Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

Originally posted by Aermacchi
No it isn't laughable, unless it was a bigoted advocate of religion but if you want to be as guilty of bigotry as those advocates of religion by being a bigot yourself, I guess that makes you a hypocrite AND a bigot

Now THAT is funny.

I was merely pointing out that I was being accused of being a bigot towards a society of people who are notorious of bigotry. It's ironic. The pot calling the kettle black, you know.

Mick, All I really KNOW about you are your "views" and even if i DID want to attack you "personally" I wouldn't know where to start. I don't know if your fat, skinny, bald, short, tall, talk with a lisp, have a cleft pallet, wear funny lookin shoes etc.

What I look like is of no consequence, though I do believe I posted a picture up in BTS not long ago. However, I don't think you know as much about my viewpoints as you think, since I am mostly defending myself against attacks.

Oh that is OBVIOUS and the idea that any against macroevolution must are all believers of the man in the sky theory is as much a fallacy as the bigoted religious you have accused me of so your pot kettle fallacy looks like it'll make sense. You haven't been responding to attacks, all you have done since you got here Mick is BITCH. Then when someone calls attention to it since many of the posts are you juist spouting off not really in a dialogue with anyone,

You wanna call thaT A PERSONAL ATTACK?

Read your posts.

Oh right, you mean the scientific theory proposed around how things have come to the way they are juxtaposed against the idea that some bearded guy in the sky made everything, reads our thoughts, and performs miracles. Yeah, I am the fool...

If evolution were true, it sure doesn't explain you mick




[edit on 4-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Right, so I am expected to prove event by event what happened millions of years ago, but you get to make up fairy tales. That's fair I guess.

The fossil record isn't perfect, and we are talking about a science that takes millions of years (pretty hard since the Earth is only thousands of years old, right?).

What makes you say that natural selection is faulty? What part in the logic can you possibly disprove?

No I don't expect you to prove event by event and that is why I don't believe in anyone elses proof for the same reason.

I am glad you understand evolution THAT MUCH.

The fossil record isn't perfect, and we are talking about a science that takes millions of years (pretty hard since the Earth is only thousands of years old, right?).

Their is much information out there as to the earths approx age however just because the science takes millions of years doesn't make that my fault they can't prove it for that reason.

Disprove Natural Selection?

You just did when you said it takes millions of years .

ASKING ME TO PROVE A NEGATIVE

Originally posted by SlayerRock

Originally posted by furiousracer313
Evolution has been officially debunked. Watch this series, and i promise it isnt boring cause the guy make jokes and is a great speaker. Check it out guys, no more evolution unless your ignorant and still believe we came from monkeys...


Debunking Evolution Theory

omg evolution is scientific fact. end of story.

Then why does the theory have to create new models and explanations using so many hoaxed tricks and stunts,

Fact my butt its a Pathetic Joke and always has been

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Then why does the theory have to create new models and explanations using so many hoaxed tricks and stunts,

Fact my butt its a Pathetic Joke and always has been

its funny becasue you never manage to show how its faked, you list some old information and well known fakes science its self found out and held up to make examples of them

come on Ameracchi brings facts figures data evidence not opinion and personal incredulity

Originally posted by vasaga
Oh really.. Well even Richard Dawkins admitted intelligent design is probably right

Can you at least provide your out of context quote of Dawkins?
K, thanks.

reply to post by TruthParadox


Just watch this:



He might be even referring to aliens :wow

reply to post by vasaga


I can't watch it (dial up) .
What does he say?

Just read the description of the video which says:

Richard Dawkins admits the mathmatical possibility of God... making him an Agnostic -- not an Atheist. He also allows for Intelligent Design as long as we are looking for evidence of alien designers (not God).

First of all, knowing that there's a possibility of a god does not make you agnostic. If you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist.
Secondly, the writer (whoever he may be) says that Dawkins "allows for Intelligent Design"...
That's a far cry from what you said:

Oh really.. Well even Richard Dawkins admitted intelligent design is probably right

Dawkins knows that intelligent design creates a bigger problem- as whoever designed us would have to be more intelligent.
So who intelligently designed the intelligent designers?
Of course no one worries about that question - they (or he) simply poofed into existence.
Now that's using the ol' noggin'...

[edit on 4-1-2009 by TruthParadox]

reply to post by vasaga


yay the old misrepresentation

listen to what he actually says, may be talking about aliens? who else would he be taking about as he says aliens and rules out supernatural gods?

now lets look at what he says

its possible that some civilisation "evolved" someone where else in space, and could have seeded life on earth (he had already said life evolved on earth so they would have seeded the first self replicating molecule which evolved from there)

so what he actually says is we evolved, and if theres aliens life out there they evolved by somthing maybe not exactly the same but similar to darwinian evolution

so how is saying we evolved and if life was seeded here then they evolved the same as

Richard Dawkins says Id is probabily right? infact he has just doubled the number of evolutionary processes ... have straw will grasp

he has said numerous times before aliens seeding earth is possible but really really improbable to have happened, the chance of that is very close to the probability god did it ..practically 0


but thanks for the strawgrasping ...

You guys are so one-sided.. Once again, I'll just leave. No use.

reply to post by TruthParadox



its the old Ben Stein nonsense again

www.richarddawkins.net... about 1/2 way down the page Dawkins replies in his own words

reply to post by vasaga


yes im very 1 sided honesty or nothing

and your not being honest with your quote

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Oh that is OBVIOUS and the idea that any against macroevolution must are all believers of the man in the sky theory is as much a fallacy as the bigoted religious you have accused me of so your pot kettle fallacy looks like it'll make sense. You haven't been responding to attacks, all you have done since you got here Mick is BITCH. Then when someone calls attention to it since many of the posts are you juist spouting off not really in a dialogue with anyone,

You wanna call thaT A PERSONAL ATTACK?

Read your posts.

...No need to get so upset.

Never said anyone who disagrees with evolution believes in the big guy in the sky mythology, but clearly intelligent design theory is based off of it.

If evolution were true, it sure doesn't explain you mick

Go read some scripture. You are not being very Christian with comments like that.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Their is much information out there as to the earths approx age however just because the science takes millions of years doesn't make that my fault they can't prove it for that reason.

Disprove Natural Selection?

You just did when you said it takes millions of years .

ASKING ME TO PROVE A NEGATIVE

I have no idea what you are even trying to convey in the first part, however, I can assure you I never asked you to prove a negative.

I simply asked you what problems you have with evolution (natural selection).

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by SlayerRock

 

Oh really.. Well even Richard Dawkins admitted intelligent design is probably right

now you know and i know that your last statement is false. Dawkins is not so foolish as to say something like that

reply to post by SlayerRock


He only released an entire book mocking intelligent design a few years back.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by vasaga
Oh really.. Well even Richard Dawkins admitted intelligent design is probably right

Can you at least provide your out of context quote of Dawkins?
K, thanks.

He must be referring to the quote from Dawkins taken by Ben Stein in the Movie expelled where Dawkins suggested we were seeded here.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by SlayerRock

 

He only released an entire book mocking intelligent design a few years back.

Of course he did, ha ha ha it is what Atheists do when they don't have anything substantive to say. They ridicule it.

That doesn't mean he had anything else to offer. Most of his books are if not all, make for talking points and garbage people like those who need one liners to occupy there time when writing to bloggers.

You know,, mick, people

Like you

Originally posted by SlayerRock

Originally posted by vasaga
reply to post by SlayerRock

 

Oh really.. Well even Richard Dawkins admitted intelligent design is probably right

now you know and i know that your last statement is false. Dawkins is not so foolish as to say something like that

Well what else COULD he say? it was asked and he said he didnt know how we got here and he was painted in a corner AGAIN on Camera AGAIN and this is what he had to say after he had time to think about what it was he says he was "really" thinking about after he found out he got setup for a movie byte that would prove him to have faith in tea pots sky fairies and the ever lying illusion of evolution.

Personally,, I tend not to put much stock in "explanations after the fact" because you can pretty much say anything you like about what was going on in your head, and nobody would be any the wiser.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck


...No need to get so upset.

Say what?

Never said anyone who disagrees with evolution believes in the big guy in the sky mythology, but clearly intelligent design theory is based off of it.

You make the mistake all the time Mick

Go read some scripture. You are not being very Christian with comments like that.

comments like what mick?

I have no idea what you are even trying to convey in the first part, however, I can assure you I never asked you to prove a negative.

I simply asked you what problems you have with evolution (natural selection)

yes you did, and I have no problems with Natural Selection or the myth of it being used as a mechanism for evolution

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Of course he did, ha ha ha it is what Atheists do when they don't have anything substantive to say. They ridicule it.

That doesn't mean he had anything else to offer. Most of his books are if not all, make for talking points and garbage people like those who need one liners to occupy there time when writing to bloggers.

I've only read "The God Delusion".
But you don't seem to know much about his style.
Perhaps you should read "The God Delusion". You would then at least have a basic understanding of evolution and why the arguments you make against abiogenesis and evolution are so ridiculous.
You know, if you want to be taken seriously as a Creationist, you might want to 'know thy enemy' instead of making stuff up .

Originally posted by TruthParadox
reply to post by vasaga

 

I can't watch it (dial up)

.
What does he say?

Just read the description of the video which says:

Richard Dawkins admits the mathmatical possibility of God... making him an Agnostic -- not an Atheist. He also allows for Intelligent Design as long as we are looking for evidence of alien designers (not God).

First of all, knowing that there's a possibility of a god does not make you agnostic. If you don't believe in a god, you are an atheist.
Secondly, the writer (whoever he may be) says that Dawkins "allows for Intelligent Design"...
That's a far cry from what you said:

Oh really.. Well even Richard Dawkins admitted intelligent design is probably right

Dawkins knows that intelligent design creates a bigger problem- as whoever designed us would have to be more intelligent.
So who intelligently designed the intelligent designers?
Of course no one worries about that question - they (or he) simply poofed into existence.
Now that's using the ol' noggin'...

[edit on 4-1-2009 by TruthParadox]

If Atheism is the default position. It does not need to be proven because it has made no claim that needs to be proven. As said before, I agree with Sam Harris , the fact there is even a word to describe that does it a disservice since we really have to assume that anyone arguing the Dawkins version of atheism is talking about the assertion, "there is no god", it is incumbent on such atheists to defend that position because they are, in fact, making a claim.

That's because religious people posit the existance of their gods as scientific reality so Dawkins debates the god concept on that basis. Is it sophistry is claiming that a god can 'exist' in a non-scientific way?

Now THIS is the part I find as Proof Dawkins isn't Scientific at all but GUILTY of his own a priori filters using his own brand of Bias his own,, what us commoners simply put as BS without all the extraneuous metaphysical mumbo jumbo or Pseudo Scientific Scat when he or numeruous other Atheists use the words Sceince and Scientists synonymously with Atheists and Atheism.

"We atheists are more than happy to leave that brand of fantasy to the theologians."

This albeit suggests Dawkins only cares about the claims religious people IE (Creationists) make about reality.

BUT it is HIS Reality and not Science's opinion that a Science with that has Religious implications is in and of itself "Religious", when ever he uses that freudian slip using the word Atheist where the word Science or Scientists should be, displays his inability to separate the two ideologies and where I get the idea that Evolution is nothting but the anti theology of Christianity or just another "type" of religion a Scientism and in so doing is as guilty of using the excuse Atheists use to keep ID out of Science saying it isn't Science it is just really religion.

Evolution isn't science it is just Atheism dressed up as a Scientific excuse to explain away God.

They may say they don't have to explain away God because he doesn't exist and it is Religion that makes the claim there is a God so they have the burden to prove one. Lets be clear here because it isn't "Science" Making the claim their is no God, it is Atheists.

Atheists like to posit themselves as the "default" belief The problem with this standpoint is that in these discussions, the term "atheism" refers to "the belief that there is no god". That being the case, "atheism" cannot be seen as a default position that is making no claim, because it most certainly IS making a claim: that there is no god.

The Theism Atheism argument is lost in there own muddying of the waters so for the sake of argument Ill just use Theism as Pro Theism or "Pro God" and A-theism as Con against God.

Like theism, it's a claim that cannot logically be proven doesn't stop it from being a claim. No Atheist if he is honestly scientific, will say, it is a fact their is no God but a "belief" If, "atheism" is taken to mean, simply, "a lack of belief in god", then that's a claim that doesn't need to be proven.

The fact that it doesn't need to be proven however, is the very REASON Atheism or lack of belief renders it irrelevant to these debates: Atheism is a belief a position an opinion but NOT a Scientific claim. Atheism is an opinion, not based on Scientific facts their is no God but on Scientific facts unrelated to, NOT the question of, "IS there a God" but to How things came into existence. They then see this as being unrelated to God must mean NO GOD. Be that as it may, to the believer this would mean "How God did it" what methods and steps he used to get things done this is neither here nor there however so getting back on track. This is one of the reasons you don't find people who do not believe in such things, in the threads where they are talked about.

It is also one of the reasons most of us don't subscribe to the national enquirer for factual information.

Oh sure you will find those that will argue Dr Phil is getting a Divorce because the enquirer says so and then you will get those that will argue that is a load of crap. Me Ill just mind my own business in that regard or,, I can do the smart thing if he thinks it is any of my business,

Ill ask Dr Phil.

Dawkins position on this particular point is consistent with rationality. However, it is unscientific to argue that there is a 100% chance of the non-existence of a God or, flying tea pots or sky fairies, or flying spaghetti monsters, etc.

Using an analogy of say the e-coli bacterium in a petri dish in a science lab. The Bacterioum has no possible way of comprehending that its very existence, life, and death is being controlled by and at the whim of a being that is, as far as it's concerned, omnipotent.

Likewise, even though Dawkins believes it is quite astonishingly improbable, it is not impossible that a similar being (or beings, or force, or whatever) is in a similar position with respect to humanity.

All Dawkins is saying is the logical existence of that possibility, is unlikely and he's right to cast that aside to hold a position based not on a rational argument

but on faith.

As we see here and again it is much like the arguments between readers and believers in the National Enquirer, and readers of the Bible. I'd like to say on this occasion I mind my own business but I don't. I did the smart thing in this case because I felt it was my business to ask. So I did.


I asked God

The answer I got is this, That if I didn't already know the answer to this, I would have never thought of asking the question.

Yea there is NO question God exists.

if he didn't I wouldn't have asked him and got my answer

would I.

One can only be fooling themselves so the argument goes back to square one, who is the fool then. Well it sure isn't going to be me again. God already told me how foolish I was for asking the first time, I think asking another stupid question will just start to piss him off but the only dumb question is the one that goes un-asked and I DID ask and I GOT my answer!

Yes! Yes I did!

Praise God!

The only Dumb Answer is the one you'll never know because the only dumb question is to the one that goes unasked.

Atheism is living in the answer to the question asked and answered but not believed because Atheist's know better than God and is why the letter A before Theist is there.

It is ARROGANCE Angst aggression of God.

Atheists like Dawkins make lousy Scientists but great zoo keepers I wonder what Dawkins will say when he sets out to prove God didn't fashion man from the earth, and God says,


"Use your own dirt."