Evolution, It's only a theory

reply to post by Aermacchi


Exact quote:

Yeah I kinda figured that noob needed someone to troll me and I am flattered but I don't need anyone swinging from my vas defrens son.

Here is the complete entry:

Originally posted by griffinrl
reply to post by Aermacchi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Where did I ever say I was an atheist? Please point to your sources or we can just add another add-hom to you list

And please be aware...I'm not here because of noob. I'm here because of YOU

[edit on 27-2-2009 by griffinrl]



Yeah I kinda figured that noob needed someone to troll me and I am flattered but I don't need anyone swinging from my vas defrens son.

You ain't atheist? HA HA HA HA lemme guess Agnostic? same thing

Buddhist? same thing

Darwinist?

Ok now that would make you a religious kid

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And here's the link the the thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Loser and liar. A worthless troll who hijacked a thread and basically ruined it. I'm a liar? I just copied and pasted your own words loser. Now go ahead and edit the entry. I have a nice screenshot of it though.

Originally posted by jfj123

Actually I didn't and apparently you missed the point too. Also not surprised.

yes you did actually.

Someone was murdered? maybe not, see that's your first mistake.

I didn't realize that I had to put an entire sample case out there just to make a simple analogy. Let's say the man has 97 stab wounds, 16 gunshot wounds, was hung and taken down then moved from the crime scene to the bodies current location, was choked, strangled, had his throat slit, was injected with poison, beaten, and decapitated then finally buried in a shallow grave. A note was left at the crime scene by the killer who wrote, "I killed him but you'll never catch me. hahahahahahha."
Do you think he committed suicide?

It’s very possible.

Since it was my analogy and not yours and I said he was murdered, you can just assume that he's been murdered. Since you've decided to make my analogy yours and change it, I changed it back. He died from the above listed wounds.

You still can’t prove he was murdered, even with all of that “evidence”.

Once again, since I made the analogy, and stated he was murdered, you should have known he was murdered. When you make up an analogy, we'll go by your rules OK?

reality doesn’t work that way. You can’t just state that someone was murdered and it is so. The same way you can’t state that something happens and it is so.

1. a murder was committed.
2. Someone committed the murder.

You see, number one would have to be true for number 2 to be true. That’s where you’re getting ahead of yourself.

So based on your standard, without absolute proof, nothing is certain.
You can't prove you exist

No, poor choice; in fact, proving that you exist to your self is the only thing that you can prove absolutely. Besides that, things that can be readily tested and observed countless times can be accepted as “truths” to a certain extent, but never absolutely.

So with your same logic, we should release every criminal in the world. You're ok with this?

No, but we should release most of them. I’d be fine with it. Many innocent people spend their entire lives in a cage.

That's your logic

Maybe they can come live with you since you

What?

The reality is, you don't need every piece of the puzzle to know what the overall puzzle looks like. Let's say you you put 80% of a puzzle together and you know by that 80% that the picture is of vangough's Starry Night. Now lets say you pick up one puzzle piece that accidentally ended up in the wrong box and you can't fit it into the current puzzle. By your standards, you must throw the whole puzzle out and it can no longer be vangough's Starry Night.

that’s different because it is accepted that starry night exists. I can go to a museum right now and look at it. I could rip it, I could burn it, and it is there. But the murderer in your analogy and macro-evolution, there’s no readily tested and observable evidence that prove either exist or ever did.

Of course this is going to be wrong too.

Yes, because your argument is ridiculous. No matter how many different times you try to convince someone an apple is an orange, it simply is not so.

It's more important for creationists to pick apart a simple analogy then it is to actually prove their point by showing evidence in support of creationism.

Wrong again.

ALL THESE PAGES AND NOBODY HAS POSTED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CREATIONISM

Who’s advocating creationism? I’m simply opposing arrogant people who claim to know more than they possible can.

[edit on 3/5/2009 by JPhish]

reply to post by Aermacchi


Find one fundie mocking tag teaming thread of mine.

Originally posted by skeptic_al
reply to post by jfj123

 

This whole Ark thing is a good childrens story.
There is a sad part where the world is going end.
There is a good part where animals must get along together and of
course their in pairs, just like mommy and daddy.
And theres the happy ending where every body lives happy ever after.

Unfortunatly some Adults can't separate a Childrems Story from reality.

Two of each animal, come on. You would need something the size of the
QE2 just to store the Food. Unless they were really really into recycling.
The logistics for this would be astronomical

I can write a similar fairy tale about evolution but one condescending idiotic attempt to disparage a religion is enough.

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by jfj123

 

Well, that's what all ships were built from for thousands of years. They carried a lot of cargo all over the globe.

They didn't carry 3 billion animals plus the food

We know very little if anything about the ship building technology of Noah's time, except for what we read in scripture, and the size of that barge is possible when you consider that trees could well have been a six hundred feet tall.

Again, wooden structures cannot support their own weight after a certain point. A boat of the size required is not possible to build with wood.
As example, you'll notice that skyscrapers are not built with wood supports.

It just didn't happen. SORRY

Originally posted by Aermacchi

I spent 6 years in the Military and The last day of my enlistment I flew off that carrier and looked down at the Carrier made of steel with all that heavey equipment on it and I knew then an ark would have been no problem at all when it comes to getting it to float.

AGAIN, you cannot use wood to build structures of unlimited size because at a certain point, they CANNOT SUPPORT THEMSELVES due to weight vs structural support.
It's not possible to build a boat with with wood to the size needed to support itself, withstand the seas, hold the weight of all the animals and all the food. NOT POSSIBLE WITH WOOD.
we're talking about 3 billion animals on a boat. Do you honestly believe a boat made of wood could hold 3 billion animals, food for them, people, etc.. ?????

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by jfj123

 

Well, that's what all ships were built from for thousands of years. They carried a lot of cargo all over the globe.

They didn't carry 3 billion animals plus the food

We know very little if anything about the ship building technology of Noah's time, except for what we read in scripture, and the size of that barge is possible when you consider that trees could well have been a six hundred feet tall.

Again, wooden structures cannot support their own weight after a certain point. A boat of the size required is not possible to build with wood.
As example, you'll notice that skyscrapers are not built with wood supports.

It just didn't happen. SORRY

Yes it is possible.

Again, have you researched this?

en.wikipedia.org...
The Tessarakonteres (420 feet long, and recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities),[65][66] remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Flood-apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.

Not to mention other historical ships like the Syracusia, the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, Caligula's Giant Ship, Caligula's Nemi Ships, etc...

Also, they only had to carry every "type" of animal, then maybe the animals "evolved" from there, right? right?


[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

reply to post by jfj123


Three billion animals. Where do you get that figure?
Some experts say only 35,000 individual animals needed to go in the ark.
Educate yourself here:

christiananswers.net...

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Yes it is possible.

Again, have you researched this?

en.wikipedia.org...
The Tessarakonteres (420 feet long, and recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities),[65][66] remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Flood-apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.

Not to mention other historical ships like the Syracusia, the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, Caligula's Giant Ship, Caligula's Nemi Ships, etc...

Also, they only had to carry every "type" of animal, then maybe the animals "evolved" from there, right? right?

[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

How many animals could have fit on the largest of these ships? including food for the animals, crew, crew quarters, waste management, etc..

So how many animals could have fit on the largest known wooden vessel?

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by jfj123

 

Three billion animals. Where do you get that figure?
Some experts say only 35,000 individual animals needed to go in the ark.
Educate yourself here:

christiananswers.net...

I already posted this information.
There are approx. 3-30 million species on earth.
lets use 3 million, the low number.
Now we need a healthy breeding population so let's use 1000 animals for each species. Very conservative. obviously 500 males and 500 females non-related
3 million x 1000 = 3 billion animals.

reply to post by jfj123


Read the pages I link to, your figures are all wrong and very unreasonable.

christiananswers.net...

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.

Yes it is possible.

Again, have you researched this?

en.wikipedia.org...
The Tessarakonteres (420 feet long, and recognized as a historical vessel by standard historical authorities),[65][66] remained a common point of comparison to the Ark throughout the 19th century among Flood-apologists, naval historians, nautical engineers, and scientific journals.

Not to mention other historical ships like the Syracusia, the giant obelisk barge of Hatshepsut, Caligula's Giant Ship, Caligula's Nemi Ships, etc...

Also, they only had to carry every "type" of animal, then maybe the animals "evolved" from there, right? right?

[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

How many animals could have fit on the largest of these ships? including food for the animals, crew, crew quarters, waste management, etc..

So how many animals could have fit on the largest known wooden vessel?

Let me brush my calculator off and see about that.

I've never tried calculating it for an accepted historical vessel to be honest.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by jfj123

 

Three billion animals. Where do you get that figure?
Some experts say only 35,000 individual animals needed to go in the ark.
Educate yourself here:

christiananswers.net...

I already posted this information.
There are approx. 3-30 million species on earth.
lets use 3 million, the low number.
Now we need a healthy breeding population so let's use 1000 animals for each species. Very conservative. obviously 500 males and 500 females non-related
3 million x 1000 = 3 billion animals.

We must also remember that not all species had to dwell on the ark.

christiananswers.net...
However, the vast majority of these are capable of surviving in water and would not need to be brought aboard the ark. Noah need make no provision for the 21,000 species of fish or the 1,700 tunicates (marine chordates like sea squirts) found throughout the seas of the world, or the 600 echinoderms including star fish and sea urchins, or the 107,000 mollusks such as mussels, clams and oysters, or the 10,000 coelenterates like corals and sea anemones, jelly fish and hydroids or the 5,000 species of sponges, or the 30,000 protozoans, the microscopic single-celled creatures.

In addition, some of the mammals are aquatic. For example, the whales, seals and porpoises. The amphibians need not all have been included, nor all the reptiles, such as sea turtles, and alligators. Moreover, a large number of the arthropods numbering 838,000 species, such as lobsters, shrimp, crabs and water fleas and barnacles are marine creatures. And the insect species among arthropoda are usually very small. Also, many of the 35,000 species of worms as well as many of the insects could have survived outside the Ark.

This eliminates over a million species off the top.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by jfj123

 

Read the pages I link to, your figures are all wrong and very unreasonable.

christiananswers.net...

Or yours are
Can you find a source that isn't the christian answers page?

reply to post by B.A.C.


well what would be the number of species that would be required to be on the ark based on on your calculations?

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by John Matrix
reply to post by jfj123

 

Three billion animals. Where do you get that figure?
Some experts say only 35,000 individual animals needed to go in the ark.
Educate yourself here:

christiananswers.net...

I already posted this information.
There are approx. 3-30 million species on earth.
lets use 3 million, the low number.
Now we need a healthy breeding population so let's use 1000 animals for each species. Very conservative. obviously 500 males and 500 females non-related
3 million x 1000 = 3 billion animals.

A healthy breeding population? According to evolution there is no "healthy breeding population".

Nice point.

Originally posted by B.A.C.

A healthy breeding population? According to evolution there is no "healthy breeding population".

Nice point.

You need genetic diversity to help prevent negative mutations so you need a certain size population for that species to continue existing.

Originally posted by jfj123
reply to post by B.A.C.

 

well what would be the number of species that would be required to be on the ark based on on your calculations?

Like I said I'll have to brush my calculator off, do some research for which species would be required, and then get back to you.

This will take some time.

Unless you want me to just paste something external in here? I'd rather do it myself.

I'll work on this tonight.

Originally posted by jfj123

Originally posted by B.A.C.

A healthy breeding population? According to evolution there is no "healthy breeding population".

Nice point.

You need genetic diversity to help prevent negative mutations so you need a certain size population for that species to continue existing.

You make some good points, then you say stuff like this, that I can use against your own argument.

What I meant was where did this genetic diversity come from in the theory of evolution?

According to evolution there was no certain size population for species to continue existing. According to evolution there is a common ancestor.

Argh. OK let me get to work on the species question.

[edit on 5-3-2009 by B.A.C.]

Where do you draw the line between macro and micro evolution?