Creation v Evolution argument can end

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
Raggedyman,

I will not call you an utter moron, no that would be a pointless ad hominem. But you must know, you are acting very much like one. You are either a troll, or an incredibly willfully ignorant human being. I don't really care which. Both can be equally entertaining, to a point. A point that to me, you passed.

You're a talker. Plain and simple.

You want empirical evidence, yet can't even be bothered to discuss presented evidence seriously. Of course that comes as no surprise to anyone in this subforum. As I said, you're the zillionth predictable creationist. There isn't anything that could come out of your mouth that we haven't heard before. Your "arguments" are as tired as your outdated religion. That is not an attack on religion, just my personal observation of it.

Maybe you can make me spill my beer and come up with something new?

I don't know... spilling a beer may be sacrilege. Bah, you won't come up with anything thought provoking. I'm not worried. Actually just disappointed.

Your rebuttals are trolls. "whale hip bones" blah blah blah.

Don't act so ignorant please.

The evidence that whales descended from terrestrial mammals is here divided into nine independent parts: paleontological, morphological, molecular biological, vestigial, embryological, geochemical, paleoenvironmental, paleobiogeographical, and chronological. Although my summary of the evidence is not exhaustive, it shows that the current view of whale evolution is supported by scientific research in several distinct disciplines.

It isn't as simple as "hip bones"...

Taken together, all of this evidence points to only one conclusion - that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. We have seen that there are nine independent areas of study that provide evidence that whales share a common ancestor with hoofed mammals. The power of evidence from independent areas of study that support the same conclusion makes refutation by special creation scenarios, personal incredulity, the argument from ignorance, or "intelligent design" scenarious entirely unreasonable. The only plausible scientific conclusion is that whales did evolve from terrestrial mammals. So no matter how much anti-evolutionists rant about how impossible it is for land-dwelling, furry mammals to evolve into fully aquatic whales, the evidence itself shouts them down. This is the power of using mutually reinforcing, independent lines of evidence. I hope that it will become a major weapon to strike down groundless anti-evolutionist objections and to support evolutionary thinking in the general public. This is how real science works, and we must emphasize the process of scientific inference as we point out the conclusions that scientists draw from the evidence - that the concordant predictions from independent fields of scientific study confirm the same pattern of whale ancestry.

www.talkorigins.org...

You don't want to learn. You have demonstrated that perfectly.

You act as if the evidence is simple or contrived.

Nope. Sorry but this isn't religion where feels and faith are the foundation of belief.

ETA:
Stop running from Phantom.

Agree on some defined terms (still waiting on empirical) and get on with it.
Agree on the terms, don't agree to agree that is his definition of said term.

Tear down the wall, Raggedyman. Tear down the wall.

Raggedyman is well known for creating threads about evolution and god. They never, ever get anywhere. He refuses to listen to any evidence even though he asks for evidence. I get sucked in all the time, but no more.

a reply to: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Yap yap, little guy.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Ha! This is nothing compared to a particular 100+ page thread on the same topic I enjoyed.

Raggedyman is just another in a long line of deaf to science creationist posters here.

As you are no doubt aware!

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Jonjonj

Ha! This is nothing to a particular 100+ page thread on the same topic I enjoyed.

Raggedyman is just another in a long line of deaf to science creationist posters here.

As you are no doubt aware!

So I guess you will offer me some empirical evidence

Why do you hate science, why mix it with spiritualism

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Jonjonj

Ha! This is nothing to a particular 100+ page thread on the same topic I enjoyed.

Raggedyman is just another in a long line of deaf to science creationist posters here.

As you are no doubt aware!

So I guess you will offer me some empirical evidence

Why do you hate science, why mix it with spiritualism

You're back!

We missed you scarecrow man!

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: Raggedyman

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Yap yap, little guy.

Why do you hate science
Why do you make it a religion, evidence not assumption

Please post away

a reply to: TerryDon79

It's nice to be missed

Thought I would check if any of you crazy fundamentalists hot found any empirical evidence

Silly me

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: TerryDon79

It's nice to be missed

Thought I would check if any of you crazy fundamentalists hot found any empirical evidence

Silly me

Nah.

We haven't.

We can't disprove evolution the way you want us to.

Sorry man of lots of straws.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: WakeUpBeer
a reply to: spy66

How is it infinite empty space if God moved upon the face of the waters?

Good question. I gues what Moses observed was the compression.

Only the creator could be the absolute infinte empty void. And only the infinite void could have motion to compress, Becasue there was nothing else present within the void to have motion.

except for a super dense ball of everything that exists today crammed within a space smaller than this period -------> .

Well i personally think that is Scientific mambo jumbo. No one can for certen say how big the singularity was initially before expansion.

Science even go as far as to state that the singularity was infnitely small when it was formed. That is Equal to it being non existent. Its odd that People dont notice details like that?

its odd that people can look at the big bang and regard it as a suspicious story but be right at home with the magic act popularly known as genesis.

So you agree, both are absurd scientifically and need copious amounts of faith to believe

Yes

Wow. 32 pages of total bulls#, and not one shred of evidence proving evolution.

Didn't see that one coming.



You science people can have your religion too. That's cool. Just stop pissing all over everyone else's at every conceivable turn.

originally posted by: NthOther
Wow. 32 pages of total bulls#, and not one shred of evidence proving evolution.

Didn't see that one coming.

You science people can have your religion too. That's cool. Just stop pissing all over everyone else's at every conceivable turn.

Oh, there's been evidence of evolution. But that's not what raggedyman wants. He wants "emperical evidence". That would, funnily enough, prove evolution false.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Why waste my time trying to give you more detailed information?

I've seen the way you conduct yourself here.

You have never addressed anything, as far as I have seen.

You bob and weave, and twist and turn. Never discuss.

You've admitted to not reading links. And while I suspect that isn't the case with everything you get linked, I have definitely felt that at best you scan them without trying to actually understand the science.

You see you have your conclusions before you go into it.

I'm not going to lead a horse to water when he won't drink.

And I will add, there are posters here more apt to discussing the subject in ways I would fall short. And since you have already played your game with them in this and other threads...

Hey I had my fun in this thread.

Hail Satan.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Evidence is not proof. There can be "evidence" the dog ate my son's homework, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Proof is what I believe the OP is looking for.

Of which, you have none. Just like the claims of religion.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: TerryDon79

Evidence is not proof. There can be "evidence" the dog ate my son's homework, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

Proof is what I believe the OP is looking for.

Of which, you have none. Just like the claims of religion.

Proof and evidence are not the same.

First you say we haven't presented any evidence, now you say we haven't shown proof.

Make up your mind.

a reply to: TerryDon79

Proof requires evidence, however evidence in and of itself is not proof.

My comment on page one of this thread emphasizes proof.

Now I take it you'll focus on minute semantic inconsistencies to avoid discussing the fact that there is no proof, and therefore your ideology functions in a manner very similar to religion?

Oh, btw. Thought I'd throw this out there.

The theory of evolution is the best EXPLANATION science has based on all the EVIDENCE.

Maybe next time, before you ask for the things, you'd actually understand what it is you're talking in reference to and what the "emperical evidence" would mean.

Oh maybe not. You haven't changed your tune yet.

originally posted by: NthOther
a reply to: TerryDon79

Proof requires evidence, however evidence in and of itself is not proof.

My comment on page one of this thread emphasizes proof.

Now I take it you'll focus on minute semantic inconsistencies to avoid discussing the fact that there is no proof, and therefore your ideology functions in a manner very similar to religion?

No. Evidence is evidence. There is a literal mountain of it. Hence why there's a solid theory of evolution. If there was 100% proof, it wouldn't be called the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

The only way to know for 100% would be to witness it first hand. The only way to do that, would be via a time machine.

But hey ho. I don't see any of us saying its a fact. I only see the religious claiming it's not based on.......nothing.

This is amusing.

Raw Footage - Scientists Persecuting a Dissenting Academic

Not for the faint of heart!

originally posted by: TerryDon79

I don't see any of us saying its a fact.

You sure are defending it like you believe it is.

With a religious zeal, in fact.

originally posted by: NthOther

originally posted by: TerryDon79

I don't see any of us saying its a fact.

You sure are defending it like you believe it is.

With a religious zeal, in fact.

Really?

I think you'll find we're defending science from a religious fundementalist that doesn't realise that the advancements in things like medicine are due to discovering more about evolution.

But hey ho. You've got your bearded fairy in the sky.