Intelligent Design vs Evolution

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: oldman420
dirtboy thankyou for so adamently proving my point in my op. your point counterpoint although inacurate has been interesting

Thank you for proving you believe in a false factless theory as blindly as the people you claim are wrong.

...says the guy who thinks the sun has been shrinking. :laugh:

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Life didn't exist 55 million years ago. It couldn't. The sun has been shrinking since we have been charting it. Reverse the size of the sun, back it up a few million years and you find the planet was too hot to sustain any form of life, thus disproving the possibility of evolution. 55 million years ago... not a chance. Science can prove that. Now let's see what the evolutionist say. Will it be: We're not sure where the sun really was (excuse), or the sun just recently started shrinking (contradicts science) or ... ???

Show me peer review article stating the sun was too hot to sustain organic chemicals

LOL

You're trying to prove your point and you can't. Life can only live in certain temperatures. Probably why Venus has no life on it.

But you can't prove me wrong... cause life couldn't have been around then. Check your math on the sun's rate of decline and estimate the temp of the Earth.

Hot!! hehehe Game, set, and match.

You're trying to say the earth was too hot and the earth was too large. Ok, so prove your point. You can't make wild statements like this and not back it up. And life can exist in quite a wide range of temperatures. Clearly you've never heard of thermophiles. Looks like someone wasn't paying attention in class.

AND EVERYTIME I'VE ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE A PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE FOR ANY OF YOUR CLAIMS AND YOU'VE COMPLETELY IGNORED ME

OMG A PEER REVIEW ARTILE IS THE END OF ALL MEANS.

Hey, your buddies once thought the world was flat and they wrote articles and then sat around saying how brilliant they are.

Do you believe that?

Peer review is a translation of a evolutionists getting his buddies together to agree with him. Not my fault your eyes are so closed to the world and that your mind has been so spoonfed that you can't even look around to see what is going on.

Show me one animial or plan alive that is in the middle of an evolutionary cycle and is sturggling for survival? You can't. You know why? Cause there isn't one.

You can't even show me 55 million years of gradual change in fossil records, yet your buddies write papers in support of this! LOL

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: oldman420
dirtboy thankyou for so adamently proving my point in my op. your point counterpoint although inacurate has been interesting

Thank you for proving you believe in a false factless theory as blindly as the people you claim are wrong.

...says the guy who thinks the sun has been shrinking. :laugh:

Science has proven this twice. Try reading a book. No wait, that's too hard. You'd rather blindly believe what your professors tell you. LOL

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: dirtboy
Life didn't exist 55 million years ago. It couldn't. The sun has been shrinking since we have been charting it. Reverse the size of the sun, back it up a few million years and you find the planet was too hot to sustain any form of life, thus disproving the possibility of evolution. 55 million years ago... not a chance. Science can prove that. Now let's see what the evolutionist say. Will it be: We're not sure where the sun really was (excuse), or the sun just recently started shrinking (contradicts science) or ... ???

Show me peer review article stating the sun was too hot to sustain organic chemicals

LOL

You're trying to prove your point and you can't. Life can only live in certain temperatures. Probably why Venus has no life on it.

But you can't prove me wrong... cause life couldn't have been around then. Check your math on the sun's rate of decline and estimate the temp of the Earth.

Hot!! hehehe Game, set, and match.

You're trying to say the earth was too hot and the earth was too large. Ok, so prove your point. You can't make wild statements like this and not back it up. And life can exist in quite a wide range of temperatures. Clearly you've never heard of thermophiles. Looks like someone wasn't paying attention in class.

AND EVERYTIME I'VE ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE A PEER REVIEWED ARTICLE FOR ANY OF YOUR CLAIMS AND YOU'VE COMPLETELY IGNORED ME

OMG A PEER REVIEW ARTILE IS THE END OF ALL MEANS.

Hey, your buddies once thought the world was flat and they wrote articles and then sat around saying how brilliant they are.

Do you believe that?

Peer review is a translation of a evolutionists getting his buddies together to agree with him. Not my fault your eyes are so closed to the world and that your mind has been so spoonfed that you can't even look around to see what is going on.

Show me one animial or plan alive that is in the middle of an evolutionary cycle and is sturggling for survival? You can't. You know why? Cause there isn't one.

You can't even show me 55 million years of gradual change in fossil records, yet your buddies write papers in support of this! LOL

In other words, you have no evidence to support your claims, despite the fact you demand as much and more from others.

Hypocrite.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: oldman420
dirtboy thankyou for so adamently proving my point in my op. your point counterpoint although inacurate has been interesting

Thank you for proving you believe in a false factless theory as blindly as the people you claim are wrong.

...says the guy who thinks the sun has been shrinking. :laugh:

Science has proven this twice. Try reading a book. No wait, that's too hard. You'd rather blindly believe what your professors tell you. LOL

No, it hasn't. See the link I already provided in this thread. Where's your citation?

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Garth
No, it doesn't. Rather, it sounds like you want him to sound unsure. In reality we have every reason to believe the statement means exactly what it says.

If he was so sure, he would not have used the word, "can."

Imagine the statement: "Driving in a car can result in an accident."

Should we really believe that the author of such a statement is "unsure" about that fact? Would you ask, "can or does result in an accident?" No.

Great what to justifty yourself by mixing two different things. You can sound like an idiot.

You appear to be talking out of your posterior.

Your own evidence against you. Hurts, don't it?

Sometimes the most precise answers involve "may or may not." I'm sorry if that is just too much for your delicate little intellect to comprehend.

Yes it is. An inch is not an inch, except when it's an inch. So you're saying the measurement of an inch is subjective or fact? hahahaha Ouch. The pain is non stop!

All animals or plants are mutants. You simply have an infantile concept of what that means.

Show me present day mutants. There aren't any. Too bad this contracts the author that said evolution is a gradual change. Who's right? You, or the peer reviewed articles? Clearly you don't agree on this obvious FACT.

Actually the evidences have been linked plenty of times in this thread by myself alone. You're making yourself look foolish proclaiming such nonsense when the truth is right there for everyone to see.

I reviewed your evidence and I called you on it for not being what I asked for. You said you had proof, yet showing me a fossil of a dog and something else 3 feet taller and calling that evolution isn't evolution. Show me that dog morphing into something 3 feet taller one millimeter at a time. You gave yourselves 55 million years... shouldn't be hard. But you can't prove it, so you call me names. Pretty clear you are upset that your beliefs are full of holes.

Oh really? How? You're awfully big on claims and woefully short on details. Typical for creationist trolls, actually.

I never said in once place I believed in creationism. Why to judge me Mr. Objective scientist. Goes to show your bias, which I set out to prove. You're the ones that said you could prove evolution beyond a doubt yet you haven't come close. Even the people you cite say the words, "maybe," "can," "possibly," etc. They aren't sure, but you are. LOL

When can't it?

You cited this guy as the man you worship your beliefs from. If he's unsure, why are you so sure?

It is and I've even linked you to recorded instances of speciation.

No you didn't. Basic cells haven't changed. Jeez. Did you ever take a biology class? If cells were changing so much, we'd be changing constantly. Do you think before you write? It doesn't appear so.

But they haven't. Simply the differing number of chromosomes is enough to refute you.

That's the ONLY thing you bring to the table? Changing of chromosomes doesn't support how planets and animals magically came from the same cell that blinked into existance on this planet, what 100 million, 2000 million, billions of years ago? You're not sure.

So what?

That fact alone disproves evolution.

We do.

Show me monkeys evolving into man????? Why did they stop?? Evolution fails them?

No we wouldn't.

Sure we would. We'd also see slugs trying to grow legs.

You're an idiot.

Nothing like insults when you've been proven wrong.

So? You really have no idea what the theory of evolution stipulates.

Gradual change. I asked for fossil evidence, but I got a few skulls, and as I said, a number of which have been disproved. LOL Show me 4 million years of man evolving. Where's the museum at? I'll go tomorrow. OH WAIT IT DOESN'T EXIST!!

Do you even know what a regressive gene is?

More so that you do.

Only people with less intelligence than yourself could read this passage and think that you understood the first thing about evolutionary theory

Sorry you're jealous... guess you'll be wiped out since you're not the fittest to survive. That is what you believe??

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Garth
In other words, you have no evidence to support your claims, despite the fact you demand as much and more from others.

Hypocrite.

In other words I wasn't the one who arrogantly claimed I could prove evolution. You guys did and so far... you got nothing. LOL

 

[dirtboy]

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: oldman420
dirtboy thankyou for so adamently proving my point in my op. your point counterpoint although inacurate has been interesting

Thank you for proving you believe in a false factless theory as blindly as the people you claim are wrong.

...says the guy who thinks the sun has been shrinking. :laugh:

Science has proven this twice. Try reading a book. No wait, that's too hard. You'd rather blindly believe what your professors tell you. LOL

No, it hasn't. See the link I already provided in this thread. Where's your citation?

I saw no link. I read both studies of the scientists that studied the shrinking effect. Both came to the same conclusion, but one was like you guys and talked trash about everything rather that objectively reviewing it. Yet you blindly follow the one that support your factless theory rather thank seeking the truth. How funny is that! Maybe you need some more peer reviewed articles.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Garth
In other words, you have no evidence to support your claims, despite the fact you demand as much and more from others.

Hypocrite.

In other words I wasn't the one who arrogantly claimed I could prove evolution. You guys did and so far... you got nothing. LOL

Show me where I claimed to be able to "prove" evolution. Like the rest of your claims, that one you will not be able to substantiate, either.

"Proof," as they say, is for mathematics and alcohol. Science deals with evidence, and for evolution there is a plethora. You've made it clear, however, that your puny little mind is unable to fathom it.

Sorry, I can't help you with that. That must've been one of those regressive genes stunting your cognitive development. :laugh:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Garth

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: oldman420
dirtboy thankyou for so adamently proving my point in my op. your point counterpoint although inacurate has been interesting

Thank you for proving you believe in a false factless theory as blindly as the people you claim are wrong.

...says the guy who thinks the sun has been shrinking. :laugh:

Science has proven this twice. Try reading a book. No wait, that's too hard. You'd rather blindly believe what your professors tell you. LOL

No, it hasn't. See the link I already provided in this thread. Where's your citation?

I saw no link.

It has become obvious that you only see what you want to see.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-solar.html#_Toc430357875

I read both studies of the scientists that studied the shrinking effect.

O RLY? Which studies were those?

{snip mini-rant}

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Garth
No, it doesn't. Rather, it sounds like you want him to sound unsure. In reality we have every reason to believe the statement means exactly what it says.

If he was so sure, he would not have used the word, "can."

Why not? What if he is sure that it can, but also sure that it doesn't always? What's to be unsure about?

Imagine the statement: "Driving in a car can result in an accident."
Should we really believe that the author of such a statement is "unsure" about that fact? Would you ask, "can or does result in an accident?" No.

Great what to justifty yourself by mixing two different things. You can sound like an idiot.

It is the sweetest irony that you would follow a jumble like "Great what to justifty yourself by mixing two different things" with the claim that *I* sound like an idiot. ROFL. :laugh:

All animals or plants are mutants. You simply have an infantile concept of what that means.

Show me present day mutants. There aren't any.

What part of "All animals or plants are mutants" did you fail to understand?

Actually the evidences have been linked plenty of times in this thread by myself alone. You're making yourself look foolish proclaiming such nonsense when the truth is right there for everyone to see.

I reviewed your evidence and I called you on it for not being what I asked for.

Really? Which did you review, exactly? Be specific.

You said you had proof,

No, I didn't.

Oh really? How? You're awfully big on claims and woefully short on details. Typical for creationist trolls, actually.

I never said in once place I believed in creationism.

That doesn't change the fact that your behavior is typical of creationist trolls.

Why to judge me Mr. Objective scientist. Goes to show your bias, which I set out to prove. You're the ones that said you could prove evolution beyond a doubt yet you haven't come close. Even the people you cite say the words, "maybe," "can," "possibly," etc. They aren't sure, but you are. LOL

Rant rant rant. Do you have anything of substance?

When can't it?

You cited this guy as the man you worship your beliefs from. If he's unsure, why are you so sure?

I didn't cite him. It appears you have difficulty apprehending even the most obvious facts. Why should we believe anything you have to say about evolution?

It is and I've even linked you to recorded instances of speciation.

No you didn't.

Yes, I did. Here is the link again.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

But they haven't. Simply the differing number of chromosomes is enough to refute you.

That's the ONLY thing you bring to the table?

That's all that is necessary to falsify your ludicrous claims.

Changing of chromosomes doesn't support how planets and animals magically came from the same cell that blinked into existance on this planet, what 100 million, 2000 million, billions of years ago? You're not sure.

More typical creationist tapdancing. Put those goalposts on rollerskates and look at them move!

So what?

That fact alone disproves evolution.

I asked you how. You've yet to answer. Care to take a swing?

We do.

Show me monkeys evolving into man????? Why did they stop?? Evolution fails them?

More dancing goalposts. The fact is we continue to observe evolution. See links provided in this very post.

So? You really have no idea what the theory of evolution stipulates.

Gradual change. I asked for fossil evidence, but I got a few skulls, and as I said, a number of which have been disproved. LOL Show me 4 million years of man evolving. Where's the museum at? I'll go tomorrow. OH WAIT IT DOESN'T EXIST!!

And my statement stands unrefuted.

Do you even know what a regressive gene is?

More so that you do.

Then put your money where you mouth is and explain to us how regressive genes "disprove" evolution.

Only people with less intelligence than yourself could read this passage and think that you understood the first thing about evolutionary theory

Sorry you're jealous... guess you'll be wiped out since you're not the fittest to survive. That is what you believe??

Are you drunk?

 

[oldman420]

wow this thread is the second hottest topic on AT wow

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: oldman420
wow this thread is the second hottest topic on AT wow

I'm not surprised, the country is still divided almost down the middle on this with the majority still believing the earth is flat and only 6,000 yrs old.

 

[MrK6]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: oldman420
wow this thread is the second hottest topic on AT wow

I'm not surprised, the country is still divided almost down the middle on this with the majority still believing the earth is flat and only 6,000 yrs old.

You would think more than a thousand years after the Dark Ages we would have kicked the crap out of this "ignorance" thing, but some people just don't give up on idiocy. Anyway, evolution, anyone with any shread of scientific knowledge can understand that.

 

[Regs]

Whatever happen to "live in the now" ?

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: oldman420
wow this thread is the second hottest topic on AT wow

well, this is the 3rd evloution thread in the last week or so. If you ever read those (again...I dont' see why people keep posting these, as they are all reposts), then it makes sense. The last one went to ~900 responses.

the same arguments always crop up on either side...I don't see why people keep beating themselves up over this tired, pointless (and invalid) debate.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: zinfamous
...
the same arguments always crop up on either side...I don't see why people keep beating themselves up over this tired, pointless (and invalid) debate.

Simple, the evolution vs stupidity debate is a proxy for the real issue: abortion.

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Strk
No modern scientific research has disproved evolution. Here's a good start amount of information you can enlighten yourself with..

Oh, and man evolved from an ape-like creature.

Please provide fossil records of this transition and please explain to me why there are no more of this ape-like creatures around. Certainly if evolution is a continuous form, there will be apes evolving right now and ape-like creatures evolving into man right now. Of course, nothing is doing this and ever has; science proves that. Let's see how you prove science wrong.

Uh, no! As the ape-like creature evolved, the ENTIRE species evolved, it didn't leave some apes behind

 

[videogames101]

Originally posted by: dirtboy

Originally posted by: Tuktuk
What you don't understand, dirtboy, is nobody feels the need to present the evidence in detail here because it is widely available for any person with half a brain to read. Your claim is equivalent to saying the Earth is flat and because none of us on these forums are providing evidence to the contrary, it must be flat. When in fact the Earth is round, and because that is so extremely obvious to any individual with even the slightest bit of intelligence, or any stupid individual who chooses to take the time to actually read the evidence supporting that claim, there is simply no need to argue about the widely accepted fact.

So it is easier to stand behind facts you can't prove? I went to college, read the books, I saw the museums, and unlike you, who mindlessly spoonfed the information in, I challenged it. And what I see and continue to see is major flaws.

So now you say I am dumb because I do not believe in the blind faith of evolution, like you. Sad... I ask you to prove it and you can't.

And if was widely accepted, why do scientists and evolutionists say otherwise? That is contradictory to what you have said. Show me the facts... now you are just running away and insulting me on your way out. Is that what you normally do when proven wrong?

"ARE YOU IGNORING EVERYTHING BEING SAID? CAN'T YOU SEE THAT YOUR MATH IS WRONG? AT LEAST 20 POSTS HAVE PORVED YOUR MATH IS WRONG, BUT OF COURSE, YOU CAN'T RESPOND TO THEM BECAUSE THEN YOU'D HAVE TO ADMIT YOUR WRONG! OMG, ARTICLE AFTER ARTICLE IS PUT IN YOUR FACE AND YOU IGNORE IT ALL, PEOPLE LIKE YOU ARE THE REASON RELIGON STILL EXITSTS, BLINDED BY AN UNPROVABLE FAITH!"



Thats what I would say if i was a troll, but i'm not. Can you just admit that you can't prove your theory, and you can't disprove evolution? Just deal, live, and let live...


And the all those people who yelled at the people who said this is only a flamebait thread, you see? Religon vs Science always turns out this way.

 

[DrPizza]

I'd like to say "why bother" as far as arguments with people who believe in creationism. But, the penalty for not bothering is that more and more people end up believing in it. Their arguments are pretty analagous to watching someone put together a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle. Science has about 15-20% (I'm shooting in the dark on a percentage; don't take that figure too literally) of the pieces in place and has an incredibly good idea what the picture is. The creationists will deny what the picture is, even with 499 out of 500 pieces put into place. "See, you're missing some bones. Therefore your theory is wrong."

 

[3NF]

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
"Intelligent Design" is a steaming pile of horse poop. Proponents of it invariable just attack evolution, as opposed to providing scientific evidence to support their ideas.

I don't agree with that - I don't think the support their theory by attacking evolution theory. And the last I checked, evolution was just that ... a theory!

 

[Brainonska511]

This whole argument is ridiculous. Intelligent Design is not a theory therefore cannot be competing with evolution in the scientific sense.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
"Intelligent Design" is a steaming pile of horse poop. Proponents of it invariable just attack evolution, as opposed to providing scientific evidence to support their ideas.

I don't agree with that - I don't think the support their theory by attacking evolution theory. And the last I checked, evolution was just that ... a theory!

You've just set the thread back 14 pages, way to go. Just for that not only am I going to mention abortion, I will also mention Iraq:

Abortion is cheaper than the current war in Iraq.

 

[homercles337]

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
"Intelligent Design" is a steaming pile of horse poop. Proponents of it invariable just attack evolution, as opposed to providing scientific evidence to support their ideas.

I don't agree with that - I don't think the support their theory by attacking evolution theory. And the last I checked, evolution was just that ... a theory!

Good gawd man! WTF is wrong with you?! Take ONE science class, and ONE bio class, and then READ this *effing* thread. Are you mildly retarded or just stupid?

 

[MrK6]

Originally posted by: homercles337

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: Astaroth33
"Intelligent Design" is a steaming pile of horse poop. Proponents of it invariable just attack evolution, as opposed to providing scientific evidence to support their ideas.

I don't agree with that - I don't think the support their theory by attacking evolution theory. And the last I checked, evolution was just that ... a theory!

Good gawd man! WTF is wrong with you?! Take ONE science class, and ONE bio class, and then READ this *effing* thread. Are you mildly retarded or just stupid?

Hit the nail on the head, and that's why I agree with DrPizza:

Originally posted by: DrPizza
I'd like to say "why bother" as far as arguments with people who believe in creationism. But, the penalty for not bothering is that more and more people end up believing in it. Their arguments are pretty analagous to watching someone put together a 500 piece jigsaw puzzle. Science has about 15-20% (I'm shooting in the dark on a percentage; don't take that figure too literally) of the pieces in place and has an incredibly good idea what the picture is. The creationists will deny what the picture is, even with 499 out of 500 pieces put into place. "See, you're missing some bones. Therefore your theory is wrong."

You have to "beat" the knowledge into them. It's like bringing the horse to water by shoving the garden hose down its throat; sometimes that's the only way to get it through.