Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wow great post,very well said.
The hick won't like it, but who cares.You expressed my thoughts perfectly.
You mean he expressed something in one post that you couldn't adequately do in 500?
Were you holding out on us, or are you just inefficient?
Some people are better at expressing themself, whats your fucking excuse?
You mean he expressed something in one post that you couldn't adequately do in 500?
Were you holding out on us, or are you just inefficient?
Some people are better at expressing themself, whats your fucking excuse?
I don't need an excuse. I can formulate my own thoughts on this matter. I don't have to wait for a better poster to come along and say something astute and then scream "that was what I was going to say!" like you two knuckleheads.
Wow great post,very well said.
The hick won't like it, but who cares.You expressed my thoughts perfectly.
You mean he expressed something in one post that you couldn't adequately do in 500?
Were you holding out on us, or are you just inefficient?
The story of ToE is something like this;
Science is referring to a rather specific approach of confirming a specific kind of truth. This specific kind of truth refers to how things keep repeating themselves by following physics laws or natural rules. And the only way efficient way to confirm such a kind of truth is to observe how they repeat, then develop a theory on the pattern of how they repeat, then to predict with the theory on how they repeat. If you predict the repitition results unlimited number of times without failure, the laws/rules/theories you developed are considered a confirmed scientific truth.
For example, if you claim that water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen. You'll be able to repeat the resolution unlimited number of times with each time delivering the same expected result (i.e. hydrogen and oxygen). This process is referred to as the predictability of science. If however, something unexpected are resulted instead of hydrogen and oxygen as predicted, the claimed laws/rules/theories (a chemical reaction in this case) are considered to falsified. This is referred to as the falsifiability of science.
Unlike any other science posseses the characteristic of predictability and falsifyability, ToE is developed totally in another approach. So if all other science is confirmed using this approach while ToE uses another, it is thus doubtful that ToE can be confirmed as a science.
Not only that, ToE (evolutionists that is) here and there makes false and deceptive claims about its capability (or lack thereof) of predictability and falsifyability. Again, if false claims are allowed in a "science", it adds futher doubt about what the theory itself is.
If you declare that 100% species on earth are undergoing and are results of the repeating process of evolution/natural selection, just like the declaration that hydrogen and oxygen shall be resulted by water resolution, you have to make the process repeatable in order to observe, to develop the theory itself and to predict what should be resulted using the theory developed.
On the other hand, if you delare the water (all water) will resolve into hydrogen and oxygen, you can't specify that your theory only works for the water in the kitchen of your house. You need to allow any third party to use any water any where to follow your rule to get the same result. So if you declare that humans, dogs, cats...you name it, are the result of evolution, you should be able to repeatedly reproduce them using the theory you developed. You will be able to say that "under this establishment as a simulated natural environment, natural select shall occur to have humans (or dogs or cats or...you name it) as a resulted product. If something else is produced instead, your theory is thus falsified.
ToE doesn't natively follow this approach to confirm the claimed repeating process (evoluton that is), worse still it provides false claims such as "common ancestry is its predicabililty", common ancestry is what history is, and history occurred only once and thus is not a repeatable process. This is not the predictability science demands for the support of the claim that 100% species evolves by following the repeating rule of natural selection.
Yet another deceptive claim is that ToE's falsifyability and predictability is done through the experimentation of bacteria. So this is just the same claim that "you can use only the water in my kitchen". Science demands that if you declare that 100% species are evolved by following some kind of law, you'll be able to predictably see how humans, dogs, cats, or any species specified by any third party to be produced in an natural environment (the bacteria thingy is more of a manual environment instead of a natural environment).
As a matter of fact, ToE can hardly use a scientifc approach mentioned above to observe how things repeat themselves thus develop the theory and predict the result in accordance to the theory. The approach used by ToE is similar to history study instead of scientific study, they bring up one time historical evidence to try to support and confirm a repeating process. In the perspective that it adapts a totally different approach from any other science, in a sense one may say that it is not a science at all! It is even a false science in the sense that false and deceptive claims are spreaded around. When falsehood is defended religiously, well it is thus a religion!
The forgivable part of ToE is that it adapts such an approach simply because "it is so difficult to follow the correct way to do things" as it is almost impossible to establish a simulated natural environment and to give the required time for us to observe the process. Forgivable but this won't make the "theory" any 'better'.
Finding a single fossil naturally out of place in the ground would falsify evolution. It's also a logical canard to insist that we must be able to reproduce a process that took hudreds of millions of years to occur in various different environments and atmospheres in a laboratory beaker for it to be considered "reproducible". You yourself admit that would be impossible. We can't quite recreate gravity either. That doesn't limit our study of it.
You are basically making the same absurd, albeit much more articulate points, that the anti-evolution crowd always makes. The scientific community certainly doesn't see the massive holes you claim are in the process.
Furthermore, what is your proposed alternative? If you are going to claim scientific rigor, then surely you can't claim that intelligent design or creation, which both rely on supernatural forces, can be falsified. Once you introduce an all knowing and powerful force into your model, the answer to any connundrum (i.e. the hypothetical out of place fossil) automatically becomes "God did it".
At any rate, in light of the OP, it's always entertaining to see anyone claim that they know what happens when we die. It's the final mystery and all the logic, scripture, parables, and firmly held beliefs on the planet have failed to bring a resounding answer to it. I have my doubts this thread will either. It will simply be something that we all find out in our way.
You mean he expressed something in one post that you couldn't adequately do in 500?
Were you holding out on us, or are you just inefficient?
Some people are better at expressing themself, whats your fucking excuse?
I don't need an excuse. I can formulate my own thoughts on this matter. I don't have to wait for a better poster to come along and say something astute and then scream "that was what I was going to say!" like you two knuckleheads.
Position A is my position you got it all assbackwards. Try again
Your only reply since I have ask that set of questions is strawman you must present an argument and make your argument stick for my position to ba a strawman. Got it?
But you haven't even presented a position. My analysis remains correct, you are just having a very difficult time thinking today.
My position is evolution as science teaches is wrong. Has been since it started preaching evolution as gospel.
You mean he expressed something in one post that you couldn't adequately do in 500?
Were you holding out on us, or are you just inefficient?
Some people are better at expressing themself, whats your fucking excuse?
I don't need an excuse. I can formulate my own thoughts on this matter. I don't have to wait for a better poster to come along and say something astute and then scream "that was what I was going to say!" like you two knuckleheads.
But you haven't even presented a position. My analysis remains correct, you are just having a very difficult time thinking today.
My position is evolution as science teaches is wrong. Has been since it started preaching evolution as gospel.
If science ever used terms like pond scum, or ocean plants became human I would be as anti-evolution as you are.
However, science says nothing even remotely like that. So you've chosen to remain ignorant and use that as your excuse to be a science denier rather than learn the reality of how science explains and proves evolution.
But you haven't even presented a position. My analysis remains correct, you are just having a very difficult time thinking today.
My position is evolution as science teaches is wrong. Has been since it started preaching evolution as gospel.
If science ever used terms like pond scum, or ocean plants became human I would be as anti-evolution as you are.
However, science says nothing even remotely like that. So you've chosen to remain ignorant and use that as your excuse to be a science denier rather than learn the reality of how science explains and proves evolution.
My position is evolution as science teaches is wrong. Has been since it started preaching evolution as gospel.
If science ever used terms like pond scum, or ocean plants became human I would be as anti-evolution as you are.
However, science says nothing even remotely like that. So you've chosen to remain ignorant and use that as your excuse to be a science denier rather than learn the reality of how science explains and proves evolution.
Pond scum is a word of discuss, unless you somehow think the ocean is a pond?
My position is evolution as science teaches is wrong. Has been since it started preaching evolution as gospel.
If science ever used terms like pond scum, or ocean plants became human I would be as anti-evolution as you are.
However, science says nothing even remotely like that. So you've chosen to remain ignorant and use that as your excuse to be a science denier rather than learn the reality of how science explains and proves evolution.
Morning Doc, where did life begin ?
If they have proven evolution there would be no debate. They have proven organisms have the ability to adapt nothing beyond that. Which you know by now that is only micro-adaptations. The same thing darwin showed but Darwin went even beyond that with a theory that can't be backed by the evidence.
Man did not come FROM primates. That other dumbass had something correct for once: man IS a primate. You continue to show your complete lack of knowledge on this topic, while claiming everyone else wrong or lying. It's both hilarious and pathetic. But please, quote anything I've said so far that is a "lie" will you?oh so man did come from a primate. Why did you lie?
Please share: what is the animal that is produced when a chimp cross breeds with an ape.Chimps which your side claims is so close to a human can cross breed with apes but they can't with humans why not ? who is our nearest anceator these days ?
I don't need an excuse. I can formulate my own thoughts on this matter. I don't have to wait for a better poster to come along and say something astute and then scream "that was what I was going to say!" like you two knuckleheads.
Doesn't really matter how many times you say this, it still has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Actually I take that back. It does matter how many times you say it after being corrected: each additional ignorant repetition makes your stance look even more inane.it is very reasonable to assume life begets life not reasonable to assume non-life begets life.
If science ever used terms like pond scum, or ocean plants became human I would be as anti-evolution as you are.
However, science says nothing even remotely like that. So you've chosen to remain ignorant and use that as your excuse to be a science denier rather than learn the reality of how science explains and proves evolution.
Morning Doc, where did life begin ?
If they have proven evolution there would be no debate. They have proven organisms have the ability to adapt nothing beyond that. Which you know by now that is only micro-adaptations. The same thing darwin showed but Darwin went even beyond that with a theory that can't be backed by the evidence.
I dunno how life began, science is working on that.
Where life began and evolution have nothing to do with each other, as every other poster has desperately tried to get through to you and have failed (and i'm sure I will too).
I know you'll deny the fact of evolution, no matter how many facts are put in front of your face. You've proven that on the board, I won't let myself get drug into that exercise again where your end result is telling me Harvard scientists don't know what they're talking about and Yale scientists are sent by Satan, etc etc.
Did life begin in a body of water or not ?
Man did not come FROM primates. That other dumbass had something correct for once: man IS a primate. You continue to show your complete lack of knowledge on this topic, while claiming everyone else wrong or lying. It's both hilarious and pathetic. But please, quote anything I've said so far that is a "lie" will you?oh so man did come from a primate. Why did you lie?
Can't wait till the next dumb thing you say while claiming you understand the concept. This is like comedy hour.
Please share: what is the animal that is produced when a chimp cross breeds with an ape.Chimps which your side claims is so close to a human can cross breed with apes but they can't with humans why not ? who is our nearest anceator these days ?
You also seem to fail to realize that genetic similarities do not in and of themselves confer mating ability. For example, if I made two hypothetical species with identical genes but a vastly different number of chromosomes, they wouldn't be able to reproduce. But all this science stuff goes way above your head, so let's just keep things simple. Start by sharing the animal produced from apes and chimps, and we'll go from there.
I don't need an excuse. I can formulate my own thoughts on this matter. I don't have to wait for a better poster to come along and say something astute and then scream "that was what I was going to say!" like you two knuckleheads.
Doesn't really matter how many times you say this, it still has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Actually I take that back. It does matter how many times you say it after being corrected: each additional ignorant repetition makes your stance look even more inane.it is very reasonable to assume life begets life not reasonable to assume non-life begets life.
All you do is ramble on how wrong I am without one sherred of evidence to support your assumption.
You want me to provide supporting evidence showing that YOUR dumb remarks are completely unsupported? You realize that's not the way it works, right? If you make a claim, YOU need to support it. If I call you on your claim being bogus, you need to show it's not. Requesting that I disprove your unproved opinion is like me asking you to prove unicorns don't exist.
OK I'm going to find the chart that dumbs this down the most in hopes that you can begin to grasp this concept:So tell me where did man come from? If not from apes or the sea as sciencist have shown in their research
Note where humans are. Note where apes are. Notice how the former in no way comes from the latter any more than either comes from hedgehog. Humans did not evolve from any animal alive on this planet today. You still don't understand that concept.
Morning Doc, where did life begin ?
If they have proven evolution there would be no debate. They have proven organisms have the ability to adapt nothing beyond that. Which you know by now that is only micro-adaptations. The same thing darwin showed but Darwin went even beyond that with a theory that can't be backed by the evidence.
I dunno how life began, science is working on that.
Where life began and evolution have nothing to do with each other, as every other poster has desperately tried to get through to you and have failed (and i'm sure I will too).
I know you'll deny the fact of evolution, no matter how many facts are put in front of your face. You've proven that on the board, I won't let myself get drug into that exercise again where your end result is telling me Harvard scientists don't know what they're talking about and Yale scientists are sent by Satan, etc etc.
Did life begin in a body of water or not ?
you don't have a clue what your talking about, so why would you have a clue what I was talking about.Yeah I have no clue what you're trying to say. Perhaps you should calm down, take off the caps lock, and try again using English with a point in it somewhere.
