Discussion:
Conversation with an Evolutionist
(too old to reply)
AllSeeing-I
2010-05-09 23:29:13 UTC
Permalink
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist


CR: God created man

EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago

CR: evidence?

EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
tests. Are you stupid?

CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me

EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.

CR: But what about books like the bible?

EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.

CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
about 1200 years old?

EV: Do not argue with me. Science is right. We have all the tests. The
tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
ago.

CR: But..

EV: NO BUTS. Science is always right. To think other wise is stupid.
Your God does not exist. Science says so.

CR: OK then, what about the supernatural events that so many people
have seen or been a part of.

EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
definitions for the word supernatural.

CR: Why is there no such thing?

EV: Because science cannot make a test for it

CR: What kind of test does science need?

EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
talking about.

CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
flawed?

EV: No. Science is always right. You are just being stupid. Science
can never be wrong. We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until
we need a revision.

CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?

EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.

CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
evolved?

EV: Shut up. You are just too stupid to understand. Evolution is just
an explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if
it originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not
originate with a God because science says God does not exist because
we cannot test for god.

CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?

EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
tells us so. As long as we can make up stories about these bones and
bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
right

CR: Millions?

EV: Yes.

CR: That is a lot of time right?

EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have the tests. The tests say
so even though the tests can be revised at any moment. Science is
never wrong see? We know what we are doing see? We have the tests see?
Our tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong
see? That makes US right and the creationist wrong.

CR: [shaking head in amazement]
Pink Freud
2010-05-09 23:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: Evidence?
CR: .....
Fixed.
Syd M.
2010-05-10 02:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Pink Freud
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: Evidence?
CR: .....
Fixed.
Damn. That's what I get for not looking further down the thread..,

PDW
SkyEyes
2010-05-09 23:53:08 UTC
Permalink
On May 9, 4:29 pm, AllSeeing-I <***@usa.com> wrote:

This has been refuted time and time again, as [M]Adman well knows, but
for the sake of the peanut gallery, I *do* want to address this
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
Google "Tiktaalik roseae," and follow the links. Here's one of them:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html

This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Prophet
2010-05-10 13:33:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by SkyEyes
This has been refuted time and time again, as [M]Adman well knows, but
for the sake of the peanut gallery, I *do* want to address this
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
In dreams maybe.

Scientists have hailed "missing links" in the past only to be
embarrassed when further evidence came out, toots.

Archaeopteryx was challenged as an intermediate between dinosaurs and
birds

Theropod dinosaurs were challenged as the ancestors of birds

Ardi was hyped as human ancestor based upon questionable evidence

Ida was the "link" that went bust

Piltdown the hoax, and so forth and so on.

Tiktaalik is coming under heavy fire. Rightfully so, too.

----
<quote>
The New York Times presaged Shubin's argument, first reporting on
Tiktaalik that "the scientists concluded that Tiktaalik was an
intermediate between the fishes Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys,
which lived 385 million years ago, and early tetrapods.

The known early tetrapods are Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, about 365
million years ago."

But would neo-Darwinism have predicted true tetrapods from 397 million
years ago? Definitely not: Janvier and Clément said it best: these
tracks are "anachronistic."

Tetrapod paleontologist Jenny Clack said the track discovery " blows
the whole story out of the water." Or as a Nature news story put it,
these tetrapod tracks are "more than 18 million years before tetrapods
were thought to have evolved."

So where are the fish that turned into tetrapods? According to Nature,
they must exist in the "'ghost range' — that is, a period of time
during which members of the groups should have been present but for
which no body fossils have yet been found."
</quote>

As we all know, about 98.5 % of the theory of evolution is in that
"'ghost range'".

Evolution is all wishful thinking girlie.
SkyEyes
2010-05-10 19:58:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prophet
Post by SkyEyes
This has been refuted time and time again, as [M]Adman well knows, but
for the sake of the peanut gallery, I *do* want to address this
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
In dreams maybe.
And *your* interpretation of a fish-like creature exhibiting some
characteristics of amphibians is...what, exactly?
Post by Prophet
Scientists have hailed "missing links" in the past only to be
embarrassed when further evidence came out, toots.
Yes. Scientists, being only human, make mistakes. Science, however,
is *self-correcting*, unlike religion, which is what you are trying to
sell.

And, unlike religion, science *works*.
Post by Prophet
Archaeopteryx was challenged as an intermediate between dinosaurs and
birds
Challenged, yes; but that doesn't mean that the initial assignment as
intermediary was wrong, or that there *weren't* any intermediaries.
Post by Prophet
Theropod dinosaurs were challenged as the ancestors of birds
And that challenge has just about completely died, since there's a
mountain of evidence - the latest being that therapods had feathers -
that dinosaurs *were* the ancestors of birds.
Post by Prophet
Ardi was hyped as human ancestor based upon questionable evidence
Well, Ardi may or may not be a human ancestor. At the very least,
it's a cousin. So far, the evidence seems to indicate that it's a
human ancestor.
Post by Prophet
Ida was the "link" that went bust
Went "bust" *how*, exactly? Ida was a primitive primate, a lemur-like
critter, that may have been in our ancestral line. It's simply too
far back to tell. However, it's patently obvious that *it is a
primitive primate.*

[M]Adman, your problem is that you don't go straight to the scientific
journals for your info; you get it from the anti-evolution website and
from pop articles written by people who may or may not understand the
science.
Post by Prophet
Piltdown the hoax, and so forth and so on.
Yeah, Sparky, Piltdown *was* a hoax, and it was *scientists* who
uncovered it.
Post by Prophet
Tiktaalik is coming under heavy fire. Rightfully so, too.
Only from your precious anti-evolution web sites.
Post by Prophet
----
<quote>
The New York Times presaged Shubin's argument, first reporting on
Tiktaalik that "the scientists concluded that Tiktaalik was an
intermediate between the fishes Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys,
which lived 385 million years ago, and early tetrapods.
The known early tetrapods are Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, about 365
million years ago."
But would neo-Darwinism have predicted true tetrapods from 397 million
years ago? Definitely not: Janvier and Clément said it best: these
tracks are "anachronistic."
Tetrapod paleontologist Jenny Clack said the track discovery " blows
the whole story out of the water." Or as a Nature news story put it,
these tetrapod tracks are "more than 18 million years before tetrapods
were thought to have evolved."
Yes. Tetrapods developed earlier than was originally hypothesized.
Science (unlike religion) does not consist of dogma, it's based on
*evidence* and is *self-correcting*. When new data comes in that
contradicts a theory, the theory is modified. *That's how science
works*.

Sheesh.
Post by Prophet
So where are the fish that turned into tetrapods? According to Nature,
they must exist in the "'ghost range' — that is, a period of time
during which members of the groups should have been present but for
which no body fossils have yet been found."
</quote>
Oh for christ's fucking sake, [M]Addy, there's nothing remarkable in
the fact that we haven't found a fossil for every species that ever
lived. And fish fossils? Excuse me, but don't fish live in *water*?
Bad medium for creating fossils, that is.
Post by Prophet
As we all know, about 98.5 % of the theory of evolution is in that
"'ghost range'".
Well, no it isn't, and it really wouldn't matter if that were the
case, since genetics upholds evolution 100%.
Post by Prophet
Evolution is all wishful thinking girlie.
Just keep tellin' yourself that, [M]Addy. And by the way: we all
know who you are, so why do you keep nym-shifting? Who are you trying
to fool? Honest people don't need an entire closet full of sock-
puppets, just snake-oil salesmen.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
brady r
2010-05-10 21:34:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by SkyEyes
Post by Prophet
Post by SkyEyes
This has been refuted time and time again, as [M]Adman well knows, but
for the sake of the peanut gallery, I *do* want to address this
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
In dreams maybe.
And *your* interpretation of a fish-like creature exhibiting some
characteristics of amphibians is...what, exactly?
Post by Prophet
Scientists have hailed "missing links" in the past only to be
embarrassed when further evidence came out, toots.
Yes.  Scientists, being only human, make mistakes.  Science, however,
is *self-correcting*, unlike religion, which is what you are trying to
sell.
And, unlike religion, science *works*.
Post by Prophet
Archaeopteryx was challenged as an intermediate between dinosaurs and
birds
Challenged, yes; but that doesn't mean that the initial assignment as
intermediary was wrong, or that there *weren't* any intermediaries.
Post by Prophet
Theropod dinosaurs were challenged as the ancestors of birds
And that challenge has just about completely died, since there's a
mountain of evidence - the latest being that therapods had feathers -
that dinosaurs *were* the ancestors of birds.
Post by Prophet
Ardi was hyped as human ancestor based upon questionable evidence
Well, Ardi may or may not be a human ancestor.  At the very least,
it's a cousin.  So far, the evidence seems to indicate that it's a
human ancestor.
Post by Prophet
Ida was the "link" that went bust
Went "bust" *how*, exactly?  Ida was a primitive primate, a lemur-like
critter, that may have been in our ancestral line.  It's simply too
far back to tell.  However, it's patently obvious that *it is a
primitive primate.*
[M]Adman, your problem is that you don't go straight to the scientific
journals for your info; you get it from the anti-evolution website and
from pop articles written by people who may or may not understand the
science.
Post by Prophet
Piltdown the hoax, and so forth and so on.
Yeah, Sparky, Piltdown *was* a hoax, and it was *scientists* who
uncovered it.
Post by Prophet
Tiktaalik is coming under heavy fire. Rightfully so, too.
Only from your precious anti-evolution web sites.
Post by Prophet
----
<quote>
The New York Times presaged Shubin's argument, first reporting on
Tiktaalik that "the scientists concluded that Tiktaalik was an
intermediate between the fishes Eusthenopteron and Panderichthys,
which lived 385 million years ago, and early tetrapods.
The known early tetrapods are Acanthostega and Ichthyostega, about 365
million years ago."
But would neo-Darwinism have predicted true tetrapods from 397 million
years ago? Definitely not: Janvier and Clément said it best: these
tracks are "anachronistic."
Tetrapod paleontologist Jenny Clack said the track discovery " blows
the whole story out of the water." Or as a Nature news story put it,
these tetrapod tracks are "more than 18 million years before tetrapods
were thought to have evolved."
Yes.  Tetrapods developed earlier than was originally hypothesized.
Science (unlike religion) does not consist of dogma, it's based on
*evidence* and is *self-correcting*.  When new data comes in that
contradicts a theory, the theory is modified.  *That's how science
works*.
Isn't that just the cutest thing? [M]adman thinks that
18 million years out of 385 million -- approximatelhy
5 percent -- is some kind of disaster for evolution,
but missing it by 384,994,000 years as Genesis
does -- an errof of 99.8 percebt -- gets swept
under the rug.


brady r
Post by SkyEyes
Sheesh.
Post by Prophet
So where are the fish that turned into tetrapods? According to Nature,
they must exist in the "'ghost range' — that is, a period of time
during which members of the groups should have been present but for
which no body fossils have yet been found."
</quote>
Oh for christ's fucking sake, [M]Addy, there's nothing remarkable in
the fact that we haven't found a fossil for every species that ever
lived.  And fish fossils?  Excuse me, but don't fish live in *water*?
Bad medium for creating fossils, that is.
Post by Prophet
As we all know, about 98.5 % of the theory of evolution is in that
"'ghost range'".
Well, no it isn't, and it really wouldn't matter if that were the
case, since genetics upholds evolution 100%.
Post by Prophet
Evolution is all wishful thinking girlie.
Just keep tellin' yourself that, [M]Addy.  And by the way:  we all
know who you are, so why do you keep nym-shifting?  Who are you trying
to fool?  Honest people don't need an entire closet full of sock-
puppets, just snake-oil salesmen.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Andrew
2010-05-11 05:03:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science, falsely so
called. Thus we have now as an accepted worldview, the greatest hoax
of all time.
Post by SkyEyes
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Andrew
Olrik
2010-05-11 05:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science, falsely so
called. Thus we have now as an accepted worldview, the greatest hoax
of all time.
You look like a troll more and more each day, Andy. Even the hardcore
creationists in AIG do not call the theory of evolution "the greatest
hoax of all time".

It one thing for believers like you to please your "god", it's another
thing entirely to lie for it or bear false witness. Think about that.

Olrik
Andrew
2010-05-11 05:40:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Andrew
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science, falsely so
called. Thus we have now as an accepted worldview, the greatest hoax
of all time.
You look like a troll more and more each day, Andy. Even the hardcore
creationists in AIG do not call the theory of evolution "the greatest hoax
of all time". (Olrik)
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is
a fact of life are great con-men, And the story they
are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX EVER."

-- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission
Virgil
2010-05-11 05:49:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Olrik
Post by Andrew
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science, falsely so
called. Thus we have now as an accepted worldview, the greatest hoax
of all time.
You look like a troll more and more each day, Andy. Even the hardcore
creationists in AIG do not call the theory of evolution "the greatest hoax
of all time". (Olrik)
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is
a fact of life are great con-men, And the story they
are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX EVER."
-- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission
Why would a member of the Atomic Energy Commission need to be an expert
on the Theory of Evolution? Atomic theory, maybe, but Evolution,
nonsense!

Those scientists who have actually read "The Origin of Species" have no
such doubts.
Olrik
2010-05-11 21:22:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Virgil
Post by Andrew
Post by Olrik
Post by Andrew
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science, falsely so
called. Thus we have now as an accepted worldview, the greatest hoax
of all time.
You look like a troll more and more each day, Andy. Even the hardcore
creationists in AIG do not call the theory of evolution "the greatest hoax
of all time". (Olrik)
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is
a fact of life are great con-men, And the story they
are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX EVER."
-- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission
Why would a member of the Atomic Energy Commission need to be an expert
on the Theory of Evolution? Atomic theory, maybe, but Evolution,
nonsense!
Neither, it turns out : the good doctor is a physiologist!
Post by Virgil
Those scientists who have actually read "The Origin of Species" have no
such doubts.
Andrew
2010-05-12 02:33:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Olrik
Post by Virgil
Post by Andrew
Post by Olrik
Post by Andrew
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science, falsely so
called. Thus we have now as an accepted worldview, the greatest hoax
of all time.
You look like a troll more and more each day, Andy. Even the hardcore
creationists in AIG do not call the theory of evolution "the greatest hoax
of all time". (Olrik)
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is
a fact of life are great con-men, And the story they
are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX EVER."
-- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission
Why would a member of the Atomic Energy Commission need to
be an expert on the Theory of Evolution? Atomic theory, maybe,
but Evolution, nonsense!
Neither, it turns out : the good doctor is a physiologist!
physiologist - a scientist who studies living organisms
specializing in physiology

When one's mind is closed, they will reject any statement
that anyone made, regardless of their expertise, if it does
not agree with their preconceived fantasies.


Andrew
Christopher A. Lee
2010-05-12 05:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
When one's mind is closed, they will reject any statement
that anyone made, regardless of their expertise, if it does
not agree with their preconceived fantasies.
For once the loonie got something right.

Too bad he's too stupid to realise he just described himself.
Post by Andrew
Andrew
Olrik
2010-05-12 05:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Andrew
When one's mind is closed, they will reject any statement
that anyone made, regardless of their expertise, if it does
not agree with their preconceived fantasies.
For once the loonie got something right.
Too bad he's too stupid to realise he just described himself.
This is what happens when one's governed by dogma instead of reality.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Andrew
Andrew
Virgil
2010-05-12 05:06:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
When one's mind is closed, they will reject any statement
that anyone made, regardless of their expertise, if it does
not agree with their preconceived fantasies.
Andrew
Sounds remarkably like Andrew is being autobiographical.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-05-11 08:35:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Olrik
Post by Andrew
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science, falsely so
called. Thus we have now as an accepted worldview, the greatest hoax
of all time.
You look like a troll more and more each day, Andy. Even the hardcore
creationists in AIG do not call the theory of evolution "the greatest hoax
of all time". (Olrik)
"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is
a fact of life are great con-men, And the story they
are telling may be the GREATEST HOAX EVER."
Has Andrew ever told the truth about anything?
Post by Andrew
-- Dr.T.N.Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission
If he actually said that he is as big a liar as you are.
Virgil
2010-05-11 05:39:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science
The stories of those top scientists are not anywhere near as fantastical
as those conjured up by the high priests of any theist religion which
are carefully designed to ensnare the gullible masses.






, falsely so
Post by Andrew
called. Thus we have now as an accepted worldview, the greatest hoax
of all time.
Post by SkyEyes
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Andrew
Andrew
2010-05-11 05:47:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science
The stories of those top scientists are..
You *acknowledge* that they are STORIES!
not anywhere near as fantastical
as those conjured up by the high priests of any theist religion
which are carefully designed to ensnare the gullible masses.
, falsely so
Post by Andrew
called. Thus we have now as an accepted worldview, the greatest hoax
of all time.
Post by SkyEyes
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Andrew
Virgil
2010-05-11 05:54:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science
The stories of those top scientists are..
You *acknowledge* that they are STORIES!
not anywhere near as fantastical
as those conjured up by the high priests of any theist religion
which are carefully designed to ensnare the gullible masses.
Only if "Andrew" will *acknowledge* that the stories told by the bible
and the various churches are also and equally STORIES!

The difference being that scientists can back up their stories about
with mountains of supportive evidence and a total lack of falsifying
evidence, but the bible and the churches cannot.
Christopher A. Lee
2010-05-11 08:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by Andrew
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science
The stories of those top scientists are..
You *acknowledge* that they are STORIES!
Where did he do that, transparent serial liar?
Post by Andrew
not anywhere near as fantastical
as those conjured up by the high priests of any theist religion
which are carefully designed to ensnare the gullible masses.
, falsely so
Post by Andrew
called. Thus we have now as an accepted worldview, the greatest hoax
of all time.
Post by SkyEyes
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Andrew
Why do you feel the need to be so dishonest?
Christopher A. Lee
2010-05-11 08:33:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew
Post by SkyEyes
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0405_060405_fish.html
This critter is *clearly* an example of a fish in the process of
becoming a not-fish.
If someone as intelligent as Brenda could fall for the above fish story,
just think of the gullible masses who accept without question the stories
of fantasy that are conjured up by the high priests of science, falsely so
called. Thus we have now as an accepted worldview, the greatest hoax
of all time.
If you weren't so narcissistic you would realise just how obvious your
lies are.

Do you EVER stop lying?
Yap
2010-05-10 01:39:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
CR: evidence?
EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
tests. Are you stupid?
CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
CR: But what about books like the bible?
EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
about 1200 years old?
EV: Do not argue with me. Science is right. We have all the tests. The
tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
ago.
CR: But..
EV: NO BUTS. Science is always right. To think other wise is stupid.
Your God does not exist. Science says so.
CR: OK then, what about the supernatural events that so many people
have seen or been a part of.
EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
definitions for the word supernatural.
CR: Why is there no such thing?
EV: Because science cannot make a test for it
CR: What kind of test does science need?
EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
talking about.
CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
flawed?
EV: No. Science is always right. You are just being stupid. Science
can never be wrong. We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until
we need a revision.
CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.
CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
evolved?
EV: Shut up. You are just too stupid to understand. Evolution is just
an explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if
it originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not
originate with a God because science says God does not exist because
we cannot test for god.
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
tells us so. As long as we can make up stories about these bones and
bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
right
CR: Millions?
EV: Yes.
CR: That is a lot of time right?
EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have the tests. The tests say
so even though the tests can be revised at any moment. Science is
never wrong see? We know what we are doing see? We have the tests see?
Our tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong
see? That makes US right and the creationist wrong.
CR: [shaking head in amazement]
CR: God created man.
EV: Of course it did, created the stupid madman.
Prophet
2010-05-10 13:35:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Yap
CR: God created man.
EV: Of course it did, created the stupid madman.
Now you are learning.
He even created stupid Yap
Syd M.
2010-05-10 02:38:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: Evidence?
CR: Er... I have some, but I'll not put it out for the likes of YOU!

ER: So, you have none.

CR: Er, OF COURSE I DO!

ER: Let's see it.

CR: LIKE HELL!!!

ER: So, you have none.

CR: HOW DARE YOU DISRESPECT ME!

And on and on...

PDW
Andrew W
2010-05-10 05:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
CR: evidence?
God created the universe using evolution.
But strangely you theists have something against evolution, as if it makes
your version of God look weaker or something.
You want creation to be an instant conjuring act.
Magic only impresses small children.
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
tests. Are you stupid?
CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
CR: But what about books like the bible?
EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
about 1200 years old?
Simpleton.
The bible itself wasn't written by bronze aged goat herders because its
merely a modern compilation of old writings by same, and it *has* been
revised.
--
General rule of thumb: Never accept facts from a religionist.
Prophet
2010-05-10 13:19:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew W
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
CR: evidence?
God created the universe using evolution.
Where is your evidence for such an outrageous remark like this?

Where you there "In the beginning"? No.
Post by Andrew W
But strangely you theists have something against evolution, as if > it makes your version of God look weaker or something.
Lies elevated to the status are truth are still lies. They need to be
pointed out.
Post by Andrew W
You want creation to be an instant conjuring act.
Magic only impresses small children.
What makes you certain that God operates on the same time schedule as
you do?
Post by Andrew W
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. we have all sorts of tests. Are you stupid?
CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
CR: But what about books like the bible?
EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
about 1200 years old?
Simpleton.
THAT would be you.
Post by Andrew W
The bible itself wasn't written by bronze aged goat herders because its merely a modern compilation of old writings by same, and it *has* been revised.
Those "bronze age" goat herders were smarter then you realize.
Andrew W
2010-05-10 22:33:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prophet
Post by Andrew W
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
CR: evidence?
God created the universe using evolution.
Where is your evidence for such an outrageous remark like this?
Where you there "In the beginning"? No.
Evolution in the universe is apparent.
Post by Prophet
Post by Andrew W
But strangely you theists have something against evolution, as if >
it makes your version of God look weaker or something.
Lies elevated to the status are truth are still lies. They need to be
pointed out.
What lies are you referring to?
Evolution can be seen happening everywhere.
The universe is constantly evolving.
Post by Prophet
Post by Andrew W
You want creation to be an instant conjuring act.
Magic only impresses small children.
What makes you certain that God operates on the same time schedule as
you do?
He/it doesn't.
Creation happens slowly and naturally.
Post by Prophet
Post by Andrew W
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. we have all sorts
of tests. Are you stupid?
CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
CR: But what about books like the bible?
EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
about 1200 years old?
Simpleton.
THAT would be you.
Post by Andrew W
The bible itself wasn't written by bronze aged goat herders because
its merely a modern compilation of old writings by same, and it
*has* been revised.
Those "bronze age" goat herders were smarter then you realize.
You were there I suppose?
Some individuals were smart and some definitely weren't. History shows that.
Were the ones who thought the earth was flat smart?
Were the ones who worshipped false gods smart?
haiku jones
2010-05-10 22:43:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Andrew W
Post by Prophet
Post by Andrew W
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
CR: evidence?
God created the universe using evolution.
Where is your evidence for such an outrageous remark like this?
Where you there "In the beginning"? No.
Evolution in the universe is apparent.
Post by Prophet
Post by Andrew W
But strangely you theists have something against evolution, as if >
it makes your version of God look weaker or something.
Lies elevated to the status are truth are still lies. They need to be
pointed out.
What lies are you referring to?
Evolution can be seen happening everywhere.
The universe is constantly evolving.
Post by Prophet
Post by Andrew W
You want creation to be an instant conjuring act.
Magic only impresses small children.
What makes you certain that God operates on the same time schedule as
you do?
He/it doesn't.
Creation happens slowly and naturally.
Post by Prophet
Post by Andrew W
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. we have all sorts
of tests. Are you stupid?
CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
CR: But what about books like the bible?
EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
about 1200 years old?
Simpleton.
THAT would be you.
Post by Andrew W
The bible itself wasn't written by bronze aged goat herders because
its merely a modern compilation of old writings by same, and it
*has* been revised.
Those "bronze age" goat herders were smarter then you realize.
You were there I suppose?
Some individuals were smart and some definitely weren't. History shows that.
Were the ones who thought the earth was flat smart?
Were the ones who worshipped false gods smart?
Now, now, don't push into the line here: [M]adman's
still on the hook to put together a list of buildings
built by bronze agers which, for reasons yet to
be explained, could not be matched by current
architects and construction techniques

I have NO idea what's taking him so long...


Haiku Jones
Devils Advocaat
2010-05-10 05:26:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
As others have said, where is your evidence?
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
No scientist has ever made such a claim.
[snipped remainder as irrelevant]

Because you started with an assertion and compound it with a lie.
gabriel
2010-05-10 13:58:09 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 9 May 2010 22:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
As others have said, where is your evidence?
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
No scientist has ever made such a claim.
Correct: such a claim is not scientific - but evolutionists claim
it nonetheless. They believe nothing created life: a single cell.
(They reject "God did it" but replace it with "Nothing did it")
Then somehow these cells decided to organize to create
multi-celled organisms which eventually became fish. Somehow
these cells figured out how to make hearts, lungs, kidneys, and
everything else.
Then populations of fish evolved over generations into
amphibians.
Then populations of amphibians evolved over generations into
reptiles.
Then populations of reptiles evolved over generations into all
mammals.
Then populations of mammals (ape-like creatures) evolved over
generations into people.

So yes, they do in fact believe a single cell evolved over
generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people.

But in school they only ever teach kids as little as possible
(where ape-like ancestors supposedly evolved into people, but
never where these ape-like ancestors came from) so these kids
don't think for themselves, question it and realize how
ridiculous the whole thing is - how much of a lie the whole thing
is.

[Rats] evolving over generations into animals that are in rare
cases a slightly different species of [rats], but still [rats]?
Yes, that's Speciation. Observable. Able to be shown in
repeatable test cases. Science.
[Rats] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly no
longer [rats] at all? That's fish to man evolution, and has never
been observed in the entire recorded history of the human race -
and cannot be shown in a single test case - one can only believe
in it. (Replace [rats] with any animal you wish).
Post by Devils Advocaat
[snipped remainder as irrelevant]
Because you started with an assertion and compound it with a lie.
AllSeeing-I
2010-05-10 16:53:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by gabriel
On Sun, 9 May 2010 22:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
As others have said, where is your evidence?
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
No scientist has ever made such a claim.
Correct: such a claim is not scientific - but evolutionists claim
it nonetheless. They believe nothing created life: a single cell.
(They reject "God did it" but replace it with "Nothing did it")
Then somehow these cells decided to organize to create
multi-celled organisms which eventually became fish. Somehow
these cells figured out how to make hearts, lungs, kidneys, and
everything else.
Then populations of fish evolved over generations into
amphibians.
Then populations of amphibians evolved over generations into
reptiles.
Then populations of reptiles evolved over generations into all
mammals.
Then populations of mammals (ape-like creatures) evolved over
generations into people.
So yes, they do in fact believe a single cell evolved over
generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people.
But in school they only ever teach kids as little as possible
(where ape-like ancestors supposedly evolved into people, but
never where these ape-like ancestors came from) so these kids
don't think for themselves, question it and realize how
ridiculous the whole thing is - how much of a lie the whole thing
is.
[Rats] evolving over generations into animals that are in rare
cases a slightly different species of [rats], but still [rats]?
Yes, that's Speciation. Observable. Able to be shown in
repeatable test cases. Science.
[Rats] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly no
longer [rats] at all? That's fish to man evolution, and has never
been observed in the entire recorded history of the human race -
and cannot be shown in a single test case - one can only believe
in it. (Replace [rats] with any animal you wish).
Of course they will say:

"YOU ARE STUPID. YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW EVOLUTION WORKS"!

hey. i understand exactly how evolution beyond variation works.

.. they make up stories

and expect everyone to believe them.
Devils Advocaat
2010-05-11 07:46:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by gabriel
On Sun, 9 May 2010 22:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
As others have said, where is your evidence?
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
No scientist has ever made such a claim.
Correct: such a claim is not scientific - but evolutionists claim
it nonetheless. They believe nothing created life: a single cell.
(They reject "God did it" but replace it with "Nothing did it")
Then its strange how you and maddy cannot offer a single citation in
support of this.
Post by gabriel
Then somehow these cells decided to organize to create
multi-celled organisms which eventually became fish. Somehow
these cells figured out how to make hearts, lungs, kidneys, and
everything else.
No decision making or figuring out was involved.
Post by gabriel
Then populations of fish evolved over generations into
amphibians.
Then populations of amphibians evolved over generations into
reptiles.
Then populations of reptiles evolved over generations into all
mammals.
Then populations of mammals (ape-like creatures) evolved over
generations into people.
Can you provide a citation for that?
Post by gabriel
So yes, they do in fact believe a single cell evolved over
generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people.
No they don't.
Post by gabriel
But in school they only ever teach kids as little as possible
(where ape-like ancestors supposedly evolved into people, but
never where these ape-like ancestors came from)
Care to offer a citation on that?
Post by gabriel
so these kids
don't think for themselves, question it and realize how
ridiculous the whole thing is - how much of a lie the whole thing
is.
Science is all about questioning things.

Religion discourages questions.
Post by gabriel
[Rats] evolving over generations into animals that are in rare
cases a slightly different species of [rats], but still [rats]?
Yes, that's Speciation. Observable. Able to be shown in
repeatable test cases. Science.
[Rats] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly no
longer [rats] at all? That's fish to man evolution, and has never
been observed in the entire recorded history of the human race -
and cannot be shown in a single test case - one can only believe
in it. (Replace [rats] with any animal you wish).
So you accept that speciation occurs, but you deny that this can lead
to the diversity that we observe in the world.

Tell me where the cut off point is?

Tell me what stops speciation from creating the observed diversity?
Post by gabriel
Post by Devils Advocaat
[snipped remainder as irrelevant]
Because you started with an assertion and compound it with a lie.
gabriel
2010-05-16 01:46:29 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 11 May 2010 00:46:20 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
On Sun, 9 May 2010 22:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
As others have said, where is your evidence?
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
No scientist has ever made such a claim.
Correct: such a claim is not scientific - but evolutionists claim
it nonetheless. They believe nothing created life: a single cell.
(They reject "God did it" but replace it with "Nothing did it")
Then its strange how you and maddy cannot offer a single citation in
support of this.
So what created life? They say "oh it just happened" - i.e.,
nothing did it. If you know what it is that created life, by all
means please present it, along with an observation of that
"thing" creating life like you claim it did, along with an
observation of what created that which created that life, and so
on, to the original creator - that is if you want to call such a
claim science.
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
Then somehow these cells decided to organize to create
multi-celled organisms which eventually became fish. Somehow
these cells figured out how to make hearts, lungs, kidneys, and
everything else.
No decision making or figuring out was involved.
Yes, they believe "nothing did it" - that brains, lungs, kidneys
and everything just happened to come about. Again, "nothing did
it."
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
Then populations of fish evolved over generations into
amphibians.
Then populations of amphibians evolved over generations into
reptiles.
Then populations of reptiles evolved over generations into all
mammals.
Then populations of mammals (ape-like creatures) evolved over
generations into people.
Can you provide a citation for that?
You do not know what evolutionism claims? Where did mammals come
from? According to them, from populations of reptiles over
generations. Where did reptiles come from? According to
evolutionists, from populations of amphibians over generations.
Where did amphibians come from? According to evolutionists, from
populations of fish over generations. Where did fish come from?
Great question. They do in fact believe exactly what I presented.
Please cite where it says otherwise.
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
So yes, they do in fact believe a single cell evolved over
generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people.
No they don't.
I just showed you they do. Over generations. Fish -> Amphibians
-> reptiles -> mammals -> people.
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
But in school they only ever teach kids as little as possible
(where ape-like ancestors supposedly evolved into people, but
never where these ape-like ancestors came from)
Care to offer a citation on that?
Sure: ask students where these ape-like ancestors come from: they
can never tell you. Look in the science books - that part's not
in there - just the part where ape-like ancestors evolved into
people.
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
so these kids
don't think for themselves, question it and realize how
ridiculous the whole thing is - how much of a lie the whole thing
is.
Science is all about questioning things.
Yes, it is. But for fish to man evolution, they don't want you to
question a thing. To even discuss it's strengths and weaknesses -
more proof that's not science, as science is all about
questioning things.
Post by Devils Advocaat
Religion discourages questions.
Truth doesn't require questioning. But replacing truth with
"nothing did it" is not questioning, it's yet another belief or
religion.
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
[Rats] evolving over generations into animals that are in rare
cases a slightly different species of [rats], but still [rats]?
Yes, that's Speciation. Observable. Able to be shown in
repeatable test cases. Science.
[Rats] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly no
longer [rats] at all? That's fish to man evolution, and has never
been observed in the entire recorded history of the human race -
and cannot be shown in a single test case - one can only believe
in it. (Replace [rats] with any animal you wish).
So you accept that speciation occurs, but you deny that this can lead
to the diversity that we observe in the world.
Tell me where the cut off point is?
The cutoff point is just what I stated: that which is observable
and able to be shown in test cases:

Replace [rats] with any animal known to man: Populations of
[rats], no matter how many generations go by, will never, ever
evolve over generations into animals that are clearly no longer
[rats] at all. Science itself (that which IS observable and IS
able to be shown in repeatable test cases for others to verify)
proves fish to man evolution does not happen.

If you have an observation that shows otherwise, rather than the
claim "it happens" by all means, please show it. No one can,
because such a thing has NEVER happened in the entire recorded
history of the human race. And beliefs about dead bones and
fossils does not equate to an observation of that belief, as then
any of numerous beliefs anyone comes up with about dead bones and
fossils can also now be an "observation" of that belief, which
shows the fallacy of that "logic."
Post by Devils Advocaat
Tell me what stops speciation from creating the observed diversity?
Tell me what stops trees from evolving into people? You not being
able to tell me does not mean trees evolve into people. The
point. The fact is such a barrier is observable and able to be
shown in repeatable test cases, even if we cannot understand how
it works.
Free Lunch
2010-05-16 01:48:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 May 2010 21:46:29 -0400, gabriel
Post by gabriel
On Tue, 11 May 2010 00:46:20 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
On Sun, 9 May 2010 22:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
As others have said, where is your evidence?
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
No scientist has ever made such a claim.
Correct: such a claim is not scientific - but evolutionists claim
it nonetheless. They believe nothing created life: a single cell.
(They reject "God did it" but replace it with "Nothing did it")
Then its strange how you and maddy cannot offer a single citation in
support of this.
So what created life? They say "oh it just happened" - i.e.,
nothing did it. If you know what it is that created life, by all
means please present it, along with an observation of that
"thing" creating life like you claim it did, along with an
observation of what created that which created that life, and so
on, to the original creator - that is if you want to call such a
claim science.
Natural physical processes allowed the self-sustaining biochemical
reaction known as life to arise.
Post by gabriel
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
Then somehow these cells decided to organize to create
multi-celled organisms which eventually became fish. Somehow
these cells figured out how to make hearts, lungs, kidneys, and
everything else.
No decision making or figuring out was involved.
Yes, they believe "nothing did it" - that brains, lungs, kidneys
and everything just happened to come about. Again, "nothing did
it."
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
Then populations of fish evolved over generations into
amphibians.
Then populations of amphibians evolved over generations into
reptiles.
Then populations of reptiles evolved over generations into all
mammals.
Then populations of mammals (ape-like creatures) evolved over
generations into people.
Can you provide a citation for that?
You do not know what evolutionism claims? Where did mammals come
from? According to them, from populations of reptiles over
generations. Where did reptiles come from? According to
evolutionists, from populations of amphibians over generations.
Where did amphibians come from? According to evolutionists, from
populations of fish over generations. Where did fish come from?
Great question. They do in fact believe exactly what I presented.
Please cite where it says otherwise.
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
So yes, they do in fact believe a single cell evolved over
generations into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people.
No they don't.
I just showed you they do. Over generations. Fish -> Amphibians
-> reptiles -> mammals -> people.
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
But in school they only ever teach kids as little as possible
(where ape-like ancestors supposedly evolved into people, but
never where these ape-like ancestors came from)
Care to offer a citation on that?
Sure: ask students where these ape-like ancestors come from: they
can never tell you. Look in the science books - that part's not
in there - just the part where ape-like ancestors evolved into
people.
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
so these kids
don't think for themselves, question it and realize how
ridiculous the whole thing is - how much of a lie the whole thing
is.
Science is all about questioning things.
Yes, it is. But for fish to man evolution, they don't want you to
question a thing. To even discuss it's strengths and weaknesses -
more proof that's not science, as science is all about
questioning things.
Post by Devils Advocaat
Religion discourages questions.
Truth doesn't require questioning. But replacing truth with
"nothing did it" is not questioning, it's yet another belief or
religion.
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
[Rats] evolving over generations into animals that are in rare
cases a slightly different species of [rats], but still [rats]?
Yes, that's Speciation. Observable. Able to be shown in
repeatable test cases. Science.
[Rats] evolving over generations into animals that are clearly no
longer [rats] at all? That's fish to man evolution, and has never
been observed in the entire recorded history of the human race -
and cannot be shown in a single test case - one can only believe
in it. (Replace [rats] with any animal you wish).
So you accept that speciation occurs, but you deny that this can lead
to the diversity that we observe in the world.
Tell me where the cut off point is?
The cutoff point is just what I stated: that which is observable
Replace [rats] with any animal known to man: Populations of
[rats], no matter how many generations go by, will never, ever
evolve over generations into animals that are clearly no longer
[rats] at all. Science itself (that which IS observable and IS
able to be shown in repeatable test cases for others to verify)
proves fish to man evolution does not happen.
If you have an observation that shows otherwise, rather than the
claim "it happens" by all means, please show it. No one can,
because such a thing has NEVER happened in the entire recorded
history of the human race. And beliefs about dead bones and
fossils does not equate to an observation of that belief, as then
any of numerous beliefs anyone comes up with about dead bones and
fossils can also now be an "observation" of that belief, which
shows the fallacy of that "logic."
Post by Devils Advocaat
Tell me what stops speciation from creating the observed diversity?
Tell me what stops trees from evolving into people? You not being
able to tell me does not mean trees evolve into people. The
point. The fact is such a barrier is observable and able to be
shown in repeatable test cases, even if we cannot understand how
it works.
gabriel
2010-05-22 02:27:28 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 15 May 2010 20:48:55 -0500, Free Lunch
Post by Free Lunch
On Sat, 15 May 2010 21:46:29 -0400, gabriel
[..]
Post by Free Lunch
Post by gabriel
So what created life? They say "oh it just happened" - i.e.,
nothing did it. If you know what it is that created life, by all
means please present it, along with an observation of that
"thing" creating life like you claim it did, along with an
observation of what created that which created that life, and so
on, to the original creator - that is if you want to call such a
claim science.
Natural physical processes allowed the self-sustaining biochemical
reaction known as life to arise.
Please provide an observation and repeatable test case that shows
these "natural processes that allowed the self-sustaining
biochemical reactions known as life" to create a cell where there
was none before.

And tell Andrew W about this as he contradicts what you're saying
and claims science makes no such claims.
Free Lunch
2010-05-22 03:03:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:27:28 -0400, gabriel
Post by gabriel
On Sat, 15 May 2010 20:48:55 -0500, Free Lunch
Post by Free Lunch
On Sat, 15 May 2010 21:46:29 -0400, gabriel
[..]
Post by Free Lunch
Post by gabriel
So what created life? They say "oh it just happened" - i.e.,
nothing did it. If you know what it is that created life, by all
means please present it, along with an observation of that
"thing" creating life like you claim it did, along with an
observation of what created that which created that life, and so
on, to the original creator - that is if you want to call such a
claim science.
Natural physical processes allowed the self-sustaining biochemical
reaction known as life to arise.
Please provide an observation and repeatable test case that shows
these "natural processes that allowed the self-sustaining
biochemical reactions known as life" to create a cell where there
was none before.
We know all of the natural chemical processes that allow this to happen.
Post by gabriel
And tell Andrew W about this as he contradicts what you're saying
and claims science makes no such claims.
We don't claim that scientists know what exactly happened when life
began, but we know that nothing special is required.
Gregory A Greenman
2010-05-23 13:52:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by gabriel
On Sat, 15 May 2010 20:48:55 -0500, Free Lunch
Post by Free Lunch
On Sat, 15 May 2010 21:46:29 -0400, gabriel
[..]
Post by Free Lunch
Post by gabriel
So what created life? They say "oh it just happened" - i.e.,
nothing did it. If you know what it is that created life, by all
means please present it, along with an observation of that
"thing" creating life like you claim it did, along with an
observation of what created that which created that life, and so
on, to the original creator - that is if you want to call such a
claim science.
Natural physical processes allowed the self-sustaining biochemical
reaction known as life to arise.
Please provide an observation and repeatable test case that shows
these "natural processes that allowed the self-sustaining
biochemical reactions known as life" to create a cell where there
was none before.
Test case: you.

You eat food. That food is probably not alive when you eat it. It
is definitely not alive when you digest it. It gets processed and
the result is there is a new cell in your body where there was none
before.

This happens billions of times every day.

Now of course this is a process that occurs in organisms that are
already alive. You'll probably argue that that's not what you
meant. If so, you should be more clear. I suspect your lack of
clarity is reflective of your lack of thinking.

The process by which the first life arose is called abiogenesis.
The exact process by which abiogenesis occurred is unknown.
However, we know that life can come from non life because, as I've
shown, this happens billions of times every day. So, I don't see
any reason that it couldn't happen a first time. The only
alternative is that life has always existed, so it stands to reason
that abiogenesis must have happened.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
Andrew W
2010-05-16 08:41:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by gabriel
On Tue, 11 May 2010 00:46:20 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
On Sun, 9 May 2010 22:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
As others have said, where is your evidence?
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
No scientist has ever made such a claim.
Correct: such a claim is not scientific - but evolutionists claim
it nonetheless. They believe nothing created life: a single cell.
(They reject "God did it" but replace it with "Nothing did it")
Then its strange how you and maddy cannot offer a single citation in
support of this.
So what created life? They say "oh it just happened" - i.e.,
nothing did it. If you know what it is that created life, by all
means please present it, along with an observation of that
"thing" creating life like you claim it did, along with an
observation of what created that which created that life, and so
on, to the original creator - that is if you want to call such a
claim science.
Scientists say no such thing as it just happened or nothing did it. Probably
only some non believers that you talk to say that.
Scientists admit that they don't know how life started. At least they're
honest.
We don't know the process by which life started and neither do you.
gabriel
2010-05-22 02:24:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 May 2010 18:41:54 +1000, "Andrew W"
Post by Andrew W
Post by gabriel
On Tue, 11 May 2010 00:46:20 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
On Sun, 9 May 2010 22:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
As others have said, where is your evidence?
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
No scientist has ever made such a claim.
Correct: such a claim is not scientific - but evolutionists claim
it nonetheless. They believe nothing created life: a single cell.
(They reject "God did it" but replace it with "Nothing did it")
Then its strange how you and maddy cannot offer a single citation in
support of this.
So what created life? They say "oh it just happened" - i.e.,
nothing did it. If you know what it is that created life, by all
means please present it, along with an observation of that
"thing" creating life like you claim it did, along with an
observation of what created that which created that life, and so
on, to the original creator - that is if you want to call such a
claim science.
Scientists say no such thing as it just happened or nothing did it. Probably
only some non believers that you talk to say that.
Scientists admit that they don't know how life started. At least they're
honest.
We don't know the process by which life started and neither do you.
Read more science books - they make claims of what it was, and
continue to change their story over the years. Pond scum.
Crystals, you name it.
Andrew W
2010-05-22 06:31:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by gabriel
On Sun, 16 May 2010 18:41:54 +1000, "Andrew W"
Post by Andrew W
Post by gabriel
On Tue, 11 May 2010 00:46:20 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by gabriel
On Sun, 9 May 2010 22:26:54 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
As others have said, where is your evidence?
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
No scientist has ever made such a claim.
Correct: such a claim is not scientific - but evolutionists claim
it nonetheless. They believe nothing created life: a single cell.
(They reject "God did it" but replace it with "Nothing did it")
Then its strange how you and maddy cannot offer a single citation
in support of this.
So what created life? They say "oh it just happened" - i.e.,
nothing did it. If you know what it is that created life, by all
means please present it, along with an observation of that
"thing" creating life like you claim it did, along with an
observation of what created that which created that life, and so
on, to the original creator - that is if you want to call such a
claim science.
Scientists say no such thing as it just happened or nothing did it.
Probably only some non believers that you talk to say that.
Scientists admit that they don't know how life started. At least
they're honest.
We don't know the process by which life started and neither do you.
Read more science books - they make claims of what it was, and
continue to change their story over the years. Pond scum.
Crystals, you name it.
Its called theories.
What's your problem? You don't know how life started either so don't you
talk.
--
If you do not question, you will not find the truth.
Unfortunately the Christian version of God hates questions.
Mike Painter
2010-05-16 19:03:20 UTC
Permalink
gabriel wrote:
<snip>
Post by gabriel
Tell me what stops trees from evolving into people?
You babble on and then demonstrate that you don't have fundamental grasp of
evolution.
As for "nothing did it" that is the cry of those who believe that a god
created something out of nothing.
Which view also shows a sublime ignorance of what Gen 1:1 actually says.
gabriel
2010-05-22 02:28:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:03:20 -0700, "Mike Painter"
Post by Andy W
<snip>
Post by gabriel
Tell me what stops trees from evolving into people?
You babble on and then demonstrate that you don't have fundamental grasp of
evolution.
I challenge you to point out the exact detail what's apparently
so wrong, rather than just making the claim and not actually
backing it up.
Post by Andy W
As for "nothing did it" that is the cry of those who believe that a god
created something out of nothing.
No, it's the cry of evolutionists that have replaced God doing it
with "nothing did it."
Post by Andy W
Which view also shows a sublime ignorance of what Gen 1:1 actually says.
That God created just like He said He did.
Free Lunch
2010-05-22 03:04:33 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 21 May 2010 22:28:57 -0400, gabriel
Post by gabriel
On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:03:20 -0700, "Mike Painter"
Post by Andy W
<snip>
Post by gabriel
Tell me what stops trees from evolving into people?
You babble on and then demonstrate that you don't have fundamental grasp of
evolution.
I challenge you to point out the exact detail what's apparently
so wrong, rather than just making the claim and not actually
backing it up.
Post by Andy W
As for "nothing did it" that is the cry of those who believe that a god
created something out of nothing.
No, it's the cry of evolutionists that have replaced God doing it
with "nothing did it."
Post by Andy W
Which view also shows a sublime ignorance of what Gen 1:1 actually says.
That God created just like He said He did.
You know that there's no evidence that God said anything.
Andrew W
2010-05-22 06:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by gabriel
On Sun, 16 May 2010 12:03:20 -0700, "Mike Painter"
Post by Andy W
<snip>
Post by gabriel
Tell me what stops trees from evolving into people?
You babble on and then demonstrate that you don't have fundamental
grasp of evolution.
I challenge you to point out the exact detail what's apparently
so wrong, rather than just making the claim and not actually
backing it up.
Post by Andy W
As for "nothing did it" that is the cry of those who believe that a
god created something out of nothing.
No, it's the cry of evolutionists that have replaced God doing it
with "nothing did it."
Post by Andy W
Which view also shows a sublime ignorance of what Gen 1:1 actually says.
That God created just like He said He did.
He doesn't say how he did it, just the sequence, which is flawed just like a
children's story.
--
If you do not question, you will not find the truth.
Unfortunately the Christian version of God hates questions.
Gregory A Greenman
2010-05-17 21:07:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by gabriel
On Tue, 11 May 2010 00:46:20 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Tell me what stops speciation from creating the observed diversity?
Tell me what stops trees from evolving into people? You not being
able to tell me does not mean trees evolve into people. The
point.
What stops trees from evolving into humans is natural selection.

Trees and humans are very different types of organisms. They are
not cousins like humans and chimps or horses and zebras. They are
morphologically different in just about every respect. Thus, the
most likely path for trees to evolve into humans would be for trees
to evolve along the evolutionary path they took, only this time in
the opposite direction, until they had evolved into our most recent
common ancestor.

Once there, they could take the same evolutionary path that we
humans did, until they became humans.

Is this possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. The first step in this
process is for trees to evolve into their ancestors. The problem
is, modern trees are alive and their ancestors aren't because
modern trees are more fit for the current environment. So, natural
selection stops this first step from happening. Of course, if the
environment changed in just the right way, then maybe their
ancestors would be more fit and natural selection would encourage
this.
Post by gabriel
The fact is such a barrier is observable and able to be
shown in repeatable test cases, even if we cannot understand how
it works.
We do understand how natural selection works. As shown above, it
prevents evolution from trees to humans in the current environment,
but allows all the evolution that has been observed in the fossil
record and elsewhere.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
gabriel
2010-05-22 02:39:00 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:07:44 -0500, Gregory A Greenman
Post by Gregory A Greenman
Post by gabriel
On Tue, 11 May 2010 00:46:20 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Tell me what stops speciation from creating the observed diversity?
Tell me what stops trees from evolving into people? You not being
able to tell me does not mean trees evolve into people. The
point.
What stops trees from evolving into humans is natural selection.
Please prove this.
Post by Gregory A Greenman
Trees and humans are very different types of organisms.
Define "type." and prove that the difference in type accounts for
the prevention of such a thing. (all common fish to man
evolutionist arguments).
Post by Gregory A Greenman
They are
not cousins like humans and chimps or horses and zebras.
Humans and fish are not cousins, yet apparently humans evolved
over generations from fish (via amphibians, then reptiles, then
mammals). How do you reconcile this with contradicting claim not
being cousins is why they don't evolve one from another?
Post by Gregory A Greenman
They are
morphologically different in just about every respect.
People, eagles, hippos and giraffes are different from fish in
just about every respect. How do you reconcile that with the
contradicting belief that all of those and more evolved from
their ancestors, fish?
Post by Gregory A Greenman
Thus, the
most likely path for trees to evolve into humans would be for trees
to evolve along the evolutionary path they took, only this time in
the opposite direction, until they had evolved into our most recent
common ancestor.
Once there, they could take the same evolutionary path that we
humans did, until they became humans.
Is this possible? Yes.
The fact that you want to claim it's possible for trees to evolve
into people only shows how far off the deep end evolutionists go
to defend their undefendable, unscientific belief that fish
evolved over generations once upon a time eventually into hippos,
giraffes, eagles, people and much, much more.

So here we have it: an evolutionist claiming it's possible (even
if qualifying it by saying it's "unlikely") that trees could
evolve into people.


Romans 1:16-23 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of
Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to
every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to
the Greek. 17/ For therein is the righteousness of God
revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just
shall live by faith. 18/ For the wrath of God is
revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in
unrighteousness; 19/ Because that which may be known
of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto
them. 20/ For the invisible things of him from the
creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood
by the things that are made, even his eternal power and
Godhead; so that they are without excuse: 21/ Because
that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
neither were thankful; but became vain in their
imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22/
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23/ And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into
an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and
fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Post by Gregory A Greenman
Is it likely? No. The first step in this
process is for trees to evolve into their ancestors. The problem
is, modern trees are alive and their ancestors aren't because
modern trees are more fit for the current environment. So, natural
selection stops this first step from happening. Of course, if the
environment changed in just the right way, then maybe their
ancestors would be more fit and natural selection would encourage
this.
Post by gabriel
The fact is such a barrier is observable and able to be
shown in repeatable test cases, even if we cannot understand how
it works.
We do understand how natural selection works. As shown above, it
prevents evolution from trees to humans in the current environment,
Actually you didn't show it prevents it - you brought up reasons
you believe it doesn't happen, and those reasons apply just as
much when applied to the claim fish evolved over generations
eventually into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people. So really to
whatever degree you showed trees cannot evolve into people, those
same reasons apply to fish evolving over generations eventually
into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people.
Post by Gregory A Greenman
but allows all the evolution that has been observed in the fossil
record and elsewhere.
Actually no such thing is observed in the fossil record or
elsewhere - only their belief about what those dead bones and
fossils mean to them, and not a single actual observation or test
case to back it up.

It's akin to a person finding a cat fossil, and dog fossil in
"more recent" (subjective in their eyes) geological columns,
claiming cats evolved into dogs, and pointing to the fossil
record to claim he "observed it."
Gregory A Greenman
2010-05-24 07:55:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by gabriel
On Mon, 17 May 2010 16:07:44 -0500, Gregory A Greenman
Post by Gregory A Greenman
Post by gabriel
On Tue, 11 May 2010 00:46:20 -0700 (PDT), Devils Advocaat
Post by Devils Advocaat
Tell me what stops speciation from creating the observed diversity?
Tell me what stops trees from evolving into people? You not being
able to tell me does not mean trees evolve into people. The
point.
What stops trees from evolving into humans is natural selection.
Please prove this.
Given your expertise in science, I'm surprised you are asking for
proof. Science does not deal in proof, it deals in evidence. And,
the evidence for this claim was given in my post to which you are
responding. Did you not read it?
Post by gabriel
Post by Gregory A Greenman
Trees and humans are very different types of organisms.
Define "type."
You've got to be kidding. I'm not using an technical scientific
definition here. So, go look it up at dictionary.com if you really
don't know what the word means.
Post by gabriel
and prove that the difference in type accounts for
the prevention of such a thing. (all common fish to man
evolutionist arguments).
If you read my prior post and actually tried to understand it,
you'd have seen that I did not make that claim. I quite
specifically said that it could happen.
Post by gabriel
Post by Gregory A Greenman
They are
not cousins like humans and chimps or horses and zebras.
Humans and fish are not cousins, yet apparently humans evolved
over generations from fish (via amphibians, then reptiles, then
mammals). How do you reconcile this with contradicting claim not
being cousins is why they don't evolve one from another?
Again, I made no such claim. Please try to comprehend what I write
before you criticize it. I quite specifically said that it could
happen.
Post by gabriel
Post by Gregory A Greenman
They are
morphologically different in just about every respect.
People, eagles, hippos and giraffes are different from fish in
just about every respect. How do you reconcile that with the
contradicting belief that all of those and more evolved from
their ancestors, fish?
Well, to start, you are completely wrong. If we're talking about
bony fish like sharks, tuna, trout etc (as opposed to shellfish or
starfish or jellyfish, etc), then people, eagles, hippos, giraffes
and fish actually are quite similar.

Every member of that group has a body made up of cells. They all
use blood to transport nutrients to their cells. They all have
brains, hearts, intestines, muscles and other internal organs. They
all have eyes. They all reproduce sexually. All of them reproduce
by joining a sperm cell from the father with an egg cell from the
mother. We're not nearly as different as you seem to think.

Note that of all those attributes that people, eagles, hippos,
giraffes and fish share, the only attributes also shared by trees
is that they are made of cells and some of them reproduce sexually.
Post by gabriel
Post by Gregory A Greenman
Thus, the
most likely path for trees to evolve into humans would be for trees
to evolve along the evolutionary path they took, only this time in
the opposite direction, until they had evolved into our most recent
common ancestor.
Once there, they could take the same evolutionary path that we
humans did, until they became humans.
Is this possible? Yes.
The fact that you want to claim it's possible for trees to evolve
into people only shows how far off the deep end evolutionists go
to defend their undefendable, unscientific belief that fish
evolved over generations once upon a time eventually into hippos,
giraffes, eagles, people and much, much more.
You can mock science all you want. That doesn't change the fact
that science is backed up by evidence, not faith.

Faith is stupid. Most people who rely on faith are wrong. It's easy
to confirm that by just looking at how many people believe each
religion. According to adherents.com
(http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) there are
about 2.1 billion christians, 1.5 billion muslims and 900 million
hindus.

If the christians are right then the muslims and hindus are wrong.
If the muslims are right then the christians and hindus are wrong.
If the hindus are right then the christians and muslims are wrong.

They all hold their belief through faith. They could all be wrong,
but even if one of them actually is right, there are more people
who are wrong than are right. Clearly, faith usually leads people
to the wrong conclusion. Thus, faith is stupid.

By contrast, science relies on evidence. You reject evidence, but
you shouldn't. We don't know everything and there are disagreements
in the world of science. But, those disagreements will be resolved
by getting more evidence, not by holy war or mutual
excommunication.

So, you can mock me and science all you want want, but the fact is,
you're the one off the deep end.
Post by gabriel
Post by Gregory A Greenman
Is it likely? No. The first step in this
process is for trees to evolve into their ancestors. The problem
is, modern trees are alive and their ancestors aren't because
modern trees are more fit for the current environment. So, natural
selection stops this first step from happening. Of course, if the
environment changed in just the right way, then maybe their
ancestors would be more fit and natural selection would encourage
this.
Post by gabriel
The fact is such a barrier is observable and able to be
shown in repeatable test cases, even if we cannot understand how
it works.
We do understand how natural selection works. As shown above, it
prevents evolution from trees to humans in the current environment,
Actually you didn't show it prevents it - you brought up reasons
you believe it doesn't happen,
Those reasons are evidence.
Post by gabriel
and those reasons apply just as
much when applied to the claim fish evolved over generations
eventually into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people. So really to
whatever degree you showed trees cannot evolve into people, those
same reasons apply to fish evolving over generations eventually
into hippos, giraffes, eagles and people.
Totally untrue.

As I pointed out, in order for trees to evolve into people, they
would need to evolve into our most recent common ancestor first.
This is because we are so different morphologically. Trees have
sap, branches, roots, twigs, leaves. We have none of that. So,
they'd have to get rid of all that to evolve into us. That means
they would need to evolve into their ancestors. But, the reason
modern trees exist and more ancient trees don't is because modern
trees are more fit for the current environment.

So how would this apply to the process of evolution from fish to
man? When tiktaalik evolved, the land was mostly devoid of land
animals. For this environment, it was the most fit. Tiktaalik's
subsequent relatives were even more fit for a land environment.

Further, as I pointed out above, we are quite similar to fish. We
have mostly the same internal organs (perhaps the largest
difference being that their swim bladders evolved into our lungs),
we use blood to transport nutrients, etc. Trees are completely
different. They have sap, branches, roots, leaves, etc. There is no
evolutionary path from them to us, except to evolve all the way
back into our most recent common ancestor. This would predate fish.

So, they would then need to evolve into fish and follow the path to
humans. All the way, they'd need to evolve into niches which are
already filled. When fish evolved into humans those niches were not
filled, but now they are. So, this sequence is unlikely now but was
quite possible.
Post by gabriel
Post by Gregory A Greenman
but allows all the evolution that has been observed in the fossil
record and elsewhere.
Actually no such thing is observed in the fossil record or
elsewhere
Actually it is.
Post by gabriel
- only their belief about what those dead bones and
fossils mean to them,
And of course, this is just your standard hand waving away of the
evidence.

If we see fossil bones of a creature that no longer exists, what
should we conclude from that? Nothing? That seems to be what you
suggest. So, please explain why we shouldn't conclude that
different organisms existed in the past than exist today?
Post by gabriel
and not a single actual observation or test
case to back it up.
You sure like to lie alot. I guess that goes along with being a
fundy.

There are plenty of observations of evolution in action. All the
breeds of domesticated animals are evidence. The fossil record of
the whale and the horse provide excellent evidence for evolution. I
know you'll discount these, but you really ought to ask yourself
why you need to discount and lie about the evidence.
Post by gabriel
It's akin to a person finding a cat fossil, and dog fossil in
"more recent" (subjective in their eyes) geological columns,
claiming cats evolved into dogs, and pointing to the fossil
record to claim he "observed it."
Dogs did not evolve from cats. Scientists really do work to reach
their conclusions. They do science, not religion. In religion, you
just make stuff up and claim it's true. In science you have to find
evidence. The fact that you don't like their conclusions doesn't
change the fact that that evidence exists.

Why don't you just tell us that you reject science? That's what you
do after all. Claiming that evolution is not science is such an
obvious lie that I can't understand why even you persist in it.
--
Greg
http://www.spencerbooksellers.com
newsguy -at- spencersoft -dot- com
i***@gmail.com
2010-05-10 11:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
CR: evidence?
EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
tests. Are you stupid?
CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
CR: But what about books like the bible?
EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
about 1200 years old?
EV: Do not argue with me. Science is right. We have all the tests. The
tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
ago.
CR: But..
EV: NO BUTS. Science is always right. To think other wise is stupid.
Your God does not exist. Science says so.
CR: OK then, what about the supernatural events that so many people
have seen or been a part of.
EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
definitions for the word supernatural.
CR: Why is there no such thing?
EV: Because science cannot make a test for it
CR: What kind of test does science need?
EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
talking about.
CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
flawed?
EV: No. Science is always right. You are just being stupid. Science
can never be wrong. We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until
we need a revision.
CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.
CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
evolved?
EV: Shut up. You are just too stupid to understand. Evolution is just
an explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if
it originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not
originate with a God because science says God does not exist because
we cannot test for god.
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
tells us so. As long as we can make up stories about these bones and
bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
right
CR: Millions?
EV: Yes.
CR: That is a lot of time right?
EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have the tests. The tests say
so even though the tests can be revised at any moment. Science is
never wrong see? We know what we are doing see? We have the tests see?
Our tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong
see? That makes US right and the creationist wrong.
CR: [shaking head in amazement]
Good story to illustrate how Macro Evolution of Pond Scum to 206 bone/
600 muscle Human Beings ... is simply masquerading as real science .
If you told a 6 year old the story of Macro Evolution WITHOUT the
fancy airbrushed pictures in a childs storybook , he wouldnt buy it.
So, why do adults ? Because it is the last desperate effort for
willfully rejecting the most obvious of all things around us : A
personal Universe always requires a personal Creator who fashioned it.
raven1
2010-05-10 13:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by i***@gmail.com
Good story to illustrate how Macro Evolution of Pond Scum to 206 bone/
600 muscle Human Beings ... is simply masquerading as real science .
If you told a 6 year old the story of Macro Evolution WITHOUT the
fancy airbrushed pictures in a childs storybook , he wouldnt buy it.
6-year olds aren't as dumb as you seem to think, Dave. Or as
uneducable as you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
So, why do adults ?
Educated adults understand that evolution is backed by overwhelming
evidence from multiple converging sources, including the fossil
record, DNA, morphology, and observation.
Post by i***@gmail.com
Because it is the last desperate effort for
willfully rejecting the most obvious of all things around us : A
personal Universe always requires a personal Creator who fashioned it.
If that were the case, oh Dimwit Dave, acceptance of evolution would
be confined to atheists. Yet millions of *educated* theists have no
problem accepting it as an observed fact of nature. It's only
fundamentalists who insist on their particular literal interpretation
of scripture who have an issue with it. Have you considered that when
your interpretation of scripture clashes with observed reality, the
problem might not be with observed reality?
Prophet
2010-05-10 14:05:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
Post by i***@gmail.com
Good story to illustrate how Macro Evolution of Pond Scum to 206 bone/
600 muscle Human Beings ... is simply masquerading as real science .
If you told a 6 year old the story of Macro Evolution WITHOUT  the
fancy airbrushed pictures in a childs storybook ,  he wouldnt buy it.
6-year olds aren't as dumb as you seem to think, Dave. Or as
uneducable as you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
So, why do adults ?
Educated adults understand that evolution is backed by overwhelming
evidence from multiple converging sources, including the fossil
record, DNA, morphology, and observation.
Ps. 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
raven1
2010-05-10 14:40:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prophet
Post by raven1
Post by i***@gmail.com
Good story to illustrate how Macro Evolution of Pond Scum to 206 bone/
600 muscle Human Beings ... is simply masquerading as real science .
If you told a 6 year old the story of Macro Evolution WITHOUT  the
fancy airbrushed pictures in a childs storybook ,  he wouldnt buy it.
6-year olds aren't as dumb as you seem to think, Dave. Or as
uneducable as you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
So, why do adults ?
Educated adults understand that evolution is backed by overwhelming
evidence from multiple converging sources, including the fossil
record, DNA, morphology, and observation.
Ps. 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
The existence or non-existence of a deity is irrelevant to the truth
or falsity of biological evolution. Did you have something on-topic to
say?
Christopher A. Lee
2010-05-10 15:17:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 May 2010 10:40:27 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Prophet
Post by raven1
Post by i***@gmail.com
Good story to illustrate how Macro Evolution of Pond Scum to 206 bone/
600 muscle Human Beings ... is simply masquerading as real science .
If you told a 6 year old the story of Macro Evolution WITHOUT  the
fancy airbrushed pictures in a childs storybook ,  he wouldnt buy it.
6-year olds aren't as dumb as you seem to think, Dave. Or as
uneducable as you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
So, why do adults ?
Educated adults understand that evolution is backed by overwhelming
evidence from multiple converging sources, including the fossil
record, DNA, morphology, and observation.
Ps. 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
The existence or non-existence of a deity is irrelevant to the truth
or falsity of biological evolution. Did you have something on-topic to
say?
You know somebody is going to be an idiot when they use a pretentious
religious nym like "Prophet".

And sure enough the fuckimg moron repeats a standard dishonest
Christian insult cherry picked from the Bible that fails because he is
too stupid to understand the real world where "atheist" doesn't mean
what he thinks it does, hides like a coward behind scripture that is
he knows worthless to people outside his religion.

The actual insult is that he knows we don't and doesn't care. He has
such little respect he's going to do it anyway.

This was addressed by Youtube user Gnug215 to VenomfangX but applies
to the vast majority of Christians posting here.

It lists things not to say.


raven1
2010-05-10 18:33:52 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 10 May 2010 11:17:51 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 10 May 2010 10:40:27 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Prophet
Post by raven1
Post by i***@gmail.com
Good story to illustrate how Macro Evolution of Pond Scum to 206 bone/
600 muscle Human Beings ... is simply masquerading as real science .
If you told a 6 year old the story of Macro Evolution WITHOUT  the
fancy airbrushed pictures in a childs storybook ,  he wouldnt buy it.
6-year olds aren't as dumb as you seem to think, Dave. Or as
uneducable as you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
So, why do adults ?
Educated adults understand that evolution is backed by overwhelming
evidence from multiple converging sources, including the fossil
record, DNA, morphology, and observation.
Ps. 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
The existence or non-existence of a deity is irrelevant to the truth
or falsity of biological evolution. Did you have something on-topic to
say?
You know somebody is going to be an idiot when they use a pretentious
religious nym like "Prophet".
He outed himself as [M]adman/All-Seeing-I/Uriel in another thread with
his "Usenet Alert" shtick.
Burkhard
2010-05-10 18:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by raven1
On Mon, 10 May 2010 11:17:51 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 10 May 2010 10:40:27 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Prophet
Post by raven1
Post by i***@gmail.com
Good story to illustrate how Macro Evolution of Pond Scum to 206 bone/
600 muscle Human Beings ... is simply masquerading as real science .
If you told a 6 year old the story of Macro Evolution WITHOUT  the
fancy airbrushed pictures in a childs storybook ,  he wouldnt buy it.
6-year olds aren't as dumb as you seem to think, Dave. Or as
uneducable as you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
So, why do adults ?
Educated adults understand that evolution is backed by overwhelming
evidence from multiple converging sources, including the fossil
record, DNA, morphology, and observation.
Ps. 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
The existence or non-existence of a deity is irrelevant to the truth
or falsity of biological evolution. Did you have something on-topic to
say?
You know somebody is going to be an idiot when they use a pretentious
religious nym like "Prophet".
He outed himself as [M]adman/All-Seeing-I/Uriel in another thread with
his "Usenet Alert" shtick.
I think he now uses his different nyms to give himself multiple little
gold starts on google groups - isn't it ever so cute?
SkyEyes
2010-05-10 20:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Burkhard
Post by raven1
On Mon, 10 May 2010 11:17:51 -0400, Christopher A. Lee
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Mon, 10 May 2010 10:40:27 -0400, raven1
Post by raven1
Post by Prophet
Post by raven1
Post by i***@gmail.com
Good story to illustrate how Macro Evolution of Pond Scum to 206 bone/
600 muscle Human Beings ... is simply masquerading as real science .
If you told a 6 year old the story of Macro Evolution WITHOUT  the
fancy airbrushed pictures in a childs storybook ,  he wouldnt buy it.
6-year olds aren't as dumb as you seem to think, Dave. Or as
uneducable as you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
So, why do adults ?
Educated adults understand that evolution is backed by overwhelming
evidence from multiple converging sources, including the fossil
record, DNA, morphology, and observation.
Ps. 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
The existence or non-existence of a deity is irrelevant to the truth
or falsity of biological evolution. Did you have something on-topic to
say?
You know somebody is going to be an idiot when they use a pretentious
religious nym like "Prophet".
He outed himself as [M]adman/All-Seeing-I/Uriel in another thread with
his "Usenet Alert" shtick.
I think he now uses his different nyms to give himself multiple little
gold starts on google groups - isn't it ever so cute?
This surprises me...not in the least. It's *just* his speed.

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Syd M.
2010-05-10 15:52:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prophet
Post by raven1
Post by i***@gmail.com
Good story to illustrate how Macro Evolution of Pond Scum to 206 bone/
600 muscle Human Beings ... is simply masquerading as real science .
If you told a 6 year old the story of Macro Evolution WITHOUT  the
fancy airbrushed pictures in a childs storybook ,  he wouldnt buy it.
6-year olds aren't as dumb as you seem to think, Dave. Or as
uneducable as you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
So, why do adults ?
Educated adults understand that evolution is backed by overwhelming
evidence from multiple converging sources, including the fossil
record, DNA, morphology, and observation.
Ps. 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
<Yawn> And the fool in his heart says "There must be a god, I can't
understand anything otherwise."

PDW
SkyEyes
2010-05-10 20:01:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Prophet
Post by raven1
Post by i***@gmail.com
Good story to illustrate how Macro Evolution of Pond Scum to 206 bone/
600 muscle Human Beings ... is simply masquerading as real science .
If you told a 6 year old the story of Macro Evolution WITHOUT  the
fancy airbrushed pictures in a childs storybook ,  he wouldnt buy it.
6-year olds aren't as dumb as you seem to think, Dave. Or as
uneducable as you.
Post by i***@gmail.com
So, why do adults ?
Educated adults understand that evolution is backed by overwhelming
evidence from multiple converging sources, including the fossil
record, DNA, morphology, and observation.
Ps. 14:1 The fool has said in his heart, "There is no God."
Yeah. If even fools can figure it out, what's your problem?

Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
BAAWA Knight
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Syd M.
2010-05-10 15:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
CR: evidence?
EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
tests. Are you stupid?
CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
CR: But what about books like the bible?
EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
about 1200 years old?
EV: Do not argue with me. Science is right. We have all the tests. The
tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
ago.
CR: But..
EV: NO BUTS. Science is always right. To think other wise is stupid.
Your God does not exist. Science says so.
CR: OK then, what about the supernatural events that so many people
have seen or been a part of.
EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
definitions for the word supernatural.
CR: Why is there no such thing?
EV: Because science cannot make a test for it
CR: What kind of test does science need?
EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
talking about.
CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
flawed?
EV: No. Science is always right. You are just being stupid. Science
can never be wrong. We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until
we need a revision.
CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.
CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
evolved?
EV: Shut up. You are just too stupid to understand. Evolution is just
an explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if
it originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not
originate with a God because science says God does not exist because
we cannot test for god.
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can
produce variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving
rise to another?
EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
tells us so. As long as we can make up stories about these bones and
bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
right
CR: Millions?
EV: Yes.
CR: That is a lot of time right?
EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have the tests. The tests say
so even though the tests can be revised at any moment. Science is
never wrong see? We know what we are doing see? We have the tests see?
Our tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong
see? That makes US right and the creationist wrong.
CR: [shaking head in amazement]
Good story to illustrate No-Seeing Eye/Assman's unapologetic lying.
PDW
Ken
2010-05-10 16:01:04 UTC
Permalink
On May 10, 4:48 am, "***@gmail.com" <***@gmail.com> wrote
the usual worthless, pointless and repetitive rantings deleted.

What are you SO afraid of, Fool?
Are you afraid to learn that your entire Xtian belief system has been
built on myths, fables, supertitions, and lies?
Andy W
2010-05-10 19:28:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
<snip>

Oh this is just priceless. Adman, in desperation after an unsullied
record of perfect loss, finally has to resort to his most
unchallenging opponent yet: a parody scientist whose responses are
scripted by Adman himself. And he still loses. Der-brain.

Andy
p***@hotmail.com
2010-05-10 20:03:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: You want fries with that?
Fixed your post for you..

-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
MarkA
2010-05-11 12:48:57 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 09 May 2010 16:29:13 -0700, AllSeeing-I wrote:

CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist


CR: God created man

EV: Evidence?

CR: Haven't you ever heard of "faith"?

EV: Bye.

Shooting fish in a barrel should be so easy.
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
MarkA
2010-05-11 16:50:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR = creationist
EV = evolutionist
CR: God created man
EV: No, man evolved from a single molecule billions of years ago
CR: evidence?
EV: We have plenty of evidence. Science says so. We have all sorts of
tests. Are you stupid?
CR: Sorry. Your evidence looks like common design to me
EV: COMMON DESIGN? Are you a nitwit? You do not understand. You are so
stupid. Do NOT question science. We have ALL the answers. OK.
STRAWMAN: Anything nature can do, a supernatural god could also do.
Looking at nature is NOT evidence of divine activity, unless you want it
to be.
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: But what about books like the bible?
EV: The Bible is wrong. It was written by bronze aged goat herders.
CR: How can the bible be written by bronze aged goat herders when you
said the other day that the bible was revised many times and was only
about 1200 years old?
EV: Do not argue with me. Science is right. We have all the tests. The
tests say the bible was written by bronze aged goat herders 1200 years
ago.
??? Who claims the bible is only 1200 years old? And how does revising it
invalidate the fact that it is based on the mythology of BAGHs?
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: But..
EV: NO BUTS. Science is always right. To think other wise is stupid.
Your God does not exist. Science says so.
STRAWMAN: Scientists don't claim they are always right. In fact, the
distinguishing feature of science, as opposed to religion, is that it has
very effective, built-in methods to detect and correct errors.

STRAWMAN: Science does not claim that God does not exist. It only
asserts that there is no evidence for the activity of a god, and there is
no reason to suppose that he does.
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: OK then, what about the supernatural events that so many people have
seen or been a part of.
EV: There is no such thing as the supernatural even though we have
definitions for the word supernatural.
CR: Why is there no such thing?
EV: Because science cannot make a test for it
CR: What kind of test does science need?
EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
talking about.
NOW the truth comes out. You resent the fact that scientists understand
things that you don't. Rather than accept that fact, you try to convince
yourself that "they don't know what they are talking about". Are you
really that stupid, or merely ignorant? Ignorance can be fixed.
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: So your tests are incomplete? Maybe flawed because humans are
flawed?
EV: No. Science is always right. You are just being stupid. Science can
never be wrong. We have the tests. The tests are never wrong until we
need a revision.
CR: Can you explain how life got here, or what life is?
EV: No. Evolution is an explanation of what happened after life began.
Wow. A correct statement for a change!
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Well, How can you be so sure evolution takes place when you do not
even understand what caused the life that evolution is said to have
evolved?
It's a separate question, and a more interesting one. Evolution is as
obvious as it is undeniable.
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: Shut up. You are just too stupid to understand. Evolution is just an
explanation of what happened after life got here. We do not care if it
originated with a god or not. In fact we are sure it did not originate
with a God because science says God does not exist because we cannot
test for god.
Care to explain your double standard? Life requires a creator, yet the
creator doesn't? Does that mean your God is a rock?
Post by AllSeeing-I
CR: Why can we see for ourselves that specific kinds of life can produce
variations of itself but we do not see one form of life giving rise to
another?
Kindly define "one form of life", using a definition that does not change
to fit the circumstances.
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: We do see that. We got some bones from millions of years ago that
tells us so. As long as we can make up stories about these bones and
bully everyone into thinking we know what we are talking about we are
right
CR: Millions?
EV: Yes.
CR: That is a lot of time right?
EV: Yes, we know what we know because we have the tests. The tests say
so even though the tests can be revised at any moment. Science is never
wrong see? We know what we are doing see? We have the tests see? Our
tests show us everything until we find out the tests was wrong see? That
makes US right and the creationist wrong.
CR: [shaking head in amazement]
--
MarkA
Keeper of Things Put There Only Just The Night Before
About eight o'clock
Brian E. Clark
2010-05-11 17:49:27 UTC
Permalink
In article <73efd158-4bee-4449-8539-548f11c7aad4
@l31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, ***@usa.com says...
Post by AllSeeing-I
EV: A sci-ency test with lots of fancy words to make everyone feel
stupid so they will not discover we really do not know what we are
talking about.
This is the part that bothers you most, isn't it?

Damn those scientists, with their fancy words, and their
education, and their hard-won competency in complex subject
areas. How dare they make stupid people feel stupid by
speaking precisely and knowledgeably.

You remind me of a wannabe rock star I knew a few years
back: uncomfortable with the truth that any competent
guitarist could outplay him, he denounced their music as
"overly complicated" or "deliberately showy" or "lacking
the beauty of simplicity" -- anything to shield himself
from the fact that he was a no-talent clown patently
jealous of people whose talents allowed them to do what he
couldn't.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
Budikka666
2010-05-12 05:11:15 UTC
Permalink
All conversations with professional coward, pathological liar, full-
time vacuity salesman and dedicated hypocrite Never-Seein' Nuthin' are
a waste of time.

Budikka
AllSeeing-I
2010-05-12 05:16:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Budikka666
All conversations with professional coward, pathological liar, full-
time vacuity salesman and dedicated hypocrite Never-Seein' Nuthin' are
a waste of time.
Budikka
beeeeeeeeeep!

THATS a wrong answer
Virgil
2010-05-12 05:23:59 UTC
Permalink
In article
Post by AllSeeing-I
Post by Budikka666
All conversations with professional coward, pathological liar, full-
time vacuity salesman and dedicated hypocrite Never-Seein' Nuthin' are
a waste of time.
Budikka
beeeeeeeeeep!
THATS a wrong answer
It is a fair assessment of the posts of IllSeeing-you.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...