Human evolution vs Creationism

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Duwelon
I'm not fixed on 6000 years per se, I should have actually said 4000, not 6000.

Well, I'm crying now. Anyone else?

Let me guess, the Milky Way really isn't 100,000 light years across, and there are no quasars tens of billions of light years away? And we don't know what the speed of light really is?
Or did God just make all those photons 4000 years ago such that it would look like the Universe was really really REALLY old, just to screw with people?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Jeff7
eskimospy: Agreed. I might as well start citing Nostradamus as a reliable source of historical facts.

The closest thing to a "global flood" has been evidence of an asteroid impacting the Indian Ocean. Think of how that would have looked back when the Bible was being cobbled together. The ocean would rise up and consume vast shorelines. Survivors would tell horrific tales that would get embellished each time they were told. In not too long, the wall of water was so terrible, the flooding lasted for 40 days and 40 nights and covered even the mountains. And the death toll would have been huge, so much to say that only a "god" could have done it because he was angry.

More than the likely the 'great flood' is based on the filling of the black sea.

There is evidence of man made structures beneath the black sea that data to around 5000 BC and it is possible that the black sea greatly increased in size around that time. (Whether this was caused by the Med. pouring into the black sear or just a natural rise in level is debatable.)

Many of Christianity's ideas are very similar to earlier religions and it is not much of a stretch to believe that the early Christians took ideas that people were familiar with and accepted and used them in their religion in order to win over converts.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
1.) Evolution states that complexity in organisms increases over time, and that organisms share common ancestors. This is in line with the fossil record. If the fossil record were to show complex organisms in earlier strata, this would disprove evolution. (the famous rabbit in the precambrian) This has been explained to you before and you have ignored it.
2.) Evolution has verified testable predictions. Evolution predicted the existence and method of transmission for DNA. It required that not only there be a method of transmission of information from parents to children, but the method by which this was done must be imperfect. It predicted that we would find species that once lived and are now extinct. It predicted the appearance of antibiotic resistant bacteria, and our ability to engineer bacteria to new purposes.
3.) Genetics has everything to do with evolution.

Part 2:

1.) He does in fact claim that, but don't take my word for it. If anyone wants to see the sort of ignorant/batshit insane arguments that Hovind tries to use, along with his banana comment, listen to his debate with Dr. Pigliucci on the subject. Hovind really needs to be heard to be believed. Yes, he's this stupid. Furthermore, as has been explained to you NUMEROUS times in the past, evolution makes no claim as to non-life turning into life. Evolution makes no claim to the origin of life whatsoever. You have been REPEATEDLY educated on this matter, and you have chosen to ignore it.
2.) The population of the earth cannot be traced back to an origin 6,000 years ago for the far more important reason that we have evidence of the existence of man that is considerably more than 6,000 years old. So, no.

1) Darwin himself said that for his theory to be true, it would require millions of transitional fossils. WHere are they? Is your lack of proof, proof?
2) Any four year old during the dark ages could tell you that there is "something" about us that transmits traits from one generation to another. It didn't take evolution to come along and explain it. DNA is real science.
3) You seem to think that we'd only have learned about DNA because of evolution. That's just simply creating your own history. It's much easier to come up with a theory about something like DNA by looking at father and son.

1) Again, no he doesn't claim that evolutions claim that humans evolved from a banana. You're side stepping like crazy here. You posted one debate (which i'm listening to now), but there are many that leave highly educated college professors stupified, flustered, etc, because they can't back up their claims with hard evidence.
2) Got any objective sources for your point?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Evolution does not explain the existence of life, creationism does.

Evolution does not provide mean to ones life, religion does.

Man survived many centuries without the concept of evolution. The concept of religion however has been around as long as recorded history.

Finally, from a practical point of view evolution is NOT useful. It does not provide us with any useful knowledge, other than filling in historical blanks. But scientists don't use evolution to explain things or to provide man with products or creations. And those geologists aren't using evolution to find oil, they are using ground samples and geological history.

Dude, what are you smoking? Evolution has and continues to provide us with an incredible array of products and creations. You heard about one of the newest ways to clean up oil spills? Oil eating bacteria. You know how we made that stuff? With our knowledge of evolution.

If you tried to tell any biotech company that evolution provides us with no useful knowledge that can be turned into products, you would be laughed out of the building.

I was not aware that we used our knowledge of evolution to 'create' this bacteria.

And I think you are over simplifying it. I don't think they are using the study of evolution as much as using the concept in order to make these advances.

Also... the main point I was trying to make is that religion is useful as it provides millions of people a reason for existence.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Evolution does not explain the existence of life, creationism does.

Evolution does not provide mean to ones life, religion does.

Man survived many centuries without the concept of evolution. The concept of religion however has been around as long as recorded history.

Finally, from a practical point of view evolution is NOT useful. It does not provide us with any useful knowledge, other than filling in historical blanks. But scientists don't use evolution to explain things or to provide man with products or creations. And those geologists aren't using evolution to find oil, they are using ground samples and geological history.

Dude, what are you smoking? Evolution has and continues to provide us with an incredible array of products and creations. You heard about one of the newest ways to clean up oil spills? Oil eating bacteria. You know how we made that stuff? With our knowledge of evolution.

If you tried to tell any biotech company that evolution provides us with no useful knowledge that can be turned into products, you would be laughed out of the building.

Nobody disputes that bacteria can produce similar kinds of bacteria. Did you know that Isaac Newton was a religious Christian who did writings on theology, etc? Most scientific discoveries in the last 250 years have been religious men. You have this notion that religion is contrary to science, it's not.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Duwelon
2) Holy poo poo yes it does. See, i can use high logic and reason too! You really don't believe that the current population of the earth can be traced back to approx 6000 years, given what we know about famine and diseases, etc?

Dude... the idea that the earth is 6000 years old is dogma that has NO scientific evidence to back it up at all.
It is a theory based on a book that was written by man in the middle ages.

Proof that the world is older than 6000 years is all around us. You don't even have to believe in evolution to believe that the world is greater than 6000 years old.

The city of Damascus has been populated for over 8000 years.

I'm not fixed on 6000 years per se, I should have actually said 4000, not 6000.

4000 is even worse. Their are pyramids older than that.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just as a note to everyone in this thread: Duwelon has made a habit of showing up in threads about evolution for quite some time now. It's become painfully obvious from them that he lacks even a basic understanding of the theory of evolution, and that many of the 'facts' that he has about it are flatly wrong. I believe that his idea of what evolution is all about comes from these very same young earth creationists such as Hovind that he references.

It's not just that he doesn't understand evolution, but he's shown that he has no desire to. If you search back for other evolution threads you will see pages and pages of people painstakingly attempting to educate him, and you will see him happily ignore it all. I'm okay with trashing him some more, but everyone should be aware that actually reasoning with him is futile.

He even explained why that is so here:

"This is a very harsh topic to go through. Atheists have a very, very strong hatred for all things ID. Not just because it's not something the scientific method can directly prove, but because if it is true, it means they've wasted their lives and are going to burn."

This is a psychological projection, his own obsequiousness to religious dogma, his own fear of burning in hell, turned inside out. He fears the truth because he was taught that the truth would damn him. Nobody free of this absurd idea can hate or fear anything of that kind or hate proponents of creationism because of it. The whole idea of burning in hell if foreign to them, but not to him.

It's like saying atheists hate Jar of Pickle folk because they believe scientists will become jars of pickles when they die. Can you feature a scientist loosing his cool and going after the Pickle folk? Hehe, nut cases are off the radar of sane people. But the Pickle folk will go nuts in somebody tries to teach them science.

You only find this Creationism bull shit where there are Christian fundamentalists who have so little faith that any word wrong in the Bible means there is no God. The question of whether there is a God or not is beyond the scope of science. People believe and it's called faith. There is no scientific proof one way or another. Not a scientific question that science can answer.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Your question is sort of hard to answer. Support for the theory of evolution, which makes no claims whatsoever for a guiding force, is in excess of 95% of the biology community, the recognized experts on how life came to be as it is. All theories for a guiding force for evolution have been so utterly discredited that there have been no peer reviewed studies or credible other publications ever published that support Intelligent Design or similar ideas.

Considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, verified testable predictions, and the principles that are the foundation for all of modern biology, any 'objective' source will be one that discounts intelligent design/creationism and fervently endorses the evolutionary model, and something tells me that isn't what you want.

1) Fossils are completely worthless for proving evolution. If you find a fossil, all you know is that said creature is now dead.
2) Verified testable predictions only go as far as taking an assumption about part of the overall theory of evolution, and when the prediction is true, it gets thrown into the support bin of supporting the preconcieved assumption.
3) Princples of modern biology? What principle of modern biology that is real science supports the theory of evolution, ie the change from fish to birds, etc?

Consider ID. It's a philosophical topic so good luck coming to a conclusion that everyone will agree with, but you CAN test the science behind it's claims, such as in the Bible.

1) There is a lot of evidence for a worldwide flood roughly 4000 years ago. The best source for this kind of thing I can think of is Kent Hovind. He has a lot of haters, and he's done a lot of debates. He's got his own flock of haters but he has amassed a massive amount of scientific evidence proving that a global flood could have happened exactly like the Bible records. Google "Kent Hovind Debates" on youtube or google and you'll find plenty of debates where takes on top college professors and rips them to shreds. Seriously, if you really curious, check out some of his debates, I think it's a perfect place to start looking.
2) The current population of the earth and the relative recent mass colonization of North and South America can easily be traced back and fits perfectly with a Biblical account of the origins of the world.

Good luck.

HahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahaha
hahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahah
ahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHah
ahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahah
ahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahah
ahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHaha
hahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahaha
hahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahah
aHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahaha
hahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaha
hahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHa
hahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahaha
hahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaha
hahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHaha
hahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahaha.

Ha.

Seriously, tell me you're trollin? No one can seriously believe that crap.

EDIT - For readablity.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Duwelon
2) Holy poo poo yes it does. See, i can use high logic and reason too! You really don't believe that the current population of the earth can be traced back to approx 6000 years, given what we know about famine and diseases, etc?

Dude... the idea that the earth is 6000 years old is dogma that has NO scientific evidence to back it up at all.
It is a theory based on a book that was written by man in the middle ages.

Proof that the world is older than 6000 years is all around us. You don't even have to believe in evolution to believe that the world is greater than 6000 years old.

The city of Damascus has been populated for over 8000 years.

I'm not fixed on 6000 years per se, I should have actually said 4000, not 6000.

4000 is even worse. Their are pyramids older than that.

I'm talking about population, not the beginning of the universe.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Evolution does not explain the existence of life, creationism does.

Evolution does not provide mean to ones life, religion does.

Man survived many centuries without the concept of evolution. The concept of religion however has been around as long as recorded history.

Finally, from a practical point of view evolution is NOT useful. It does not provide us with any useful knowledge, other than filling in historical blanks. But scientists don't use evolution to explain things or to provide man with products or creations. And those geologists aren't using evolution to find oil, they are using ground samples and geological history.

Dude, what are you smoking? Evolution has and continues to provide us with an incredible array of products and creations. You heard about one of the newest ways to clean up oil spills? Oil eating bacteria. You know how we made that stuff? With our knowledge of evolution.

If you tried to tell any biotech company that evolution provides us with no useful knowledge that can be turned into products, you would be laughed out of the building.

I was not aware that we used our knowledge of evolution to 'create' this bacteria.

And I think you are over simplifying it. I don't think they are using the study of evolution as much as using the concept in order to make these advances.

Also... the main point I was trying to make is that religion is useful as it provides millions of people a reason for existence.

I'm sorry but I'm not interested in the utility of false ideas. If religion is useful to millions it is also the reason for millions dying in religious wars not and in the future. The reason religion exists is not because it is useful but because all religion has as its basis the fact that people are asleep and can awaken into a state of perfection. Religion is real because the ego can die and the true sell emerge. Religion is always taken over by the ego, but at its root is the possibility that a person can be free of his programmed self and become God.

Avatars arrive all the time. The sleepers know nothing at all. They just have this feeling there is more, that something is missing.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Duwelon
2) Holy poo poo yes it does. See, i can use high logic and reason too! You really don't believe that the current population of the earth can be traced back to approx 6000 years, given what we know about famine and diseases, etc?

Dude... the idea that the earth is 6000 years old is dogma that has NO scientific evidence to back it up at all.
It is a theory based on a book that was written by man in the middle ages.

Proof that the world is older than 6000 years is all around us. You don't even have to believe in evolution to believe that the world is greater than 6000 years old.

The city of Damascus has been populated for over 8000 years.

I'm not fixed on 6000 years per se, I should have actually said 4000, not 6000.

4000 is even worse. Their are pyramids older than that.

I'm talking about population, not the beginning of the universe.

So the pyramids just popped into existence?

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: grohl
I really don't mean to start a debate on this...but..

I was a science major in college and have a postgraduate science degree. I am a scientist and know and understand evolutionary theory pretty well.

Lately, I don't know, more and more stuff makes me think there was at least a "guiding force" - not really sure what to call it - that seems like all the stuff in this world is very hard to explain based on random chance.

Is there any OBJECTIVE website or book I could read that you all could suggest as I try to get more information on this topic?

Your question is sort of hard to answer. Support for the theory of evolution, which makes no claims whatsoever for a guiding force, is in excess of 95% of the biology community, the recognized experts on how life came to be as it is. All theories for a guiding force for evolution have been so utterly discredited that there have been no peer reviewed studies or credible other publications ever published that support Intelligent Design or similar ideas.

Considering the overwhelming evidence for evolution, including the fossil record, verified testable predictions, and the principles that are the foundation for all of modern biology, any 'objective' source will be one that discounts intelligent design/creationism and fervently endorses the evolutionary model, and something tells me that isn't what you want.

1) Fossils are completely worthless for proving evolution. If you find a fossil, all you know is that said creature is now dead.
2) Verified testable predictions only go as far as taking an assumption about part of the overall theory of evolution, and when the prediction is true, it gets thrown into the support bin of supporting the preconcieved assumption.
3) Princples of modern biology? What principle of modern biology that is real science supports the theory of evolution, ie the change from fish to birds, etc?

Consider ID. It's a philosophical topic so good luck coming to a conclusion that everyone will agree with, but you CAN test the science behind it's claims, such as in the Bible.

1) There is a lot of evidence for a worldwide flood roughly 4000 years ago. The best source for this kind of thing I can think of is Kent Hovind. He has a lot of haters, and he's done a lot of debates. He's got his own flock of haters but he has amassed a massive amount of scientific evidence proving that a global flood could have happened exactly like the Bible records. Google "Kent Hovind Debates" on youtube or google and you'll find plenty of debates where takes on top college professors and rips them to shreds. Seriously, if you really curious, check out some of his debates, I think it's a perfect place to start looking.
2) The current population of the earth and the relative recent mass colonization of North and South America can easily be traced back and fits perfectly with a Biblical account of the origins of the world.

Good luck.

HahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahaha hahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaha hahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHa hahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahaha hahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahaha hahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHaha hahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahaha hahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahaha haHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahaha hahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahaha hahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahaha HahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahaha hahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahaha hahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHa hahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahahaHahahahahahahahahahaha.

Ha.

Seriously, tell me you're trollin? No one can seriously believe that crap.

It would be nice if you edited that post so it don't destroy the format. Break up the ha ha ha please.

 

[Born2bwire]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam


It would be nice if you edited that post so it don't destroy the format. Break up the ha ha ha please.

Don't quote it either.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Just as a note to everyone in this thread: Duwelon has made a habit of showing up in threads about evolution for quite some time now. It's become painfully obvious from them that he lacks even a basic understanding of the theory of evolution, and that many of the 'facts' that he has about it are flatly wrong. I believe that his idea of what evolution is all about comes from these very same young earth creationists such as Hovind that he references.

It's not just that he doesn't understand evolution, but he's shown that he has no desire to. If you search back for other evolution threads you will see pages and pages of people painstakingly attempting to educate him, and you will see him happily ignore it all. I'm okay with trashing him some more, but everyone should be aware that actually reasoning with him is futile.

Nice, i missed this one earlier.

Notice that debating with Eskimospy has a pattern as well. He shows up in every thread about evolution, spouting his same old lies and disproven science and accuastions about others when he doesn't even fully comprehend what they were saying, taking them out of context, etc.

When you call him on his lies, he ignores it and goes on to another topic and keeps up the same tactict. When he finally runs out of steam, he will resort to appeals to humanity's desire to go along to get along. When that fails, he'll throw out more accusations about someone to discredit them based on ad homenum attacks, as his logic and reason failed him and he has to resort to pathetic tactics to win over support. He cares deeply what others believe and thinks everyone does too.

I care about truth, if you got an argument, present it, not your lame ass cowardly tactics like this post i quoted of you.

 

[JSt0rm]

duwelon must be from the south. rural south. lol. This thread delivers the lulz

I always wonder how these kinds of people think. It's so weird. My kids will never be indoctrinated into some religion such as this and I am thankful my parents weren't this way with me.

Carry on.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: ironwing
This is America, we should let the markets decide whether evolution or creationism makes more sense. Oh, wait, the markets already did. Oil companies don't hire crackpot religious nutjobs to douse for oil. They hire geologists to find oil.

Dumb. One can be deeply religious and very scientific. Try again.

Show me an oil company that uses creationist principles to find oil. They don't. They use sound science, including inferences based upon evolutionary theory. Creationism has no practical value; it is merely a good yarn to spin before passing the collection plate. Evolution is useful.

Evolution is not all science. It's not even a lot of science, besides a lot of scientific theory. When a geologist goes looking for oil, they use the real scientific methods that are actually demonstratable and repeatable to help guide them to places where oil might be found.

It is a lot of science!

It's a lot of facts joined together into a theory!

How can anybody be so obtuse!

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
duwelon must be from the south.

South Dakota, home of some awesome fossils. Too bad they're wasted on him.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
duwelon must be from the south. rural south. lol. This thread delivers the lulz

I always wonder how these kinds of people think. It's so weird. My kids will never be indoctrinated into some religion such as this and I am thankful my parents weren't this way with me.

Carry on.

Now the trolling is in full force. It's stupid posts like this that make these kinds of threads unfruitful. The anti-religious on here have nothing but ad homenum and other cowardly attacks at their disposal when their logic and reason fail them. At least eskimospy puts up some kind of struggle before he resorts to this crap.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Darwin himself said that for his theory to be true, it would require millions of transitional fossils. WHere are they? Is your lack of proof, proof?
2) Any four year old during the dark ages could tell you that there is "something" about us that transmits traits from one generation to another. It didn't take evolution to come along and explain it. DNA is real science.
3) You seem to think that we'd only have learned about DNA because of evolution. That's just simply creating your own history. It's much easier to come up with a theory about something like DNA by looking at father and son.

1) Again, no he doesn't claim that evolutions claim that humans evolved from a banana. You're side stepping like crazy here. You posted one debate (which i'm listening to now), but there are many that leave highly educated college professors stupified, flustered, etc, because they can't back up their claims with hard evidence.
2) Got any objective sources for your point?

1.) Darwin himself said a lot of things that turned out to be wrong. His work was the basis for evolutionary theory, not the final word. The very basis for your question betrays a lack of understanding of the basic concepts at issue here. Since evolution is an ongoing process every fossil is a transitional fossil.
2.) Re-read what I wrote, not only did evolution predict a method of transmission, but it predicted an imperfect one, one that would give rise to mutations.
3.) I in no way stated that knowledge of evolution was required for the discovery of DNA. What I said was that evolution stated the existence of such a thing in advance of our knowledge of it.

1.) How many debates of his am I supposed to post? Any objective person listening to that trash will hear that the professor is not flustered or stupefied due to Hovind's foolproof arguments, but he is exasperated at Hovind's incoherence and ignorance of the subject he's supposed to be debating him on.
2.) Of course I have objective sources for my point. It's called science. You don't believe science that contradicts your dogma however, so what's the point?

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
duwelon must be from the south. rural south. lol. This thread delivers the lulz

I always wonder how these kinds of people think. It's so weird. My kids will never be indoctrinated into some religion such as this and I am thankful my parents weren't this way with me.

Carry on.

Now the trolling is in full force. It's stupid posts like this that make these kinds of threads unfruitful. The anti-religious on here have nothing but ad homenum and other cowardly attacks at their disposal when their logic and reason fail them. At least eskimospy puts up some kind of struggle before he resorts to this crap.

We had a good discussion going, why didn't you keep responding? Found you had no truth to back yourself up? Will that make you repent? No, of course not, it will lead you to attack, like a good cornered evolutionist.

 

[Brainonska511]

The trolling was in full force when you entered the thread. The others in the peanut gallery have come in just for the lulz at your expense.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Darwin himself said that for his theory to be true, it would require millions of transitional fossils. WHere are they? Is your lack of proof, proof?
2) Any four year old during the dark ages could tell you that there is "something" about us that transmits traits from one generation to another. It didn't take evolution to come along and explain it. DNA is real science.
3) You seem to think that we'd only have learned about DNA because of evolution. That's just simply creating your own history. It's much easier to come up with a theory about something like DNA by looking at father and son.

1) Again, no he doesn't claim that evolutions claim that humans evolved from a banana. You're side stepping like crazy here. You posted one debate (which i'm listening to now), but there are many that leave highly educated college professors stupified, flustered, etc, because they can't back up their claims with hard evidence.
2) Got any objective sources for your point?

1.) Darwin himself said a lot of things that turned out to be wrong. His work was the basis for evolutionary theory, not the final word. The very basis for your question betrays a lack of understanding of the basic concepts at issue here. Since evolution is an ongoing process every fossil is a transitional fossil.
2.) Re-read what I wrote, not only did evolution predict a method of transmission, but it predicted an imperfect one, one that would give rise to mutations.
3.) I in no way stated that knowledge of evolution was required for the discovery of DNA. What I said was that evolution stated the existence of such a thing in advance of our knowledge of it.

1.) How many debates of his am I supposed to post? Any objective person listening to that trash will hear that the professor is not flustered or stupefied due to Hovind's foolproof arguments, but he is exasperated at Hovind's incoherence and ignorance of the subject he's supposed to be debating him on.
2.) Of course I have objective sources for my point. It's called science. You don't believe science that contradicts your dogma however, so what's the point?

1) You keep making this accusation, but it's always wrong. Tell me, once and for all, what did I demonstrate exactly, in context, that I don't know what the theory of evolution is? Just name one specific example from this thread. See, you're trying to form another ad homenum attack with the basis that nothing I say is true because something I said isn't true. It's a flawed strategy, but I bet you can't even produce one example. Don't put words in my mouth either, post something specific that I said that was demonstrably false.
2) That's neither here nor there. A kid born without a finger predicts the same thing.
3) So did a father and son's resemblence to each other.

1) "That trash", you listed one, which after listening to it was pretty boring. Google his other debates which are actually videos of him debating college professors. They refuse to debate with him now because they know it makes them look bad.
2) Nice cop out. I believe in science, that is actually demonstrable, provable. Your attempts to paint things as real science that are not real science is severely lacking in judgement.

 

[RocksteadyDotNet]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Darwin himself said that for his theory to be true, it would require millions of transitional fossils. WHere are they? Is your lack of proof, proof?
2) Any four year old during the dark ages could tell you that there is "something" about us that transmits traits from one generation to another. It didn't take evolution to come along and explain it. DNA is real science.
3) You seem to think that we'd only have learned about DNA because of evolution. That's just simply creating your own history. It's much easier to come up with a theory about something like DNA by looking at father and son.

1) Again, no he doesn't claim that evolutions claim that humans evolved from a banana. You're side stepping like crazy here. You posted one debate (which i'm listening to now), but there are many that leave highly educated college professors stupified, flustered, etc, because they can't back up their claims with hard evidence.
2) Got any objective sources for your point?

1.) Darwin himself said a lot of things that turned out to be wrong. His work was the basis for evolutionary theory, not the final word. The very basis for your question betrays a lack of understanding of the basic concepts at issue here. Since evolution is an ongoing process every fossil is a transitional fossil.
2.) Re-read what I wrote, not only did evolution predict a method of transmission, but it predicted an imperfect one, one that would give rise to mutations.
3.) I in no way stated that knowledge of evolution was required for the discovery of DNA. What I said was that evolution stated the existence of such a thing in advance of our knowledge of it.

1.) How many debates of his am I supposed to post? Any objective person listening to that trash will hear that the professor is not flustered or stupefied due to Hovind's foolproof arguments, but he is exasperated at Hovind's incoherence and ignorance of the subject he's supposed to be debating him on.
2.) Of course I have objective sources for my point. It's called science. You don't believe science that contradicts your dogma however, so what's the point?

1) You keep making this accusation, but it's always wrong. Tell me, once and for all, what did I demonstrate exactly, in context, that I don't know what the theory of evolution is? Just name one example from this thread.
2) That's neither here nor there. A kid born without a finger predicts the same thing.
3) So did a father and son's resemblence to each other.

1) "That trash", you listed one, which after listening to it was pretty boring. Google his other debates which are actually videos of him debating college professors. They refuse to debate with him now because they know it makes them look bad.
2) Nice cop out. I believe in science, that is actually demonstrable, provable. Your attempts to paint things as real science that are not real science is severely lacking in judgement.

Text

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: Duwelon

2) Nice cop out. I believe in science, that is actually demonstrable, provable. Your attempts to paint things as real science that are not real science is severely lacking in judgement.

Nothing is provable by science, only falsifiable.

 

[Duwelon]

Originally posted by: RocksteadyDotNet

Originally posted by: Duwelon

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Duwelon

1) Darwin himself said that for his theory to be true, it would require millions of transitional fossils. WHere are they? Is your lack of proof, proof?
2) Any four year old during the dark ages could tell you that there is "something" about us that transmits traits from one generation to another. It didn't take evolution to come along and explain it. DNA is real science.
3) You seem to think that we'd only have learned about DNA because of evolution. That's just simply creating your own history. It's much easier to come up with a theory about something like DNA by looking at father and son.

1) Again, no he doesn't claim that evolutions claim that humans evolved from a banana. You're side stepping like crazy here. You posted one debate (which i'm listening to now), but there are many that leave highly educated college professors stupified, flustered, etc, because they can't back up their claims with hard evidence.
2) Got any objective sources for your point?

1.) Darwin himself said a lot of things that turned out to be wrong. His work was the basis for evolutionary theory, not the final word. The very basis for your question betrays a lack of understanding of the basic concepts at issue here. Since evolution is an ongoing process every fossil is a transitional fossil.
2.) Re-read what I wrote, not only did evolution predict a method of transmission, but it predicted an imperfect one, one that would give rise to mutations.
3.) I in no way stated that knowledge of evolution was required for the discovery of DNA. What I said was that evolution stated the existence of such a thing in advance of our knowledge of it.

1.) How many debates of his am I supposed to post? Any objective person listening to that trash will hear that the professor is not flustered or stupefied due to Hovind's foolproof arguments, but he is exasperated at Hovind's incoherence and ignorance of the subject he's supposed to be debating him on.
2.) Of course I have objective sources for my point. It's called science. You don't believe science that contradicts your dogma however, so what's the point?

1) You keep making this accusation, but it's always wrong. Tell me, once and for all, what did I demonstrate exactly, in context, that I don't know what the theory of evolution is? Just name one example from this thread.
2) That's neither here nor there. A kid born without a finger predicts the same thing.
3) So did a father and son's resemblence to each other.

1) "That trash", you listed one, which after listening to it was pretty boring. Google his other debates which are actually videos of him debating college professors. They refuse to debate with him now because they know it makes them look bad.
2) Nice cop out. I believe in science, that is actually demonstrable, provable. Your attempts to paint things as real science that are not real science is severely lacking in judgement.

Text

I liked the part where you used logic and reason to come to your conclusion.