why I hate evolution..

reply to post by ElohimJD


No real scientist is an island onto her/himself. There is the wonderful thing of peer review.

Secondly, you are questioning the methods of dating a find. That is not even in question, because I was talking about intermediary species that clearly show the process of evolution. A to B to C ...

One more thing, mr Elohim.

Who uses carbon dating alone anymore?

darwiniana.org...

Modern studies almost always use two or more methods to confirm dating work and to build confidence in the results obtained.

So 17 pages of people trying to argue against evolution using pseudo-science and blatant lies...entertaining

I'd laugh more, but it's actually quite sad and shows how bad the education system really is.

Originally posted by MrXYZ
So 17 pages of people trying to argue against evolution using pseudo-science and blatant lies...entertaining

I'd laugh more, but it's actually quite sad and shows how bad the education system really is.

Naaa i wouldn't be too worried, the ignorant breed is almost reached their 60's, there are few offspring that got indoctrinated but it will be fine, Science survived countless onslaught, everything from now is just weak attacks.

___________________________________

Make your own god, whatever you want it to be. Don't bother following someone else's god, you are just being used and controlled.

reply to post by luciddream


Just read that in my home town (in Switzerland) the latest polls show that now 9 out of 10 people are indicating they're not following a religion. Made me feel very very proud

And no, that doesn't mean people aren't moral there...we a super low crime rate.

reply to post by MrXYZ


What were you hoping for? An informed, evidence-based argument against evolution? We're dealing with creationists, here

Originally posted by john_bmth
reply to post by MrXYZ

 

What were you hoping for? An informed, evidence-based argument against evolution? We're dealing with creationists, here

Originally posted by Anonymous404
One more thing, mr Elohim.

Who uses carbon dating alone anymore?

darwiniana.org...

Modern studies almost always use two or more methods to confirm dating work and to build confidence in the results obtained.

Carbon dating is one method of radiometric dating, and noramly the one most picked on, in fact not many people don't use it anymore, or use it with other radiometric dating, but all other radiometiric dating is suffers simliar issues. The only time radiometric concepts doesn't work is when your talking about pieochrio halos,

Originally posted by MrXYZ
So 17 pages of people trying to argue against evolution using pseudo-science and blatant lies...entertaining

I'd laugh more, but it's actually quite sad and shows how bad the education system really is.

Your argument is everybody agree with you...everybody thought V=ma

reply to post by Tbrooks76


Which is why multiple dating methods are usually employed.

2nd line

reply to post by Tbrooks76


Newton's 2nd Law is a model, just like how relativity is a model and evolution is a model. The fact that relativity explains the "how" for a wider context as well as the "why", it does not mean that Newton's 2nd Law stopped working as a model and locomotives stopped working or that rockets started falling to Earth (not that they were around back then but hey). Newton's 2nd Law is still applied today in every day situations and it works just fine for those situations. You understand this crucial point, yes? So how exactly does this come back to evolution? If anything, you've actually inadvertently strengthened the case for evolution by demonstrating that although a new theory may come along that explains speciation in a wider context (unlikely) or that the theory of evolution may be expanded (almost certainly), the current theory adequately explains speciation and other scientific facts we have observed on Earth to date.

I don't think you meant to do that, did you? Really, if you're going to try and fight science with science, at least understand the science first!

reply to post by Anonymous404


so one flawed method is used to back up another flawed method. Yeah that makes perfect sense.
As for the picture of CMBR, the big bang has a lot opposition and not just creationist. Research at Oxford is question it now.
Ok I’m tired of thread for now, I’m beating a dead horse here, just stay in denial and keep holding up your “Evolution!!!” signs.

Originally posted by Tbrooks76

Originally posted by MrXYZ
So 17 pages of people trying to argue against evolution using pseudo-science and blatant lies...entertaining

I'd laugh more, but it's actually quite sad and shows how bad the education system really is.

Your argument is everybody agree with you...everybody thought V=ma

Einstein's discovery doesn't mean you have to reject Newton fully. Newton's equations are inaccurate in certain limits (high speed, strong gravitational fields, etc.), but under most circumstances they hold. Newton was essentially inaccurate.

But thanks for helping me prove an important point:

Scientists actually figured out and acknowledged where Newton was inaccurate...and they account for those discoveries. Einstein for example used a "frame of reference" to account for the problems Newton's laws face under specific circumstances (light approaching light speed).

On the other hand you have creationists. They have been disproven time and time again, yet will not change their opinion. That silly global flood never happened, and that's a FACT. Yet people still believe a book that clams it did. We also know that at no point in history did only 2 homo sapiens exist. Yet there's still fools taking the bible literally. We also know for a FACT the earth isn't 6,000 years old...but guess what, some uneducated and brainwashed people believe it anyway.

History teaches us that those who ADAPT survive...and those who don't die out. Science is VERY adaptable. The average hypothesis in cosmology for example doesn't even make it for 2 months before someone comes along and debunks it. Scientists LOOOOOOOOOVE to challenge stuff, and they ADAPT their hypotheses and theories every time something new is discovered. Creationists simply don't...which is why the number of believers is gradually shrinking, especially in the western world.

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
Ok I’m tired of thread for now, I’m beating a dead horse here, just stay in denial and keep holding up your “Evolution!!!” signs.

I love this quote so much, it's my new signature.

You know, for the irony.

And since we're talking about flawed things, shall we dissect your sources or are you disappearing before you can cite them?

one last thing before I cut out, I love how the post are dancing around the V=ma thing I wrote this morning, yet nobody is debating the other content, like not getting DNA off those fossils which you all said they did.
BTW V=ma doesn't work at relativistic speeds, that was the debate at the time.

ok yall have fun bashing this post now

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
one last thing before I cut out, I love how the post are dancing around the V=ma thing I wrote this morning, yet nobody is debating the other content, like not getting DNA off those fossils which you all said they did.
BTW V=ma doesn't work at relativistic speeds, that was the debate at the time.

ok yall have fun bashing this post now

DNA analysis fully confirms evolution for millions of years back (over 100mil years back to be exact) as this example clearly shows.

But who gives a rat's ass about facts, right?

You know, the thing that pisses me off isn't that you don't know that. Everyone has stuff they have no clue about, myself included. But you come on here and post complete and utter nonsense and don't even bother to do the slightest bit of research before posting. Even worse, you get all bitchy whenever you're clearly proven wrong. Adapt...learn...don't be ignorant for crying out loud!

reply to post by Tbrooks76


Every argument you have made has been born of ignorance and (quite rightly) have been utterly refuted. You have zero credibility as it is evident to all that you know nothing of evolution (or science at large), yet your persistent attacks are like that of someone repeatedly running into a wall of solid ignorance. Your claims are laughable yet, 17 pages on, you still persist with your childlike attacks against concepts you have not even a tentative grasp on (nor are you even prepared to attempt to grasp them).

I give it a few more pages before the same tired and refuted arguments get rehashed and zombified for another round of wall hitting.

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by iIuminaIi

Originally posted by BagBing

Originally posted by iIuminaIi
Still a "Theory"

Wake me up when the table turns like this - > "Fact Of Evolution"


Well , its only a theory

edit on 19-6-2012 by iIuminaIi because: (no reason given)

Evolution is a fact. Modern evolutionary synthesis is the leading theory which best describes this fact.

What's so hard to understand?

How is it a Fact ? Prove it

Evolution is a fact!

You might not like it because of your religious brainwashing...but that doesn't change the fact that the theory is fact

Evolution as fact and theory ?

Fact and theory are not synonymous , for instance you can't say negative is positive and vice-versa, dodgy weaki's nowadays ! Now imagine a religion whose founder claimed to be a scientist, its holy book a treatise with a supposedly scientific message, and its devotees people who think of themselves as learned. This religion has penetrated into almost every civilization, every school of thought and every ideology; its adherents number in the hundreds of millions. In every field of specialization - history, sociology, philosophy, psychology, biology, etc. - it is a basic dogma, the "light that illuminates truth."

Actually, every one of you is acquainted with the religion outlined above. You encounter it in your daily life, read its propaganda in newspapers, and see its influence on television. This religion infiltrates your life at every moment; indeed, it is part of your life. Perhaps some of you, knowingly or otherwise, have come under the direct influence of this religion. It is the "religion of Darwinism."

You may say to yourselves, "Darwinism is not a religion, it is a scientific theory!" But there are many people in the world who are devoted to it. Some believe that evolution is a scientifically proven fact, and the world lies under the influence of this so called scientific position.

This ideology is founded upon a series of errors.

reply to post by iIuminaIi


Where's your proof of any of these claims?

Originally posted by MrXYZ

Originally posted by Tbrooks76
one last thing before I cut out, I love how the post are dancing around the V=ma thing I wrote this morning, yet nobody is debating the other content, like not getting DNA off those fossils which you all said they did.
BTW V=ma doesn't work at relativistic speeds, that was the debate at the time.

ok yall have fun bashing this post now

DNA analysis fully confirms evolution for millions of years back (over 100mil years back to be exact) as this example clearly shows.

But who gives a rat's ass about facts, right?

You know, the thing that pisses me off isn't that you don't know that. Everyone has stuff they have no clue about, myself included. But you come on here and post complete and utter nonsense and don't even bother to do the slightest bit of research before posting. Even worse, you get all bitchy whenever you're clearly proven wrong. Adapt...learn...don't be ignorant for crying out loud!

edit on 20-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: (no reason given)

edit on 20-6-2012 by MrXYZ because: "off"...not "of"...damn Guinness!!

ok I came back and read this It gotta under my skin and had to reply. You have refuted nothing I’ve said in last 17 pages, it’s getting danced around. DNA is not a dating method, if you are saying it is your wrong. The only thing shown in these ambers is all these insects that are around today were here 100 “million” years ago having all the same complexly then as they have now. Here your pointing out something that not even in the favor of evolution…nothing evolved, the bee is still a bee and has been a bee. Do you need billions of years before the bee evolved? To say DNA proved this bee evolution is crazy, and of course the DNA is different, there’s diversity in all DNA its why we are all not the same, but what shown here is not what your theory predicts. It shows a bee didn’t have all these mirco changes, it the same then as today.
Ok I’m done!!