Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

reply to post by Aermacchi




Anyone else get the suspicion this guy really doesn't like me? Well, I can say that I am glad that you follow my posts so closely. Perhaps one day, you'll remove the blinding veil you wear and actually read my posts for their meaning (instead of removing context).

I can defend every message you posted:

not all of us were home schooled or went to private Catholics schools to be indoctrinated with fairy tales.

Yes, after you basically accused me of being stupid for going to public school, I responded in kind by letting you know that being indoctrinated with religious fairy tales is certainly a no better fate.

They will continue to sit here and argue a dead topic until another
blog posts up more crap. Then they'll come here, post it, and talk
about that useless piece of garbage for another week or so until
the next piece gets put out. It's a vicious cycle of false news and
dumb people.

Correct. Mudslingers do not care where they get their sources from (see below comment about the Globe that you took out of context). They will find one blog with "damning" information. The information turns out false. They argue for a bit more, then the next piece of false information comes on, they forget all the other crap that they've posted to that point, and start posting more.

Garbage in, Garbage out.

You are less American than those who bombed the twin towers.
You ruin what is a great country with your ignorance and hate.

Yes, I think racists ruin America and are no better than terrorists (that post was not aimed at one person in particular, it was aimed at all racists).

What are you then, an ObamaHaterBot? Why are you still allowed to post here?

Obamahaterbot. Do you think I made that up, or do you suppose it was in response to someone calling me an Obamabot?

It was clearly sarcastic.

I can't stop laughing at you people. Jesus. I'd rather you post a

blog. Seriously guys. Stop. My stomach hurts from laughing this hard. To me, this sums up the entire issue. Uninformed people using unreliable sources to base their argument*.

This is the other one I was talking about. Someone posted up an article from the Globe (basically a magazine blog), and touted it as evidence.

It's definitely an moment.

I am all for gene therapy and getting rid of certain genetic
traits. I am also for forcibly stopping people from having so many
children.

Correct, I think there are some genes that are terrible (such as genetic diseases that are passed down, and possibly addiction centers of the brain, and so on). Also, I think we have reached the point where it is obvious that the planet is over populated.

We are literally polluting this world with kids - and many
times kids with bad genes. I don't know that I am all for killing, that seems pretty brutal and unnecessary. There are plenty of other reasonable means of helping develop a better gene pool.

Again, if you leave it in context, I am clearly saying that we basically just need to have less kids. Though it is nice for you to remove the context, I was also obviously saying that I am not for killing and that it is brutal (hence why I said I don't know that I am for it, and it seems brutal).

You're crazy. (ad-hom?) You throw around accusations you can't
back up and/or are stupid - like graduating cum laude isn't an
honor. I did enjoy how you danced around my question, though.
Anyway, you can keep slinging mud. You can back it up with
nothing, and I'll just continue to laugh at you, or you can back it up
with sketchy sources, and I'll continue to embarrass you by using
real ones.

What can I say? I don't like mudslingers. I don't like racist people who use false info, like graduating cum laude (especially from a prestigous university) is not an achievement.


Again, the subject of me is not on trial. In fact, if you want to create an entire thread about me and my posts, I would be more than happy to agree to the mods that it is fine with me. I have no issues with defending myself, nor do I care if others want to question my motives or opinions.

However, that is not what this thread is about. It is clearly about the subject of evolution, and you have failed miserably at staying on target. Please refrain from personal attacks, again, unless you want to create a thread for it (which again, I am more than happy to agree to).

Perhaps you should worry more about yourself, and your own lack of valid opinions, than on me.

By the way, "leaving articles for someone to read" is not a rebuttal. That is lazy argument at best, and an insult to scholars who actually do their own research.

Read your own material, brush up on your own arguments. I will not do your arguing for you.

*Edit to add:

Notice that even in the posts where I did throw in an ad hom, I then backed it up with some sort of opinion or reason. I didn't just attack (or post a link and say "here read this because I am too lazy to do it myself").

[edit on 1/5/2009 by Irish M1ck]

Man are you people still going on with this stuff. How can you argue one religion against another.

I have still not seen one person on this topic who can prove that dead matter from the Big Bang could produce life of any kind. Only life can create life so how did that happen.

reply to post by Aermacchi


First off.. Learn how to post..
If you plan on insulting others intelligence, I suggest you take a look into this here!!

Splendid! Then I won't be expecting anymore from you as I refuse to respond to someone who gives me their word and doesn't stick to it.

Haha, a bait move! Nice man, not very clever however..
You sure are making yourself a bunch of friends on here..

Good luck with that!

[edit on 5-1-2009 by zysin5]

reply to post by spy66


That's explained by the anthropic principle.

1

In physics and cosmology, the anthropic principle is the collective name for several ways of asserting that physical and chemical theories, especially astrophysics and cosmology, need to take into account that there is life on Earth, and that one form of that life, Homo sapiens, has attained intelligence. The only kind of universe humans can occupy is one that is similar to the current one.

No matter how improbable life may seem, the large numbers of ripe opportunity are stacked up which help cope with the odds. For instance, life only had to spark once. So while the odds may be high, it only had to happen once, and it only had to happen on one planet out of trillions of billions of planets. So if life is one in a trillion, that still leaves about a billion planets it could have started on.

Well that or some guy in the sky said, "Let there be life".

[edit on 1/5/2009 by Irish M1ck]

reply to post by TruthParadox


Having no proof does not mean it is not there. That's like saying i never saw the deepest point in the ocean and therefore it does not exist.

And actually, using logic and the right premises, it can be argued for there to be a God. It can not however be argued that there isn't one.

Originally posted by vasaga
Having no proof does not mean it is not there. That's like saying i never saw the deepest point in the ocean and therefore it does not exist.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - that's just the way it is.
Your example is flawed because it's not extraordinary at all, it's normal.

Originally posted by vasaga
And actually, using logic and the right premises, it can be argued for there to be a God. It can not however be argued that there isn't one.

Even the best argument in favor of a god would still leave an infinite number of possibilities as to what being that would be or even if we could trust him or the way he made us.
You're also wrong that it can't be argued that there isn't a God.
I can take the Bible and show you numerous contradictions in God's own description.

Originally posted by zysin5


First off.. Learn how to post..

If you plan on insulting others intelligence, I suggest you take a look into this here!!

Is it YOUR intelligence I insulted? How so? Please show me how you were injured in anyway

Splendid! Then I won't be expecting anymore from you as I refuse to respond to someone who gives me their word and doesn't stick to it.

Haha, a bait move! Nice man, not very clever however..
You sure are making yourself a bunch of friends on here..

Good luck with that!

[edit on 5-1-2009 by zysin5]

I'm sorry I didn't know I was in a "Popularity contest" if you don't like the way I responded then I suggest you don't respond to me in kind. You can get as dramatic as you would like but my post to you was not insulting I gave you straight responses without a single one of them making an attack on you personally. You just didn't like how I handled them and seeing what you are up to as the setup trap you were in the process of making I had seen given many times before by posters far more clever than you or I.





[edit on 5-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by vasaga
Having no proof does not mean it is not there. That's like saying i never saw the deepest point in the ocean and therefore it does not exist.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - that's just the way it is.
Your example is flawed because it's not extraordinary at all, it's normal.

Originally posted by vasaga
And actually, using logic and the right premises, it can be argued for there to be a God. It can not however be argued that there isn't one.

Even the best argument in favor of a god would still leave an infinite number of possibilities as to what being that would be or even if we could trust him or the way he made us.
You're also wrong that it can't be argued that there isn't a God.
I can take the Bible and show you numerous contradictions in God's own description.

I am not here to discuss my belief I am here supoorting the title of this thread and my religion if I have one at all is none of your business. My belief in God has no extraordinary circumstances either. If you have not heard many many millions will testify to the knowing of God and that far out numbers those making what is an extraordinary claim they know him not. But besides that,, this ain't no court of law and this ain't no debate between two scientists so your claim to what is or what is not extraordinary I suppose would get knocked out the same way it did when Prof. Lennox shut dawkins out in the debate they had.

Sorry kid but

you lose

PS: please inform Mick I have listed him on my ignore, that is all.

*Yawn*

[edit on 5-1-2009 by Aermacchi]

reply to post by Aermacchi


lol, you're the one that started this, saying that atheists are the one's claiming there is no God and therefore need to prove it.
We can't prove a negative.
The burdon of proof lies on the person trying to prove something not disprove something which can't be disproven.
You have no evidence, only (as you said) the millions of people who are likewise fooled into believing an ancient religion which should have died years ago.
This back and forth is getting pretty old - especially when you're not even seeing the points I'm making.

reply to post by Irish M1ck


Yeah i would rather go for let there be life

Origin of Life - Origin of Species and Modern Day Science Class

Spontaneous Generation was disproved as the Origin of Life in 1859. Ironically, it was this same year that Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published.
From this work arose the modern evolutionary movement, which is now thought to have occurred in six phases:
(1) Cosmic Evolution (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from nothing);
(2) Chemical Evolution (the development of the higher elements from hydrogen);
(3) Stellar and Planetary Evolution (the origin of stars and planets);
(4) Organic Evolution (the origin of organic life from a rock);
(5) Macro Evolution (the origin of major kinds); and
(6) Micro Evolution (the variation within the kinds).

source

Are you a victim of this to

Astrophysicist, Sir Fred Hoyle and his colleague Chandra Wickramasinghe argued chance processes could not have formed the biochemical machinery of the cell, especially the enzymes. In their book, "Evolution from Space," they estimated the probability of forming a single enzyme of protein at random, in the rich ocean of amino acids, was no more than 10 to the 20th power. They then calculated the likelihood of forming by chance all of the more than 2000 enzymes used in the life forms on earth. This probability was calculated at one in 10 to the 40,000th power.

A vivid analogy from Hoyle became a well-known cliché. "Belief in chemical evolution of the first cell from lifeless chemicals is equivalent to believing that a tornado could sweep through a junkyard and form a Boeing 747."

source

Mod Edit: New External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 5-1-2009 by GAOTU789]

reply to post by spy66


lol, what's with creationists and plagiarism?

At least change a few words, even the most dishonest and idiotic of university students learn that trick. Indeed, some are tricksy little barstools. Straight c&p is just so high school-style.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by melatonin]

Vaga, can you see where I insulted this guy? He says I insulted his intelligence. Here is a "blow by blow" of it.

My commentary will be in the italics

Originally posted by Aermacchi

Originally posted by zysin5


Greetings! Can you please enlighten me upon what you belive is to be your own personal truth on this one matter.

ok (Wow I see where I went wrong )

Dinosaur fossils. And how did they get here.

ok (AGAIN OUCH! )

Do you feel it was God who put them there?

I don't feel that way no (YIKES! I REALLY LAID INTO THE GUY DIDNT I)

Or was it the devil?

I don't "feel" that way either. ( Oh My I am so bad)

When considering what the bible says, then these fossils can't be more than a few thosand years old.

Where does the bible say anywhere what the cap is on carbon dating of fossils? ( an HONEST QUESTION to an obvious setup as old as the hills but us dumb religious folk are too stupid about)

Thats all I would like to know..

Splendid! Then I won't be expecting anymore from you as I refuse to respond to someone who gives me their word and doesn't stick to it.

//end

You get the point I am sure and it isn't a coincedence these three are always showing up at the same time to blitz us in a tag team styled attack either. If this guy had his intelligence insulted I really don't see how.

1) First I have no idea he has any yet but I am getting a clue one way or the other and Ill leave it up to your imagination as to what that answer is.

2) Can you imagine if MICK posted to this guy!!!! HA HA He would be hitting the alert with indignant alarm OMG! OMG!

Oh well,, just wanted to show you what all the fuss was about.


Mod Edit: fixed quote tags

[edit on 5-1-2009 by GAOTU789]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Wow. Reading comprehension, much?
He said:

Originally posted by zysin5
If you plan on insulting others intelligence

He never said you insulted his intelligence, he clearly saw how you insulted others intelligence - including your own, I might add, as you seem to miss the arguments made by myself and others and instead use the ol' insults.
This says little of your intelligence.

reply to post by TruthParadox


Thanks for picking up on that. Being able to read and understand is a big help when dealing with online forums.

I have no beef here.. Its just all to easy really. Talking to these kind of folks about the same old dusty questions never ceases to amaze me.
They never answer me!!

So let me leave you with a golden oldie! You know for the sake of a laugh
Warning video contains strong language

ok

[edit on 5-1-2009 by zysin5]

Originally posted by melatonin
reply to post by spy66

 

lol, what's with creationists and plagiarism?

At least change a few words, even the most dishonest and idiotic of university students learn that trick. Indeed, some are tricksy little barstools. Straight c&p is just so high school-style.

[edit on 5-1-2009 by melatonin]

Don't reveal to much of your insight it might tell us more about you then you would like others to know.

Originally posted by TruthParadox

Originally posted by vasaga
Having no proof does not mean it is not there. That's like saying i never saw the deepest point in the ocean and therefore it does not exist.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence - that's just the way it is.
Your example is flawed because it's not extraordinary at all, it's normal.

Originally posted by vasaga
And actually, using logic and the right premises, it can be argued for there to be a God. It can not however be argued that there isn't one.

Even the best argument in favor of a god would still leave an infinite number of possibilities as to what being that would be or even if we could trust him or the way he made us.
You're also wrong that it can't be argued that there isn't a God.
I can take the Bible and show you numerous contradictions in God's own description.

*sigh* I wouldn't even have to use the bible. And uh.. Extraordinary claims WITH evidence are always rejected anyway... Until that person has been dead for 100 years and they acknowledge.. Oh he was right.. Damn.. Doesn't matter he's dead now, so i can claim the prize. And you have a lot of nerve trying to say what is extraordinary and what is normal. You act like that is the same for everyone, but it isn't. Can you imagine people never eating a burger and seeing it as extraordinary? No? Well guess what, there's a whole website by burger king based on that with a video. Not everything is as black and white is you want them to be, and that's the whole reason i usually think that both atheists and blind religious persons are just sheep.

Originally posted by spy66
Don't reveal to much of your insight it might tell us more about you then you would like others to know.

Nothing to do with insight. I'm just well-trained to pick out plagiarism, and your post is full of cheesy cheato-goodness. Glad to see you do know how to use external quotes, but conveniently forget when.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by spy66
Don't reveal to much of your insight it might tell us more about you then you would like others to know.

Nothing to do with insight. I'm just well-trained to pick out plagiarism, and your post is full of cheesy cheato-goodness. Glad to see you do know how to use external quotes, but conveniently forget when.

Your right it is a quote from a other source so what. It doesn't make the objective less true!

Cant you handle that!

That's to bad for you. That's not my problem that's your problem you have to fix your own issues.

www.allaboutphilosophy.org...



[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

Originally posted by spy66
Your right it is a quote from a other source so what.

It's bad sport.

Cant you handle that!

Nah, I probably can.

That's to bad for you. That's not my problem that's your problem you have to fix your own issues.

www.allaboutphilosophy.org...

Thanks for the lulz. It took him five years to embrace willful ignorance, many don't even need to try. Don't know why he's so chuffed...

linky

[edit on 5-1-2009 by melatonin]

Originally posted by spy66

Yeah i would rather go for let there be life

its easy and requires no research or even thinking about ..... i can see why its appealing to SOME people

Spontaneous Generation was disproved as the Origin of Life in 1859. Ironically, it was this same year that Charles Darwin's Origin of Species was published.

congratulations but spontaeous generation is not the same as abiogenesis, thats like saying becasue i looked under my bed and there was no imaginary monster whales do not exist

or saying because my car is not red then there are no airplanes anywhere

spontaneous generation and abiogenesis are two different things, if you want to point and laugh at an absurd idea thats been proven wrong years ago ill be happy to join in as long your not getting confused and talking about somthing ENTIERLY different

From this work arose the modern evolutionary movement, which is now thought to have occurred in six phases:

no it isnt, evolutionary thory is evolutionary theory, big bang hypothesis is big bang hypothesis, massive impact hypothesis is massive impact hypothesis

they only ones who think like your suggesting are creationists (maybe think is to strong a word)

Only the sixth phase has been observed and documented.

wrong wrong wrongy wrong ^_^ how would you even know if they have been observed or not as you dont sem to know what they are in first place

i corrected your badly copy pasted and uncreditted plagerism hope you dont mind

1) Big bang thoery (the origin of space, time, matter and energy from a singularity); not directly observed but vast amounts of evidence(much observed) pointing to this conclusion

(2) Astro physics "star fussion" (the development of the higher elements from hydrogen through nuclear fission) Observed and modeled both mathematically and computer simulation and observed every time a nuclear weapon is detonated

3) Astro physics (the origin of stars and planets); Observed and tested with computer simulations

(4) Abiogenesis (organic compound forming organic sturctures leading to self enclosed systems of organic chemistry and self replicating molecules) OBSERVED (many but not all stages)

(5) Macro Evolution (genetic level alterations leading to change at or above the species level) OBSERVED

(6) Micro Evolution (genetic level mutation below species level) OBSERVED

The sadly comical result is that some modern day textbooks devote a chapter to the work of Francesco Redi and Louis Pasteur, and their success in disproving Spontaneous Generation. Then, a few chapters later, school kids are taught that Spontaneous Generation is the Origin of Life.

the sadly comical fact is you dont know enough about either of them to tell them apart

thats like mistaking a boeing 747 for a little red push bike with a bell and a basket

Are you a victim of this to

poor use of probability leading from a misuse to calculate the probability for a spontaneous apperance as opposed to what it really is a cumulative process using low odd variables that dont get stacked as they are each different probability calculations

it seems your more the vidtim of that then us, you believe it

[edit on 5/1/09 by noobfun]