as a teacher and communicator of science to the public."
> In her statement on PatriotsQuestion911.com, Dr. Margulis referred to 9/11 as “this new false-flag operation, which has been used to justify the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as unprecedented assaults on research, education, and civil liberties”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is not the thread for your silly 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Then stop referencing it every third post and btw what is really silly, saying the recipient of National Medal of Science  and her assertions  in regard to the collapses of 911 and the lack of any real scientific investigation..as _my silly conspiracy theories_


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't have to prove anything, science does not do proof. He presents evidence as he's been invited to do, at which point you'll reject it because you are a living fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just ignore him.  All he knows how to do is troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:  Shut up, cnm, he's onto our strategy of name calling and personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that between the two of us, I'm the only one who has tried to stick to the topic of the thread and contribute, whereas you have made no effort to actually contribute to it.  hence - troll.
Click to expand...

Between the two of us, you're the only one who has engaged in name calling and personal attacks when challenged.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof of Creationism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do we have to tell you mental midgets to stay on topic? If you want to discuss religion, start our own damn thread. Now, where's this evidence for evolution I keep hearing about?
Click to expand...

We are all made of the same stuff. I'm not a scientist but if you watched the cosmos they explain how everything alive is related. Even trees and humans share a common ancestor believe it or not. 

This is just one piece of evidence. 

Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff.

Anyways, because we dont have all the answers you'll never be satisfied with science. Your religion gives you all the answers and you like that who cares if they are wrong?


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending your abysmal ignorance with extremist religious dogma makes you quite the mind-numbed zealot.
> 
> Your issue is that your extremist beliefs cause you to reject a reality based worldview. You're a candidate for the Kool-Aid line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I brought religion into it.  You are the only one who has done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> My position has nothing to do with religion,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it has to do with you not being able to prove the claim you think you have the right to force down everyone else's throat.  And your "flat earth" comment doesn't help with your credibility.  It only speaks to your lack of substance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending your abysmal ignorance with extremist religious dogma makes you quite the mind-numbed zealot.
> 
> Your issue is that your extremist beliefs cause you to reject a reality based worldview. You're a candidate for the Kool-Aid line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I brought religion into it.  You are the only one who has done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please try and be honest, at least with yourself if not others. *Your tender fundie beliefs are offended by evolution and its implications toward your YEC'ist notions.*
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to provide a quote where I've brought my religious beliefs into this thread.


----------



## S.J.

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof of Creationism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do we have to tell you mental midgets to stay on topic? If you want to discuss religion, start our own damn thread. Now, where's this evidence for evolution I keep hearing about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all made of the same stuff. I'm not a scientist but if you watched the cosmos they explain how everything alive is related. Even trees and humans share a common ancestor believe it or not.
> 
> This is just one piece of evidence.
> 
> Now we still dont know how life started. *We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff.*
> 
> Anyways, because we dont have all the answers you'll never be satisfied with science. Your religion gives you all the answers and you like that who cares if they are wrong?
Click to expand...

Which planet are you from?


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof of Creationism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do we have to tell you mental midgets to stay on topic? If you want to discuss religion, start our own damn thread. Now, where's this evidence for evolution I keep hearing about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all made of the same stuff. I'm not a scientist but if you watched the cosmos they explain how everything alive is related. Even trees and humans share a common ancestor believe it or not.
> 
> This is just one piece of evidence.
> 
> Now we still dont know how life started. *We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff.*
> 
> Anyways, because we dont have all the answers you'll never be satisfied with science. Your religion gives you all the answers and you like that who cares if they are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which planet are you from?
Click to expand...

The planet where intelligent people watch the cosmos and theists read their holy books.

Unfortunately 80% of us are religious which is why were doing so bad. Still a very young primitive ignorant superstitious unevolved species.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> 
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending your abysmal ignorance with extremist religious dogma makes you quite the mind-numbed zealot.
> 
> Your issue is that your extremist beliefs cause you to reject a reality based worldview. You're a candidate for the Kool-Aid line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I brought religion into it.  You are the only one who has done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> You sound like a wee little 1st grader who refuses to do his times table.  Oh dear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending your abysmal ignorance with extremist religious dogma makes you quite the mind-numbed zealot.
> 
> Your issue is that your extremist beliefs cause you to reject a reality based worldview. You're a candidate for the Kool-Aid line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I brought religion into it.  You are the only one who has done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please try and be honest, at least with yourself if not others. *Your tender fundie beliefs are offended by evolution and its implications toward your YEC'ist notions.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide a quote where I've brought my religious beliefs into this thread.
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to be honest about your YEC'ist beliefs and how they cause you to be in denial regarding the fact of biological evolution.

If you want proof of evolutionary science, you will need to take the first step and question the lies and falsehoods you were indoctrinated with at your madrassah.

The fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., has been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of paleontologists of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively you fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have to prove you wrong, you have to prove yourself right, and on that you fail miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't have to prove anything, science does not do proof. He presents evidence as he's been invited to do, at which point you'll reject it because you are a living fossil.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just ignore him.  All he knows how to do is troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:  Shut up, cnm, he's onto our strategy of name calling and personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that between the two of us, I'm the only one who has tried to stick to the topic of the thread and contribute, whereas you have made no effort to actually contribute to it.  hence - troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Between the two of us, you're the only one who has engaged in name calling and personal attacks when challenged.
Click to expand...


You should review your own posts before you make such accusations.


----------



## S.J.

sealybobo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?
> 
> 
> 
> What is your proof of Creationism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many times do we have to tell you mental midgets to stay on topic? If you want to discuss religion, start our own damn thread. Now, where's this evidence for evolution I keep hearing about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We are all made of the same stuff. I'm not a scientist but if you watched the cosmos they explain how everything alive is related. Even trees and humans share a common ancestor believe it or not.
> 
> This is just one piece of evidence.
> 
> Now we still dont know how life started. *We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff.*
> 
> Anyways, because we dont have all the answers you'll never be satisfied with science. Your religion gives you all the answers and you like that who cares if they are wrong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which planet are you from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The planet where intelligent people watch the cosmos and theists read their holy books.
> 
> Unfortunately 80% of us are religious which is why were doing so bad. Still a very young primitive ignorant superstitious unevolved species.
Click to expand...

Uh, yeah, sure thing there, Beldar.


----------



## ScienceRocks

I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> 
> 
> Defending your abysmal ignorance with extremist religious dogma makes you quite the mind-numbed zealot.
> 
> Your issue is that your extremist beliefs cause you to reject a reality based worldview. You're a candidate for the Kool-Aid line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I brought religion into it.  You are the only one who has done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that comment helps to prove your theory, how?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defending your abysmal ignorance with extremist religious dogma makes you quite the mind-numbed zealot.
> 
> Your issue is that your extremist beliefs cause you to reject a reality based worldview. You're a candidate for the Kool-Aid line.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I brought religion into it.  You are the only one who has done that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please try and be honest, at least with yourself if not others. *Your tender fundie beliefs are offended by evolution and its implications toward your YEC'ist notions.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to provide a quote where I've brought my religious beliefs into this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *I'm still waiting for you to be honest about your YEC'ist beliefs and how they cause you to be in denial regarding the fact of biological evolution.*
> 
> If you want proof of evolutionary science, you will need to take the first step and question the lies and falsehoods you were indoctrinated with at your madrassah.
> 
> The fossil evidence as it exists along with the supporting disciplines of biology, chemistry, earth science, etc., has been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of paleontologists of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics (almost exclusively you fundamentalist Christians), should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs.
Click to expand...

In other words, you can't find a quote.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, he doesn't have to prove anything, science does not do proof. He presents evidence as he's been invited to do, at which point you'll reject it because you are a living fossil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just ignore him.  All he knows how to do is troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation:  Shut up, cnm, he's onto our strategy of name calling and personal attacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that between the two of us, I'm the only one who has tried to stick to the topic of the thread and contribute, whereas you have made no effort to actually contribute to it.  hence - troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Between the two of us, you're the only one who has engaged in name calling and personal attacks when challenged.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You should review your own posts before you make such accusations.
Click to expand...

You want to compare them?


----------



## S.J.

Matthew said:


> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.


Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
Click to expand...

I'm not seeing the other half of this conversation, because I have the idiot on ignore. But it sounds like you're tearing him a new one.


----------



## S.J.

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not seeing the other half of this conversation, because I have the idiot on ignore. But it sounds like you're tearing him a new one.
Click to expand...

There is no other side.


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not seeing the other half of this conversation, because I have the idiot on ignore. But it sounds like you're tearing him a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no other side.
Click to expand...

Nice! I bow to the master. I'm not worthy. I'm not worthy.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> You can disguise your cowardice any way you like. You're not fooling anyone. I believe that your refusal to debate me is that you know you would lose. I believe most would agree with me. I'm calling you out, coward! Debate me, or prove to everyone here that you're a liberal coward.


But you're batshit crazy and will believe without the slightest shred of evidence while ignoring the actual evidence all around.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Confirming again, I see.


You are insubstantial? I must adjust my opinion.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.


I know of no evolutionist who has faith that one species magically morphed into another. This seems a rather insubstantial claim, can you point out one who has this belief?


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
Click to expand...


When you engage in willful mischaracterization of the science, you demonstrate your dishonesty to everyone online who is reading your posts.  If you want to decline to accept the science, fine.  That's your right.  That being the case, you don't have a card to play wrt this issue by your own admission, and are simply being intentionally disruptive, so why don't you just fuck off and let the adults have their discussion?


----------



## Tuatara

According to Robert's hypothesis, as the pioneering populations moved south, they evolved into several subspecies with new color patterns and adaptations for living in different environments. By the time they met again in Southern California as the subspecies _eschscholtzii_ and _klauberi_, he argued, they had each evolved so much that they no longer interbred — even though the subspecies blended into one another around the rest of the ring. Since species are often defined by their inability to interbreed with other species, _Ensatina_ seemed to represent the whole process of speciation — all the gradual changes that accumulate in two lineages and that wind up making them incompatible with one another.

Discovering a ring species


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no evolutionist who has faith that one species magically morphed into another. This seems a rather insubstantial claim, can you point out one who has this belief?
Click to expand...

Bullshit, you make claims of common ancestors, ONE common ancestor, transitional species.....Now you're denying it.  You continue to squander your credibility.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you engage in willful mischaracterization of the science, you demonstrate your dishonesty to everyone online who is reading your posts.  If you want to decline to accept the science, fine.  That's your right.  That being the case, you don't have a card to play wrt this issue by your own admission, and are simply being intentionally disruptive, so why don't you just fuck off and let the adults have their discussion?
Click to expand...

So you deny that you have claimed we have common ancestors?


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you engage in willful mischaracterization of the science, you demonstrate your dishonesty to everyone online who is reading your posts.  If you want to decline to accept the science, fine.  That's your right.  That being the case, you don't have a card to play wrt this issue by your own admission, and are simply being intentionally disruptive, so why don't you just fuck off and let the adults have their discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you deny that you have claimed we have common ancestors?
Click to expand...

I sense a copy and paste in somone's future.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Bullshit, you make claims of common ancestors, ONE common ancestor, transitional species.....Now you're denying it.  You continue to squander your credibility.


Magically morph? Insubstantial.

This is where all the evidence you dismissed out of hand fits in.


----------



## Tuatara

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no evolutionist who has faith that one species magically morphed into another. This seems a rather insubstantial claim, can you point out one who has this belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, you make claims of common ancestors, ONE common ancestor, transitional species.....Now you're denying it.  You continue to squander your credibility.
Click to expand...

It is your wording that is way off. The term "one species magically morphed into another" has never been uttered by any scientists. You said it, and by stating this you have no idea how evolution works. 

First we will take a species and call it A
A produces offspring that is nearly identical to itself.
Over hundreds and thousands of years slight variations present themselves into these offspring.
At some point in time the offsping are so different from the original A species that if they were put together they would not be able to interbreed.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you engage in willful mischaracterization of the science, you demonstrate your dishonesty to everyone online who is reading your posts.  If you want to decline to accept the science, fine.  That's your right.  That being the case, you don't have a card to play wrt this issue by your own admission, and are simply being intentionally disruptive, so why don't you just fuck off and let the adults have their discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you deny that you have claimed we have common ancestors?
Click to expand...


What part of fuck off did you not understand?  When someone tells you to stop, you either stop or you don't.  If you don't, you are a stalker.  Stop.  Now.


----------



## S.J.

Tuatara said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no evolutionist who has faith that one species magically morphed into another. This seems a rather insubstantial claim, can you point out one who has this belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, you make claims of common ancestors, ONE common ancestor, transitional species.....Now you're denying it.  You continue to squander your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your wording that is way off. *The term "one species magically morphed into another" has never been uttered by any scientists.* You said it, and by stating this you have no idea how evolution works.
> 
> First we will take a species and call it A
> A produces offspring that is nearly identical to itself.
> Over hundreds and thousands of years slight variations present themselves into these offspring.
> At some point in time the offsping are so different from the original A species that if they were put together they would not be able to interbreed.
Click to expand...

Of course not but that's what you're trying to sell.


----------



## Mr.Right

Tuatara said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no evolutionist who has faith that one species magically morphed into another. This seems a rather insubstantial claim, can you point out one who has this belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, you make claims of common ancestors, ONE common ancestor, transitional species.....Now you're denying it.  You continue to squander your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your wording that is way off. The term "one species magically morphed into another" has never been uttered by any scientists. You said it, and by stating this you have no idea how evolution works.
> 
> First we will take a species and call it A
> A produces offspring that is nearly identical to itself.
> Over hundreds and thousands of years slight variations present themselves into these offspring.
> At some point in time the offsping are so different from the original A species that if they were put together they would not be able to interbreed.
Click to expand...

Problem. There is no proof that it ever happened. It's nothing but a story that someone made up. That's a fact.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you engage in willful mischaracterization of the science, you demonstrate your dishonesty to everyone online who is reading your posts.  If you want to decline to accept the science, fine.  That's your right.  That being the case, you don't have a card to play wrt this issue by your own admission, and are simply being intentionally disruptive, so why don't you just fuck off and let the adults have their discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you deny that you have claimed we have common ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of fuck off did you not understand?  When someone tells you to stop, you either stop or you don't.  If you don't, you are a stalker.  Stop.  Now.
Click to expand...

I get it.  You claim to want to have a serious discussion but when you're challenged in any way you resort to answers like "fuck off".  So much for your intellect and expertise on the subject.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Problem. There is no proof that it ever happened. It's nothing but a story that someone made up. That's a fact.


There is evidence it happened. That you dismiss out of hand. No worries, that's what the batshit crazies do.


----------



## Tuatara

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no evolutionist who has faith that one species magically morphed into another. This seems a rather insubstantial claim, can you point out one who has this belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, you make claims of common ancestors, ONE common ancestor, transitional species.....Now you're denying it.  You continue to squander your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your wording that is way off. The term "one species magically morphed into another" has never been uttered by any scientists. You said it, and by stating this you have no idea how evolution works.
> 
> First we will take a species and call it A
> A produces offspring that is nearly identical to itself.
> Over hundreds and thousands of years slight variations present themselves into these offspring.
> At some point in time the offsping are so different from the original A species that if they were put together they would not be able to interbreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Problem. There is no proof that it ever happened. It's nothing but a story that someone made up. That's a fact.
Click to expand...

Did you not read post #688. That would be proof.


----------



## cnm

orogenicman said:


> What part of fuck off did you not understand?  When someone tells you to stop, you either stop or you don't.  If you don't, you are a stalker.  Stop.  Now.


Dude, I enjoy your posts and have learnt things from you, but one cannot take the batshit crazies seriously and retain one's equanimity.


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you engage in willful mischaracterization of the science, you demonstrate your dishonesty to everyone online who is reading your posts.  If you want to decline to accept the science, fine.  That's your right.  That being the case, you don't have a card to play wrt this issue by your own admission, and are simply being intentionally disruptive, so why don't you just fuck off and let the adults have their discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you deny that you have claimed we have common ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of fuck off did you not understand?  When someone tells you to stop, you either stop or you don't.  If you don't, you are a stalker.  Stop.  Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get it.  You claim to want to have a serious discussion but when you're challenged in any way you resort to answers like "fuck off".  So much for your intellect and expertise on the subject.
Click to expand...

No. It's more like...


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you engage in willful mischaracterization of the science, you demonstrate your dishonesty to everyone online who is reading your posts.  If you want to decline to accept the science, fine.  That's your right.  That being the case, you don't have a card to play wrt this issue by your own admission, and are simply being intentionally disruptive, so why don't you just fuck off and let the adults have their discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you deny that you have claimed we have common ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of fuck off did you not understand?  When someone tells you to stop, you either stop or you don't.  If you don't, you are a stalker.  Stop.  Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get it.  You claim to want to have a serious discussion but when you're challenged in any way you resort to answers like "fuck off".  So much for your intellect and expertise on the subject.
Click to expand...


Challenged?  By you?  You have contributed nothing but snide remarks and intentionally mischaracterize the science and the people who engage in it at every turn.  That is not discussion.  Now, this is the last time I am going to say this then I file a complaint.  FUCK OFF.


----------



## Tuatara

The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.


----------



## orogenicman

Tuatara said:


> The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.



Then they should keep their religious beliefs off the science forum and in the religion forum where it belongs.


----------



## Mr.Right

Tuatara said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> I know of no evolutionist who has faith that one species magically morphed into another. This seems a rather insubstantial claim, can you point out one who has this belief?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit, you make claims of common ancestors, ONE common ancestor, transitional species.....Now you're denying it.  You continue to squander your credibility.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is your wording that is way off. The term "one species magically morphed into another" has never been uttered by any scientists. You said it, and by stating this you have no idea how evolution works.
> 
> First we will take a species and call it A
> A produces offspring that is nearly identical to itself.
> Over hundreds and thousands of years slight variations present themselves into these offspring.
> At some point in time the offsping are so different from the original A species that if they were put together they would not be able to interbreed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Problem. There is no proof that it ever happened. It's nothing but a story that someone made up. That's a fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Did you not read post #688. That would be proof.
Click to expand...

You really need to look up the definition of proof.


----------



## Mr.Right

Tuatara said:


> The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.


Christians aren't the only ones who disagree with evolution. Your efforts to paint us as a bunch of scientific illiterates is laughable. Even if I wasn't a Christian,  I would still consider it a crock of shit.


----------



## Tuatara

*fact*

\ˈfakt\_noun_
: something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence



> Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.
> 
> One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.


Yes you are scientifically illiterate.

Evolution Library Ring Species Salamanders


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When you engage in willful mischaracterization of the science, you demonstrate your dishonesty to everyone online who is reading your posts.  If you want to decline to accept the science, fine.  That's your right.  That being the case, you don't have a card to play wrt this issue by your own admission, and are simply being intentionally disruptive, so why don't you just fuck off and let the adults have their discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you deny that you have claimed we have common ancestors?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of fuck off did you not understand?  When someone tells you to stop, you either stop or you don't.  If you don't, you are a stalker.  Stop.  Now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I get it.  You claim to want to have a serious discussion but when you're challenged in any way you resort to answers like "fuck off".  So much for your intellect and expertise on the subject.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Challenged?  By you?  You have contributed nothing but snide remarks and intentionally mischaracterize the science and the people who engage in it at every turn.  That is not discussion.  Now, this is the last time I am going to say this then I file a complaint.  FUCK OFF.
Click to expand...

Your reluctant concession is acknowledged.  Perhaps one of your esteemed colleagues would like to pick up where you have failed.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Christians aren't the only ones who disagree with evolution. Your efforts to paint us as a bunch of scientific illiterates is laughable. Even if I wasn't a Christian,  I would still consider it a crock of shit.


I think the Saudis regard evolution with suspicion as well.


----------



## Mr.Right

Tuatara said:


> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.
> 
> One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are scientifically illiterate.
> 
> Evolution Library Ring Species Salamanders
Click to expand...

And just what is the definition of a species? There are different opinions. Which one do you use? There is also the question of kinds. Just because they are not fertile with each other does not mean they are different species, and they are still the same kind. They still have the same number of chromosomes.


----------



## Tuatara

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians aren't the only ones who disagree with evolution. Your efforts to paint us as a bunch of scientific illiterates is laughable. Even if I wasn't a Christian,  I would still consider it a crock of shit.
Click to expand...

Creationists can also be found in other religions besides Christianity. Creation history can be found among Jewish and Islamic religions. The vast majority of creationists are Christians. I have yet to meet an atheist who didn't believe in evolution.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> And just what is the definition of a species? There are different opinions. Which one do you use? There is also the question of kinds. Just because they are not fertile with each other does not mean they are different species, and they are still the same kind. They still have the same number of chromosomes.


Well, well, well...who'd have thought?



Mr.Right said:


> Fertal. Which means the wolves, and every species of canine are the same species. No evolution has taken place. What we see here is the expression, through selective breeding, of genetic traits that already existed in the original wolf DNA.


----------



## Tuatara

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.
> 
> One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are scientifically illiterate.
> 
> Evolution Library Ring Species Salamanders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And just what is the definition of a species? There are different opinions. Which one do you use? There is also the question of kinds. Just because they are not fertile with each other does not mean they are different species, and they are still the same kind. They still have the same number of chromosomes.
Click to expand...

Stop using the term "kinds" There is no such thing as "kinds" in the Taxanomy of animals. 

Main Taxomonic ranks:

Kingdom
Phylum
Class Order
Family
Genus
Species


----------



## orogenicman

I wrote this blog on another forum about three years ago, and have decided to post it here.


*SCIENCE AND RELIGION*


"The evolution of the brain not only overshot the needs of prehistoric man, it is (perhaps) the only example of evolution providing a species with an organ it does not know how to use."

- Arthur Koestler


All ribbing aside, Koestler's remark reminds us that as powerful as the human brain appears to be, it is pliable, easily deceived. With that in mind, we must endeavor to focus on the facts and not be led astray by logical fallacies, deception, fear of the unknown, or wishful thinking.


Science is both evolutionary and revolutionary. Scientific discoveries have brought radical change in the past 400 years. From Galileo's telescopic discoveries, Newton's calculus, gravity, and optics, Darwin's origin of species, Mendel's pea experiments, Einstein's relativity, to genetic sequencing and the Large Hadron Collider, science has brought about great scientific and social revolutions; ever challenging us to rethink who and what we are, our place in the universe, our adaptations to everyday life, and in our understanding of the nature of our world and the universe. It is both frightening and wonderful to contemplate what humans have accomplished in such a short time. Fear and wonder; what stimulating motivators they can be.


Contrary to popular opinion, scientists are not close-minded know-it-alls. Most would be the first to admit how little we actually know with certainty about anything. We are, however, worry warts. We fret over every detail, every missed opportunity, and cringe at the thought that we might make a career-ending mistake, understanding nonetheless that mathematically, certainty is highly overrated.


Darwin fretted.  So did his colleagues. They were aware of many of the scientific and social/religious implications of the theory. The last thing they wanted was to get bogged down in an unnecessary argument over the religious implications of Darwin's discoveries. Unavoidably, that is exactly what happened. More unfortunate is that the argument continues in the general population today, despite the fact that evolution is not incompatible with mainstream religions, and is accepted by most of those mainstream religions and the world's scientific community. Such has been the way of all scientific discoveries in the west. Change is rarely simple and never easy.


The theory of evolution was a culmination of several hundred years of scientific inquiry. It has been a hard-fought battle in scientific and theological circles. One of the most difficult battles was getting it taught in our education system, as the Scopes trial amply demonstrated. Although Scopes lost the case, it put a spotlight on the radical religious thinking of fundamentalists, who were ridiculed by the press and by much of the general public. In 1961, creationism was revived with the publication of _The Genesis Flood_ by John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris, who founded the Creation Research Society (CRS). The society was focused on a literal interpretation of the Book of Genesis, and was profoundly anti-evolution and anti-mainstream science. Contrasting with those who supported creationism in the 1920s, half of the founding members of the CRS held advanced degrees in biology, and one held a doctorate in biochemistry. One so-called geologist was in the group, but was later found to have lied about having a degree.


The purpose of the society was to file suit to get creationism taught in public schools. To date, those efforts have been unsuccessful, particularly after teaching creationism in public schools was ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in two rulings.


Others later organized the Discovery Institute, proclaiming it a scientific organization despite the fact that it had no certified credentials as a scientific organization, had no laboratory, conducted no scientific research, and published no peer reviewed scholarly work in accredited scientific publications. They renamed creationism "Intelligent Design" (ID). These folks supported efforts to get ID taught in the Dover, Pennsylvania public schools through deception, fabrication, quote mining, and mischaracterization of scientific data and the experts who research and publish it. At the least, their behavior was grossly unethical. The case went to court, and in a landmark decision, the presiding judge, a conservative appointee, agreed that ID was a subterfuge for creationism, and ruled that teaching it in public schools was in violation of the earlier bans on creationism in public schools. He was critical of the experts who testified on their behalf, the lawyers who defended them, and the Discovery Institute itself.


Despite the fact that Intelligent Design/Creationism has been discredited on both legal and scientific grounds, it survives today, promoted mostly by very vocal, and well funded fundamentalist evangelicals in many popular media outlets, particularly on the internet. Neither Intelligent Design nor Creationism is a scientific theory.  They are, literalist religious arguments with no valid scientific facts to support the claims. Neither arguments belong in science class in public school. Whether or not one has an honest belief in ID, its most ardent supporters have been shown to be intentionally misleading the public by mischaracterizing the science and those who engage in it.  Their goal is to sew public doubt about the most successful scientific theory ever devised in order to sway people into supporting teaching it in public schools.  We must endeavor to counter their efforts at every turn if we are to keep our schools free from religious tyranny.

A priori and a posteriori arguments are legitimate foundations for philosophical questions.  The fact remains that the theory of evolution is a scientific theory not a purely philosophical argument.  In philosophy, you can make any argument you choose to make.  The only rules are those that apply to logical consistency.  In science, facts always come before theories, not vice versa.  One don't frame a scientific theory and then run out and fit facts to it.  One fits the theory to verifiable facts.  Evolution does the latter.  Creationism and its subterfuge, ID, does not. 


In fact, as far as anyone has been able to discern, they don't even propose an alternative other than "God did it" (which is a tautology not base on scientific principles) because they are too busy trying to tear down evolution, as if discarding a scientific theory makes some other idea valid.  That isn't how it works, of course.


Although dissention is heavily built into the scientific method, long discredited arguments are an unnecessary distraction for scientists and educators who have to waste their time and efforts on countering every spurious claim made to educate the public to what the science actually says. This is an ongoing issue for educators that cannot be ignored because our country is falling grievously behind internationally in nearly every scientific field. Although the failure falls squarely with our education system and our legislators, the anti-science crowd is not helping the situation, likely by design.  Their efforts, if unchecked, will have profound negative repercussions for the future growth and maturity of our nation.


Contrary to the long refuted claim that Creationism/Intelligent Design best explains life on Earth than a 'non-directed process such as evolution', Darwin's theory has matured because it has been shown to be a directed process via natural selection, and is currently the only scientific theory that unambiguously explains the diversity of life on this planet. Using the sciences of physics, chemistry, geology, and biology, the theory of biological evolution tells the amazing story or how life on this planet became so remarkably diverse.  Creationism and ID cannot use these disciplines to make a reasoned affirmative argument because their overriding dogma, "God/undetermined agent did it" doesn't actually explain anything.

- OROGENICMAN


----------



## Tuatara

One of the best videos on the Creation Vs. Evolution debate


----------



## Mr.Right

Tuatara said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians aren't the only ones who disagree with evolution. Your efforts to paint us as a bunch of scientific illiterates is laughable. Even if I wasn't a Christian,  I would still consider it a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationists can also be found in other religions besides Christianity. Creation history can be found among Jewish and Islamic religions. The vast majority of creationists are Christians. I have yet to meet an atheist who didn't believe in evolution.
Click to expand...

Nine percent of atheists do not believe in Darwinian evolution.


----------



## cnm

Hey, Tuatara, I'm just wondering about your username. Any geographic relevance?


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Christians aren't the only ones who disagree with evolution. Your efforts to paint us as a bunch of scientific illiterates is laughable. Even if I wasn't a Christian,  I would still consider it a crock of shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Creationists can also be found in other religions besides Christianity. Creation history can be found among Jewish and Islamic religions. The vast majority of creationists are Christians. I have yet to meet an atheist who didn't believe in evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nine percent of atheists do not believe in Darwinian evolution.
Click to expand...


Source?


----------



## Tuatara

cnm said:


> Hey, Tuatara, I'm just wondering about your username. Any geographic relevance?


No, I'm not from New Zealand but I've always been interested in Herpetology.


----------



## Tuatara

orogenicman said:


> Source?


Right out of his a$$


----------



## orogenicman

Tuatara said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Source?
> 
> 
> 
> Right out of his a$$
Click to expand...


Indeed.


----------



## orogenicman

Here is another blog on science and religion I wrote at the same time I wrote the last one:


Any debate on this issue must present an historical perspective of intelligent design and of the biological theory of evolution.

Historically, Intelligent Design has been called creationism, which is a religious belief that the Judeo-Christian God created everything and all life on our world.  Creationists in the 1980s attempted to get creationism taught in the public schools in the United States.  The Supreme Court ruled in _Edwards v. Aguillard _that such instruction was a violation of the 1st amendment separation clause since creationism amounted to religious instruction.

After the Supreme Court ruling, certain proponents of creationism attempted to rewrite the creationist 'rule book' by revising the 17th-18th century idea to say that that there was some non-specific designer that created everything and all life.  The purpose of the revision was to take the word "God" out of their "theory", and thereby make it about something other than religion so that it could then be introduced into the Dover, Pennsylvania school system.  The _Dover vs Kitzmiller _Federal ruling made it clear that Intelligent design was a subterfuge for creationism, and as such, the attempt to teach it in public schools was a clear violation of the earlier Supreme Court ruling barring the teaching of creationism in public schools.

So first and foremost, Intelligent Design/Creationism is not a scientific theory.  At best, it is a religious tautology that cannot be falsified.  The notion that "God did it", or some "undefined designer", if you will, did it, as appealing as it is, doesn't actually explain anything.  It doesn't follow the scientific method, doesn't tell us how or even why God/the undefined designer did it, doesn't give us cures for disease, doesn't even give us methods in which to find cures for disease.  It doesn't explain the well documented age of the Earth, nor does it explain the diversity and interelatedness of all life (including human life).  If "God/unspecified designer did it", and we used that criterion in the laboratory or in the field, then we would get nowhere in our efforts to describe and explain the natural phenomenon we see and experience every day.  After all, when we discover something unforeseen or not previous known, all we would need do to explain it is to simply say "God/the designer" did it.  Unfortunately for the 'theory', that simply gets us nowhere. 

It also begs the question if "God did it", if he created everything, who created God?  It defies everything we know and understand about causation.  What it does do is introduce a bias that affects the outcome of our experiments/observations.  Why?  Because by 'design', it makes a foregone conclusion, and then looks for specific data to back up that conclusion.  In other words, its 'method' is exactly backwards from the scientific method.

The scientific method lets reality speak for itself.  It asks "what are the verifiable  facts", compiles those facts, then devises a testable hypothesis to try to explain the facts.  If by testing, observation, and analysis the hypothesis doesn't adequately explain the facts, it devises another testable hypothesis, and so on and so forth until it finds one that best explains the facts.  Then other scientists test the hypothesis and try to find fault with it, until it is determined to satisfactorily explain whatever facts it attempts to explain.  Only then, does it rise to the level of a scientific theory.  When new facts come to light, the theory is revised to better explain the new facts.

Intelligent design doesn't do this.  It starts with a conclusion, and then tries to shoehorn the facts (and sometimes, simply makes up facts) to fit the foregone conclusion.  If the facts don't fit, they are discarded.  In this way, Intelligent Design itself, BY DESIGN, can never be discarded in favor of one that fits the facts, because inconvenient facts are simply discarded.

Moreover, the concept of intelligent design/creationism is not a new one.  In western countries for many centuries it was a leading explanation not only for life but for the entire universe. This is not surprising since Judeo-Christianity was and is the overriding religious belief in the west.  Nearly every scholar from Aristotle to Buffon held some form of belief that an intelligence of some kind was behind the apparent designs we see in nature, and they spend lifetimes and fortunes trying to prove it. and is

The revolution in science during the enlightenment advanced new ideas and concepts that over time eroded the notion of intelligent design/creationism.  From physics to the emerging sciences of chemistry, geology, physiology, and biology, scientists used the scientific method to discover new falsifiable explanations for phenomenon in the natural world.  Descarte concluded in 1638 that with the exception of the human rational soul, all natural objects were caused by inert particles of matter in motion.  In essence, according to this rationale, there was no difference between a watch and a dog.  Not all mechanical philosophers held this view; Robert Boyle, for instance, distinguished between a watch as the work of man, and a dog as the work of God. However, he did retain the same mechanical view of nature as Descarte.

The mechanical philosphy was seductive but it could explain vital phenomenon such as growth, nutrition, and reproduction only by resorting to outlandish hypotheses which could not be substantiated by experimentation. The mechanical philosphy lost favor in the first half of the 18th century when physiologists realized that a mechanical analysis of living things might be impossible.  In 1753 Bernard Fontenelle concluded that although mathematics applied to living things, he was unable to explain their functioning because they were so complex.  It was decided that the better approach was to study "vital phenomenon", the mechanisms of life and thereby reduce them to rule without resorting to original causes.  As a result, experimental physiology became phenomenalistic. 

Natural history experienced a rebirth in the late 17th century.  One of the reasons for the rebirth was religious.  Mechanical philosphy recognised a creator God but denied that he had any role in the everyday operations of the universe.  Therefore God could be discovered in nature not from any acts he might perfom but from the very complexity and harmony of nature.  Natural history described this complexity in great detail.

The second reason for the rise in natural history was a desire to get rid of the animistic "prinicples" and "souls" that had characterized Rennaissance science.  Natural history described the three kingdoms of nature - animal, vegetable, and mineral.  Since it was primarily concerned with physical descriptions, it was not interested in causes.  There was no room for spirits other then the human rational soul.  Because modern biologists attempt to explain life in physical/chemical terms, one might suppose that mechanical philosophy was the precursor of modern biology.  In fact, biology as a separate scientific discipline came only after a rejection the mechanical philosophy in about the mid-18th century.  This rebellion separated the animate from the innanimate for the first time because they had discovered principles that applied to life but not to inanimate matter (that is, until organic chemistry began to uncover how the mechanical philosophy extended into animate, organic life).

The third reason was the emphasis on emperical science.  British philosophers and scientists began to conclude that the world is discoverable from careful observation and study of natural phenomenon and not by deductive reasoning. 

Experiments in biology and global exploration during the enlightenment resulted in considerable advances in our knowledge of not only the diversity of life, but many of its basic functions.  Regeneration was a significant discovery.  Coral polys were discovered to be able to reproduce bia budding.  Corals were sliced up, and each part could regenerate.  This was a significant problem because if each part could regenerate the entire animal, then where was its 'soul'?  It was well known that salamanders to could regenerate their tails, but the cut off tail always died.  Of course, the explanation is that each part is composed of living cells which contain dna in the nucleus, but scientists then had no idea why polyps could do what they do. What these experiments did show was that whatever was regenerating life was distributed throughout the organism.  It was an important first step to a principle for how lifeforms grow and reproduce.

The discovery of the New World, and the subsequent global expeditions led to many new discoveries in natural history, particularly with regard to geology, biology, and what today we refer to as paleontology.  James Hutton and A. G. Werner were the giants of the new science of geology in the enlightenment.  And they sat in different camps, the former being of the opinion that the Earth changed only slowly and uniformly by the processes that have been observed in historic times.  In other words, his view was that the same processes we see at work on Earth today molded the Earth throughout its history.  The latter was of the view that land forms were caused by events greater than any man has ever observed, what was called catastrophism. 

Oddly, while Hutton admitted that volcanism played an important part on shaping the landscapes in many regions of the Earth, Werner was of the opinion that basalt, the principle studied volcanic rock of the day, was formed by chemical precipitation on the bottom of the ocean. Hutton won the day when basalt was studied in France and shown definitively to be of volcanic origin. 

Charles Lyellexpanded on uniformitarianism to develop gradualism, the view that all features of the Earth's surface are produced by physical, chemical, and biological processes through long periods of geological time.

His system was based on two propositions: the causes of geologic change operating include all the causes that have acted from the earliest time; and these causes have always operated at the same average levels of energy. These two propositions add up to a "steady-state" theory of the Earth. Changes in climate have fluctuated around a mean, reflecting changes in the position of land and sea.

Lyell's position suggested that the world had always been (roughly) similar to its current state. In particular, Lyell believed that the species composition of the world remained unchanged, with at least some members of all classes of organisms existing throughout the history of the earth.

Today we recognize that many catastrophic events have occurred in Earth's history, and yet processes such as sedimentation and erosion play a vital role in shaping the landscape over the bulk of the Earth.

Natural scientists in the 18th and 19th century discovered many new fossils (particularly in the New World) of plants and animals that previous existed but most of which are now extinct.  These findings presented several problems for scientists.  First was how these fossils could be spread out all over the geologic column in many different strata of different ages if they all died in the great Noachan flood.  Catastrophists were of the view that they were all deposited during the Noachian flood.  Hutton, later confirmed by Lyell and many others up to this day showed definitively that the bulk of these fossils were not deposited in flood deposits at all, but were the remains of plants and animals, many of which died where they lived and slowly, over time, built up bone beds.  The Falls of the Ohio River Devonian aged coral reef is one such sequence of bone beds that drew scientists from all over Europe and America.  Today we know without question that there was no global flood, has never been one.

The discovery of a heretofore unknown and huge diversity of plants and animals discovered in the 18th and 19th centuries presented a timeline problem for scientists.  How could all this diversity, past and present, have come about in the relatively short time period demanded by Biblical scholars such as Bishop Ussher? 

Hutton's studies of sedimentation and erosion led him to conclude that the Earth was likely about 80,000 years old, much older than Bishop Ussher's proposed Biblical chronology of 6,000 years.  Although this gave scientists more leaway (though it was ridiculed at first, particularly in religious circles), it became increasingly evident from study of the geologic column that more time was needed.  Over time, older and older estimates were made based on field evidence and laboratory studies.  In 1860, the Earth was estimated to be about 3 million years old, far older than Biblical accounts.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published his "on The Origin Of Species", in which he presented compelling evidence that species evolve via natural selection.Darwin, the son of a preacher and husband of a devout Anglican, agonized over whether or not to publish at all, but presented with the prospect that another would publish before him, finally relented and published.

Finally, a process was proposed that not only required long periods of geologic time, but explained how through the advances in our knowledge of the age of the Earth, species could evolve.  Evolution, Darwin showed, is not a random, undirected, process, but a process similar to artificial selection that has given us all of the domesticated varieties of plants and animals. But rather than resorting to some undefined designer, or the Judeo-Christian God, he proposed that selection occurred via natural processes working on heredity to instill selective advantage for species to survive environmental change.

Darwin was unaware of the work of a certain Austrian monk named Gregor mendell, who discovered the biological mechanism by which natural selection works.  That mechanism is genetics.  Mendell's work vindicated Darwin, though we know today that Darwin got some of it wrong. But that is the beauty of science, that it can be modified to account for new information.

In conclusion, today, genetics is the foundation of evolution, while evolution itself is the foundation of modern biology.  Today we know that the Earth is 4.567 billion years old.  We also know that life on this planet goes back at least 3.8 billion years, and likely a bit further.  For any scientific theory to be successful, it must explain the most facts and have the ability to be revised when new information comes to light.  What's more, it has to be able to make predictions.  One such prediction made early on was that man was an ape related to modern apes, but descended from a common ancestor.  Today, mountains of evidence, most importantly the genetic evidence, show this to be true. 

The theory of evolution is the most successful and useful scientific theory ever devised.  It has helped us explain how viruses and bacteria evolve new strategies for resistence to antbiotics, and provides a framework with which to devise better medicines to combat disease.  In contrast, Intelligent design, is, by design, not scientific, and therefore not a scientific theory.  As such, it can never provide a useful explanation for life, much less provide a framework that better explains life than the theory of evolution.

Finally, the theory of evolution does not in itself conflict with traditional Judeo-Christianity.  Many Christians and Jews (in particular, the Catholic Church) recognize the validity of evolution.  Where the conflict occurs is with a literalistist interpretation of the Book of Genesis espoused by a minority of Evangelicals and Muslims.  It must be kept in mind that the theory of evolution is not about ultimate origins, but about how species change.  Evolution explains this change.  Intelligent Design does not.

- OROGENICMAN

__________________________________________________________________

Bibliography

_Edwards v. Aguillard - _Edwards v. Aguillard - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

_Dover vs Kitzmiller _- Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Evolution Of The Earth - 2003, Jr. Robert Dott, Donald Prothero

Science And The Enlightenment - 1985, Thomas L. Hankins

On The Origin Of Species - 1859, Charles Darwin


----------



## S.J.

He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.


I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.



You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent.  You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo.  And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do.  A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science.  You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case.  And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support.  That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person.  Because all you are doing is trolling.  I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior.  And I for one am sick and tired of it. 

You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons.  I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds.  Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, *in detail,* with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based.  Do that, and we can continue our discussion.  Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you.  It is up to you.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.


Well you are batshit crazy, that can't be denied.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.


You mean about 'magically morphing'?


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.
Click to expand...


Creationism is not a scientific alternative because creationism is not scientific. It is purely a religious belief in support of a literalist interpretation of the book of Genesis.  Nothing more.


----------



## S.J.

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution.  Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre.  They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:

*"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."* 

WTF???  If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> You mean about 'magically morphing'?
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's a good example, and something none of you want to discuss, even though you've made numerous references to "transitional species" and "common ancestors".


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution.  Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre.  They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:
> 
> *"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."*
> 
> WTF???  If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.
Click to expand...


WTF is right!  The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's.  It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to.  It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "*inter stellar planetary collision or meteors.   *Nor does it claim that we are star stuff.  It says nothing whatsoever about any of that.  It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species.  If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand.  The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.

Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from *astronomica*l investigations of complex organic molecules in space.  They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds.  It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star.  That is the only place they can be created.  So when someone tells you  that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about.  But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent.  You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo.  And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do.  A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science.  You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case.  And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support.  That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person.  Because all you are doing is trolling.  I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior.  And I for one am sick and tired of it.
> 
> You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons.  I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds.  Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, *in detail,* with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based.  Do that, and we can continue our discussion.  Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you.  It is up to you.
Click to expand...

In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent.  You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo.  And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do.  A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science.  You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case.  And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support.  That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person.  Because all you are doing is trolling.  I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior.  And I for one am sick and tired of it.
> 
> You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons.  I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds.  Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, *in detail,* with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based.  Do that, and we can continue our discussion.  Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you.  It is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
Click to expand...


Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit.  You deny the reality of evolution, bubba.  So what is your explanation?  What merits your denial?


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution.  Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre.  They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:
> 
> *"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."*
> 
> WTF???  If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is right!  The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's.  It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to.  It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "*inter stellar planetary collision or meteors.   *Nor does it claim that we are star stuff.  It says nothing whatsoever about any of that.  It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species.  If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand.  The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.
> 
> Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from *astronomica*l investigations of complex organic molecules in space.  They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds.  It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star.  That is the only place they can be created.  So when someone tells you  that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about.  But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?
Click to expand...

I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists.  Are you saying he/she is wrong?  I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.

Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent.  You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo.  And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do.  A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science.  You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case.  And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support.  That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person.  Because all you are doing is trolling.  I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior.  And I for one am sick and tired of it.
> 
> You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons.  I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds.  Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, *in detail,* with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based.  Do that, and we can continue our discussion.  Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you.  It is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit.  You deny the reality of evolution, bubba.  So what is your explanation?  What merits your denial?
Click to expand...

I'm still waiting for you to address the issue of those "transitional species" and "common ancestors" you keep avoiding discussing.


----------



## Toro

orogenicman said:


> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> When has any Antibiotic resistant microorganisms been observed becoming another species
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is the ability of a microorganism to withstand the effects of an antibiotic.
> 
> It is a specific type of drug resistance.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance evolves naturally via natural selection through random mutation, but it could also be engineered by applying an evolutionary stress on a population.
> 
> Once such a gene is generated, bacteria can then transfer the genetic information in a horizontal fashion (between individuals) by plasmid exchange.
> 
> If a bacterium carries several resistance genes, it is called multiresistant or, informally, a superbug.
> 
> Causes Antibiotic resistance can also be introduced artificially into a microorganism through transformation protocols.
> 
> This can be a useful way of implanting artificial genes into the microorganism.
> 
> Antibiotic resistance is a consequence of evolution via natural selection.
> 
> The antibiotic action is an environmental pressure; those bacteria which have a mutation allowing them to survive will live on to reproduce.
> 
> They will then pass this trait to their offspring, which will be a fully resistant generation.
> 
> Several studies have demonstrated that patterns of antibiotic usage greatly affect the number of resistant organisms which develop.
> 
> Overuse of broad-spectrum antibiotics, such as second- and third-generation cephalosporins, greatly hastens the development of methicillin resistance.
> 
> Other factors contributing towards resistance include incorrect diagnosis, unnecessary prescriptions, improper use of antibiotics by patients, and the use of antibiotics as livestock food additives for growth promotion.
> 
> Researchers have recently demonstrated the bacterial protein LexA may play a key role in the acquisition of bacterial mutations.
> 
> Resistant pathogens Staphylococcus aureus (colloquially known as "Staph aureus" or a Staph infection) is one of the major resistant pathogens.
> 
> Found on the mucous membranes and the skin of around a third of the population, it is extremely adaptable to antibiotic pressure.
> 
> It was the first bacterium in which penicillin resistance was found—in 1947, just four years after the drug started being mass-produced.
> 
> Methicillin was then the antibiotic of choice, but has since been replaced by oxacillin due to significant kidney toxicity.
> 
> MRSA (methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) was first detected in Britain in 1961 and is now "quite common" in hospitals.
> 
> MRSA was responsible for 37% of fatal cases of blood poisoning in the UK in 1999, up from 4% in 1991.
> 
> Half of all S. aureus infections in the US are resistant to penicillin, methicillin, tetracycline and erythromycin.
> 
> This left vancomycin as the only effective agent available at the time.
> 
> However, strains with intermediate (4-8 ug/ml) levels of resistence, termed GISA (glycopeptide intermediate Staphylococcus aureus) or VISA (vancomycin intermediate Staphylococcus aureus), began appearing the the late 1990s.
> 
> The first identified case was in Japan in 1996, and strains have since been found in hospitals in England, France and the US.
> 
> The first documented strain with complete (>16ug/ml) resistence to vancomycin, termed VRSA (Vancomycin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus) appeared in the United States in 2002.
> 
> A new class of antibiotics, oxazolidinones, became available in the 1990s, and the first commercially available oxazolidinone, linezolid, is comparable to vancomycin in effectiveness against MRSA.
> 
> Linezolid-resistance in Staphylococcus aureus was reported in 2003.
> 
> CA-MRSA (Community-acquired MRSA) has now emerged as an epidemic that is responsible for rapidly progressive, fatal diseases including necrotizing pneumonia, severe sepsis and necrotizing fasciitis.
> 
> Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA) is the most frequently identified antimicrobial drug-resistant pathogen in US hospitals.
> 
> The epidemiology of infections caused by MRSA is rapidly changing.
> 
> In the past 10 years, infections caused by this organism have emerged in the community.
> 
> The 2 MRSA clones in the United States most closely associated with community outbreaks, USA400 (MW2 strain, ST1 lineage) and USA300, often contain Panton-Valentine leukocidin (PVL) genes and, more frequently, have been associated with skin and soft tissue infections.
> 
> Outbreaks of community-associated (CA)-MRSA infections have been reported in correctional facilities, among athletic teams, among military recruits, in newborn nurseries, and among active homosexual men.
> 
> CA-MRSA infections now appear to be endemic in many urban regions and cause most CA-S. aureus infections.
> 
> Enterococcus faecium is another superbug found in hospitals.
> 
> Penicillin-Resistant Enterococcus was seen in 1983, Vancomycin-Resistant Enterococcus (VRE) in 1987, and Linezolid-Resistant Enterococcus (LRE) in the late 1990s.
> 
> Streptococcus pyogenes (Group A Streptococcus: GAS) infections can usually be treated with many different antibiotics.
> 
> Early treatment may reduce the risk of death from invasive group A streptococcal disease.
> 
> However, even the best medical care does not prevent death in every case.
> 
> For those with very severe illness, supportive care in an intensive care unit may be needed.
> 
> For persons with necrotizing fasciitis, surgery often is needed to remove damaged tissue.
> 
> Strains of S. pyogenes resistant to macrolide antibiotics have emerged, however all strains remain uniformly sensitive to penicillin.
> 
> Resistance of Streptococcus pneumoniae to penicillin and other beta-lactams is increasing worldwide.
> 
> The major mechanism of resistance involves the introduction of mutations in genes encoding penicillin-binding proteins.
> 
> Selective pressure is thought to play an important role, and use of beta-lactam antibiotics has been implicated as a risk factor for infection and colonization.
> 
> Streptococcus pneumoniae is responsible for pneumonia, bacteremia, otitis media, meningitis, sinusitis, peritonitis and arthritis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant. But irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Eots is right on the mark here but your pride simply refuses to admit the possibility that you are *wrong.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the mark?  The principles of evolution have allowed us to not only discover the agents of disease, but have allowed us to discover antibiotics, and how the resistance to them works so we can develop better treatments.  You don't have to believe it.  You can just thank all those tireless lab workers who are trying to make your life better.  So no he is not only not on the mark, he is flat out wrong.
Click to expand...


That's Devil-talk. 

The lab workers didn't discover antibiotics. God did!


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution.  Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre.  They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:
> 
> *"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."*
> 
> WTF???  If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is right!  The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's.  It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to.  It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "*inter stellar planetary collision or meteors.   *Nor does it claim that we are star stuff.  It says nothing whatsoever about any of that.  It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species.  If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand.  The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.
> 
> Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from *astronomica*l investigations of complex organic molecules in space.  They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds.  It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star.  That is the only place they can be created.  So when someone tells you  that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about.  But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists.  Are you saying he/she is wrong?  I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Click to expand...


That person, by admission, is not a scientist.  I am.  I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent.  You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo.  And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do.  A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science.  You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case.  And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support.  That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person.  Because all you are doing is trolling.  I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior.  And I for one am sick and tired of it.
> 
> You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons.  I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds.  Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, *in detail,* with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based.  Do that, and we can continue our discussion.  Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you.  It is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit.  You deny the reality of evolution, bubba.  So what is your explanation?  What merits your denial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm still waiting for you to address the issue of those "transitional species" and "common ancestors" you keep avoiding discussing.
Click to expand...


And unless you scroll way back in this very thread where I went into detail about those "issues", you are going to continue waiting.  I'm not going to repeat myself to everyone too lazy to read the thread. 

Explanation, please...


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent.  You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo.  And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do.  A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science.  You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case.  And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support.  That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person.  Because all you are doing is trolling.  I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior.  And I for one am sick and tired of it.
> 
> You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons.  I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds.  Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, *in detail,* with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based.  Do that, and we can continue our discussion.  Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you.  It is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit.  You deny the reality of evolution, bubba.  So what is your explanation?  What merits your denial?
Click to expand...



<Crickets chirping>


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution.  Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre.  They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:
> 
> *"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."*
> 
> WTF???  If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is right!  The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's.  It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to.  It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "*inter stellar planetary collision or meteors.   *Nor does it claim that we are star stuff.  It says nothing whatsoever about any of that.  It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species.  If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand.  The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.
> 
> Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from *astronomica*l investigations of complex organic molecules in space.  They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds.  It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star.  That is the only place they can be created.  So when someone tells you  that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about.  But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists.  Are you saying he/she is wrong?  I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That person, by admission, is not a scientist.  I am.  *I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.*
Click to expand...

To quote you, *"But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?"
*
I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject.  Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory.  I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent.  You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo.  And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do.  A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science.  You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case.  And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support.  That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person.  Because all you are doing is trolling.  I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior.  And I for one am sick and tired of it.
> 
> You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons.  I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds.  Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, *in detail,* with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based.  Do that, and we can continue our discussion.  Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you.  It is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit.  You deny the reality of evolution, bubba.  So what is your explanation?  What merits your denial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <Crickets chirping>
Click to expand...

Chirp, chirp, I don't sit here anxiously awaiting each of your replies.  I did notice that you're awfully reluctant to address that issue of "common ancestors" though.  Now I hear those crickets.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Yeah, that's a good example, and something none of you want to discuss, even though you've made numerous references to "transitional species" and "common ancestors".


Because that's your very own magical belief.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?


You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject.  Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory.  I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.


Did you not read the Ring Species post? 

Oops, sorry, forgot, that would have been dismissed out of hand.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution.  Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre.  They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:
> 
> *"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."*
> 
> WTF???  If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is right!  The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's.  It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to.  It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "*inter stellar planetary collision or meteors.   *Nor does it claim that we are star stuff.  It says nothing whatsoever about any of that.  It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species.  If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand.  The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.
> 
> Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from *astronomica*l investigations of complex organic molecules in space.  They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds.  It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star.  That is the only place they can be created.  So when someone tells you  that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about.  But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists.  Are you saying he/she is wrong?  I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That person, by admission, is not a scientist.  I am.  *I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To quote you, *"But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?"
> *
> I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject.  Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory.  I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.
Click to expand...


No sir, I don't have to start another thread.  Myself and others here have offered plenty of evidence in support of evolution, but the only responses to that evidence that we have received have been exactly like yours, one liners with unexplained denial that the evidence even exists.  In science, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence in their support.  You and your friends have made clear that you don't believe that evolution occurs.  The only explanation others have given (and you have given in your conversations with Mr. right, is that it conflicts with the Christian faith.  Since most Christians don't see it that way, that explanation is not good enough.  Furthermore, it is not enough to simply deny the theory.  In science, when you do this, you are expected to propose an alternative that better explains the evidence than the accepted theory.  And as I have already pointed out, special pleading is not acceptable.  Since evolution is the accepted paradigm, and has been for generations, the burden, dude, IS on you.  It is completely appropriate for scientists to insist that those denying a theory to expect an alternative.  If you tried to make a special plea in ANY scientific conference as you have here, they would usher you off the stage.  So I do expect you to give us your alternative, as I am certain, others here do as well.

As for the origin of species, we've been discussing this since the very first page, pal.  Wake up.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've always wondered how many people would believe in evolution, if Creation wasn't the only alternative. I truly believe that no one really believes in evolution. They simply accept it because the alternative is abhorrent to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution.  Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre.  They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:
> 
> *"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."*
> 
> WTF???  If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF is right!  The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's.  It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to.  It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "*inter stellar planetary collision or meteors.   *Nor does it claim that we are star stuff.  It says nothing whatsoever about any of that.  It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species.  If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand.  The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.
> 
> Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from *astronomica*l investigations of complex organic molecules in space.  They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds.  It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star.  That is the only place they can be created.  So when someone tells you  that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about.  But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists.  Are you saying he/she is wrong?  I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That person, by admission, is not a scientist.  I am.  *I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To quote you, *"But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?"
> *
> I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject.  Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory.  I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.
Click to expand...

You have been given multiple links to evidence for transitional species. It's apparent it is you who is desperate to deny the evidence. It really is cowardly to demand evidence and when the evidence is provided to simply deny it was ever provided.


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> 
> 
> You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.
Click to expand...

Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?


----------



## cnm

*Defining a species*

Defining a species

A species is often defined as a group of individuals that actually or potentially interbreed in nature. In this sense, a species is the biggest gene pool possible under natural conditions.

That definition of a species might seem cut and dried, but it is not — in nature, there are lots of places where it is difficult to apply this definition. For example, many bacteria reproduce mainly asexually. The bacterium shown at right is reproducing asexually, by binary fission. The definition of a species as a group of interbreeding individuals cannot be easily applied to organisms that reproduce only or mainly asexually.

Also, many plants, and some animals, form hybrids in nature. Hooded crows and carrion crows look different, and largely mate within their own groups — but in some areas, they hybridize. Should they be considered the same species or separate species?


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?


That can't be the case as mountains of evidence have been produced. Oops, forgot, you have a problem understanding it.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent.  You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo.  And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do.  A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science.  You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case.  And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support.  That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person.  Because all you are doing is trolling.  I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior.  And I for one am sick and tired of it.
> 
> You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons.  I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds.  Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, *in detail,* with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based.  Do that, and we can continue our discussion.  Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you.  It is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit.  You deny the reality of evolution, bubba.  So what is your explanation?  What merits your denial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <Crickets chirping>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chirp, chirp, I don't sit here anxiously awaiting each of your replies.  I did notice that you're awfully reluctant to address that issue of "common ancestors" though.  Now I hear those crickets.
Click to expand...


I do see you anxiously waiting to read someone address "common ancestors, a topic that has been discussed throughout this thread.  How ironic is that?

Quit stalling.  Your explanation....


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, I think it's as much about trying to convince people that God doesn't exist as it is about believing in evolution.  Some of the stuff they come up with is bizarre.  They bash believers for having faith, yet they say stuff like this:
> 
> *"Now we still dont know how life started. We think DNA or microbes came from inter stellar planetary collision or meteors but we are all made of star stuff."*
> 
> WTF???  If that doesn't require a leap of faith, I don't know what does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is right!  The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's.  It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to.  It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "*inter stellar planetary collision or meteors.   *Nor does it claim that we are star stuff.  It says nothing whatsoever about any of that.  It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species.  If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand.  The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.
> 
> Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from *astronomica*l investigations of complex organic molecules in space.  They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds.  It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star.  That is the only place they can be created.  So when someone tells you  that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about.  But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists.  Are you saying he/she is wrong?  I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That person, by admission, is not a scientist.  I am.  *I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To quote you, *"But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?"
> *
> I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject.  Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory.  I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been given multiple links to evidence for transitional species. It's apparent it is you who is desperate to deny the evidence. It really is cowardly to demand evidence and when the evidence is provided to simply deny it was ever provided.
Click to expand...

So, you are admitting you believe that one species became another, and so on?


----------



## Hollie

Tuatara said:


> The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.


It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent.  You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo.  And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do.  A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science.  You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case.  And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support.  That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person.  Because all you are doing is trolling.  I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior.  And I for one am sick and tired of it.
> 
> You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons.  I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds.  Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, *in detail,* with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based.  Do that, and we can continue our discussion.  Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you.  It is up to you.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit.  You deny the reality of evolution, bubba.  So what is your explanation?  What merits your denial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <Crickets chirping>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chirp, chirp, I don't sit here anxiously awaiting each of your replies.  I did notice that you're awfully reluctant to address that issue of "common ancestors" though.  Now I hear those crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do see you anxiously waiting to read someone address "common ancestors, a topic that has been discussed throughout this thread.  How ironic is that?
> 
> Quit stalling.  Your explanation....
Click to expand...

Again, I don't have to provide an alternative to your theory for your's to be wrong.  You don't win by default, you still have to make your case, which you have failed to do.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> 
> 
> You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?
Click to expand...


And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.


----------



## orogenicman

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?
> 
> 
> 
> That can't be the case as mountains of evidence have been produced. Oops, forgot, you have a problem understanding it.
Click to expand...


He must be a really big guy as he sees a mountain as a mole hill.  

No doubt, he also believes in Paul Bunyan.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some critics of the theory of evolution argue that it doesn't convincingly explain the origin of new species. They say that members of one species couldn't become so different from other individuals through natural variation that they would become two separate non-interbreeding species.
> 
> One of the most powerful counters to that argument is the rare but fascinating phenomenon known as "ring species." This occurs when a single species becomes geographically distributed in a circular pattern over a large area. Immediately adjacent or neighboring populations of the species vary slightly but can interbreed. But at the extremes of the distribution -- the opposite ends of the pattern that link to form a circle -- natural variation has produced so much difference between the populations that they function as though they were two separate, non-interbreeding species.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you are scientifically illiterate.
> 
> Evolution Library Ring Species Salamanders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And just what is the definition of a species? There are different opinions. Which one do you use? There is also the question of kinds. Just because they are not fertile with each other does not mean they are different species, and they are still the same kind. They still have the same number of chromosomes.
Click to expand...

There is no question of "kinds". That's a silly term used by ID'iot creationists / fundie zealots of the Christian "kind". It has no relevance to science.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> 
> 
> You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.*  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.
Click to expand...

Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF is right!  The theory of evolution says NOTHING (write this down and post it on your monitor so you won't forget) about the existence or non-existence or your god or anyone else's.  It says nothing about how life on this planet began, nor was it ever intended to.  It also does not "think" that DNA or microbes came from "*inter stellar planetary collision or meteors.   *Nor does it claim that we are star stuff.  It says nothing whatsoever about any of that.  It only explains the diversity of life, the origin of species.  If you have ANY understanding of science, this would be the first thing you would understand.  The fact that you lump all this together in one sentence as if it has anything to do with the theory of evolution shows your utter ignorance of science.
> 
> Having said that, there is a lot of evidence from *astronomica*l investigations of complex organic molecules in space.  They exist on comets, on asteroids, and interstellar dust clouds.  It is also a fact that every element in our body was created inside a star.  That is the only place they can be created.  So when someone tells you  that we are star stuff, that is what they are talking about.  But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this is one of your supporters and fellow evolutionists.  Are you saying he/she is wrong?  I don't believe you made any corrections at the time.
> 
> Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution Page 67 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That person, by admission, is not a scientist.  I am.  *I'm still waiting for YOUR explanation.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> To quote you, *"But that has nothing at all to do with the theory of evolution.  Yu remember that theory, don't you?  The subject of this thread, right?"
> *
> I know you are desperate to put the burden of proof on me but you're gonna have to start a different thread if you want to change the subject.  Meanwhile, we're still waiting to hear how one species became another, which is the foundation of your theory.  I don't really expect you to have an explanation but it's kind of fun to watch you squirm.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have been given multiple links to evidence for transitional species. It's apparent it is you who is desperate to deny the evidence. It really is cowardly to demand evidence and when the evidence is provided to simply deny it was ever provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, you are admitting you believe that one species became another, and so on?
Click to expand...

Other than by magic on behalf of your various polytheistic gawds, what accounts for the diversity of life on the planet.

Do you know what a transitional species is?


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit.  You deny the reality of evolution, bubba.  So what is your explanation?  What merits your denial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <Crickets chirping>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chirp, chirp, I don't sit here anxiously awaiting each of your replies.  I did notice that you're awfully reluctant to address that issue of "common ancestors" though.  Now I hear those crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do see you anxiously waiting to read someone address "common ancestors, a topic that has been discussed throughout this thread.  How ironic is that?
> 
> Quit stalling.  Your explanation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I don't have to provide an alternative to your theory for your's to be wrong.  You don't win by default, you still have to make your case, which you have failed to do.
Click to expand...


Of course not.  No one wins by default.  Since I have already stated the fact that scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit and the theory of evolution certainly does stand on its merits), it is not enough to simply state that it doesn't or that I have failed to support the science when clearly I have.  And it is not enough to refute evolution.  You MUST provide an alternative, otherwise, you are simply a crackpot with no leg to stand on.  And if you are comfortable sitting there on your cracked pot deflecting the obvious, that, of course is on you.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> 
> 
> You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.*  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!
Click to expand...

Actually, it is you religious extremists who are making claims you cannot prove.


----------



## S.J.

Well gang, I'm gonna get some sleep.  I have to work tomorrow (a lot of liberal welfare recipients are counting on me), but I'll come back later to check and see if any of you evolved primates show some proof of one species becoming another.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> 
> 
> You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.*  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!
Click to expand...


That's a good one.  Gee, if I was the only scientist on the planet supporting the theory of evolution, you might conceivably have a point. But I'm not, and you don't. You are the one who claims that the most successful scientific theory of all time is bogus, but have given not one thread of evidence to support your claim.  At the point, it is clear that you refuse to support it because you have nothing to support.  So all you can do is sit there fondling your dick, all the while smiling because you think you've made some kind scientific breakthrough. And I think that is rather sick.  But again, if you are comfortable in that position, that is on you.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!


The claim that evidence has been produced is quite provable, as is the claim that you demonstrate invincible ignorance.

No worries, batshit crazy's gotta do what batshit crazy's gotta do.


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> Well gang, I'm gonna get some sleep.  I have to work tomorrow (a lot of liberal welfare recipients are counting on me), but I'll come back later to check and see if any of you evolved primates show some proof of one species becoming another.



Thanks for proving my point (that you have no alternative, but are only trolling to get your jollies off).  Do let the evolution bugs bite:


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Well gang, I'm gonna get some sleep.  I have to work tomorrow (a lot of liberal welfare recipients are counting on me), but I'll come back later to check and see if any of you evolved primates show some proof of one species becoming another.


You manage a minimum wage enterprise? That would fit.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit.  You deny the reality of evolution, bubba.  So what is your explanation?  What merits your denial?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> <Crickets chirping>
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Chirp, chirp, I don't sit here anxiously awaiting each of your replies.  I did notice that you're awfully reluctant to address that issue of "common ancestors" though.  Now I hear those crickets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do see you anxiously waiting to read someone address "common ancestors, a topic that has been discussed throughout this thread.  How ironic is that?
> 
> Quit stalling.  Your explanation....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Again, I don't have to provide an alternative to your theory for your's to be wrong.  You don't win by default, you still have to make your case, which you have failed to do.
Click to expand...

What you haven't done is to provide a single point refuting the established fact of biological evolution. It is only you religious extremists who reject the science because it conflicts with your notions of magical gawds. 

Your alternate proposal of magical gawds who by magical means *poofed* all of existence a mere 6,000 years ago is refuted by the data of verifiable sciences. 

How do you support your case for magic and supernaturalism?


----------



## sealybobo

Matthew said:


> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.


But you can't prove 100 virgins arent waiting for them in heaven.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not seeing the other half of this conversation, because I have the idiot on ignore. But it sounds like you're tearing him a new one.
Click to expand...

Wrong. Now putting you on ignore. Loser.


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> Well gang, I'm gonna get some sleep.  I have to work tomorrow (a lot of liberal welfare recipients are counting on me), but I'll come back later to check and see if any of you evolved primates show some proof of one species becoming another.


Give us a million years you'll see.


----------



## orogenicman

I am going to ask the moderators to move this thread to the religion forum, because it is clearly not about science: A creationist created the forum for the sole purpose of promoting denialism and attacking science, nothing more.  They aren't interested in talking about the science, and not one of them have done so.  If the moderators had been doing their jobs in the first place, it wouldn't be here.


----------



## Toro

Hollie said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.
> 
> 
> 
> It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
Click to expand...


Completely true. 

The opposition to Evolution comes from religion, not science.  Religion has a vested interest in discrediting Evolution because they can claim the only explanation to the origins of mankind.


----------



## orogenicman

Toro said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.
> 
> 
> 
> It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely true.
> 
> The opposition to Evolution comes from religion, not science.  Religion has a vested interest in discrediting Evolution because they can claim the only explanation to the origins of mankind.
Click to expand...


Except that "god did it" is not an explanation.


----------



## Hollie

orogenicman said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.
> 
> 
> 
> It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely true.
> 
> The opposition to Evolution comes from religion, not science.  Religion has a vested interest in discrediting Evolution because they can claim the only explanation to the origins of mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that "god did it" is not an explanation.
Click to expand...

It's not, except in the skewed, superstitious worldview of "_the gawds did it'ists"_ in this thread.


----------



## pinqy

Toro said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.
> 
> 
> 
> It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely true.
> 
> The opposition to Evolution comes from religion, not science.  Religion has a vested interest in discrediting Evolution because they can claim the only explanation to the origins of mankind.
Click to expand...

 Well, under Stalin, Lysenkoism was accepted instead of Darwinian Evolution.  Not that Trofim Lysenko was an ardent communist, but his pseudo-Lamarckism and rejection of Darwinian and Mendelian inheritence appealed to Stalin.   Set back Soviet biology by decades.

Technicaly not a religion, but Stalinism was not much different.


----------



## Uncensored2008

orogenicman said:


> That explains a lot more about you than you apparently realize.



Mostly that he saw the movie "Altered States" and is less original than he thinks...


----------



## sealybobo

orogenicman said:


> I am going to ask the moderators to move this thread to the religion forum, because it is clearly not about science: A creationist created the forum for the sole purpose of promoting denialism and attacking science, nothing more.  They aren't interested in talking about the science, and not one of them have done so.  If the moderators had been doing their jobs in the first place, it wouldn't be here.


I'm glad they are doing this here. We need to have this conversation out loud and in public. Leave it in the science forum! Expose them.

I make every christian tell me right away if they believe non christians go to hell.  See what type of crazy I'm deading with.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

Toro said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Antibiotic resistance
> 
> 
> 
> so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Brilliant. But irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Eots is right on the mark here but your pride simply refuses to admit the possibility that you are *wrong.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the mark?  The principles of evolution have allowed us to not only discover the agents of disease, but have allowed us to discover antibiotics, and how the resistance to them works so we can develop better treatments.  You don't have to believe it.  You can just thank all those tireless lab workers who are trying to make your life better.  So no he is not only not on the mark, he is flat out wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's Devil-talk.
> 
> The lab workers didn't discover antibiotics. God did!
Click to expand...


Did the lab workers create the human body?  The human mind?  The ability to think, to research, to find, to discover, to invent?   Or did God do that, Toro?


----------



## Toro

Jeremiah said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant. But irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Eots is right on the mark here but your pride simply refuses to admit the possibility that you are *wrong.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the mark?  The principles of evolution have allowed us to not only discover the agents of disease, but have allowed us to discover antibiotics, and how the resistance to them works so we can develop better treatments.  You don't have to believe it.  You can just thank all those tireless lab workers who are trying to make your life better.  So no he is not only not on the mark, he is flat out wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's Devil-talk.
> 
> The lab workers didn't discover antibiotics. God did!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the lab workers create the human body?  The human mind?  The ability to think, to research, to find, to discover, to invent?   Or did God do that, Toro?
Click to expand...


God is Catholic.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> 
> 
> You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.*  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good one.  Gee, if I was the only scientist on the planet supporting the theory of evolution, you might conceivably have a point. But I'm not, and you don't. You are the one who claims that the most successful scientific theory of all time is bogus, but have given not one thread of evidence to support your claim.  At the point, it is clear that you refuse to support it because you have nothing to support.  So all you can do is sit there fondling your dick, all the while smiling because you think you've made some kind scientific breakthrough. And I think that is rather sick.  But again, if you are comfortable in that position, that is on you.
Click to expand...

After 78 pages of prevaricating, the only thing you self proclaimed intellectuals can come up with is comments like "prove me wrong", "you're not smart enough to understand", "I already gave you proof, go back and find it", "you're fondling your dick".  So much for your intellect.


----------



## eots

what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.*  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good one.  Gee, if I was the only scientist on the planet supporting the theory of evolution, you might conceivably have a point. But I'm not, and you don't. You are the one who claims that the most successful scientific theory of all time is bogus, but have given not one thread of evidence to support your claim.  At the point, it is clear that you refuse to support it because you have nothing to support.  So all you can do is sit there fondling your dick, all the while smiling because you think you've made some kind scientific breakthrough. And I think that is rather sick.  But again, if you are comfortable in that position, that is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 78 pages of prevaricating, the only thing you self proclaimed intellectuals can come up with is comments like "prove me wrong", "you're not smart enough to understand", "I already gave you proof, go back and find it", "you're fondling your dick".  So much for your intellect.
Click to expand...

Ignorance of the facts on your part is no ones fault but your own.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed


You're incorrectly and ignorantly assigning human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.


----------



## eots

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're obligated, as far as that goes, to present your evidence. As has been done on this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.*  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good one.  Gee, if I was the only scientist on the planet supporting the theory of evolution, you might conceivably have a point. But I'm not, and you don't. You are the one who claims that the most successful scientific theory of all time is bogus, but have given not one thread of evidence to support your claim.  At the point, it is clear that you refuse to support it because you have nothing to support.  So all you can do is sit there fondling your dick, all the while smiling because you think you've made some kind scientific breakthrough. And I think that is rather sick.  But again, if you are comfortable in that position, that is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 78 pages of prevaricating, the only thing you self proclaimed intellectuals can come up with is comments like "prove me wrong", "you're not smart enough to understand", "I already gave you proof, go back and find it", "you're fondling your dick".  So much for your intellect.
Click to expand...

this is a Gem


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed
> 
> 
> 
> You're incorrectly and ignorantly assigning human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
Click to expand...

Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed
> 
> 
> 
> You're incorrectly and ignorantly assigning human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.*  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good one.  Gee, if I was the only scientist on the planet supporting the theory of evolution, you might conceivably have a point. But I'm not, and you don't. You are the one who claims that the most successful scientific theory of all time is bogus, but have given not one thread of evidence to support your claim.  At the point, it is clear that you refuse to support it because you have nothing to support.  So all you can do is sit there fondling your dick, all the while smiling because you think you've made some kind scientific breakthrough. And I think that is rather sick.  But again, if you are comfortable in that position, that is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 78 pages of prevaricating, the only thing you self proclaimed intellectuals can come up with is comments like "prove me wrong", "you're not smart enough to understand", "I already gave you proof, go back and find it", "you're fondling your dick".  So much for your intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is a Gem
Click to expand...

Yeah. A gem. Pearls before swine, child.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.*  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good one.  Gee, if I was the only scientist on the planet supporting the theory of evolution, you might conceivably have a point. But I'm not, and you don't. You are the one who claims that the most successful scientific theory of all time is bogus, but have given not one thread of evidence to support your claim.  At the point, it is clear that you refuse to support it because you have nothing to support.  So all you can do is sit there fondling your dick, all the while smiling because you think you've made some kind scientific breakthrough. And I think that is rather sick.  But again, if you are comfortable in that position, that is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 78 pages of prevaricating, the only thing you self proclaimed intellectuals can come up with is comments like "prove me wrong", "you're not smart enough to understand", "I already gave you proof, go back and find it", "you're fondling your dick".  So much for your intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance of the facts on your part is no ones fault but your own.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming.  Your posts are probably the best example.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.*  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good one.  Gee, if I was the only scientist on the planet supporting the theory of evolution, you might conceivably have a point. But I'm not, and you don't. You are the one who claims that the most successful scientific theory of all time is bogus, but have given not one thread of evidence to support your claim.  At the point, it is clear that you refuse to support it because you have nothing to support.  So all you can do is sit there fondling your dick, all the while smiling because you think you've made some kind scientific breakthrough. And I think that is rather sick.  But again, if you are comfortable in that position, that is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 78 pages of prevaricating, the only thing you self proclaimed intellectuals can come up with is comments like "prove me wrong", "you're not smart enough to understand", "I already gave you proof, go back and find it", "you're fondling your dick".  So much for your intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance of the facts on your part is no ones fault but your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming.  Your posts are probably the best example.
Click to expand...

You poor dear. Your tender sensibilities are offended by those _evilutionists_ who dare challenge the superstitions that cause you to live in trembling fear of angry gawds.

If nothing else, this thread has served to display the profound ignorance of the religious zealot who lives in fear and denial of contingent reality.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good one.  Gee, if I was the only scientist on the planet supporting the theory of evolution, you might conceivably have a point. But I'm not, and you don't. You are the one who claims that the most successful scientific theory of all time is bogus, but have given not one thread of evidence to support your claim.  At the point, it is clear that you refuse to support it because you have nothing to support.  So all you can do is sit there fondling your dick, all the while smiling because you think you've made some kind scientific breakthrough. And I think that is rather sick.  But again, if you are comfortable in that position, that is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 78 pages of prevaricating, the only thing you self proclaimed intellectuals can come up with is comments like "prove me wrong", "you're not smart enough to understand", "I already gave you proof, go back and find it", "you're fondling your dick".  So much for your intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance of the facts on your part is no ones fault but your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming.  Your posts are probably the best example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor dear. Your tender sensibilities are offended by those _evilutionists_ who dare challenge the superstitions that cause you to live in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> If nothing else, this thread has served to display the profound ignorance of the religious zealot who lives in fear and denial of contingent reality.
Click to expand...

Thanks for confirming (again).


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good one.  Gee, if I was the only scientist on the planet supporting the theory of evolution, you might conceivably have a point. But I'm not, and you don't. You are the one who claims that the most successful scientific theory of all time is bogus, but have given not one thread of evidence to support your claim.  At the point, it is clear that you refuse to support it because you have nothing to support.  So all you can do is sit there fondling your dick, all the while smiling because you think you've made some kind scientific breakthrough. And I think that is rather sick.  But again, if you are comfortable in that position, that is on you.
> 
> 
> 
> After 78 pages of prevaricating, the only thing you self proclaimed intellectuals can come up with is comments like "prove me wrong", "you're not smart enough to understand", "I already gave you proof, go back and find it", "you're fondling your dick".  So much for your intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ignorance of the facts on your part is no ones fault but your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming.  Your posts are probably the best example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor dear. Your tender sensibilities are offended by those _evilutionists_ who dare challenge the superstitions that cause you to live in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> If nothing else, this thread has served to display the profound ignorance of the religious zealot who lives in fear and denial of contingent reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming (again).
Click to expand...

I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I take science over faith! The Isis takes faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution ceases to be science when it becomes faith, faith that one species magically morphed into another.  When "science" can prove that claim, we can accept that "science".  Until then, I respectfully decline to accept speculation from self-proclaimed intellectuals who are so full of themselves they insist on presenting their speculation as fact, which it is NOT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not seeing the other half of this conversation, because I have the idiot on ignore. But it sounds like you're tearing him a new one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong. Now putting you on ignore. Loser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You put me on ignore? THANK YOU SO MUCH!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

Jeremiah said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremiah said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PredFan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> so the short answer is never..the bacteria remains a bacteria
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brilliant. But irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Eots is right on the mark here but your pride simply refuses to admit the possibility that you are *wrong.  *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the mark?  The principles of evolution have allowed us to not only discover the agents of disease, but have allowed us to discover antibiotics, and how the resistance to them works so we can develop better treatments.  You don't have to believe it.  You can just thank all those tireless lab workers who are trying to make your life better.  So no he is not only not on the mark, he is flat out wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's Devil-talk.
> 
> The lab workers didn't discover antibiotics. God did!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did the lab workers create the human body?  The human mind?  The ability to think, to research, to find, to discover, to invent?   Or did God do that, Toro?
Click to expand...


And you have evidence for that claim?  Look, claiming that god did anything is meaningless because it is impossible to prove.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed



Yeah, those protein coatings must have the IQ of an Einstein.


----------



## orogenicman

sealybobo said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am going to ask the moderators to move this thread to the religion forum, because it is clearly not about science: A creationist created the forum for the sole purpose of promoting denialism and attacking science, nothing more.  They aren't interested in talking about the science, and not one of them have done so.  If the moderators had been doing their jobs in the first place, it wouldn't be here.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm glad they are doing this here. We need to have this conversation out loud and in public. Leave it in the science forum! Expose them.
> 
> I make every christian tell me right away if they believe non christians go to hell.  See what type of crazy I'm deading with.
Click to expand...


It doesn't belong in the science forum.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back and read the OP.  The topic is evolution and your lack of evidence.  Did you have a problem understanding it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.*  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good one.  Gee, if I was the only scientist on the planet supporting the theory of evolution, you might conceivably have a point. But I'm not, and you don't. You are the one who claims that the most successful scientific theory of all time is bogus, but have given not one thread of evidence to support your claim.  At the point, it is clear that you refuse to support it because you have nothing to support.  So all you can do is sit there fondling your dick, all the while smiling because you think you've made some kind scientific breakthrough. And I think that is rather sick.  But again, if you are comfortable in that position, that is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 78 pages of prevaricating, the only thing you self proclaimed intellectuals can come up with is comments like "prove me wrong", "you're not smart enough to understand", "I already gave you proof, go back and find it", "you're fondling your dick".  So much for your intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is a Gem
Click to expand...


He was making a point, which obviously went over your pointy little head.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed
> 
> 
> 
> You're incorrectly and ignorantly assigning human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


The fact that bacteria chemically communicate and self-organize has nothing to do with intelligence.  Bacteria do not have Facebook.


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He thinks by flooding us over and over with like-minded people repeating the same speculation that it will somehow give his unproven claims some validity.  It doesn't, it's still speculation, no matter how many times he says it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You think that repeatedly declaring as bogus the most successful, most widely accepted scientific theory in history makes you look intelligent.  You think that it is acceptable for you to use logical fallacies such as a special pleading that your claims should not be subject to the same rigorous testing that the theory of evolution and all other scientific theories undergo.  And no doubt you will deny that you do this, but you most certainly do.  A number of us here have posted a lot of easily available information on the theory of evolution to support the science.  You merely declare it "speculation" sans any explanation or evidence whatsoever that that is the case.  And you do this because you think you are special, that your arguments somehow don't require support.  That is not acceptable, not to me, nor to any reasonable person.  Because all you are doing is trolling.  I am not the only person on these forums to take you to task for this behavior.  And I for one am sick and tired of it.
> 
> You say that you aren't denying it for religious reasons.  I don't believe that for a moment, but for the sake of argument, let's say that you don't deny it on religious grounds.  Alright then, on what grounds do you deny it (other than sophomoric hand waving); then provide us, *in detail,* with your explanation for the diversity of life on Earth that is not faith-based.  Do that, and we can continue our discussion.  Do it not, continue these insulting one line denials that are the hallmark of creationist denialism, and I will be filing that complaint for trolling that I promised you.  It is up to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In other words, if I can't prove you wrong by proving some other theory (not faith-based) I'm obligated to accept YOUR theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Scientific theories stand or fall on their own merit.  You deny the reality of evolution, SJ.  So what is your explanation?  What merits your denial?
Click to expand...


BUMP

<crickets chirping>


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And it your burden to prove your claim that the evidence doesn't exist.*  Did all the museum collections, gene sequencers, laboratories, scientific publications, university classes, and libraries on the planet mysteriously disappear?  To date, all we've gotten from you is meaningless one-liners.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh really?  That's pretty good.  You make a claim you can't prove, but I have to DISprove it?  Perfect!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's a good one.  Gee, if I was the only scientist on the planet supporting the theory of evolution, you might conceivably have a point. But I'm not, and you don't. You are the one who claims that the most successful scientific theory of all time is bogus, but have given not one thread of evidence to support your claim.  At the point, it is clear that you refuse to support it because you have nothing to support.  So all you can do is sit there fondling your dick, all the while smiling because you think you've made some kind scientific breakthrough. And I think that is rather sick.  But again, if you are comfortable in that position, that is on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> After 78 pages of prevaricating, the only thing you self proclaimed intellectuals can come up with is comments like "prove me wrong", "you're not smart enough to understand", "I already gave you proof, go back and find it", "you're fondling your dick".  So much for your intellect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is a Gem
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah. A gem. Pearls before swine, child.
Click to expand...

lol...look who is the alien conspiracy theorist now..


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed
> 
> 
> 
> You're incorrectly and ignorantly assigning human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The fact that bacteria chemically communicate and self-organize has nothing to do with intelligence.  Bacteria do not have Facebook.
Click to expand...

oh please do elaborate...


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those protein coatings must have the IQ of an Einstein.
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed
> 
> 
> 
> You're incorrectly and ignorantly assigning human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
Click to expand...

*Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
*Author information*

*Abstract*
Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI


15276612

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed
> 
> 
> 
> You're incorrectly and ignorantly assigning human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Click to expand...

You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*


There are more species that have gone extinct than exist today. Bird fish mammals insects reptiles etc. There are 1 million different beatles. How do you think all the diverse life started? 

There weren't always dairy cows. And dinosaurs dont exist anymore. Neither do trilobite's. So god planted the trilobite seed 2 billion years ago and they died out then dinosaurs 1 billion and they died out all before we were here. We only came to be 1 million years ago. Where were we 2 billion years ago and what evidence do you have to believe? Certainly not facts logic or science.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?



Where were humans 2 billion years ago when trilobite's ruled the world? If we werent here yet where were we and how did we get Herr? You may not like sciences theory but your hypothesis doesnt make any logical sense.


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where were humans 2 billion years ago when trilobite's ruled the world? If we werent here yet where were we and how did we get Herr? You may not like sciences theory but your hypothesis doesnt make any logical sense.
Click to expand...

You're delusional. There are many problems with evolution. You might want to read up on problems with dating methods. Different dating methods give different results for the same samples. Also, the values they use for radiometric dating are based on assumptions. How can anything based on assumptions be at all accurate. The fact is there is not one single solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.


----------



## cnm

You can't even control your own contradictions about inter-species fertility, or the lack of it.

Your ignorance has stopped being amusing and is now boring.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where were humans 2 billion years ago when trilobite's ruled the world? If we werent here yet where were we and how did we get Herr? You may not like sciences theory but your hypothesis doesnt make any logical sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're delusional. There are many problems with evolution. You might want to read up on problems with dating methods. Different dating methods give different results for the same samples. Also, the values they use for radiometric dating are based on assumptions. How can anything based on assumptions be at all accurate. The fact is there is not one single solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
Click to expand...

Yet you take advantage of all the medical breakthroughs made by the evidence. 

The guy who discovered carbon dating also discovered led was poisoning us. You should continue drinking from led cups and give your kids led toys and paint your home with led paint if you dont believe the sciences. But you'll believe science when you want or need to.

I wish we had an actual scientist who can explain exactly why you are wrong.

You say not one solid piece of scientific evidence when there's mountains of it.

Enough there is scientific consensus on it. I've explained some but you just blew it all off  so not gonna keep repeating myself.

There is zero evidence for god scientific or otherwise.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed
> 
> 
> 
> You're incorrectly and ignorantly assigning human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
Click to expand...

Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution. 

Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.

If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where were humans 2 billion years ago when trilobite's ruled the world? If we werent here yet where were we and how did we get Herr? You may not like sciences theory but your hypothesis doesnt make any logical sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're delusional. There are many problems with evolution. You might want to read up on problems with dating methods. Different dating methods give different results for the same samples. Also, the values they use for radiometric dating are based on assumptions. How can anything based on assumptions be at all accurate. The fact is there is not one single solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
Click to expand...

What problems are there with evolution? Be specific and provide verifiable examples.

What are the problems you allude to with dating methods? Be specific and provide verifiable examples. 

The fact is, aside from your nonsense claim that "there is not one single solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.", you have been given a wealth of data that there obviously is. You do a huge disservice to religion and to thinking humans in general with your pointless and irrational stupidity. 

Really, dude. Just go drink the Kool-Aid and end the self-hate you choose to wallow in.


----------



## guno

The biblers suffer from 
*Christophrenia: Diseases of the Radical Christian Right

Christophrenia Diseases of the Radical Christian Right The Sirens Chronicles*


----------



## Hollie

guno said:


> The biblers suffer from
> *Christophrenia: Diseases of the Radical Christian Right
> 
> Christophrenia Diseases of the Radical Christian Right The Sirens Chronicles*



*"Hospitalization has proven effective in that it protects society from the Christophrenic’s often visceral ideas of divine vengeance and Social Darwinism."

*


----------



## Mr.Right

Lik


sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're incorrectly and ignorantly assigning human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
Click to expand...

Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

orogenicman said:


> Toro said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is, for creationists to accept evolution, they can no longer accept everything in the bible as truth. This is not a matter of science for them but a matter of absolute blind faith.
> 
> 
> 
> It's worth addressing what the fundamentalist has to lose by conceding evolution as the means for diversity of life on the planet and by conceding to non-literal bible tales. Evolution being true means there was no historical Adam and Eve. If there was no Adam and Eve, there is no original sin. If there is no original sin, there is no need to be saved. If there is no need for salvation, there is no need for their religion. That's why they will resist, to the bitter end, in spite of the bibles' tales being absurdities of nature, using any means necessary to protect their dogma.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Completely true.
> 
> The opposition to Evolution comes from religion, not science.  Religion has a vested interest in discrediting Evolution because they can claim the only explanation to the origins of mankind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that "god did it" is not an explanation.
Click to expand...

True.

Particularly given the fact that there is no 'god' as perceived by theists.


----------



## sealybobo

guno said:


> The biblers suffer from
> *Christophrenia: Diseases of the Radical Christian Right
> 
> Christophrenia Diseases of the Radical Christian Right The Sirens Chronicles*



I've asked how they think the millions of species extinct or not wound up on earth and what evidence they used to come up with that conclusion and I haven't heard back from them yet.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
Click to expand...

They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.


----------



## cnm

sealybobo said:


> I wish we had an actual scientist who can explain exactly why you [Mr.Right] are wrong.


Orogenicman.

But he can't do anything about it, invincible ignorance is in fact invincible.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
Click to expand...


What "many"? Be specific and provide relevant examples. 

"Respected scientists" shilling for fundamentalist ministries are frequently fringe loons. 

I trust you can provide specific details of the papers and related support material your "many" respected scientists have submitted for peer review to science publications such as the journal _Nature_ for example.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

The fundamental mistake theists make is to attempt to view the fact of evolution in the context of an 'immutable' earth.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Lik
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?


No there aren't, there are a few taking advantage of the gullible batshit crazies, they are either mocked unmercifully or ignored by the rest of the scientific community.


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
> 
> 
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
> 
> 
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What "many"? Be specific and provide relevant examples.
> 
> "Respected scientists" shilling for fundamentalist ministries are frequently fringe loons.
> 
> I trust you can provide specific details of the papers and related support material your "many" respected scientists have submitted for peer review to science publications such as the journal _Nature_ for example.
Click to expand...


When they show us their sources you know they failed the peer review or will. Usually right off the bat. Scientists probably only need to read 2 paragraph to find the fatal flaw.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.
Click to expand...

What is their/your theory? I've asked a few times now.


----------



## Mr.Right

sealybobo said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is their/your theory? I've asked a few times now.
Click to expand...

And I'll continue to ignore that question. This is about evidence for evolution. I still haven't seen any.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.
Click to expand...

What "many"? As usual, you just come across as a blowhard and a buffoon.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.
Click to expand...

Where was man 2 billion years ago when trilobite's ruled? Or 1 billion when dinosaurs ruled.

We were not here yet. We've only been here 1 million years. How do your scientists say we got here? Ants birds tigers rats snakes wolves. None of us were around 2 billion years ago. How do you explain where we all came from?


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> 
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is their/your theory? I've asked a few times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'll continue to ignore that question. This is about evidence for evolution. I still haven't seen any.
Click to expand...

You won't find any at the extremist creation ministries. They have an interest in keeping people like you as scientific illiterates.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> 
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is their/your theory? I've asked a few times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'll continue to ignore that question. This is about evidence for evolution. I still haven't seen any.
Click to expand...


Because you can't! Because if you were intellectually honest and answered the god damn questions we've asked we would help you see how stupid your thinking is. So why do we believe science? Because their logic is better than your no logic.


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> 
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is their/your theory? I've asked a few times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'll continue to ignore that question. This is about evidence for evolution. I still haven't seen any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find any at the extremist creation ministries. They have an interest in keeping people like you as scientific illiterates.
Click to expand...


Can you believe the asshole won't answer questions that are harmful to his cause? I'm done with Mr wrong.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> what is amazing to me is how smart bacteria are and their ability to adapt,organize,communicate...have to wonder where the source of such intelligence  ,how it could of first developed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, those protein coatings must have the IQ of an Einstein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Evolution myths The bacterial flagellum is irreducibly complex - life - 16 April 2008 - New Scientist


----------



## sealybobo

Hollie said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> 
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is their/your theory? I've asked a few times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'll continue to ignore that question. This is about evidence for evolution. I still haven't seen any.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You won't find any at the extremist creation ministries. They have an interest in keeping people like you as scientific illiterates.
Click to expand...


He asked for evidence. I point out that trilobite's were here 2 billion years ago and humans werent. We see we are much different than cavemen and that's just 100,000 years ago. Imagine what we were 500,000 years ago. Evolution makes sense.

And what is Mr wrong saying happened? God put us here 100,000 years ago as fully evolved humans? How does he think humans got here?

I could maybe understand how its hard to believe we are related to cold blooded animals bugs and even living trees but how else can they explain it? They can't with any evidence. All evidence is in our corner. Their only answer is god did it. But no evidence is ever given for their imaginary big brother.

Its like the Truman show but god watches 24/7. Creepy.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for that evidence. What's the matter? You chicken?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where were humans 2 billion years ago when trilobite's ruled the world? If we werent here yet where were we and how did we get Herr? You may not like sciences theory but your hypothesis doesnt make any logical sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're delusional. There are many problems with evolution. You might want to read up on problems with dating methods. Different dating methods give different results for the same samples. Also, the values they use for radiometric dating are based on assumptions. How can anything based on assumptions be at all accurate. The fact is there is not one single solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
Click to expand...


Lying for Jesus is still lying.  There are over a dozen dating methods, many of which overlap, many of which are used to corroborate one another.  It is untrue that samples dated by different methods give different results (within statistical error) unless there is sample contamination or problems with the equipment at the time of analysis.  The techniques themselves are valid and have been and are being used by laboratories around the world.  Mr. Wrong would have us believe that laboratories are in the habit of spending millions of dollars each year on analytical techniques that don't work.  And that just doesn't happen.


----------



## sealybobo

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> 
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is their/your theory? I've asked a few times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'll continue to ignore that question. This is about evidence for evolution. I still haven't seen any.
Click to expand...

Have you seen the cosmos? On a molecular level we are all made up of atoms and DNA and we recycle energy the same way. 

Maybe you have to watch the Cosmos because they explain it beautifully how every living thing on earth is made of basically the same stuff. Add that to all the diversity on this planet and evolution makes sense.

I would love to know when and how the animal split off and one became cold blooded and the other warm. I'm sure science knows.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
Click to expand...


Whether or not any scientists believe that evolution is wrong doesn't mean that they are respected.  The bulk of scientists who don't accept evolution are, in fact, still respected for valid works they have done, but not for their position on evolution.  And the fact remains that there are few of these scientists, not many.  And every single one of them are evangelical creationist Christians.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.
Click to expand...


Name one.


----------



## Tuatara

I remember reading a book by Dawkins where he talks about a fellow scientist who happens to be a creationist. The scientist said all evidence points towards evolution but I'm gong with creationism just to be safe. He didn't say some evidence or most evidence, he stated all evidence. Sometimes even a creationist knows there is evidence for evolution. I will try and find the name.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> After 78 pages of prevaricating, the only thing you self proclaimed intellectuals can come up with is comments like "prove me wrong", "you're not smart enough to understand", "I already gave you proof, go back and find it", "you're fondling your dick".  So much for your intellect.
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance of the facts on your part is no ones fault but your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming.  Your posts are probably the best example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor dear. Your tender sensibilities are offended by those _evilutionists_ who dare challenge the superstitions that cause you to live in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> If nothing else, this thread has served to display the profound ignorance of the religious zealot who lives in fear and denial of contingent reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming (again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.
Click to expand...

I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> [...] BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.


You've had that explained. How about you explaining why you can't understand it?


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance of the facts on your part is no ones fault but your own.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming.  Your posts are probably the best example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor dear. Your tender sensibilities are offended by those _evilutionists_ who dare challenge the superstitions that cause you to live in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> If nothing else, this thread has served to display the profound ignorance of the religious zealot who lives in fear and denial of contingent reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming (again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
Click to expand...

Mutation. Happens over millions of years. One species has babies and one offspring ends up living in the cold so they become warm blooded and the other that lives in the heat becomes cold blooded.

How do we now have blacks asians and whites? Didn't we all come from Adam and Noah?


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> 
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are creationalist scientists? Not science. They dont follow the scientific method. Sorry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Many of them are atheists. They don't believe in Creation, yet the believe that Darwin got it wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is their/your theory? I've asked a few times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I'll continue to ignore that question. This is about evidence for evolution. I still haven't seen any.
Click to expand...


You asked in the OP "where is this mountain of evidence for evolution"?  So the question is not whether or not evolution is a valid scientific theory.  The question you asked is where is the evidence?  We've provided much of that evidence, and you have not accepted it with no reasonable explanation as to why?  The fact that you have provided no reasonable explanation is not only disrespectful of those who have made the effort to answer your question, it is a clear indication that you are not actually wanting to know the answer to your own question.  In which case, your OP is merely a ruse, an excuse to bring your own religious beliefs into the science forum in order to ridicule science and those who support it (which you have done with abandon).  And so all you have done is set up a thread for the purpose of spamming the forum.  And that is against the rules.


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...] BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> 
> 
> You've had that explained. How about you explaining why you can't understand it?
Click to expand...

You haven't explained a damn thing.


----------



## S.J.

sealybobo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming.  Your posts are probably the best example.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor dear. Your tender sensibilities are offended by those _evilutionists_ who dare challenge the superstitions that cause you to live in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> If nothing else, this thread has served to display the profound ignorance of the religious zealot who lives in fear and denial of contingent reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming (again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mutation. Happens over millions of years. One species has babies and one offspring ends up living in the cold so they become warm blooded and the other that lives in the heat becomes cold blooded.
> 
> How do we now have blacks asians and whites? Didn't we all come from Adam and Noah?
Click to expand...

That's your explanation, now where's the proof?  And don't give me speculation.


----------



## foggedinn

Our Maker has been at it for a long time. The evidence for evolution can just as easily be viewed as the evidence of how we were made from the dust of the earth.


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor dear. Your tender sensibilities are offended by those _evilutionists_ who dare challenge the superstitions that cause you to live in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> If nothing else, this thread has served to display the profound ignorance of the religious zealot who lives in fear and denial of contingent reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming (again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mutation. Happens over millions of years. One species has babies and one offspring ends up living in the cold so they become warm blooded and the other that lives in the heat becomes cold blooded.
> 
> How do we now have blacks asians and whites? Didn't we all come from Adam and Noah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your explanation, now where's the proof?  And don't give me speculation.
Click to expand...

I heard this from science. In fact millions of people including the scientific community watched the cosmos series explain it in great detail and the only people with a problem with it are you fundies.

If the cosmos couldn't explain it to you or convince you what can I say? Be stupid if you want. Free country.


----------



## orogenicman

Temperature metabolic power and the evolution of endothermy. - PubMed - NCBI



> Endothermy has evolved at least twice, in the precursors to modern mammals and birds. The most widely accepted explanation for the evolution of endothermy has been selection for enhanced aerobic capacity. We review this hypothesis in the light of advances in our understanding of ATP generation by mitochondria and muscle performance. Together with the development of isotope-based techniques for the measurement of metabolic rate in free-ranging vertebrates these have confirmed the importance of aerobic scope in the evolution of endothermy: absolute aerobic scope, ATP generation by mitochondria and muscle power output are all strongly temperature-dependent, indicating that there would have been significant improvement in whole-organism locomotor ability with a warmer body. New data on mitochondrial ATP generation and proton leak suggest that the thermal physiology of mitochondria may differ between organisms of contrasting ecology and thermal flexibility. Together with recent biophysical modelling, this strengthens the long-held view that endothermy originated in smaller, active eurythermal ectotherms living in a cool but variable thermal environment. We propose that rather than being a secondary consequence of the evolution of an enhanced aerobic scope, a warmer body was the means by which that enhanced aerobic scope was achieved. This modified hypothesis requires that the rise in metabolic rate and the insulation necessary to retain metabolic heat arose early in the lineages leading to birds and mammals. Large dinosaurs were warm, but were not endotherms, and the metabolic status of pterosaurs remains unresolved.


----------



## orogenicman

foggedinn said:


> Our Maker has been at it for a long time. The evidence for evolution can just as easily be viewed as the evidence of how we were made from the dust of the earth.



Erm, What?


----------



## sealybobo

foggedinn said:


> Our Maker has been at it for a long time. The evidence for evolution can just as easily be viewed as the evidence of how we were made from the dust of the earth.


Yup! Us athiests know evolution won't prove god doesnt exist. But it will put a dent in the Abraham god. It may be time for a new god. One that never talked to anyone and who only cares about what's in your heart.

When christians Jews Mormons Jehovas and Muslims all stop believing they are gods only chosen people maybe we will do better.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> You haven't explained a damn thing.


How about explaining why you can't understand this:

*Steven_R wrote*

_Ring species fit the bill nicely. You have populations of the same species that over time can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Since one of the classic definitions of a species involves the ability to interbreed with others, (and neverminding the arbitrary nature of human creation of classification systems including species) and you have observed populations that no longer fit in that definition over time..._​
Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​


----------



## orogenicman

sealybobo said:


> foggedinn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Maker has been at it for a long time. The evidence for evolution can just as easily be viewed as the evidence of how we were made from the dust of the earth.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup! Us athiests know evolution won't prove god doesnt exist. But it will put a dent in the Abraham god. It may be time for a new god. One that never talked to anyone and who only cares about what's in your heart.
> 
> When christians Jews Mormons Jehovas and Muslims all stop believing they are gods only chosen people maybe we will do better.
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

The evolution of endothermy and its diversity in mammals and birds.

The evolution of endothermy and its diversity in mammals and birds. - PubMed - NCBI



> *Abstract*
> Many elements of mammalian and avian thermoregulatory mechanisms are present in reptiles, and the changes involved in the transition to endothermy are more quantitative than qualitative. Drawing on our experience with reptiles and echidnas, we comment on that transition and on current theories about how it occurred. The theories divide into two categories, depending on whether selection pressures operated directly or indirectly on mechanisms producing heat. Both categories of theories focus on explaining the evolution of homeothermic endothermy but ignore heterothermy. However, noting that hibernation and torpor are almost certainly plesiomorphic (=ancestral, primitive), and that heterothermy is very common among endotherms, we propose that homeothermic endothermy evolved via heterothermy, with the earliest protoendotherms being facultatively endothermic and retaining their ectothermic capacity for "constitutional eurythermy." Thus, unlike current models for the evolution of endothermy that assume that hibernation and torpor are specialisations arising from homeothermic ancestry, and therefore irrelevant, we consider that they are central. We note the sophistication of thermoregulatory behavior and control in reptiles, including precise control over conductance, and argue that brooding endothermy seen in some otherwise ectothermic Boidae suggests an incipient capacity for facultative endothermy in reptiles. We suggest that the earliest insulation in protoendotherms may have been internal, arising from redistribution of the fat bodies that are typical of reptiles. We note that short-beaked echidnas provide a useful living model of what an (advanced) protoendotherm may have been like. Echidnas have the advantages of endothermy, including the capacity for homeothermic endothermy during incubation, but are very relaxed in their thermoregulatory precision and minimise energetic costs by using ectothermy facultatively when entering short- or long-term torpor. They also have a substantial layer of internal dorsal insulation. We favor theories about the evolution of endothermy that invoke direct selection for the benefits conferred by warmth, such as expanding daily activity into the night, higher capacities for sustained activity, higher digestion rates, climatic range expansion, and, not unrelated, control over incubation temperature and the benefits for parental care. We present an indicative, stepwise schema in which observed patterns of body temperature are a consequence of selection pressures, the underlying mechanisms, and energy optimization, and in which homeothermy results when it is energetically desirable rather than as the logical endpoint.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> That's your explanation, now where's the proof?  And don't give me speculation.


Where's your proof of why you don't understand this?

_*Tuatara wrote*







According to Robert's hypothesis, as the pioneering populations moved south, they evolved into several subspecies with new color patterns and adaptations for living in different environments. By the time they met again in Southern California as the subspecies eschscholtzii and klauberi, he argued, they had each evolved so much that they no longer interbred — even though the subspecies blended into one another around the rest of the ring. Since species are often defined by their inability to interbreed with other species, Ensatina seemed to represent the whole process of speciation — all the gradual changes that accumulate in two lineages and that wind up making them incompatible with one another.

Discovering a ring species_​


----------



## S.J.

sealybobo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming (again).
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mutation. Happens over millions of years. One species has babies and one offspring ends up living in the cold so they become warm blooded and the other that lives in the heat becomes cold blooded.
> 
> How do we now have blacks asians and whites? Didn't we all come from Adam and Noah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's your explanation, now where's the proof?  And don't give me speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I heard this from science. In fact millions of people including the scientific community watched the cosmos series explain it in great detail and the only people with a problem with it are you fundies.
> 
> If the cosmos couldn't explain it to you or convince you what can I say? Be stupid if you want. Free country.
Click to expand...

You "heard it from science"?  That's your proof?  I guess you "heard they explained it" too, huh?  So, why can't you?  Oh, I know, you can't, you just have faith that they're right but don't require any proof (kinda like the "fundies")?


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your explanation, now where's the proof?  And don't give me speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof of why you don't understand this?
> 
> _*Tuatara wrote*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Robert's hypothesis, as the pioneering populations moved south, they evolved into several subspecies with new color patterns and adaptations for living in different environments. By the time they met again in Southern California as the subspecies eschscholtzii and klauberi, he argued, they had each evolved so much that they no longer interbred — even though the subspecies blended into one another around the rest of the ring. Since species are often defined by their inability to interbreed with other species, Ensatina seemed to represent the whole process of speciation — all the gradual changes that accumulate in two lineages and that wind up making them incompatible with one another.
> 
> Discovering a ring species_​
Click to expand...

I said "Don't give me speculation".  What part of that do you not understand?


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> I said "Don't give me speculation".  What part of that do you not understand?


Ring species exist.

Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Why can't you understand that?


----------



## cnm

Oh. Damn. Invincible ignorance, that's right. 

Forgot for a moment I was dealing with a batshit crazy.


----------



## cnm

Apart from anything else, this thread is about evidence not proof. If you want proof you'll need a mathematics thread.

Not that that has any chance of penetrating the layers of invincible ignorance surrounding the crazies.


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's your explanation, now where's the proof?  And don't give me speculation.
> 
> 
> 
> Where's your proof of why you don't understand this?
> 
> _*Tuatara wrote*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Robert's hypothesis, as the pioneering populations moved south, they evolved into several subspecies with new color patterns and adaptations for living in different environments. By the time they met again in Southern California as the subspecies eschscholtzii and klauberi, he argued, they had each evolved so much that they no longer interbred — even though the subspecies blended into one another around the rest of the ring. Since species are often defined by their inability to interbreed with other species, Ensatina seemed to represent the whole process of speciation — all the gradual changes that accumulate in two lineages and that wind up making them incompatible with one another.
> 
> Discovering a ring species_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I said "Don't give me speculation".  What part of that do you not understand?
Click to expand...

LMAO!!!


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> Apart from anything else, this thread is about evidence not proof. If you want proof you'll need a mathematics thread.
> 
> Not that that has any chance of penetrating the layers of invincible ignorance surrounding the crazies.


Your "evidence" is speculation.  Your "proof" is non-existent.  Next?


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Your "evidence" is speculation.  Your "proof" is non-existent.  Next?


The evidence is fact. Those species exist. Another one who can't separate evidence from theory. They can't even explain why they can't understand explanations.

Oh well, batshit crazies, what would we do without them?


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from anything else, this thread is about evidence not proof. If you want proof you'll need a mathematics thread.
> 
> Not that that has any chance of penetrating the layers of invincible ignorance surrounding the crazies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your "evidence" is speculation.  Your "proof" is non-existent.  Next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence is fact. *Those species exist.* Another one who can't separate evidence from theory. They can't even explain why they can't understand explanations.
> 
> Oh well, batshit crazies, what would we do without them?
Click to expand...

Ok, now explain how one turned into another.


----------



## S.J.

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from anything else, this thread is about evidence not proof. If you want proof you'll need a mathematics thread.
> 
> Not that that has any chance of penetrating the layers of invincible ignorance surrounding the crazies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your "evidence" is speculation.  Your "proof" is non-existent.  Next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence is fact. *Those species exist.* Another one who can't separate evidence from theory. They can't even explain why they can't understand explanations.
> 
> Oh well, batshit crazies, what would we do without them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, now explain how one turned into another.
Click to expand...

Crickets chirping.


----------



## eots

sealybobo said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're incorrectly and ignorantly assigning human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
Click to expand...

using literal interpations of bible is no argument to support evolution


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
> 
> 
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not any scientists believe that evolution is wrong doesn't mean that they are respected.  The bulk of scientists who don't accept evolution are, in fact, still respected for valid works they have done, but not for their position on evolution.  And the fact remains that there are few of these scientists, not many.  And every single one of them are evangelical creationist Christians.
Click to expand...

not true


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Ok, now explain how one turned into another.
> Crickets chirping.


How come you don't understand the explanations?

Damn. Forgot again!

Invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.

Sooner or later I'll get it.


----------



## cnm

How come you can't even explain which bit you don't understand?


----------



## cnm

Doh!

I remember now.


----------



## eots

eots said:


> Science will question evolution increasingly as we gain more knowledge until the  inevitable concision is reached we live in an infinite and intelligent universe..


----------



## eots

sealybobo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming.  Your posts are probably the best example.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor dear. Your tender sensibilities are offended by those _evilutionists_ who dare challenge the superstitions that cause you to live in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> If nothing else, this thread has served to display the profound ignorance of the religious zealot who lives in fear and denial of contingent reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming (again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mutation. Happens over millions of years. One species has babies and one offspring ends up living in the cold so they become warm blooded and the other that lives in the heat becomes cold blooded.
> 
> How do we now have blacks asians and whites? Didn't we all come from Adam and Noah?
Click to expand...

lol..evidence of this is...


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not any scientists believe that evolution is wrong doesn't mean that they are respected.  The bulk of scientists who don't accept evolution are, in fact, still respected for valid works they have done, but not for their position on evolution.  And the fact remains that there are few of these scientists, not many.  And every single one of them are evangelical creationist Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
Click to expand...


Yes it is true.  If you doubt it, name one that is not an evangelical Creationist Christian.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bacteria communication and self-organization in the context of Network theory has been investigated by Eshel Ben-Jacobresearch group at Tel Aviv University which developed afractal model of bacterial colony and identified linguistic and social patterns in colony lifecycle [1] (also see Ben-Jacob's bacteria).
> Microbial intelligence - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> You're ignorantly trying to assign human attributes to bacteria. Consider looking to sources outside of wiki for science information.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> using literal interpations of bible is no argument to support evolution
Click to expand...


It is also no argument against evolution.


----------



## eots

*Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea*
*Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea Uncommon Descent*


----------



## eots

*Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design*


_Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection.
Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design Center for Science and Culture
_


----------



## Tuatara

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from anything else, this thread is about evidence not proof. If you want proof you'll need a mathematics thread.
> 
> Not that that has any chance of penetrating the layers of invincible ignorance surrounding the crazies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your "evidence" is speculation.  Your "proof" is non-existent.  Next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence is fact. *Those species exist.* Another one who can't separate evidence from theory. They can't even explain why they can't understand explanations.
> 
> Oh well, batshit crazies, what would we do without them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, now explain how one turned into another.
Click to expand...

Read the links or do you need your hand held through that? If you need more info google is your friend.


----------



## eots

Tuatara said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from anything else, this thread is about evidence not proof. If you want proof you'll need a mathematics thread.
> 
> Not that that has any chance of penetrating the layers of invincible ignorance surrounding the crazies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your "evidence" is speculation.  Your "proof" is non-existent.  Next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence is fact. *Those species exist.* Another one who can't separate evidence from theory. They can't even explain why they can't understand explanations.
> 
> Oh well, batshit crazies, what would we do without them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, now explain how one turned into another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the links or do you need your hand held through that? If you need more info google is your friend.
Click to expand...

you mean you can not..


----------



## Tuatara

eots said:


> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea*
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea Uncommon Descent*


Book is yet to be published and there are only online reviews so we cannot comment on this work but there was this..

"This is a brave and important book. Monton *does not defend 'intelligent design' as true* -- he thinks it is most likely false. Instead, he defends it as a hypothesis worth taking seriously. He argues convincingly that it can be formulated as a scientifically testable hypothesis, and that there is some important empirical evidence for it -- not as much evidence as its supporters claim there is, but some evidence.


Is this supposed to be one of the many atheists who believes in creationism? We are still waiting for that list.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea*
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea Uncommon Descent*



Erm, Bradley Monton is (was) a philosophy professor at University of Colorado.  He is not a scientist, and is no longer teaching there because he is being investigated for sexual harassment and misconduct.

Try again.  This time try finding a SCIENTIST who is qualified/certified in a RELEVANT scientific discipline, (I.e., geologist, biologist, medical researcher, etc.).


----------



## Tuatara

eots said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apart from anything else, this thread is about evidence not proof. If you want proof you'll need a mathematics thread.
> 
> Not that that has any chance of penetrating the layers of invincible ignorance surrounding the crazies.
> 
> 
> 
> Your "evidence" is speculation.  Your "proof" is non-existent.  Next?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The evidence is fact. *Those species exist.* Another one who can't separate evidence from theory. They can't even explain why they can't understand explanations.
> 
> Oh well, batshit crazies, what would we do without them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, now explain how one turned into another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the links or do you need your hand held through that? If you need more info google is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean you can not..
Click to expand...

Yes I can but it would not be a 3 word sentence which you and your ilk are looking for. You have all demonstrated that you refuse to read any of the body of work in the links provided and that you do not understand basic concepts of science. I am not a scientist so I felt for a better explanation on anything to do with evolution that it should be left up to a scientist to explain it. There have been several links to papers, articles and videos explaining the many complexities of evolution yet none of you take the time to actually read or watch them. This is demonstrated in your questions which have nothing to do with the content provided.


----------



## Mr.Right

Tuatara said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your "evidence" is speculation.  Your "proof" is non-existent.  Next?
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is fact. *Those species exist.* Another one who can't separate evidence from theory. They can't even explain why they can't understand explanations.
> 
> Oh well, batshit crazies, what would we do without them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, now explain how one turned into another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the links or do you need your hand held through that? If you need more info google is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean you can not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can but it would not be a 3 word sentence which you and your ilk are looking for. You have all demonstrated that you refuse to read any of the body of work in the links provided and that you do not understand basic concepts of science. I am not a scientist so I felt for a better explanation on anything to do with evolution that it should be left up to a scientist to explain it. There have been several links to papers, articles and videos explaining the many complexities of evolution yet none of you take the time to actually read or watch them. This is demonstrated in your questions which have nothing to do with the content provided.
Click to expand...

Most of us have already seen this evidence. We find it lacking. If you are gullible enough to believe it, that's your problem.


----------



## Tuatara

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is fact. *Those species exist.* Another one who can't separate evidence from theory. They can't even explain why they can't understand explanations.
> 
> Oh well, batshit crazies, what would we do without them?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now explain how one turned into another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the links or do you need your hand held through that? If you need more info google is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean you can not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can but it would not be a 3 word sentence which you and your ilk are looking for. You have all demonstrated that you refuse to read any of the body of work in the links provided and that you do not understand basic concepts of science. I am not a scientist so I felt for a better explanation on anything to do with evolution that it should be left up to a scientist to explain it. There have been several links to papers, articles and videos explaining the many complexities of evolution yet none of you take the time to actually read or watch them. This is demonstrated in your questions which have nothing to do with the content provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of us have already seen this evidence. We find it lacking. If you are gullible enough to believe it, that's your problem.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving me right. Notice no mention of any content of actual evolutionary data.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea*
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea Uncommon Descent*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, Bradley Monton is (was) a philosophy professor at University of Colorado.  He is not a scientist, and is no longer teaching there because he is being investigated for sexual harassment and misconduct.
> 
> Try again.  This time try finding a SCIENTIST who is qualified/certified in a RELEVANT scientific discipline, (I.e., geologist, biologist, medical researcher, etc.).
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea*
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea Uncommon Descent*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, Bradley Monton is (was) a philosophy professor at University of Colorado.  He is not a scientist, and is no longer teaching there because he is being investigated for sexual harassment and misconduct.
> 
> Try again.  This time try finding a SCIENTIST who is qualified/certified in a RELEVANT scientific discipline, (I.e., geologist, biologist, medical researcher, etc.).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

He lays it out perfectly...


----------



## Tuatara

Strange, you put up a link about Bradley Monton and then you quote your own link with another link to a video on David Berlinksi. David Berlinkski is not an atheist nor is he a scientist.


----------



## eots

Tuatara said:


> Strange, you put up a link about Bradley Monton and then you quote your own link with another link to a video on David Berlinksi. David Berlinkski is not an atheist nor is he a scientist.


an agnostic secular Jew Philosopher and scientist


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea*
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea Uncommon Descent*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, Bradley Monton is (was) a philosophy professor at University of Colorado.  He is not a scientist, and is no longer teaching there because he is being investigated for sexual harassment and misconduct.
> 
> Try again.  This time try finding a SCIENTIST who is qualified/certified in a RELEVANT scientific discipline, (I.e., geologist, biologist, medical researcher, etc.).
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

-
I knew you were going to go to him.  Dabid Berlinski is also not a scientist.  He is a philosopher and also a senior jerk at the discovery institute where they renamed creationism intelligent design (although he claims not to advocate for intelligent design - yeah, right).  He describes himself as a secular Jew, but no secular Jew I know (and I know a lot of them, having been formerly married to one) supports creationism.  And again, he is not qualified or certified in a relevant scientific discipline.  Next.

David Berlinski makes an ass of himself defending intelligent design Why Evolution Is True



> know of no critic of evolution—perhaps save the late William F. Buckley, Jr.—who is at once so eloquent and so ignorant as David Berlinski.  The man has spent years attacking evolutionary biology and defending intelligent design (ID), and is, to my knowledge, the only living creationist who is not religious. (He claims to be an agnostic, though I have trouble believing that.) He’s also a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, a position reserved for only the Highest Poo-Bahs of Ignorance.
> 
> Yesterday, at the Discovery Institute’s _News and Views_ site, Berlinski wrote “Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial,” a post apparently designed to fête the twentieth anniversary of Phillip Johnson’s execrable _Darwin on Trial: the _book that launched the ID movement.  Johnson’s book is full of inaccuracies and lies (I use the word deliberately, because no honest scholar could make the claims that he did).  And, sure enough, Berlinksi’s post is full of lies as well.  I’m not going to analyze it in detail, but here are a few blatant misrepresentations.
> 
> First, a specimen of how incredibly pompous and awkward Berlinski’s writing is. Do not write like this!  I think he’s trying to ape Gould’s style, possessed with a big vocabulary but lacking Gould’s wit and erudition.
> 
> Comments such as these [Michael Ghiselin’s withering criticism of _Darwin on Trial_] had the effect of raw meat dropped carelessly among carnivores. A scramble ensued to get the first bite. No one bothered to attack the preposterous Ghiselin. It was Richard Dawkins who had waggled his tempting rear end, and behind Dawkins, _fesse à fesse _[buttock to buttock] Charles Darwin. With the publication in 1991 of _Darwin on Trial_ Phil Johnson did what carnivores so often do: He took a bite.
> 
> This metaphor is neither apposite nor appetizing.  At any rate, here’s what Berlinski says. The first thing he gets dead wrong is the fossil record:
> 
> Every paleontologist writing since Darwin published his masterpiece in 1859, has known that the fossil record does not support Darwin’s theory. The theory predicted a continuum of biological forms, so much so that from the right perspective, species would themselves be seen as taxonomic artifacts, like the classification of certain sizes in men’s suiting as _husky_. Questions about the _origin_ of species were resolved in the best possible way: There are no species and so there is no problem. Inasmuch as the historical record suggested a _discrete_ progression of fixed biological forms, it was fatal to Darwin’s project. All the more reason, Darwin argued, to discount the evidence in favor of the theory. “I do not pretend,” he wrote, “that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.”
> 
> This is, as Johnson noted, self-serving gibberish.
> 
> Self-serving gibberish my butt! Darwin recognized full well that he didn’t have enough fossils to confirm his theory, and at least he admitted it.  Would that the idiots at the Discovery Institute were intellectually courageous enough to write a chapter on “difficulties on theory,” as did Darwin! Since when has an IDer admitted any problem with that theory?
> 
> But Darwin didn’t need evidence from fossils to support his theory: he had enough evidence from biogeography, from vestigial organs, from embryology, from the hierarchical arrangement of life, from evidence of heritable variation and from the efficacy of artificial selection—to convince people of evolution even if there had been _no_ fossils.  And convince thinking people he did.
> 
> Of course, since Darwin’s time the “missing” fossil evidence has appeared—in spades.  It’s all detailed in my book, and you can find it online, too. We have intermediates between early fish and amphibians, early amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, and reptiles and early mammals. We have lineages, especially of marine microfossils, but also of larger animals like horses, showing gradual change that accumulates into what can only be seen as macroevolution.
> 
> We have the once-missing intermediates between terrestrial artiodactyls and whales: a fine fossil series.  And, of course, we have all those fossils in the hominin family tree, from early australopithecines with apelike skulls and more modern human-like postcranial skeletons to more modern forms that closely resemble modern humans in nearly every feature. None of these were known in Darwin’s time.
> 
> For Berlinski to pretend that the fossil evidence doesn’t support Darwin, when every bloody fossilized tooth, bone, leaf, and integument cries out “evolution”, is the height of stupidity. Or, since I don’t think Berlinski is stupid, let’s say the height of intellectual dishonesty.  Berlinkski knows of the fossil record, and pretends it doesn’t exist. He’s a liar.
> 
> He also lies about whether Darwin (or modern biologists) think there are species. Berlinski implies that Darwin denied the existence of species. He didn’t, though he was at times confused about what they represented. Modern biologists, of course (at least most of them, with the exception of a few botanist or systematist miscreants), also realize that species are real units of nature, and most of us understand that they are _reproductive_ units, separated from other such units by genetic barriers to interbreeding.
> 
> After handily disposing of evolution, Berlinski takes out after natural selection:
> 
> Few serious biologists are today willing to defend the position that Dawkins expressed in _The Blind Watchmaker_. The metaphor remains stunning and so the watchmaker remains blind, but he is now deaf and dumb as well. With a few more impediments, he may as well be dead. The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura’s _The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution_ consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura’s theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief.
> 
> What Berlinski is saying here is twofold.  First, that there is no evidence for natural selection, either on genes or organisms. That’s palpable nonsense.  We have by now accumulated hundreds of cases of natural selection acting in real time on traits, not to mention evidence for a). the efficacy of artificial selection and b). the presence of pervasive genetic variation in natural populations, both of which indicate that fitness differentials in nature will lead perforce to evolutionary change.
> 
> Second, Berlinski implies that Kimura’s neutral theory nullifies natural selection.  It doesn’t. Kimura’s theory was a big advance in the field, suggesting and working out the consequences of genetic variants that don’t affect fitness.  And, indeed, much of molecular evolution (and an unknown amount of phenotypic evolution) may have been affected by drift. But even Kimura didn’t deny that natural selection was an important evolutionary force, and the only known evolutionary force that can produce adaptations. To say that the neutral theory left the emergence of complex biological features “an emigma” is simply a misrepresentation of what the neutral theory was about.
> 
> Further, population geneticists are starting to realize that evolution on the molecular level is NOT “entirely stochastic”.  First, we have the obviously adaptive and maladaptive molecular substitutions in coding positions in DNA: both the good ones, like mutations for insecticide resistance in insects, and the deleterious ones, like the molecular mutation in the beta chain of hemoglobin that causes sickle-cell anemia.
> 
> Further, recent sequencing work is beginning to show that many substitutions in DNA that were once thought to be “entirely stochastic”—due to the substitution of nucleotides that made no difference in fitness—actually do have effects on fitness, and so are not neutral.  These include many substitutions in the “third” or noncoding positons of DNA. Substitutions there, while they may not affect the sequence of the protein ultimately produced by that stretch of DNA, can have a fitness effect by drawing on pools of “transfer” RNA or nucleotide bases that are more or less abundant.
> 
> The “stochasticity” of molecular evolution is an unsettled issue, but it’s already clear that much of DNA evolution does _not_ adhere strictly to Kimura’s neutral theory.  Berlinski belies his ignorance here; he’s obviously not kept in touch with the literature.  Or perhaps he has, but is lying again.
> 
> Those are the two main factual claims in Berlinski’s piece (three if you count the “nonexistence” of species), and he’s wrong on both counts. The rest is his usual pompous lucubrations about Gould, theistic evolution, the materialism of science, and so on. And a slur slung our way as well:
> 
> That much _is_ at stake explains a good deal about the rhetoric of discussion in the United States, its vile tone. Biologists such as Jerry Coyne, Donald Prothero, Larry Moran or P.Z. Myers are of the opinion that if they cannot win the argument, they had better not lose it, and what better way not to lose an argument than to abuse one’s antagonist? If necessary, the biological establishment has been quite willing to demand of the Federal Courts that they do what it has been unable to do in the court of public opinion.
> 
> Sorry, David, but I didn’t abuse my antagonists, but tried to correct them by writing a calm, non-strident book about the evidence for evolution, one that has done pretty well.  Yes, I’ll sometimes abuse morons like you, but only because you _know_ that evidence and yet deliberately lie to the undereducated to keep them in the state of ignorance that religions prefer.
> 
> And yes, we do demand that Federal courts enforce the law, because we won’t have religious dogma insinuating itself into our children’s science classes. Or would you prefer to have science determined by the majority whim of the electorate? If so, then be prepared to have homeopathy and spiritual healing taught in medical schools, astrology in psychology classes, and alchemy in chemistry classes.
> 
> The reason why the “court of public opinion” doesn’t like evolution has nothing to do with its truth, and everything to do with its supposedly unsavory implications.  It tells us that we’re neither the products of a special design by God, nor imbued by a deity with some celestial purpose and meaning. People don’t like these implications and so they reject the theory. It has nothing to do with them having learned the evidence for evolution and found it insufficient.
> 
> I have news for you, David: you’re going to die in a few decades.  You probably don’t like that fact, either (I’m not comfortable with my own mortality, either), but it’s true. Deal with it.


----------



## Tuatara

eots said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strange, you put up a link about Bradley Monton and then you quote your own link with another link to a video on David Berlinksi. David Berlinkski is not an atheist nor is he a scientist.
> 
> 
> 
> an agnostic secular Jew Philosopher and scientist
Click to expand...

His PhD is in philosophy, not science.


----------



## eots

No here has produced any evidence that cast doubt on the observations  of David Berlinkski..in fact very much the opposite


----------



## Tuatara

eots, maybe instead of spending all your time searching for that elusive atheist scientist that does not believe in evolution, you could better serve your time watching or reading the evolution links we provided.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea*
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea Uncommon Descent*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, Bradley Monton is (was) a philosophy professor at University of Colorado.  He is not a scientist, and is no longer teaching there because he is being investigated for sexual harassment and misconduct.
> 
> Try again.  This time try finding a SCIENTIST who is qualified/certified in a RELEVANT scientific discipline, (I.e., geologist, biologist, medical researcher, etc.).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -
> I knew you were going to go to him.  Dabid Berlinski is also not a scientist.  He is a philosopher and also a senior jerk at the discovery institute where they renamed creationism intelligent design (although he claims not to advocate for intelligent design - yeah, right).  He describes himself as a secular Jew, but no secular Jew I know (and I know a lot of them, having been formerly married to one) supports creationism.  And again, he is not qualified or certified in a relevant scientific discipline.  Next.
> 
> David Berlinski makes an ass of himself defending intelligent design Why Evolution Is True
> 
> 
> 
> 
> know of no critic of evolution—perhaps save the late William F. Buckley, Jr.—who is at once so eloquent and so ignorant as David Berlinski.  The man has spent years attacking evolutionary biology and defending intelligent design (ID), and is, to my knowledge, the only living creationist who is not religious. (He claims to be an agnostic, though I have trouble believing that.) He’s also a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, a position reserved for only the Highest Poo-Bahs of Ignorance.
> 
> Yesterday, at the Discovery Institute’s _News and Views_ site, Berlinski wrote “Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial,” a post apparently designed to fête the twentieth anniversary of Phillip Johnson’s execrable _Darwin on Trial: the _book that launched the ID movement.  Johnson’s book is full of inaccuracies and lies (I use the word deliberately, because no honest scholar could make the claims that he did).  And, sure enough, Berlinksi’s post is full of lies as well.  I’m not going to analyze it in detail, but here are a few blatant misrepresentations.
> 
> First, a specimen of how incredibly pompous and awkward Berlinski’s writing is. Do not write like this!  I think he’s trying to ape Gould’s style, possessed with a big vocabulary but lacking Gould’s wit and erudition.
> 
> Comments such as these [Michael Ghiselin’s withering criticism of _Darwin on Trial_] had the effect of raw meat dropped carelessly among carnivores. A scramble ensued to get the first bite. No one bothered to attack the preposterous Ghiselin. It was Richard Dawkins who had waggled his tempting rear end, and behind Dawkins, _fesse à fesse _[buttock to buttock] Charles Darwin. With the publication in 1991 of _Darwin on Trial_ Phil Johnson did what carnivores so often do: He took a bite.
> 
> This metaphor is neither apposite nor appetizing.  At any rate, here’s what Berlinski says. The first thing he gets dead wrong is the fossil record:
> 
> Every paleontologist writing since Darwin published his masterpiece in 1859, has known that the fossil record does not support Darwin’s theory. The theory predicted a continuum of biological forms, so much so that from the right perspective, species would themselves be seen as taxonomic artifacts, like the classification of certain sizes in men’s suiting as _husky_. Questions about the _origin_ of species were resolved in the best possible way: There are no species and so there is no problem. Inasmuch as the historical record suggested a _discrete_ progression of fixed biological forms, it was fatal to Darwin’s project. All the more reason, Darwin argued, to discount the evidence in favor of the theory. “I do not pretend,” he wrote, “that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.”
> 
> This is, as Johnson noted, self-serving gibberish.
> 
> Self-serving gibberish my butt! Darwin recognized full well that he didn’t have enough fossils to confirm his theory, and at least he admitted it.  Would that the idiots at the Discovery Institute were intellectually courageous enough to write a chapter on “difficulties on theory,” as did Darwin! Since when has an IDer admitted any problem with that theory?
> 
> But Darwin didn’t need evidence from fossils to support his theory: he had enough evidence from biogeography, from vestigial organs, from embryology, from the hierarchical arrangement of life, from evidence of heritable variation and from the efficacy of artificial selection—to convince people of evolution even if there had been _no_ fossils.  And convince thinking people he did.
> 
> Of course, since Darwin’s time the “missing” fossil evidence has appeared—in spades.  It’s all detailed in my book, and you can find it online, too. We have intermediates between early fish and amphibians, early amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, and reptiles and early mammals. We have lineages, especially of marine microfossils, but also of larger animals like horses, showing gradual change that accumulates into what can only be seen as macroevolution.
> 
> We have the once-missing intermediates between terrestrial artiodactyls and whales: a fine fossil series.  And, of course, we have all those fossils in the hominin family tree, from early australopithecines with apelike skulls and more modern human-like postcranial skeletons to more modern forms that closely resemble modern humans in nearly every feature. None of these were known in Darwin’s time.
> 
> For Berlinski to pretend that the fossil evidence doesn’t support Darwin, when every bloody fossilized tooth, bone, leaf, and integument cries out “evolution”, is the height of stupidity. Or, since I don’t think Berlinski is stupid, let’s say the height of intellectual dishonesty.  Berlinkski knows of the fossil record, and pretends it doesn’t exist. He’s a liar.
> 
> He also lies about whether Darwin (or modern biologists) think there are species. Berlinski implies that Darwin denied the existence of species. He didn’t, though he was at times confused about what they represented. Modern biologists, of course (at least most of them, with the exception of a few botanist or systematist miscreants), also realize that species are real units of nature, and most of us understand that they are _reproductive_ units, separated from other such units by genetic barriers to interbreeding.
> 
> After handily disposing of evolution, Berlinski takes out after natural selection:
> 
> Few serious biologists are today willing to defend the position that Dawkins expressed in _The Blind Watchmaker_. The metaphor remains stunning and so the watchmaker remains blind, but he is now deaf and dumb as well. With a few more impediments, he may as well be dead. The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura’s _The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution_ consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura’s theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief.
> 
> What Berlinski is saying here is twofold.  First, that there is no evidence for natural selection, either on genes or organisms. That’s palpable nonsense.  We have by now accumulated hundreds of cases of natural selection acting in real time on traits, not to mention evidence for a). the efficacy of artificial selection and b). the presence of pervasive genetic variation in natural populations, both of which indicate that fitness differentials in nature will lead perforce to evolutionary change.
> 
> Second, Berlinski implies that Kimura’s neutral theory nullifies natural selection.  It doesn’t. Kimura’s theory was a big advance in the field, suggesting and working out the consequences of genetic variants that don’t affect fitness.  And, indeed, much of molecular evolution (and an unknown amount of phenotypic evolution) may have been affected by drift. But even Kimura didn’t deny that natural selection was an important evolutionary force, and the only known evolutionary force that can produce adaptations. To say that the neutral theory left the emergence of complex biological features “an emigma” is simply a misrepresentation of what the neutral theory was about.
> 
> Further, population geneticists are starting to realize that evolution on the molecular level is NOT “entirely stochastic”.  First, we have the obviously adaptive and maladaptive molecular substitutions in coding positions in DNA: both the good ones, like mutations for insecticide resistance in insects, and the deleterious ones, like the molecular mutation in the beta chain of hemoglobin that causes sickle-cell anemia.
> 
> Further, recent sequencing work is beginning to show that many substitutions in DNA that were once thought to be “entirely stochastic”—due to the substitution of nucleotides that made no difference in fitness—actually do have effects on fitness, and so are not neutral.  These include many substitutions in the “third” or noncoding positons of DNA. Substitutions there, while they may not affect the sequence of the protein ultimately produced by that stretch of DNA, can have a fitness effect by drawing on pools of “transfer” RNA or nucleotide bases that are more or less abundant.
> 
> The “stochasticity” of molecular evolution is an unsettled issue, but it’s already clear that much of DNA evolution does _not_ adhere strictly to Kimura’s neutral theory.  Berlinski belies his ignorance here; he’s obviously not kept in touch with the literature.  Or perhaps he has, but is lying again.
> 
> Those are the two main factual claims in Berlinski’s piece (three if you count the “nonexistence” of species), and he’s wrong on both counts. The rest is his usual pompous lucubrations about Gould, theistic evolution, the materialism of science, and so on. And a slur slung our way as well:
> 
> That much _is_ at stake explains a good deal about the rhetoric of discussion in the United States, its vile tone. Biologists such as Jerry Coyne, Donald Prothero, Larry Moran or P.Z. Myers are of the opinion that if they cannot win the argument, they had better not lose it, and what better way not to lose an argument than to abuse one’s antagonist? If necessary, the biological establishment has been quite willing to demand of the Federal Courts that they do what it has been unable to do in the court of public opinion.
> 
> Sorry, David, but I didn’t abuse my antagonists, but tried to correct them by writing a calm, non-strident book about the evidence for evolution, one that has done pretty well.  Yes, I’ll sometimes abuse morons like you, but only because you _know_ that evidence and yet deliberately lie to the undereducated to keep them in the state of ignorance that religions prefer.
> 
> And yes, we do demand that Federal courts enforce the law, because we won’t have religious dogma insinuating itself into our children’s science classes. Or would you prefer to have science determined by the majority whim of the electorate? If so, then be prepared to have homeopathy and spiritual healing taught in medical schools, astrology in psychology classes, and alchemy in chemistry classes.
> 
> The reason why the “court of public opinion” doesn’t like evolution has nothing to do with its truth, and everything to do with its supposedly unsavory implications.  It tells us that we’re neither the products of a special design by God, nor imbued by a deity with some celestial purpose and meaning. People don’t like these implications and so they reject the theory. It has nothing to do with them having learned the evidence for evolution and found it insufficient.
> 
> I have news for you, David: you’re going to die in a few decades.  You probably don’t like that fact, either (I’m not comfortable with my own mortality, either), but it’s true. Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

_he is not secular..trust me I know my jews..I used F@#K  a jew....lol_


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now explain how one turned into another.
> Crickets chirping.
> 
> 
> 
> How come you don't understand the explanations?
> 
> Damn. Forgot again!
> 
> Invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.
> 
> Sooner or later I'll get it.
Click to expand...

I want YOU to explain it (when you stop ducking and dodging).  Oh, I forgot.  You CAN'T because you don't know.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> The evidence is fact. *Those species exist.* Another one who can't separate evidence from theory. They can't even explain why they can't understand explanations.
> 
> Oh well, batshit crazies, what would we do without them?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now explain how one turned into another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the links or do you need your hand held through that? If you need more info google is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean you can not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can but it would not be a 3 word sentence which you and your ilk are looking for. You have all demonstrated that you refuse to read any of the body of work in the links provided and that you do not understand basic concepts of science. I am not a scientist so I felt for a better explanation on anything to do with evolution that it should be left up to a scientist to explain it. There have been several links to papers, articles and videos explaining the many complexities of evolution yet none of you take the time to actually read or watch them. This is demonstrated in your questions which have nothing to do with the content provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of us have already seen this evidence. We find it lacking. If you are gullible enough to believe it, that's your problem.
Click to expand...


Really?  How many hours have you spent in a science laboratory or in the field collecting data?  None.  And any evidence presented here you don't look at either.  So you are not only intellectually dishonest about the science, you are not even honest enough to look at the science.


----------



## eots

Tuatara said:


> eots, maybe instead of spending all your time searching for that elusive atheist scientist that does not believe in evolution, you could better serve your time watching or reading the evolution links we provided.


I have and it seems as scientific as the dsm5
simple questions go unanswered..the theory is flawed


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea*
> *Atheist philosopher of physics on why ID is a reasonable idea Uncommon Descent*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, Bradley Monton is (was) a philosophy professor at University of Colorado.  He is not a scientist, and is no longer teaching there because he is being investigated for sexual harassment and misconduct.
> 
> Try again.  This time try finding a SCIENTIST who is qualified/certified in a RELEVANT scientific discipline, (I.e., geologist, biologist, medical researcher, etc.).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -
> I knew you were going to go to him.  Dabid Berlinski is also not a scientist.  He is a philosopher and also a senior jerk at the discovery institute where they renamed creationism intelligent design (although he claims not to advocate for intelligent design - yeah, right).  He describes himself as a secular Jew, but no secular Jew I know (and I know a lot of them, having been formerly married to one) supports creationism.  And again, he is not qualified or certified in a relevant scientific discipline.  Next.
> 
> David Berlinski makes an ass of himself defending intelligent design Why Evolution Is True
> 
> 
> 
> 
> know of no critic of evolution—perhaps save the late William F. Buckley, Jr.—who is at once so eloquent and so ignorant as David Berlinski.  The man has spent years attacking evolutionary biology and defending intelligent design (ID), and is, to my knowledge, the only living creationist who is not religious. (He claims to be an agnostic, though I have trouble believing that.) He’s also a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute, a position reserved for only the Highest Poo-Bahs of Ignorance.
> 
> Yesterday, at the Discovery Institute’s _News and Views_ site, Berlinski wrote “Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial,” a post apparently designed to fête the twentieth anniversary of Phillip Johnson’s execrable _Darwin on Trial: the _book that launched the ID movement.  Johnson’s book is full of inaccuracies and lies (I use the word deliberately, because no honest scholar could make the claims that he did).  And, sure enough, Berlinksi’s post is full of lies as well.  I’m not going to analyze it in detail, but here are a few blatant misrepresentations.
> 
> First, a specimen of how incredibly pompous and awkward Berlinski’s writing is. Do not write like this!  I think he’s trying to ape Gould’s style, possessed with a big vocabulary but lacking Gould’s wit and erudition.
> 
> Comments such as these [Michael Ghiselin’s withering criticism of _Darwin on Trial_] had the effect of raw meat dropped carelessly among carnivores. A scramble ensued to get the first bite. No one bothered to attack the preposterous Ghiselin. It was Richard Dawkins who had waggled his tempting rear end, and behind Dawkins, _fesse à fesse _[buttock to buttock] Charles Darwin. With the publication in 1991 of _Darwin on Trial_ Phil Johnson did what carnivores so often do: He took a bite.
> 
> This metaphor is neither apposite nor appetizing.  At any rate, here’s what Berlinski says. The first thing he gets dead wrong is the fossil record:
> 
> Every paleontologist writing since Darwin published his masterpiece in 1859, has known that the fossil record does not support Darwin’s theory. The theory predicted a continuum of biological forms, so much so that from the right perspective, species would themselves be seen as taxonomic artifacts, like the classification of certain sizes in men’s suiting as _husky_. Questions about the _origin_ of species were resolved in the best possible way: There are no species and so there is no problem. Inasmuch as the historical record suggested a _discrete_ progression of fixed biological forms, it was fatal to Darwin’s project. All the more reason, Darwin argued, to discount the evidence in favor of the theory. “I do not pretend,” he wrote, “that I should ever have suspected how poor a record of the mutations of life, the best preserved geological section presented, had not the difficulty of our not discovering innumerable transitional links between the species which appeared at the commencement and close of each formation, pressed so hardly on my theory.”
> 
> This is, as Johnson noted, self-serving gibberish.
> 
> Self-serving gibberish my butt! Darwin recognized full well that he didn’t have enough fossils to confirm his theory, and at least he admitted it.  Would that the idiots at the Discovery Institute were intellectually courageous enough to write a chapter on “difficulties on theory,” as did Darwin! Since when has an IDer admitted any problem with that theory?
> 
> But Darwin didn’t need evidence from fossils to support his theory: he had enough evidence from biogeography, from vestigial organs, from embryology, from the hierarchical arrangement of life, from evidence of heritable variation and from the efficacy of artificial selection—to convince people of evolution even if there had been _no_ fossils.  And convince thinking people he did.
> 
> Of course, since Darwin’s time the “missing” fossil evidence has appeared—in spades.  It’s all detailed in my book, and you can find it online, too. We have intermediates between early fish and amphibians, early amphibians and reptiles, reptiles and birds, and reptiles and early mammals. We have lineages, especially of marine microfossils, but also of larger animals like horses, showing gradual change that accumulates into what can only be seen as macroevolution.
> 
> We have the once-missing intermediates between terrestrial artiodactyls and whales: a fine fossil series.  And, of course, we have all those fossils in the hominin family tree, from early australopithecines with apelike skulls and more modern human-like postcranial skeletons to more modern forms that closely resemble modern humans in nearly every feature. None of these were known in Darwin’s time.
> 
> For Berlinski to pretend that the fossil evidence doesn’t support Darwin, when every bloody fossilized tooth, bone, leaf, and integument cries out “evolution”, is the height of stupidity. Or, since I don’t think Berlinski is stupid, let’s say the height of intellectual dishonesty.  Berlinkski knows of the fossil record, and pretends it doesn’t exist. He’s a liar.
> 
> He also lies about whether Darwin (or modern biologists) think there are species. Berlinski implies that Darwin denied the existence of species. He didn’t, though he was at times confused about what they represented. Modern biologists, of course (at least most of them, with the exception of a few botanist or systematist miscreants), also realize that species are real units of nature, and most of us understand that they are _reproductive_ units, separated from other such units by genetic barriers to interbreeding.
> 
> After handily disposing of evolution, Berlinski takes out after natural selection:
> 
> Few serious biologists are today willing to defend the position that Dawkins expressed in _The Blind Watchmaker_. The metaphor remains stunning and so the watchmaker remains blind, but he is now deaf and dumb as well. With a few more impediments, he may as well be dead. The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura’s _The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution_ consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura’s theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief.
> 
> What Berlinski is saying here is twofold.  First, that there is no evidence for natural selection, either on genes or organisms. That’s palpable nonsense.  We have by now accumulated hundreds of cases of natural selection acting in real time on traits, not to mention evidence for a). the efficacy of artificial selection and b). the presence of pervasive genetic variation in natural populations, both of which indicate that fitness differentials in nature will lead perforce to evolutionary change.
> 
> Second, Berlinski implies that Kimura’s neutral theory nullifies natural selection.  It doesn’t. Kimura’s theory was a big advance in the field, suggesting and working out the consequences of genetic variants that don’t affect fitness.  And, indeed, much of molecular evolution (and an unknown amount of phenotypic evolution) may have been affected by drift. But even Kimura didn’t deny that natural selection was an important evolutionary force, and the only known evolutionary force that can produce adaptations. To say that the neutral theory left the emergence of complex biological features “an emigma” is simply a misrepresentation of what the neutral theory was about.
> 
> Further, population geneticists are starting to realize that evolution on the molecular level is NOT “entirely stochastic”.  First, we have the obviously adaptive and maladaptive molecular substitutions in coding positions in DNA: both the good ones, like mutations for insecticide resistance in insects, and the deleterious ones, like the molecular mutation in the beta chain of hemoglobin that causes sickle-cell anemia.
> 
> Further, recent sequencing work is beginning to show that many substitutions in DNA that were once thought to be “entirely stochastic”—due to the substitution of nucleotides that made no difference in fitness—actually do have effects on fitness, and so are not neutral.  These include many substitutions in the “third” or noncoding positons of DNA. Substitutions there, while they may not affect the sequence of the protein ultimately produced by that stretch of DNA, can have a fitness effect by drawing on pools of “transfer” RNA or nucleotide bases that are more or less abundant.
> 
> The “stochasticity” of molecular evolution is an unsettled issue, but it’s already clear that much of DNA evolution does _not_ adhere strictly to Kimura’s neutral theory.  Berlinski belies his ignorance here; he’s obviously not kept in touch with the literature.  Or perhaps he has, but is lying again.
> 
> Those are the two main factual claims in Berlinski’s piece (three if you count the “nonexistence” of species), and he’s wrong on both counts. The rest is his usual pompous lucubrations about Gould, theistic evolution, the materialism of science, and so on. And a slur slung our way as well:
> 
> That much _is_ at stake explains a good deal about the rhetoric of discussion in the United States, its vile tone. Biologists such as Jerry Coyne, Donald Prothero, Larry Moran or P.Z. Myers are of the opinion that if they cannot win the argument, they had better not lose it, and what better way not to lose an argument than to abuse one’s antagonist? If necessary, the biological establishment has been quite willing to demand of the Federal Courts that they do what it has been unable to do in the court of public opinion.
> 
> Sorry, David, but I didn’t abuse my antagonists, but tried to correct them by writing a calm, non-strident book about the evidence for evolution, one that has done pretty well.  Yes, I’ll sometimes abuse morons like you, but only because you _know_ that evidence and yet deliberately lie to the undereducated to keep them in the state of ignorance that religions prefer.
> 
> And yes, we do demand that Federal courts enforce the law, because we won’t have religious dogma insinuating itself into our children’s science classes. Or would you prefer to have science determined by the majority whim of the electorate? If so, then be prepared to have homeopathy and spiritual healing taught in medical schools, astrology in psychology classes, and alchemy in chemistry classes.
> 
> The reason why the “court of public opinion” doesn’t like evolution has nothing to do with its truth, and everything to do with its supposedly unsavory implications.  It tells us that we’re neither the products of a special design by God, nor imbued by a deity with some celestial purpose and meaning. People don’t like these implications and so they reject the theory. It has nothing to do with them having learned the evidence for evolution and found it insufficient.
> 
> I have news for you, David: you’re going to die in a few decades.  You probably don’t like that fact, either (I’m not comfortable with my own mortality, either), but it’s true. Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _he is not secular..trust me I know my jews..I used F@#K  a jew....lol_
Click to expand...


For once, I agree you.  He is not a secular anything, and certainly is not an atheist.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> eots, maybe instead of spending all your time searching for that elusive atheist scientist that does not believe in evolution, you could better serve your time watching or reading the evolution links we provided.
> 
> 
> 
> I have and it seems as scientific as the dsm5
> simple questions go unanswered..the theory is flawed
Click to expand...


Really?  Which questions are those?  Be specific.  What is your alternative?


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, now explain how one turned into another.
> 
> 
> 
> Read the links or do you need your hand held through that? If you need more info google is your friend.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you mean you can not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can but it would not be a 3 word sentence which you and your ilk are looking for. You have all demonstrated that you refuse to read any of the body of work in the links provided and that you do not understand basic concepts of science. I am not a scientist so I felt for a better explanation on anything to do with evolution that it should be left up to a scientist to explain it. There have been several links to papers, articles and videos explaining the many complexities of evolution yet none of you take the time to actually read or watch them. This is demonstrated in your questions which have nothing to do with the content provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of us have already seen this evidence. We find it lacking. If you are gullible enough to believe it, that's your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  How many hours have you spent in a science laboratory or in the field collecting data?  None.  And any evidence presented here you don't look at either.  So you are not only intellectually dishonest about the science, you are not even honest enough to look at the science.
Click to expand...

Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the links or do you need your hand held through that? If you need more info google is your friend.
> 
> 
> 
> you mean you can not..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes I can but it would not be a 3 word sentence which you and your ilk are looking for. You have all demonstrated that you refuse to read any of the body of work in the links provided and that you do not understand basic concepts of science. I am not a scientist so I felt for a better explanation on anything to do with evolution that it should be left up to a scientist to explain it. There have been several links to papers, articles and videos explaining the many complexities of evolution yet none of you take the time to actually read or watch them. This is demonstrated in your questions which have nothing to do with the content provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of us have already seen this evidence. We find it lacking. If you are gullible enough to believe it, that's your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  How many hours have you spent in a science laboratory or in the field collecting data?  None.  And any evidence presented here you don't look at either.  So you are not only intellectually dishonest about the science, you are not even honest enough to look at the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
Click to expand...


Yeah, he was a lab assistant.  You don't even need to have a degree to be a lab assistant.  A student can do that.  I did that for a while when I was a student.  The fact of the matter is that he is not a scientist, and works for the Discovery Institute, home of Intelligent Design.   By the way, you should watch his debate with Christopher Hitchens.  It's on youtube.  Hitchens destroys him.


----------



## orogenicman

By the way, IIASA conducts interdisciplinary scientific studies on environmental, economic, technological and social issues, none of which has anything to do with evolutionary biology.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> No here has produced any evidence that cast doubt on the observations  of David Berlinkski..in fact very much the opposite



Translation:  I (eots) have not read orogenicman's post #883.


----------



## NoNukes

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that scientific theories are never categorised as fact?
> 
> That they represent the current best available knowledge?
> 
> Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
Click to expand...

You are the type of person who embarrasses America internationally. You should care more for your country.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> I want YOU to explain it (when you stop ducking and dodging).  Oh, I forgot.  You CAN'T because you don't know.


Oh. Batshit crazy meets foot stamping tantrum.

Can't understand explanations, can't explain why he can't understand explanations, demands more explanations he won't be able to explain why he can't understand.

Unvanquished ignorance, champion of the world.


----------



## Mr.Right

NoNukes said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that scientific theories are never categorised as fact?
> 
> That they represent the current best available knowledge?
> 
> Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are the type of person who embarrasses America internationally. You should care more for your country.
Click to expand...

I love you too, sweetie.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> you mean you can not..
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can but it would not be a 3 word sentence which you and your ilk are looking for. You have all demonstrated that you refuse to read any of the body of work in the links provided and that you do not understand basic concepts of science. I am not a scientist so I felt for a better explanation on anything to do with evolution that it should be left up to a scientist to explain it. There have been several links to papers, articles and videos explaining the many complexities of evolution yet none of you take the time to actually read or watch them. This is demonstrated in your questions which have nothing to do with the content provided.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Most of us have already seen this evidence. We find it lacking. If you are gullible enough to believe it, that's your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  How many hours have you spent in a science laboratory or in the field collecting data?  None.  And any evidence presented here you don't look at either.  So you are not only intellectually dishonest about the science, you are not even honest enough to look at the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, he was a lab assistant.  You don't even need to have a degree to be a lab assistant.  A student can do that.  I did that for a while when I was a student.  The fact of the matter is that he is not a scientist, and works for the Discovery Institute, home of Intelligent Design.   By the way, you should watch his debate with Christopher Hitchens.  It's on youtube.  Hitchens destroys him.
Click to expand...

In your dreams..


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I can but it would not be a 3 word sentence which you and your ilk are looking for. You have all demonstrated that you refuse to read any of the body of work in the links provided and that you do not understand basic concepts of science. I am not a scientist so I felt for a better explanation on anything to do with evolution that it should be left up to a scientist to explain it. There have been several links to papers, articles and videos explaining the many complexities of evolution yet none of you take the time to actually read or watch them. This is demonstrated in your questions which have nothing to do with the content provided.
> 
> 
> 
> Most of us have already seen this evidence. We find it lacking. If you are gullible enough to believe it, that's your problem.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  How many hours have you spent in a science laboratory or in the field collecting data?  None.  And any evidence presented here you don't look at either.  So you are not only intellectually dishonest about the science, you are not even honest enough to look at the science.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Berlinski was a research assistant in molecular biology at Columbia University,[3] and was a research fellow at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, he was a lab assistant.  You don't even need to have a degree to be a lab assistant.  A student can do that.  I did that for a while when I was a student.  The fact of the matter is that he is not a scientist, and works for the Discovery Institute, home of Intelligent Design.   By the way, you should watch his debate with Christopher Hitchens.  It's on youtube.  Hitchens destroys him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In your dreams..
Click to expand...


Don't believe me.  Go watch it and weep.


----------



## orogenicman

More evidence:

3.3-million-year-old stone tools are world s oldest - UPI.com



> SAN FRANCISCO, April 16 (UPI) -- A group of archaeologists say they've uncovered the world's oldest tools. At 3.3 million years old, the newly unearthed tools predate the evolution of modern humans.
> 
> Researchers, who presented their findings Tuesday at the annual meeting of the Paleoanthropology Society in San Francisco, said the primitive stone tools were likely made by one of modern man's ancestors, a hominid from the genus _Australopithecus_.
> "The artifacts were clearly knapped [created by intentional flaking] and not the result of accidental fracture of rocks," lead researcher Sonia Harmand, an archaeologist at Stony Brook University in New York, told the meeting, according to Science Magazine.
> Until now, the record was held by a set of stone tools dated at 2.6 million years old, around the time the first evidence of _Homo_ lineages appear. But the new set of tools -- 20 well-preserved flakes, cores and anvils found just three miles west of Kenya's Lake Turkana -- suggest stone tool-making wasn't exclusive to the first fully fledged humans.
> "The obvious implication is that stone tools were invented and used by multiple lineages of early hominins," John Hawks, a University of Wisconsin anthropologist who wasn't involved in the discovery, explained on his blog. "Just as there were different styles of body shape and bipedal mechanics among early hominins, there were likely different styles of technical traditions."
> Hawks says the discovery isn't all that surprising, given the fact chimpanzee populations have been shown to use rather complex tool sets, and to occasionally incorporate objects made from stone.
> "All hominins added initially was the deliberate flaking of stone to make objects recognizable in the archaeological record," Hawks added. "That is to say, humans have elaborated upon a technical ability that is latent among all the apes."
> In 2010, archaeologists reported finding animal bone incisions made by stone blades in Dikika region of Ethiopia. The bones and incisions were found to be more than 3 million years old, and were uncovered near the remains of an _Australopithecus_ child. That discovery was treated with much skepticism, but the latest findings seem to corroborate the fact that stone tool-making isn't the domain of modern man alone.
> "With the cut marks from Dikika we had the victim," Zeresenay Alemseged, a paleoanthropologist at the California Academy of Sciences and member of the 2010 research team, told the Independent. "Harmand's discovery gives us the smoking gun."


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want YOU to explain it (when you stop ducking and dodging).  Oh, I forgot.  You CAN'T because you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Batshit crazy meets foot stamping tantrum.
> 
> Can't understand explanations, can't explain why he can't understand explanations, demands more explanations he won't be able to explain why he can't understand.
> 
> Unvanquished ignorance, champion of the world.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  Cat got your tongue?


----------



## Mr.Right

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want YOU to explain it (when you stop ducking and dodging).  Oh, I forgot.  You CAN'T because you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Batshit crazy meets foot stamping tantrum.
> 
> Can't understand explanations, can't explain why he can't understand explanations, demands more explanations he won't be able to explain why he can't understand.
> 
> Unvanquished ignorance, champion of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  Cat got your tongue?
Click to expand...

Allow me to refresh everyone's memory. I'm looking for evidence for evolution. So far, I haven't seen any. What I have seen is speculation. I've seen stories fabricated from whole Cloth. I've even seen some blatant lies. No evidence. There is nothing you can point to and say that this is proof of evolution.


----------



## orogenicman

Mr.Right said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I want YOU to explain it (when you stop ducking and dodging).  Oh, I forgot.  You CAN'T because you don't know.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh. Batshit crazy meets foot stamping tantrum.
> 
> Can't understand explanations, can't explain why he can't understand explanations, demands more explanations he won't be able to explain why he can't understand.
> 
> Unvanquished ignorance, champion of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  Cat got your tongue?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Allow me to refresh everyone's memory. I'm looking for evidence for evolution. So far, I haven't seen any. What I have seen is speculation. I've seen stories fabricated from whole Cloth. I've even seen some blatant lies. No evidence. There is nothing you can point to and say that this is proof of evolution.
Click to expand...


Actually, what you mean to say is that there is nothing you will accept as evidence because you don't actually want evidence, since you are spamming the science forums.  If that is not true, and you really cannot see any evidence, may I suggest a pair of these?


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  Cat got your tongue?


I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.

If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.

Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.

I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.

_'YHWH done it_', in case you were wondering.


----------



## cnm

Mr.Right said:


> Allow me to refresh everyone's memory. I'm looking for evidence for evolution. So far, I haven't seen any. What I have seen is speculation. I've seen stories fabricated from whole Cloth. I've even seen some blatant lies. No evidence. There is nothing you can point to and say that this is proof of evolution.



Still you conflate proof and evidence. Will it never stop?


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  Cat got your tongue?
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.*
> 
> If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.
> 
> Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.
> 
> _'YWHW done it_', in case you were wondering.
Click to expand...

Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  Cat got your tongue?
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.*
> 
> If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.
> 
> Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.
> 
> _'YWHW done it_', in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
Click to expand...


Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  Take a pill. And get some therapy.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?


I don't think my time is wasted pointing out to invincibly ignorant batshit crazies that they are in fact behaving like invincibly ignorant batshit crazies. It may be a dirty job but someone has to do it.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?
> 
> 
> 
> It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science  _random accident  theory_ of creation at the primordial soup stage ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.
Click to expand...

then in a controlled environment you should nave no problem creating a one cell lil beasty...get at it


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  Cat got your tongue?
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.*
> 
> If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.
> 
> Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.
> 
> _'YWHW done it_', in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
Click to expand...




orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
Click to expand...

natural selection not evolution


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ignorance of the facts on your part is no ones fault but your own.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming.  Your posts are probably the best example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor dear. Your tender sensibilities are offended by those _evilutionists_ who dare challenge the superstitions that cause you to live in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> If nothing else, this thread has served to display the profound ignorance of the religious zealot who lives in fear and denial of contingent reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming (again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
Click to expand...

I see you're still defending both your self imposed ignorance and the goofy conspiracy theories about science so common among Christian Taliban.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming.  Your posts are probably the best example.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor dear. Your tender sensibilities are offended by those _evilutionists_ who dare challenge the superstitions that cause you to live in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> If nothing else, this thread has served to display the profound ignorance of the religious zealot who lives in fear and denial of contingent reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for confirming (again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're still defending both your self imposed ignorance and the goofy conspiracy theories about science so common among Christian Taliban.
Click to expand...

sounds like you are the one with the conspiracy...goofy


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...] BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> 
> 
> You've had that explained. How about you explaining why you can't understand it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't explained a damn thing.
Click to expand...

The explanations have been provided. You just find it perfectly acceptable to defend your ignorance.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor dear. Your tender sensibilities are offended by those _evilutionists_ who dare challenge the superstitions that cause you to live in trembling fear of angry gawds.
> 
> If nothing else, this thread has served to display the profound ignorance of the religious zealot who lives in fear and denial of contingent reality.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming (again).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're still defending both your self imposed ignorance and the goofy conspiracy theories about science so common among Christian Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sounds like you are the one with the conspiracy...goofy
Click to expand...

It doesn't like that at all. 

Now run along and find more space alien conspiracies to keep you entertained.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  Cat got your tongue?
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.*
> 
> If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.
> 
> Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.
> 
> _'YWHW done it_', in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural selection not evolution
Click to expand...

Yours is a common error among the science illiterate.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...] BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> 
> 
> You've had that explained. How about you explaining why you can't understand it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't explained a damn thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The explanations have been provided. You just find it perfectly acceptable to defend your ignorance.
Click to expand...

some offered the reasons for thier belifes


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  Cat got your tongue?
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.*
> 
> If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.
> 
> Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.
> 
> _'YWHW done it_', in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural selection not evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a common error among the science illiterate.
Click to expand...

science literate.. is that taking a theory offered  and regurgitating it back?


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...] BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> 
> 
> You've had that explained. How about you explaining why you can't understand it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't explained a damn thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The explanations have been provided. You just find it perfectly acceptable to defend your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some offered the reasons for thier belifes
Click to expand...

That nice, dear. However, space aliens and conspiracy theories I'll leave to you of the more, how shall we say.... _easily persuaded_ types.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for confirming (again).
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're still defending both your self imposed ignorance and the goofy conspiracy theories about science so common among Christian Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sounds like you are the one with the conspiracy...goofy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't like that at all.
> 
> Now run along and find more space alien conspiracies to keep you entertained.
Click to expand...

I have no space alien conspiracy..that was


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.*
> 
> If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.
> 
> Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.
> 
> _'YWHW done it_', in case you were wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural selection not evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a common error among the science illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> science literate.. is that taking a theory offered  and regurgitating it back?
Click to expand...

No. That be would taking a well supported scientific theory and presenting it to you folks who make up the fringe loon component of the space alien conspiracy theorists. 

I'm convinced you fundamentalist loons have no clue as to just how pathetic your denial of facts makes you appear.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I just find it remarkable that faced with facts supporting biological evolution, you're left stuttering and mumbling as you simply have no counter argument.
> 
> 
> 
> I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see you're still defending both your self imposed ignorance and the goofy conspiracy theories about science so common among Christian Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sounds like you are the one with the conspiracy...goofy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't like that at all.
> 
> Now run along and find more space alien conspiracies to keep you entertained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no space alien conspiracy..that was
Click to expand...

And you're simply cutting and pasting the same nonsense you cut and pasted previously. You're just another pointless spammer.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural selection not evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a common error among the science illiterate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> science literate.. is that taking a theory offered  and regurgitating it back?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. That be would taking a well supported scientific theory and presenting it to you folks who make up the fringe loon component of the space alien conspiracy theorists.
> 
> I'm convinced you fundamentalist loons have no clue as to just how pathetic your denial of facts makes you appear.
Click to expand...

what "well supported scientific theory "did I present  to "folks who make up the fringe loon component of the space alien conspiracy" ?


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?
> 
> 
> 
> It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science  _random accident  theory_ of creation at the primordial soup stage ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then in a controlled environment you should nave no problem creating a one cell lil beasty...get at it
Click to expand...


And one day in the not too distant future we will be able to do just that.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I DON'T find it amazing that when you're challenged to provide proof and can't, your only response is personal attacks and empty remarks.  BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> 
> 
> I see you're still defending both your self imposed ignorance and the goofy conspiracy theories about science so common among Christian Taliban.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> sounds like you are the one with the conspiracy...goofy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't like that at all.
> 
> Now run along and find more space alien conspiracies to keep you entertained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no space alien conspiracy..that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're simply cutting and pasting the same nonsense you cut and pasted previously. You're just another pointless spammer.
Click to expand...

the spammer is the one that keeps trolling babble about alien conspiracy every third post


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  Cat got your tongue?
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.*
> 
> If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.
> 
> Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.
> 
> _'YWHW done it_', in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural selection not evolution
Click to expand...


Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.  You didn't know this?  Huh.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> irrelevant ? it is the supposed cosmic evolution that lead to our earthly and human evolution is it not ?
> 
> 
> 
> It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science  _random accident  theory_ of creation at the primordial soup stage ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then in a controlled environment you should nave no problem creating a one cell lil beasty...get at it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And one day in the not too distant future we will be able to do just that.
Click to expand...

thats your version of saying Jesus is going to be here soon ...lol


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> [...] BTW, I'm still waiting for you to explain how one species became another.
> 
> 
> 
> You've had that explained. How about you explaining why you can't understand it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't explained a damn thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The explanations have been provided. You just find it perfectly acceptable to defend your ignorance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> some offered the reasons for thier belifes
Click to expand...


And what is the reason for your belief?


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is the best current knowledge, but who knows? In any case it is irrelevant to a discussion on the evidence for evolution.
> 
> 
> 
> so you are convinced with certainty on the mainstream science  _random accident  theory_ of creation at the primordial soup stage ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biochemical reactions are not random, but rather, obey the laws and principles of physics and chemistry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> then in a controlled environment you should nave no problem creating a one cell lil beasty...get at it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And one day in the not too distant future we will be able to do just that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> thats your version of saying Jesus is going to be here soon ...lol
Click to expand...


No, that's you projecting your failed beliefs on others.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you're still defending both your self imposed ignorance and the goofy conspiracy theories about science so common among Christian Taliban.
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like you are the one with the conspiracy...goofy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't like that at all.
> 
> Now run along and find more space alien conspiracies to keep you entertained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no space alien conspiracy..that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're simply cutting and pasting the same nonsense you cut and pasted previously. You're just another pointless spammer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the spammer is the one that keeps trolling babble about alien conspiracy every third post
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I'm responding to your pointless cutting and pasting of goofy material that is not related to the thread and only intended to spam the topic with your endless, silly conspiracy theories.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to explain it in your own words.  Cat got your tongue?
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.*
> 
> If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.
> 
> Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.
> 
> _'YWHW done it_', in case you were wondering.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural selection not evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.  You didn't know this?  Huh.
Click to expand...

not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> sounds like you are the one with the conspiracy...goofy
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't like that at all.
> 
> Now run along and find more space alien conspiracies to keep you entertained.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no space alien conspiracy..that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're simply cutting and pasting the same nonsense you cut and pasted previously. You're just another pointless spammer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the spammer is the one that keeps trolling babble about alien conspiracy every third post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but I'm responding to your pointless cutting and pasting of goofy material that is not related to the thread and only intended to spam the topic with your endless, silly conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

endless conspiracies ?..wtf are on about you rambling repetitive cretin ?


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.*
> 
> If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.
> 
> Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.
> 
> _'YWHW done it_', in case you were wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural selection not evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.  You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not
Click to expand...


If your family is a species of anteater, and one has a longer snout (a mutation) than the rest, it can reach further into the ant hill to reach more ants to eat.  The longer snout confers an advantage over the rest, making it more likely to live long enough to reproduce.  And it confers that advantage to its children.  And so on and so forth.  So for you to say mutation is not a mechanism of evolution but natural selection is demonstrates that you don't know what a mutation is and you don't know what natural selection is.  But we knew that already.  Right?


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't like that at all.
> 
> Now run along and find more space alien conspiracies to keep you entertained.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no space alien conspiracy..that was
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you're simply cutting and pasting the same nonsense you cut and pasted previously. You're just another pointless spammer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the spammer is the one that keeps trolling babble about alien conspiracy every third post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, but I'm responding to your pointless cutting and pasting of goofy material that is not related to the thread and only intended to spam the topic with your endless, silly conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> endless conspiracies ?..wtf are on about you rambling repetitive cretin ?
Click to expand...

I'm just reminding you of your propensity to spam this thread with your goofy conspiracy theories and that your cutting and pasting of the same material is pointless.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.*
> 
> If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.
> 
> Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.
> 
> _'YWHW done it_', in case you were wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural selection not evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.  You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not
Click to expand...

Of course it is. Do you feel good about announcing your abysmal ignorance in a public message board?


----------



## orogenicman

This isn't evolution, but it is related to the abiotic theory of the origin of life.  I include it here because it has been part of the discussion:

Proto-suns teeming with prebiotic molecules -- ScienceDaily



> Summary:
> Complex organic molecules such as formamide, from which sugars, amino acids and even nucleic acids essential for life can be made, already appear in the regions where stars similar to our Sun are born. Astrophysicists have detected this biomolecule in five protostellar clouds and propose that it forms on tiny dust grains.
> 
> One of science's greatest challenges is learning about the origin of life and its precursor molecules. Formamide (NH2CHO) is an excellent candidate for helping to search for answers as it contains four essential elements (nitrogen, hydrogen, carbon and oxygen), and can synthesise amino acids, carbohydrates, nucleic acids and other key compounds for living organisms.
> 
> However, this molecule is also abundant in space, mainly in molecular clouds or the concentrations of gas and dust where stars are born. This has been confirmed by an international team of researchers, including Spanish investigators, after searching for formamide in ten star-forming regions.
> 
> "We have detected formamide in five protosuns, which proves that this molecule (in all probability also true for our Solar System) is relatively abundant in molecular clouds and is formed in the very early stages of evolution towards a star and its planets," explains Ana López Sepulcre, lead author of the study and researcher at the University of Tokyo (Japan).
> 
> The other five objects where formamide has not been detected are less evolved and colder, "which indicates that a minimum temperature is needed for it to be detected in the gas," adds the scientist.
> 
> The study, which has just been published in the _Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society_, also offers clues on how formamide could be created in interstellar conditions. "We propose that it is formed on the surface of the dust grains of the molecular clouds from isocyanic acid (HNCO), by a process of hydrogenation or addition of hydrogen atoms," says López Sepulcre.
> 
> "Formamide formed in this way remains attached to the dust grain until the temperature is high enough (in other words, until the protostar evolves) to cause its sublimation," she argues. "And that is when we can detect it with radio telescopes."
> 
> The researchers have achieved this thanks to a telescope measuring 30 m in diameter at the Institut de Radioastronomie Millimétrique (IRAM), located in the Sierra Nevada, as part of the framework of the international project Astrochemical Surveys At IRAM (ASAI). Its principal investigators are Bertrand Lefloch from the Institut de Planétologie et d'Astrophysique de Grenoble (CNRS, France) and Rafael Bachiller from the Observatorio Astronómico Nacional (IGN, Spain).
> 
> *More organic molecules in space*
> 
> Yet formamide is not the only potentially prebiotic organic molecule analysed in space. Just this month the detection of methyl cyanide (CH3CN) around the young star MWC 480, already in a protoplanetary stage, has been published in the journal 'Nature'.
> 
> "This other study demonstrates that complex molecules survive until the later stages of stellar formation, and even continue forming afterwards," López Sepulcre notes, but formamide does have some advantages: "It contains oxygen (another essential element for life) and is a strong candidate as a precursor of prebiotic material, as not only amino acids can be formed from it (which could also be synthesised from CH3CN), but also nucleic acids and bases, or rather genetic material."
> 
> "This proves the significance of our study," emphasises the researcher, who sums it up as: "formamide, a significant biomolecule, is already formed in regions where stars like our Sun are born in the very early stages and in relatively high amounts."
> 
> 
> *Story Source:*
> 
> The above story is based on materials provided by *Plataforma SINC*. _Note: Materials may be edited for content and length._
> 
> *Journal Reference*:
> 
> 
> A. López-Sepulcre, Ali A. Jaber, E. Mendoza, B. Lefloch, C. Ceccarelli, C. Vastel, R. Bachiller, J. Cernicharo, C. Codella, C. Kahane, M. Kama, M. Tafalla. *Shedding light on the formation of the pre-biotic molecule formamide with ASAI*. _Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society_, 2015 [link]


----------



## eots




----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural selection not evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.  You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your family is a species of anteater, and one has a longer snout (a mutation) than the rest, it can reach further into the ant hill to reach more ants to eat.  The longer snout confers an advantage over the rest, making it more likely to live long enough to reproduce.  And it confers that advantage to its children.  And so on and so forth.  So for you to say mutation is not a mechanism of evolution but natural selection is demonstrates that you don't know what a mutation is and you don't know what natural selection is.  But we knew that already.  Right?
Click to expand...


Or it could just mean that one of your family members (I won't name names) lies a lot, and so has Pinocchio syndrome.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> View attachment 39847



Do you know what can act (and has been shown to act) as a primitive cell wall and is very common on Earth?


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can't imagine why you think I'd waste the time on an invincibly ignorant batshit crazy.*
> 
> If you refuse to understand the clear explanations you've already had nor can explain what you can't understand about them then there's not much point further explaining the reality based world.
> 
> Perhaps you should look at faith based stories of the world, then you won't have to bother about demanding evidence based explanations you can't understand.
> 
> I'm sure you'll be happier in fantasy land where every question has the same easy to remember answer.
> 
> _'YWHW done it_', in case you were wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think I'm misrepresenting Evolution by saying that it is randomness and accidental. That's all you guys leave us to conclude, since you don't allow God or some higher intelligence to be involved.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural selection not evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.  You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not
Click to expand...

I guess you have never heard of the flu virus?


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes indeed, others are reading this.  And he's right.  You people wouldn't know evidence if it bit you in the arse.  And the fact is, evidence isn't what you people want.  What you people want is to spam science forums like this one with your scam queries about "evidence" that you don't actually give a shite about.  Seems you can't argue the evidence, and so this is all you can manage with your weak minds.  My advice?  *Take a pill. And get some therapy*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is nothing about random and accidental about a nut with a soft shell developing a harder shell as a result of predation.
> 
> Scientists don't throw up their hands in frustration and proclaim "god did it" because such a tautology doesn't explain anything.  That is something we leave to the faithful, and as we all know, faith is a belief in something not in evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural selection not evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.  You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your family is a species of anteater, and one has a longer snout (a mutation) than the rest, it can reach further into the ant hill to reach more ants to eat.  The longer snout confers an advantage over the rest, making it more likely to live long enough to reproduce.  And it confers that advantage to its children.  And so on and so forth.  So for you to say mutation is not a mechanism of evolution but natural selection is demonstrates that you don't know what a mutation is and you don't know what natural selection is.  But we knew that already.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it could just mean that one of your family members (I won't name names) lies a lot, and so has Pinocchio syndrome.
Click to expand...

having a gene for a larger nose is not a mutation..look what can be done with breeds of dog


----------



## eots

*Isnt God awesome...



 *


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

As the earth changes so too must life change, it must evolve and adapt; absent evolution life would have been extinguished on this planet long ago – indeed, life may never have developed absent the process of genetic mutation and evolution.


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lik
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence.*
> Ben Jacob E1, Becker I, Shapira Y, Levine H.
> *Author information*
> 
> *Abstract*
> Bacteria have developed intricate communication capabilities (e.g. quorum-sensing, chemotactic signaling and plasmid exchange) to cooperatively self-organize into highly structured colonies with elevated environmental adaptability. We propose that bacteria use their intracellular flexibility, involving signal transduction networks and genomic plasticity, to collectively maintain linguistic communication: self and shared interpretations of chemical cues, exchange of chemical messages (semantic) and dialogues (pragmatic). Meaning-based communication permits colonial identity, intentional behavior (e.g. pheromone-based courtship for mating), purposeful alteration of colony structure (e.g. formation of fruiting bodies), decision-making (e.g. to sporulate) and the recognition and identification of other colonies - features we might begin to associate with a bacterial social intelligence. Such a social intelligence, should it exist, would require going beyond communication to encompass unknown additional intracellular processes to generate inheritable colonial memory and commonly shared genomic context.
> Bacterial linguistic communication and social intelligence. - PubMed - NCBI
> 
> 
> 15276612
> 
> [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> 
> 
> 
> You ignorantly assign human attributes to bacteria as you do your gawds.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr right said there isnt one solid piece of scientific evidence for evolution.
> 
> Wait? The dude doesnt accept any scientific evidence. Its not that it doesnt exist. He just doesnt like any of it.
> 
> If only men 2000 years ago wrote about it then he'd believe because they were so smart back then. Lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I daid. You're delusional. There are many respected scientists who think evolution is wrong. I guess they're scientific illiterates too?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not any scientists believe that evolution is wrong doesn't mean that they are respected.  The bulk of scientists who don't accept evolution are, in fact, still respected for valid works they have done, but not for their position on evolution.  And the fact remains that there are few of these scientists, not many.  And every single one of them are evangelical creationist Christians.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not true
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Explain why he is wrong.


----------



## sealybobo

eots said:


> *Isnt God awesome...
> View attachment 39848 *


If god is a fishing lure sure.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural selection not evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.  You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your family is a species of anteater, and one has a longer snout (a mutation) than the rest, it can reach further into the ant hill to reach more ants to eat.  The longer snout confers an advantage over the rest, making it more likely to live long enough to reproduce.  And it confers that advantage to its children.  And so on and so forth.  So for you to say mutation is not a mechanism of evolution but natural selection is demonstrates that you don't know what a mutation is and you don't know what natural selection is.  But we knew that already.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it could just mean that one of your family members (I won't name names) lies a lot, and so has Pinocchio syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> having a gene for a larger nose is not a mutation..look what can be done with breeds of dog
Click to expand...

You're just slow. Natural selection is a process that acts upon those mutations that confer an advantage for survival.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> *Isnt God awesome...
> *


Not so much. It wasn't the gawds who developed streaming media.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Isnt God awesome...*
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much. It wasn't the gawds who developed streaming media.
Click to expand...

it is not plural, there is just one all originating source to all of creation


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Isnt God awesome...*
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much. It wasn't the gawds who developed streaming media.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it is not plural, there is just one all originating source to all of creation
Click to expand...

Except for all the other alleged gawds as sources. To the back of the line you go with your poser gawds.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural selection not evolution
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural selection is the mechanism of evolution.  You didn't know this?  Huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If your family is a species of anteater, and one has a longer snout (a mutation) than the rest, it can reach further into the ant hill to reach more ants to eat.  The longer snout confers an advantage over the rest, making it more likely to live long enough to reproduce.  And it confers that advantage to its children.  And so on and so forth.  So for you to say mutation is not a mechanism of evolution but natural selection is demonstrates that you don't know what a mutation is and you don't know what natural selection is.  But we knew that already.  Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Or it could just mean that one of your family members (I won't name names) lies a lot, and so has Pinocchio syndrome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> having a gene for a larger nose is not a mutation..look what can be done with breeds of dog
Click to expand...


They are mutations.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> *Isnt God awesome...
> View attachment 39848 *



I know what you are trying to claim here, but that was addressed in the Dover trial and shown to be false.  The judge even admonished the Discovery Institute's "expert" about it.  Sorry.


----------



## orogenicman

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> As the earth changes so too must life change, it must evolve and adapt; absent evolution life would have been extinguished on this planet long ago – indeed, life may never have developed absent the process of genetic mutation and evolution.



Exactly.


----------



## orogenicman

More evidence for evolution:

40 million-year-old family tree of baleen whales

40 million-year-old family tree of baleen whales -- ScienceDaily



> Summary:
> New research is providing the most comprehensive picture of the evolutionary history of baleen whales, which are not only the largest animals ever to live on earth, but also among the most unusual.
> 
> Most other mammals feed on plants or grab a single prey animal at a time, but baleen whales are famous for their gigantic mouths and their ability to gulp and filter an enormous volume of water and food.
> 
> In a paper appearing in the UK journal _Royal Society Open Science_, Otago Geology PhD graduate Dr Felix Marx and Professor Ewan Fordyce present a comprehensive family tree of living and extinct baleen whales stretching back nearly 40 million years.
> 
> The pair says that similar family trees have been constructed before, but theirs is by far the largest and, crucially, the first to be directly calibrated using many dated fossils.
> 
> The research shows which whales are related and exactly how long ago every branch of the tree -- whether extinct or still alive -- first arose.
> 
> This new family tree allows the researchers to estimate:
> 
> (1) how many species of baleen whale have existed,
> 
> (2) similarities and differences between different lineages in terms of overall body shape, and
> 
> (3) how fast baleen whales evolved at any chosen time over the last 40 million years.
> 
> "We find that the earliest baleen whales underwent an adaptive radiation, or sudden 'evolutionary burst', similar to that of 'Darwin's finches' on the Galapagos Islands," says Professor Fordyce.
> 
> Dr Marx adds that this early phase of whale evolution coincided with a period of global cooling. At the same time, the Southern Ocean opened, and gave rise to a strong, circum-Antarctic current that today provides many of the nutrients sustaining the modern global ocean.
> 
> The researchers found that during their early history, whales branched out into many different lineages, each with a unique body shape and feeding strategy.
> 
> "Rather surprisingly, many of these early whales were quite unlike their modern descendants: Although some had baleen, others had well-developed teeth and actively hunted for much bigger prey than is taken by modern species," says Professor Fordyce.
> 
> Yet, after a few million years of co-existence, the toothed 'baleen' whales disappeared, leaving behind only their filter-feeding cousins, he says.
> 
> That extinction occurred between 30 and 23 million years ago and was about the time that the circum-Antarctic current reached its full strength, providing more nutrients that made filter feeding a more viable option.
> 
> The researchers say that the toothed 'baleen' whales disappeared perhaps because of increasing competition from other newly evolved toothed marine mammals, such as dolphins and seals.
> 
> They found that filter-feeding whales remained successful and diverse until about 3 million years ago, when the number of lineages suddenly crashed.
> 
> "This decline was driven mainly by the disappearance of small species of baleen whale, which left behind only the giants -- ranging from 6 to as much as 30 metres -- that plough the ocean today," says Dr Marx.
> 
> He says the disappearance of small whales likely resulted from the onset of the ice ages, which altered the distribution of available food, caused shallow water habitats to shift or sometimes disappear, and created a need for long-distance migration between polar feeding grounds and equatorial breeding grounds.
> 
> "This behaviour -- long distance-migration -- is still one of the hallmarks of all baleen whales alive today," notes Professor Fordyce.
> 
> 
> *Story Source:*
> 
> The above story is based on materials provided by *University of Otago*. _Note: Materials may be edited for content and length._
> 
> *Journal Reference*:
> 
> 
> Felix G. Marx , R. Ewan Fordyce. *Baleen boom and bust: a synthesis of mysticete phylogeny, diversity and disparity*. _Royal Society Open Science_, 2015 DOI: 10.1098/rsos.140434


----------



## eots

DNA is ancient knowledge


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> DNA is ancient knowledge
> 
> View attachment 39855 View attachment 39856



How can that be when according to you creationists, the world is only 6,000 years old?


----------



## orogenicman

More evidence of evolution:

Human Evolution News -- ScienceDaily


----------



## orogenicman

More evidence for evolution:

Why is a dolphin not a cat? Repurposing non-coding elements in genome gave rise to great 'mammalian radiation'

Why is a dolphin not a cat Repurposing non-coding elements in genome gave rise to great mammalian radiation -- ScienceDaily



> Summary:
> A study of gene regulation in 20 mammals provides new insights into how species diverged millions of years ago. The findings demonstrate how methods and tools for genetic analysis of humans and mice can be adapted to study non-model species, such as whales and Tasmanian devils.
> 
> Mammals all share a common ancestor, and they share a lot of the same genes. So what exactly makes a dolphin not a cat, and how did we all start to diverge from one another millions of years ago? Part of the answer lies in how -- and when -- genes are regulated. This latest research explores the evolution of gene regulation in 20 mammalian species, and provides deep insights into the 'mammalian radiation', a time of rapid morphological evolution that occurred shortly after the asteroid impact that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
> 
> Leveraging findings from a study comparing the genome sequences of 29 mammals, and with the help of conservation organisations such as the UK Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme and the Copenhagen Zoo, the team were able to study and compare gene regulation in liver cells from 20 key species including the naked mole rat, human, Tasmanian devil, dolphin and sei whale.
> 
> "What we've shown is that evolution repurposes things that exist in all species, to make each species unique," explains Paul Flicek, head of Vertebrate Genomics at EMBL-EBI. "By looking at gene promoters and enhancers in many different mammals, we demonstrated that species-specific enhancers come from ancient DNA -- that evolution captures DNA that's been around for a long time, and uses it for gene regulation in specific tissues."
> 
> Evolution has two ways to turn changes in the genome into differences between species: it can change a protein sequence, or it can change the way promoters or enhancers control that protein's expression. Today's study also shows that in some cases evolution uses both strategies at once. When amino acid sequences evolve very quickly, important regulation changes occur at the same time: the protein-coding sequence and the corresponding regulatory sequence change synergistically.
> 
> Gathering the samples -- the experimental efforts were led by Diego Villar of CRUK CI -- took well over two years, and the experiments themselves produced a staggering volume of data. Analysing the results brought the team to a new frontier in bioinformatics.
> 
> "People spend a lot of time and money trying to understand human biology, so most of the tools we have are designed to study human genomes," explains Camille Berthelot of EMBL-EBI, who led the computational work. "The reference data we have for the less studied species, like the Sei whale or Tasmanian devil, are nothing like the pored-over datasets we have for the human genome. A lot of what we did involved benchmarking, and making sure the methods and algorithms were fit for this kind of comparison."
> 
> "What inspired this work was a desire to get on top of the mountain, look out and see what is going on in the landscape of molecular evolution across the breadth of mammalian space," says Duncan Odom of CRUK CI and Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. "What's exciting about this study is that we now know we can start to answer questions about the functional genetics of many under-explored species -- questions we usually can ask only of humans and mice. We can use tools developed to study humans to understand the biology of all kinds of animals, whether they're blackbirds or elephants, and explore their relationship with one another. This research has given us new insights into mammalian evolution, and proven how powerful these methods can be."
> 
> 
> *Story Source:*
> 
> The above story is based on materials provided by *European Molecular Biology Laboratory*. _Note: Materials may be edited for content and length._
> 
> *Journal Reference*:
> 
> 
> Diego Villar, Camille Berthelot, Sarah Aldridge, Tim F. Rayner, Margus Lukk, Miguel Pignatelli, Thomas J. Park, Robert Deaville, Jonathan T. Erichsen, Anna J. Jasinska, James M.A. Turner, Mads F. Bertelsen, Elizabeth P. Murchison, Paul Flicek, Duncan T. Odom. *Enhancer Evolution across 20 Mammalian Species*. _Cell_, 2015; 160 (3): 554 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.01.006


----------



## Hollie

And more evidence:


29 Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> not all of evolution is incorrect.. mutation is also claimed as a mechanism of evolution,.but its not


What??? Have you too not been reading the explanations?


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Won't waste time giving me proof but you'll waste time responding to every one of my posts with name calling and adolescent put downs?  You do know other people are reading your posts, right?
> 
> 
> 
> *I don't think my time is wasted pointing out to invincibly ignorant batshit crazies that they are in fact behaving like invincibly ignorant batshit crazies.* It may be a dirty job but someone has to do it.
Click to expand...

Thank you for this post.  You are stating the real reason you are on this thread, which is not to provide evidence or discuss your theory but to engage in a food fight.  You belong on a children's forum.


----------



## foggedinn

Is there a Christian on this thread who believes the earth is 6000 year old?


----------



## Mr.Right

foggedinn said:


> Is there a Christian on this thread who believes the earth is 6000 year old?


Is this a trick question?


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is ancient knowledge
> 
> View attachment 39855 View attachment 39856
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can that be when according to you creationists, the world is only 6,000 years old?
Click to expand...

I never Made a statement on the  age of earth..just find it interesting people seemed to have knowledge of DNA in biblical times


----------



## Mr.Right

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is ancient knowledge
> 
> View attachment 39855 View attachment 39856
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can that be when according to you creationists, the world is only 6,000 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never Made a statement on the  age of earth..just find it interesting people seemed to have knowledge of DNA in biblical times
Click to expand...

The Jews also had advanced knowledge about diet and sanitation.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is ancient knowledge
> 
> View attachment 39855 View attachment 39856
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can that be when according to you creationists, the world is only 6,000 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never Made a statement on the  age of earth..just find it interesting people seemed to have knowledge of DNA in biblical times
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is ancient knowledge
> 
> View attachment 39855 View attachment 39856
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can that be when according to you creationists, the world is only 6,000 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never Made a statement on the  age of earth..just find it interesting people seemed to have knowledge of DNA in biblical times
Click to expand...

A teaser for your space alien conspiracy theory, right?


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Thank you for this post.  You are stating the real reason you are on this thread, which is not to provide evidence or discuss your theory but to engage in a food fight.  You belong on a children's forum.


I've provided evidence, it's not my theory, you should nail yourself to a cross to consolidate your martyrdom. Or you could use the benefits of modern science...


----------



## Tuatara

Do these people realize they are the joke of


foggedinn said:


> Is there a Christian on this thread who believes the earth is 6000 year old?


I'm pretty sure there is 3 of them here. Two for sure.


----------



## Mr.Right

Tuatara said:


> Do these people realize they are the joke of
> 
> 
> foggedinn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a Christian on this thread who believes the earth is 6000 year old?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure there is 3 of them here. Two for sure.
Click to expand...

I can list ten ten pieces of scientific evidence that support a young earth.


----------



## cnm

That's a good joke, only you are funnier.


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do these people realize they are the joke of
> 
> 
> foggedinn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a Christian on this thread who believes the earth is 6000 year old?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure there is 3 of them here. Two for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can list ten ten pieces of scientific evidence that support a young earth.
Click to expand...

Of course you can, dear. Oh, Marshall Applewhite called. He has your travel itinerary.


----------



## Tuatara

Mr.Right said:


> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do these people realize they are the joke of
> 
> 
> foggedinn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a Christian on this thread who believes the earth is 6000 year old?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure there is 3 of them here. Two for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can list ten ten pieces of scientific evidence that support a young earth.
Click to expand...

No you cannot . But I'm ready for a good laugh.


----------



## Mr.Right

Tuatara said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tuatara said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do these people realize they are the joke of
> 
> 
> foggedinn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a Christian on this thread who believes the earth is 6000 year old?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure there is 3 of them here. Two for sure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can list ten ten pieces of scientific evidence that support a young earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No you cannot . But I'm ready for a good laugh.
Click to expand...

I just started a thread on it. Your welcome to try to refute it.


----------



## cnm

The author of the links you posted refutes them in his professional capacity. I mean, he might make a bit of money pandering to gullible twits but he has his reputation to think about after all.


----------



## ScienceRocks

And they wonder why I think they're like the ISIS and the Taliban?


----------



## Mr.Right

Matthew said:


> And they wonder why I think they're like the ISIS and the Taliban?


And you still refuse to try to refute it. You, and all your atheist buddies. Why is that. Not one of you even tried. All I got were insults.


----------



## S.J.

After 98 pages, still no evidence of evolution has been posted.  Fossils of extinct creatures similar to man is only evidence that they once existed, it's not evidence that they evolved. It is pure speculation and nothing more.  They start with a preconceived notion, then start searching for evidence to validate it.  They want to be right, so they jump to the conclusion that their findings support their preconceived notion, but as soon as someone using common sense questions their conclusion, instead of considering their point, they attack the person.  This is what we have seen repeatedly throughout this entire thread and it's all we're ever going to see from them because they can't come to terms with the fact that they're not as "intelligent" as they think they are.


----------



## cnm

Invincible ignorance is not 'common sense'.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> DNA is ancient knowledge
> 
> View attachment 39855 View attachment 39856
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can that be when according to you creationists, the world is only 6,000 years old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never Made a statement on the  age of earth..just find it interesting people seemed to have knowledge of DNA in biblical times
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A teaser for your space alien conspiracy theory, right?
Click to expand...

not sure what to make of it


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> Invincible ignorance is not 'common sense'.


I guess you think you're being funny and clever with your 7th grade level remarks but the only thing you've managed to do is reinforce what I said in my last post and undermine any credibility your side may have had before you jumped in with your "support".  I wonder how orogenicman feels about your "contributions" to this thread and to the theory of evolution in genral.  If he is half as intelligent and serious as he claims to be, he probably agrees with me about you.  With friends like you, who needs creationists?


----------



## orogenicman

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invincible ignorance is not 'common sense'.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think you're being funny and clever with your 7th grade level remarks but the only thing you've managed to do is reinforce what I said in my last post and undermine any credibility your side may have had before you jumped in with your "support".  I wonder how orogenicman feels about your "contributions" to this thread and to the theory of evolution in genral.  If he is half as intelligent and serious as he claims to be, he probably agrees with me about you.  With friends like you, who needs creationists?
Click to expand...


You're making this about me?  Typical.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Invincible ignorance is not 'common sense'.
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you think you're being funny and clever with your 7th grade level remarks but the only thing you've managed to do is reinforce what I said in my last post and undermine any credibility your side may have had before you jumped in with your "support".  I wonder how orogenicman feels about your "contributions" to this thread and to the theory of evolution in genral.  If he is half as intelligent and serious as he claims to be, he probably agrees with me about you.  With friends like you, who needs creationists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're making this about me?  Typical.
Click to expand...

No, but you're the only one on that side who has made any attempt at a serious discussion, and even though you resorted to insults and personal attacks, you at least tried to make a case for your theory.  I would think their behavior would be embarrassing to you if you were interested in a serious and adult discussion.  Or maybe I'm giving you too much credit.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> No, but you're the only one on that side who has made any attempt at a serious discussion


Wibble....what bullshit. Many have contributed to the discussion, with the exception of you. Not only do you whine with self pity but you lie a lot when you're not fixing yourself to your cross of martyrdom or warding off knowledge.

_*Invincible ignorance fallacy*
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invincible_ignorance_fallacy
Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The *invincible ignorance fallacy*[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections._​


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, but you're the only one on that side who has made any attempt at a serious discussion
> 
> 
> 
> Wibble....what bullshit. Many have contributed to the discussion, with the exception of you. Not only do you whine with self pity but you lie a lot when you're not fixing yourself to your cross of martyrdom or warding off knowledge.
> 
> _*Invincible ignorance fallacy*
> Invincible ignorance fallacy - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> The *invincible ignorance fallacy*[1] is a deductive fallacy of circularity where the person in question simply refuses to believe the argument, ignoring any evidence given. It is not so much a fallacious tactic in argument as it is a refusal to argue in the proper sense of the word, the method instead being to make assertions with no consideration of objections._​
Click to expand...

There ya go, orogenicman.  Need I say more?  Do you really want to be aligned with this level of adolescence?


----------



## cnm

No discussion of the topic? I'm shocked, shocked I tell you.

Tell you what, how about if I present some more evidence for you to dismiss out of hand, will that make you feel better?


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> After 98 pages, still no evidence of evolution has been posted.  Fossils of extinct creatures similar to man is only evidence that they once existed, it's not evidence that they evolved. It is pure speculation and nothing more.  They start with a preconceived notion, then start searching for evidence to validate it.  They want to be right, so they jump to the conclusion that their findings support their preconceived notion, but as soon as someone using common sense questions their conclusion, instead of considering their point, they attack the person.  This is what we have seen repeatedly throughout this entire thread and it's all we're ever going to see from them because they can't come to terms with the fact that they're not as "intelligent" as they think they are.


After 98 pages, it's quite evident that you religious extremists will choose to deny the facts that have been presented to you. 

"Invincible ignorance" is the term cnm has used to describe your behavior and it's perfectly fitting.


----------



## cnm

Here ya go, knock yourself out, you should have warding off knowledge nailed third time around, it'll make you feel better...


*Steven_R wrote*

_Ring species fit the bill nicely. You have populations of the same species that over time can no longer interbreed with other populations of the same species. Since one of the classic definitions of a species involves the ability to interbreed with others, (and neverminding the arbitrary nature of human creation of classification systems including species) and you have observed populations that no longer fit in that definition over time..._

Ring species - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia​


----------



## S.J.

And the hits just keep on coming.  Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility.  He can't do both.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> And the hits just keep on coming.  Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility.  He can't do both.


Your promotion of ignorance is undeniable. Like the rest of the Flat Earth cabal, you're utterly incapable of refuting the evidence for biological evolution as the mechanism for the diversity of life on the planet.

Your behavior is really about your hurt feelings which results in your whining like a petulant child that anyone would challenge your appeals to fear and ignorance.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> And the hits just keep on coming.  Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility.  He can't do both.


He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.


----------



## Hollie

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the hits just keep on coming.  Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility.  He can't do both.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.
Click to expand...

It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Mr.Right said:


> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*



Show me factual evidence of a supreme being.


----------



## cnm

Hollie said:


> It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.


Not to mention determining the bounds of Orogenicman's credibility while ignoring his own.


----------



## eots

evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation  how that could occur


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation  how that could occur



The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life.  You have been told this repeatedly, and so to continue this straw man whine of yours defines your insanity.  Congratulations.


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> More evidence of evolution:
> 
> Human Evolution News -- ScienceDaily



<crickets chirping>


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> More evidence for evolution:
> 
> Why is a dolphin not a cat? Repurposing non-coding elements in genome gave rise to great 'mammalian radiation'
> 
> Why is a dolphin not a cat Repurposing non-coding elements in genome gave rise to great mammalian radiation -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Summary:
> A study of gene regulation in 20 mammals provides new insights into how species diverged millions of years ago. The findings demonstrate how methods and tools for genetic analysis of humans and mice can be adapted to study non-model species, such as whales and Tasmanian devils.
> 
> Mammals all share a common ancestor, and they share a lot of the same genes. So what exactly makes a dolphin not a cat, and how did we all start to diverge from one another millions of years ago? Part of the answer lies in how -- and when -- genes are regulated. This latest research explores the evolution of gene regulation in 20 mammalian species, and provides deep insights into the 'mammalian radiation', a time of rapid morphological evolution that occurred shortly after the asteroid impact that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
> 
> Leveraging findings from a study comparing the genome sequences of 29 mammals, and with the help of conservation organisations such as the UK Cetacean Strandings Investigation Programme and the Copenhagen Zoo, the team were able to study and compare gene regulation in liver cells from 20 key species including the naked mole rat, human, Tasmanian devil, dolphin and sei whale.
> 
> "What we've shown is that evolution repurposes things that exist in all species, to make each species unique," explains Paul Flicek, head of Vertebrate Genomics at EMBL-EBI. "By looking at gene promoters and enhancers in many different mammals, we demonstrated that species-specific enhancers come from ancient DNA -- that evolution captures DNA that's been around for a long time, and uses it for gene regulation in specific tissues."
> 
> Evolution has two ways to turn changes in the genome into differences between species: it can change a protein sequence, or it can change the way promoters or enhancers control that protein's expression. Today's study also shows that in some cases evolution uses both strategies at once. When amino acid sequences evolve very quickly, important regulation changes occur at the same time: the protein-coding sequence and the corresponding regulatory sequence change synergistically.
> 
> Gathering the samples -- the experimental efforts were led by Diego Villar of CRUK CI -- took well over two years, and the experiments themselves produced a staggering volume of data. Analysing the results brought the team to a new frontier in bioinformatics.
> 
> "People spend a lot of time and money trying to understand human biology, so most of the tools we have are designed to study human genomes," explains Camille Berthelot of EMBL-EBI, who led the computational work. "The reference data we have for the less studied species, like the Sei whale or Tasmanian devil, are nothing like the pored-over datasets we have for the human genome. A lot of what we did involved benchmarking, and making sure the methods and algorithms were fit for this kind of comparison."
> 
> "What inspired this work was a desire to get on top of the mountain, look out and see what is going on in the landscape of molecular evolution across the breadth of mammalian space," says Duncan Odom of CRUK CI and Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute. "What's exciting about this study is that we now know we can start to answer questions about the functional genetics of many under-explored species -- questions we usually can ask only of humans and mice. We can use tools developed to study humans to understand the biology of all kinds of animals, whether they're blackbirds or elephants, and explore their relationship with one another. This research has given us new insights into mammalian evolution, and proven how powerful these methods can be."
> 
> 
> *Story Source:*
> 
> The above story is based on materials provided by *European Molecular Biology Laboratory*. _Note: Materials may be edited for content and length._
> 
> *Journal Reference*:
> 
> 
> Diego Villar, Camille Berthelot, Sarah Aldridge, Tim F. Rayner, Margus Lukk, Miguel Pignatelli, Thomas J. Park, Robert Deaville, Jonathan T. Erichsen, Anna J. Jasinska, James M.A. Turner, Mads F. Bertelsen, Elizabeth P. Murchison, Paul Flicek, Duncan T. Odom. *Enhancer Evolution across 20 Mammalian Species*. _Cell_, 2015; 160 (3): 554 DOI: 10.1016/j.cell.2015.01.006
Click to expand...


<Crickets chirping>


----------



## eots

eots said:


> evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation  how that could occur


h


orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation  how that could occur
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life.  You have been told this repeatedly, and so to continue this straw man whine of yours defines your insanity.  Congratulations.
Click to expand...

how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..


----------



## cnm

Hollie said:


> how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..


How many times do you have to be told the theory of evolution doesn't explain that? 


Have you got it yet?


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation  how that could occur
> 
> 
> 
> h
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation  how that could occur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life.  You have been told this repeatedly, and so to continue this straw man whine of yours defines your insanity.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..
Click to expand...

How absurd that you don't understand this has been explained to you in excruciating detail yet you're still clueless


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you have to be told the theory of evolution doesn't explain that?
> 
> 
> Have you got it yet?
Click to expand...

oh ya I  got it..there is no answer to the ouestion so the science has distanced itself from having to  adress it


----------



## eots

there is no emprical evidence..just assumption on top of more assumption.even if they are reasoned ones they are still assumptions


----------



## eots

Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material — in effect, any living thing. The technique hinges on carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of the element that, unlike other more stable forms of carbon, decays away at a steady rate. Organisms capture a certain amount of carbon-14 from the atmosphere when they are alive. By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.

But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he “realized that there probably would be variation”, says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in _Science_. Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels.

Carbon Dating Gets a Reset - Scientific American


----------



## eots

and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but  the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material — in effect, any living thing. The technique hinges on carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of the element that, unlike other more stable forms of carbon, decays away at a steady rate. Organisms capture a certain amount of carbon-14 from the atmosphere when they are alive. By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.
> 
> But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he “realized that there probably would be variation”, says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in _Science_. Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels.
> 
> Carbon Dating Gets a Reset - Scientific American


None of your cutting and pasting addresses your issue of choosing to be dull regarding the factual conclusions of biological evolution


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation  how that could occur
> 
> 
> 
> h
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation  how that could occur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life.  You have been told this repeatedly, and so to continue this straw man whine of yours defines your insanity.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..
Click to expand...


How a single cell arose is a different issue, and so is being addressed under different hypotheses, such as abiogenesis and others.  Just because the theory of evolution doesn't address it doesn't refute evolution.  Next.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do you have to be told the theory of evolution doesn't explain that?
> 
> 
> Have you got it yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> oh ya I  got it..there is no answer to the ouestion so the science has distanced itself from having to  adress it
Click to expand...


Who said there is no answer?  Right.  You did.  Scientists aren't saying it.  They are actively seeking answers to the question.  What are you doing?  Right.  Nothing.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> there is no emprical evidence..just assumption on top of more assumption.even if they are reasoned ones they are still assumptions



Got any evidence to support those claims?


----------



## Hollie

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation  how that could occur
> 
> 
> 
> h
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> evolution can not explain the origin.of life so they do not even try...the theory begins with the first living organism with no explanation  how that could occur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The theory of evolution explains the origin of species, not the origin of life.  You have been told this repeatedly, and so to continue this straw man whine of yours defines your insanity.  Congratulations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> how convenient...we will tell you how a single cell turns into an elephant..but not how a single cell came to be..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How a single cell arose is a different issue, and so is being addressed under different hypotheses, such as abiogenesis and others.  Just because the theory of evolution doesn't address it doesn't refute evolution.  Next.
Click to expand...

Which has been conveyed both tediously and repeatedly to the Flat Earthers yet they consistently fail to understand.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material — in effect, any living thing. The technique hinges on carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of the element that, unlike other more stable forms of carbon, decays away at a steady rate. Organisms capture a certain amount of carbon-14 from the atmosphere when they are alive. By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question.
> 
> But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he “realized that there probably would be variation”, says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in _Science_. Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels.
> 
> Carbon Dating Gets a Reset - Scientific American



Every measurement ever made in science has variation, +- some percentage.  When you measure temperature, you are not making an absolute measurement, because each thermometer presents instrument error due to manufacturing imprecision, and other variables.  And so when the age of something is measured using radioisotope measurements, the results are always presented including a statistical error, +- so many years.  This doesn't invalidate the measurement any more than any other measurement in science invalidated because of statistical error.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but  the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent



Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago.  But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago.  Next.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but  the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago.  But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago.  Next.
Click to expand...

or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but  the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago.  But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know
Click to expand...

Pretty pathetic. There are statistical variations in calculations. Nothing suggests the variations that are a part of your conspiracy theory.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but  the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago.  But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know
Click to expand...


We know for a fact that it is not 2 billion years old.  We have rocks on the Earth that are far older.  The Moon, unlike the Earth, has preserved its entire geologic history.  And that history puts its age at no less than 4.4 billion years.  But even if it was only 2 billion years old, it still refutes the biblical claim of 6,000 years.


----------



## orogenicman

Radiocarbon dating:

What is Carbon Dating NOSAMS


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence of evolution:
> 
> Human Evolution News -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> <crickets chirping>
Click to expand...



<crickets chirping>


----------



## cnm

eots said:


> oh ya I  got it..there is no answer to the ouestion so the science has distanced itself from having to  adress it


No, different [ideas] address the beginning of life. Not the theory of evolution.


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no emprical evidence..just assumption on top of more assumption.even if they are reasoned ones they are still assumptions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any evidence to support those claims?
Click to expand...




orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but  the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago.  But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know for a fact that it is not 2 billion years old.  We have rocks on the Earth that are far older.  The Moon, unlike the Earth, has preserved its entire geologic history.  And that history puts its age at no less than 4.4 billion years.  But even if it was only 2 billion years old, it still refutes the biblical claim of 6,000 years.
Click to expand...

it also throws a wrench in your time dependent theory


----------



## eots

Maybe what makes up the earth is 4 billion years old but not the earth itself


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Maybe what makes up the earth is 4 billion years old but not the earth itself


Where did that conspiracy theory come from?


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no emprical evidence..just assumption on top of more assumption.even if they are reasoned ones they are still assumptions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any evidence to support those claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but  the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago.  But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know for a fact that it is not 2 billion years old.  We have rocks on the Earth that are far older.  The Moon, unlike the Earth, has preserved its entire geologic history.  And that history puts its age at no less than 4.4 billion years.  But even if it was only 2 billion years old, it still refutes the biblical claim of 6,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it also throws a wrench in your time dependent theory
Click to expand...

No.it doesn't. Its another of your silly conspiracy theories


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Maybe what makes up the earth is 4 billion years old but not the earth itself


What makes up the earth is not what makes up the earth?


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no emprical evidence..just assumption on top of more assumption.even if they are reasoned ones they are still assumptions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any evidence to support those claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but  the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago.  But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know for a fact that it is not 2 billion years old.  We have rocks on the Earth that are far older.  The Moon, unlike the Earth, has preserved its entire geologic history.  And that history puts its age at no less than 4.4 billion years.  But even if it was only 2 billion years old, it still refutes the biblical claim of 6,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it also throws a wrench in your time dependent theory
Click to expand...


If you are going to simply throw out unexplained, unsupported one-liners, the at least explain why I should even bother responding to your posts?  I ask this because your response has no known relevance to mine.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Maybe what makes up the earth is 4 billion years old but not the earth itself



What makes up the Earth (4.54 billion years) is likely older, but not by much.


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> Radiocarbon dating:
> 
> What is Carbon Dating NOSAMS



<crickets>


----------



## orogenicman

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no emprical evidence..just assumption on top of more assumption.even if they are reasoned ones they are still assumptions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any evidence to support those claims?
Click to expand...


<more crickets>


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no emprical evidence..just assumption on top of more assumption.even if they are reasoned ones they are still assumptions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any evidence to support those claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the whole theory hinges on a timeline of 4 billion years..but  the accuracy of the estimate could in fact be much diffrent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago.  But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know for a fact that it is not 2 billion years old.  We have rocks on the Earth that are far older.  The Moon, unlike the Earth, has preserved its entire geologic history.  And that history puts its age at no less than 4.4 billion years.  But even if it was only 2 billion years old, it still refutes the biblical claim of 6,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it also throws a wrench in your time dependent theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are going to simply throw out unexplained, unsupported one-liners, the at least explain why I should even bother responding to your posts?  I ask this because your response has no known relevance to mine.
Click to expand...

The theory is evolutionary change occurs through incremental small changes over 4.5 billion years .lose a billion or two years and your theory is in big trouble


----------



## eots

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe what makes up the earth is 4 billion years old but not the earth itself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes up the Earth (4.54 billion years) is likely older, but not by much.
Click to expand...

nice guess..


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe what makes up the earth is 4 billion years old but not the earth itself
> 
> 
> 
> Where did that conspiracy theory come from?
Click to expand...

logic and reason..unless you think the earth has always been there


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> there is no emprical evidence..just assumption on top of more assumption.even if they are reasoned ones they are still assumptions
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Got any evidence to support those claims?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, instead of the Earth forming 4.567 billion years ago, it could have formed 4.576 billion years ago.  But it definitely didn't form 6,000 years ago.  Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or it could be 2 billion...fact is you dont know
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We know for a fact that it is not 2 billion years old.  We have rocks on the Earth that are far older.  The Moon, unlike the Earth, has preserved its entire geologic history.  And that history puts its age at no less than 4.4 billion years.  But even if it was only 2 billion years old, it still refutes the biblical claim of 6,000 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it also throws a wrench in your time dependent theory
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you are going to simply throw out unexplained, unsupported one-liners, the at least explain why I should even bother responding to your posts?  I ask this because your response has no known relevance to mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theory is evolutionary change occurs through incremental small changes over 4.5 billion years .lose a billion or two years and your theory is in big trouble
Click to expand...


No, the oldest unambiguous evidence for life on earth occurs at about 3.8 billion years ago, some 750 million years after the Earth first formed.  It could and likely does go back a bit further.  So there is no billion or two years to lose.  Next.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe what makes up the earth is 4 billion years old but not the earth itself
> 
> 
> 
> What makes up the earth is not what makes up the earth?
Click to expand...


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe what makes up the earth is 4 billion years old but not the earth itself
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes up the Earth (4.54 billion years) is likely older, but not by much.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> nice guess..
Click to expand...


Look, the Material (dust and gas) that made up the stellar nebula that formed when the supernova that created the solar system exploded is older than the solar system itself.  But that material condensed in the solar cloud to form the planets.  The planets formed at 4.54 billion years.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe what makes up the earth is 4 billion years old but not the earth itself
> 
> 
> 
> What makes up the earth is not what makes up the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


That video doesn't have anything in it that I haven't already said (I've already seen it, in case you were going to ask).  So what was your point in posting it?


----------



## MaryL

? Mountain of evidence? You KNOW the difference between a theory, and a fact? Science starts with a theory. And it either works as a coherent whole, or it falls apart. Then from there, they extrapolate further, and so on. There IS NO MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE. And no one is going to kid you here. Evolution is just a theory. Just like, I don't know, atom fission  is theory, but we got nukes out of that little gem Or, the theory of electromagnetism, we got Cell phones, computers and other useful stuff.  Mountain of evidence?


----------



## eots

For radiocarbon dating to be reliable scientists need to make a number of vital assumptions. Firstly, Dr Libby assumed that C14 decays at a constant rate. However, experimental evidence indicates that C14 decay is slowing down and that millennia ago it decayed much faster than is observed today.



Secondly, the theory behind C14 dating demands that there is the same rate of cosmic production of radioactive isotopes throughout time. The industrial revolution has belched hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere increasing the C12 ratio and atomic weapons testing have increased neutron levels.

Thirdly, the environment in which the artefact lies heavily impacts on the rate of decay. For example, C14 leaches at an accelerated rate from organic material saturated in water, especially saline water.

Fourthly, for C14 to test accurately the artefact must have been protected from contamination. Organic matter, being porous, can easily be contaminated by organic carbon in groundwater. This increases the C12 content and interferes with the carbon ratio.
Radio Carbon Dating


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the hits just keep on coming.  Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility.  He can't do both.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly *denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.*
Click to expand...

No evidence of evolution has been presented.  Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man.  That is where facts end and speculation begins.


----------



## orogenicman

MaryL said:


> ? Mountain of evidence? You KNOW the difference between a theory, and a fact? Science starts with a theory. And it either works as a coherent whole, or it falls apart. Then from there, they extrapolate further, and so on. There IS NO MOUNTAIN OF EVIDENCE. And no one is going to kid you here. Evolution is just a theory. Just like, I don't know, atom fission  is theory, but we got nukes out of that little gem Or, the theory of electromagnetism, we got Cell phones, computers and other useful stuff.  Mountain of evidence?



I take it that you didn't bother to read any posts in this thread, but just popped in to let everyone know how little you actually know about the subject.  Why would anyone willfully show their ignorance to the world?  Doesn't make sense to me but okay.  Science does not start with a theory.  It starts with a discovery, a fact.  Then it develops a hypothesis to try to explain the fact/discovery.  Then it tests and compiles observation's that either support of rejects the hypothesis.  If the hypothesis, through testing, doesn't work, another one is developed and tested.  And this goes on until it passes rigours testing.  Then someone writes a paper about it.  The rest of the scientific community reads the paper, and then conducts their own tests.  And only when the bulk of the scientific community agrees that it works does it become a theory.

This is the history of the theory of evolution, all 150 years of it.  And in that time, literal mountains of evidence has been  compiled to support it.  Those mountains are contained in the world museums, in all the scientific papers that have been written during all that time.  If you don't understand this, I highly recommend that you go to as many science museums as possible and libraries that contain many volumes of scientific works.  The U.S. National Museum alone, contains enough evidence supporting evolution that you could spend a lifetime looking at it all.  I know because I've been there and have scientific specimens in their repository.

Good luck.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the hits just keep on coming.  Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility.  He can't do both.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly *denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evidence of evolution has been presented.  Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man.  That is where facts end and speculation begins.
Click to expand...

A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> For radiocarbon dating to be reliable scientists need to make a number of vital assumptions. Firstly, Dr Libby assumed that C14 decays at a constant rate. However, experimental evidence indicates that C14 decay is slowing down and that millennia ago it decayed much faster than is observed today.
> 
> 
> 
> Secondly, the theory behind C14 dating demands that there is the same rate of cosmic production of radioactive isotopes throughout time. The industrial revolution has belched hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere increasing the C12 ratio and atomic weapons testing have increased neutron levels.
> 
> Thirdly, the environment in which the artefact lies heavily impacts on the rate of decay. For example, C14 leaches at an accelerated rate from organic material saturated in water, especially saline water.
> 
> Fourthly, for C14 to test accurately the artefact must have been protected from contamination. Organic matter, being porous, can easily be contaminated by organic carbon in groundwater. This increases the C12 content and interferes with the carbon ratio.
> Radio Carbon Dating


Pretty typical web scouring for you YEC'ists. 

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments Radiocarbon Dating


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> For radiocarbon dating to be reliable scientists need to make a number of vital assumptions. Firstly, Dr Libby assumed that C14 decays at a constant rate. However, experimental evidence indicates that C14 decay is slowing down and that millennia ago it decayed much faster than is observed today.



What experimental evidence, where?  Please provide a bibliography of scientific research papers that confirm this claim.



> Secondly, the theory behind C14 dating demands that there is the same rate of cosmic production of radioactive isotopes throughout time. The industrial revolution has belched hundreds of thousands of tons of carbon gases into the atmosphere increasing the C12 ratio and atomic weapons testing have increased neutron levels.



Again, do you have a bibliography of research papers confirming this claim?

C14 is found in coal and oil is in trace amounts, and those concentrations are formed by the current decay of uranium-thorium in the coal, and by modern microorganism in the coal and surrounding rocks.  But again, they are trace amounts and not found in all coal an oil deposits.



> Thirdly, the environment in which the artefact lies heavily impacts on the rate of decay. For example, C14 leaches at an accelerated rate from organic material saturated in water, especially saline water.



How would that affect the concentration of either C12 or C14 in such an artifact?



> Fourthly, for C14 to test accurately the artefact must have been protected from contamination. Organic matter, being porous, can easily be contaminated by organic carbon in groundwater. This increases the C12 content and interferes with the carbon ratio.
> Radio Carbon Dating



That would make the artifact appear to be younger, not older.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe what makes up the earth is 4 billion years old but not the earth itself
> 
> 
> 
> What makes up the earth is not what makes up the earth?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Nothing in the video suggests that your space alien conspiracies have any relevance.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the hits just keep on coming.  Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility.  He can't do both.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly *denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evidence of evolution has been presented.  Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man.  That is where facts end and speculation begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
Click to expand...

You've proven nothing and never will.  Your theory is faith based.  Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation.  You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".


----------



## MaryL

Is this a test? What is the alternative? The magic hand of GOD? Well, could be. The THEORY of evolution in no way removes a divine hand, it's just a tool to understand how things work now under  scientific thinking. If YOU have a better theory, let's  read it, go for it.  if it works and it makes sense, you might get a Nobel prize. But I have a feeling this isn't about truth or facts.


----------



## orogenicman

MaryL said:


> Is this a test? What is the alternative? The magic hand of GOD? Well, could be. The THEORY of evolution in no way removes a divine hand, it's just a tool to understand how things work now under  scientific thinking. If YOU have a better theory, let's  read it, go for it.  if it works and it makes sense, you might get a Nobel prize. But I have a feeling this isn't about truth or facts.



No one is saying that the theory of evolution is proof that there is no god.  It only disproves the book of genesis, which is widely regarded as fiction anyway.  By the way, the Nobel has already been given to scientists who work on the theory.


----------



## S.J.

MaryL said:


> Is this a test? What is the alternative? The magic hand of GOD? Well, could be. The THEORY of evolution in no way removes a divine hand, it's just a tool to understand how things work now under  scientific thinking. If YOU have a better theory, let's  read it, go for it.  if it works and it makes sense, you might get a Nobel prize. But I have a feeling this isn't about truth or facts.


The absence of an alternative theory does not validate another.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

"Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?"

Right next to the mountain of evidence proving the earth is more than just a few thousand years old.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the hits just keep on coming.  Still waiting to hear if orogenicman will opt for defending his adolescent friends or save his credibility.  He can't do both.
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly *denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evidence of evolution has been presented.  Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man.  That is where facts end and speculation begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing and never will.  Your theory is faith based.  Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation.  You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
Click to expand...

Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among  fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.

It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.


----------



## orogenicman

More evidence:

New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily



> *New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA*
> Date:
> April 7, 2015
> 
> Source:
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> 
> Summary:
> The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study.



More at the link.


----------



## Hollie

MaryL said:


> Is this a test? What is the alternative? The magic hand of GOD? Well, could be. The THEORY of evolution in no way removes a divine hand, it's just a tool to understand how things work now under  scientific thinking. If YOU have a better theory, let's  read it, go for it.  if it works and it makes sense, you might get a Nobel prize. But I have a feeling this isn't about truth or facts.


You're correct in that truth or facts are meaningless to the fundie zealots.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

EOTS SAID:

“Isnt God awesome...”

There is no 'god' as perceived by theists; religion and 'god' are creations of man.

And as one of man's more dubious creations, god is far from 'awesome.'


----------



## Hollie

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments Radiocarbon Dating

Creationist authors claim that there is scientific evidence for a very young Earth, but their reasoning is invariably flawed by false initial assumptions and a total disregard for the scientific evidence concerning the history of the Earth, its geology, its physics, and its chemistry. Their calculations are meaningless and cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> He doesn't have to do either. His credibility doesn't depend on what other people write but on what he writes; just as yours depends on what you ignore and what you whine about.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly *denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No evidence of evolution has been presented.  Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man.  That is where facts end and speculation begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing and never will.  Your theory is faith based.  Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation.  You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among  fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.
> 
> It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.
Click to expand...

Feel free to post a comment where I have even mentioned the age of the earth.  The only argument you seem to have is to call everyone who doesn't buy your theory a "fundie". So please post something I've said to back that up.  Go ahead, I'll wait.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Hollie said:


> How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments Radiocarbon Dating
> 
> Creationist authors claim that there is scientific evidence for a very young Earth, but their reasoning is invariably flawed by false initial assumptions and a total disregard for the scientific evidence concerning the history of the Earth, its geology, its physics, and its chemistry. Their calculations are meaningless and cannot be taken seriously.


Just as creationism is meaningless and cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting that the whiner is whining about having an "adult discussion" when he has been central among the whiners who consistently and ignorantly *denied evidence has been presented for biological evolution in spite of the vast amount of evidence presented.*
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence of evolution has been presented.  Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man.  That is where facts end and speculation begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing and never will.  Your theory is faith based.  Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation.  You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among  fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.
> 
> It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to post a comment where I have even mentioned the age of the earth.  The only argument you seem to have is to call everyone who doesn't buy your theory a "fundie". So please post something I've said to back that up.  Go ahead, I'll wait.
Click to expand...

It's you fundie zealots who are the deniers of the fact of evolution.  So please post some relevant data concerning the Genesis fable that will refute an ancient earth and negate the scientific data for biological evolution. Go ahead, I'll wait.


----------



## orogenicman

More evidence:

Predation Linked To Evolution Study Suggests -- ScienceDaily

Predation Linked To Evolution, Study Suggests



> Date:
> September 14, 2007
> 
> Source:
> Virginia Tech
> 
> Summary:
> The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters. For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.
> 
> The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters, Virginia Tech geoscientists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
> 
> For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.
> 
> John Warren Huntley, a postdoctoral scientist in the Department of Geosciences at Virginia Tech, and Geosciences Professor Micha³ Kowalewski decided to look at the importance of ecology by surveying the literature for incidents of predation in marine invertebrates, such as clams and their relatives.
> 
> "Today, certain predators leave easy to identify marks on the shells of their prey, such as clean, round holes," said Huntley. "Such holes drilled by predators can also be found in fossil shells."
> 
> The researchers also looked for repair scars on the shells of creatures that survived an attack.
> 
> The study was conducted by looking at studies which reported the frequency of drill holes and repair scars in fossil species from the last 550 million years.
> 
> First Huntley and Kowalewski found that predation increased notably about 480 million years ago, some 50 million years earlier than previous studies have found. "The earlier studies were based on changes in morphology -- predators with stronger claws and jaws and prey with more ornamented shells. We looked at the frequency of attacks, which increased about 50 million years before the changes in armor," said Huntley.
> 
> But the most notable discovery is the observation that the incidence of drill holes and repair scars are strikingly parallel to Sepkoski's diversity curve for marine invertebrates. This diversity curve, compiled by the late Jack Sepkoski of the University of Chicago, records the origination and extinction of marine animal genera through the last 540 million years (Phanerozoic). "There is a strong correlation between predation intensity and global marine biodiversity in the Phanerozoic," Huntley said.
> 
> In their article, "Strong Coupling of Predation Intensity and Diversity in the Phanerozoic Fossil Record," the researchers offer three rival hypotheses to explain the correlation. "It's the classic problem with interpreting a correlation," said Huntley "you have to be careful when ascribing a cause. Let's say factors X and Y are correlated. A change in X could cause a change in Y, a change in Y could cause a change in X, or X and Y could both be controlled by another factor."
> 
> The first hypothesis is that predation intensity could be driving diversity. "In this case, ecological interactions would matter in evolution," said Huntley. "Organisms evolve over the long term in response to their enemies, and with increased predation intensity more species evolve."
> 
> The second hypothesis is that as biodiversity increased, by chance predators with more complex feeding strategies evolved. "Predatory techniques like drilling and peeling shells are more evolutionarily-derived than more primitive forms of predation like whole ingestion. In this scenario you would expect to evolve sophisticated forms of predation only when diversity is high," said Huntley.
> 
> And the third hypothesis is that something else is driving both predation and biodiversity. "Some periods have more sedimentary rocks, and therefore more fossils, preserved than others," said Huntley. "There is less diversity to be observed when there are fewer fossils to study. Perhaps this sampling bias affects our ability to find samples with high predation intensities as well."
> 
> "Now we will try to pick this apart," said Huntley. "We can test these hypotheses by examining relevant linkages between predation intensity and diversity in modern oceanic environments. Also, understanding the true nature of Sepkoski's curve will help us interpret our findings. Is it biological?  Is it the product of uneven sampling?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Story Source:*
> 
> The above story is based on materials provided by *Virginia Tech*. _Note: Materials may be edited for content and length._
> 
> *Cite This Page*:
> 
> 
> MLA
> APA
> Chicago
> Virginia Tech. "Predation Linked To Evolution, Study Suggests." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 September 2007. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070910172717.htm>.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> No evidence of evolution has been presented.  Evidence of creatures similar to man has been presented but no evidence that any of them evolved into man.  That is where facts end and speculation begins.
> 
> 
> 
> A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've proven nothing and never will.  Your theory is faith based.  Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation.  You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among  fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.
> 
> It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to post a comment where I have even mentioned the age of the earth.  The only argument you seem to have is to call everyone who doesn't buy your theory a "fundie". So please post something I've said to back that up.  Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's you fundie zealots who are the deniers of the fact of evolution.  So please post some relevant data concerning the Genesis fable that will refute an ancient earth and negate the scientific data for biological evolution. Go ahead, I'll wait.
Click to expand...

A predictable answer.  You can't provide proof of a claim, so you go straight to the "prove me wrong" argument.  You're a joke.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> More evidence:
> 
> Predation Linked To Evolution Study Suggests -- ScienceDaily
> 
> Predation Linked To Evolution, Study Suggests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Date:
> September 14, 2007
> 
> Source:
> Virginia Tech
> 
> Summary:
> The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters. For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.
> 
> The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters, Virginia Tech geoscientists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
> 
> For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.
> 
> John Warren Huntley, a postdoctoral scientist in the Department of Geosciences at Virginia Tech, and Geosciences Professor Micha³ Kowalewski decided to look at the importance of ecology by surveying the literature for incidents of predation in marine invertebrates, such as clams and their relatives.
> 
> "Today, certain predators leave easy to identify marks on the shells of their prey, such as clean, round holes," said Huntley. "Such holes drilled by predators can also be found in fossil shells."
> 
> The researchers also looked for repair scars on the shells of creatures that survived an attack.
> 
> The study was conducted by looking at studies which reported the frequency of drill holes and repair scars in fossil species from the last 550 million years.
> 
> First Huntley and Kowalewski found that predation increased notably about 480 million years ago, some 50 million years earlier than previous studies have found. "The earlier studies were based on changes in morphology -- predators with stronger claws and jaws and prey with more ornamented shells. We looked at the frequency of attacks, which increased about 50 million years before the changes in armor," said Huntley.
> 
> But the most notable discovery is the observation that the incidence of drill holes and repair scars are strikingly parallel to Sepkoski's diversity curve for marine invertebrates. This diversity curve, compiled by the late Jack Sepkoski of the University of Chicago, records the origination and extinction of marine animal genera through the last 540 million years (Phanerozoic). "There is a strong correlation between predation intensity and global marine biodiversity in the Phanerozoic," Huntley said.
> 
> In their article, "Strong Coupling of Predation Intensity and Diversity in the Phanerozoic Fossil Record," the researchers offer three rival hypotheses to explain the correlation. "It's the classic problem with interpreting a correlation," said Huntley "you have to be careful when ascribing a cause. Let's say factors X and Y are correlated. A change in X could cause a change in Y, a change in Y could cause a change in X, or X and Y could both be controlled by another factor."
> 
> The first hypothesis is that predation intensity could be driving diversity. "In this case, ecological interactions would matter in evolution," said Huntley. "Organisms evolve over the long term in response to their enemies, and with increased predation intensity more species evolve."
> 
> The second hypothesis is that as biodiversity increased, by chance predators with more complex feeding strategies evolved. "Predatory techniques like drilling and peeling shells are more evolutionarily-derived than more primitive forms of predation like whole ingestion. In this scenario you would expect to evolve sophisticated forms of predation only when diversity is high," said Huntley.
> 
> And the third hypothesis is that something else is driving both predation and biodiversity. "Some periods have more sedimentary rocks, and therefore more fossils, preserved than others," said Huntley. "There is less diversity to be observed when there are fewer fossils to study. Perhaps this sampling bias affects our ability to find samples with high predation intensities as well."
> 
> "Now we will try to pick this apart," said Huntley. "We can test these hypotheses by examining relevant linkages between predation intensity and diversity in modern oceanic environments. Also, understanding the true nature of Sepkoski's curve will help us interpret our findings. Is it biological?  Is it the product of uneven sampling?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Story Source:*
> 
> The above story is based on materials provided by *Virginia Tech*. _Note: Materials may be edited for content and length._
> 
> *Cite This Page*:
> 
> 
> MLA
> APA
> Chicago
> Virginia Tech. "Predation Linked To Evolution, *Study Suggests*." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 September 2007. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070910172717.htm>.
Click to expand...

The key phrase is "Study Suggests"  The key word - "Suggests".  That means more "speculation".  Thank you.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> A vast array of evidence for evolution has been presented. Ignorance and denial of the facts presented being a result of your YEC'ist beliefs is not a viable excuse for your whining.
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven nothing and never will.  Your theory is faith based.  Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation.  You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among  fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.
> 
> It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to post a comment where I have even mentioned the age of the earth.  The only argument you seem to have is to call everyone who doesn't buy your theory a "fundie". So please post something I've said to back that up.  Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's you fundie zealots who are the deniers of the fact of evolution.  So please post some relevant data concerning the Genesis fable that will refute an ancient earth and negate the scientific data for biological evolution. Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A predictable answer.  You can't provide proof of a claim, so you go straight to the "prove me wrong" argument.  You're a joke.
Click to expand...

Of course, you're in denial. That was predictable as you have done nothing but spam the thread with your pointless stuttering and mumbling as the facts of evolution have been presented to you. It's understandable that you  science loathing fundie Christians recoil at the facts of the many sciences that contribute to our understanding of earth history and our biological ancestry. That knowledge leaves less and less room for the fear and superstition you call religious faith.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence:
> 
> Predation Linked To Evolution Study Suggests -- ScienceDaily
> 
> Predation Linked To Evolution, Study Suggests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Date:
> September 14, 2007
> 
> Source:
> Virginia Tech
> 
> Summary:
> The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters. For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.
> 
> The fossil record seems to indicate that the diversity of marine creatures increased and decreased over hundreds of millions of years in step with predator-prey encounters, Virginia Tech geoscientists report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science.
> 
> For decades, there has been a debate between paleontologists, biologists, and ecologists on the role of ecological interactions, such as predation, in the long term patterns of animal evolution.
> 
> John Warren Huntley, a postdoctoral scientist in the Department of Geosciences at Virginia Tech, and Geosciences Professor Micha³ Kowalewski decided to look at the importance of ecology by surveying the literature for incidents of predation in marine invertebrates, such as clams and their relatives.
> 
> "Today, certain predators leave easy to identify marks on the shells of their prey, such as clean, round holes," said Huntley. "Such holes drilled by predators can also be found in fossil shells."
> 
> The researchers also looked for repair scars on the shells of creatures that survived an attack.
> 
> The study was conducted by looking at studies which reported the frequency of drill holes and repair scars in fossil species from the last 550 million years.
> 
> First Huntley and Kowalewski found that predation increased notably about 480 million years ago, some 50 million years earlier than previous studies have found. "The earlier studies were based on changes in morphology -- predators with stronger claws and jaws and prey with more ornamented shells. We looked at the frequency of attacks, which increased about 50 million years before the changes in armor," said Huntley.
> 
> But the most notable discovery is the observation that the incidence of drill holes and repair scars are strikingly parallel to Sepkoski's diversity curve for marine invertebrates. This diversity curve, compiled by the late Jack Sepkoski of the University of Chicago, records the origination and extinction of marine animal genera through the last 540 million years (Phanerozoic). "There is a strong correlation between predation intensity and global marine biodiversity in the Phanerozoic," Huntley said.
> 
> In their article, "Strong Coupling of Predation Intensity and Diversity in the Phanerozoic Fossil Record," the researchers offer three rival hypotheses to explain the correlation. "It's the classic problem with interpreting a correlation," said Huntley "you have to be careful when ascribing a cause. Let's say factors X and Y are correlated. A change in X could cause a change in Y, a change in Y could cause a change in X, or X and Y could both be controlled by another factor."
> 
> The first hypothesis is that predation intensity could be driving diversity. "In this case, ecological interactions would matter in evolution," said Huntley. "Organisms evolve over the long term in response to their enemies, and with increased predation intensity more species evolve."
> 
> The second hypothesis is that as biodiversity increased, by chance predators with more complex feeding strategies evolved. "Predatory techniques like drilling and peeling shells are more evolutionarily-derived than more primitive forms of predation like whole ingestion. In this scenario you would expect to evolve sophisticated forms of predation only when diversity is high," said Huntley.
> 
> And the third hypothesis is that something else is driving both predation and biodiversity. "Some periods have more sedimentary rocks, and therefore more fossils, preserved than others," said Huntley. "There is less diversity to be observed when there are fewer fossils to study. Perhaps this sampling bias affects our ability to find samples with high predation intensities as well."
> 
> "Now we will try to pick this apart," said Huntley. "We can test these hypotheses by examining relevant linkages between predation intensity and diversity in modern oceanic environments. Also, understanding the true nature of Sepkoski's curve will help us interpret our findings. Is it biological?  Is it the product of uneven sampling?"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Story Source:*
> 
> The above story is based on materials provided by *Virginia Tech*. _Note: Materials may be edited for content and length._
> 
> *Cite This Page*:
> 
> 
> MLA
> APA
> Chicago
> Virginia Tech. "Predation Linked To Evolution, *Study Suggests*." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 14 September 2007. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070910172717.htm>.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The key phrase is "Study Suggests"  The key word - "Suggests".  That means more "speculation".  Thank you.
Click to expand...

As opposed to "the gawds did it". Yet, you fundie zealots have many gawds.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

Evolution

Tree of Life Web Project


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've proven nothing and never will.  Your theory is faith based.  Fossils only show a previous existence, not a transformation.  You have no way of proving otherwise, all you can do is speculate and make claims you cannot back up with facts, that's why it's called a "theory".
> 
> 
> 
> Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among  fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.
> 
> It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Feel free to post a comment where I have even mentioned the age of the earth.  The only argument you seem to have is to call everyone who doesn't buy your theory a "fundie". So please post something I've said to back that up.  Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's you fundie zealots who are the deniers of the fact of evolution.  So please post some relevant data concerning the Genesis fable that will refute an ancient earth and negate the scientific data for biological evolution. Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A predictable answer.  You can't provide proof of a claim, so you go straight to the "prove me wrong" argument.  You're a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you're in denial. That was predictable as you have done nothing but spam the thread with your pointless stuttering and mumbling as the facts of evolution have been presented to you. It's understandable that you  science loathing fundie Christians recoil at the facts of the many sciences that contribute to our understanding of earth history and our biological ancestry. That knowledge leaves less and less room for the fear and superstition you call religious faith.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to post my comments referring to the earth being 6,000 years old, or my religious beliefs in any way.  Put up or shut up.  And constantly repeating that you have provided evidence of evolution doesn't make it so.  The one spamming this thread is you.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your retreat into denial of the facts is pretty typical for religious extremists. The fact of biological evolution is most strongly denied among  fundamentalist Christians for obvious reasons: their dogma is directly challenged by the fact of an ancient earth and human ancestry with a lineage of more than a mere 6,000 years.
> 
> It's a shame that facts contradict your fairy tale view of existence but as usual, you offer nothing but whining to counter the facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to post a comment where I have even mentioned the age of the earth.  The only argument you seem to have is to call everyone who doesn't buy your theory a "fundie". So please post something I've said to back that up.  Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's you fundie zealots who are the deniers of the fact of evolution.  So please post some relevant data concerning the Genesis fable that will refute an ancient earth and negate the scientific data for biological evolution. Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A predictable answer.  You can't provide proof of a claim, so you go straight to the "prove me wrong" argument.  You're a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you're in denial. That was predictable as you have done nothing but spam the thread with your pointless stuttering and mumbling as the facts of evolution have been presented to you. It's understandable that you  science loathing fundie Christians recoil at the facts of the many sciences that contribute to our understanding of earth history and our biological ancestry. That knowledge leaves less and less room for the fear and superstition you call religious faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to post my comments referring to the earth being 6,000 years old, or my religious beliefs in any way.  Put up or shut up.  And constantly repeating that you have provided evidence of evolution doesn't make it so.  The one spamming this thread is you.
Click to expand...

Im still waiting for your refutation of the facts surrounding evolution. You remember - the facts you claim don't exist. 

Are you somehow still confused that your pointless, screeching denials do nothing to refute the facts.


----------



## S.J.

ChesBayJJ said:


> Evolution
> 
> Tree of Life Web Project


An interesting speculation.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Feel free to post a comment where I have even mentioned the age of the earth.  The only argument you seem to have is to call everyone who doesn't buy your theory a "fundie". So please post something I've said to back that up.  Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> It's you fundie zealots who are the deniers of the fact of evolution.  So please post some relevant data concerning the Genesis fable that will refute an ancient earth and negate the scientific data for biological evolution. Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A predictable answer.  You can't provide proof of a claim, so you go straight to the "prove me wrong" argument.  You're a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you're in denial. That was predictable as you have done nothing but spam the thread with your pointless stuttering and mumbling as the facts of evolution have been presented to you. It's understandable that you  science loathing fundie Christians recoil at the facts of the many sciences that contribute to our understanding of earth history and our biological ancestry. That knowledge leaves less and less room for the fear and superstition you call religious faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to post my comments referring to the earth being 6,000 years old, or my religious beliefs in any way.  Put up or shut up.  And constantly repeating that you have provided evidence of evolution doesn't make it so.  The one spamming this thread is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im still waiting for your refutation of the facts surrounding evolution. You remember - the facts you claim don't exist.
> 
> Are you somehow still confused that your pointless, screeching denials do nothing to refute the facts.
Click to expand...

Are you aware that your constant challenge to "prove you wrong" proves me right?  BTW, you are confusing "guessing" with facts.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

S.J. said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution
> 
> Tree of Life Web Project
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting speculation.
Click to expand...


Better than anything you seem to have.

Try this one

What is the evidence for evolution


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's you fundie zealots who are the deniers of the fact of evolution.  So please post some relevant data concerning the Genesis fable that will refute an ancient earth and negate the scientific data for biological evolution. Go ahead, I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> A predictable answer.  You can't provide proof of a claim, so you go straight to the "prove me wrong" argument.  You're a joke.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course, you're in denial. That was predictable as you have done nothing but spam the thread with your pointless stuttering and mumbling as the facts of evolution have been presented to you. It's understandable that you  science loathing fundie Christians recoil at the facts of the many sciences that contribute to our understanding of earth history and our biological ancestry. That knowledge leaves less and less room for the fear and superstition you call religious faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to post my comments referring to the earth being 6,000 years old, or my religious beliefs in any way.  Put up or shut up.  And constantly repeating that you have provided evidence of evolution doesn't make it so.  The one spamming this thread is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im still waiting for your refutation of the facts surrounding evolution. You remember - the facts you claim don't exist.
> 
> Are you somehow still confused that your pointless, screeching denials do nothing to refute the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you aware that your constant challenge to "prove you wrong" proves me right?  BTW, you are confusing "guessing" with facts.
Click to expand...

You should be aware that you're wrong, as usual. I've not challenged you Christian extremists to prove me wrong. You have offered nothing to refute the evidence for evolution. The facts of evolution are denied most strenuously by you fundie Christian zealots for reasons that have already been presented to you.


----------



## eots

View attachment 39928


orogenicman said:


> More evidence:
> 
> New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA*
> Date:
> April 7, 2015
> 
> Source:
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> 
> Summary:
> The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link.
Click to expand...

*spontaneous generation...lol*
*


 *


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> View attachment 39928
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence:
> 
> New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA*
> Date:
> April 7, 2015
> 
> Source:
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> 
> Summary:
> The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *spontaneous generation...lol*
Click to expand...


9/11 conspiracy theorists......lol


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39928
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence:
> 
> New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA*
> Date:
> April 7, 2015
> 
> Source:
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> 
> Summary:
> The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *spontaneous generation...lol*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 9/11 conspiracy theorists......lol
Click to expand...

frankenstein theorist...the something from nothing gang


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39928
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence:
> 
> New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA*
> Date:
> April 7, 2015
> 
> Source:
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> 
> Summary:
> The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *spontaneous generation...lol*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 9/11 conspiracy theorists......lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> frankenstein theorist...the something from nothing gang
Click to expand...

In your fantasy world, you're having difficulty separating Hollywood movies from contingent reality.

Still nothing from you religious zealots to refute the sciences supporting evolution.


----------



## S.J.

ChesBayJJ said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution
> 
> Tree of Life Web Project
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Better than anything you seem to have.*
> 
> Try this one
> 
> What is the evidence for evolution
Click to expand...

I haven't presented anything but that doesn't make you right by default.  It still comes down to speculation and/or faith.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> A predictable answer.  You can't provide proof of a claim, so you go straight to the "prove me wrong" argument.  You're a joke.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you're in denial. That was predictable as you have done nothing but spam the thread with your pointless stuttering and mumbling as the facts of evolution have been presented to you. It's understandable that you  science loathing fundie Christians recoil at the facts of the many sciences that contribute to our understanding of earth history and our biological ancestry. That knowledge leaves less and less room for the fear and superstition you call religious faith.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Still waiting for you to post my comments referring to the earth being 6,000 years old, or my religious beliefs in any way.  Put up or shut up.  And constantly repeating that you have provided evidence of evolution doesn't make it so.  The one spamming this thread is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im still waiting for your refutation of the facts surrounding evolution. You remember - the facts you claim don't exist.
> 
> Are you somehow still confused that your pointless, screeching denials do nothing to refute the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you aware that your constant challenge to "prove you wrong" proves me right?  BTW, you are confusing "guessing" with facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be aware that you're wrong, as usual. *I've not challenged you Christian extremists to prove me wrong.* You have offered nothing to refute the evidence for evolution. The facts of evolution are denied most strenuously by you fundie Christian zealots for reasons that have already been presented to you.
Click to expand...

You just did, in the next sentence.    Damn, you're an idiot.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution
> 
> Tree of Life Web Project
> 
> 
> 
> An interesting speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Better than anything you seem to have.*
> 
> Try this one
> 
> What is the evidence for evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't presented anything but that doesn't make you right by default.  It still comes down to speculation and/or faith.
Click to expand...

Actually, the facts of evolution have no requirement for fear and superstition you define as faith. Your denials are a pathology you should seek help for.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, you're in denial. That was predictable as you have done nothing but spam the thread with your pointless stuttering and mumbling as the facts of evolution have been presented to you. It's understandable that you  science loathing fundie Christians recoil at the facts of the many sciences that contribute to our understanding of earth history and our biological ancestry. That knowledge leaves less and less room for the fear and superstition you call religious faith.
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to post my comments referring to the earth being 6,000 years old, or my religious beliefs in any way.  Put up or shut up.  And constantly repeating that you have provided evidence of evolution doesn't make it so.  The one spamming this thread is you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im still waiting for your refutation of the facts surrounding evolution. You remember - the facts you claim don't exist.
> 
> Are you somehow still confused that your pointless, screeching denials do nothing to refute the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you aware that your constant challenge to "prove you wrong" proves me right?  BTW, you are confusing "guessing" with facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be aware that you're wrong, as usual. *I've not challenged you Christian extremists to prove me wrong.* You have offered nothing to refute the evidence for evolution. The facts of evolution are denied most strenuously by you fundie Christian zealots for reasons that have already been presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just did, in the next sentence.    Damn, you're an idiot.
Click to expand...

You're getting quite frantic. Still in denial? I'm not surprised. That's a syndrome common to Christian zealots.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Evolution is ignorant. Fucking open your eyes. We were clearly placed here by martians.


----------



## Hollie

Humans As a Case Study for theEvidence of Evolution

In conclusion, the fact that there are so many lines of evidence in support of the idea of human evolution simply means that we, as physical anthropologists, have an unrivaled opportunity to teach about evolution and effectively confront creationism in our classrooms. We have the best case study for evolution in all of biology. Let us rejoice in that and use it in our teaching. The opportunity is yours, and I hope you all take advantage of it.


----------



## guno

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still waiting for you to post my comments referring to the earth being 6,000 years old, or my religious beliefs in any way.  Put up or shut up.  And constantly repeating that you have provided evidence of evolution doesn't make it so.  The one spamming this thread is you.
> 
> 
> 
> Im still waiting for your refutation of the facts surrounding evolution. You remember - the facts you claim don't exist.
> 
> Are you somehow still confused that your pointless, screeching denials do nothing to refute the facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you aware that your constant challenge to "prove you wrong" proves me right?  BTW, you are confusing "guessing" with facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should be aware that you're wrong, as usual. *I've not challenged you Christian extremists to prove me wrong.* You have offered nothing to refute the evidence for evolution. The facts of evolution are denied most strenuously by you fundie Christian zealots for reasons that have already been presented to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just did, in the next sentence.    Damn, you're an idiot.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're getting quite frantic. Still in denial? I'm not surprised. That's a syndrome common to Christian zealots.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> That's a syndrome common to Christian zealots



Its named Christophrenia
*
Christophrenia Diseases of the Radical Christian Right The Sirens Chronicles*


----------



## HUGGY

*Where is this mountain of evidence for evolution?*

*It's up your ass Mr. Right.  Keep looking... it's up there somewhere.*


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> View attachment 39928
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence:
> 
> New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA*
> Date:
> April 7, 2015
> 
> Source:
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> 
> Summary:
> The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *spontaneous generation...lol*
> *View attachment 39949 *
Click to expand...


Proving yet again that you are utterly incapable of making a reasonable, mature argument for your position.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Evolution is wrong.


----------



## eots

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Evolution is ignorant. Fucking open your eyes. We were clearly placed here by martians.


Awe so your one of those dawkins guys..


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

eots said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is ignorant. Fucking open your eyes. We were clearly placed here by martians.
> 
> 
> 
> Awe so your one of those dawkins guys..
Click to expand...

Smarter than that we just popped up from an explosion. Our eyes are too complex for that shit.


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is ignorant. Fucking open your eyes. We were clearly placed here by martians.
> 
> 
> 
> Awe so your one of those dawkins guys..
Click to expand...


So you're one of those pointless spammers who has cut and pasted that goofy video three times now.


----------



## S.J.

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39928
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence:
> 
> New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA*
> Date:
> April 7, 2015
> 
> Source:
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> 
> Summary:
> The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *spontaneous generation...lol*
> *View attachment 39949 *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proving yet again that you are utterly incapable of making a reasonable, mature argument for your position.
Click to expand...

You obviously haven't read any of Hollie's posts.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39928
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence:
> 
> New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA*
> Date:
> April 7, 2015
> 
> Source:
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> 
> Summary:
> The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *spontaneous generation...lol*
> *View attachment 39949 *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proving yet again that you are utterly incapable of making a reasonable, mature argument for your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously haven't read any of Hollie's posts.
Click to expand...

You poor, dear. You want to be accepted as being capable of making a reasoned argument yet your only contribution to this thread has been pointless and baseless denials regarding the validity of science facts regarding biological evolution. Why do you presume an entitlement to be accepted as something other than a pointless spammer?


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39928
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence:
> 
> New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA*
> Date:
> April 7, 2015
> 
> Source:
> University of Colorado at Boulder
> 
> Summary:
> The self-organization properties of DNA-like molecular fragments four billion years ago may have guided their own growth into repeating chemical chains long enough to act as a basis for primitive life, says a new study.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *spontaneous generation...lol*
> *View attachment 39949 *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proving yet again that you are utterly incapable of making a reasonable, mature argument for your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously haven't read any of Hollie's posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor, dear. You want to be accepted as being capable of making a reasoned argument yet your only contribution to this thread has been pointless and baseless denials regarding the validity of science facts regarding biological evolution. Why do you presume an entitlement to be accepted as something other than a pointless spammer?
Click to expand...

See what I mean?


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39928
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> More evidence:
> 
> New study hints at spontaneous appearance of primordial DNA -- ScienceDaily
> 
> More at the link.
> 
> 
> 
> *spontaneous generation...lol*
> *View attachment 39949 *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Proving yet again that you are utterly incapable of making a reasonable, mature argument for your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously haven't read any of Hollie's posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor, dear. You want to be accepted as being capable of making a reasoned argument yet your only contribution to this thread has been pointless and baseless denials regarding the validity of science facts regarding biological evolution. Why do you presume an entitlement to be accepted as something other than a pointless spammer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean?
Click to expand...


I see only your inability to offer a coherent comment. This thread is not about your tender sensibilities being offended by science or your YEC'ist beliefs being refuted. Stop whining.


----------



## Hollie

*Humans As a Case Study for theEvidence of Evolution


SEVEN LINES OF EVIDENCE FROM BIOLOGY*

Hierarchical (Taxonomic) Classification (Linnaeus)
primates naturally forming nested hierarchical groupings

Comparative Anatomy
homologies
general adaptive attributes of all primates (including humans)
distinctive brachiating anatomy possessed by hominoids

Comparative Embryology (Ernst Haeckel)
Comparative Biochemistry (1950's)
served as a substantial test of evolutionary theory (and illustrates concordance between independent lines of evidence)
amino acid sequences of proteins (genetic products)
chromosomal banding patterns (genetic loci)
DNA structure itself (genes)

Adaptive Compromises or "Imperfections"
"contrivances" (Charles Darwin)
"evolution as tinkering" (Francois Jacob)
human examples:
pelvic structure adapted both for fully erect bipedalism AND giving birth to big-brained babies
lowered larynx an adaptation for speech BUT also a liability in that it makes us more likely to choke compared to other mammals


Vestigial Structures
"senseless signs of history" (Stephen Jay Gould)
human examples: ears with muscles, Darwin's tubercle, appendix, little toe

Biogeography
refers to the geographical distribution of similar species as a result of shared ancestry; for example, lemurs on Madagascar, New World and Old World monkeys, lesser apes
Darwin's 1871 prediction about finding fossils of early humans in Africa

*FIVE LINES OF EVIDENCE FROM PALEONTOLOGY & ARCHAEOLOGY*

"Paleo-biogeography"
earliest hominid fossils are from Africa as predicted by Darwin and evolutionary theory

Fossil Sequence
more "primitive" (less modern forms) found earlier and before more "evolved" (more modern) forms

Fossil Intermediates
intermediate fossils theoretically should and DO display a combination of primitive and derived features: Mosaic Specimens
"Lucy" (Hadar, Ethiopia; 3 mya)
various archaic/"modern" specimens (for example, Jebel Irhoud, Predmost)


Ecological Coherence Of Fossil Assemblages
fossil assemblages represent ecologically-sensible collections of fossil species (_contra_ the "Flood chaos" model)
virtually any hominid site but especially those with both hominid remains and faunal and/or floral fossils

Chronological Sequence Of Stone Tools
the same sort of developmental sequence seen in more "primitive" to more "advanced" fossils is seen in the archaeological sequence of stone tools from cruder to more sophisticated and refined


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 39928
> *spontaneous generation...lol*
> *View attachment 39949 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Proving yet again that you are utterly incapable of making a reasonable, mature argument for your position.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously haven't read any of Hollie's posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor, dear. You want to be accepted as being capable of making a reasoned argument yet your only contribution to this thread has been pointless and baseless denials regarding the validity of science facts regarding biological evolution. Why do you presume an entitlement to be accepted as something other than a pointless spammer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see only your inability to offer a coherent comment. This thread is not about your tender sensibilities being offended by science or your YEC'ist beliefs being refuted. Stop whining.
Click to expand...

And once again you prove me right.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving yet again that you are utterly incapable of making a reasonable, mature argument for your position.
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously haven't read any of Hollie's posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor, dear. You want to be accepted as being capable of making a reasoned argument yet your only contribution to this thread has been pointless and baseless denials regarding the validity of science facts regarding biological evolution. Why do you presume an entitlement to be accepted as something other than a pointless spammer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see only your inability to offer a coherent comment. This thread is not about your tender sensibilities being offended by science or your YEC'ist beliefs being refuted. Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you prove me right.
Click to expand...

Once again you prove you're a pointless spammer. No one but you is responsible for your inadequacies.

CA202 Evolution proof


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving yet again that you are utterly incapable of making a reasonable, mature argument for your position.
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously haven't read any of Hollie's posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You poor, dear. You want to be accepted as being capable of making a reasoned argument yet your only contribution to this thread has been pointless and baseless denials regarding the validity of science facts regarding biological evolution. Why do you presume an entitlement to be accepted as something other than a pointless spammer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see only your inability to offer a coherent comment. This thread is not about your tender sensibilities being offended by science or your YEC'ist beliefs being refuted. Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you prove me right.
Click to expand...

You're a whiner. 

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
*Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*
by Laurence Moran


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously haven't read any of Hollie's posts.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor, dear. You want to be accepted as being capable of making a reasoned argument yet your only contribution to this thread has been pointless and baseless denials regarding the validity of science facts regarding biological evolution. Why do you presume an entitlement to be accepted as something other than a pointless spammer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see only your inability to offer a coherent comment. This thread is not about your tender sensibilities being offended by science or your YEC'ist beliefs being refuted. Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you prove me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you prove you're a pointless spammer. No one but you is responsible for your inadequacies.
> 
> CA202 Evolution proof
Click to expand...

Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.

"Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously haven't read any of Hollie's posts.
> 
> 
> 
> You poor, dear. You want to be accepted as being capable of making a reasoned argument yet your only contribution to this thread has been pointless and baseless denials regarding the validity of science facts regarding biological evolution. Why do you presume an entitlement to be accepted as something other than a pointless spammer?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see only your inability to offer a coherent comment. This thread is not about your tender sensibilities being offended by science or your YEC'ist beliefs being refuted. Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you prove me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a whiner.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> *Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*
> by Laurence Moran
Click to expand...

I'm not whining, I'm laughing.  You are an idiot.


----------



## Hollie

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence

The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
by Raymond Sutera
Copyright © 2001

[posted: August 10, 2001]

_This article originally appeared in Reports of the National Center for Science Education,
a publication of The National Center for Science Education._





_Thewissen and others (1994) published this reconstruction of the skeleton ofAmbulocetans natans (redrawn for RNCSE by Janet Dreyer). 







ow do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse. Sometimes, when you point out a fossil that falls into the middle of a gap and is a superb morphological and chronological intermediate, you are met with the response: "Well, now you have two gaps where you only had one before! You are losing ground!" _


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor, dear. You want to be accepted as being capable of making a reasoned argument yet your only contribution to this thread has been pointless and baseless denials regarding the validity of science facts regarding biological evolution. Why do you presume an entitlement to be accepted as something other than a pointless spammer?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see only your inability to offer a coherent comment. This thread is not about your tender sensibilities being offended by science or your YEC'ist beliefs being refuted. Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you prove me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you prove you're a pointless spammer. No one but you is responsible for your inadequacies.
> 
> CA202 Evolution proof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
Click to expand...

As usual, you sweepingly don't understand..... even the most simple concepts.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Evolution was made by the devil to trick weak minded fools like you.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You poor, dear. You want to be accepted as being capable of making a reasoned argument yet your only contribution to this thread has been pointless and baseless denials regarding the validity of science facts regarding biological evolution. Why do you presume an entitlement to be accepted as something other than a pointless spammer?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see only your inability to offer a coherent comment. This thread is not about your tender sensibilities being offended by science or your YEC'ist beliefs being refuted. Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you prove me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're a whiner.
> 
> Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
> *Evolution is a Fact and a Theory*
> by Laurence Moran
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not whining, I'm laughing.  You are an idiot.
Click to expand...


As usual, you're left to whining like a child who has been scolded for bad behavior and sent to his room for a time out.

For all the evidence that's presented for the fact of biological evolution, you continue to fail at every post to offer even the hint of a refutation. 

Your YEC'ist beliefs cannot withstand the glaring light of facts.

Stop whining.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Evolution was made by the devil to trick weak minded fools like you.


What a shame the gawds are too impotent to defeat the devil.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution was made by the devil to trick weak minded fools like you.
> 
> 
> 
> What a shame the gawds are too impotent to defeat the devil.
Click to expand...

If we didn't have the devil who could you blame for all the evil shit people do?


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what I mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see only your inability to offer a coherent comment. This thread is not about your tender sensibilities being offended by science or your YEC'ist beliefs being refuted. Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And once again you prove me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you prove you're a pointless spammer. No one but you is responsible for your inadequacies.
> 
> CA202 Evolution proof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you sweepingly don't understand..... even the most simple concepts.
Click to expand...

Ah, the default argument of the arrogant and the idiotic.


----------



## Hollie

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution 
Copyright © 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak 

A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see only your inability to offer a coherent comment. This thread is not about your tender sensibilities being offended by science or your YEC'ist beliefs being refuted. Stop whining.
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you prove me right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you prove you're a pointless spammer. No one but you is responsible for your inadequacies.
> 
> CA202 Evolution proof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you sweepingly don't understand..... even the most simple concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the default argument of the arrogant and the idiotic.
Click to expand...


Yours is the last resort of the Christian fundie who can't defend his YEC'ist fantasies. 

Stop whining. Learn to appreciate the education you're being given. You're an accomplice to fear, ignorance and gullibility. Don't be an accomplice.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
> 
> Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
> Copyright © 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak
> 
> A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)


Satan made it up... OMG. How can you seriously believe that our entire body came together from nothing? All this complexity in just 4.5 billion years... I haven't seen any new species created in my life time.


----------



## Hollie

CB102 Mutations adding information

*Claim CB102:*
Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
*Source:*
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis


*Response:*

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of 
increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And once again you prove me right.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you prove you're a pointless spammer. No one but you is responsible for your inadequacies.
> 
> CA202 Evolution proof
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As usual, you sweepingly don't understand..... even the most simple concepts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, the default argument of the arrogant and the idiotic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Yours is the last resort of the Christian fundie who can't defend his YEC'ist fantasies. *
> 
> Stop whining. Learn to appreciate the education you're being given. You're an accomplice to fear, ignorance and gullibility. Don't be an accomplice.
Click to expand...

Another default argument - Assign a position to your opponent they did not take.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> CB102 Mutations adding information
> 
> *Claim CB102:*
> Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
> *Source:*
> AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


I like how you copy and paste other people's statements but have none of your own.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> CB102 Mutations adding information
> 
> *Claim CB102:*
> Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
> *Source:*
> AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


I know mutations exist but show me a good one or one that is a functioning new organ. All I've ever seen is ones that end up killing the animal


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
> 
> Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
> Copyright © 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak
> 
> A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)
> 
> 
> 
> Satan made it up... OMG. How can you seriously believe that our entire body came together from nothing? All this complexity in just 4.5 billion years... I haven't seen any new species created in my life time.
Click to expand...


We've seen at least one new species. The Christian fundamentalist has evolved from the former _biblical creationist_ to the more recent _Intelligent design creationist. _


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
> 
> Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
> Copyright © 1995-1997 by Mark Isaak
> 
> A large part of the reason why Creationist arguments against evolution can sound so persuasive is because they don't address evolution, but rather argue against a set of misunderstandings that people are right to consider ludicrous. The Creationists wrongly believe that their understanding of evolution is what the theory of evolution really says, and declare evolution banished. In fact, they haven't even addressed the topic of evolution. (The situation isn't helped by poor science education generally. Even most beginning college biology students don't understand the theory of evolution.)
> 
> 
> 
> Satan made it up... OMG. How can you seriously believe that our entire body came together from nothing? All this complexity in just 4.5 billion years... I haven't seen any new species created in my life time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've seen at least one new species. The Christian fundamentalist has evolved from the former _biblical creationist_ to the more recent _Intelligent design creationist. _
Click to expand...

I think it's ignorant that evolutionists make claims as if it's fact when you haven't observed it. Other theories held to that esteem have much move evidence and can be witnessed. Once again show me a new type of organ or some useful shit come from no where because I think it was all programmed at the beginning of life.

The reason it evolved is because evolutionist morons just continually attack religion during debates like this instead of talking about the issue that you're supposed to be talking about.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> CB102 Mutations adding information
> 
> *Claim CB102:*
> Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
> *Source:*
> AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you copy and paste other people's statements but have none of your own.
Click to expand...

I like how the facts of evolution, which you deny, cause you to whine and moan when they're presented to you. 

Stop whining.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."


As you have been told repeatedly - and have ignored invincibly - the thread is about evidence, not proof.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> CB102 Mutations adding information
> 
> *Claim CB102:*
> Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
> *Source:*
> AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know mutations exist but show me a good one or one that is a functioning new organ. All I've ever seen is ones that end up killing the animal
Click to expand...


You have a valid point there. The mutant _biblical creationist _which evolved into the later _intelligent design creationist_ ended up killing the credibility of the species.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> CB102 Mutations adding information
> 
> *Claim CB102:*
> Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
> *Source:*
> AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know mutations exist but show me a good one or one that is a functioning new organ. All I've ever seen is ones that end up killing the animal
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a valid point there. The mutant _biblical creationist _which evolved into the later _intelligent design creationist_ ended up killing the credibility of the species.
Click to expand...

You don't answer questions and then just say you're wrong basically. Go fuck monkeys to try to make yourself evolved. Maybe you'll make a new form of AIDS


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> CB102 Mutations adding information
> 
> *Claim CB102:*
> Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
> *Source:*
> AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you copy and paste other people's statements but have none of your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how the facts of evolution, which you deny, cause you to whine and moan when they're presented to you.
> 
> Stop whining.
Click to expand...

You need to find a smart person to sit with you while you post so you don't have to keep repeating the same response over and over.


----------



## S.J.

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> As you have been told repeatedly - and have ignored invincibly - the thread is about evidence, not proof.
Click to expand...

Well, the only evidence any of you have posted is evidence of similarities.  There is absolutely no evidence that any species "evolved" into another.  You'll never get past speculation.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> CB102 Mutations adding information
> 
> *Claim CB102:*
> Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
> *Source:*
> AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you copy and paste other people's statements but have none of your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how the facts of evolution, which you deny, cause you to whine and moan when they're presented to you.
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to find a smart person to sit with you while you post so you don't have to keep repeating the same response over and over.
Click to expand...

As we have seen throughout this thread, you're just whining about your YEC'Ist beliefs being refuted by the evidence and the facts of evolution. 

Stop whining. You may eventually evolve from non-critically thinking zealot to a Marshall Applewhite wannabe.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> As you have been told repeatedly - and have ignored invincibly - the thread is about evidence, not proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the only evidence any of you have posted is evidence of similarities.  There is absolutely no evidence that any species "evolved" into another.  You'll never get past speculation.
Click to expand...

Transitional species and the process/evidence of speciation are just the gawds playing a cruel joke on you.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> CB102 Mutations adding information
> 
> *Claim CB102:*
> Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
> *Source:*
> AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you copy and paste other people's statements but have none of your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how the facts of evolution, which you deny, cause you to whine and moan when they're presented to you.
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to find a smart person to sit with you while you post so you don't have to keep repeating the same response over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As we have seen throughout this thread, you're just whining about your YEC'Ist beliefs being refuted by the evidence and the facts of evolution.
> 
> Stop whining. You may eventually evolve from non-critically thinking zealot to a Marshall Applewhite wannabe.
Click to expand...

Seriously man. How old are you? I hope you say you're at least over 60 cause you definitely have severe memory loss. You've said that same thing like 5 times.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> CB102 Mutations adding information
> 
> *Claim CB102:*
> Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
> *Source:*
> AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you copy and paste other people's statements but have none of your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how the facts of evolution, which you deny, cause you to whine and moan when they're presented to you.
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to find a smart person to sit with you while you post so you don't have to keep repeating the same response over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As we have seen throughout this thread, you're just whining about your YEC'Ist beliefs being refuted by the evidence and the facts of evolution.
> 
> Stop whining. You may eventually evolve from non-critically thinking zealot to a Marshall Applewhite wannabe.
Click to expand...

How old did you say you were?


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> I know mutations exist but show me a good one or one that is a functioning new organ. All I've ever seen is ones that end up killing the animal


The one that fused together two of the 24 pair of chromosomes in the great apes to make the 23 pair of chromosomes in humans.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> As you have been told repeatedly - and have ignored invincibly - the thread is about evidence, not proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the only evidence any of you have posted is evidence of similarities.  There is absolutely no evidence that any species "evolved" into another.  You'll never get past speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Transitional species and the process/evidence of speciation are just the gawds playing a cruel joke on you.
Click to expand...

Or it's the gods saying you're dumb as fuck cause that's not what actually happened.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

cnm said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know mutations exist but show me a good one or one that is a functioning new organ. All I've ever seen is ones that end up killing the animal
> 
> 
> 
> The one that fused together two of the 24 pair of chromosomes in the great apes to make the 23 pair of chromosomes in humans.
Click to expand...

Can you replicate this for me today?


----------



## S.J.

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> CB102 Mutations adding information
> 
> *Claim CB102:*
> Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.
> *Source:*
> AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. Doing a Report on Creation vs. Evolution Answers in Genesis
> 
> 
> *Response:*
> 
> It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
> increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
> increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
> novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
> novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you copy and paste other people's statements but have none of your own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like how the facts of evolution, which you deny, cause you to whine and moan when they're presented to you.
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to find a smart person to sit with you while you post so you don't have to keep repeating the same response over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As we have seen throughout this thread, you're just whining about your YEC'Ist beliefs being refuted by the evidence and the facts of evolution.
> 
> Stop whining. You may eventually evolve from non-critically thinking zealot to a Marshall Applewhite wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously man. How old are you? I hope you say you're at least over 60 cause you definitely have severe memory loss. You've said that same thing like 5 times.
Click to expand...

You joined the thread late.  She's said it now probably 50 times.  It's all she has done throughout the whole thread.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> Well, the only evidence any of you have posted is evidence of similarities.  There is absolutely no evidence that any species "evolved" into another.  You'll never get past speculation.


Invincible ignorance is in fact invincible.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> As you have been told repeatedly - and have ignored invincibly - the thread is about evidence, not proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the only evidence any of you have posted is evidence of similarities.  There is absolutely no evidence that any species "evolved" into another.  You'll never get past speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Transitional species and the process/evidence of speciation are just the gawds playing a cruel joke on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Or it's the gods saying you're dumb as fuck cause that's not what actually happened.
Click to expand...

Do you attend the same madrassah as the other angry, self-hating Fundie?


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Can you replicate this for me today?


You asked for a beneficial mutation, you were given one. Say 'thank you'.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

cnm said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> As you have been told repeatedly - and have ignored invincibly - the thread is about evidence, not proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the only evidence any of you have posted is evidence of similarities.  There is absolutely no evidence that any species "evolved" into another.  You'll never get past speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invincible ignorance is in fact invincible.
Click to expand...

Show me the monkey giving birth to a person and I'll believe you or is it flashing lights and suddenly the monkey just transforms into a person during mid life?

An observed mutation. Not an assumption you make based on the fact you already believe evolution occurred.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know mutations exist but show me a good one or one that is a functioning new organ. All I've ever seen is ones that end up killing the animal
> 
> 
> 
> The one that fused together two of the 24 pair of chromosomes in the great apes to make the 23 pair of chromosomes in humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you replicate this for me today?
Click to expand...

What is it you're having a hard time getting? She's usually spot on.


----------



## Hollie

S.J. said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like how you copy and paste other people's statements but have none of your own.
> 
> 
> 
> I like how the facts of evolution, which you deny, cause you to whine and moan when they're presented to you.
> 
> Stop whining.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need to find a smart person to sit with you while you post so you don't have to keep repeating the same response over and over.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As we have seen throughout this thread, you're just whining about your YEC'Ist beliefs being refuted by the evidence and the facts of evolution.
> 
> Stop whining. You may eventually evolve from non-critically thinking zealot to a Marshall Applewhite wannabe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously man. How old are you? I hope you say you're at least over 60 cause you definitely have severe memory loss. You've said that same thing like 5 times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You joined the thread late.  She's said it now probably 50 times.  It's all she has done throughout the whole thread.
Click to expand...


Yet, you're still unable to resolve your YEC'ist beliefs against the fact of evolutionary science. 

Myself and others have tried to educate you but you continue to defend your ignorance. As noted, your ignorance is invincible. An achievement of dubious merit.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

sealybobo said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know mutations exist but show me a good one or one that is a functioning new organ. All I've ever seen is ones that end up killing the animal
> 
> 
> 
> The one that fused together two of the 24 pair of chromosomes in the great apes to make the 23 pair of chromosomes in humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you replicate this for me today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it you're having a hard time getting? She's usually spot on.
Click to expand...

An example based on an assumption that it happened because it had to have happened or evolution wouldn't have worked does not make me believe in evolution. Just saying. If that's enough evidence for you to look at as fact then good for you.

I've discussed this in person with biologists and to me intelligent design and evolution seem just as far fetched. I've observed neither of them. Intelligent design is way cooler to believe in than evolution though. So you can have your boring science based on things you can't observe.


----------



## cnm

If you want to deny that is a beneficial mutation that has not killed the recipient that will not be a surprise.


----------



## S.J.

sealybobo said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know mutations exist but show me a good one or one that is a functioning new organ. All I've ever seen is ones that end up killing the animal
> 
> 
> 
> The one that fused together two of the 24 pair of chromosomes in the great apes to make the 23 pair of chromosomes in humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you replicate this for me today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it you're having a hard time getting? She's usually spot on.
Click to expand...

Tell us again how an interplanetary explosion created life.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> As you have been told repeatedly - and have ignored invincibly - the thread is about evidence, not proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the only evidence any of you have posted is evidence of similarities.  There is absolutely no evidence that any species "evolved" into another.  You'll never get past speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invincible ignorance is in fact invincible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me the monkey giving birth to a person and I'll believe you or is it flashing lights and suddenly the monkey just transforms into a person during mid life?
> 
> An observed mutation. Not an assumption you make based on the fact you already believe evolution occurred.
Click to expand...

It happens over hundreds of thousands of years. You'll never observe it.

What is your theory? We already dont know for sure how life started here on earth. We think all life started in one place and we are all ancestors of it. What is your theory? There are 1 million beatles alone. Did god plant giraffe seeds and croc seeds and alligator seed and kauala bear seed and lion seed? I can't wait to hear your theory.


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know mutations exist but show me a good one or one that is a functioning new organ. All I've ever seen is ones that end up killing the animal
> 
> 
> 
> The one that fused together two of the 24 pair of chromosomes in the great apes to make the 23 pair of chromosomes in humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you replicate this for me today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it you're having a hard time getting? She's usually spot on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us again how an interplanetary explosion created life.
Click to expand...

You tell me your theory first. The truth is we may not know. What's your theory?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

If you look back in the thread I think this is the 6th or 7th time Hollie has said the same thing. As far as I can read there is no evidence or arguments in her comment.


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Just saying. If that's enough evidence for you to look at as fact then good for you.


It's enough evidence for it to be looked at as evidence. That two pair of chromosomes have fused is fact.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read the first line in your copy and paste link.  They admit they have no proof.
> 
> "Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty."
> 
> 
> 
> As you have been told repeatedly - and have ignored invincibly - the thread is about evidence, not proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the only evidence any of you have posted is evidence of similarities.  There is absolutely no evidence that any species "evolved" into another.  You'll never get past speculation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Invincible ignorance is in fact invincible.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me the monkey giving birth to a person and I'll believe you or is it flashing lights and suddenly the monkey just transforms into a person during mid life?
> 
> An observed mutation. Not an assumption you make based on the fact you already believe evolution occurred.
Click to expand...

I have no reason to "believe" evolution occurs and has occurred. The process has volumes of evidence for support. Mutations have been addressed in this thread. In spite of the denials of the the rabid YEC'ists, the facts stand.

If you have no opposable thumb, hunt and peck the keyboard with one finger. There is a search feature embedded with the board software.


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know mutations exist but show me a good one or one that is a functioning new organ. All I've ever seen is ones that end up killing the animal
> 
> 
> 
> The one that fused together two of the 24 pair of chromosomes in the great apes to make the 23 pair of chromosomes in humans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you replicate this for me today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What is it you're having a hard time getting? She's usually spot on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us again how an interplanetary explosion created life.
Click to expand...

I think DNA is in comets. But the Cosmos suggested a meteor hit mars and flung rock from mars to earth and life stowed away on the rock. I dont like that explanation.

They will find amino acids protein bacteria mold or something in the comet we just landed on. We are all made of star stuff.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> If you look back in the thread I think this is the 6th or 7th time Hollie has said the same thing. As far as I can read there is no evidence or arguments in her comment.


Except for the evidences and arguments that are denied by the fundie zealots.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

I really don't care if people believe in evolution but I've had more evolutionists violently attack my beliefs for literally no reason than I've had religious people try to convert me. Seems hypocritical to me but to each their own.


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.


The level of evidence required for that 'theory' would allow me to hypothesise pixies.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.


That's nice, dear. Your "beliefs" are boilerplate that are scripted from any of the wacky creation ministries.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice, dear. Your "beliefs" are boilerplate that are scripted from any of the wacky creation ministries.
Click to expand...

Ok. You accept your theory as fact. That's the difference between me and you. The day you show me a real species mutation or the information for new organs be created randomly I will believe in your theory. Until that day I'll stick with the unknown.


----------



## S.J.

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice, dear. Your "beliefs" are boilerplate that are scripted from any of the wacky creation ministries.
Click to expand...

And there you have it, folks.  Superman 1929 makes a serious attempt at an adult discussion and Hollie flings shit in return.  This is all she is capable of, she's here to troll.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SUPERMAN1929 SAID:

“Here's my theory. God...”

At which point your 'theory' fails.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.


So god did it. That's your answer? No scientist or athiest can't accept your answer you know that right?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

sealybobo said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> So god did it. That's your answer? No scientist or athiest can accept your answer you know that right?
Click to expand...

I know. I'm just sick of people pretending evolution is fact whenever things haven't been observed that would be necessary for it to be considered fact. I have no problem with the belief of evolution. It's when people explain it like they witnessed it. Giving an example of a mutation chimps turning into people is not a valid example.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Scientists that study evolution don't even do anything beneficial for society they don't discover anything to help cure illnesses or make cool technology. They just theorize about how one life form may have been able to transform into another.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice, dear. Your "beliefs" are boilerplate that are scripted from any of the wacky creation ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. You accept your theory as fact. That's the difference between me and you. The day you show me a real species mutation or the information for new organs be created randomly I will believe in your theory. Until that day I'll stick with the unknown.
Click to expand...

Biological evolution has moved beyond theory. This has also been addressed in this thread.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice, dear. Your "beliefs" are boilerplate that are scripted from any of the wacky creation ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. You accept your theory as fact. That's the difference between me and you. The day you show me a real species mutation or the information for new organs be created randomly I will believe in your theory. Until that day I'll stick with the unknown.
Click to expand...

You're making the same mistake as others hostile to evolution: incorrectly perceiving the earth as immutable and static – that life is currently on the planet, that we exist now at all, is proof of evolution, where without evolution life on earth would have been extinguished billions of years ago.


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Ok. You accept your theory as fact. That's the difference between me and you. The day you show me a real species mutation or the information for new organs be created randomly I will believe in your theory. Until that day I'll stick with the unknown.


We accept the theory of evolution as the best current explanation for the diversity of life* until better knowledge comes along. You have been told of a beneficial mutation, you refuse to accept it.

No worries; as is continually demonstrated on this thread, invincible ignorance is in fact invincible.


*Orogenicman


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Scientists that study evolution don't even do anything beneficial for society they don't discover anything to help cure illnesses or make cool technology. They just theorize about how one life form may have been able to transform into another.


You understand nothing of medical science or of the earth sciences.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> So god did it. That's your answer? No scientist or athiest can accept your answer you know that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know. I'm just sick of people pretending evolution is fact whenever things haven't been observed that would be necessary for it to be considered fact. I have no problem with the belief of evolution. It's when people explain it like they witnessed it. Giving an example of a mutation chimps turning into people is not a valid example.
Click to expand...

No but what we were able to do with dogs in a couple generations. To think we turned wolves into poodles. 

I find it unimaginable that cold blooded and warm blooded animals were once related. Did you see the cosmos? You can get them free at the library. Watch the old one and the new.


----------



## cnm

S.J. said:


> And there you have it, folks.  Superman 1929 makes a serious attempt at an adult discussion and Hollie flings shit in return.  This is all she is capable of, she's here to troll.


No, Superman 1929 tells us fairy stories without evidence.


----------



## sealybobo

cnm said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. You accept your theory as fact. That's the difference between me and you. The day you show me a real species mutation or the information for new organs be created randomly I will believe in your theory. Until that day I'll stick with the unknown.
> 
> 
> 
> We accept the theory of evolution as the best current explanation for the diversity of life* until better knowledge comes along. You have been told of a beneficial mutation, you refuse to accept it.
> 
> No worries; as is continually demonstrated on this thread, invincible ignorance is in fact invincible.
Click to expand...

Relax. Its hard to believe at first. To think we share an ancestor with ants and birds and maggots. But there really is no other explanation other than god did it.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> So god did it. That's your answer? No scientist or athiest can accept your answer you know that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know. I'm just sick of people pretending evolution is fact whenever things haven't been observed that would be necessary for it to be considered fact. I have no problem with the belief of evolution. It's when people explain it like they witnessed it. Giving an example of a mutation chimps turning into people is not a valid example.
Click to expand...

The observations you claim have not been observed have been observed. Your pointless chimps and people comparisons define your understanding of _hominid _evolution as nonexistent_._


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Scientists that study evolution don't even do anything beneficial for society they don't discover anything to help cure illnesses or make cool technology. They just theorize about how one life form may have been able to transform into another.


What are scientists that study evolution called? What is it biology?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> So god did it. That's your answer? No scientist or athiest can accept your answer you know that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know. I'm just sick of people pretending evolution is fact whenever things haven't been observed that would be necessary for it to be considered fact. I have no problem with the belief of evolution. It's when people explain it like they witnessed it. Giving an example of a mutation chimps turning into people is not a valid example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The observations you claim have not been observed have been observed. Your pointless chimps and people comparisons define your understanding of _hominid _evolution as nonexistent_._
Click to expand...

It's literally just 2 different assumptions. You guys are atheist so you immediately assume that evolution occurred. If I was atheist I would believe in evolution because there is no other option, not because it has all this concrete evidence. I choose to believe something exists because atheism seems dark to me and pointless. I think a spiritual side is a healthy part of humans and I really don't see what there is to lose if I die and then there is nothing else which atheists believe. Either way both of us lived and died. Just as pointless. You didn't accomplish anything by being right about what happened on the earth.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

anthropologist for human evolution or paleontologist for fossils.


----------



## sealybobo

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice, dear. Your "beliefs" are boilerplate that are scripted from any of the wacky creation ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. You accept your theory as fact. That's the difference between me and you. The day you show me a real species mutation or the information for new organs be created randomly I will believe in your theory. Until that day I'll stick with the unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making the same mistake as others hostile to evolution: incorrectly perceiving the earth as immutable and static – that life is currently on the planet, that we exist now at all, is proof of evolution, where without evolution life on earth would have been extinguished billions of years ago.
Click to expand...

Why? Why didn't single cell organisms just stay single cell and populate the planet with just single cell life?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

sealybobo said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> That's nice, dear. Your "beliefs" are boilerplate that are scripted from any of the wacky creation ministries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok. You accept your theory as fact. That's the difference between me and you. The day you show me a real species mutation or the information for new organs be created randomly I will believe in your theory. Until that day I'll stick with the unknown.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're making the same mistake as others hostile to evolution: incorrectly perceiving the earth as immutable and static – that life is currently on the planet, that we exist now at all, is proof of evolution, where without evolution life on earth would have been extinguished billions of years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? Why didn't single cell organisms just stay single cell and populate the planet with just single cell life?
Click to expand...

That's what I don't get too. They are better survivalists than us.


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> It's literally just 2 different assumptions.


No, it's your assumption compared to a scientific theory supported by evidence.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> So god did it. That's your answer? No scientist or athiest can accept your answer you know that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know. I'm just sick of people pretending evolution is fact whenever things haven't been observed that would be necessary for it to be considered fact. I have no problem with the belief of evolution. It's when people explain it like they witnessed it. Giving an example of a mutation chimps turning into people is not a valid example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The observations you claim have not been observed have been observed. Your pointless chimps and people comparisons define your understanding of _hominid _evolution as nonexistent_._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's literally just 2 different assumptions. You guys are atheist so you immediately assume that evolution occurred. If I was atheist I would believe in evolution because there is no other option, not because it has all this concrete evidence. I choose to believe something exists because atheism seems dark to me and pointless. I think a spiritual side is a healthy part of humans and I really don't see what there is to lose if I die and then there is nothing else which atheists believe. Either way both of us lived and died. Just as pointless. You didn't accomplish anything by being right about what happened on the earth.
Click to expand...

I'm going to go with the conclusions made after careful thought using logic reason and the scientific method not settle for god did it. 

So basically you believe because you want to believe. My mind doesnt operate that way. I dont believe because its better to be safe than sorry. That's how theists get ya. Scare you with hell.

Your answer must be god is absurd and I think you realize it when you try to explain it to us. But at least you are honest. You like your theory better than ours even though you have no scientific evidence to support it.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Both appear irrational to me in a way. It's not really a better safe than sorry view but I really do believe something else exists. I look to the future much more than to the past anyways. Very boring topic to me.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Both appear irrational to me in a way. It's not really a better safe than sorry view but I really do believe something else exists. I look to the future much more than to the past anyways. Very boring topic to me.


I felt it to be a very satisfying and liberating feeling to finally realize there probably is no god that made the universe or the infinite amount of cosmos beyond our tiny yet enormous little universe. And when you realize it would take us 70,000 years at top speed to reach the nearest star and there are billions of stars in our galaxy alone. Anyways, the god hypothesis is what our ancestors believed. We are evolving mentally where in 2000 more years we will all be athiests and spiritualists. No christians Muslims or Jews.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Whatever works for you. I know  several people that hold that view.


----------



## eots

Hollie said:


> The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
> 
> The Origin of Whales and the Power of Independent Evidence
> by Raymond Sutera
> Copyright © 2001
> 
> [posted: August 10, 2001]
> 
> _This article originally appeared in Reports of the National Center for Science Education,
> a publication of The National Center for Science Education._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Thewissen and others (1994) published this reconstruction of the skeleton ofAmbulocetans natans (redrawn for RNCSE by Janet Dreyer).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _​_ow do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil? Give up? It is a trick question. You cannot do it. There is no convincing someone who has his mind made up already. But sometimes, it is even worse. Sometimes, when you point out a fossil that falls into the middle of a gap and is a superb morphological and chronological intermediate, you are met with the response: "Well, now you have two gaps where you only had one before! You are losing ground!" _


----------



## cnm

Wow. A scientist being convinced by more evidence his initial idea is incorrect. I guess that's the sort of thing seen everyday.


----------



## eots

sealybobo said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both appear irrational to me in a way. It's not really a better safe than sorry view but I really do believe something else exists. I look to the future much more than to the past anyways. Very boring topic to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I felt it to be a very satisfying and liberating feeling to finally realize there probably is no god that made the universe or the infinite amount of cosmos beyond our tiny yet enormous little universe. And when you realize it would take us 70,000 years at top speed to reach the nearest star and there are billions of stars in our galaxy alone. Anyways, the god hypothesis is what our ancestors believed. We are evolving mentally where in 2000 more years we will all be athiests and spiritualists. No christians Muslims or Jews.
Click to expand...

not likely


cnm said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's literally just 2 different assumptions.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's your assumption compared to a scientific theory supported by evidence.
Click to expand...




cnm said:


> Wow. A scientist being convinced by more evidence his initial idea is incorrect. I guess that's the sort of thing seen everyday.


he confessed the skeleton was missing the tail ..he just drew it with a whale tail ..it was also missing legs ,so he took the liberty of making them flipper like,,


----------



## cnm

Then realised he was wrong as more evidence came to light so dismissed his original idea. 

Whoever thought of the idea of being guided by evidence? Crazy, eh? What a dweeb!


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both appear irrational to me in a way. It's not really a better safe than sorry view but I really do believe something else exists. I look to the future much more than to the past anyways. Very boring topic to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I felt it to be a very satisfying and liberating feeling to finally realize there probably is no god that made the universe or the infinite amount of cosmos beyond our tiny yet enormous little universe. And when you realize it would take us 70,000 years at top speed to reach the nearest star and there are billions of stars in our galaxy alone. Anyways, the god hypothesis is what our ancestors believed. We are evolving mentally where in 2000 more years we will all be athiests and spiritualists. No christians Muslims or Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not likely
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's literally just 2 different assumptions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it's your assumption compared to a scientific theory supported by evidence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. A scientist being convinced by more evidence his initial idea is incorrect. I guess that's the sort of thing seen everyday.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> he confessed the skeleton was missing the tail ..he just drew it with a whale tail ..it was also missing legs ,so he took the liberty of making them flipper like,,
Click to expand...


Umm, sorry. But Carl Werner is another fundie hack associated with the charlatans at Creation.com.

There's a reason why you gullible types are easy marks for loons who are pressing conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my theory. God created different kinds which branched out to all the species we have today. I believe in limited designed evolution. I don't believe the complex designs of life could have come from nothing and I also don't believe people came from chimps. I'm not a scientist but every organ on our body is so complex that it can't be partially formed through random mutations. It would just be a useless lump that would just disappear the next generation. I think evolution took place but not the single starting point of an organism from water. Multiple points of similar like animals and people.
> 
> 
> 
> So god did it. That's your answer? No scientist or athiest can accept your answer you know that right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know. I'm just sick of people pretending evolution is fact whenever things haven't been observed that would be necessary for it to be considered fact. I have no problem with the belief of evolution. It's when people explain it like they witnessed it. Giving an example of a mutation chimps turning into people is not a valid example.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The observations you claim have not been observed have been observed. Your pointless chimps and people comparisons define your understanding of _hominid _evolution as nonexistent_._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's literally just 2 different assumptions. You guys are atheist so you immediately assume that evolution occurred. If I was atheist I would believe in evolution because there is no other option, not because it has all this concrete evidence. I choose to believe something exists because atheism seems dark to me and pointless. I think a spiritual side is a healthy part of humans and I really don't see what there is to lose if I die and then there is nothing else which atheists believe. Either way both of us lived and died. Just as pointless. You didn't accomplish anything by being right about what happened on the earth.
Click to expand...

There's no assuming evolution has occurred and is still occurring. The evidence for the facts for evolution are not in dispute among science. The facts are denied primarily by the more excitable fundie Christians.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Whatever works for you. I know  several people that hold that view.


You seem like you would really enjoy watching the Cosmos series 1&2. They dont prove there is no god but they show when and where the concept came from why we believe and how the reality is so much better than the stories passed on to us from the ancients.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

sealybobo said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever works for you. I know  several people that hold that view.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like you would really enjoy watching the Cosmos series 1&2. They dont prove there is no god but they show when and where the concept came from why we believe and how the reality is so much better than the stories passed on to us from the ancients.
Click to expand...

I might watch it if I find time at some point.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Whatever works for you. I know  several people that hold that view.


You seem like you would really enjoy watching the Cosmos series 1&2. They dont prove there is no god but they show when and where the concept came from why we believe and how the reality is so much better than the stories passed on to us from the ancients.


SUPERMAN1929 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever works for you. I know  several people that hold that view.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like you would really enjoy watching the Cosmos series 1&2. They dont prove there is no god but they show when and where the concept came from why we believe and how the reality is so much better than the stories passed on to us from the ancients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I might watch it if I find time at some point.
Click to expand...


Its a must watch for anyone as curious and smart as you. Not blowing smoke up your butt. Just based on the threads I've seen you on I know you'll be glad you saw it. 
I try to explain things I learned from it to my dad and he gets mad. Lol. He says "then science is stupid" when I try to explain to him why or how there may be no god. He gets very uncomfortable. Certainly not open minded. And its not like evolution disproves god but he has it in his mind god put us here and he can't believe we are related to chickens and trees.


----------



## sealybobo

Believers say the world is too perfect for there not to be a god but that's what Martians said 4 billion years ago.

The pharaoh's were martians and they mixed their DNA with monkeys. How? By fucking them of course.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever works for you. I know  several people that hold that view.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like you would really enjoy watching the Cosmos series 1&2. They dont prove there is no god but they show when and where the concept came from why we believe and how the reality is so much better than the stories passed on to us from the ancients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I might watch it if I find time at some point.
Click to expand...

I tell christians who say you gotta read the bible they gotta watch the Cosmos. That's how good it is if you are open minded. Fuck what any christian says about Dawkins or Tyson. Insults from them are a comliment IMO.


----------



## S.J.

sealybobo said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever works for you. I know  several people that hold that view.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like you would really enjoy watching the Cosmos series 1&2. They dont prove there is no god but they show when and where the concept came from why we believe and how the reality is so much better than the stories passed on to us from the ancients.
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever works for you. I know  several people that hold that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem like you would really enjoy watching the Cosmos series 1&2. They dont prove there is no god but they show when and where the concept came from why we believe and how the reality is so much better than the stories passed on to us from the ancients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I might watch it if I find time at some point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a must watch for anyone as curious and smart as you. Not blowing smoke up your butt. Just based on the threads I've seen you on I know you'll be glad you saw it.
> I try to explain things I learned from it to my dad and he gets mad. Lol. He says "then science is stupid" when I try to explain to him why or how there may be no god. He gets very uncomfortable. Certainly not open minded. *And its not like evolution disproves god but he has it in his mind god put us here and he can't believe we are related to chickens and trees.*
Click to expand...

Gee, I wonder why.


----------



## S.J.

sealybobo said:


> Believers say the world is too perfect for there not to be a god but that's what Martians said 4 billion years ago.
> 
> The pharaoh's were martians and they mixed their DNA with monkeys. How? By fucking them of course.


Is that what happened?  I always thought Superman came down from Krypton and fucked the monkeys.  Learn something new every day.


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever works for you. I know  several people that hold that view.
> 
> 
> 
> You seem like you would really enjoy watching the Cosmos series 1&2. They dont prove there is no god but they show when and where the concept came from why we believe and how the reality is so much better than the stories passed on to us from the ancients.
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever works for you. I know  several people that hold that view.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You seem like you would really enjoy watching the Cosmos series 1&2. They dont prove there is no god but they show when and where the concept came from why we believe and how the reality is so much better than the stories passed on to us from the ancients.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I might watch it if I find time at some point.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Its a must watch for anyone as curious and smart as you. Not blowing smoke up your butt. Just based on the threads I've seen you on I know you'll be glad you saw it.
> I try to explain things I learned from it to my dad and he gets mad. Lol. He says "then science is stupid" when I try to explain to him why or how there may be no god. He gets very uncomfortable. Certainly not open minded. *And its not like evolution disproves god but he has it in his mind god put us here and he can't believe we are related to chickens and trees.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gee, I wonder why.
Click to expand...


Maybe if he could comprehend science it wouldnt irritate him so much. 

Maybe if he wasn't brainwashed from birth. 

This is who us athiests have to argue. Not people with facts or knowledge bit instead people who are uncomfortable with the facts.

If you haven't watched the cosmos then you are at a disadvantage knowledgewise.


----------



## sealybobo

S.J. said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believers say the world is too perfect for there not to be a god but that's what Martians said 4 billion years ago.
> 
> The pharaoh's were martians and they mixed their DNA with monkeys. How? By fucking them of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what happened?  I always thought Superman came down from Krypton and fucked the monkeys.  Learn something new every day.
Click to expand...

If you came to earth from another planet and the closest thing to your species was monkey would you try to breed with it? As a scientist I would have to try.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

I'm a pretty scientific person but I carry the belief that there is a god and with that belief as far as I have seen through college and tv shows, large evolution revolves around the fast that we must have evolved because there really is no other option. The similarities between all life are because all life was created by one god and all of the programming that life was given to evolve within it was programmed from the start for survival. I'll watch the show but really I would have to see that kind of evolution take place with my own eyes or more missing links. I've seen pictures and stuff but most of them I ever see in books are just made up pictures of how they theorized that it would have happened using fake animals to make the process work. I understand why people believe in it but like I said it's just not what I feel is correct. Not like I have more evidence of a god but the idea of sudden explosive evolution in short time spans is just as crazy to me. If I could throw a billion fish out of the water and they wouldn't start growing legs and breathing air. They'd all just squirm around until they died.


----------



## S.J.

sealybobo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Believers say the world is too perfect for there not to be a god but that's what Martians said 4 billion years ago.
> 
> The pharaoh's were martians and they mixed their DNA with monkeys. How? By fucking them of course.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what happened?  I always thought Superman came down from Krypton and fucked the monkeys.  Learn something new every day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you came to earth from another planet and the closest thing to your species was monkey would you try to breed with it? As a scientist I would have to try.
Click to expand...

I truly believe you came to Earth from another planet, and I believe you would probably fuck a monkey.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> I'm a pretty scientific person but I carry the belief that there is a god and with that belief as far as I have seen through college and tv shows, large evolution revolves around the fast that we must have evolved because there really is no other option. The similarities between all life are because all life was created by one god and all of the programming that life was given to evolve within it was programmed from the start for survival. I'll watch the show but really I would have to see that kind of evolution take place with my own eyes or more missing links. I've seen pictures and stuff but most of them I ever see in books are just made up pictures of how they theorized that it would have happened using fake animals to make the process work. I understand why people believe in it but like I said it's just not what I feel is correct. Not like I have more evidence of a god but the idea of sudden explosive evolution in short time spans is just as crazy to me. If I could throw a billion fish out of the water and they wouldn't start growing legs and breathing air. They'd all just squirm around until they died.


It takes too long to observe

In fact our eyes are still better suited to see under water. They haven't evolved to see as well as our ancestors saw when we lived in water. Watch the cosmos they will explain. The truth is so much better than the god myth.

And what we dont know they admit. But what you're doing is assuming a god did it. Without any proof. Stop it. Lol. God has no place in a serious conversation about how we got here.


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Not like I have more evidence of a god but the idea of sudden explosive evolution in short time spans is just as crazy to me. If I could throw a billion fish out of the water and they wouldn't start growing legs and breathing air. They'd all just squirm around until they died.


Because it is crazy. What part of 'millions of years' don't you get?


----------



## Dogmaphobe

Based upon this thread, I would say that there is plenty of evidence that evolution has only affected some of us.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

sealybobo said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a pretty scientific person but I carry the belief that there is a god and with that belief as far as I have seen through college and tv shows, large evolution revolves around the fast that we must have evolved because there really is no other option. The similarities between all life are because all life was created by one god and all of the programming that life was given to evolve within it was programmed from the start for survival. I'll watch the show but really I would have to see that kind of evolution take place with my own eyes or more missing links. I've seen pictures and stuff but most of them I ever see in books are just made up pictures of how they theorized that it would have happened using fake animals to make the process work. I understand why people believe in it but like I said it's just not what I feel is correct. Not like I have more evidence of a god but the idea of sudden explosive evolution in short time spans is just as crazy to me. If I could throw a billion fish out of the water and they wouldn't start growing legs and breathing air. They'd all just squirm around until they died.
> 
> 
> 
> It takes too long to observe
> 
> In fact our eyes are still better suited to see under water. They haven't evolved to see as well as our ancestors saw when we lived in water. Watch the cosmos they will explain. The truth is so much better than the god myth.
> 
> And what we dont know they admit. But what you're doing is assuming a god did it. Without any proof. Stop it. Lol. God has no place in a serious conversation about how we got here.
Click to expand...

But I thought someone said earlier that it happened in rapid bursts? There is no evidence of monkeys changing to humans other than the similar DNA which is explainable by intelligent design. If everything was created by one deity then wouldn't they be similar in a way? Saying the whole organs developed over time is stupid because they don't function unless they have all their parts together. Too complex to simply pop up. The rapid thing just has never been observed and lacks any real evidence. Claiming it's ignorant to not blindly trust evolution happened is against the scientific method. Science to me needs to be observed or be able to be recreated. This is more like detective work just making up the missing parts because you don't see other options lacking substance.

I know microorganisms and bacteria can change much more than more complex creatures but tell me whenever they start to form into insects are something more impressive.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm a pretty scientific person but I carry the belief that there is a god and with that belief as far as I have seen through college and tv shows, large evolution revolves around the fast that we must have evolved because there really is no other option. The similarities between all life are because all life was created by one god and all of the programming that life was given to evolve within it was programmed from the start for survival. I'll watch the show but really I would have to see that kind of evolution take place with my own eyes or more missing links. I've seen pictures and stuff but most of them I ever see in books are just made up pictures of how they theorized that it would have happened using fake animals to make the process work. I understand why people believe in it but like I said it's just not what I feel is correct. Not like I have more evidence of a god but the idea of sudden explosive evolution in short time spans is just as crazy to me. If I could throw a billion fish out of the water and they wouldn't start growing legs and breathing air. They'd all just squirm around until they died.
> 
> 
> 
> It takes too long to observe
> 
> In fact our eyes are still better suited to see under water. They haven't evolved to see as well as our ancestors saw when we lived in water. Watch the cosmos they will explain. The truth is so much better than the god myth.
> 
> And what we dont know they admit. But what you're doing is assuming a god did it. Without any proof. Stop it. Lol. God has no place in a serious conversation about how we got here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I thought someone said earlier that it happened in rapid bursts? There is no evidence of monkeys changing to humans other than the similar DNA which is explainable by intelligent design. If everything was created by one deity then wouldn't they be similar in a way? Saying the whole organs developed over time is stupid because they don't function unless they have all their parts together. Too complex to simply pop up. The rapid thing just has never been observed and lacks any real evidence. Claiming it's ignorant to not blindly trust evolution happened is against the scientific method. Science to me needs to be observed or be able to be recreated. This is more like detective work just making up the missing parts because you don't see other options lacking substance.
> 
> I know microorganisms and bacteria can change much more than more complex creatures but tell me whenever they start to form into insects are something more impressive.
Click to expand...


It takes too long to show you. Today I talked to this really really smart guy at work. I just started so I dont say I dont believe in god and today he made a good point and so did you. Nothing disproves god. But even he strongly defended evolution. For example theres only 2% that makes us any different than monkeys. He explained it much better. I brought up how I find it amazing that cold and warm blooded creatures were once related.

Anyways long story short is ants could have sprung up independently of humans. Or reptiles. Etc. Since we dont know how life started we dont know for sure it came from outer space via comet or maybe started on earth when conditions were right. We think all life is related but might not be. Its like the big bang. Not 100% sure its right but what's your theory?

And regardless of the facts it won't disprove god. Just a bunch of religions will be exposed but they'll survive because people want to believe.

Want me to tell you your future? How many people go to psychics?


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> But I thought someone said earlier that it happened in rapid bursts?



Ah, I can see you're just too scientific a person to be fooled by scientific explanations and consensus.


----------



## Marxist

I'm sure the OP has talked to a biologist.


----------



## Abishai100

*Mutation Modeling*


I want to explore this issue through the lens of crypto-zoology and the study of mutations (or mutants).

There are a number of pseudo-scientists as well as respected scientists who believe that there could exist a number of species on planet Earth that are as of yet uncategorized and/or undetected.

While these species may be residing in Earth's more hard-to-reach ecosystems (such as the deep ocean abyss and convoluted cave enclosures), they are believed to be out there and maybe even flourishing.

After all, many scholars and science critics believe that the fabled Loch Ness Monster is simply a Plesiosaur dinosaur who survived the Jurassic Era extinction event.

Imagine that a crypro-zoologist gives the following controversial address to a science-fiction student fan club at Harvard University:

"What if there are humanoid creatures (i.e., mermaids) living deep in Earth's oceans that are as-of-yet undetected?  Certainly the observation of strangely-shaped hybridized organic life such as seahorses (underwater creatures that actually possess heads shaped like a horse) suggests that there could be creatures undetected that resemble humanoids in shape at least."

====

In other words, there hypothetically exists a mountain of evidence in support of evolutionary theory (i.e., species flourish through geometric and arithmetic adaptation) in the realm of 'scientific modeling.'

I have to admit that if I'm willing to watch a science-fiction Hollywood (USA) movie about an alien walking around among humanity disguised as a human, I must concede the imaginative possibility that a mermaid could crawl out of the ocean abyss and walk among humanity disguised as a human (perhaps through some chemical or surgical transformation procedure).

Certainly, relevant sci-fi Hollywood (USA) movies such as "The Fly" (1986) and "Leviathan" (1989) indicate a social fascination with 'mutation' as it relates to speculations on evolutionary theory.  That is to say, doesn't imagination itself prove something unique about human intelligence and hence evolution?

"The pen is truly mightier than the sword."


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

cnm said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> But I thought someone said earlier that it happened in rapid bursts?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, I can see you're just too scientific a person to be fooled by scientific explanations and consensus.
Click to expand...

It's made up explanations with no observations of it happening. I've read it and watched shows about it. It's the thought process of 1 and 2 are here and 5 so there has to be 3 and 4 even though we've never witnessed the sequence. I choose to believe the in between doesn't exist until it's proven. If you prove it I'm open to here more about it but I have yet to hear any proof at all. I don't have proof either but evolutionists pretend it's proven.


----------



## Steven_R

We've not only seen it happen in labs via bacteria, but we've also seen it in the wild. Look up ring species. Look bacteria that eats petroleum and plastics, something that did not exist before 80 years ago. Look up Tiktaalik rosae. It's there.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Steven_R said:


> We've not only seen it happen in labs via bacteria, but we've also seen it in the wild. Look up ring species. Look bacteria that eats petroleum and plastics, something that did not exist before 80 years ago. Look up Tiktaalik rosae. It's there.


I understand that those things happen but the thing to me is that it's still a bacteria and it's still a bird or deer or whatever the animal is. It's not evidence of the significant change needed to develop entire new organs or limbs to survive.


----------



## Old Rocks

We have been observing the biology of this planet with understanding but for less than two centuries. Major evolutionary processes, such as the develoment of lungs and limbs occur on the scale of millions of years, not mere centuries. However, between decoding of DNA and the fossil record, we have a rather good record of the manner in which evolution occurred.


----------



## foggedinn

This who thread reminds me of a poor man's version of the riddle of angels and pins.


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> I don't have proof either but evolutionists pretend it's proven.


Do you think there's a lot of evidence for evolution, more than for any other theory?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

cnm said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have proof either but evolutionists pretend it's proven.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think there's a lot of evidence for evolution, more than for any other theory?
Click to expand...

No.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Old Rocks said:


> We have been observing the biology of this planet with understanding but for less than two centuries. Major evolutionary processes, such as the develoment of lungs and limbs occur on the scale of millions of years, not mere centuries. However, between decoding of DNA and the fossil record, we have a rather good record of the manner in which evolution occurred.


The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have proof either but evolutionists pretend it's proven.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you think there's a lot of evidence for evolution, more than for any other theory?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No.
Click to expand...

So no, not much evidence. I can see you're a scientificy sort of person all right. But what alternative has as much or more evidence?


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.


So you deny the instant thing out of common sense and you deny the gradual thing out of common sense and you refuse to accept any/much evidence.

You're too scientific for evolution.


----------



## cnm

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.


All of them.


----------



## eots

cnm said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.
> 
> 
> 
> All of them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Hollie

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.
> 
> 
> 
> All of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 40272
Click to expand...

The usual, pointless spam from the conspiracy theory loon.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have been observing the biology of this planet with understanding but for less than two centuries. Major evolutionary processes, such as the develoment of lungs and limbs occur on the scale of millions of years, not mere centuries. However, between decoding of DNA and the fossil record, we have a rather good record of the manner in which evolution occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.
Click to expand...

Tiktaalik fossils reveal how fish evolved into four-legged land animals Science The Guardian

The above is a first step for your education.

The alternate is for you to show us how "the gawds did it"


----------



## Carla_Danger

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have been observing the biology of this planet with understanding but for less than two centuries. Major evolutionary processes, such as the develoment of lungs and limbs occur on the scale of millions of years, not mere centuries. However, between decoding of DNA and the fossil record, we have a rather good record of the manner in which evolution occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.
Click to expand...



You haven't made it over the hump yet.  You're still dragging your knuckles.  Is that not proof enough?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

cnm said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.
> 
> 
> 
> So you deny the instant thing out of common sense and you deny the gradual thing out of common sense and you refuse to accept any/much evidence.
> 
> You're too scientific for evolution.
Click to expand...

I deny it happened because there is no tangible evidence of species jumps. When it arises I will believe. I believe in a god because it's better to me but still just as irrational as evolution.


Carla_Danger said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have been observing the biology of this planet with understanding but for less than two centuries. Major evolutionary processes, such as the develoment of lungs and limbs occur on the scale of millions of years, not mere centuries. However, between decoding of DNA and the fossil record, we have a rather good record of the manner in which evolution occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't made it over the hump yet.  You're still dragging your knuckles.  Is that not proof enough?
Click to expand...

It's funny cause I've always tested much higher than the average.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have been observing the biology of this planet with understanding but for less than two centuries. Major evolutionary processes, such as the develoment of lungs and limbs occur on the scale of millions of years, not mere centuries. However, between decoding of DNA and the fossil record, we have a rather good record of the manner in which evolution occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> The super gradual thing doesn't work for me because in fossils there aren't animals with undeveloped lungs. Either they can breathe or they can't. Show me examples of animals with lungs that are currently under evolutionary construction.
Click to expand...


There are very few species left, four I believe, but lungfish are a currently alive animal that exists in an intermediate stage of development. More developed than a fish with just an air bladder, less developed than an amphibian that will leave the water. There are fossils at this intermediate stage also. Tiktaalik is a famous intermediate fossil that bridges the gap between sea and land and would have early, less developed lungs.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_, 
a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'

Tiktaalik roseae Home


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

ChesBayJJ said:


> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home


They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.


----------



## ChesBayJJ

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
Click to expand...


Read all about it.

Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Kindle edition by Neil Shubin. Professional Technical Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.


----------



## pinqy

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
Click to expand...


And who discovered the mistakes or frauds?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

ChesBayJJ said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read all about it.
> 
> Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Kindle edition by Neil Shubin. Professional Technical Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.
Click to expand...

This fish doesn't probe much and the body that they show around the creature is just a digital image they created. Nothing more nothing less. A mere guess at what it may have looked like. They know nothing about the animal.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

pinqy said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who discovered the mistakes or frauds?
Click to expand...

Probably a scientist who had no stock on either side.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read all about it.
> 
> Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Kindle edition by Neil Shubin. Professional Technical Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fish doesn't probe much and the body that they show around the creature is just a digital image they created. Nothing more nothing less. A mere guess at what it may have looked like. They know nothing about the animal.
Click to expand...


And you base these conclusions on what, exactly?


----------



## Old Rocks

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who discovered the mistakes or frauds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably a scientist who had no stock on either side.
Click to expand...

Too bad that you are such an ignorant fool. There is just as much credit in science for proving a long held hypothesis is wrong, as there is in presenting a new hypothesis.

Yes, there have been a couple of cases of outright fraud in the past. And many cases of animal bones in proximity of one another, of similiar critters, and a mistake was made in assigning the bones to the animal. However, in the first case, other scientists have found the fraud, and the person lost his credibility. In the latter case, a set of bones are found by themselves, and the mistake is recognized. No big deal.

Actually, the most egregarous fakes have come from the creationist camp.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Old Rocks said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who discovered the mistakes or frauds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably a scientist who had no stock on either side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad that you are such an ignorant fool. There is just as much credit in science for proving a long held hypothesis is wrong, as there is in presenting a new hypothesis.
> 
> Yes, there have been a couple of cases of outright fraud in the past. And many cases of animal bones in proximity of one another, of similiar critters, and a mistake was made in assigning the bones to the animal. However, in the first case, other scientists have found the fraud, and the person lost his credibility. In the latter case, a set of bones are found by themselves, and the mistake is recognized. No big deal.
> 
> Actually, the most egregarous fakes have come from the creationist camp.
Click to expand...

Example?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read all about it.
> 
> Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Kindle edition by Neil Shubin. Professional Technical Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fish doesn't probe much and the body that they show around the creature is just a digital image they created. Nothing more nothing less. A mere guess at what it may have looked like. They know nothing about the animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base these conclusions on what, exactly?
Click to expand...

The fact that it is a computer image and if the animal lived billions of years ago I know they don't know much about it.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Read all about it.
> 
> Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Kindle edition by Neil Shubin. Professional Technical Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fish doesn't probe much and the body that they show around the creature is just a digital image they created. Nothing more nothing less. A mere guess at what it may have looked like. They know nothing about the animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base these conclusions on what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that it is a computer image
Click to expand...


So what?  What's your point?  That computer generated images are inaccurate?  Evidence please?



			
				superman said:
			
		

> and if the animal lived billions of years ago I know they don't know much about it.



It didn't live billions of years ago, and even if it did, we could still discover many things about it.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Read all about it.
> 
> Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Kindle edition by Neil Shubin. Professional Technical Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This fish doesn't probe much and the body that they show around the creature is just a digital image they created. Nothing more nothing less. A mere guess at what it may have looked like. They know nothing about the animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base these conclusions on what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that it is a computer image
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  What's your point?  That computer generated images are inaccurate?  Evidence please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> superman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if the animal lived billions of years ago I know they don't know much about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't live billions of years ago, and even if it did, we could still discover many things about it.
Click to expand...

Lies. How do you know that it works over the course of billions of years when the longest person has only lived for a little over 100. So dumb. No evidence at all that it works.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Read all about it.
> 
> Your Inner Fish A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body - Kindle edition by Neil Shubin. Professional Technical Kindle eBooks Amazon.com.
> 
> 
> 
> This fish doesn't probe much and the body that they show around the creature is just a digital image they created. Nothing more nothing less. A mere guess at what it may have looked like. They know nothing about the animal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you base these conclusions on what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that it is a computer image
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  What's your point?  That computer generated images are inaccurate?  Evidence please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> superman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if the animal lived billions of years ago I know they don't know much about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't live billions of years ago, and even if it did, we could still discover many things about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies. How do you know that it works over the course of billions of years when the longest person has only lived for a little over 100. So dumb. No evidence at all that it works.
Click to expand...


OMG!  Do you know the events that occurred during the civil war, the revolutionary war?  How do you know, since the "longest person has only lived for a little over 100"?  do you see how silly that question is?  We know because the laws and principles of physics, chemistry, and biology that are in operation today, operated in the past.  And one of those laws is the law of superposition.  When sediments are laid down, they are laid down in a progressive order of age, the oldest being at the bottom of the sedimentary deposit, while the youngest is at the top.  The laws of physics requires this to be so.  And it is readily apparent when you analyze the sediments.

If you truly want to understand geology, I highly recommend that you takes some classes at your local university.  Otherwise, you are simply entering into a discussion about concepts you don't understand, and I am not under any obligation to teach them to you.  I am not your teacher.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This fish doesn't probe much and the body that they show around the creature is just a digital image they created. Nothing more nothing less. A mere guess at what it may have looked like. They know nothing about the animal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you base these conclusions on what, exactly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact that it is a computer image
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  What's your point?  That computer generated images are inaccurate?  Evidence please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> superman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if the animal lived billions of years ago I know they don't know much about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't live billions of years ago, and even if it did, we could still discover many things about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies. How do you know that it works over the course of billions of years when the longest person has only lived for a little over 100. So dumb. No evidence at all that it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  Do you know the events that occurred during the civil war, the revolutionary war?  How do you know, since the "longest person has only lived for a little over 100"?  do you see how silly that question is?  We know because the laws and principles of physics, chemistry, and biology that are in operation today, operated in the past.  And one of those laws is the law of superposition.  When sediments are laid down, they are laid down in a progressive order of age, the oldest being at the bottom of the sedimentary deposit, while the youngest is at the top.  The laws of physics requires this to be so.  And it is readily apparent when you analyze the sediments.
> 
> If you truly want to understand geology, I highly recommend that you takes some classes at your local university.  Otherwise, you are simply entering into a discussion about concepts you don't understand, and I am not under any obligation to teach them to you.  I am not your teacher.
Click to expand...

What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history. You can hold your belief that will change in 100 years into a new belief and then follow that one.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you base these conclusions on what, exactly?
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that it is a computer image
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what?  What's your point?  That computer generated images are inaccurate?  Evidence please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> superman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if the animal lived billions of years ago I know they don't know much about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't live billions of years ago, and even if it did, we could still discover many things about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies. How do you know that it works over the course of billions of years when the longest person has only lived for a little over 100. So dumb. No evidence at all that it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  Do you know the events that occurred during the civil war, the revolutionary war?  How do you know, since the "longest person has only lived for a little over 100"?  do you see how silly that question is?  We know because the laws and principles of physics, chemistry, and biology that are in operation today, operated in the past.  And one of those laws is the law of superposition.  When sediments are laid down, they are laid down in a progressive order of age, the oldest being at the bottom of the sedimentary deposit, while the youngest is at the top.  The laws of physics requires this to be so.  And it is readily apparent when you analyze the sediments.
> 
> If you truly want to understand geology, I highly recommend that you takes some classes at your local university.  Otherwise, you are simply entering into a discussion about concepts you don't understand, and I am not under any obligation to teach them to you.  I am not your teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history. You can hold your belief that will change in 100 years into a new belief and then follow that one.
Click to expand...


Do you have any examples?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that it is a computer image
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  What's your point?  That computer generated images are inaccurate?  Evidence please?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> superman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and if the animal lived billions of years ago I know they don't know much about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't live billions of years ago, and even if it did, we could still discover many things about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lies. How do you know that it works over the course of billions of years when the longest person has only lived for a little over 100. So dumb. No evidence at all that it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  Do you know the events that occurred during the civil war, the revolutionary war?  How do you know, since the "longest person has only lived for a little over 100"?  do you see how silly that question is?  We know because the laws and principles of physics, chemistry, and biology that are in operation today, operated in the past.  And one of those laws is the law of superposition.  When sediments are laid down, they are laid down in a progressive order of age, the oldest being at the bottom of the sedimentary deposit, while the youngest is at the top.  The laws of physics requires this to be so.  And it is readily apparent when you analyze the sediments.
> 
> If you truly want to understand geology, I highly recommend that you takes some classes at your local university.  Otherwise, you are simply entering into a discussion about concepts you don't understand, and I am not under any obligation to teach them to you.  I am not your teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history. You can hold your belief that will change in 100 years into a new belief and then follow that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any examples?
Click to expand...

Evolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
It's constantly changing. I've heard evolutionists argue for slow change, bursts of change, big boom, just randomly in water, and others.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what?  What's your point?  That computer generated images are inaccurate?  Evidence please?
> 
> It didn't live billions of years ago, and even if it did, we could still discover many things about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Lies. How do you know that it works over the course of billions of years when the longest person has only lived for a little over 100. So dumb. No evidence at all that it works.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!  Do you know the events that occurred during the civil war, the revolutionary war?  How do you know, since the "longest person has only lived for a little over 100"?  do you see how silly that question is?  We know because the laws and principles of physics, chemistry, and biology that are in operation today, operated in the past.  And one of those laws is the law of superposition.  When sediments are laid down, they are laid down in a progressive order of age, the oldest being at the bottom of the sedimentary deposit, while the youngest is at the top.  The laws of physics requires this to be so.  And it is readily apparent when you analyze the sediments.
> 
> If you truly want to understand geology, I highly recommend that you takes some classes at your local university.  Otherwise, you are simply entering into a discussion about concepts you don't understand, and I am not under any obligation to teach them to you.  I am not your teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history. You can hold your belief that will change in 100 years into a new belief and then follow that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> It's constantly changing. I've heard evolutionists argue for slow change, bursts of change, big boom, just randomly in water, and others.
Click to expand...


No, you asked "What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history".  I asked for examples.  If you are suggesting that evolution is an inaccurate assumption, I'm afraid that is not true.  Not at all.  But dude, science allows for change, recognizes that our paradigm may change upon further discoveries.  That is the nature of scientific discovery, and that is actually a very good thing.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lies. How do you know that it works over the course of billions of years when the longest person has only lived for a little over 100. So dumb. No evidence at all that it works.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  Do you know the events that occurred during the civil war, the revolutionary war?  How do you know, since the "longest person has only lived for a little over 100"?  do you see how silly that question is?  We know because the laws and principles of physics, chemistry, and biology that are in operation today, operated in the past.  And one of those laws is the law of superposition.  When sediments are laid down, they are laid down in a progressive order of age, the oldest being at the bottom of the sedimentary deposit, while the youngest is at the top.  The laws of physics requires this to be so.  And it is readily apparent when you analyze the sediments.
> 
> If you truly want to understand geology, I highly recommend that you takes some classes at your local university.  Otherwise, you are simply entering into a discussion about concepts you don't understand, and I am not under any obligation to teach them to you.  I am not your teacher.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history. You can hold your belief that will change in 100 years into a new belief and then follow that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> It's constantly changing. I've heard evolutionists argue for slow change, bursts of change, big boom, just randomly in water, and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you asked "What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history".  I asked for examples.  If you are suggesting that evolution is an inaccurate assumption, I'm afraid that is not true.  Not at all.  But dude, science allows for change, recognizes that our paradigm may change upon further discoveries.  That is the nature of scientific discovery, and that is actually a very good thing.
Click to expand...

Evolutionists assume there is no god


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!  Do you know the events that occurred during the civil war, the revolutionary war?  How do you know, since the "longest person has only lived for a little over 100"?  do you see how silly that question is?  We know because the laws and principles of physics, chemistry, and biology that are in operation today, operated in the past.  And one of those laws is the law of superposition.  When sediments are laid down, they are laid down in a progressive order of age, the oldest being at the bottom of the sedimentary deposit, while the youngest is at the top.  The laws of physics requires this to be so.  And it is readily apparent when you analyze the sediments.
> 
> If you truly want to understand geology, I highly recommend that you takes some classes at your local university.  Otherwise, you are simply entering into a discussion about concepts you don't understand, and I am not under any obligation to teach them to you.  I am not your teacher.
> 
> 
> 
> What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history. You can hold your belief that will change in 100 years into a new belief and then follow that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you have any examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> It's constantly changing. I've heard evolutionists argue for slow change, bursts of change, big boom, just randomly in water, and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you asked "What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history".  I asked for examples.  If you are suggesting that evolution is an inaccurate assumption, I'm afraid that is not true.  Not at all.  But dude, science allows for change, recognizes that our paradigm may change upon further discoveries.  That is the nature of scientific discovery, and that is actually a very good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionists assume there is no god
Click to expand...


Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of deity.  It only explains the origin of species.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history. You can hold your belief that will change in 100 years into a new belief and then follow that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any examples?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> It's constantly changing. I've heard evolutionists argue for slow change, bursts of change, big boom, just randomly in water, and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you asked "What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history".  I asked for examples.  If you are suggesting that evolution is an inaccurate assumption, I'm afraid that is not true.  Not at all.  But dude, science allows for change, recognizes that our paradigm may change upon further discoveries.  That is the nature of scientific discovery, and that is actually a very good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionists assume there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of deity.  It only explains the origin of species.
Click to expand...

I don't care if people are so delusional as to believe in evolution. Just keep it to yourself. Evolutionists desire to spread their stupidity surpasses Christians or Muslims.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any examples?
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> It's constantly changing. I've heard evolutionists argue for slow change, bursts of change, big boom, just randomly in water, and others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, you asked "What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history".  I asked for examples.  If you are suggesting that evolution is an inaccurate assumption, I'm afraid that is not true.  Not at all.  But dude, science allows for change, recognizes that our paradigm may change upon further discoveries.  That is the nature of scientific discovery, and that is actually a very good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionists assume there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of deity.  It only explains the origin of species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if people are so delusional as to believe in evolution. Just keep it to yourself. Evolutionists desire to spread their stupidity surpasses Christians or Muslims.
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is that people don't have a right to be educated.  Not only do I disagree, I suggest that you don't have a right to not be educated, much less demand that others not be educated.  Education strengthens this country in every avenue of life one can think of.  It strengthens us economically, politically, militarily, ethically, and morally.  Now, if none of that concerns you, I suggest that you are not thinking in this country's best interests, because willful ignorance hurts everyone, but no one as much as the ignorant themselves.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> It's constantly changing. I've heard evolutionists argue for slow change, bursts of change, big boom, just randomly in water, and others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked "What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history".  I asked for examples.  If you are suggesting that evolution is an inaccurate assumption, I'm afraid that is not true.  Not at all.  But dude, science allows for change, recognizes that our paradigm may change upon further discoveries.  That is the nature of scientific discovery, and that is actually a very good thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolutionists assume there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of deity.  It only explains the origin of species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if people are so delusional as to believe in evolution. Just keep it to yourself. Evolutionists desire to spread their stupidity surpasses Christians or Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that people don't have a right to be educated.  Not only do I disagree, I suggest that you don't have a right to not be educated, much less demand that others not be educated.  Education strengthens this country in every avenue of life one can think of.  It strengthens us economically, politically, militarily, ethically, and morally.  Now, if none of that concerns you, I suggest that you are not thinking in this country's best interests, because willful ignorance hurts everyone, but no one as much as the ignorant themselves.
Click to expand...

Give me one instance where believing in evolution makes you a better member of society or how would it somehow make you smarter? No job is dependent on this simplistic belief.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, you asked "What if you make key inaccurate assumptions like science always does about our history".  I asked for examples.  If you are suggesting that evolution is an inaccurate assumption, I'm afraid that is not true.  Not at all.  But dude, science allows for change, recognizes that our paradigm may change upon further discoveries.  That is the nature of scientific discovery, and that is actually a very good thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists assume there is no god
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of deity.  It only explains the origin of species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if people are so delusional as to believe in evolution. Just keep it to yourself. Evolutionists desire to spread their stupidity surpasses Christians or Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that people don't have a right to be educated.  Not only do I disagree, I suggest that you don't have a right to not be educated, much less demand that others not be educated.  Education strengthens this country in every avenue of life one can think of.  It strengthens us economically, politically, militarily, ethically, and morally.  Now, if none of that concerns you, I suggest that you are not thinking in this country's best interests, because willful ignorance hurts everyone, but no one as much as the ignorant themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me one instance where believing in evolution makes you a better member of society or how would it somehow make you smarter? No job is dependent on this simplistic belief.
Click to expand...


Sure.  That's easy.  The theory of evolution is used to diagnose and cure disease.  And so tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on it.  If you think that not understanding it makes you smarter, then you are not very smart.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolutionists assume there is no god
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of deity.  It only explains the origin of species.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't care if people are so delusional as to believe in evolution. Just keep it to yourself. Evolutionists desire to spread their stupidity surpasses Christians or Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that people don't have a right to be educated.  Not only do I disagree, I suggest that you don't have a right to not be educated, much less demand that others not be educated.  Education strengthens this country in every avenue of life one can think of.  It strengthens us economically, politically, militarily, ethically, and morally.  Now, if none of that concerns you, I suggest that you are not thinking in this country's best interests, because willful ignorance hurts everyone, but no one as much as the ignorant themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me one instance where believing in evolution makes you a better member of society or how would it somehow make you smarter? No job is dependent on this simplistic belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  That's easy.  The theory of evolution is used to diagnose and cure disease.  And so tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on it.  If you think that not understanding it makes you smarter, then you are not very smart.
Click to expand...

No one is denying evolution exists. Just the kind of evolution that you claim turned from fishies to reptiles to people... blah blah blah. Your arguments only make you sound dumber because you know that the belief we are discussing does nothing for anyone.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution says nothing about the existence or non-existence of deity.  It only explains the origin of species.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if people are so delusional as to believe in evolution. Just keep it to yourself. Evolutionists desire to spread their stupidity surpasses Christians or Muslims.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that people don't have a right to be educated.  Not only do I disagree, I suggest that you don't have a right to not be educated, much less demand that others not be educated.  Education strengthens this country in every avenue of life one can think of.  It strengthens us economically, politically, militarily, ethically, and morally.  Now, if none of that concerns you, I suggest that you are not thinking in this country's best interests, because willful ignorance hurts everyone, but no one as much as the ignorant themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me one instance where believing in evolution makes you a better member of society or how would it somehow make you smarter? No job is dependent on this simplistic belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  That's easy.  The theory of evolution is used to diagnose and cure disease.  And so tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on it.  If you think that not understanding it makes you smarter, then you are not very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is denying evolution exists. Just the kind of evolution that you claim turned from fishies to reptiles to people... blah blah blah. Your arguments only make you sound dumber because you know that the belief we are discussing does nothing for anyone.
Click to expand...


No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't care if people are so delusional as to believe in evolution. Just keep it to yourself. Evolutionists desire to spread their stupidity surpasses Christians or Muslims.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that people don't have a right to be educated.  Not only do I disagree, I suggest that you don't have a right to not be educated, much less demand that others not be educated.  Education strengthens this country in every avenue of life one can think of.  It strengthens us economically, politically, militarily, ethically, and morally.  Now, if none of that concerns you, I suggest that you are not thinking in this country's best interests, because willful ignorance hurts everyone, but no one as much as the ignorant themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give me one instance where believing in evolution makes you a better member of society or how would it somehow make you smarter? No job is dependent on this simplistic belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  That's easy.  The theory of evolution is used to diagnose and cure disease.  And so tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on it.  If you think that not understanding it makes you smarter, then you are not very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is denying evolution exists. Just the kind of evolution that you claim turned from fishies to reptiles to people... blah blah blah. Your arguments only make you sound dumber because you know that the belief we are discussing does nothing for anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!
Click to expand...

I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that people don't have a right to be educated.  Not only do I disagree, I suggest that you don't have a right to not be educated, much less demand that others not be educated.  Education strengthens this country in every avenue of life one can think of.  It strengthens us economically, politically, militarily, ethically, and morally.  Now, if none of that concerns you, I suggest that you are not thinking in this country's best interests, because willful ignorance hurts everyone, but no one as much as the ignorant themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one instance where believing in evolution makes you a better member of society or how would it somehow make you smarter? No job is dependent on this simplistic belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  That's easy.  The theory of evolution is used to diagnose and cure disease.  And so tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on it.  If you think that not understanding it makes you smarter, then you are not very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is denying evolution exists. Just the kind of evolution that you claim turned from fishies to reptiles to people... blah blah blah. Your arguments only make you sound dumber because you know that the belief we are discussing does nothing for anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
Click to expand...

Why do you presume to make such absolute statements about something you know so little about?


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what you are saying is that people don't have a right to be educated.  Not only do I disagree, I suggest that you don't have a right to not be educated, much less demand that others not be educated.  Education strengthens this country in every avenue of life one can think of.  It strengthens us economically, politically, militarily, ethically, and morally.  Now, if none of that concerns you, I suggest that you are not thinking in this country's best interests, because willful ignorance hurts everyone, but no one as much as the ignorant themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one instance where believing in evolution makes you a better member of society or how would it somehow make you smarter? No job is dependent on this simplistic belief.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure.  That's easy.  The theory of evolution is used to diagnose and cure disease.  And so tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on it.  If you think that not understanding it makes you smarter, then you are not very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is denying evolution exists. Just the kind of evolution that you claim turned from fishies to reptiles to people... blah blah blah. Your arguments only make you sound dumber because you know that the belief we are discussing does nothing for anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
Click to expand...


And there are tens of thousands of scientific papers that demonstrate clearly that the concept of micro versus macroevolution is nothing more than a mechanism invented by creationists so they can accept evolution without admitting that the Book of Genesis is wrong.  The only difference between micro and macro evolution is the amount of time involved. The processes are exactly the same.  And dufus, if a fish could change into a monkey, that would REFUTE evolution, not support it.  Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.  And dufus, if we don't discuss what we don't know, how is anyone going to ask relevant questions and make any discoveries?  Or is keeping people stupid that ultimately the goal of the willfully ignorant?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one instance where believing in evolution makes you a better member of society or how would it somehow make you smarter? No job is dependent on this simplistic belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  That's easy.  The theory of evolution is used to diagnose and cure disease.  And so tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on it.  If you think that not understanding it makes you smarter, then you are not very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is denying evolution exists. Just the kind of evolution that you claim turned from fishies to reptiles to people... blah blah blah. Your arguments only make you sound dumber because you know that the belief we are discussing does nothing for anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you presume to make such absolute statements about something you know so little about?
Click to expand...

Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give me one instance where believing in evolution makes you a better member of society or how would it somehow make you smarter? No job is dependent on this simplistic belief.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  That's easy.  The theory of evolution is used to diagnose and cure disease.  And so tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on it.  If you think that not understanding it makes you smarter, then you are not very smart.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one is denying evolution exists. Just the kind of evolution that you claim turned from fishies to reptiles to people... blah blah blah. Your arguments only make you sound dumber because you know that the belief we are discussing does nothing for anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there are tens of thousands of scientific papers that demonstrate clearly that the concept of micro versus macroevolution is nothing more than a mechanism invented by creationists so they can accept evolution without admitting that the Book of Genesis is wrong.  The only difference between micro and macro evolution is the amount of time involved. The processes are exactly the same.  And dufus, if a fish could change into a monkey, that would REFUTE evolution, not support it.  Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.  And dufus, if we don't discuss what we don't know, how is anyone going to ask relevant questions and make any discoveries?  Or is keeping people stupid that ultimately the goal of the willfully ignorant?
Click to expand...

BORRRINGGG. Go get a real job.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  That's easy.  The theory of evolution is used to diagnose and cure disease.  And so tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on it.  If you think that not understanding it makes you smarter, then you are not very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution exists. Just the kind of evolution that you claim turned from fishies to reptiles to people... blah blah blah. Your arguments only make you sound dumber because you know that the belief we are discussing does nothing for anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you presume to make such absolute statements about something you know so little about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.
Click to expand...


And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  That's easy.  The theory of evolution is used to diagnose and cure disease.  And so tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on it.  If you think that not understanding it makes you smarter, then you are not very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution exists. Just the kind of evolution that you claim turned from fishies to reptiles to people... blah blah blah. Your arguments only make you sound dumber because you know that the belief we are discussing does nothing for anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you presume to make such absolute statements about something you know so little about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.
Click to expand...

That's childish, ignorant and pointless as a way to defend your ignorance. The principles that define evolution are not that difficult to understand. 

It seems more likely that your inferiority complex relative to others that succeeded in their studies is an issue you're still unable to resolve.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure.  That's easy.  The theory of evolution is used to diagnose and cure disease.  And so tens of thousands of jobs are dependent on it.  If you think that not understanding it makes you smarter, then you are not very smart.
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution exists. Just the kind of evolution that you claim turned from fishies to reptiles to people... blah blah blah. Your arguments only make you sound dumber because you know that the belief we are discussing does nothing for anyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And there are tens of thousands of scientific papers that demonstrate clearly that the concept of micro versus macroevolution is nothing more than a mechanism invented by creationists so they can accept evolution without admitting that the Book of Genesis is wrong.  The only difference between micro and macro evolution is the amount of time involved. The processes are exactly the same.  And dufus, if a fish could change into a monkey, that would REFUTE evolution, not support it.  Evolution acts on populations, not individuals.  And dufus, if we don't discuss what we don't know, how is anyone going to ask relevant questions and make any discoveries?  Or is keeping people stupid that ultimately the goal of the willfully ignorant?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> BORRRINGGG. Go get a real job.
Click to expand...


What are you?  10 years old?  Does your mother know you are posting on an adult forum?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution exists. Just the kind of evolution that you claim turned from fishies to reptiles to people... blah blah blah. Your arguments only make you sound dumber because you know that the belief we are discussing does nothing for anyone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you presume to make such absolute statements about something you know so little about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.
Click to expand...

Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"

I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.

This reply answers all 3 of your posts.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you presume to make such absolute statements about something you know so little about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
Click to expand...

Such grandiose claims are pretty typical of the slow child who struggled with their lessons while the rest of the class moved forward with their studies.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one is denying evolution?  You just did, bubba.  Talk about sounding dumb!
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you presume to make such absolute statements about something you know so little about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
Click to expand...


You have demonstrated no knowledge of science at all here.  So if you were always the best at science/math, as you claim, I have to ask, compared to what/who?  I hate having to repeat myself, but you give me little choice.  You don't know who you are talking to.  I am a geologist with 25 years of field and lab experience, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  And so when you try to claim to have some kind of superior education with regard to science all the while demonstrating no knowledge of it whatsoever, I just have to laugh.  And I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but laughter is all that claim deserves.  You wouldn't dare try to tell a brain surgeon his business, so don't try to tell me mine.

P.S., you didn't actually answer all of my questions.  This one, for instance:

"And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?"


----------



## Old Rocks

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who discovered the mistakes or frauds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably a scientist who had no stock on either side.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Too bad that you are such an ignorant fool. There is just as much credit in science for proving a long held hypothesis is wrong, as there is in presenting a new hypothesis.
> 
> Yes, there have been a couple of cases of outright fraud in the past. And many cases of animal bones in proximity of one another, of similiar critters, and a mistake was made in assigning the bones to the animal. However, in the first case, other scientists have found the fraud, and the person lost his credibility. In the latter case, a set of bones are found by themselves, and the mistake is recognized. No big deal.
> 
> Actually, the most egregarous fakes have come from the creationist camp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Example?
Click to expand...

Paluxy Man The Creationist Piltdown NCSE

One of many.


----------



## pinqy

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> pinqy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChesBayJJ said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 2006, a team of scientists unveiled the discovery of _Tiktaalik roseae_,
> a fossil fish known as the 'fishapod'
> 
> Tiktaalik roseae Home
> 
> 
> 
> They probably built it with bones from 2 different animals as evolutionists have been known to make attempts at in the past.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And who discovered the mistakes or frauds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Probably a scientist who had no stock on either side.
Click to expand...

No, it was other biologigts (there's really no such thing as an "evolutionist"...nobody has that on his/her business card). 

Science is self-correcting.  When something is shown wrong it will, eventually, be discarded.  There are occssions where scientists have clung on to older beliefs, but I'd be hard pressed to come up with any examples in the last century.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume to make such absolute statements about something you know so little about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such grandiose claims are pretty typical of the slow child who struggled with their lessons while the rest of the class moved forward with their studies.
Click to expand...

Once again, too stupid to come up with your own insults.



orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've explained in 20 different posts that evolution clearly takes place, just micro evolution. Not the kind that could ever have changed a fish into a monkey. That's just plain ignorant. The kind of fake evolution you guys believe in doesn't help science or do anyone any good. The proven stuff is the only things I believe should be taught. Not the speculation about how life may have been created or how species suddenly jumped from one to another.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume to make such absolute statements about something you know so little about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated no knowledge of science at all here.  So if you were always the best at science/math, as you claim, I have to ask, compared to what/who?  I hate having to repeat myself, but you give me little choice.  You don't know who you are talking to.  I am a geologist with 25 years of field and lab experience, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  And so when you try to claim to have some kind of superior education with regard to science all the while demonstrating no knowledge of it whatsoever, I just have to laugh.  And I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but laughter is all that claim deserves.  You wouldn't dare try to tell a brain surgeon his business, so don't try to tell me mine.
> 
> P.S., you didn't actually answer all of my questions.  This one, for instance:
> 
> "And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?"
Click to expand...

I study nuclear power... I've known biology majors that all give different versions of evolution. I don't respect your field. I think it's the same as art, no real use to society. I got a 34 in math and a 32 in science on the ACT. I'm not a genius but I'm never at the dumber end of the class. People who study fossils try to make their studies relevant by making up stuff to fill in their vast gaps in knowledge.

At least answer these five simple questions if evolution is "proven". Best arguments against atheistic evolution


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume to make such absolute statements about something you know so little about?
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such grandiose claims are pretty typical of the slow child who struggled with their lessons while the rest of the class moved forward with their studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, too stupid to come up with your own insults.
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you presume to make such absolute statements about something you know so little about?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated no knowledge of science at all here.  So if you were always the best at science/math, as you claim, I have to ask, compared to what/who?  I hate having to repeat myself, but you give me little choice.  You don't know who you are talking to.  I am a geologist with 25 years of field and lab experience, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  And so when you try to claim to have some kind of superior education with regard to science all the while demonstrating no knowledge of it whatsoever, I just have to laugh.  And I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but laughter is all that claim deserves.  You wouldn't dare try to tell a brain surgeon his business, so don't try to tell me mine.
> 
> P.S., you didn't actually answer all of my questions.  This one, for instance:
> 
> "And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I study nuclear power... I've known biology majors that all give different versions of evolution.
Click to expand...


Biology majors are not scientists.  They are students.



			
				SUPERMAN1929 said:
			
		

> I don't respect your field. I think it's the same as art, no real use to society.



That's an interesting conclusion since geology puts gas in your car, electricity in your house, and the metals for your car and appliances, etc.



			
				SUPERMAN1929 said:
			
		

> I got a 34 in math and a 32 in science on the ACT. I'm not a genius but I'm never at the dumber end of the class. People who study fossils try to make their studies relevant by making up stuff to fill in their vast gaps in knowledge.



Really?  Let's put that to the test, shall we?  Here is one of my published papers.  You tell me where I made "up stuff":

CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN 



			
				SUPERMAN1929 said:
			
		

> At least answer these five simple questions if evolution is "proven". Best arguments against atheistic evolution



Who the fuck do you think you are?  You have not answered my question and then presume to ask me questions?  You have a lot of fucking nerve. Moreover, evolution has as much to do with atheism as it does with religion - that is to say, nothing at all.  So your five questions are meaningless because they are based on a false premise.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such grandiose claims are pretty typical of the slow child who struggled with their lessons while the rest of the class moved forward with their studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, too stupid to come up with your own insults.
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I don't like evolutionists. They're dumb as fuck. Lots of butt hurt weak nerds who were rejected in school and now want to try to feel above others in some way that no one really cares about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated no knowledge of science at all here.  So if you were always the best at science/math, as you claim, I have to ask, compared to what/who?  I hate having to repeat myself, but you give me little choice.  You don't know who you are talking to.  I am a geologist with 25 years of field and lab experience, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  And so when you try to claim to have some kind of superior education with regard to science all the while demonstrating no knowledge of it whatsoever, I just have to laugh.  And I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but laughter is all that claim deserves.  You wouldn't dare try to tell a brain surgeon his business, so don't try to tell me mine.
> 
> P.S., you didn't actually answer all of my questions.  This one, for instance:
> 
> "And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I study nuclear power... I've known biology majors that all give different versions of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology majors are not scientists.  They are students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't respect your field. I think it's the same as art, no real use to society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an interesting conclusion since geology puts gas in your car, electricity in your house, and the metals for your car and appliances, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got a 34 in math and a 32 in science on the ACT. I'm not a genius but I'm never at the dumber end of the class. People who study fossils try to make their studies relevant by making up stuff to fill in their vast gaps in knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Let's put that to the test, shall we?  Here is one of my published papers.  You tell me where I made "up stuff":
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least answer these five simple questions if evolution is "proven". Best arguments against atheistic evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck do you think you are?  You have not answered my question and then presume to ask me questions?  You have a lot of fucking nerve. Moreover, evolution has as much to do with atheism as it does with religion - that is to say, nothing at all.  So your five questions are meaningless because they are based on a false premise.
Click to expand...

They had a biology degree. I misspoke.

Petroleum engineers do the real work. Other engineers find ways to convert resources into power/products.

I don't know if you personally make it up or the people who make movies/books do. You tell me. Your article is short and purely factual. It doesn't represent the ideas we have been talking about on this thread.

I've been answering your questions. Now explain the ones I gave you. I looked at your small article.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.
> 
> 
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such grandiose claims are pretty typical of the slow child who struggled with their lessons while the rest of the class moved forward with their studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, too stupid to come up with your own insults.
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?  Sounds to me like you were the one rejected in school, because if you had actually paid attention in science class, your willful ignorance wouldn't be so obvious, or possiblly not even exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated no knowledge of science at all here.  So if you were always the best at science/math, as you claim, I have to ask, compared to what/who?  I hate having to repeat myself, but you give me little choice.  You don't know who you are talking to.  I am a geologist with 25 years of field and lab experience, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  And so when you try to claim to have some kind of superior education with regard to science all the while demonstrating no knowledge of it whatsoever, I just have to laugh.  And I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but laughter is all that claim deserves.  You wouldn't dare try to tell a brain surgeon his business, so don't try to tell me mine.
> 
> P.S., you didn't actually answer all of my questions.  This one, for instance:
> 
> "And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I study nuclear power... I've known biology majors that all give different versions of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology majors are not scientists.  They are students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't respect your field. I think it's the same as art, no real use to society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an interesting conclusion since geology puts gas in your car, electricity in your house, and the metals for your car and appliances, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got a 34 in math and a 32 in science on the ACT. I'm not a genius but I'm never at the dumber end of the class. People who study fossils try to make their studies relevant by making up stuff to fill in their vast gaps in knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Let's put that to the test, shall we?  Here is one of my published papers.  You tell me where I made "up stuff":
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least answer these five simple questions if evolution is "proven". Best arguments against atheistic evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck do you think you are?  You have not answered my question and then presume to ask me questions?  You have a lot of fucking nerve. Moreover, evolution has as much to do with atheism as it does with religion - that is to say, nothing at all.  So your five questions are meaningless because they are based on a false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a biology degree. I misspoke.
> 
> Petroleum engineers do the real work. Other engineers find ways to convert resources into power/products.
> 
> I don't know if you personally make it up or the people who make movies/books do. You tell me. Your article is short and purely factual. It doesn't represent the ideas we have been talking about on this thread.
> 
> I've been answering your questions. Now explain the ones I gave you. I looked at your small article.
Click to expand...


Petroleum engineers design the well fields.  Petroleum geologists find the reservoirs in the first place.

I study fossils, and have for my entire life.  You said that "people who study fossils try to make their studies relevant by making up stuff to fill in their vast gaps in knowledge."  Since you have admitted that my paper (which is ten pages, not including the photographic plates) is factual, I can only assume that when you made that statement, above, you were "making it up". And it certainly does represent some of the ideas we've been discussing - evolution for one, geology for another, and science for a third.  As for your questions, I've already given the only answer they deserve, which is that because they are based on a false premise, they are meaningless.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
> 
> 
> 
> Such grandiose claims are pretty typical of the slow child who struggled with their lessons while the rest of the class moved forward with their studies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again, too stupid to come up with your own insults.
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your defense is repeating back to me what I said to you? Your mind is as childish as "I know you are but what am I?"
> 
> I was always the best at science/math and good in every subject. I choose to reject foolishness while the sheeple follow someone they delusionally see as smarter than they are.
> 
> This reply answers all 3 of your posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have demonstrated no knowledge of science at all here.  So if you were always the best at science/math, as you claim, I have to ask, compared to what/who?  I hate having to repeat myself, but you give me little choice.  You don't know who you are talking to.  I am a geologist with 25 years of field and lab experience, and am published in the Journal of Invertebrate Paleontology.  And so when you try to claim to have some kind of superior education with regard to science all the while demonstrating no knowledge of it whatsoever, I just have to laugh.  And I'm sorry if this hurts your feelings, but laughter is all that claim deserves.  You wouldn't dare try to tell a brain surgeon his business, so don't try to tell me mine.
> 
> P.S., you didn't actually answer all of my questions.  This one, for instance:
> 
> "And how many evolutionary scientists do you know personally?"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I study nuclear power... I've known biology majors that all give different versions of evolution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Biology majors are not scientists.  They are students.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't respect your field. I think it's the same as art, no real use to society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's an interesting conclusion since geology puts gas in your car, electricity in your house, and the metals for your car and appliances, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got a 34 in math and a 32 in science on the ACT. I'm not a genius but I'm never at the dumber end of the class. People who study fossils try to make their studies relevant by making up stuff to fill in their vast gaps in knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Let's put that to the test, shall we?  Here is one of my published papers.  You tell me where I made "up stuff":
> 
> CRINOIDS FROM THE MULDRAUGH MEMBER OF THE BORDEN FORMATION IN NORTH-CENTRAL KENTUCKY ECHINODERMATA LOWER MISSISSIPPIAN
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least answer these five simple questions if evolution is "proven". Best arguments against atheistic evolution
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who the fuck do you think you are?  You have not answered my question and then presume to ask me questions?  You have a lot of fucking nerve. Moreover, evolution has as much to do with atheism as it does with religion - that is to say, nothing at all.  So your five questions are meaningless because they are based on a false premise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They had a biology degree. I misspoke.
> 
> Petroleum engineers do the real work. Other engineers find ways to convert resources into power/products.
> 
> I don't know if you personally make it up or the people who make movies/books do. You tell me. Your article is short and purely factual. It doesn't represent the ideas we have been talking about on this thread.
> 
> I've been answering your questions. Now explain the ones I gave you. I looked at your small article.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Petroleum engineers design the well fields.  Petroleum geologists find the reservoirs in the first place.
> 
> I study fossils, and have for my entire life.  You said that "people who study fossils try to make their studies relevant by making up stuff to fill in their vast gaps in knowledge."  Since you have admitted that my paper (which is ten pages, not including the photographic plates) is factual, I can only assume that when you made that statement, above, you were "making it up". And it certainly does represent some of the ideas we've been discussing - evolution for one, geology for another, and science for a third.  As for your questions, I've already given the only answer they deserve, which is that because they are based on a false premise, they are meaningless.
Click to expand...

Good. You acknowledge that you're too closed minded and too bought into your theory to consider other options. I viewed your dumb shit. lol. You blindly listen to the "geniuses" before you and don't look into questions yourself.
People who put your factual information together throw in their own theories as well. Not much of the public would read a boring paper like the one you showed. They just mix in lies within other factual information. That's what I mean by making it up. Your job is interesting and can provide interesting information but none of it really useful. It's like art or entertainers.
In the end I've never made claims that what I believe is fact. You evolutionists are the only fools thinking you have the start of the world figured out. It kind of helps support the scientific method by only listening to scientists who have the correct premise. If the only people studying something go into it believe that evolution happened how would they every come up with anything different? Round about stupid thinking. Anyone who challenges the theory is kicked out of the community. Hmmm. Sounds similar to the old radical church.


----------



## Marxist

Time to shut down this thread, evolution is an undeniable fact, refute any of these below and maybe you have a case, but ken ham isn't a good source 
LOL. The affair was heavily challenged and hated for decades, they didn't get shit.
Evolution
Human Evolution Evidence The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program
What is the evidence for evolution 
29 Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent - Amazing resource
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American - For the OP, who suffers from brain damage.
Early Theories of Evolution Evidence of Evolution
*How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?*

The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:

1.    the fossil record of change in earlier species
2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
3. the geographic distribution of related species
4.  the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations
ENSI SENSI Papers Articles Macroevolution Lessons
Observed Evolutionary Changes - "WE HAVEN'T OBSERVED IT, WAHHH"
 - Easy to follow
The people who critique evolution get plenty of time to speak, the problem is, they're literally full of shit.


----------



## orogenicman

Even more evidence for evolution:

Conifer study illustrates twists of evolution -- ScienceDaily



> A new study offers not only a sweeping analysis of how pollination has evolved among conifers but also an illustration of how evolution -- far from being a straight-ahead march of progress -- sometimes allows for longstanding and advantageous functions to become irrevocably lost. Moreover, the authors show that the ongoing breakdown of the successful but ultimately fragile pollination mechanism may have led to a new diversity of traits and functions.



More at the link, for those who actually want to learn something.


----------



## Marxist

orogenicman said:


> Even more evidence for evolution:
> 
> Conifer study illustrates twists of evolution -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new study offers not only a sweeping analysis of how pollination has evolved among conifers but also an illustration of how evolution -- far from being a straight-ahead march of progress -- sometimes allows for longstanding and advantageous functions to become irrevocably lost. Moreover, the authors show that the ongoing breakdown of the successful but ultimately fragile pollination mechanism may have led to a new diversity of traits and functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link, for those who actually want to learn something.
Click to expand...

There is so much evidence that it would crash this website to post it all.


----------



## orogenicman

Marxist said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more evidence for evolution:
> 
> Conifer study illustrates twists of evolution -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new study offers not only a sweeping analysis of how pollination has evolved among conifers but also an illustration of how evolution -- far from being a straight-ahead march of progress -- sometimes allows for longstanding and advantageous functions to become irrevocably lost. Moreover, the authors show that the ongoing breakdown of the successful but ultimately fragile pollination mechanism may have led to a new diversity of traits and functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link, for those who actually want to learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is so much evidence that it would crash this website to post it all.
Click to expand...


Good idea.  Wanna try?


----------



## Marxist

orogenicman said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more evidence for evolution:
> 
> Conifer study illustrates twists of evolution -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new study offers not only a sweeping analysis of how pollination has evolved among conifers but also an illustration of how evolution -- far from being a straight-ahead march of progress -- sometimes allows for longstanding and advantageous functions to become irrevocably lost. Moreover, the authors show that the ongoing breakdown of the successful but ultimately fragile pollination mechanism may have led to a new diversity of traits and functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link, for those who actually want to learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is so much evidence that it would crash this website to post it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Wanna try?
Click to expand...

Start a new thread and I'm down for it. Actually, make a thread for many things people deny these days, we will go at it all. We could just refer people to that thread.


----------



## orogenicman

Marxist said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more evidence for evolution:
> 
> Conifer study illustrates twists of evolution -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new study offers not only a sweeping analysis of how pollination has evolved among conifers but also an illustration of how evolution -- far from being a straight-ahead march of progress -- sometimes allows for longstanding and advantageous functions to become irrevocably lost. Moreover, the authors show that the ongoing breakdown of the successful but ultimately fragile pollination mechanism may have led to a new diversity of traits and functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link, for those who actually want to learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is so much evidence that it would crash this website to post it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Wanna try?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start a new thread and I'm down for it. Actually, make a thread for many things people deny these days, we will go at it all. We could just refer people to that thread.
Click to expand...


I just posted one on new evidence for the origin of life.


----------



## Marxist

orogenicman said:


> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Marxist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even more evidence for evolution:
> 
> Conifer study illustrates twists of evolution -- ScienceDaily
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A new study offers not only a sweeping analysis of how pollination has evolved among conifers but also an illustration of how evolution -- far from being a straight-ahead march of progress -- sometimes allows for longstanding and advantageous functions to become irrevocably lost. Moreover, the authors show that the ongoing breakdown of the successful but ultimately fragile pollination mechanism may have led to a new diversity of traits and functions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More at the link, for those who actually want to learn something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is so much evidence that it would crash this website to post it all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good idea.  Wanna try?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Start a new thread and I'm down for it. Actually, make a thread for many things people deny these days, we will go at it all. We could just refer people to that thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I just posted one on new evidence for the origin of life.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the thread title only talks about one thing..


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Marxist said:


> Time to shut down this thread, evolution is an undeniable fact, refute any of these below and maybe you have a case, but ken ham isn't a good source
> LOL. The affair was heavily challenged and hated for decades, they didn't get shit.
> Evolution
> Human Evolution Evidence The Smithsonian Institution s Human Origins Program
> What is the evidence for evolution
> 29 Evidences for Macroevolution The Scientific Case for Common Descent - Amazing resource
> 15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense - Scientific American - For the OP, who suffers from brain damage.
> Early Theories of Evolution Evidence of Evolution
> *How Do We Know That Evolution Has Occurred?*
> 
> The evidence for evolution has primarily come from four sources:
> 
> 1.    the fossil record of change in earlier species
> 2. the chemical and anatomical similarities of related life forms
> 3. the geographic distribution of related species
> 4.  the recorded genetic changes in living organisms over many generations
> ENSI SENSI Papers Articles Macroevolution Lessons
> Observed Evolutionary Changes - "WE HAVEN'T OBSERVED IT, WAHHH"
> - Easy to follow
> The people who critique evolution get plenty of time to speak, the problem is, they're literally full of shit.


Of course a group of scientists paid with the intent to prove evolution are going to say that they've found so much it is fact. It's like a salesman. Evolutionists can't be trusted with their premise. You guys are a bunch of blind sheep thinking everything you view in nature is "evidence" that evolution took place.


----------



## Old Rocks

And a bunch of willfully ignorant fundies are going to get nothing right. You guys are a pain in the butt. All mouth, no brains, and so proud of your willful ignorance. 

DNA, fossils, and the animals living today all show that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur as long as there is life.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Old Rocks said:


> And a bunch of willfully ignorant fundies are going to get nothing right. You guys are a pain in the butt. All mouth, no brains, and so proud of your willful ignorance.
> 
> DNA, fossils, and the animals living today all show that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur as long as there is life.


I believe in evolution. Just not the loads of shitty assumptions evolutionists use to try to deem their life works relevant. If they didn't call their research facts then they wouldn't be making as much money. They're no better than politicians with their lies.


----------



## fmdog44

Judging from your posts I feel certain any and all evidence presented would sail over your head but I'll offer up this in order to help you grasp the idea.Sit down next to a chimpanzee in a room full of mirrors for no more than 30 minutes. When you are done post your thoughts.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a bunch of willfully ignorant fundies are going to get nothing right. You guys are a pain in the butt. All mouth, no brains, and so proud of your willful ignorance.
> 
> DNA, fossils, and the animals living today all show that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur as long as there is life.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution. Just not the loads of shitty assumptions evolutionists use to try to deem their life works relevant. If they didn't call their research facts then they wouldn't be making as much money. They're no better than politicians with their lies.
Click to expand...

What "shitty assumptions" would those be?

As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a bunch of willfully ignorant fundies are going to get nothing right. You guys are a pain in the butt. All mouth, no brains, and so proud of your willful ignorance.
> 
> DNA, fossils, and the animals living today all show that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur as long as there is life.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution. Just not the loads of shitty assumptions evolutionists use to try to deem their life works relevant. If they didn't call their research facts then they wouldn't be making as much money. They're no better than politicians with their lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "shitty assumptions" would those be?
> 
> As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.
Click to expand...

I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a bunch of willfully ignorant fundies are going to get nothing right. You guys are a pain in the butt. All mouth, no brains, and so proud of your willful ignorance.
> 
> DNA, fossils, and the animals living today all show that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur as long as there is life.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution. Just not the loads of shitty assumptions evolutionists use to try to deem their life works relevant. If they didn't call their research facts then they wouldn't be making as much money. They're no better than politicians with their lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "shitty assumptions" would those be?
> 
> As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
Click to expand...

Actually, it's pretty clear you embrace the fears and superstitions of fundamentalist Christianity.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a bunch of willfully ignorant fundies are going to get nothing right. You guys are a pain in the butt. All mouth, no brains, and so proud of your willful ignorance.
> 
> DNA, fossils, and the animals living today all show that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur as long as there is life.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution. Just not the loads of shitty assumptions evolutionists use to try to deem their life works relevant. If they didn't call their research facts then they wouldn't be making as much money. They're no better than politicians with their lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "shitty assumptions" would those be?
> 
> As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make any sense – there will never be 'real evidence' concerning any aspect of religion.

And remaining 'skeptical' with regard to objective, documented facts concerning science is to actually remain willfully ignorant.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a bunch of willfully ignorant fundies are going to get nothing right. You guys are a pain in the butt. All mouth, no brains, and so proud of your willful ignorance.
> 
> DNA, fossils, and the animals living today all show that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur as long as there is life.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution. Just not the loads of shitty assumptions evolutionists use to try to deem their life works relevant. If they didn't call their research facts then they wouldn't be making as much money. They're no better than politicians with their lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "shitty assumptions" would those be?
> 
> As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it's pretty clear you embrace the fears and superstitions of fundamentalist Christianity.
Click to expand...

Your logic doesn't follow at all. You just call people names repeatedly. Typical atheist.


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a bunch of willfully ignorant fundies are going to get nothing right. You guys are a pain in the butt. All mouth, no brains, and so proud of your willful ignorance.
> 
> DNA, fossils, and the animals living today all show that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur as long as there is life.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution. Just not the loads of shitty assumptions evolutionists use to try to deem their life works relevant. If they didn't call their research facts then they wouldn't be making as much money. They're no better than politicians with their lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "shitty assumptions" would those be?
> 
> As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This doesn't make any sense – there will never be 'real evidence' concerning any aspect of religion.
> 
> And remaining 'skeptical' with regard to objective, documented facts concerning science is to actually remain willfully ignorant.
Click to expand...

I believe the facts. I don't believe the jumps the scientists try to make saying that life randomly formed together cause it didn't and there is no evidence to prove it. When I say this people show me evidence of how maybe the building blocks could have been present in the early stages of the earth's development. Just because they are present doesn't mean anything. They still have yet to prove in any way, shape, or form that life could actually be produced in this soup.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a bunch of willfully ignorant fundies are going to get nothing right. You guys are a pain in the butt. All mouth, no brains, and so proud of your willful ignorance.
> 
> DNA, fossils, and the animals living today all show that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur as long as there is life.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution. Just not the loads of shitty assumptions evolutionists use to try to deem their life works relevant. If they didn't call their research facts then they wouldn't be making as much money. They're no better than politicians with their lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "shitty assumptions" would those be?
> 
> As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it's pretty clear you embrace the fears and superstitions of fundamentalist Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your logic doesn't follow at all. You just call people names repeatedly. Typical atheist.
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> And a bunch of willfully ignorant fundies are going to get nothing right. You guys are a pain in the butt. All mouth, no brains, and so proud of your willful ignorance.
> 
> DNA, fossils, and the animals living today all show that evolution occured, is occuring, and will occur as long as there is life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe in evolution. Just not the loads of shitty assumptions evolutionists use to try to deem their life works relevant. If they didn't call their research facts then they wouldn't be making as much money. They're no better than politicians with their lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "shitty assumptions" would those be?
> 
> As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This doesn't make any sense – there will never be 'real evidence' concerning any aspect of religion.
> 
> And remaining 'skeptical' with regard to objective, documented facts concerning science is to actually remain willfully ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the facts. I don't believe the jumps the scientists try to make saying that life randomly formed together cause it didn't and there is no evidence to prove it. When I say this people show me evidence of how maybe the building blocks could have been present in the early stages of the earth's development. Just because they are present doesn't mean anything. They still have yet to prove in any way, shape, or form that life could actually be produced in this soup.
Click to expand...

Just keep convincing yourself that all of science is a grand global conspiracy. That does make everything so simple.


----------



## Old Rocks

Interesting. Scientists put a group of chemicals in proximity of another group of chemicals and a certain result ensues. They do this a 1000 times, every time with the same result. But the creationists call the result that ensues random. Perhaps it is the creationists thinking processes that are stuck on random.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution. Just not the loads of shitty assumptions evolutionists use to try to deem their life works relevant. If they didn't call their research facts then they wouldn't be making as much money. They're no better than politicians with their lies.
> 
> 
> 
> What "shitty assumptions" would those be?
> 
> As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it's pretty clear you embrace the fears and superstitions of fundamentalist Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your logic doesn't follow at all. You just call people names repeatedly. Typical atheist.
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in evolution. Just not the loads of shitty assumptions evolutionists use to try to deem their life works relevant. If they didn't call their research facts then they wouldn't be making as much money. They're no better than politicians with their lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What "shitty assumptions" would those be?
> 
> As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This doesn't make any sense – there will never be 'real evidence' concerning any aspect of religion.
> 
> And remaining 'skeptical' with regard to objective, documented facts concerning science is to actually remain willfully ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the facts. I don't believe the jumps the scientists try to make saying that life randomly formed together cause it didn't and there is no evidence to prove it. When I say this people show me evidence of how maybe the building blocks could have been present in the early stages of the earth's development. Just because they are present doesn't mean anything. They still have yet to prove in any way, shape, or form that life could actually be produced in this soup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just keep convincing yourself that all of science is a grand global conspiracy. That does make everything so simple.
Click to expand...

Keep using straw man arguments. If you look at the last 15 posts you've made that's all you've done. I've never criticized science. I'm criticizing a specific theory and the fact that you get so butt hurt about it means you obviously aren't open minded enough to see the holes.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Old Rocks said:


> Interesting. Scientists put a group of chemicals in proximity of another group of chemicals and a certain result ensues. They do this a 1000 times, every time with the same result. But the creationists call the result that ensues random. Perhaps it is the creationists thinking processes that are stuck on random.


That's the exact point I'm making. If life can be formed by a chemical interaction like the claims then why can't these reactions be easily recreated in a lab? It should work every time right?


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Scientists put a group of chemicals in proximity of another group of chemicals and a certain result ensues. They do this a 1000 times, every time with the same result. But the creationists call the result that ensues random. Perhaps it is the creationists thinking processes that are stuck on random.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the exact point I'm making. If life can be formed by a chemical interaction like the claims then why can't these reactions be easily recreated in a lab? It should work every time right?
Click to expand...


No one said that they were easy to reproduce.  If they were, life would exist everywhere.

But many reactions can and have been reproduced in the lab.  You should read my thread about the origins of life, where I've posted many papers on the subject.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. Scientists put a group of chemicals in proximity of another group of chemicals and a certain result ensues. They do this a 1000 times, every time with the same result. But the creationists call the result that ensues random. Perhaps it is the creationists thinking processes that are stuck on random.
> 
> 
> 
> That's the exact point I'm making. If life can be formed by a chemical interaction like the claims then why can't these reactions be easily recreated in a lab? It should work every time right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one said that they were easy to reproduce.  If they were, life would exist everywhere.
> 
> But many reactions can and have been reproduced in the lab.  You should read my thread about the origins of life, where I've posted many papers on the subject.
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone denying that chemical reactions happen. I see them on a daily basis. lol. I'm denying reactions leading to life can happen. If it happened once why can't it be recreated? There aren't any other reactions that take pure randomness to happen to come together. The world is fairly organized in that way. Conditions must be met and then it happens. It is far from proven that life can be made from the reactions you speak of.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "shitty assumptions" would those be?
> 
> As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> 
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, it's pretty clear you embrace the fears and superstitions of fundamentalist Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your logic doesn't follow at all. You just call people names repeatedly. Typical atheist.
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What "shitty assumptions" would those be?
> 
> As is typical for you religious extremists, you revile science because it directly challenges your view of literal bible tales and a 6000 year old earth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This doesn't make any sense – there will never be 'real evidence' concerning any aspect of religion.
> 
> And remaining 'skeptical' with regard to objective, documented facts concerning science is to actually remain willfully ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the facts. I don't believe the jumps the scientists try to make saying that life randomly formed together cause it didn't and there is no evidence to prove it. When I say this people show me evidence of how maybe the building blocks could have been present in the early stages of the earth's development. Just because they are present doesn't mean anything. They still have yet to prove in any way, shape, or form that life could actually be produced in this soup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just keep convincing yourself that all of science is a grand global conspiracy. That does make everything so simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep using straw man arguments. If you look at the last 15 posts you've made that's all you've done. I've never criticized science. I'm criticizing a specific theory and the fact that you get so butt hurt about it means you obviously aren't open minded enough to see the holes.
Click to expand...

You haven't identified any holes in evolutionary theory. You simply deny its existence and insist that the many disciplines of science that collectively support evolution amount to some global conspiracy.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's pretty clear you embrace the fears and superstitions of fundamentalist Christianity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your logic doesn't follow at all. You just call people names repeatedly. Typical atheist.
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I embrace science that presents testable material. The science you choose to believe does not include such information. Therefore I am a skeptic and view people that view this as fact as feeble minded. Just as much as I view people who are so certain of religious assumptions without any real evidence... You think you're smart cause you are a sheep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This doesn't make any sense – there will never be 'real evidence' concerning any aspect of religion.
> 
> And remaining 'skeptical' with regard to objective, documented facts concerning science is to actually remain willfully ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the facts. I don't believe the jumps the scientists try to make saying that life randomly formed together cause it didn't and there is no evidence to prove it. When I say this people show me evidence of how maybe the building blocks could have been present in the early stages of the earth's development. Just because they are present doesn't mean anything. They still have yet to prove in any way, shape, or form that life could actually be produced in this soup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just keep convincing yourself that all of science is a grand global conspiracy. That does make everything so simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep using straw man arguments. If you look at the last 15 posts you've made that's all you've done. I've never criticized science. I'm criticizing a specific theory and the fact that you get so butt hurt about it means you obviously aren't open minded enough to see the holes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't identified any holes in evolutionary theory. You simply deny its existence and insist that the many disciplines of science that collectively support evolution amount to some global conspiracy.
Click to expand...

The hole is that there is no evidence life came about from the way they describe. I've said it like ten times so I don't know why I have to keep typing it out. No one has showed me anything that indicates any evidence about this.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, it's pretty clear you embrace the fears and superstitions of fundamentalist Christianity.
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic doesn't follow at all. You just call people names repeatedly. Typical atheist.
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't make any sense – there will never be 'real evidence' concerning any aspect of religion.
> 
> And remaining 'skeptical' with regard to objective, documented facts concerning science is to actually remain willfully ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the facts. I don't believe the jumps the scientists try to make saying that life randomly formed together cause it didn't and there is no evidence to prove it. When I say this people show me evidence of how maybe the building blocks could have been present in the early stages of the earth's development. Just because they are present doesn't mean anything. They still have yet to prove in any way, shape, or form that life could actually be produced in this soup.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just keep convincing yourself that all of science is a grand global conspiracy. That does make everything so simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep using straw man arguments. If you look at the last 15 posts you've made that's all you've done. I've never criticized science. I'm criticizing a specific theory and the fact that you get so butt hurt about it means you obviously aren't open minded enough to see the holes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't identified any holes in evolutionary theory. You simply deny its existence and insist that the many disciplines of science that collectively support evolution amount to some global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The hole is that there is no evidence life came about from the way they describe. I've said it like ten times so I don't know why I have to keep typing it out. No one has showed me anything that indicates any evidence about this.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep typing it out? The planet and all life emerged fully formed 6,000 years ago. You have your answer.


----------



## Political Junky

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your logic doesn't follow at all. You just call people names repeatedly. Typical atheist.
> I believe the facts. I don't believe the jumps the scientists try to make saying that life randomly formed together cause it didn't and there is no evidence to prove it. When I say this people show me evidence of how maybe the building blocks could have been present in the early stages of the earth's development. Just because they are present doesn't mean anything. They still have yet to prove in any way, shape, or form that life could actually be produced in this soup.
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep convincing yourself that all of science is a grand global conspiracy. That does make everything so simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Keep using straw man arguments. If you look at the last 15 posts you've made that's all you've done. I've never criticized science. I'm criticizing a specific theory and the fact that you get so butt hurt about it means you obviously aren't open minded enough to see the holes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't identified any holes in evolutionary theory. You simply deny its existence and insist that the many disciplines of science that collectively support evolution amount to some global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The hole is that there is no evidence life came about from the way they describe. I've said it like ten times so I don't know why I have to keep typing it out. No one has showed me anything that indicates any evidence about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep typing it out? The planet and all life emerged fully formed 6,000 years ago. You have your answer.
Click to expand...

The Right strives for ignorance. Therefore the US is now less educated than other leading nations.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Political Junky said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just keep convincing yourself that all of science is a grand global conspiracy. That does make everything so simple.
> 
> 
> 
> Keep using straw man arguments. If you look at the last 15 posts you've made that's all you've done. I've never criticized science. I'm criticizing a specific theory and the fact that you get so butt hurt about it means you obviously aren't open minded enough to see the holes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You haven't identified any holes in evolutionary theory. You simply deny its existence and insist that the many disciplines of science that collectively support evolution amount to some global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The hole is that there is no evidence life came about from the way they describe. I've said it like ten times so I don't know why I have to keep typing it out. No one has showed me anything that indicates any evidence about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep typing it out? The planet and all life emerged fully formed 6,000 years ago. You have your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Right strives for ignorance. Therefore the US is now less educated than other leading nations.
Click to expand...

The left is the one killing science. Instead of studying important things such as mathematics and science, they typically choose to study social sciences. They may be educated but in nothing that relates to real life or is useful. The right pushes for education that puts out production... Asians/Indians go into the right fields of study.


----------



## Old Rocks

Fellow, your understanding, or lack thereof, of science, is so profound as to be laughable. What you are saying is that anything that science finds that disagrees with your primitive religious beliefs is not science.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Old Rocks said:


> Fellow, your understanding, or lack thereof, of science, is so profound as to be laughable. What you are saying is that anything that science finds that disagrees with your primitive religious beliefs is not science.


Quote the part of any of my posts that says that?


----------



## Old Rocks

*"The left is the one killing science. Instead of studying important things such as mathematics and science, they typically choose to study social sciences." *

Really? So Geology and Biology just became social sciences?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Keep using straw man arguments. If you look at the last 15 posts you've made that's all you've done. I've never criticized science. I'm criticizing a specific theory and the fact that you get so butt hurt about it means you obviously aren't open minded enough to see the holes.
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't identified any holes in evolutionary theory. You simply deny its existence and insist that the many disciplines of science that collectively support evolution amount to some global conspiracy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The hole is that there is no evidence life came about from the way they describe. I've said it like ten times so I don't know why I have to keep typing it out. No one has showed me anything that indicates any evidence about this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you keep typing it out? The planet and all life emerged fully formed 6,000 years ago. You have your answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Right strives for ignorance. Therefore the US is now less educated than other leading nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The left is the one killing science. Instead of studying important things such as mathematics and science, they typically choose to study social sciences. They may be educated but in nothing that relates to real life or is useful. The right pushes for education that puts out production... Asians/Indians go into the right fields of study.
Click to expand...

Here's my quote. Stop trying to skew what my post was about. He attacked the right and therefore I attacked the left. You can't deny the vast majority of liberals in the fields I mentioned.


----------



## eots




----------



## Maggdy

Mr.Right said:


> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*


----------



## rdean

Mr.Right said:


> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*


I've never seen any.

And you never will DA.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

rdean said:


> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any.
> 
> And you never will DA.
Click to expand...

That's all I wanted the evolutionists to say. Thank you.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any.
> 
> And you never will DA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all I wanted the evolutionists to say. Thank you.
Click to expand...

"Evilutionists" have substantial volumes of evidence for biological evolution. You're free to indulge your conspiracy theories, but you shouldn't expect them to be taken seriously by those who actually studied the data and know the sciences.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any.
> 
> And you never will DA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all I wanted the evolutionists to say. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Evilutionists" have substantial volumes of evidence for biological evolution. You're free to indulge your conspiracy theories, but you shouldn't expect them to be taken seriously by those who actually studied the data and know the sciences.
Click to expand...

You keep ignoring my point. I believe in the evolution with evidence. I don't believe in monkeys changing into people cause it didn't happen or singe cell organisms making the jump to fish.


----------



## Political Junky

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any.
> 
> And you never will DA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all I wanted the evolutionists to say. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Evilutionists" have substantial volumes of evidence for biological evolution. You're free to indulge your conspiracy theories, but you shouldn't expect them to be taken seriously by those who actually studied the data and know the sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep ignoring my point. I believe in the evolution with evidence. I don't believe in monkeys changing into people cause it didn't happen or singe cell organisms making the jump to fish.
Click to expand...

Nobody claims either of those things.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any.
> 
> And you never will DA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all I wanted the evolutionists to say. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Evilutionists" have substantial volumes of evidence for biological evolution. You're free to indulge your conspiracy theories, but you shouldn't expect them to be taken seriously by those who actually studied the data and know the sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep ignoring my point. I believe in the evolution with evidence. I don't believe in monkeys changing into people cause it didn't happen or singe cell organisms making the jump to fish.
Click to expand...

I'm not ignoring some point you're trying to make. I'm just astounded at your profound ignorance regarding the very subject you're railing against. Your comments regarding monkeys changing into people is not merely profoundly ignorant but suggests your education has been limited to some Harun Yahya madrassah.

Your profoundly ignorant "monkeys into human beings” nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or a monkey. Man was never descended from a monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.

I know this has all been explained to you both repeatedly and tediously in the past so that your current and continued comatose condition is concerning.


----------



## Abishai100

*Orange County: Design Doorway*


How about thinking about how lifestyle-tech iconography (i.e., Apple Computer products and logo-merchandise) reveal a new age fascination with efficient electronics design and ornamental marketing, which explains why modern gadgets seem to have catchy names --- i.e., Walkmans?

Think about a concept city in which all residents display orange-colored gear and tech-toys with the same sort of nationalistic pride as did the Nazis with their propaganda machine.  However, this hypothetical city is non-violent and non-aggressive and simply competitors in the consumerism-lifestyle capitalism market.

How do the residents/leaders of this model city make contracts with Starbucks?

In other words, it seems that our species as a society is focused on 'developing design,' if not destiny.  Is design itself therefore evidence for progression or evolution?  Where is the pulse?  Everyone seems to be talking in lingo these days...





Orange County (Film)

Apple Macintosh


----------



## orogenicman

Abishai100 said:


> *Orange County: Design Doorway*
> 
> 
> How about thinking about how lifestyle-tech iconography (i.e., Apple Computer products and logo-merchandise) reveal a new age fascination with efficient electronics design and ornamental marketing, which explains why modern gadgets seem to have catchy names --- i.e., Walkmans?
> 
> Think about a concept city in which all residents display orange-colored gear and tech-toys with the same sort of nationalistic pride as did the Nazis with their propaganda machine.  However, this hypothetical city is non-violent and non-aggressive and simply competitors in the consumerism-lifestyle capitalism market.
> 
> How do the residents/leaders of this model city make contracts with Starbucks?
> 
> In other words, it seems that our species as a society is focused on 'developing design,' if not destiny.  Is design itself therefore evidence for progression or evolution?  Where is the pulse?  Everyone seems to be talking in lingo these days...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Orange County (Film)
> 
> Apple Macintosh
> 
> View attachment 41096 View attachment 41097
> 
> 
> View attachment 41098 View attachment 41099



I am confused as to how you see this as evidence for biological evolution.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rdean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mr.Right said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't seen it. What I mean by evidence is factual Information that supports the theory. I've never seen any. So. Here is a definition of a fact.
> 
> *fact*
> 
> \ˈfakt\_noun_
> : something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence
> 
> : a true piece of information
> 
> *Full Definition*
> 1
> *:*a thing done: as
> 
> a _obsolete_ *:*feat
> 
> b *:*crime <accessory after the _fact_>
> 
> c _archaic_ *:*action
> 2
> _archaic_ *:*performance, doing
> 3
> *:*the quality of being actual *:*actuality <a question of _fact_ hinges on evidence>
> 4
> a *:*something that has actual existence <space exploration is now a _fact_>
> 
> b *:*an actual occurrence <prove the _fact_ of damage>
> 5
> *:*a piece of information presented as having objective reality
> — *in fact
> 
> Now. Can someone show me one piece of factual evidence? Just one will do.*
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen any.
> 
> And you never will DA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's all I wanted the evolutionists to say. Thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Evilutionists" have substantial volumes of evidence for biological evolution. You're free to indulge your conspiracy theories, but you shouldn't expect them to be taken seriously by those who actually studied the data and know the sciences.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep ignoring my point. I believe in the evolution with evidence. I don't believe in monkeys changing into people cause it didn't happen or singe cell organisms making the jump to fish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not ignoring some point you're trying to make. I'm just astounded at your profound ignorance regarding the very subject you're railing against. Your comments regarding monkeys changing into people is not merely profoundly ignorant but suggests your education has been limited to some Harun Yahya madrassah.
> 
> Your profoundly ignorant "monkeys into human beings” nonsense displays a fundamental lack of understanding. Man was never an ape or a monkey. Man was never descended from a monkey. Man and primates shared a common ancestor but branched off in separate directions. That’s not at all uncommon in evolutionary history, by the way, for species to diverge in different directions while sharing a common ancestry.
> 
> I know this has all been explained to you both repeatedly and tediously in the past so that your current and continued comatose condition is concerning.
Click to expand...

That also supports my belief. I think one being created all the different kinds therefore many similarities exist as far as what people are made of and animals. Evolution has occurred through the years with every animal side by side but nothing has changed from its original kind.


----------



## Old Rocks

Whatever. Fellow, you are not going to listen to reason or logic, and are no longer worth having a discussion with.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Old Rocks said:


> Whatever. Fellow, you are not going to listen to reason or logic, and are no longer worth having a discussion with.


Ok. Come at me with facts and then I will convert to your belief system but for now I'm content with my own.


----------



## orogenicman

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. Fellow, you are not going to listen to reason or logic, and are no longer worth having a discussion with.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Come at me with facts and then I will convert to your belief system but for now I'm content with my own.
Click to expand...


There are 130 pages to this thread, many with references to links providing you with ample evidence supporting the theory of evolution.  In addition, there are these threads which provide additional support, and references to papers on the origin of life  as well:

Origin of life Thread Chemistry of seabed s hot vents could explain emergence of life US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Evolution and The Age Of The Earth US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Have at it.  And do us all a favor.  Don't come back in less than a day and pretend that you've read everything in all of those pages and the links they contain, and still claim there is no evidence, because that would simply prove to the rest of us that you are willfully ignorant, instead of being truly interested in learning about the subject.  You do want us to believe you are actually interested, right?


----------



## LOki

eots said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice you advance an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
Click to expand...


----------



## eots

LOki said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice you advance an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?


----------



## alang1216

So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. Fellow, you are not going to listen to reason or logic, and are no longer worth having a discussion with.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Come at me with facts and then I will convert to your belief system but for now I'm content with my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 130 pages to this thread, many with references to links providing you with ample evidence supporting the theory of evolution.  In addition, there are these threads which provide additional support, and references to papers on the origin of life  as well:
> 
> Origin of life Thread Chemistry of seabed s hot vents could explain emergence of life US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Evolution and The Age Of The Earth US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Have at it.  And do us all a favor.  Don't come back in less than a day and pretend that you've read everything in all of those pages and the links they contain, and still claim there is no evidence, because that would simply prove to the rest of us that you are willfully ignorant, instead of being truly interested in learning about the subject.  You do want us to believe you are actually interested, right?
Click to expand...

I read it all. None of it contains facts that support life coming from non life. Until that happens everyone has a right to be skeptical of facts that somehow turn into evidence for a delusional theory.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

alang1216 said:


> So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?


I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...


----------



## alang1216

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...
Click to expand...

In the complete absence of any competing mechanism, what evidence would you accept as "fact"?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

alang1216 said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the complete absence of any competing mechanism, what evidence would you accept as "fact"?
Click to expand...

New functional organs developing in animals that there is evidence of not existing before. It needs to be something complete unique and new that was not there before. Not minor changes to existing organs that have been there forever...
For life being created from non life... There needs to be a repeatable experiment. Reactions aren't random so if they can find the conditions that cause life to suddenly be formed then that would make me a believer.


----------



## alang1216

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the complete absence of any competing mechanism, what evidence would you accept as "fact"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> New functional organs developing in animals that there is evidence of not existing before. It needs to be something complete unique and new that was not there before. Not minor changes to existing organs that have been there forever...
> For life being created from non life... There needs to be a repeatable experiment. Reactions aren't random so if they can find the conditions that cause life to suddenly be formed then that would make me a believer.
Click to expand...

Interesting choices.  The first one, far from being evidence of evolution would be just the opposite.  Evolution says everything comes from something that already exists.  The second one is not even about evolution.  Evolution comes into play only when life already exists.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

alang1216 said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the complete absence of any competing mechanism, what evidence would you accept as "fact"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> New functional organs developing in animals that there is evidence of not existing before. It needs to be something complete unique and new that was not there before. Not minor changes to existing organs that have been there forever...
> For life being created from non life... There needs to be a repeatable experiment. Reactions aren't random so if they can find the conditions that cause life to suddenly be formed then that would make me a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting choices.  The first one, far from being evidence of evolution would be just the opposite.  Evolution says everything comes from something that already exists.  The second one is not even about evolution.  Evolution comes into play only when life already exists.
Click to expand...

Ok. I guess we agree then. A being had to have created the main basis for everything that exists according to your version of evolution.... I've never argued against the kind of evolution your post insinuates.


----------



## orogenicman

eots said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice you advance an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?
Click to expand...


Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.  However that may be, evolution is not an accident:  It is not random.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

orogenicman said:


> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice you advance an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.  However that may be, evolution is not an accident:  It is not random.
Click to expand...

That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope. Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness. The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.


----------



## alang1216

I'm glad we agree,  just not sure what we agree on.  I agree evolution is a fact. I agree life started from non-living matter.  I agree that we don't know the mechanism.  We likely don't agree that there was no supernatural influence. 

I can envision many simple mechanisms that could create life so I don't see the need for a supernatural power.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

alang1216 said:


> I'm glad we agree,  just not sure what we agree on.  I agree evolution is a fact. I agree life started from non-living matter.  I agree that we don't know the mechanism.  We likely don't agree that there was no supernatural influence.
> 
> I can envision many simple mechanisms that could create life so I don't see the need for a supernatural power.


Envisioning simple mechanisms that could create all the life we see today is not something I agree with. I agree with the quote you said below.


alang1216 said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the complete absence of any competing mechanism, what evidence would you accept as "fact"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> New functional organs developing in animals that there is evidence of not existing before. It needs to be something complete unique and new that was not there before. Not minor changes to existing organs that have been there forever...
> For life being created from non life... There needs to be a repeatable experiment. Reactions aren't random so if they can find the conditions that cause life to suddenly be formed then that would make me a believer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting choices.  The first one, far from being evidence of evolution would be just the opposite.  Evolution says *everything comes from something that already exists*.  The second one is not even about evolution.  *Evolution comes into play only when life already exists*.
Click to expand...


----------



## alang1216

So you would prefer a supernatural mechanism which you can't understand to a natural mechanism that you can?  Your choice of course but I have to disagree.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

alang1216 said:


> So you would prefer a supernatural mechanism which you can't understand to a natural mechanism that you can?  Your choice of course but I have to disagree.


Show me a natural mechanism that we can understand. Currently it is as valid as science fiction. No proof life ever popped up here on earth from non life other than the fact that there is all this life here. That's as far as the rational goes for that theory. I don't know how you can understand something that has never been observed...


----------



## alang1216

We can observe and understand molecular self-replication.  Simple and, if the molecules became subject to evolution, life.  Proof?  Not a chance.  No proof for any alternatives of course.


----------



## eots

alang1216 said:


> I'm glad we agree,  just not sure what we agree on.  I agree evolution is a fact. I agree life started from non-living matter.  I agree that we don't know the mechanism.  We likely don't agree that there was no supernatural influence.
> 
> I can envision many simple mechanisms that could create life so I don't see the need for a supernatural power.


then think a little deeper


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would prefer a supernatural mechanism which you can't understand to a natural mechanism that you can?  Your choice of course but I have to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a natural mechanism that we can understand. Currently it is as valid as science fiction. No proof life ever popped up here on earth from non life other than the fact that there is all this life here. That's as far as the rational goes for that theory. I don't know how you can understand something that has never been observed...
Click to expand...

Natural methods are the only methods that are understandable. What supernatural methods do you have evidence for?

You've heard of gravity, right? The affects of gravity are understandable but yet gravity itself is not observable.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...
Click to expand...

Evolution is a fact. There's plenty of evidence for that, obviously. 

I'm guessing you use denial as a way to placate you need to believe in the religious explanations?  What evidence do you have for Amun Ra as the creator of all?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

alang1216 said:


> We can observe and understand molecular self-replication.  Simple and, if the molecules became subject to evolution, life.  Proof?  Not a chance.  No proof for any alternatives of course.


I know there is no proof of any way that life could have came about.


Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would prefer a supernatural mechanism which you can't understand to a natural mechanism that you can?  Your choice of course but I have to disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a natural mechanism that we can understand. Currently it is as valid as science fiction. No proof life ever popped up here on earth from non life other than the fact that there is all this life here. That's as far as the rational goes for that theory. I don't know how you can understand something that has never been observed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural methods are the only methods that are understandable. What supernatural methods do you have evidence for?
> 
> You've heard of gravity, right? The affects of gravity are understandable but yet gravity itself is not observable.
Click to expand...

Gravity is observable and testable. Believing in a theory as a fact that has passed no tests and is not observable is ignorant.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. Fellow, you are not going to listen to reason or logic, and are no longer worth having a discussion with.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Come at me with facts and then I will convert to your belief system but for now I'm content with my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 130 pages to this thread, many with references to links providing you with ample evidence supporting the theory of evolution.  In addition, there are these threads which provide additional support, and references to papers on the origin of life  as well:
> 
> Origin of life Thread Chemistry of seabed s hot vents could explain emergence of life US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Evolution and The Age Of The Earth US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Have at it.  And do us all a favor.  Don't come back in less than a day and pretend that you've read everything in all of those pages and the links they contain, and still claim there is no evidence, because that would simply prove to the rest of us that you are willfully ignorant, instead of being truly interested in learning about the subject.  You do want us to believe you are actually interested, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read it all. None of it contains facts that support life coming from non life. Until that happens everyone has a right to be skeptical of facts that somehow turn into evidence for a delusional theory.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that most of science is a grand conspiracy?


----------



## rdean

Republicans and evolution.  No worry.  Clearly, they are being "left behind".


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is a fact. There's plenty of evidence for that, obviously.
> 
> I'm guessing you use denial as a way to placate you need to believe in the religious explanations?  What evidence do you have for Amun Ra as the creator of all?
Click to expand...

None. I deny life popping up on the earth from a chemical soup and the evolution of everything coming from a single celled organism.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe and understand molecular self-replication.  Simple and, if the molecules became subject to evolution, life.  Proof?  Not a chance.  No proof for any alternatives of course.
> 
> 
> 
> I know there is no proof of any way that life could have came about.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would prefer a supernatural mechanism which you can't understand to a natural mechanism that you can?  Your choice of course but I have to disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me a natural mechanism that we can understand. Currently it is as valid as science fiction. No proof life ever popped up here on earth from non life other than the fact that there is all this life here. That's as far as the rational goes for that theory. I don't know how you can understand something that has never been observed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural methods are the only methods that are understandable. What supernatural methods do you have evidence for?
> 
> You've heard of gravity, right? The affects of gravity are understandable but yet gravity itself is not observable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity is observable and testable. Believing in a theory as a fact that has passed no tests and is not observable is ignorant.
Click to expand...

Gravity is only a theory. It is not observable. Therefore it doesn't exist.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. Fellow, you are not going to listen to reason or logic, and are no longer worth having a discussion with.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Come at me with facts and then I will convert to your belief system but for now I'm content with my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 130 pages to this thread, many with references to links providing you with ample evidence supporting the theory of evolution.  In addition, there are these threads which provide additional support, and references to papers on the origin of life  as well:
> 
> Origin of life Thread Chemistry of seabed s hot vents could explain emergence of life US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Evolution and The Age Of The Earth US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Have at it.  And do us all a favor.  Don't come back in less than a day and pretend that you've read everything in all of those pages and the links they contain, and still claim there is no evidence, because that would simply prove to the rest of us that you are willfully ignorant, instead of being truly interested in learning about the subject.  You do want us to believe you are actually interested, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read it all. None of it contains facts that support life coming from non life. Until that happens everyone has a right to be skeptical of facts that somehow turn into evidence for a delusional theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting that most of science is a grand conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Bold the part that calls it a conspiracy?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe and understand molecular self-replication.  Simple and, if the molecules became subject to evolution, life.  Proof?  Not a chance.  No proof for any alternatives of course.
> 
> 
> 
> I know there is no proof of any way that life could have came about.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would prefer a supernatural mechanism which you can't understand to a natural mechanism that you can?  Your choice of course but I have to disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me a natural mechanism that we can understand. Currently it is as valid as science fiction. No proof life ever popped up here on earth from non life other than the fact that there is all this life here. That's as far as the rational goes for that theory. I don't know how you can understand something that has never been observed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural methods are the only methods that are understandable. What supernatural methods do you have evidence for?
> 
> You've heard of gravity, right? The affects of gravity are understandable but yet gravity itself is not observable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity is observable and testable. Believing in a theory as a fact that has passed no tests and is not observable is ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity is only a theory. It is not observable. Therefore it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Comparing the theory of gravity to the theory of evolution is laughable.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is a fact. There's plenty of evidence for that, obviously.
> 
> I'm guessing you use denial as a way to placate you need to believe in the religious explanations?  What evidence do you have for Amun Ra as the creator of all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None. I deny life popping up on the earth from a chemical soup and the evolution of everything coming from a single celled organism.
Click to expand...

You are free to deny anything you wish. You are free to believe in conspiracy theories.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe and understand molecular self-replication.  Simple and, if the molecules became subject to evolution, life.  Proof?  Not a chance.  No proof for any alternatives of course.
> 
> 
> 
> I know there is no proof of any way that life could have came about.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you would prefer a supernatural mechanism which you can't understand to a natural mechanism that you can?  Your choice of course but I have to disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Show me a natural mechanism that we can understand. Currently it is as valid as science fiction. No proof life ever popped up here on earth from non life other than the fact that there is all this life here. That's as far as the rational goes for that theory. I don't know how you can understand something that has never been observed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural methods are the only methods that are understandable. What supernatural methods do you have evidence for?
> 
> You've heard of gravity, right? The affects of gravity are understandable but yet gravity itself is not observable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity is observable and testable. Believing in a theory as a fact that has passed no tests and is not observable is ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity is only a theory. It is not observable. Therefore it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Comparing the theory of gravity to the theory of evolution is laughable.
Click to expand...

So laugh. Conspiracy theories are fun, right?


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Old Rocks said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever. Fellow, you are not going to listen to reason or logic, and are no longer worth having a discussion with.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Come at me with facts and then I will convert to your belief system but for now I'm content with my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are 130 pages to this thread, many with references to links providing you with ample evidence supporting the theory of evolution.  In addition, there are these threads which provide additional support, and references to papers on the origin of life  as well:
> 
> Origin of life Thread Chemistry of seabed s hot vents could explain emergence of life US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Evolution and The Age Of The Earth US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> Have at it.  And do us all a favor.  Don't come back in less than a day and pretend that you've read everything in all of those pages and the links they contain, and still claim there is no evidence, because that would simply prove to the rest of us that you are willfully ignorant, instead of being truly interested in learning about the subject.  You do want us to believe you are actually interested, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I read it all. None of it contains facts that support life coming from non life. Until that happens everyone has a right to be skeptical of facts that somehow turn into evidence for a delusional theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Are you suggesting that most of science is a grand conspiracy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bold the part that calls it a conspiracy?
Click to expand...

Bold the part that doesn't.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is a fact. There's plenty of evidence for that, obviously.
> 
> I'm guessing you use denial as a way to placate you need to believe in the religious explanations?  What evidence do you have for Amun Ra as the creator of all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None. I deny life popping up on the earth from a chemical soup and the evolution of everything coming from a single celled organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to deny anything you wish. You are free to believe in conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

It's not a conspiracy theory. The type of evolution you believe in is proven in no way, shape, or form. I don't care if you believe in it, I just don't have blind faith in this kind of stuff. It's not better than Scientology.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe and understand molecular self-replication.  Simple and, if the molecules became subject to evolution, life.  Proof?  Not a chance.  No proof for any alternatives of course.
> 
> 
> 
> I know there is no proof of any way that life could have came about.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Show me a natural mechanism that we can understand. Currently it is as valid as science fiction. No proof life ever popped up here on earth from non life other than the fact that there is all this life here. That's as far as the rational goes for that theory. I don't know how you can understand something that has never been observed...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural methods are the only methods that are understandable. What supernatural methods do you have evidence for?
> 
> You've heard of gravity, right? The affects of gravity are understandable but yet gravity itself is not observable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity is observable and testable. Believing in a theory as a fact that has passed no tests and is not observable is ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity is only a theory. It is not observable. Therefore it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Comparing the theory of gravity to the theory of evolution is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So laugh. Conspiracy theories are fun, right?
Click to expand...

Once again whenever your arguments break down you just try to discredit my arguments by using blanket statements to insult me. Good job again.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So far as I know, no one has ever put forth any alternative explanation to evolution for *how* we came to be.  It's easy to say God did it but no one has ever said how he did it.  If you don't know how God works why do you belive you can rule out any mechanism?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution is a fact. There's plenty of evidence for that, obviously.
> 
> I'm guessing you use denial as a way to placate you need to believe in the religious explanations?  What evidence do you have for Amun Ra as the creator of all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None. I deny life popping up on the earth from a chemical soup and the evolution of everything coming from a single celled organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to deny anything you wish. You are free to believe in conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a conspiracy theory. The type of evolution you believe in is proven in no way, shape, or form. I don't care if you believe in it, I just don't have blind faith in this kind of stuff. It's not better than Scientology.
Click to expand...

Yours is a conspiracy theory. Science is a conspiracy To promote evilutioN as a way to suppress belief in your God Amun Ra. Everyone knows that.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alang1216 said:
> 
> 
> 
> We can observe and understand molecular self-replication.  Simple and, if the molecules became subject to evolution, life.  Proof?  Not a chance.  No proof for any alternatives of course.
> 
> 
> 
> I know there is no proof of any way that life could have came about.
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural methods are the only methods that are understandable. What supernatural methods do you have evidence for?
> 
> You've heard of gravity, right? The affects of gravity are understandable but yet gravity itself is not observable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity is observable and testable. Believing in a theory as a fact that has passed no tests and is not observable is ignorant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Gravity is only a theory. It is not observable. Therefore it doesn't exist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Comparing the theory of gravity to the theory of evolution is laughable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So laugh. Conspiracy theories are fun, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again whenever your arguments break down you just try to discredit my arguments by using blanket statements to insult me. Good job again.
Click to expand...

I can't discredit your conspiracy theory. Only you can do that.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not ruling out evolution. I just don't think it should be viewed as a fact. Not enough support for that obviously...
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact. There's plenty of evidence for that, obviously.
> 
> I'm guessing you use denial as a way to placate you need to believe in the religious explanations?  What evidence do you have for Amun Ra as the creator of all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> None. I deny life popping up on the earth from a chemical soup and the evolution of everything coming from a single celled organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to deny anything you wish. You are free to believe in conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a conspiracy theory. The type of evolution you believe in is proven in no way, shape, or form. I don't care if you believe in it, I just don't have blind faith in this kind of stuff. It's not better than Scientology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a conspiracy theory. Science is a conspiracy To promote evilutioN as a way to suppress belief in your God Amun Ra. Everyone knows that.
Click to expand...

Learn to spell... Sound it out. Evolution. Say it a few times.

It's funny how liberal sheep of the scientists just blindly believe and because they heard one guy say it's a proven fact like gravity that now they assume it to be true. Let's not ask anymore questions and be educated. Instead I propose we blindly believe in this theory until we die. Despite the fact that it is not proven and they have failed to create the type of evidence me and many other questioning people require to believe in it.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution is a fact. There's plenty of evidence for that, obviously.
> 
> I'm guessing you use denial as a way to placate you need to believe in the religious explanations?  What evidence do you have for Amun Ra as the creator of all?
> 
> 
> 
> None. I deny life popping up on the earth from a chemical soup and the evolution of everything coming from a single celled organism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are free to deny anything you wish. You are free to believe in conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a conspiracy theory. The type of evolution you believe in is proven in no way, shape, or form. I don't care if you believe in it, I just don't have blind faith in this kind of stuff. It's not better than Scientology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a conspiracy theory. Science is a conspiracy To promote evilutioN as a way to suppress belief in your God Amun Ra. Everyone knows that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn to spell... Sound it out. Evolution. Say it a few times.
> 
> It's funny how liberal sheep of the scientists just blindly believe and because they heard one guy say it's a proven fact like gravity that now they assume it to be true. Let's not ask anymore questions and be educated. Instead I propose we blindly believe in this theory until we die. Despite the fact that it is not proven and they have failed to create the type of evidence me and many other questioning people require to believe in it.
Click to expand...

I'm glad you see through the conspiracy those evilutionist scientists have tried to maintain. We need more folks like you who can expose the evilutionist science conspiracy.

Tell your friends.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None. I deny life popping up on the earth from a chemical soup and the evolution of everything coming from a single celled organism.
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to deny anything you wish. You are free to believe in conspiracy theories.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's not a conspiracy theory. The type of evolution you believe in is proven in no way, shape, or form. I don't care if you believe in it, I just don't have blind faith in this kind of stuff. It's not better than Scientology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a conspiracy theory. Science is a conspiracy To promote evilutioN as a way to suppress belief in your God Amun Ra. Everyone knows that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn to spell... Sound it out. Evolution. Say it a few times.
> 
> It's funny how liberal sheep of the scientists just blindly believe and because they heard one guy say it's a proven fact like gravity that now they assume it to be true. Let's not ask anymore questions and be educated. Instead I propose we blindly believe in this theory until we die. Despite the fact that it is not proven and they have failed to create the type of evidence me and many other questioning people require to believe in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad you see through the conspiracy those evilutionist scientists have tried to maintain. We need more folks like you who can expose the evilutionist science conspiracy.
> 
> Tell your friends.
Click to expand...

I will. Thank you. I have a brain so I use it.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to deny anything you wish. You are free to believe in conspiracy theories.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a conspiracy theory. The type of evolution you believe in is proven in no way, shape, or form. I don't care if you believe in it, I just don't have blind faith in this kind of stuff. It's not better than Scientology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a conspiracy theory. Science is a conspiracy To promote evilutioN as a way to suppress belief in your God Amun Ra. Everyone knows that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn to spell... Sound it out. Evolution. Say it a few times.
> 
> It's funny how liberal sheep of the scientists just blindly believe and because they heard one guy say it's a proven fact like gravity that now they assume it to be true. Let's not ask anymore questions and be educated. Instead I propose we blindly believe in this theory until we die. Despite the fact that it is not proven and they have failed to create the type of evidence me and many other questioning people require to believe in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad you see through the conspiracy those evilutionist scientists have tried to maintain. We need more folks like you who can expose the evilutionist science conspiracy.
> 
> Tell your friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will. Thank you. I have a brain so I use it.
Click to expand...

Praise the lord. Don't be fooled by those Evilutionists.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a conspiracy theory. The type of evolution you believe in is proven in no way, shape, or form. I don't care if you believe in it, I just don't have blind faith in this kind of stuff. It's not better than Scientology.
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a conspiracy theory. Science is a conspiracy To promote evilutioN as a way to suppress belief in your God Amun Ra. Everyone knows that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn to spell... Sound it out. Evolution. Say it a few times.
> 
> It's funny how liberal sheep of the scientists just blindly believe and because they heard one guy say it's a proven fact like gravity that now they assume it to be true. Let's not ask anymore questions and be educated. Instead I propose we blindly believe in this theory until we die. Despite the fact that it is not proven and they have failed to create the type of evidence me and many other questioning people require to believe in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad you see through the conspiracy those evilutionist scientists have tried to maintain. We need more folks like you who can expose the evilutionist science conspiracy.
> 
> Tell your friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will. Thank you. I have a brain so I use it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Praise the lord. Don't be fooled by those Evilutionists.
Click to expand...

My god where did you get an education at? You can't fucking spell...
I trust the people that actually do the research more than random people who believe in evolution because the people who actually do the research see how many holes need to be filled.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yours is a conspiracy theory. Science is a conspiracy To promote evilutioN as a way to suppress belief in your God Amun Ra. Everyone knows that.
> 
> 
> 
> Learn to spell... Sound it out. Evolution. Say it a few times.
> 
> It's funny how liberal sheep of the scientists just blindly believe and because they heard one guy say it's a proven fact like gravity that now they assume it to be true. Let's not ask anymore questions and be educated. Instead I propose we blindly believe in this theory until we die. Despite the fact that it is not proven and they have failed to create the type of evidence me and many other questioning people require to believe in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad you see through the conspiracy those evilutionist scientists have tried to maintain. We need more folks like you who can expose the evilutionist science conspiracy.
> 
> Tell your friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will. Thank you. I have a brain so I use it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Praise the lord. Don't be fooled by those Evilutionists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My god where did you get an education at? You can't fucking spell...
> I trust the people that actually do the research more than random people who believe in evolution because the people who actually do the research see how many holes need to be filled.
Click to expand...

That's the conspiracy that we need to expose - all the misinformation and lies spread by those Evilutionists.


----------



## guno

Science means satan in latin, braise jebus!!


----------



## Old Rocks

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are free to deny anything you wish. You are free to believe in conspiracy theories.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not a conspiracy theory. The type of evolution you believe in is proven in no way, shape, or form. I don't care if you believe in it, I just don't have blind faith in this kind of stuff. It's not better than Scientology.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yours is a conspiracy theory. Science is a conspiracy To promote evilutioN as a way to suppress belief in your God Amun Ra. Everyone knows that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Learn to spell... Sound it out. Evolution. Say it a few times.
> 
> It's funny how liberal sheep of the scientists just blindly believe and because they heard one guy say it's a proven fact like gravity that now they assume it to be true. Let's not ask anymore questions and be educated. Instead I propose we blindly believe in this theory until we die. Despite the fact that it is not proven and they have failed to create the type of evidence me and many other questioning people require to believe in it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm glad you see through the conspiracy those evilutionist scientists have tried to maintain. We need more folks like you who can expose the evilutionist science conspiracy.
> 
> Tell your friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will. Thank you. I have a brain so I use it.
Click to expand...

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## LOki

eots said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice you advance an argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really ?
Click to expand...

Really.



eots said:


> so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?


Non-sequitur.

The proponents of theory of evolution makes no claims regarding "an infinite universe" in the context of the subject that the theory describes.


----------



## LOki

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't notice you advance an argument.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.  However that may be, evolution is not an accident:  It is not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.
Click to expand...

What design?



SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.


What calculation?



SUPERMAN1929 said:


> The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.


What design?


----------



## Hollie

Mr.Right said:


> cnm said:
> 
> 
> 
> You do know that scientific theories are never categorised as fact?
> 
> That they represent the current best available knowledge?
> 
> Do you?
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that there is no factual evidence. I accept your surrender.
Click to expand...

So you admit you know nothing of science.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

LOki said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact they claim to understand  an infinite universe ..just some joe with a Phd and they think they understand the nature and creation of the universe enough to claim that life and all of creation was accidental and there is no Intelligence  or purpose to it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.  However that may be, evolution is not an accident:  It is not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
Click to expand...

For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.  However that may be, evolution is not an accident:  It is not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
Click to expand...

Which was done by means of the magical hand of the gawds.

Don't be led astray by those Evilutionists.


----------



## LOki

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.  However that may be, evolution is not an accident:  It is not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
Click to expand...

You're engaging in tautology.

You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.

It's classic question- begging.

Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

LOki said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eots said:
> 
> 
> 
> really ? so evolutions believe in an intelligent universe ?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.  However that may be, evolution is not an accident:  It is not random.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
Click to expand...

Life can't come from non life. Fact.
I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact. 
DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.  However that may be, evolution is not an accident:  It is not random.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds. 

What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.
> 
> 
> 
> What design?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.
> 
> What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?
Click to expand...

It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What design?
> 
> What calculation?
> 
> What design?
> 
> 
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.
> 
> What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.
Click to expand...

Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.

Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
> 
> 
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.
> 
> What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.
> 
> Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?
Click to expand...

That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.


----------



## LOki

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> orogenicman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not there is a god or a purpose to the universe is irrelevant to the fact of evolution.  However that may be, evolution is not an accident:  It is not random.
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
Click to expand...

Fact?  Demonstrate.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."



SUPERMAN1929 said:


> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.
> 
> What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.
> 
> Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.
Click to expand...

That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented. 

I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years. 

There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

LOki said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.
> 
> 
> 
> What design?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact?  Demonstrate.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.
Click to expand...




Hollie said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.
> 
> What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.
> 
> Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.
> 
> I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.
> 
> There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?
Click to expand...

Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven? Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed. The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened. The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.

Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...


----------



## LOki

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> What design?
> 
> What calculation?
> 
> What design?
> 
> 
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact?  Demonstrate.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you're trying to represent is that life can only come from non-life by the hand of the gawds. So give us some evidence that connects the magical, non-life to life-making abilities of your gawds.
> 
> What life was made from non-life by the hands of the gawds?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.
> 
> Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.
> 
> I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.
> 
> There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?
Click to expand...

Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.



SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.


Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.



SUPERMAN1929 said:


> The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.


Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.



SUPERMAN1929 said:


> The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.
> 
> Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...


If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.

You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

LOki said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
> 
> 
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact?  Demonstrate.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It hasn't been observed. Neither has the creation of information that would be needed for a single cell into what we have today. You're making my point. My point is that we don't know. Ignorant fools think this kind of evolution is fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.
> 
> Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.
> 
> I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.
> 
> There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.
> 
> Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.
> 
> You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.
Click to expand...

So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?
I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.


----------



## LOki

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact?  Demonstrate.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life obviously did emerge from non-life. Either it happened at the magical hand of one or more gawds or by completely natural processes.
> 
> Can you give us a comprehensive list of the various gawds which might have been responsible for creating life from non-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.
> 
> I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.
> 
> There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.
> 
> Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.
> 
> You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?
Click to expand...

Non-sequitur much?

Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."

You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.



SUPERMAN1929 said:


> I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.


You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

LOki said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> Fact?  Demonstrate.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That has nothing to do with the debate. Straw man. What you're telling me is that it really doesn't have any evidence but yet you see it as the only thing that could have happened. Basically by your limited understanding of what happened and the fact that there is no evidence for anything you just assume that it happened. Retard logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.
> 
> I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.
> 
> There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.
> 
> Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.
> 
> You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
> 
> Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."
> 
> You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.
Click to expand...

I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.


----------



## LOki

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact?  Demonstrate.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hollie said:
> 
> 
> 
> That was quite a shuffle. There are quite a number of avenues wherein life could have sprung from non-life. Many have already been presented.
> 
> I see no viable mechanism that suggests your gawds magically/supernaturally created the diversity of life on the planet, certainly not in the last 6,000 years.
> 
> There are lots of proposals for lots of gawds. Why not provide a meaningful description for the means and methods that you believe we're used by your gawds to create life from non-life?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.
> 
> Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.
> 
> You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
> 
> Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."
> 
> You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Click to expand...

Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.

Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?


----------



## Abishai100

*Sci-Tech Statisticians
*

There are at least two archaeological totems for our modern age of sci-tech sophistication as it pertains to 'lifestyle improvement' :

1. The Crock Pot (a fun and easy way to plan Thanksgiving potluck dinners)

2. The Compact Audio Cassette (the first portable audio media storage-playback _toy_)

3. The Human Genome Project [HGP] (a study into the malleability of the human genetic composition as it pertains to phenotypes and genotypes)


Are such totems symbols of a human sociological perspective on evolution-gauged tool-use (and science) transformation/homogeonization?






www.apple.com


----------



## sealybobo

LOki said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I believe the design had to come from somewhere beyond our scope.
> 
> 
> 
> What design?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life is too complex and calculated to simply come from randomness.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What calculation?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The designs/information had to have come from somewhere.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What design?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> For cells, organs, and a functioning life form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're engaging in tautology.
> 
> You're claiming there's a design for these cells, organs and functioning life forms because they're designed.
> 
> It's classic question- begging.
> 
> Demonstrate the designs and/or calculations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact?  Demonstrate.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a biologist but from what I understand DNA contains the codes for life. The way it came about is a hypothesis according to evolution and lacks any kind of evidence. Fact.
> DNA - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The theory of evolution is not a theory of the origin of life. Fact.
Click to expand...


Sure it is. Evolution claims all life comes from the same first life. We dont know exactly when or how but life started. Maybe a mold or something even more basic than single cell organisms but they turned into more complex life and defects caused variations and that led to the diversity we see today. 

Monkeys evolved from something not a monkey and we evolved from monkeys. There was no "first 2 humans.".

This is why religion hates evolution. Religion tells a story that god put Adam and eve here. Science explains why this is wrong and it makes theists uncomfortable because evolution is a much better explaination for how we came to be than the creation story.


----------



## sealybobo

If evolution isnt true then a god planted 2 adult humans on earth and these first adults knew how to raise children, hunt, what food to eat, communicate. And god put dinosaurs and trilobites on earth millions of years before us but they bored him and they went extinct why?

How did all the different animals get here? Think about it. Did god make enough adult lions that they would multiply? And did god make a bunch of adult humans first and then they mated ? No. There was no first human or first lion. They both evolved from a previous species ultimately everything alive comes from a shared ancestor. If its alive, you are related to it.


----------



## sealybobo

Who knows what humans will be like in 10,000 years. I hope smarter. We know dogs are getting much smarter living beside us. In 5000 or 1000 years they may talk to us.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

LOki said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Proving that life didn't come from non life here on earth? Like that needs to be proven?
> 
> 
> 
> Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Any logical person would ask that proof be given for life being formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is that it's never been observed so I don't believe it happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "evidence" scientists use for the origin of life is a joke and all as good of speculation as anyone could make with have a brain. Pure fictional rubbish.
> 
> Once again puts yourself in the category that I am arguing for. You have no evidence so instead you ask me to prove my idea when I've never claimed my idea to be fact. Fools...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.
> 
> You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
> 
> Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."
> 
> You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.
> 
> Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?
Click to expand...

Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...


----------



## LOki

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.
> 
> Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.
> 
> Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.
> 
> If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.
> 
> You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.
> 
> 
> 
> So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
> 
> Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."
> 
> You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.
> 
> Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...
Click to expand...

Excellent.

The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life." 



SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Life can't come from non life. Fact.


Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

LOki said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
> 
> Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."
> 
> You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.
> 
> Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
Click to expand...

What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist." You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened. Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...


----------



## LOki

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
> 
> Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."
> 
> You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.
> 
> You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.
> 
> Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."
Click to expand...

No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."


SUPERMAN1929 said:


> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.


I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."

Correct?


SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Life can't come from non life. Fact.


Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.

Do it now, Cupcake.



SUPERMAN1929 said:


> You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.


I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."

I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.

What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?



SUPERMAN1929 said:


> Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...


But I'm not requiring any of that from you.

I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."

Tell me about it, Pumpkin.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

LOki said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.
> 
> Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
Click to expand...

My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?


----------



## LOki

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.
> 
> Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
Click to expand...

That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.

It is certainly no kind of proof.

If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?

Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.

So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.


----------



## sealybobo

A


SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Superstitious retards require others to prove the negative. Sensible folk refuse to engage in such nonsense for obvious reasons.
> 
> Nonsense. The existence of life is sufficient evidence that it was formed by some means.
> 
> Well, the problem you need to overcome then is explaining how you're alive such that you can articulate that you believe that life never happened.
> 
> If your proposition is some supernatural being, then what we have here in you is the most ironic example of pathological projection.
> 
> You see SUPERMAN1929, while the evidence for evolution and the origin of life through completely natural processes may be a "joke" in your superstitious estimation, such evidence remains mountainous in scope compared to the absolute nothing you bring to assert the validity of your notions.
> 
> 
> 
> So by mountainous you mean no evidence at all?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Non-sequitur much?
> 
> Or is your problem an inability to parse the difference between the terms "evidence" and "proof."
> 
> You can assert the evidence for evolution is insufficient to prove it, but denying that there's any evidence whatsoever is just stolid denial of reality.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm an agnostic. I'm unsure. It takes legit evidence to make me view something as fact unlike all you evolutionist monkeys.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're clearly not so agnostic as you claim; you seem to be pretty sure of something, Cupcake.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof. I would do the same if others claiming their theories were fact. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well then, you won't mind me pointing out to you that between you and I, you're the one claiming facts without proof.
> 
> Is it reasonable then that I should consider you to be the precise species of fool you enjoy exposing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...
Click to expand...

All the evidence points to the fact that all life probably came from the same source. I dont think anyone needs to explain to you all the evidence and reasons why it makes perfect sense. You can easily go look up all the details yourself. Theres many many reasons evolution is a scientific fact. The highest honor a theory can achieve.

Or you can deny evolution and go with the creation story. 

And what evidence are you using to come to that conclusion?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

LOki said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I'm stating things that actually are facts. There's a difference in disguising theories as facts and actually using facts to say theories aren't proven...
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
Click to expand...

No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?


----------



## Hollie

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> 
> 
> What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?
Click to expand...

It didn't. That's just a conspiracy promoted by the Evilutionists.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> 
> 
> What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?
Click to expand...

I believe the multiverse theory. Our bubble was started 14 billion years ago and the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Time light space and the bubble are getting bigger. Eventually it could burst when it merges with another universe or bubble. Our bubble had a beginning but there have been other beginnings and other ends in other infinite universes or cosmos.


What do you think? I could be wrong but scientifically and theoretically and logically I could be right. Can we say the same about your theory?

Your theory is a conclusion you can't think of any other explanation. Its based on ignorance. You dont know so must be god..

By the way did you see I named you as a frienemy?


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> 
> 
> What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?
Click to expand...

Didn't the plants have to be here first to create oxygen for us to breath? We know the first life didnt breath oxygen and humans couldn't have lived on earth when live started. That wasn't for a billion years. Trilobite's and dinosaurs ruled before us.

And we know men came from monkeys, once crawled on all 4s and breathed water. And we are related to all other living things.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

sealybobo said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the multiverse theory. Our bubble was started 14 billion years ago and the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Time light space and the bubble are getting bigger. Eventually it could burst when it merges with another universe or bubble. Our bubble had a beginning but there have been other beginnings and other ends in other infinite universes or cosmos.
> 
> 
> What do you think? I could be wrong but scientifically and theoretically and logically I could be right. Can we say the same about your theory?
> 
> Your theory is a conclusion you can't think of any other explanation. Its based on ignorance. You dont know so must be god..
> 
> By the way did you see I named you as a frienamy?
Click to expand...

My problem with the theory is that people use a belief that is no more than just a belief to belittle others. I'm not much for theorizing about things beyond the scope of life. I do believe in an infinite universe though. 

I don't see enough evidence in any theory about stuff like that to have it hold any real weight.

I don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing. You are a frienemy to me as well.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

sealybobo said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't the plants have to be here first to create oxygen for us to breath? We know the first life didnt breath oxygen and humans couldn't have lived on earth when live started. That wasn't for a billion years. Trilobite's and dinosaurs ruled before us.
> 
> And we know men came from monkeys, once crawled on all 4s and breathed water. And we are related to all other living things.
Click to expand...

The first things you mention are logical but my opinion is that we really don't know enough about the past to make such assumptions.
I don't believe the second part at all.


----------



## LOki

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> The verifiable evidence suggests that living things are necessarily derived, sustained, and entirely composed of "non-life."
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> 
> 
> What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life.
Click to expand...

So what? No one has "proof" of ANYTHING. Right?

There is no perfect certainty except for that possessed by the superstitious; who base their perfect certainty upon nothing, and validate it by denying valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

I'm not counted amongst those retards, Cupcake.

The evidence strongly suggests that life around here is a relatively new occurence.



SUPERMAN1929 said:


> How do we know time had a beginning?


We don't. Not with absolute certainty. But the evidence suggests that it did.

I'm good with that until something better is presented.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> ​I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> 
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the multiverse theory. Our bubble was started 14 billion years ago and the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Time light space and the bubble are getting bigger. Eventually it could burst when it merges with another universe or bubble. Our bubble had a beginning but there have been other beginnings and other ends in other infinite universes or cosmos.
> 
> 
> What do you think? I could be wrong but scientifically and theoretically and logically I could be right. Can we say the same about your theory?
> 
> Your theory is a conclusion you can't think of any other explanation. Its based on ignorance. You dont know so must be god..
> 
> By the way did you see I named you as a frienamy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My problem with the theory is that people use a belief that is no more than just a belief to belittle others. I'm not much for theorizing about things beyond the scope of life. I do believe in an infinite universe though.
> 
> I don't see enough evidence in any theory about stuff like that to have it hold any real weight.
> 
> I don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing. You are a frienemy to me as well.
Click to expand...

I believe you are probably an agnostic athiest who believes religion is good for people and humans need it and that without it things would be worse. I disagree. I think it is unnecessary and holding us back. Look at Muslims. So you want to do away with that lie and replace it with another?


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

LOki said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are asking is the same type of question as "prove to me that God doesn't exist."
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I like pointing out fools who claim facts without proof.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Life can't come from non life. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're under an assumption that life popped up naturally when we don't know what happened.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Prove that aliens didn't make the pyramids, prove that people don't turn into ghosts after they die... the list of stupid things to prove could go on and on...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? No one has "proof" of ANYTHING. Right?
> 
> There is no perfect certainty except for that possessed by the superstitious; who base their perfect certainty upon nothing, and validate it by denying valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> I'm not counted amongst those retards, Cupcake.
> 
> The evidence strongly suggests that life around here is a relatively new occurence.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know time had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't. Not with absolute certainty. But the evidence suggests that it did.
> 
> I'm good with that until something better is presented.
Click to expand...

You have faith that we have a good knowledge base of the past. I don't have faith in our knowledge of the past.


----------



## SUPERMAN1929

sealybobo said:


> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> 
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the multiverse theory. Our bubble was started 14 billion years ago and the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Time light space and the bubble are getting bigger. Eventually it could burst when it merges with another universe or bubble. Our bubble had a beginning but there have been other beginnings and other ends in other infinite universes or cosmos.
> 
> 
> What do you think? I could be wrong but scientifically and theoretically and logically I could be right. Can we say the same about your theory?
> 
> Your theory is a conclusion you can't think of any other explanation. Its based on ignorance. You dont know so must be god..
> 
> By the way did you see I named you as a frienamy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My problem with the theory is that people use a belief that is no more than just a belief to belittle others. I'm not much for theorizing about things beyond the scope of life. I do believe in an infinite universe though.
> 
> I don't see enough evidence in any theory about stuff like that to have it hold any real weight.
> 
> I don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing. You are a frienemy to me as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you are probably an agnostic athiest who believes religion is good for people and humans need it and that without it things would be worse. I disagree. I think it is unnecessary and holding us back. Look at Muslims. So you want to do away with that lie and replace it with another?
Click to expand...

Possible. Muslims are pretty bad but I also believe that there are many Muslims perfectly happy with their lives. Some enjoy the kind of community they have and would rather not have foreign nations change their lives. Whether they have the right to live like that is up to the rest of the world to decide I guess. To me I don't have a problem with it as long as they don't harm others. The fact that they commit acts of terrorism is definitely a problem though. The small group of wackos is the only problem.


----------



## LOki

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> ​I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> 
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? No one has "proof" of ANYTHING. Right?
> 
> There is no perfect certainty except for that possessed by the superstitious; who base their perfect certainty upon nothing, and validate it by denying valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> I'm not counted amongst those retards, Cupcake.
> 
> The evidence strongly suggests that life around here is a relatively new occurence.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know time had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't. Not with absolute certainty. But the evidence suggests that it did.
> 
> I'm good with that until something better is presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have faith that we have a good knowledge base of the past. I don't have faith in our knowledge of the past.
Click to expand...

I don't do faith, Pumpkin. I'm not capable of it.

_"There is no perfect certainty except for that possessed by the superstitious; who base their perfect certainty upon nothing, and validate it by denying valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.

I'm not counted amongst those retards, Cupcake."_​


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> ​I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> 
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Didn't the plants have to be here first to create oxygen for us to breath? We know the first life didnt breath oxygen and humans couldn't have lived on earth when live started. That wasn't for a billion years. Trilobite's and dinosaurs ruled before us.
> 
> And we know men came from monkeys, once crawled on all 4s and breathed water. And we are related to all other living things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The first things you mention are logical but my opinion is that we really don't know enough about the past to make such assumptions.
> I don't believe the second part at all.
Click to expand...

How did gopers snakes birds reptiles ants 1 million different beatles lion bears wolves octopus eel whales monkeys dinosaurs trilobite's fox turkey trees grass weed cows come from then?

What's your theory? How is it we share the same DNA under a microscope?


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> 
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life. How do we know time had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe the multiverse theory. Our bubble was started 14 billion years ago and the universe is expanding at a faster and faster rate. Time light space and the bubble are getting bigger. Eventually it could burst when it merges with another universe or bubble. Our bubble had a beginning but there have been other beginnings and other ends in other infinite universes or cosmos.
> 
> 
> What do you think? I could be wrong but scientifically and theoretically and logically I could be right. Can we say the same about your theory?
> 
> Your theory is a conclusion you can't think of any other explanation. Its based on ignorance. You dont know so must be god..
> 
> By the way did you see I named you as a frienamy?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> My problem with the theory is that people use a belief that is no more than just a belief to belittle others. I'm not much for theorizing about things beyond the scope of life. I do believe in an infinite universe though.
> 
> I don't see enough evidence in any theory about stuff like that to have it hold any real weight.
> 
> I don't know if that's a good thing or bad thing. You are a frienemy to me as well.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I believe you are probably an agnostic athiest who believes religion is good for people and humans need it and that without it things would be worse. I disagree. I think it is unnecessary and holding us back. Look at Muslims. So you want to do away with that lie and replace it with another?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Possible. Muslims are pretty bad but I also believe that there are many Muslims perfectly happy with their lives. Some enjoy the kind of community they have and would rather not have foreign nations change their lives. Whether they have the right to live like that is up to the rest of the world to decide I guess. To me I don't have a problem with it as long as they don't harm others. The fact that they commit acts of terrorism is definitely a problem though. The small group of wackos is the only problem.
Click to expand...

Now think how the people of iraq feel when a christian superpower bombs your city to get rid of Saddam basically destroying their countries stability putting them in a civil war. Dividing their country into 3.  You act like the war is completely evil Islam vs innocent USA that's never done anything. Dont be naive. There's blood on our hands. We are little eichmanns. Look it up.


----------



## sealybobo

SUPERMAN1929 said:


> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOki said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I'm asking you to provide the "proof" you hold as a requirement for someone to submit an assertion as "fact."
> ​I take it then you do not foolishly submit "facts without proof."
> 
> Correct?
> Submit the proof for this "fact" that you have foolishly submitted.
> 
> Do it now, Cupcake.
> 
> I'm making no such assumption. I'm claiming no such "knowledge."
> 
> I'm just following the evidence. Just like other rational folk, my assertions are expressions of qualified certainty based upon applying valid logic to verifiable evidence.
> 
> What are you proposing I should do instead? Apply superstition, perhaps?
> 
> But I'm not requiring any of that from you.
> 
> I don't see the problem you're having with adhereing to your very own criteria for judging the validity of "facts."
> 
> Tell me about it, Pumpkin.
> 
> 
> 
> My proof is that nothing that isn't already alive has ever produced something living. If you can show me where that happened then I will take back my statements. That's all I ask. Simple enough right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's just argument from ignorance... a specifically, and intentionally cultivated ignorance at that.
> 
> It is certainly no kind of proof.
> 
> If you're going to be consistent, Abraham Lincoln's great grandmother "never happened" because you never saw her. Correct?
> 
> Life got it's start somewhere, somehow, at some time... and before then there was no life. Logic dictates that life arose from non-life. The evidence supporting that logical conclusion is the fact that all life is composed of, sustained by, and necessarily contingent upon what is not alive.
> 
> So Pumpkin, I'm not going to show you Honest Abe's great grandmother to "prove" that she existed, nor will I show you life springing forth from non-living matter to "prove" that it happened... it would be meaningless to the superstitious, and uneccessary for the rational.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No one has any proof that life hasn't been around as long as non life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what? No one has "proof" of ANYTHING. Right?
> 
> There is no perfect certainty except for that possessed by the superstitious; who base their perfect certainty upon nothing, and validate it by denying valid logic applied to verifiable evidence.
> 
> I'm not counted amongst those retards, Cupcake.
> 
> The evidence strongly suggests that life around here is a relatively new occurence.
> 
> 
> 
> SUPERMAN1929 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do we know time had a beginning?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We don't. Not with absolute certainty. But the evidence suggests that it did.
> 
> I'm good with that until something better is presented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have faith that we have a good knowledge base of the past. I don't have faith in our knowledge of the past.
Click to expand...

Then dont believe any holy book you read.


----------



## Abishai100

*Tool Theater
*

Let's look at how 'modern civilization' has re-presented two totems of consumerism that are related to social perceptions of tool sophistication and tool symbolism:

1. the audio compact cassette (the first portable audio media storage-playback item that sort of looked like a _toy_, indicating a design trend in user-friendliness)

2. the water-gun (a toy gun that shoots water instead of bullets and is marketed to kids and characterizes social views on violence-caricaturization)

The fact that human beings actually _impose_ sentimentalism and anthropological symbolism onto gadgets/toys/tools suggests that we can talk about evolution (and the evidence for it) in terms of *tool economics*.








Bob's Big Boy (Wikipedia)


----------

