Simple Questions For Those Who Believe That Evolution Is The Answer For Everything

a reply to: rnaa

I do not know you. But since you replied to this. If the glove fits...

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

In other words. 'I did not read' or Did not want to acknowledge what I read, what you posted.

Why should I? Offer something in support genesis that doesn't rely entirely on your personal belief and you will get more interest.

Have no rebuff, no answers, as No other who has been brain-washed to believe in evolution has either. So I will not respond to your questions. And I cannot really answer any of your arguments.

You provide no explanatory type of arguments, only personal belief regarding unsupported claims. Nothing to "rebuff". Same ol' same ol'.

OK. Ape. You are a good Ape. Of those who have left you without knowledge but have trained you well.

...don't leave out the "haughty arrogance". It's fine if you believe. If you want others to believe genesis, your arguments don't get off the starting blocks.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

And yet NOT ONE SINGLE rebuff of my initial reply. That is enough. If you had one knowing your Ape need to follow your programmers of evolution you would have given one Ape. I do not fault you Ape. Only your programmers who have no answers. You Ape, will have to contend with that. I and will leave you and all of the other brain-washed apes, with that.

Of course, if you actually answer my initial post with ANYTHING intelligent. Which has 0% probability. Nah, you are a good Ape, for those who need you.

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

And yet NOT ONE SINGLE rebuff of my initial reply. That is enough. If you had one knowing your Ape need to follow your programmers of evolution you would have given one Ape. I do not fault you Ape. Only your programmers who have no answers. You Ape, will have to contend with that. I and will leave you and all of the other brain-washed apes, with that.

Of course, if you actually answer my initial post with ANYTHING intelligent. Which has 0% probability. Nah, you are a good Ape, for those who need you.

I'm sorry, but are you accusing people who have studied science of being brainwashed? Seriously?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

They have no re-buff. Is what they are being brain-washed into believing really reality?

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

They have no re-buff. Is what they are being brain-washed into believing really reality?

Well, it's testable and therefore it's provable. Whereas the alternative is... frankly rather unbelievable.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No it IS NOT testable. Give me one proof of this TESTABLENESS. Rather you THINK it is testable, when all the tests prove to the contrary. There is where the brain-washing of you weak-minded fools happens. You may think yourselves intellectuals, and yet you are so brain-washed...If I am wrong, give me a proof....I AM WAITING...wait, you and your brain-washed minions, who are arrogant in their haughty disdain will not be able too....And yet it will be.............my fault.

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Answer
To the OP:

You could do yourself a big favor and seem less aggressive if you try to understand this basic fact:

Science deals in observable phenomenon and makes educated statements based on that phenomenon. When I say "phenomenon", I'm not talking about a single instance, I'm talking about repeatable evidence. The reason there are very few ideas put forward as hard fact is because scientists leave an opening for future discoveries to change the current ideas. Religious people love to point out all the "assumptions" and "theories" and "suppositions" in science but it makes them look extremely foolish. Simple fact is, no scientist is going to say "this is absolutely 100% fact and there's no way anyone can further explain what I've just discovered." This does not mean that scientists are presenting random wild guesses as truth, as religious folks tend to claim. Scientists put forward the best possible explanation using what we currently know about any given subject.

Religion deals in mystical explanations straight out of the writer's imagination to explain phenomenon that are either unknowable or were not known at the time of the text's writing. The big difference is that many religious followers accept these primitive explanations as absolute truths without a hint of irony even though their own religious texts evolved over thousands of years. Which version of the creation story do you believe? The one in the King James Bible or the one believed by the Sumerians? Both talk about God creating the universe but they have different accounts. Both versions were considered by many of their followers to be the absolute unwavering truth.

If I asked 1st grade students to write down how the universe was created, there's a good chance I'll eventually get a story very close to what's in the bible. "God did it" is the easy way out instead of putting some effort into discovering the truth about our world. Most well-educated religious followers leave some room for science to explain some of the more general ideas in the bible. Uneducated religious followers who don't want to bother with LEARNING use their chosen bible as the explanation for everything and shun science mainly because they can't process what's being proposed. "We come from monkeys? Well that just don't sound right... Science is a load of horsesh!t!!"

I was raised in Mississippi and I spent 12 years in a Christian school. I'm very familiar with the great divide between science and religion.

I had a lot to say, but didn't want to seem too aggressive, so I will just say this...

Thank you for the common approach. I am sure with your help I will learn to see the world the way that you.

You posted a thread with questions. People tried to answer your questions and were met with sarcasm, deflection, and the internet version of the classic fingers in the ears and "LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you!"

If your mind is completely made up and you aren't going to be open to ANYTHING anyone says, why did you post this thread? I just can't make sense of your motives.

Do you think that every question about scientific evidence is a stab at the scientific establishment, so against science itself?

When the questions were posed at me "what do you believe" I said exactly what I believe. It may seem to you that this is the case, and then people go on and on and on about the already preconceived stereotypes of those who practice religions. What I heard from the onset, and in other threads and across many forums is that religious people are "ignorant, stupid, superstitious, against science, and blah, blah, blah"

You have to remove that rhetoric from the dialogue if you wish to communicate, but why is it expected that religious people bow and cowtow to the "mighty scientific establishment" and when one of us reacts in the same manner, we are the bad guys?

I am not, never have been and have not displayed anything against science, only those characters within the scientific establishment who permit the behavior of adherents.

I asked the questions because as a fully functioning member of society I have the right to question the answers given. Not only that, I have the right to question the motives of the current spokesmen for the scientific establishment. But hey, if your side is allowed to say "Oh, he "hitchslapped" that person and pwned them". That was not said on this thread, but it is what is going on in this world right now.

Tell me, do you love the pwnage you perceive gets dropped on the "stupid Creationist"? Are you defending science or the establishment?

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No it IS NOT testable. Give me one proof of this TESTABLENESS. Rather you THINK it is testable, when all the tests prove to the contrary. There is where the brain-washing of you weak-minded fools happens. You may think yourselves intellectuals, and yet you are so brain-washed...If I am wrong, give me a proof....I AM WAITING...wait, you and your brain-washed minions, who are arrogant in their haughty disdain will not be able too....And yet it will be.............my fault.

Evidence for Evolution - Google Scholar search results (1,780,000 results)

All of that is testable. You'd better get to work testing it. That is an AWFUL lot of tests you have to go through for you to disprove testability.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok. Explain away the initial post. If you want, the one about the six creative days. But I'd prefer you click on the original thread and talk about the chances of DNA and Protein happening. Thanks.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: WarminIndy

originally posted by: Answer
To the OP:

You could do yourself a big favor and seem less aggressive if you try to understand this basic fact:

Science deals in observable phenomenon and makes educated statements based on that phenomenon. When I say "phenomenon", I'm not talking about a single instance, I'm talking about repeatable evidence. The reason there are very few ideas put forward as hard fact is because scientists leave an opening for future discoveries to change the current ideas. Religious people love to point out all the "assumptions" and "theories" and "suppositions" in science but it makes them look extremely foolish. Simple fact is, no scientist is going to say "this is absolutely 100% fact and there's no way anyone can further explain what I've just discovered." This does not mean that scientists are presenting random wild guesses as truth, as religious folks tend to claim. Scientists put forward the best possible explanation using what we currently know about any given subject.

Religion deals in mystical explanations straight out of the writer's imagination to explain phenomenon that are either unknowable or were not known at the time of the text's writing. The big difference is that many religious followers accept these primitive explanations as absolute truths without a hint of irony even though their own religious texts evolved over thousands of years. Which version of the creation story do you believe? The one in the King James Bible or the one believed by the Sumerians? Both talk about God creating the universe but they have different accounts. Both versions were considered by many of their followers to be the absolute unwavering truth.

If I asked 1st grade students to write down how the universe was created, there's a good chance I'll eventually get a story very close to what's in the bible. "God did it" is the easy way out instead of putting some effort into discovering the truth about our world. Most well-educated religious followers leave some room for science to explain some of the more general ideas in the bible. Uneducated religious followers who don't want to bother with LEARNING use their chosen bible as the explanation for everything and shun science mainly because they can't process what's being proposed. "We come from monkeys? Well that just don't sound right... Science is a load of horsesh!t!!"

I was raised in Mississippi and I spent 12 years in a Christian school. I'm very familiar with the great divide between science and religion.

I had a lot to say, but didn't want to seem too aggressive, so I will just say this...

Thank you for the common approach. I am sure with your help I will learn to see the world the way that you.

You posted a thread with questions. People tried to answer your questions and were met with sarcasm, deflection, and the internet version of the classic fingers in the ears and "LA LA LA LA LA I can't hear you!"

If your mind is completely made up and you aren't going to be open to ANYTHING anyone says, why did you post this thread? I just can't make sense of your motives.

She's done this on other threads. Her motive is clearly to proselytize her religion and absolutely nothing more.

At least you know I am a woman. And isn't that done on the religious threads?

This isn't a religious forum, but since it has two prevailing worldviews in the very title itself, Origins vs. Creationism, then it is perfectly acceptable for me to discuss Creationism. If you don't like the fact that there is a forum dedicated to the discussion and presentation of theories about Creationism, please, feel free to tell the mods to do away with this forum. But it was their right to include this forum, because they felt a need for us to discuss it. But if one says "oh, Creationists, they are proseletyzing their religion on religious forums and one that includes their worldview, their motives are subject to be questioned".

I have the right to post on this thread and never once have I used the same terms that your side has. I think at this point, you should just accept that Creationists have a right to discuss on this thread what they feel, because that's what the forum is all about.

I have consistently demonstrated throughout the thread that even though we are given the right, we are not permitted to call your side anything, and I said that the bully behavior in unacceptable. So please, check it at the door. It has descended to this level, and yet the one thing that I am permitted by the owners of ATS, I should not be permitted to talk about because it might hurt the establishment? That is exactly why ATS was designed for, to question the establishment. Within those parameters, I could then come on here and say "I believe that I don't even exist and the universe is just the imagination of some bastard child of the flying spaghetti monster and Easter bunny who make up these things at tea time just to get a laugh out of us lower forms of life".

I have the right to listen and I have the right to not listen, where I see the need to, and I have the right to speak and the right to not speak, where I see the need to. But what you do not have the right to do is enter these threads with the intent to bully and pwn us and do so where you choose and them limit our right to tell you to stop.

I questioned the establishment's answers. That is what ATS is designed for. The mods have not removed this thread because I haven't said or done anything outside of the parameters, I did ask people to please notice the continual debasement and belittlement coming from the general public that originates within the scientific community.

You defended bully behavior and I have the right to address that. Once it gets removed from the discussion then we can have meaningful dialogue. Did people feel that I was condescending? Yes, they did because the response was always from a statement made about my right to even think about questioning the establishment. If you like meaningful dialogue, then please dialogue meaningfully.

Hydeman and I had meaningful exchange, but we can agree to disagree and still be respectful toward one another. Hydeman never used rhetoric that was debasing or belittling our side. He merely questioned it.

That said, can we please move forward without all the rhetoric and respect the fact that Creationism is permitted a voice on ATS?

a reply to: iSomeone

Sorry but creationists should never talk about probabilty YOU dont understand it.

I am on mobile just now but will post a link later to show YOU why

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

And yet NOT ONE SINGLE rebuff of my initial reply. That is enough. If you had one knowing your Ape need to follow your programmers of evolution you would have given one Ape. I do not fault you Ape. Only your programmers who have no answers. You Ape, will have to contend with that. I and will leave you and all of the other brain-washed apes, with that.

Of course, if you actually answer my initial post with ANYTHING intelligent. Which has 0% probability. Nah, you are a good Ape, for those who need you.

You want a rebuff of your original post? Ok... Explain to me how life works under a "vapor canopy". The very same vapor canopy that became rain during Noah's flood and covered the tallest mountains on Earth, correct?

Noah's Flood is alleged to have covered the mountains of the earth to a depth of 15 cubits (about 8m). To have covered Mt. Everest it would have required a depth of water of about 9km above sea level. If the flood was only required to cover the mountains in Urartu (Ararat), where Noah's boat is said to have settled, about 5km of water would be needed.

The "vapor canopy hypothesis" states that before the flood, the water existed in the atmosphere as water vapor. The flood occurred when this vapor condensed and fell as rain, flooding the earth. The flood subsided later, various explanations being given for where all that water went.

First, let us look at atmospheric pressure. For the earth's atmosphere, the pressure is almost exactly hydrostatic, since it is held to the earth by gravity and velocities are too low to significantly change the pressure. In plain language this means that the air pressure at any point is equal to the weight of the air in a unit area column above that point. At sea level, air pressure in US engineering units is about 14.5 pounds/sq inch because a column of air one inch square extending to the top of the atmosphere weighs (Guess what!?) 14.5 pounds. On top of Mt. Everest, the pressure is lower because the lowest and densest 9km of the atmosphere is below that point.

Now the "vapor canopy" would form a part of the atmosphere, being a body of gas (water vapor) gravitationally held to the earth. It would in fact be most of the pre-flood atmosphere. There would have to be enough vapor to form 9km of liquid, when condensed, and, therefore the vapor would weigh as much as 9km of water. The pressure at the earth's surface, where Noah and family lived, would be equal to one atmosphere PLUS the weight of a 9km column of water of unit area. This is equivalent to the pressure 9km deep in the ocean. What is this pressure? Well, each 10m of water is roughly equivalent to one atmosphere, so the pressure would be 900 atmospheres. The atmosphere would also have a composition of about 900 parts water vapor to one part of what we call air today.

How could an atmosphere almost 100% water vapor not condense? The temperature would have to be raised to the point where the partial pressure of water equals 900 atmospheres, i.e. the boiling point at that pressure. So we find Noah et al. living in a 13,000psi boiler. Is this credible? Not in any way.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Creationsim and the Bible are at odds. The Bible does NOT teach a literal 6.000 year-old universe. If you believe this is so, you need to check my links in this thread. It is nutheads like you who teach this ridiculous stuff that makes the Bible a mockery to begin with.

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

No it IS NOT testable. Give me one proof of this TESTABLENESS. Rather you THINK it is testable, when all the tests prove to the contrary. There is where the brain-washing of you weak-minded fools happens. You may think yourselves intellectuals, and yet you are so brain-washed...If I am wrong, give me a proof....I AM WAITING...wait, you and your brain-washed minions, who are arrogant in their haughty disdain will not be able too....And yet it will be.............my fault.

Aha. I see. You think that you're better than anyone else is and so that because YOU don't understand evolution it therefore has to be wrong. How amusing. I see that you also like to insult people a lot. And finally I also see that Krazysh0t has once again done a far better job of explaining things than I ever could (I tend to get a little heated about this topic).

a reply to: wmd_2008

Really? You know me that well? Tell me, what did I wear today, what did I eat for dinner?

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

This has nothing to do with me, and what I THINK. This has to do with the question you IGNORED and DEFLECTED.

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: AngryCymraeg

This has nothing to do with me, and what I THINK. This has to do with the question you IGNORED and DEFLECTED.

The moment I saw the words 'week-minded fools' and 'brain-washed minions' in your post I knew that there's no point in really engaging you in debate, because you'll just dismiss every argument and sneer at every piece of proof. You have a closed mind and you are unable to admit that you are wrong. It's a classic creationist standpoint. I find it very sad, but what the hell, we evolved in an imperfect world.

originally posted by: iSomeone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Ok. Explain away the initial post. If you want, the one about the six creative days. But I'd prefer you click on the original thread and talk about the chances of DNA and Protein happening. Thanks.

Chances? Are the odds above 0? Then it is inevitable given enough time and space. Looks like that was the case since you and I are having this conversation. Done.

Who cares about the six creative days? That is just folklore.

a reply to: AngryCymraeg

That is a cop-out.

Because 99% of the time it is YOU and those who think like you who call us that. Now that you are being called out, instead of asking the original questions you are outing your own selves....

This shows something is terribly terribly wrong with your viewpoint. I asked for one, one, one, logical explanation to counter the explanation I gave and a total of NONE were given, only deflection, denial, and subterfuge.

Who has the truth?