Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

Originally posted by melatonin

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...

5 years? a labotomy would have been much faster he would probabily make more sense and drool less too



[edit on 5/1/09 by noobfun]

Well after reading whats on this site en.wikipedia.org... i read nothing but assumptions upon assumptions. Here you read about scientist who dream up a environment they have no evidence of at all that ever had existed. They just assume things so they can make the cabal fall into pieces. What a joke.


And you can also find this on that link ass well. How is this for a fact.

Origin of organic molecules
There are two possible sources of organic molecules on the early Earth:

Terrestrial origins - organic synthesis driven by impact shocks or by other energy sources (such as ultraviolet light or electrical discharges) (eg.Miller's experiments)
Extraterrestrial origins - delivery by objects (eg carbonaceous chondrites) or gravitational attraction of organic molecules or primitive life-forms from space
Recently estimates of these sources suggest that the heavy bombardment before 3.5 Gyr ago within the early atmosphere made available quantities of organics comparable to those produced by other energy sources

Man you have to be bribed to believe in this stuff.

[edit on 27.06.08 by spy66]

reply to post by spy66


your funny, you do realise wiki isnt exactly the highet of scienctific breakthrough?

this is real science done in real labs and has been tested by other labs with the same results ^_^

i guess its not as funny as you think it is when it works

www.aaas.org...
www.gordonresearch.com...
biocurious.com...
genetics.mgh.harvard.edu...

and becasue you probabily wont read any of it heres a nice little simple video showing what they have done



[edit on 5/1/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by TruthParadox
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.

Do I have to prove who started this the same way I had to prove you were not sure how to spell intelligent? Please show me the quote where I asked anyone to prove God doesn't exist. This I would love to hear. Oh and make sure it is not in response in anyway of someone else making said claim. I have been at this kind of thing far too long to say anything like that.

You say the burden of proof is only about proving something and not disproving something? Please show me where I am not trying to prove something and then when someone disproves something how is that wrong? Have you never heard of a defense attorney? Tell me what do they do? I know what the burden of proof is and depending on which one you are talking about, the one used in science or court of law where it is the accuser that has the burden and if I am being accused of belief in God, then their is no burden, I am guilty. Now this thread is about evolution being debunked which is our burden to disprove and it HAS been

Once Again

with respect to my reading comprehension and to whose intelligence I was allegedly insulting,, I would have thought the same thing, unless of course you think he was using the word "others intelligence" to mean ?? Who??

is that guy the spokesperson for all of you here and how would he know whose intelligence got insulted? Is he a mind reader? is he the social conscience of ATS? I assumed he was not so who else would he have been talking about!

yeah,, uh huh

reply to post by Aermacchi


Blah blah, attack attack, blah blah.

That's you in a nut shell. You don't discuss anything, you deflect, insult, deflect again, then insult.

Look back on your past 10 posts on this thread. Not one link, not one shred of evidence (except maybe the old, "here's a link, go do my research for me").

The mods could delete every one of your posts off of this thread and it wouldn't make a difference (except make it better).

Originally posted by Irish M1ck

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).

Ha ha if you are glad I follow your posts so closely knowing just what meaning to take out of them for context sake how do I seem to do that without knowing what "meaning" they may or may not have had mick?

YOU WERE INSULTING what more meaning do I need?

I can defend every message you posted:

Of course you can

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.

Oh I see, I made you do it. I told you you were stupid? Please copy paste the exact quote of me calling you stupid.

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..

You misunderstand mick, it is YOU who is being the mudslinger so am I to understand that your sources are bunk as you have said here?

Garbage in, Garbage out.

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)..

All racists? what about YOUR OWN BIGOTRY and intolerance TOWARDS Christians or is that another excuse you will use that they are also so again "we made you be that way"?

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

what difference does it make mick?

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 see

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..

That wasn't the point mick

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..

And you are the biggest one of all and your bigotry is as bad as any I have seen towards race YOU have for Christians.

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")..

Oh I see you make up the rules as you go offering cheap excuses for yourself when you do it and you do it OFTEN.

Like I said a third time now Mick,, you are exactly what you so despise in others and THAT is undeniable

Originally posted by Aermacchi
Do I have to prove who started this the same way I had to prove you were not sure how to spell intelligent?

I knew how to spell intelligent and still do .

You started the discussion about the burdon of proof on page 24.
I was simply pointing out that the burdon of proof does not lie on the atheist but on the theist.
If you agree with that then great, let's put the argument to rest.

Originally posted by Aermacchi
with respect to my reading comprehension and to whose intelligence I was allegedly insulting,, I would have thought the same thing, unless of course you think he was using the word "others intelligence" to mean ?? Who??

is that guy the spokesperson for all of you here and how would he know whose intelligence got insulted? Is he a mind reader? is he the social conscience of ATS? I assumed he was not so who else would he have been talking about!

yeah,, uh huh

lol why would he need to be a mind reader? Anyone can plainly see your insults throughout the past few pages.

Originally posted by Irish M1ck
reply to post by Aermacchi

 

Blah blah, attack attack, blah blah.

That's you in a nut shell. You don't discuss anything, you deflect, insult, deflect again, then insult.

Look back on your past 10 posts on this thread. Not one link, not one shred of evidence (except maybe the old, "here's a link, go do my research for me").

The mods could delete every one of your posts off of this thread and it wouldn't make a difference (except make it better).

I seem to be always DEFENDING MYSELF from YOUR attacks Mick with me proving those I have accused you of.

You accuse me of not showing any evidence for anything. How bout we make a little wager here and Ill bet I have shown more links to more then YOU have here. Again you make accusations that are baseless and are guilty of the same things you are accusing

reply to post by Aermacchi


I have already addressed this. If you want to attack me personally, create a thread somewhere or take it to private messages.

I will not participate further with your derailing of this thread, and I hope everyone else does the same.

Do you have anything to do with this thread to bring to the table? If not, quit posting. If you want to discuss me, there are other options, and I am more than happy to find a way for you to critique me, and for me to continue defending against your baseless claims.

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

reply to post by Aermacchi


I have been here trying to get this thread back on track. I have continuously asked you to provide the problems you find in natural selection and evolution, and as far as I am aware, the only thing you have done to respond is attack me and then post a link (forcing me to do your research for you).

I may not have posted links, but I have argued some points with common knowledge and other resources. I don't just read online, I also read books, so I don't necessarily have to post links to everything.

Again, considering this thread is called, "Evolution Officially Debunked", and I am here saying, "Prove it", if you want to keep on the subject of the thread:

Prove it!

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

I don't see why both can't be right, evolution and creationism, a creature, similar to the monkey, was created, and it evolved into modern day man, i mean, come on, its not a totally bad idea, although i suppose if god created man in his own image does that make god a monkey?

reply to post by woogleuk


Thinking that those two concepts in their current state are the only ones possible is just wrong...

reply to post by vasaga


id agree

we came from proto-apes and before that prosimians(or somthing very much like it) not what is today deffined as a monkey, and if we were made in gods image we would be invisible

[edit on 6/1/09 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun
reply to post by vasaga

 

id agree

we came from proto-apes not what is today deffined as a monkey, and if we were made in gods image we would be invisible

Thanks to Jesus then for deordorant!

OT

reply to post by OldThinker

you dont want to know the mental image reading that conjured up

OT! stop derailing the thread and making me think blasphemous thoughts your supposed to be saving my soul not making it worse

reply to post by noobfun



OK, sorry...just thought a little sporatic humor might improve the milieu...it got intense...I'll be good from now on...sorry.

OT