Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

Originally posted by TruthParadox


Discarded as a mechanism? How so? I would love evidence.
Where is your out of context quote of Richard Dawkins? I would like to see that as well.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Dave420 is notorious for saying "Clearly you have no clue about evolution"

Well clearly you don't lol... You think that evolution is based on "chance".

Me? No I don't think evolution is based on chance I think macro evolution is based on BS but that's only because I like to know facts.

If they say I can believe it as a scientific fact, then I know they really mean theoretically speaking. Theories are subject to change which is what Darwins original theory has done and dramatically with new models and excuses, new frauds and all kinds of silly crimes they would be busted and in jail for if they were securities sellers on wall street.

They have changed enough that I can have faith in that. I can have faith that in what I know about it today will be wrong next year or as soon as next month.

So until they get it all figured out, I won't be talking so cock sure of myself about that as you are when next year that everything you said last year was bunk

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Well we can't have that now can we melatonin.

Here I don't know a better source than Dawkins

Cheers.

So this is the Dawkins quote?

Richard Dawkins: Well, my response was about Darwinism, which is my own field. Darwinism is the explanation for life on this planet, but I believe that all intelligence, all creativity, and all design anywhere in the universe is the direct or indirect product of Darwinian natural selection. It follows that design comes late in the universe, after a period of Darwinian evolution. Design cannot precede evolution and therefore cannot underlie the universe. That was my response.

And this is your version of his words:

"I believe but cannot prove we are the product of Darwinian Natural Selection and random mutation - Richard Dawkins"

Do you notice any difference? In both actual words and meaning?

Yes, their is such a thing as a science writer. It is like whitesmoke's with a huge addon for science and law.

It's a great program mel you would like it i think

Heh, probably. Editing's such a bitch.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by melatonin]

Yeah I saw that too but I heard the original quote in a podcast and saw this version of it today. I guess I should have sent the link to the podcast first since this seems to be an answer to questions where he seems to be back peddaling a bit.

Mel, I feel like you and I have have been on the opposing end of this age old argument for so long I forget sometimes that you are a person with feelings and not an adversarial one with the exception of our opinions on this topic I sometimes get the feeling I'd want to meet you.

weird huh? lol

Anyway I was thinking Ill post the new version and see what you think. I read that last part and I ask, why not?

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Yeah I saw that too but I heard the original quote in a podcast and saw this version of it today. I guess I should have sent the link to the podcast first since this seems to be an answer to questions where he seems to be back peddaling a bit.

Can't really comment without hearing it.

Mel, I feel like you and I have have been on the opposing end of this age old argument for so long I forget sometimes that you are a person with feelings and not an adversarial one with the exception of our opinions on this topic I sometimes get the feeling I'd want to meet you.

weird huh? lol

Fair enough, when you think about it it's not as if anything we do here really makes that much difference. Just a bit of a game which hopefully harvests lulz and wastes some time. A bit like an intellectual Xbox live, lol. We might get a few headshots here and there, but I don't hold grudges - with anyone. Indeed, I appreciate those who can hold their own. As you know, I'm pretty happy for anyone to believe whatever the hell they like.

And you do help me harvest lulz, lol. You also helped me find 'stylewriter' - could be my new fave software. I thought that would be EndNote, but I now despise it with a passion, lol. It might also outdo SigmaPlot.

Anyway I was thinking Ill post the new version and see what you think. I read that last part and I ask, why not?

If we take the quote from the transcript from his site, it's pretty clear what it is he believes but can't prove - the notion that all creativity, intelligence etc in the universe is a result of natural selection.

He appears pretty certain that it is the explanation that underpins life on this little blue planet.

[edit on 23-12-2008 by melatonin]

Originally posted by Aermacchi

oh dear ive been rumbled i type fast and dont bother to spell check -_-

but i dont lie misrepresent things and generally make an ass of myself either

i think ill stick to not spell checking if those are the choices (and no its not a flase dichotemy im not ecluding other possables just comparing our styles)

What I think of him as an atheist, albeit they DO support evoluton and have recruited dim witts like Ken Miller JUST so they can say Christians support it to but Ill explain why this is absolutley asinine to suggest such a ridiculous assertion. One simple reason is God never spoke to an evolving Adam and Eve. Wanna be a Christian? You got to believe at least SOME of the Bible and Miller throws it out in the very first book

so if he takes genesis as a metaphor but believes jesus came down and died for our sins then thats believing some then isnt it i guess he is a christain after all

yes recruited a few dim wits ...40% of the scientific community that beleive in thiestic evolution, you know evolution that god made

www.religioustolerance.org...

I am not the one who is making claims for the TOE (Theory of evolution) Noob is, and he is using already debunked data such as titalak if you read the book icons of evolution, and read the US congress report titled

care to explain how a book published in 2000 can possibly discuss a fossil find from 2004?

honesty issues?

ooo you brought a picture, not a link to the artice in question? not a link to a blog or politcal source discussing it?

shall we see what a search for the authors name + congress finds? absolutley nothing

no politcal comentuary no blogs space nothing

im sure 5 minutes in photoshop i could have it say

"Aermacchi's agenda to spread ignorance on ATS"
"moral reasons for removal of internet access"

Decades of observations of different animal or plant species revealed that variation within living things never went beyond specific genetic bounds.

well id like you to link a few showing there is a limit to the variance displaying those exact genetic bounds, becasue no one else has managed to find them

so all those changes just might add up to big things like evolutionary thoery predicts

Genetic experiments, on the other hand, showed that the mutations that Darwinists regarded as an “evolutionary mechanism” could never add new genetic information to living things,

deffine information, its a nonsense term without context

duplications of chromosones?

clarity required

ill have to presume its a verbatum of the same old argument

lets ask someone with a PH.D. in Molecular Neuroscience

but that on the contrary they always had harmful effects.
Life, and especially the living cell and the complex organelles within it, is full of the most complicated designs.

they are pretty complex, but evolution says they started out simple an got more complex

and the work by Szostak Labs have used enviromental factors to form basic functioning slef replicating protocells

very basic cells but cells none the less genetics.mgh.harvard.edu...

Our eyes, with which no camera can possibly compare, bird wings that inspired aeronautical technology, the complex and interdependent systems within the living cell, the extraordinary information contained in DNA …

here come the classics ..did you forget the blood clotting system and bombadier beetle and the flagellum?

Human eye

www.pbs.org...

bird wings

www.aibs.org...

www.redorbit.com...

www.sciencedaily.com...

insect wings

pharyngula.org...

All these are clear “examples of creation…”

umm your black glasses with the fake nose have gone wonky and you beards becoming unglued you were calling your self an evolutionist earlier

caught in a lie agian

They also leave the theory of evolution, that regards life as the product of blind chance, utterly helpless.

luckily evolutionary theory is strictly regulated so it isnt a matter of blind chance

These scientific facts left Darwinism backed into a corner by the end of the 20th century. Scientists in many Western countries, particularly the United States, today reject Darwinism in favour of the fact of creation.

with the exception of the 40% that beleive thiestsic evolution and the 55% that believe natural evolution ........ which leaves 5% ..... and those include people working in many branches of science where they dont work with the natural world or universe such as the many branches of comupter and data mechanical sciences

If Evolution were true, we would be seeing us evolve by now and the post above mentions Apes evolving thumbs as if their were a time we didn't have any.

not my posts sorry maybe talk to him? though i will adress the human evolution in a second

Does he realize how utterly silly his assertion is?

i dont know, ask him maybe but why be honest about it when you can try and infer i hold the same view

When was the last time we found fossil of such evolved primates or humans. If this were true we would STILL be evolving such appendages and they would look like this

possibly but unlikley they wouldnt give any advantage

human evolution an ongoing process(heres a couple for you)

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.aegis.org...

The countless mutation experiments carried out on fruit flies only yielded deformed individuals.

like the 4 winged fly that could still fly

or the many that produced insipid species due to mutation or isolated breeding

and mutation experiments is a little vague, what were they trying to do in those perticular experiments? maybe they did exactly what they set out to do

Natural Selection is not only discarded as a mechanism but has recently been admitted as flawed by Richard Dawkins himself. He realized that nothing about creation being what it is, could have come about the way it has without some mind behind it.

now this you need to link, im willing to bet money its the classic quote mine used in ben steins "expelled: no intellignece used to make this" documentary

Noob says he can prove this he can prove that well I have asked him if we came about by natural selection and random mutation and he says their is mountains of proof. Most Atheists say this and when someone refutes the TOE, they then say that person doesn't understand evolution. Dave420 is notorious for saying "Clearly you have no clue about evolution"

when presented with an accurate description of macro evolution you seemed a little confused maybe theres areason we say it?

and i dont think ive said anything i cant prove, your making the bold claims without evidence im just arguing them down

although you do seem to think macro level changes are micro, which they kind of are more a collection of micro that shove it across the macro threshold

yay the old pepered moth bunk

www.millerandlevine.com...

first questioned by scientists becasue of his methodology and the conclusions he drew, later found to be correct but the tree part was wrong

its not faked or wrong

its real and right


wow he compared cars to living things that reproduce with variance -_-

thats like comparing roof tiles with volcanoes, and yes the embryo images are wrong again highlighted first by science with creationists jumping on the bandwagon later

embryos still share many similarities but the hand drawn pictures were misleading as to the extent

including but certainly not limited to the despicable acts of discrimination towards ID and Creation SCIENCE they were found guilty of by members of Congress and the pdf for that is available for download and is nothing like what the Atheist websites downplaying it.

and still just pictures no links to the article? dont worry this one could be found

isnt this the guy that hijacked the editorial system and broke every single rule to publish an unpeer reviewed article all on his own? yes it is, no wonder they wanted rid he broke every rule and embarased his bosses

ill agree thier actions were questionable in the way they dealt with the matter though

and why discriminate? maybe becasue it doesnt use the scientific method? maybe becasue its bad science. and in a sceinitific journal you expect to find good science. maybe if they did the work they might actually get published, but its so much easier to cry about it then actually make any effort

It appeared to be one of archaeology's most sensational finds. The skull fragment discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg was more than 36,000 years old - and was the vital missing link between modern humans and Neanderthals.

and science caught him trying to cheat and wouldnt let him play anymore .... and this is a bad thing?

its bad he lied but science works it finds its own errors and corrects then



[edit on 23/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 23/12/08 by noobfun]

On the other hand, Professor Chris Stringer of the Department of Palaeontology at London's Natural History Museum, says that Hahnhöfersand Man

was never regarded as a Neanderthal and was briefly important in the 1980s to people like Gunter Brauer, who were arguing for gene flow between Neanderthals and modern humans. However, as anyone who is familiar with the palaeoanthropological literature over the last 20 years would know, the find has been of negligible significance to recent debate. It has to be said that this is also a reflection of Dr. Protsch's low reputation in the field, as anyone familiar with the recent literature would also know (personal correspondence).

skepdic.com...

and as his stuff refered to neadertal no biggie for human anthroplogy

Scientists Say No Evidence Exists That Therapod Dinosaurs Evolved Into Birds

apparently there is

www.sciencedaily.com...

www.sciencedaily.com...

ahh the classic ‘Archaeoraptor liaoningensis’ fake, chinese farmer makes a fake science says its a little dubious abut it national geo buys it hails it as the great new find in less then 3 months scientists have picked it apart proven it fake but realised the tail belonged to a new species that did indeed turn out to belong to a 4 winged dinosaur

When pieces are stolen and smuggled out, sometimes blocks of fossils are matched together mistakenly. That can be a big mistake, and it misleads the public.’

so misleading to the public then not sceince

For example, in 1996 there were headlines like ‘Feathered Fossil Proves Some Dinosaurs Evolved into Birds.’ This was about a fossil called Sinosauropteryx prima. Creationist publications advised readers to be skeptical and keep an open mind. They were vindicated when four leading paleontologists, including Yale University's John Ostrom, later found that the ‘feathers’ were just a parallel array of fibres, probably collagen.

feathers are collagen ....

and the second fossil specimen confirmed it was feathered

Another famous alleged dino-bird link was Mononykus, claimed to be a ‘flightless bird.’ The cover of Time magazine even illustrated it with feathers, although not the slightest trace of feathers had been found. Later evidence indicated that ‘Mononykus was clearly not a bird … it clearly was a fleet-footed fossorial digging theropod.’

and who was it that corrected its self and provided that evidence? science again. self correcting
ever improving good old science

No good evidence exists that fossilized structures found in China and which some paleontologists claim are the earliest known rudimentary feathers were really feathers at all,

except for all the evidence that exists which is plenty

Evolutionists go so far in this subject that they can even invent very different faces for the same skull. The three entirely different reconstructions made for the fossil called Zinjantropus is a famous example showing how persistent evolutionists are in producing these false masks.

actually that would be the same guy, who repeatedly was proven wrong by other scientists www.olm.org...

notice a trend here, someone screws up or just lies and they are caught by other scientists and thier falsehoods removed

Evolutionists engage not only in drawing and modeling tricks.

that would be artists not scientists they employ artists to make sketches and models so the general public have an idea what they have found so the artists tend to add a little poetic license thats why i prefer the fossils to pretty pictures

The most famous of these frauds is the Piltdown fossil introduced in England in 1912 by an evolutionist named Charles Dawson. This fossil was presented as the most important transitional form between ape and man and was displayed in museums for more than thirty years. Experts who reexamined the fossil in 1949 discovered that it was a forgery that had been produced by attaching an orangutan’s jaw to a human skull.

so scientists proved it fake then?

and we dont know who faked it, wether they were evolutionists or creationists, it was a fake it got found out science to the rescue

“Nebraska Man”. was cooked up in 1922 on the basis of a single fossil tooth. It was soon revealed that the tooth that had been the source of inspiration for Nebraska Man in fact belonged to a wild pig.

immediatley doughted by several scientists and proven wrong by scientists ... this trend of science correcting mistakes to keep only the real stuff isnt really helping your claim

Many other fossil skulls have been presented as great evidence for evolution failed one by one.

such as?

Natural selection is a logical process that can be observed. However, selection can only operate on the information already contained in genes—it does not produce new information.

we know its not supposed to, genetic level changes does that natural selection just weeds out the poor ones

Actually, this is consistent with the Bible’s account of origins; God created distinct kinds of animals and plants, each to reproduce after its own kind.

it really isnt becasue the bible says it made them all as is

One can observe great variation in a kind, and see the results of natural selection. For instance, dingoes, wolves, and coyotes have developed over time as a result of natural selection operating on the information in the genes of the wolf/dog kind.

nice try skippy what about bears? they are not so distant ancestors

wait if they were all made as is like the bible says but now they are diverging then they wernt made as is ... what a conundrum

and whats a kind? species? genus? family?

kind gets used for so many different taxonomic classes its silly

If one believes that a living cell can come into existence by chance, then there is nothing to prevent one from believing a similar story that we will relate to this and why Richard Dawkins finally understands the reasons Natural Selection couldn't have happened. See below: the story of a town.

theres that misrepresntative Chance lie again

chemistry doesnt use chance it uses predictable chemical reactions not the powerball lotto method

so cells arouse form thermodynamics and chemistry as the suzaku labs have demonstrated

nice story, houses and thier components dont breed with variance arnt subject to natural selection so it fails im afraid

in summary:

If Noob can prove it, why then he must be pretty damn smart because not even Richard Dawkins says he can prove it.

"I believe but cannot prove we are the product of Darwinian Natural Selection and random mutation - Richard Dawkins"

past event we can follow the evidence but never be 100%

but that doesnt in anyway make a literal reading of a superstition right, you would still need to prove it not just sit there saying my book must be right its the one i read

got a link to that quote so we can see it in context?

If he can't prove it how does noob say he can?

that humans come from evolution i havnt said that in our discussion, but the evidence points that way and some evidence is always better then none, the position you find yourself in

The Fact is, Noob is doesn't know what he is talking about much less spell or write what he doesn't know about it.

i thought there was a lack of ad-hominims guess you couldnt think of anymore and decided not to use noobfundie after i laughed at its febble repatition

BOTTOM LINE:

Many of us believe things we can not prove such as Christians do with their belief in God and,,

correct .... why? and that should be have faith in as it requires no evidence

as it would seem, atheists too and their belief,,

that would be following all available evidence to form the best working conclusion, if it involves evidence its not faith

NEXT UP! The Peanut Gallery! and the ridicule orchestra of Atheist's

playing the poor victimised christain card .... how very drool

so in conclusion

you have failed to prove your viewpoint on how we came to be,

not really done a very good job discrediting science, showing science corrects it errors and improves is a good thing

have spread the oft used pure chance blind chance falsehoods

pulled out the old chestnuts of the its so complex how ever could it possibly have come about sillyness that has been disproven numerous time, becasue somthing in its present states is ireducably complex does not mean it always has been, and the eye can still function when you strat stripping away parts just not as good as it can with them all there

been caught in lies of your own making such as the sudden evolutionist/creationist switch

so generally the most successful point of your argument is in proving i dont bother to spell check which i admit to anyway becasue a)cant be bothered its a relaxed forum board b) i dont get graded on my spelling


[edit on 23/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 23/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun

oh dear ive been rumbled i type fast and dont bother to spell check -_-

but i dont lie misrepresent things and generally make an ass of myself either

hehe,, Opinions Vary

so if he takes genesis as a metaphor but believes jesus came down and died for our sins then thats believing some then isnt it

i guess he is a christain after all

If Adam and Eve were just a metaphor then so is original sin.
You know,, it isn't a big deal I guess when you consider his only begotten son had to DIE OVER A METAPHOR! Miller is a DUFUS! Ken Miller does more to enable Atheism then he does to lead people to Christ.
Genesis was just a quick example of how his alleged Christianity is somewhat dubious to me I can give quite a long post on just that part of this issue but I kinda doubt moses wrote Genesis using all those names about adam begat cain and able who begat this and that name all the way to noah.

If I used that argument you give for miller, atheists would be all over it. Genesis is sort of a specialty of mine and it can be pretty scientific if you care to study it and how it matches up with science. I really would like you to hear one and three as they get into some pretty deep research. If not I would ask Mel as he might actually listen to them and give me his take on it. I don't usually give a lot of links to this stuff anymore because most don't read em and the rest have already seen them. I don't know which one of them you are but I WAS impressed you actually took the time to find some of those links for referances.

So you seem serious enough and you were the cause of someone sending me a nice u2u ( I think mel might be hot for me lol ) so allow me to do you the honors this time. The Chuck Missler Library

yes recruited a few dim wits ...40% of the scientific community that beleive in thiestic evolution, you know evolution that god made

Ha ha "thiestic evolution," I love oxymorons like that too but I don't think God would mind if I just go ahead and call them just plane morons. I would think it is the "safest" way to express your spiritual side in a industry so rife with bigotry against Christianity. I mean Jesus said if you deny him in life he will deny you before the father and if they deny their belief of evolution being a scientist, well they just might not get very far with peer reviews or even jobs where they don't even cost anyone any money, FICA, or workmans comp, like oh say a volunteer at the smithsonian. The percentagemay impress you but that is why the word says narrow is the gate and not all saying lord lord will make it.

ooo you brought a picture, not a link to the artice in question? not a link to a blog or politcal source discussing it?

Yep now you know why I don't bother anymore. Perhaps I may be a bit jaded after all this time arguing with people where you spend hours doing research then writing your findings just to have the poster say it isn't credible because ( place your excuse here)

Gee am I correct after all about my not bothering to use links on someone so looking for truth like a thief looks for a cop?

I guess will see as I go through this post

"Aermacchi's agenda to spread ignorance on ATS"
"moral reasons for removal of internet access"

What! someone spreading ignorance on ATS!!! Isn't that unusual! LOL
With the exception of who you are saying is doing it, I find that statement hilariously funny and now I can say your handle you use here fits.

When I said the below quote,

Genetic experiments, on the other hand, showed that the mutations that Darwinists regarded as an “evolutionary mechanism” could never add new genetic information to living things,

they are pretty complex, but evolution says they started out simple an got more complex

Sorry that isn't what evolution says albeit true i suppose if evolution could talk it would most likely boast, but that was not proof, it was speculation and why I asked in my previous post about measuring the difference in genetic mutation as these expressions are made evident is not the same as evi-DENCE, in spite of your interpretation.

here come the classics ..did you forget the blood clotting system and bombadier beetle and the flagellum?
Human eye

Ha ha noob you are killin me here! Naw,, I wouldn't show that stuff to an old salt like you and now I see I was right saving us both the time and effort after all using any links as it is quite obvious you are jaded too.

So with that Ill just expect my offer to have you listen to missler will go ignored and unlistened to and I will not bother with the rest of this.

I figure, if none of the Christians here have convinced you knowing I am not near as Bible savvy as so many here like AshleyD, Jphish, P4t, meriam, whammy etc, I sure as hell won't have much luck so I guess Ill dust off my shoes and wash my hands of this one and perhaps God has someone else in a long chain of Christians that will cross your path while thier is still time in your life.

Sure wish ya hadn't said that though,, I hate to think I might of been'
your last and it isn't that God doesn't care about you going to hell. He still loves you but it's simply that i don't give a rats ass about ya one way or the other. I know I know love your enemy but you I just don't take all that serious enough to be an enemy. You are more like the kind of kids I would take their milk money at school growing up.

I was their enemy but they weren't mine LOL

Originally posted by Aermacchi


If Adam and Eve were just a metaphor then so is original sin.
You know,, it isn't a big deal I guess when you consider his only begotten son had to DIE OVER A METAPHOR! Miller is a DUFUS! Ken Miller does more to enable Atheism then he does to lead people to Christ.
Genesis was just a quick example of how his alleged Christianity is somewhat dubious to me I can give quite a long post on just that part of this issue but I kinda doubt moses wrote Genesis using all those names about adam begat cain and able who begat this and that name all the way to noah.

personally i dought moses wrote it at all

evolution not bible study topic

If I used that argument you give for miller, atheists would be all over it.

follows the tennets of christianity and calls him self one thats enough for me

the bible says believing in jesus is enough, infact it says its the only thing that counts. he believes in jesus and thats that

i wouldnt be all over someone for that statement it shows more common sense then fundamentalist literalism

id have other questions to ask them, but im not about to jump on somthing becasue they dont believe all the silly bits

Genesis is sort of a specialty of mine and it can be pretty scientific if you care to study it and how it matches up with science. I really would like you to hear one and three as they get into some pretty deep research.

o_0 they really arnt without vast interpreatation

the days of the bible are all in the wrong order and it thinks whales are fish

If not I would ask Mel as he might actually listen to them and give me his take on it. I don't usually give a lot of links to this stuff anymore because most don't read em and the rest have already seen them. I don't know which one of them you are but I WAS impressed you actually took the time to find some of those links for referances.

i dont run around making claims i cant back, i read this kind of stuff for fun so most of it i already knew and have bookmarked for thier usefulness or intrest

So you seem serious enough and you were the cause of someone sending me a nice u2u ( I think mel might be hot for me lol ) so allow me to do you the honors this time. The Chuck Missler Library

ill check it out later but every topic ive seen on this usually requires some lax interpretation to make it fit

ill spare an hour later and see how it shapes up

Ha ha "thiestic evolution," I love oxymorons like that too but I don't think God would mind if I just go ahead and call them just plane morons. I would think it is the "safest" way to express your spiritual side in a industry so rife with bigotry against Christianity.

well as many sciences have nothing really to do with the natural world they can express anything they feel like

making the facts fit a belief again? thats not a good way to do it

theres is the only reasoned way to do it because they know and can read/discusss the evidence and methods they would rather accept truth as truth and use it to further thier faith then just sit there with the ken ham biblical blindfold and ear plug set on and pretend it all never happened

original sin becomes a metaphor for mans natural state and his ability to do both good and bad, and use thier faith as a guide to lead them away form bad behaviour

playing judge judy of the religeous world again ...... the greatest intolerance is intolerance against your own

I mean Jesus said if you deny him in life he will deny you before the father

which they arnt doing

and if they deny their belief of evolution being a scientist, well they just might not get very far with peer reviews or even jobs where they don't even cost anyone any money, FICA, or workmans comp, like oh say a volunteer at the smithsonian.

who hijacked a system, sent through a paper he shouldnt have (none peer reviewed) didnt discuss it with any of the other editors(which he should have) and was the least qualified editor to deal with the topic) and hadnt he already handed in a long term notice for his position before he even printed the article?

its not his faith that got him booted it was his actions, bieng pro ID doesnt give him free rein to ignore the rules

two wrongs dont make a right

but his wrongs are still his wrongs

The percentage may impress you but that is why the word says narrow is the gate and not all saying lord lord will make it.

doesnt impress me any theres nothing suprising about them or miraculous they are just a figure of what people think

maybe te small gates are there to keep judge judies out ....

Yep now you know why I don't bother anymore. Perhaps I may be a bit jaded after all this time arguing with people where you spend hours doing research then writing your findings just to have the poster say it isn't credible because ( place your excuse here)

you posted a picture with no link

a search for the author found nothing

if your research ;leads you to photobucket and an image anyone could have made its not a point worth raising

ive never made the claim common decent must be right becasue someone drew a picture of chimps turning in to man

aside from the fact it originally drawn as an insult to evolution, but it was so pretty it got adopted

Gee am I correct after all about my not bothering to use links on someone so looking for truth like a thief looks for a cop?

why does everyone insist on using this metaphor its such a bad one

thiefs may often seek out police officers, it depends on what they have been doing and if they are wanted at the time

if someones trying to kill them and thiers a cop near by they will happily find one

and it hard to find the truth on a photobucket image

What! someone spreading ignorance on ATS!!! Isn't that unusual! LOL
With the exception of who you are saying is doing it, I find that statement hilariously funny and now I can say your handle you use here fits.

it fits but not for the reasons you may be thinking

When I said the below quote, Sorry that isn't what evolution says albeit true i suppose if evolution could talk it would most likely boast,

what that we evolved from very simple unicellular cretaures?

thats exactly what evolutionary theory says, what have you been reading?

and which genetic experiments are these that show new information cannot not be added? we have observed doubling of genes, thats giving twice as many places for mutations to occur without destabalising the organism, twice as many places for fun things to happen that alter the direct copt be somthing new

www.nature.com...

in both of those videos it displayed numerous examples of enviromental information bieng added to genetic sequences and listed the scientific papers names and authors so you can go look them up

we have observed frame shift mutations adding new information

" In particular, we show that, in fixed environments, for organisms whose fitness depends only on their own sequence information, physical complexity must always increase."

Adami et al. PNAS 2000

but that was not proof, it was speculation and why I asked in my previous post about measuring the difference in genetic mutation as these expressions are made evident is not the same as evi-DENCE, in spite of your interpretation.

we have observed the changes, that is evidence they occur, they add information that has been observed

watch the videos again and go look for the papers

Ha ha noob you are killin me here! Naw,, I wouldn't show that stuff to an old salt like you and now I see I was right saving us both the time and effort after all using any links as it is quite obvious you are jaded too.

not jaded just wish the creationist anti-evolution websites this stuff is pulled from actually updated with new arguments now and again and got rid of the worthless old twoddle, so its not a case of pulling out all the old links to disprove the same tired old argument

So with that Ill just expect my offer to have you listen to missler will go ignored and unlistened to and I will not bother with the rest of this.

so becasue these argumenst have been flogged to death and reserected and flogges again more then a few times im jaded?

i enjoy a challenge and these arnt

I figure, if none of the Christians here have convinced you knowing I am not near as Bible savvy as so many here like AshleyD, Jphish, P4t, meriam, whammy etc, I sure as hell won't have much luck so I guess Ill dust off my shoes and wash my hands of this one and perhaps God has someone else in a long chain of Christians that will cross your path while thier is still time in your life.

well if they can prove he exists or the bible is right ill be happy to listen, if they cant depending on my frame of mind i may still be happy to listen

as you ask for evidence in science i ask the same of religeon, fairs fair

but it's simply that i don't give a rats ass about ya one way or the other. I know I know love your enemy but you I just don't take all that serious enough to be an enemy. You are more like the kind of kids I would take their milk money at school growing up.

the smart ones that paid attention and got good grades? thanks for the compliment

i dont see you as enemy just a little misinformed and misguided, with a tendancy to switch side mid flow and make flase claims, it goes with the territory it seems

[edit on 24/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 24/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 24/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun




i dont see you as enemy just a little misinformed and misguided, with a tendancy to switch side mid flow and make flase claims, it goes with the territory it seems

The point in showing all the fraud isn't to prove anything about evolution being wrong, it's that so many times it has had to have so many frauds attempting to prove it right and that is what gives it so much prestige! Yep those evolutionists are right up there with used car salesman!

when I said:

but it's simply that i don't give a rats ass about ya one way or the other. I know I know love your enemy but you I just don't take all that serious enough to be an enemy. You are more like the kind of kids I would take their milk money at school growing up.

You said:

the smart ones that paid attention and got good grades? thanks for the compliment

Not a compliment at all noob and as I already have shown, you use words that are out of context, your grammar is weak and your spelling SUCKS.





But besides that, What makes you think the "smart kids" were the only ones that had milk money





[edit on 26-12-2008 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Aermacchi
The point in showing all the fraud isn't to prove anything about evolution being wrong, it's that so many times it has had to have so many frauds attempting to prove it right and that is what gives it so much prestige! Yep those evolutionists are right up there with used car salesman!

no the frauds are either not done by science, and proven wrong by science

or a scientist trying to build a reputation by faking evidence, the field they work in may be involved in evolution but its not to prove that right, its to make them a reputation

science keeps people honest by finding thier mistakes and holding them up for the world to know, if science did it behind closed doors we would simply never know about it they do it out in public

you really want to play fakery comparissons?

and remeber they are faking to get ahead of the game not to prove evolution, can the same be said about religeon?

the turin shroud is one

around 14 versions of the Holy Prepuce (at Antwerp, Coulombs, Chartres, Charroux, Metz, Conques, Langres, Anvers, Fécamp, Puy-en-Velay, Auvergne, Hildesheim, Santiago de Compostela and Calcata)
three Holy Umbilical Cords,
four Spears of Longinus,
three Crowns of Thorns,
a large number of Holy Toenail clippings,
the rods used by Moses and Aaron,
leftovers from the feeding of the 5,000,
three arms of St Francis Xavier,
the shirt of John the Baptist (and a mere three of his heads),
phials of milk from the Virgin Mary,
quantities of Christ's blood,
His milk teeth
some 204 bits of babies massacred by Herod

there were also 5 known heads of St George

They have proved more durable than the antisemitic Book of Jasher, a UK forgery first published in 1750 and again in 1829.

www.caslon.com.au...

even looking at the new testsament Mark the first written of the gospels is written around AD 70 .. thats about 30-40 years after he would have probabily died average life of just 30-35 years in those days

Matthew copies Mark almost entierly revised better written with a few more interesting stories added to glam it up

Luke even says he wasnt even a disciple and learnt it second or third hand but is still accredited to the disciple Luke, and he copies bits of Matthew

but then the same author wrote Acts, so 2 books written by someone with nothing more then hersay knowledge

John has 2 authors and was written around 110AD so that would make at least one of the disciple John's around 110 years old thats almost quadrupal the average age

and the writting style is so different between John and revelation that the chances the same person wrote both is 0 (even though John already has 2 authors)

Josephus Flavius's account of jesus is considered a later fake added to his work, but even if it wasnt he was born in AD37 so anything he wrote was just heresay but its pulled put as historical evidence of jesus

"Letters of Pontius Pilate: Written During His Governorship of Judea to His Friend Seneca in Rome." - is a fictional novel that gets held up as proof Pilate became a christain

these are all frauds that are the building blocks of a religeon or used to support it

the churches founding fathers happily put down in documents for us to read such classic phrases as

‘There is nothing so easy as by sheer volubility to deceive a common crowd or an uneducated congregation.’
– St. Jerome (Epistle. lii, 8; p. 93.)

"For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?" (St. Paul, Romans 3.7)

even Paul admits he is lying for god

"We shall introduce into this history in general only those events which may be useful first to ourselves and afterwards to posterity."
(Ecclesiastical History, Vol. 8, chapter 2).

Eusebius

"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church ... a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them."
– Martin Luther

(Cited by his secretary, in a letter in Max Lenz, ed., Briefwechsel Landgraf Phillips des Grossmüthigen von Hessen mit Bucer, vol. I.)

the 2nd to 5th century are the golden era of religeous fakes, with a resurgence in the middle ages

over 100 documents attributed to Clements and Gregory I are now knows fakes attributed to Isodore Mercator of the 9th century

so some fakes have been made and proven wrong so science discarded them as such and moved on, some scientists produced fakes to build a reputation and were thrown out for the fakes they are and the purpotrators public embarrased and discreditted to keep the science as whole reputable and honest ....... but you see this as a bad thing and showing evolution partially wrong

but a religeon with 2000 years of fakery and lies right down to the bible its self and its mysterious authors whos works were then editted rearranged and added to you see nothing wrong with that?

science fixes its faults to leave only that which is true

the evidence we have for evolution is true, its been checked inspected and redone by other scientists

thats why the only ones talking about piltdown man and nebraska man etc are creationists and you, we dont talk about them becasue they are fake and wrong and dont in anyway have anything to do with current scientific knowledge, we dont hold them up as evidence we ignore them like the rubbish they are

Not a compliment at all noob and as I already have shown, you use words that are out of context, your grammar is weak and your spelling SUCKS.

words used in context

grammer and spelling i simply dont care enough about on an internet forum to slow my typing down or check

so you hold the use of spellchecker up as a sign of intelligence, and then pass off false hoods and 1/2 truths attempting to hide them in flowery language - personally id class that as intelectual dishonesty

i pass on facts figures and honset apraisal, correct your misrepresentations of science but are unintellegent becasue i dont spell check

But besides that, What makes you think the "smart kids" were the only ones that had milk money

i dont but i was one of the smart kids so as the comment was aimed at me i used it in the context i found myself at school

shall i start using spellchecker and slow my typing down? so you fail from every angle?

p.s. your misused words image .....

i dont actually use the word agravate in the post ...... so i misused the word in the thread but didnt even include the word ..... somthing you added for dramatic effect? more dishonesty?



[edit on 26/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by sciencenewby
I love when people say evolution is junk and you cant prove squat and then bring up god.

prove god

Here is some proof:

Brian "head" Welch

So full of ignorance. We are so past "proving evolution" that it's ridiculous that people still try to refute it. It is quite clear that we didn't just pop up out of thin air a few thousand years ago, and it is preposterous to just assume we did because you don't have the full scope of knowledge necessary to understand how things really work.

Just because something isn't explainable does not mean "God" did it. It just means either it isn't explained yet, or you don't understand it. People attack evolution as being "weak", yet they can't provide one real shred of evidence that there is a God.

Try it, ask someone who believes in God. What do you get? "I just know. I can't explain it, but I just know." Garbage. Why is that acceptable no where else besides religion? Why does religion always get the free pass?

reply to post by ShakeNBake


Thats a personal thing he went through, and he did fix it himself!
That only proves the notion of the idea of god!

I wouldnt never doubt the power of Jesus christ has mental affect to change people...
But you know what.. They made the choice!!! Jesus nor God came down and said.. Bam! You are magically fixed!!!

You see God only helps those who help themselfs.. So in essence we dont give ourself enough credit.
But if someone needs that little extra mental push, to say its thanks to God or Jesus I did this or that.. GREAT!! I support that..

But in no way does it prove God.. It only proves how powerful suggestion can be to our minds...

Its a good thing.. Yet people dont belive in themselfs enough.
As they say.. Me Im powerless.. But once God is in my life, he gives me the strenght.. When the whole time.. God is an idea.. A part of them that allows them strenght they had all along!!!

Good point.. and dont take it the wrong way...
But the power of suggestion is a powerful tool.


And sadly the God tool is used for great evils in this world!!!

reply to post by ShakeNBake


That proves absolutely nothing.

reply to post by zysin5


If God doesn't help anyone who doesn't help themselves, then God really isn't necessary, correct? If God won't get someone off drugs, the person themselves has to do it, then where in that picture should someone say, "Thanks God!"

Even if someone starts to believe in God and uses that as a means to get off of drugs, that doesn't give any credit to a God. In the same sense, if someone has a child and decides that they should get off of drugs, God did not cause that and nor did the child (hint: the person made a conscience choice).

Stories like that are great, but they prove nothing, just as stories about seeing a ghost doesn't make them exist. People tell stories all the time, and people have weird experiences, but that in no way makes it true.

Originally posted by zysin5
reply to post by ShakeNBake

 

And sadly the God tool is used for great evils in this world!!!

Thanks for letting us know that you know nothing about God or people.

You say.. Sadly God is a tool used for great evil!!!!! Then i ask!! By WHO.

Who is using God as a tool. Would that be Humans!!!!

I guess you will know the truth when you die. Until then have a great ride.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66

Thanks for letting us know that you know nothing about God or people.

You say.. Sadly God is a tool used for great evil!!!!! Then i ask!! By WHO.

people ..... its not that hard to make that association now is it

Who is using God as a tool. Would that be Humans!!!!

well thats generally whats meant by the term people as the entier post is talking about people and thier blief/experiences

unless the term people is now also bieng used for other social species like chimps and fish

I guess you will know the truth when you die. Until then have a great ride.

not according to the older greek copies of the bible

no hell in those, death of the unbeliver is simply described as such total death, nothing after it no hell no big fiery pits just nothing

so if there is nothing after we die then we wont be aware of it

and that was another appeal to force, let me ask what if your wrong and the muslims are right? guess your comming with us

[edit on 31/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by spy66
Thanks for letting us know that you know nothing about God or people.

You say.. Sadly God is a tool used for great evil!!!!! Then i ask!! By WHO.

Who is using God as a tool. Would that be Humans!!!!

I guess you will know the truth when you die. Until then have a great ride.

If God is all powerful then all the power in the world is God's as he would have created things the way they are for his purpose.
He created the Devil to be evil.
If he did not create the Devil to be evil, then he would not be omnipotent or omniscient.
But as the myth stands, God created evil.

Isaiah 54:16 Behold, I Myself have created the smith who blows the fire of coals And brings out a weapon for its work; And I have created the destroyer to ruin.

Kent Hovind, a harmless, innocent person is in jail for 10 years? Crooks from the bankins system that caused worldwide financial disaster are free and getting bonuses...

So much about "democracy". You are fine until you say something they don't like.

Kent Hovind should not be in jail. That judge has been ANGRY, because Hovind is a person that is dangerous to them.

I'd just like to remind everyone, that even the Pope has embraced the findings of evolutionary scientists. One can not ignore this image after all:
Ascent of man

Originally posted by greshnik
Kent Hovind, a harmless, innocent person is in jail for 10 years? Crooks from the bankins system that caused worldwide financial disaster are free and getting bonuses...

So much about "democracy". You are fine until you say something they don't like.

Kent Hovind should not be in jail. That judge has been ANGRY, because Hovind is a person that is dangerous to them.

yes it obviously had nothing to do with the over 1 million he owed in tax fraud, several zoning violations and numerous other offenses he committed

i agree about the bankers though they should be in there as well but thats a whole other thread

reply to post by Terapin


Screw the imagery and the Pope's "blessing". I don't care whether the church agrees or not. Evolution is clearly the best theory to date, and whether "religion" agrees or not is the least of my worries.

For the longest time I bowed to religion for the sake of politeness. I am done with that. Religion ruins good societies, and it is time that we take a stand against the deep rooted evil that is "religion" in America.

The Founding Fathers would roll in their graves at these loony bastards.