Evolution...?

[RandomGuy]

There is no end to this....


So – the big questions are: does variety show that life-forms are changing from one kind into another? Or does variety have a limit?

There are only two ways to find out!



First, do we see Evolution happening today or do we see that life-forms have limits in their variety?
Second, if Evolution is true, the fossil record of the past should show millions of examples of transitional fossils.

On the other hand, if Evolution is not true, the fossil record should show that life-forms in the past had limits to their variety also.

This means a REAL transitional form would not be a “variety”. Instead, these life-forms should show a major structure that is clearly changing.

In other words – if rodents became bats we should see some strange rodent with super long fingers. Why? Because bats have fingers longer than their bodies that they use as wings.

The truth is the only possible transitional fossils Evolutionists bring up are not convincing – even to other Evolutionists. There are some interesting mosaic creatures like the platypus and the walrus in the world. But the platypus and the walrus are complete within their own kind. They are not transitional forms. If Creation is what really happened in the past, this is what we would expect to find in the fossil record. (3)

http://origin.arstechnica.com/journals/science.media/ancientBat.jpg


When people think of mammals, bats are probably not the first animals to come to mind, yet they account for roughly a fifth of current mammal species. They simply have so many specialized features—large ears and echolocation, radically extended forelimb bones, skin flaps connecting their limbs—that they seem quite removed from what we view as a typical mammal. A new fossil find from Wyoming, described in this week's edition of Nature, sheds light on the origin of many of these features.

As you can see at right, the fossil is astonishingly well preserved. It comes from deposits that date to about 52.5 million years ago, a time when many mammalian groups were expanding, possibly in response to the environmental changes associated with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. The species has been named Onychonycteris finneyi, meaning "clawed bat" and honoring its discoverer, Bonnie Finney.

The clawed bat part refers to one of the many intermediate features that make Onychonycteris the most primitive bat species ever described. In all current and prior fossil species of bats, most of the digits in the wing lack the claws typical of mammalian digits. That's not the case here: all Onychonycteris digits end in claws. The hind limbs are also unusually long, as is the tail, but the limb contains a feature that suggests the presence of a skin flap between the hind limbs and the body.

http://arstechnica.com/science/2008/02/earliest-bat-fossil-reveals-transition-to-flight/

Asked for, and given.

The creationist response: move the goal posts. "but you can't find...."

Every single time a predicted transitional form is found that fills in yet another gap, this is what happens.

Dig into it.

Transitional forms predicted by evolution have been, and continue to be found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=List_of_transitional_fossils

Modern taxonomy and phylogeny, fully support evolution, and provide clues and predictions of all manner of transitional forms.

One of the strongest ways in which the evidence for evolution becomes overwhelming is when you find a theory's predictions being borne out in multiple lines of evidence.

If one wants to read up on this aspect of how the study of genetics supports the predictions of evolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Not only does it tell you why something is true, it shows you how to determine for yourself, independently of what any scientist tells you.

[RandomGuy]

Here I will pause, and note a common logical flaw in many peoples reasoning;

Moving the goalposts.

Logical fallacy[edit]

Moving the goalposts, similar to "shifting sands" and also known as raising the bar, is an informal fallacy in which evidence presented in response to a specific claim is dismissed and some other (often greater) evidence is demanded. That is, after an attempt has been made to score a goal, the goalposts are moved to exclude the attempt.[3] The problem with changing the rules of the game is that the meaning of the end result is changed, too.[4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts

Or if you prefer, a better presented form of this flawed argument here:

M
OVING THE GOALPOSTS
(also known as: gravity game, raising the bar, argument by demanding impossible perfection [form of])

Description: Demanding from an opponent that he or she address more and more points after the initial counter-argument has been satisfied refusing to conceded or accept the opponent’s argument.

Logical Form:

Issue A has been raised, and adequately answered.
Issue B is then raised, and adequately answered.
.....
Issue Z is then raised, and adequately answered.
(despite all issues adequately answered, the opponent refuses to conceded or accept the argument.
Example #1:

Ken: There has to be an objective morality because otherwise terms like “right” and “wrong” would be meaningless, since they have no foundation for comparison.
Rob: The terms “right” and “wrong” are based on cultural norms, which do have a subjective foundation -- one that changes as the moral sphere of the culture changes. The term “heavy” does not have an objective standard, yet we have no problem using that term in a meaningful way. In fact, very few relational terms have any kind of objective foundation.
Ken: But without an objective morality, we would all be lost morally as a race.
Rob: Many would say that we are.
Ken: But how can you say that torturing children for fun is morally acceptable in any situation?
Rob: Personally, I wouldn’t, but you are implying that anything that is not objective must necessarily be seen in all possible ways. A feather may not be seen as “heavy” to anyone, but that doesn’t mean its “lightness” is still not relative to other objects.
Ken: But God is the standard of objective morality. Prove that wrong!
Rob: That I cannot do.
Explanation: Ken starts with a statement explaining why he thinks there has to be an objective morality -- a statement based on a reasonable argument that can be pursued with reason and logic. Rob adequately answers that objection, as indicated by Ken’s move away from that objection to a new objection. This pattern continues until we arrive at an impossible request. Despite all the objections being adequately answered, at no time does Ken concede any points or abandon the argument.

Example #2: Perhaps the most classic example of this fallacy is the argument for the existence of God. Due to understanding of nature through science, many of the arguments that used to be used for God (or gods) were abandoned, only to be replaced with new ones, usually involving questions to which science has not definitively answered yet. The move from creationism to intelligent design is a prime example. Currently the origin of life is a popular argument for God (although a classic argument from ignorance), and an area where we very well may have a scientific answer in the next decade, at which time, the “origin of life” argument will fade away and be replaced by another, thus moving the figurative goalposts farther back as our understanding of the natural world increases.

The common application of this flawed line of reasoning is to insist on the impossible proof that every single transitional form be presented before evolution is "proved".

This is neither feasible, nor required to accept something as true.

Take this series of numbers for example:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, (X), 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, ...

We can deduce what "X" is, even if we don't know with an absolute certainty what comes after 14 in the series, simply by forming a hypothesis that the rule governing the set is "add one to the number on the left".

[spurraider21]

AD doesn't get into who or why that insinuates a designer/creator we only acknowledge there is design while exposing lies in texts books.
if there is design, there is a designer. otherwise... it's not really design.

[Avante]

Look at these dummies, wow!

Only an idiot would believe we came from a fish. How dumb can ya get?

[mouse]

So why did you even try as much as you did to conclude everything was intelligently designed only to stop there?

Again, it's just a cop out. You can stop talking about this now. You say you are done, after all.


Psssst! When I see lies and bullshit being posted as facts I chime in.

[ChumpDumper]

Psssst! When I see lies and bullshit being posted as facts I chime in.But there is no proof to make what you say true.

[mouse]

Evolutionists won't acknowledge DNA even though it's right there smacking them in the face

http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p55/RackTheMouse/defaced-jackass_zpszseczetg.gif

[Avante]

How did DNA just happen without a Designer?

[ChumpDumper]

How did DNA just happen without a Designer?How did it happen with a designer?

[boutons_deux]

How did it happen with a designer?

come on, chump, stop with unfair questions. :)

[RandomGuy]

Look at these dummies, wow!

Only an idiot would believe we came from a fish. How dumb can ya get?

Translation:


https://justincascio.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/ecqkuo.jpg

Not really an argument. Just a variation on a theme.

Same debunked argument from incredulity you have been harping on.


Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1) P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
or
2) I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.


Avante here actually does both forms:


[That we are the result of random natural processes] simply can't happen by chance, [therefore the argument that we are the result of random natural processes is false]
P= We are the result of random natural processes


[I cannot imagine how anything could happen without a designer "we... must have a Designer"], [so therefore, we have a Designer]
P=We have a Designer

Wishful, flawed thinking and provably so.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[Blake]

How did DNA just happen without a Designer?

How did the designer just happen without a designer?

[Avante]

Translation:



Not really an argument. Just a variation on a theme.

Same debunked argument from incredulity you have been harping on.



Avante here actually does both forms:


P= We are the result of random natural processes


P=We have a Designer

Wishful, flawed thinking and provably so.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Hey stupid, if you wanna think we all evolved from a fish you're an idiot, ok? And nothing you can say will change that, got it?

[Blake]

Hey stupid, if you wanna think we all evolved from a fish you're an idiot, ok? And nothing you can say will change that, got it?

There's evidence of evolution. There's no evidence of intelligent design.

Intelligent design was even shot down in court when proponents tried to get it into science books.

You're incredibly fucking retarded. No amount of YouTube distractions will change that.

[RandomGuy]

Hey stupid, if you wanna think we all evolved from a fish you're an idiot, ok? And nothing you can say will change that, got it?

Meh. Let me know when you get bored of trolling.

Alternately:
If you are stupid enough to ignore the evidence that we all evolved from fish, you are provably an idiot. Until you stop being a lazy shit, that will not change.

It boggles my mind when I see lazy shits like yourself that have to perform some pretty astonishing feats of mental gymnastics to keep believing things despite the mountains of evidence humans have discovered about our world and universe.

Why are you so lazy?

[Avante]

Meh. Let me know when you get bored of trolling.

Alternately:
If you are stupid enough to ignore the evidence that we all evolved from fish, you are provably an idiot. Until you stop being a lazy shit, that will not change.

It boggles my mind when I see lazy shits like yourself that have to perform some pretty astonishing feats of mental gymnastics to keep believing things despite the mountains of evidence humans have discovered about our world and universe.

Why are you so lazy?

Stupid, who hasn't seen/read all that stupidity? If you can't see how full of bullshit that is I can't help ya. Only total morons buy into that bullshit, and you're too stupid to not see that.

[Blake]

Avante's designer really fucked up.

6'2 285lbs of fat and stupid.

[Avante]

Avante's designer really fucked up.

6'2 285lbs of fat and stupid.

Who out there follows people around just to bug them? Look at this freak, he acts like he's 13 years old. Real easy to see why he gets constantly shit on, not a brain in his head, none!

Now watch this, here the little retard comes back again, is this sad to watch or what?

I gurantee he'll be back.

[Blake]

Watch this, after I call Avante fat, he'll come back again.

Avante is fat.

Now watch....

[Avante]

BINGO~~~~~~~~~~~

That was just too easy, hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

Here he comes again, I GURANTEE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine a life going around seeing who you can bug on the internet, that's all this cock sucker does. How sad is this?

I own this boy, watch!

[RandomGuy]

Stupid, who hasn't seen/read all that stupidity? If you can't see how full of bullshit that is I can't help ya. Only total morons buy into that bullshit, and you're too stupid to not see that.

You haven't seen/read it, and that is pretty obvious. You can't state more than the most childish understanding of the theory, and you rely on liars to tell you what to think about it, rather than make the effort of thinking for yourself.

I mean, I guess I can't blame you for being lazy. It is human nature. It takes effort to read, and understand.

Real critical thinking is hard. Evaluating ones inherent assumptions is hard. Cognitive bias is a bitch to overcome, but can be done.

That is one of the things that the research of Donning-Kruger showed. People who are really incompetent at something, just don't recognize how incompetent they are, until they have been shown what competence looks like, and even then they like to trick themselves into thinking they are still "above average" somehow. But with some effort, they can acquire the skills needed to improve.

I can, and have, run circles around the work of the liars and idiots you post here, as well as your own mantra "fish... ahahahah".

Yet you persist.

Again, I wonder why? Does it make you happy to wallow in ignorance? Why be lazy, Avante?

[Blake]

BINGO~~~~~~~~~~~

That was just too easy, hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

Here he comes again, I GURANTEE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Imagine a life going around seeing who you can bug on the internet, that's all this cock sucker does. How sad is this?

I own this boy, watch!

Too easy.

Here comes poorly designed fat man again.

Watch....

[Avante]

You haven't seen/read it, and that is pretty obvious. You can't state more than the most childish understanding of the theory, and you rely on liars to tell you what to think about it, rather than make the effort of thinking for yourself.

I mean, I guess I can't blame you for being lazy. It is human nature. It takes effort to read, and understand.

Real critical thinking is hard. Evaluating ones inherent assumptions is hard. Cognitive bias is a bitch to overcome, but can be done.

That is one of the things that the research of Donning-Kruger showed. People who are really incompetent at something, just don't recognize how incompetent they are, until they have been shown what competence looks like, and even then they like to trick themselves into thinking they are still "above average" somehow. But with some effort, they can acquire the skills needed to improve.

I can, and have, run circles around the work of the liars and idiots you post here, as well as your own mantra "fish... ahahahah".

Yet you persist.

Again, I wonder why? Does it make you happy to wallow in ignorance? Why be lazy, Avante?

Anyone who spends all day trying to peddle ...I was once a fish....to total strangers on the internet is one dumb fuck. That's how I see you.....one dumb fuck.

There is nothing anyone can say or do that will convince me we came from fish, that will not happen, what about that don't you get?


Now watch this dummy totally ignore that, then he wonders why I pay no attention to all his bullshit.

[Avante]

Too easy.

Here comes poorly designed fat man again.

Watch....

ZOOOOMMMS right his pin head doesn't it, too stupid to realize he's in my thread doing exactly what I know he will, poor little idiot.

[Blake]

ZOOOOMMMS right his pin head doesn't it, too stupid to realize he's in my thread doing exactly what I know he will, poor little idiot.

Like shooting unevolved fish in a barrel

Avante is fat.

Wait for it....

[Avante]

Like shooting unevolved fish in a barrel

Avante is fat.

Wait for it....

Since the boy is too stupid to see what I'm doing to him I might as well use his dumbass to play some tunes.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMgrN-ghWH4

Now that I need his faggot ass watch him bail on me.

I;m guessing he was from a broken home, the minute his dad saw this freak, it was......see ya~~~~~~

[Blake]

Wut...you don't need me to post a YouTube.

But for the sake of others I'm gonna bail on this who's on first conversation

[Avante]

Wut...you don't need me to post a YouTube.

But for the sake of others I'm gonna bail on this who's on first conversation

transation

Being a queer, I have a thing for you Avante as ya can see. Since I can't suck your dick can ya play me some music, kinda ease the pain?

Here ya go ya little queer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Osrb3SqpP90

A cover of an old Gus Cannon and His Jug Stompers classic, at no time is Viola Lee mentioned.

[mouse]

There's evidence of evolution.


Micro or Macro?



There's no evidence of intelligent design.

your saying DNA is just chance ?

[RandomGuy]

Anyone who spends all day trying to peddle ...I was once a fish....to total strangers on the internet is one dumb fuck. That's how I see you.....one dumb fuck.

There is nothing anyone can say or do that will convince me we came from fish, that will not happen, what about that don't you get?


Now watch this dummy totally ignore that, then he wonders why I pay no attention to all his bullshit.

Not really an answer to my question. Why are you so lazy? That is what I don't get.

I'm not trying to peddle anything. I am just puzzled why you can't be bothered to learn anything.

It is well within your prerogative to remain ignorant I guess. Personally, I think it is fun to learn things, and that is one of the reasons I take the time to address the copy pasta from the creationist websites.

By this point, despite what you say here, I don't even think you believe the magic man theory either.

S'all good, kid. Wallow on.

http://i.imgur.com/MFdTOaq.jpg

[Avante]

Not really an answer to my question. Why are you so lazy? That is what I don't get.

I'm not trying to peddle anything. I am just puzzled why you can't be bothered to learn anything.

It is well within your prerogative to remain ignorant I guess. Personally, I think it is fun to learn things, and that is one of the reasons I take the time to address the copy pasta from the creationist websites.

By this point, despite what you say here, I don't even think you believe the magic man theory either.

S'all good, kid. Wallow on.

http://i.imgur.com/MFdTOaq.jpg

You mean that lazy guy who could take everyone here totally to school on a dozen topics or so? And I don't like to learn?

How about you bone up on the origins of those Georgia blues, ok? Then take me back to the origins of BIG10 football and then the British sci fi novel, ok? Now dont be lazy. Wanna talk Caribbean sprinting from the 1930's until today? How about the first jockies, plantation fighters? Wanna talk Robert E. Howard and the origins of rhe sword & sorcery novel? How about Texas football? Oh hell no I don't like to learn, too lazy, sheesh~~~~~~~ Wanna talk the origins of Motown? Take me back to the the old AFL and the Dalas Texans? Wanna talk Tiger Flowers, how about Beatie Featties?

Go ahead delve into those and get back to me.

Let me guess...you simply don't care about those things....right?

It's not about laziness little man it's about having the belief the problem is we humans have finally found something we can't explain and just can't accept that so we try our best to not let that happen, so here comes all this stupidity dummies like you gobble up.

Billions of people today believe in some God, yet you don't care, right? Yet you really think I'm going to care what some obvious idiot on the internet thinks? You work way too hard at this guy, that tells me you're a dummy. If ya any sense you'd..."hey, believe what ya like".

Prove to me you're not just another lonely intrernet idiot like a Blake, Clipper Nation, ChumpStupid and respect my opinion, ok? I won't be changing it, ok?

[RandomGuy]

It's not about laziness little man it's about having the belief the problem is we humans have finally found something we can't explain and just can't accept that so we try our best to not let that happen, so here comes all this stupidity dummies like you gobble up.

Bilions of people today believe in some God, yet you don't care, right? Yet you really think I;m going to care whast some obviuoud idiot ohn the internet thinks? You work way too hard at this guy that te;ls me you're a dummy. If ya any sense you'd..."hey, believe what ya like".

Problem for you is that we can explain life. The evidence is there. You just ignore it, and whine when someone points it out to you.

[admiralsnackbar]

It's not about laziness little man it's about having the belief the problenm is we humans have finally found something we can't explain and just can't accept that so we try our best to not let that happen, so here comes all this stupidity dummies like you gobble up. Why should we have to accept it when questioning it slowly leads to discovery? You read someone like Harvey, who dissected live animals to try to figure out what was actually happening in animal bodies unquestioningly (at the time) understood to be ruled by vague constructs called humors. He kept at it until he came to understand the circulatory system. Or Lavoisier, who puzzled at the nature of matter until he established the rudiments of chemistry. Or Newton. Or Hutton. Or Maxwell. Or or or. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, and there's no fault with discerning we'll always be ignorant about something, but to just give up on searching even when you're surrounded by the fruits (tech, medicine, etc) of trying to figure out "the unknowable?" What's up with that? What's so dumb about curiosity?

[RandomGuy]

Y

How about you bone up on the origins of those Georgia blues, ok? Then take me back to the origins of BIG10 football and then the British sci fi novel, ok? Now dont be lazy. Wanna talk Caribbean sprinting from the 1930's until today? How about the first jockies, plantation fighters? Wanna talk Robert E. Howard and the origins of rhe sword & sorcery novel? How about Texas football? Oh hell no I don't like to learn, too lazy, sheesh~~~~~~~ Wanna talk the origins of Motown? Take me back to the the old AFL and the Dalas Texans? Wanna talk Tiger Flowers, how about Beatie Featties?

Go ahead delve into those and get back to me.

Let me guess...you simply don't care about those things....right?



If I had an opinion about those topics that differed from yours, and you were to show me some evidence or convincing arguments, I would change my mind if it were good enough. Not really all that hard.

That is because I care about what is true, and am not so lazy I can't overcome my own cognitive biases.

[Avante]

Problem for you is that we can explain life. The evidence is there. You just ignore it, and whine when someone points it out to you.

I don't have a problem at all, where did you get this idea I had a problem? I'm not to one going around trying to..."see it my way" "agree with me!" "agree with me!"...that would be you, so who has a problem?

[Avante]

Why should we have to accept it when questioning it slowly leads to discovery? You read someone like Harvey, who dissected live animals to try to figure out what was actually happening in animal bodies unquestioningly (at the time) understood to be ruled by vague constructs called humors. He kept at it until he came to understand the circulatory system. Or Lavoisier, who puzzled at the nature of matter until he established the rudiments of chemistry. Or Newton. Or Hutton. Or Maxwell. Or or or. There's nothing wrong with ignorance, and there's no fault with discerning we'll always be ignorant about something, but to just give up on searching even when you're surrounded by the fruits (tech, medicine, etc) of trying to figure out "the unknowable?" What's up with that? What's so dumb about curiosity?

What's dumb is when you chase others around trying to...."AGREE WITH ME !"

[Avante]

If I had an opinion about those topics that differed from yours, and you were to show me some evidence or convincing arguments, I would change my mind if it were good enough. Not really all that hard.

That is because I care about what is true, and am not so lazy I can't overcome my own cognitive biases.

So you have evidence proving that we couldn't have had a MasterDesgner, right? Where?

[RandomGuy]

I don't have a problem at all, where did you get this idea I had a problem? I'm not to one going around trying to..."see it my way" "agree with me!" "agree with me!"...that would be you, so who has a problem?

Translation:

http://blog.contagiouscompanies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/lalalala-listening.jpg

Again, not asking you to agree with me.

I am asking you to stop being lazy. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

[admiralsnackbar]

What's dumb is when you chase others around trying to...."AGREE WITH ME !" So do you just dislike being lectured to, or -- like in the bit of yours I quoted above -- do you straight-up dismiss curiosity as hopeless?

[Avante]

Translation:

http://blog.contagiouscompanies.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/lalalala-listening.jpg

Again, not asking you to agree with me.

I am asking you to stop being lazy. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

What about.....all the evidence in the world won;t have me beliving we evolved from fish...don't you get?

[Avante]

So do you just dislike being lectured to, or -- like in the bit of yours I quoted above -- do you straight-up dismiss curiosity as hopeless?

I don't like dummies who have no more of a clue than I do telling me shit.

[admiralsnackbar]

What about.....all the evidence in the world won;t have me beliving we evolved from fish...don't you get? Just a shot in the dark, but maybe it's just the fact that you would want to make such a definitive statement. If all the evidence in the world won't make you believe X, why do you bother discussing?

[admiralsnackbar]

I don't like dummies who have no more of a clue than I do telling me shit. What if they did have more of a clue?

[Avante]

Just a shot in the dark, but maybe it's just the fact that you would want to make such a definitive statement. If all the evidence in the world won't make you believe X, why do you bother discussing?

The Theory of Evoution is always a fun topic. We see so many trying to sell total bulshit and it's funny.

We have no idea how all this came about and only fools and idiots don't get that.

[Avante]

What if they did have more of a clue?

I haven't seen one yet.

[admiralsnackbar]

I haven't seen one yet. Why would you if no amount of evidence could convince you to the contrary? :lol Sorry, chief -- not trying to break your balls, but you just aren't making sense. Anyway, it's all good... peace to ya.

[Blake]

What about.....all the evidence in the world won;t have me beliving we evolved from fish...don't you get?

there it is.

Avante's world is flat even though we have pictures of it being round.

[Avante]

there it is.

Avante's world is flat even though we have pictures of it being round.

translation

Hey Avante, I'm horny ya got some old Georgia blues to cool me down? You do have a nice ass ya know.


Here ya go ya fucking queer.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wFrb2s1fvg

[Blake]

translation

Hey Avante, I'm horny ya got some old Georgia blues to cool me down? You do have a nice ass ya know.


Here ya go ya fucking queer.


Wow you really want me to fuck you.

No thanks, not into fat old men and not gay

[Avante]

Wow you really want me to fuck you.

No thanks, not into fat old men and not gay

Translation

Damn you're hot Avante, I almost got a nut over them Georgia Blues. How about that new band you just discovered, Ya know...Buddy G and the Voodoos or something like that.

What a freak and it's Billy D and the Hoodoos



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J715ef0tSI

[mouse]

Problem for you is that we can explain life. The evidence is there. .

you can prove DNA is result of the big bang?

[Avante]

I want to see anyone prove that the big bang gave us DNA.

DNA is why I don't by anyones bullshit. No way in hell DNA just came about, no way in hell.


Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer?

[mouse]

I want to see anyone prove that the big bang gave us DNA.

DNA is why I don't by anyones bullshit. No way in hell DNA just came about, no way in hell.


Can DNA Prove the Existence of an Intelligent Designer?


Scientists still cant fully understand DNA let alone try and explain how it came about.

Don't get me wrong there are a few that claim they know those are the same ones that gave us piltdown man Nebraska man.

[Avante]

Scientists still cant fully understand DNA let alone try and explain how it came about.

Don't get me wrong there are a few that claim they know those are the same ones that gave us piltdown man Nebraska man.

When you take into consideration all the things it takes to sustain life on this planet. And how they must all work in perfect concert and then add the complexities of DNA, how could anyone not see the need for intelligent design? It seems pretty obvious to me. Why some have a need to battle that obvious remains a mystery to me.

Once upon a time we didn't know about a lot of things we have today. Try explaining the cell phone a 1000 years ago. Try explaining tv, CD's, computers 1000 years ago. They'd think you were crazy. Try ...."in 50 years HS's will have offensive lines bigger than you Packers have now"...they'd think you were nuts. Science couldn't have predicted that.

You see it pretty much as I do,more or less, this didn't just happen...BANG!!!!!!!!!..and we are related to fish.

[lebomb]

When you take into consideration all the things it takes to sustain like on this planet. And how they must all work in perfect concert and then add the complexities of DNA, how could anyone not see the need for intelligent design? It seems pretty obvious to me. Why some have a need to battle that obvious remains a mystery to me.

Once upon a time we didn't know about a lot of things we have today. Try explaining the cell phone a 1000 years ago. Try explaining tv, CD's, computers 1000 years ago. They'd think you were crazy. Try ...."in 50 years HS's will have offensive lines bigger than you Packers have now"...they'd think you were nuts. Science couldn't have predicted that.

You see it pretty much as I do,more or less, this didn't just happen...BANG!!!!!!!!!..and we are related to fish.


Agree 200% !!!

All this didn't just happen randomly and out of fuckin no where. How can anyone be that stupid? :rolleyes

[pgardn]

Scientists still cant fully understand DNA let alone try and explain how it came about.

Don't get me wrong there are a few that claim they know those are the same ones that gave us piltdown man Nebraska man.


Ok

Time to refute the BS and explain the current state of biochemical evolution.

If Mouse or Avante had any clue as to what they were writing they would realize they are asking the wrong question.

We have a good understanding of how elements (atoms arose from the Big Bang) This equation is more than some silly math, it has meaning. E = mc^2. So we got atoms. Now to compounds and therefore molecules and then Biomolecules. Compounds are easily produced under lower energy conditions (ie total E became more widely distributed therefore less concentrated) In fact compounds do arise preferentially, most of the elements on the periodic table do not exists in elemental form in our world on the surface of the Earth.

Now to molecules that replicate. There are many crystals that in effect, replicate with mistakes in the pattern


if we put elements together that were present on the early Earth and input a little energy, lighting and or heat, we come up with a myriad of Biomolecules that are now present and abundant. Phosphates, simple sugars and nitrogenous bases, the three basic parts of RNA and DNA are part of the mish mash of organics.

Now once we got these 3 building blocks, we see that some nucleic acids self replicate. Do I need to go further ya big quacks?

What we don't know is exactly how cells arose in which nucleic acids appear to prefer to self replicate (Dawkins perspective here). But we have some very good ideas. A woman has actually been instrumental in these studies; for the males that believe only the penis can think. She's pretty old now.

So Avante go back to list making and quit getting blowed up.
Moise... Can you go die again, and have your lawyer self die with you...

[Avante]

Agree 200% !!!

All this didn't just happen randomly and out of fuckin no where. How can anyone be that stupid? :rolleyes

What if the sun were just 1000 miles closer or further away? What if we spun around at a faster or slower rate? What if we didn't have the seasons or rain? Then there's the sperm and the egg, the nutrients in the grow we need to grow our food. All thast just happened, ...BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!...and we got all that and DNA? How can a few us "here" get this while others are totally wrong?

[pgardn]

And Fckn DNA is NOT THAT COMPLEX as a biomolecule.

Compared to proteins, DNA is child's play.

Pure ignorance and stupidity run rampant again.

[pgardn]

What if the sun were just 1000 miles closer or further away? What if we spun around at a faster or slower rate? What if we didn't have the seasons or rain? Then there's the sperm and the egg, the nutrients in the grow we need to grow our food. All thast just happened, ...BANG!!!!!!!!!!!!...and we got all that and DNA? How can a few us "here" get this while others are totally wrong?

What if we picked up a grain of sand on the beech and then proclaimed this one grain, the possibility of picking up just that grain, a miracle.

If you don't get the analogy Avante I can't help you. You are not a critical thinker. Oh news flash...

Oh Avante I wrote all this off the top of my head and it's not a pure list.
Amazing stuff... Makes me a genius. Nope. I Fckn read and think, try it.

I have a job that requires research, trying shit, and thinking. And do it over...

[Avante]

And Fckn DNA is NOT THAT COMPLEX as a biomolecule.

Compared to proteins, DNA is child's play.

Pure ignorance and stupidity run rampant again.


I could only post something like this all day long, why is that? How come so many think you'r an idiot?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDN6un3x7E4

[Avante]

What if we picked up a grain of sand on the beech and then proclaimed this one grain, the possibility of picking up just that grain, a miracle.

If you don't get the analogy Avante I can't help you. You are not a critical thinker. Oh news flash...

Oh Avante I wrote all this off the top of my head and it's not a pure list.
Amazing stuff... Makes me a genius. Nope. I Fckn read and think, try it.

I have a job that requires research, trying shit, and thinking. And do it over...

I've never seen anyone as lost as you stay, it really is amazing, ya make no sense at all.

[pgardn]

So you want me to make a video called we don't need intelligent design to get replicating molecules.

Dont need to, they are already there.

If I pointed out all the flaws in your video would you read it?

[pgardn]

I've never seen anyone as lost as you stay, it really is amazing, ya make no sense at all.

You don't Fckn think there are other planets that orbit around Suns of our size?
That are the "right"? Are you Fckn serious? Do you get it now?

[Avante]

You don't Fckn think there are other planets that orbit around Suns of our size?
That are the "right"? Are you Fckn serious? Do you get it now?

Who is talking about that? I;m talking soime dumb fuck on the internet trying to peddle bullshit.

Dude, are you simply retarded?

Why not actually learn about DNA ok stupid?

Here ya go ya dumb fuck.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ib5afvPVsUc

[pgardn]

Who is talking about that? I;m talking soime dumb fuck on the internet trying to peddle bullshit.

Dude, are you simply retarded?

Why not actually learn about DNA ok stupid?

How does DNA differ from RNA structurally and what is the significance of this?

I have a very long answer to a very important question.
I must work now, and then run, fat man.
I will be back to check your answer to which you know nothing about.

Stick to track. You are totally out of your element and you know it. For the sake of lurkers I play the game with you hoping they realize you write complete trash.

[Avante]

How does DNA differ from RNA structurally and what is the significance of this?

I have a very long answer to a very important question.
I must work now, and then run, fat man.
I will be back to check your answer to which you know nothing about.

Stick to track. You are totally out of your element and you know it. For the sake of lurkers I play the game with you hoping they realize you write complete trash.

As you totally and completely ignore what those videos are saying.

This is one dumb fuck here and it's obvious. Not a clue.

So internet dummies know more about this stuff than this guy, why don't I believe that?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XJvcJ4_L10

[Blake]

I've never seen anyone as lost as you stay, it really is amazing, ya make no sense at all.

You provided the classic watch maker analogy which is hundreds of years old. He gave you a classic response to it's flawed logic.

you're a caveman.

[Avante]

You provided the classic watch maker analogy which is hundreds of years old. He gave you a classic response to it's flawed logic.

you're a caveman.

Let's see what 2015 has to say about DNA/intelligent design, be right back.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alcPNUfYils

[Blake]

Plenty of caveman level intelligence in 2015, you being a prime example.

[Avante]

Plenty of caveman level intelligence in 2015, you being a prime example.

No end to it...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN5uo0TBd_Q

Why not actually watch the videos ya little prick, ok? Tell me where they are wrong, ok? Ya lazy fuck.

What are your credentuals, oh yeah ya have none.

[Blake]

No end to it...

Why not actually watch the videos ya little prick, ok? Tell me where they are wrong, ok? Ya lazy fuck.

What are your credentuals, oh yeah ya have none.

don't need to watch it to know it's got something like "irreducible complexity" amirite?

Saying DNA is evidence of design is just using the watch maker analogy, which fails when you use critical thinking.........which you don't, caveman.

[Avante]

don't need to watch it to know it's got something like "irreducible complexity" amirite?

Saying DNA is evidence of design is just using the watch maker analogy, which fails when you use critical thinking.........which you don't, caveman.

Thinking we evolved from a fish is critical thinking, hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! DNA and Intelligent design is critical thinking.

Dude, why are you so fucking lazy? Hell no wonder you think you were a fish you're too lazy to learn anything.

Why not look at why I think you're an idiot.

[ChumpDumper]

No end to it...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN5uo0TBd_Q

Why not actually watch the videos ya little prick, ok? Tell me where they are wrong, ok? Ya lazy fuck.

What are your credentuals, oh yeah ya have none.You don't watch the videos you post. Why should we?

[spurraider21]

http://i.gyazo.com/016170662e8db2282e9dc206b1c1b086.png

[spurraider21]

less than 0.15% of scientists disagree with evolution, and of that tiny percentage... 75% of them aren't even in the field of biology :lmao

avante, this would explain why all your videos are the same as me posting videos of successful hail mary touchdowns

[Avante]

less than 0.15% of scientists disagree with evolution, and of that tiny percentage... 75% of them aren't even in the field of biology :lmao

100% of science has been 100% wrong how many times?


The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theoriesPosted on November 24, 2010 | By Eric Berger (http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/author/ericberger/)

[ChumpDumper]

100% of science has been 100% wrong how many times?


The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theoriesPosted on November 24, 2010 | By Eric Berger (http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/author/ericberger/)How often have you been wrong?

How often has religion been wrong?

Do you have a list of the top ten religious beliefs that were wrong?

[spurraider21]

100% of science has been 100% wrong how many times?


The top 10 most spectacularly wrong widely held scientific theories

Posted on November 24, 2010 | By Eric Berger (http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/author/ericberger/)
if you're going to keep posting videos of the 0.15% of scientists as evidence, i find it funny that you would reject the other 99.85%

[spurraider21]

its funny that scientists discovered the mistakes and corrected them. example #1 is the geocentric universe? when scientists tried to explain that this was wrong, the church had people murdered for bringing it up

[spurraider21]

:lmao

http://i.gyazo.com/a7cc7d244662cff193ddccd2c5328d4a.png

[Avante]

if you're going to keep posting videos of the 0.15% of scientists as evidence, i find it funny that you would reject the other 99.85%

I agree that DNA needed intelligent design. It really is obvious.

[Avante]

:lmao

http://i.gyazo.com/a7cc7d244662cff193ddccd2c5328d4a.png

Look at the science 100 years ago and today.

[ChumpDumper]

I agree that DNA needed intelligent design. It really it obvious.So how was it designed?


Look at the science 100 years ago and today.Yep, getting better and better. That's what science does.

[Avante]

No end to it....

DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal—always arises from an intelligent source. So, the discovery of information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren’t there to observe the system coming into existence.

Thus, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or religion, but instead upon recent scientific discoveries and upon standard methods of scientific reasoning in which our uniform experience of cause and effect guides our inferences about what happened in the past.
Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but “religion masquerading as science.” But intelligent design is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because [they thought] the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design.

[RandomGuy]

http://i57.tinypic.com/k00ef5.jpg

Still good.

[RandomGuy]

I have yet to see anyone prove a damn thing concerning evolution, nothing/zero. The reason being, it can't be done.

"it" being you getting off your lazy ass to read something.

In that, I would agree.

[RandomGuy]

No end to it....

DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal—always arises from an intelligent source. So, the discovery of information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren’t there to observe the system coming into existence.

Thus, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or religion, but instead upon recent scientific discoveries and upon standard methods of scientific reasoning in which our uniform experience of cause and effect guides our inferences about what happened in the past.
Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but “religion masquerading as science.” But intelligent design is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because [they thought] the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/19/Signature-in-the-Cell-DNA-and-the-Evidence-for-Intelligent-Design.aspx#Article

At least have the intellectual honesty to cite your sources.

Not really an argument or evidence anyway. Just another flawed argument.

Claim CF003:

Source:

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 13.
Response:


This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html

[RandomGuy]

In the end it goes back to the burden of proof.

Claims require proof. Claims of "intelligent design" require proof. Positive claim, positive proof needed.

To wit:

KayBys8gaJY

Not that Avante would bother taking the time. We all know better. copy, paste, troll, repeat.

[RandomGuy]

No end to it...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dN5uo0TBd_Q

Why not actually watch the videos ya little prick, ok? Tell me where they are wrong, ok? Ya lazy fuck.

What are your credentuals, oh yeah ya have none.

See above. "statisticians say..." Which ones? What is the peer-reviewed cite? none.

"scientists doubt..." Which ones? What is the peer reviewed cite? none.

It is an op-ed, and the guy spouts debunked argument after debunked argument.

"fine tuned universe"
"irreducible complexity"
"DNA information"

He sounds just science-y enough to make people who already believe it think they have a good reason to think intelligent design is a reasonable idea.

It isn't. He uses some rather laughable attempts to use statistics. "chance hypothesis has been rejected by leading origin of life scientists". Again, he doesn't offer examples.

So, let's get started on how this is wrong, and dishonest.

[Avante]

See above. "statisticians say..." Which ones? What is the peer-reviewed cite? none.

"scientists doubt..." Which ones? What is the peer reviewed cite? none.

It is an op-ed, and the guy spouts debunked argument after debunked argument.

"fine tuned universe"
"irreducible complexity"
"DNA information"

He sounds just science-y enough to make people who already believe it think they have a good reason to think intelligent design is a reasonable idea.

It isn't. He uses some rather laughable attempts to use statistics. "chance hypothesis has been rejected by leading origin of life scientists". Again, he doesn't offer examples.

So, let's get started on how this is wrong, and dishonest.

Why do I seriously doubt a dummy like you obviously are know more about than he does?

What are your credentials?

[Avante]

Only a total moron could think DNA didn't need a designer. How anyone can be stupid enought to not see that,?????

[pgardn]

Only a total moron could think DNA didn't need a designer. How anyone can be stupid enought to not see that,?????


So why do we have DNA that is totally nonfunctional?

What Fckn software programmer would put in lines to program for a tail?
So you use bits and pieces from software you have already made and has NO CURRENT FUNCTION for your new program?

Your Fckn programmer is an idiot.
Oh, and so are you.

[Avante]

So why do we have DNA that is totally nonfunctional?

What Fckn software programmer would put in lines to program for a tail?
So you use bits and pieces from software you have already made and has NO CURRENT FUNCTION for your new program?

Your Fckn programmer is an idiot.
Oh, and so are you.

So this guy is an idiot? So I should believe a dumb faggot like you over him, right?


Meyer graduated with a B.S. (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/B.S.) degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Whitworth_College)[4] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-4) and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/ARCO).[5] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-discobio-5) Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Rotary_International) of Dallas to study at Cambridge University (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/University_of_Cambridge) in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-ARNbio-6) His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-ARNbio-6) After gaining his Ph.D., Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-7) then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Palm_Beach_Atlantic_University).[6] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-ARNbio-6) Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement).[8] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-Guide-8)

[ChumpDumper]

So this guy is an idiot? So I should believe a dumb faggot like you over him, right?


Meyer graduated with a B.S. (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/B.S.) degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Whitworth_College)[4] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-4) and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/ARCO).[5] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-discobio-5) Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Rotary_International) of Dallas to study at Cambridge University (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/University_of_Cambridge) in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-ARNbio-6) His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-ARNbio-6) After gaining his Ph.D., Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-7) then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Palm_Beach_Atlantic_University).[6] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-ARNbio-6) Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement).[8] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-Guide-8)
Not even a bachelor's in biology?

lol

[pgardn]

So this guy is an idiot? So I should believe a dumb faggot like you over him, right?


Meyer graduated with a B.S. (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/B.S.) degree in physics and earth science in 1981 from the Christian Whitworth College (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Whitworth_College)[4] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-4) and worked as a geophysicist for the Atlantic Richfield Company (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/ARCO).[5] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-discobio-5) Shortly after, Meyer won a scholarship from the Rotary Club (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Rotary_International) of Dallas to study at Cambridge University (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/University_of_Cambridge) in the United Kingdom. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.[6] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-ARNbio-6) His dissertation was entitled "Of clues and causes: A methodological interpretation of origin of life studies."[6] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-ARNbio-6) After gaining his Ph.D., Meyer taught philosophy at Whitworth,[7] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-7) then at the Christian Palm Beach Atlantic University (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Palm_Beach_Atlantic_University).[6] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-ARNbio-6) Meyer later ceased teaching to devote his time to the intelligent design movement (http://www.spurstalk.com/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement).[8] (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-Guide-8)


Yes.
Yes he is.

He is a Fckn philosophy guy. I see nothing about biochemistry or biochemical evolution.
Nothing. I have a masters degree in biochemistry from UT. BS in molecular Biology. From UT. I Know most of this stuff well although my job now entails more physics and getting people like you, who know a whole lot about very little, to work as a team for specific projects they are needed for. I am not meaning to brag, but I'm telling you the way it is.

If you doubt I know what I type look it up. I am telling you the following:

We have viral sequences that have are chopped up in our DNA and we will pass on to children we have.
We have psuedogenes, multiple copies of genes like for hemoglobin, that are screwed up with inversions and translocated that are no longer transcribed that we will pass on to our children. I could continue on ad nauseum ...

Bottom line: Human DNA as some sort of work of perfection by a designer trying to achieve perfection is perfectly ludicrous.

So yes, the guy is a charlatan that does not know his stuff if you are parroting what he has stated. I guarantee it. You will one day figure out how to find more reliable sources when attempting to explain something you know nothing about.

[ChumpDumper]

Who designed the cancer?

[pgardn]

Who designed the cancer?

Yet another example.

Why make genes that regulate the cell cycle so easy to mutate so that cells divide in an unregulated fashion?
The list is expansive and actually quite important to understand theTRUTH about.

[Avante]

Yes.
Yes he is.

He is a Fckn philosophy guy. I see nothing about biochemistry or biochemical evolution.
Nothing. I have a masters degree in biochemistry from UT. BS in molecular Biology. From UT. I Know most of this stuff well although my job now entails more physics and getting people like you, who know a whole lot about very little, to work as a team for specific projects they are needed for. I am not meaning to brag, but I'm telling you the way it is.

If you doubt I know what I type look it up. I am telling you the following:

We have viral sequences that have are chopped up in our DNA and we will pass on to children we have.
We have psuedogenes, multiple copies of genes like for hemoglobin, that are screwed up with inversions and translocated that are no longer transcribed that we will pass on to our children. I could continue on ad nauseum ...

Bottom line: Human DNA as some sort of work of perfection by a designer trying to achieve perfection is perfectly ludicrous.

So yes, the guy is a charlatan that does not know his stuff if you are parroting what he has stated. I guarantee it. You will one day figure out how to find more reliable sources when attempting to explain something you know nothing about.

So I need to find somebody else, that shouldn't be hard.

Be right back.

Let me guess, you know more that these guys also, right?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOxvEg3tj-g

[ChumpDumper]

So I need to find somebody else, that shouldn't be hard.

Be right back.

Let me guess, you know more that these guys also, right?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOxvEg3tj-gSo what does he say in this video?

Explain it to us.

[MultiTroll]

Thinking we evolved from a fish is critical thinking, hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
:lol I laughed out loud.
Good one Avante.

[MultiTroll]

less than 0.15% of scientists disagree with evolution, and of that tiny percentage...
Where was this stat cherry picked from?
"Scientists whose salary relies on agreeing with evolution magazine"?

[spurraider21]

Where was this stat cherry picked from?
"Scientists whose salary relies on agreeing with evolution magazine"?
no. out of roughly 480,000 scientists in america with respectable academic credentials, only 700 gave credence to creation-science

[pgardn]

So I need to find somebody else, that shouldn't be hard.

Be right back.

Let me guess, you know more that these guys also, right?




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOxvEg3tj-g

Irreducible Complexity is yet another catch phrase to give up doing science. This exact argument was used with eyes yet now we have a really good pathway to explain how our eyes evolved, and how eyes different than ours arose independently. We will continue to find and explain complex structures we see today. This is what molecular evolutions do, they look for complex structures and attempt to explain how they evolved without going poof. These guys looking for complex machines and concluding "poof", are NOT doing SCIENCE. Do you get this? Because some of these guys are giving up while their colleagues move on.

The bacterial flagellum and much more complex intercellular "machines" like the electron transport system are still being studied. We have already explained how these things are put together on a more basic level DNA---->RNA ------>protein and the clear lack of intelligence behind it. We have already explained things more complex than what these guys are working on like eyes. BTW our retinas are backwards giving us a blind spot. The creator must have liked squid more as their retinas face the correct way. But the intelligent designer went really astray with lenses in almost everything that can form images using EM radiation. (As an aside mouse once stated that we did not come from snails. I find it funny that the creator decided to give some mollusks better eyes)

Darwin himself wrote about exactly what these guys say he got wrong. He said it was a weak point. He himself pointed this out! So some of these guys lack knowlege of what the man wrote. Since Darwin's time this is a delightful area of research for people who do science. And we find out natural selection holds up just fine as ONE MECHANISM for changes in populations of organisms over time. The other mechanisms do not involve miracles as this is not science. If the guys who work on this stuff fall back on a fancy replacement phrase for intelligent design they have given up doing Science and should just state that they give up.

What we still do not know and may never know is how the first cells arose. People are working on this as I type, or, should we contact them and tell them to give up? Some of this stuff leads to very important applications in medicine, I suggest they restrain from the go poof mechanism.

[pgardn]

There is so much to continue to work on. If some scientists wish to give up, why don't they just move on to another job? This is what is more perplexing than anything mentioned in Avante's video.

[Blake]

Only a total moron could think DNA didn't need a designer. How anyone can be stupid enought to not see that,?????

So who designed the designer? Another designer?

[MultiTroll]

no. out of roughly 480,000 scientists in america with respectable academic credentials, only 700 gave credence to creation-science
TrollTalk Magazine?

[Blake]

TrollTalk Magazine?

How many scientists don't believe in evolution then? Give a percentage.

[MultiTroll]

no. out of roughly 480,000 scientists in america with respectable academic credentials, only 700 gave credence to creation-science
TrollTalk Magazine?

[spurraider21]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution

:lmao

Project Steve[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Level_of_support_for_evolution&action=edit&section=3)]

The Discovery Institute (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute) announced that over 700 scientists had expressed support for intelligent design (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design) as of February 8, 2007.[51] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-51) This prompted the National Center for Science Education (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Center_for_Science_Education) to produce a "light-hearted" petition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petition) called "Project Steve (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Steve)" in support of evolution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution). Only scientists named "Steve" or some variation (such as Stephen, Stephanie, and Stefan) are eligible to sign the petition. It is intended to be a "tongue-in-cheek parody (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parody)" of the lists of alleged "scientists" supposedly supporting creationist (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationist) principles that creationist organizations produce.[52] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-steve-52)[53] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-53) The petition demonstrates that there are more scientists who accept evolution with a name like "Steve" alone (over 1200[54] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-54)) than there are in total who support intelligent design. This is, again, why the percentage of scientists who support evolution has been estimated by Brian Alters to be about 99.9 percent.[55] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-nihrecord-55)

[Avante]

DNA did not come about by chance that is very obvious. So that ends any debate about intelligent design as far as I'm concerned and no internet dummy is making a dent. Which also means that we were never fish, how anyone can buy that obvious bullshit is amazing.

The only real/legit debate is just who was the Designer/Designers or what they were.

Look guys, do any of you think anyone I've shown in those videos would do what you freak do here? None of them would act like little pricks/punks in hiding like you jerks that's why what you say means...0...to me if I read it at all.

Little people, been all over around and through these evolution/DNA before, it's a very old debate, I;m never ever ever going to change my stance....NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes there is a something out there responsible for all this that is very obviouis, no we did not evolve from fish. I will go to my grave believing that and no freak on an interbet site acting retarded is changing anything, ok?

[spurraider21]

DNA did not come about by chance that is very obvious. So that ends any debate about intelligent design
were you just trying to make the most obvious example of circular reasoning possible?

[RD2191]

:lolfish to a rat to a monkey

[RandomGuy]

Why do I seriously doubt a dummy like you obviously are know more about than he does?

What are your credentials?

What credentials do I need to analyse the logic of his statements?

More importantly... what are his credentials?

[Avante]

were you just trying to make the most obvious example of circular reasoning possible?

I'm just going with commom sense, ever tried it?

[RandomGuy]

DNA did not come about by chance that is very obvious. So that ends any debate about intelligent design as far as I'm concerned and no internet dummy is making a dent. Which also means that we were never fish, how anyone can buy that obvious bullshit is amazing.

The only real/legit debate is just who was the Designer/Designers or what they were.

Look guys, do any of you think anyone I've shown in those videos would do what you freak do here? None of them would act like little pricks/punks in hiding like you jerks that's why what you say means...0...to me if I read it at all.

Ish. Bad reasoning from start to finish.

Assertions without evidence and a basic argument from incredulity fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

We have discovered thousands and thousands of planets orbiting other stars. Planets are therefore common in our galaxy, and we have no reason to think this isn't the case in all of the billions of galaxies we can see.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the formation of planets is a naturalistic phenomenon.


Arguments from incredulity take the form:

1) P is too incredible (or: I cannot imagine how P could possibly be true); therefore P must be false.
or
2) I cannot imagine how P could possibly be false; therefore P must be true.

These arguments are similar to arguments from ignorance in that they too ignore and do not properly eliminate the possibility that something can be both incredible and still be true, or appear to be obvious and yet still be false.


Avante here actually does both forms:


[That we are the result of random natural processes] simply can't happen by chance, [therefore the argument that we are the result of random natural processes is false]
P= We are the result of random natural processes


[I cannot imagine how anything could happen without a designer "we... must have a Designer"], [so therefore, we have a Designer]
P=We have a Designer

Wishful, flawed thinking and provably so.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[RandomGuy]

Like a dog returning to his vomit, you keep returning to the same bad arguments.

Restating them 100 times won't make them better or valid on the 101st time.

[Avante]

What credentials do I need to analyse the logic of his statements?

More importantly... what are his credentials?

He's wriiten a book is on talk shows, what have you done? He talks in front of gathering, have you?

[Avante]

Like a dog returning to his vomit, you keep returning to the same bad arguments.

Restating them 100 times won't make them better or valid on the 101st time.

So I'm alone in the belief of intelligent design?

[Avante]

Ish. Bad reasoning from start to finish.

Assertions without evidence and a basic argument from incredulity fallacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

We have discovered thousands and thousands of planets orbiting other stars. Planets are therefore common in our galaxy, and we have no reason to think this isn't the case in all of the billions of galaxies we can see.

It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the formation of planets is a naturalistic phenomenon.



Avante here actually does both forms:


P= We are the result of random natural processes


P=We have a Designer

Wishful, flawed thinking and provably so.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

You try too hard little guy, ok? I;m not changing my mind, ok?

[spurraider21]

So I'm alone in the belief of intelligent design?
among scientists who study life and its origins, you are in the 0.15%

[spurraider21]

You try too hard little guy, ok? I;m not changing my mind, ok?
nobody is expecting you to. you've shown to be close minded and stubborn. we're just pointing out that your reasoning and logic is hilariously flawed

[Avante]

nobody is expecting you to. you've shown to be close minded and stubborn. we're just pointing out that your reasoning and logic is hilariously flawed

I totally disagree as do the billions and billions out there who do believe in some God/Supreme Being.

You do know that only about 8% of humamity are atheists, right?

[ChumpDumper]

I totally disagree as do the billions and billions out there who do believe in some God/Supreme Being.

You do know that only about 8% of humamity are atheists, right?Why does evolution preclude a creator?

[spurraider21]

I totally disagree as do the billions and billions out there who do believe in some God/Supreme Being.

You do know that only about 8% of humamity are atheists, right?
you are free to believe whatever you want. we are just pointing out that the reasoning and logic that you've given to defend your belief is incredibly flawed

[RandomGuy]

He's wriiten a book is on talk shows, what have you done? He talks in front of gathering, have you?

... and writing a book or giving a talk qualifies him to do what exactly?

David Icke has written books on aliens and our reptilian overlords. Does that make him an expert on reptilian exobiology?

[ChumpDumper]

... and writing a book or giving a talk qualifies him to do what exactly?

David Icke has written books on aliens and our reptilian overlords. Does that make him an expert on reptilian exobiology?Avante is a Nazi because Hitler wrote a book and spoke to groups of people.[/Godwin]

[RandomGuy]

I totally disagree as do the billions and billions out there who do believe in some God/Supreme Being.

You do know that only about 8% of humamity are atheists, right?

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity


The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

1. Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
2. Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

It is clearly fallacious to accept the approval of the majority as evidence for a claim. For example, suppose that a skilled speaker managed to get most people to absolutely love the claim that 1+1=3. It would still not be rational to accept this claim simply because most people approved of it. After all, mere approval is no substitute for a mathematical proof. At one time people approved of claims such as "the world is flat", "humans cannot survive at speeds greater than 25 miles per hour", "the sun revolves around the earth" but all these claims turned out to be false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-popularity.html

Do you still think this argument is valid or meaningful?

[RandomGuy]

Why does evolution preclude a creator?

It doesn't. Avante though, seems to have been lied to a lot, and told it does, or simply doesn't understand the nuances well enough to grasp it.

Can't really quite blame someone for having been brainwashed, unless they are too lazy to make the effort to think, when shown exactly how they have been lied to.

[RandomGuy]

You try too hard little guy, ok? I;m not changing my mind, ok?

I care less for what you do or don't believe, than for what you assert as fact. I care a little bit that you are ignorant, and seem content to be so. That puzzles me, as I have stated already.

[RandomGuy]

Avante is a Nazi because Hitler wrote a book and spoke to groups of people.[/Godwin]

Well played sir, well played.

[RandomGuy]

:lolfish to a rat to a monkey

Magic man in the sky is going to resurrect zombie followers... :LOL

or

Magic man in the sky is still moral even when he orders his followers to hack babies to death :lol

or

magic man in the sky is still moral despite thinking that slavery is ok :lol

could go on of course...

[Avante]

Magic man in the sky has how many followers? While we have how few atheists?

[MultiTroll]

no. out of roughly 480,000 scientists in america with respectable academic credentials, only 700 gave credence to creation-science
eeew wow thanks for the solid *study* evidence.
Fawk. :lol

One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-Newsweek_1987_Martz_McDaniel-24)

and then in the very next sentence your Wiki quote blows your cherry picked number up with:


A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-robinson-25)[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-26)

[MultiTroll]

no. out of roughly 480,000 scientists in america with respectable academic credentials, only 700 gave credence to creation-science
Another place your cherry pick leads to:

While most US scientists think humans are simply smarter apes, at least 4 in 10 believe a creator "guided" evolution so that Homo sapiens are ruled by a soul or consciousness, a new survey shows. Scientists almost unanimously accept Darwinian evolution over millions of years as the source of human origins. But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process.

[Avante]

Little people, I realize you live in a world that sees you as weird with your...THERE IS NO GOD!...WE WERE A FISH!!!...so ya come here stiking back at them thru me/those who aren't idiots like you.

I'm not at all impressed with any of you dummies and I can't believe you haven't figured that out, you are wrong and there is nothing you can say or do that will change that. Yes something is responsible for all this and no we were never fish, so if ya STILL need to act retarded, why?

This...

But I had biology in school.

Are you serious?

[Avante]

A master at work, hahaha!!!!!!!

172 pages, what can I say? So all you Avante wannabes take notes.

Pick a topic that will get a lot of disagreement and then have a know it out personna. BOOM!!!!!!!...172 pages.

Yep, the master.

Let's have some music, what would fit, hmmmmm?

Be right back.

Perfect


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBecM3CQVD8

[spurraider21]

eeew wow thanks for the solid *study* evidence.
Fawk. :lol

One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[24] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-Newsweek_1987_Martz_McDaniel-24)

and then in the very next sentence your Wiki quote blows your cherry picked number up with:


A 1991 Gallup poll found that about 5% of American scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[25] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-robinson-25)[26] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#cite_note-26)
yeah genius. the first percentage was from earth/life scientists... the second was from all scientists including those without biology backgrounds. when it comes to study of life, i'll trust a biologist over a physicist, astronomer, etc

and even then... :lol 95% of scientists dont support creation theory

[MultiTroll]

yeah genius. :lol 95% of scientists dont support creation theory
From the Wiki link you provided:
"But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process."
fap on.

[Avante]

Why is the fact 100% of science has been 100% wrong NUMEROUS times?

[admiralsnackbar]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpcEhFlwYi0

[admiralsnackbar]

Why is the fact 100% of science has been 100% wrong NUMEROUS times? Science is built to adapt itself to evidence, not the other way around. That's what makes it useful.

[spurraider21]

From the Wiki link you provided:
"But 40% of biologists, mathematicians, physicians, and astronomers include God in the process."
fap on.
that quote does not exist on that wiki page :lol

the word "astronomer" isn't on that page at all :lol

you lying sack of shit

[Avante]

Science is built to adapt itself to evidence, not the other way around. That's what makes it useful.

Not saying it isn't useful, I'm saying it's limited to the data it "presently" has to work with.

[spurraider21]

Not saying it isn't useful, I'm saying it's limited to the data it "presently" has to work with.
and theism is limited to data it doesn't have, never had, and likely never will have

[Blake]

Not saying it isn't useful, I'm saying it's limited to the data it "presently" has to work with.

While your imagination is limitless

[admiralsnackbar]

Not saying it isn't useful, I'm saying it's limited to the data it "presently" has to work with. Just to add to spursraider, science is constantly generating new data to presently work with.

[Blake]

Why is the fact 100% of science has been 100% wrong NUMEROUS times?

They've done studies, you know. 60% of the time, it works every time.*

[Avante]

and theism is limited to data it doesn't have, never had, and likely never will have

So why do so many simply not care and believe anyway?

[Avante]

Just to add to spursraider, science is constantly generating new data to presently work with.

It's 1902, what could science tell us then about todays world? What can science of 2015 tell us about what we'll be seeing in 2115?

[Avante]

While your imagination is limitless

FINALLY....said something that is true.

[Blake]

FINALLY....said something that is true.

you're playing your imagination off as fact.

[Avante]

you're playing your imagination off as fact.

No I'm not because I don't know the facts and neither does anyone else. Anyone saying they do is a liar.

[spurraider21]

So why do so many simply not care and believe anyway?
uneducated, like yourself, for the most part

[Avante]

uneducated, like yourself, for the most part

Tell that to those at....

Abilene Christian
Texas Christian
Notre Dame
Dallas Baptist
Oral Roberts University
Houston Baptist
Fresno Pacific
Oklahoma Baptist

ok?

Trust me little fella, I'm better read than you are. Would totally school you on most things and you know this.

[spurraider21]

Tell that to those at....

Abilene Christian
Texas Christian
Notre Dame
Dallas Baptist
Oral Roberts University
Houston Baptist
Fresno Pacific
Oklahoma Baptist

ok?

Trust me little fella, I'm better read than you are. Would totally school you on most things and you know this.
on things like track, music, and ancient NFL, sure. not on the topic at hand though

[Avante]

on things like track, music, and ancient NFL, sure. not on the topic at hand though

So you're uneducated when it comes to...

track
music
NFL
NCAA football
boxing
literature
ancient NFL

right?

I noticed ya totally ignored those schools I mentioned, so those who attend those schools are uneducated, well?

[spurraider21]

So you're uneducated when it comes to...

track
music
NFL
NCAA football
boxing
literature
ancient NFL

right?

I noticed ya totally ignored those schools I mentioned, so those who attend those schools are uneducated, well?
i would consider myself uneducated in track, ncaa football, boxing, and most of ancient NFL. pretty well versed on music since the 60's, modern NFL, literature.

but the topic at hand is evoultion/life science... something i'm reasonably educated in, unlike yourself

[Avante]

i would consider myself uneducated in track, ncaa football, boxing, and most of ancient NFL. pretty well versed on music since the 60's, modern NFL, literature.

but the topic at hand is evoultion/life science... something i'm reasonably educated in, unlike yourself

Trust me little guy, you are not educated in music or literature, trust me! And your current NFL knowledge very limted vs someone like me.

As far as this goes, I'm not the one thinking we were a fish=, and you're educated, hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[spurraider21]

Trust me little guy, you are not educated in music or literature, trust me! And your current NFL knowledge very limted vs someone like me.

As far as this goes, I'm not the one thinking we were a fish=, and you're educated, hahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i have no reason to trust you. and yup, your uneducated ass still thinks it knows everything about a topic you have no knowledge of

[admiralsnackbar]

It's 1902, what could science tell us then about todays world? What can science of 2015 tell us about what we'll be seeing in 2115? I don't see how this helps your position. I also don't see why you think evolution and faith can't co-exist, either, though, so there's that.

[Avante]

I don't see how this helps your position. I also don't see why you think evolution and faith can't co-exist, either, though, so there's that.

I'm saying science only has the past/current to work with. That is my postion.

There is no doubt faith and evolution co-exist.

[ChumpDumper]

So you're uneducated when it comes to...

track
music
NFL
NCAA football
boxing
literature
ancient NFL

right?

I noticed ya totally ignored those schools I mentioned, so those who attend those schools are uneducated, well?You didn't attend any of those schools.

[admiralsnackbar]

I'm saying science only has the past/current to work with. That is my postion. Right, and if all you're interested in is absolute truth, Science will only offer it incrementally. Judeo-Christian theology, on the other hand, incrementally --often reluctantly -- twists to fit its Bronze-age absolute truths into the present (read some Thomas Aquinas to see what I mean, or just keep watching the youtubes you've posted, I guess) because all it has is the alleged past and the future it promised back then. So choices are: 1) assuming you know nothing and working from there; 2) assuming you know everything and distorting/adapting your original truth to fit evidence contrary to it, or; 3) assuming you know everything and denying the evidence right in front of you. You seem to choose option 3 for some reason.

[Blake]

Tell that to those at....

Abilene Christian
Texas Christian
Notre Dame
Dallas Baptist
Oral Roberts University
Houston Baptist
Fresno Pacific
Oklahoma Baptist

ok?

Trust me little fella, I'm better read than you are. Would totally school you on most things and you know this.

TCU teaches evolution

BIOL 50303 - Evolution

Three hours lecture per week. Prerequisite: BIOL 10504 and 10514. Concepts and principles of organic evolution. Topics include natural selection, adaptation, quantitative genetics, sexual selection, kin selection, life history characters, speciation, and phylogeny.

http://biology.tcu.edu/current-undergraduate-students/courses/

[Blake]

Abilene Christian teaches evolution:

http://www.acu.edu/catalog/2012_13/courses/biol.html

[Blake]

Oral Roberts might not....

[admiralsnackbar]

Oral Roberts might not.... They're too busy molding luminaries like Michelle Bachmann.

[Avante]

Abilene Christian teaches evolution:

http://www.acu.edu/catalog/2012_13/courses/biol.html

And....

Texas Christian University teaches about "god Krishna"

[Avante]

Well it's off to the hills, and the best coffee in the world, campfire coffee. Won't see a razor for a week, hell might not even take a bath for a few days, get all Jeremiah Johnson.

Some traveling music and it's Friday..


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tdzlop4p0vc&feature=related

[mouse]

Ok

Time to refute the BS


Start with Chump and Spuraider


If Mouse or Avante had any clue as to what they were writing they would realize they are asking the wrong question.




What question am I asking?


]if we put elements together

Elements from where?


that were present on the early Earth

says who?


and input a little energy, lighting and or heat, we come up with a myriad of Biomolecules that are now present and abundant. Phosphates, simple sugars and nitrogenous bases, the three basic parts of RNA and DNA are part of the mish mash of organics.

But do you get a human fetus? And how do you get all the material needed from the big bang.



Now once we got these 3 building blocks,

Yes skip over the how you got them.




What we don't know is exactly how cells arose in which nucleic acids appear to prefer to self replicate

The stop acting like you know everything. Science has no clue and they never will as long as they ignore design.



we have some very good ideas.

I have Ideas also lets stick with facts.


Do I need to go further ya big quacks?

Not really you have not shown any proof my ancestor was a snail.

[spurraider21]

I have Ideas also lets stick with facts.
fine, what are some facts that back up AD? use your own words


Not really you have not shown any proof my ancestor was a snail.
why would anybody try to prove a point that they never made? nobody here is claiming your ancestor was a snail

[RD2191]

fine, what are some facts that back up AD? use your own words


why would anybody try to prove a point that they never made? nobody here is claiming your ancestor was a snail
Knock it off before I post the banana video.

[spurraider21]

Knock it off before I post the banana video.
i'll respond with the peanut butter video

[RD2191]

i'll respond with the peanut butter video
:pctoss

[spurraider21]

:pctoss
:lol

[pgardn]

And....

Texas Christian University teaches about "god Krishna"



fine

Its not a science class so good for TCU.

[pgardn]

Start with Chump and Spuraider




What question am I asking?

How species came to be and your answer is poof.





Elements from where?
Energy E = mc^2 Define m please.

And we have no idea how the energy got there in the first place which of course as you know is NOT anything that refutes evolution. Again, this is beyond the boundaries of what we can know from science and it's honest. You should try being honest. It's easier than lies.


says who?

Scientist who work with the formation of solar systems and the wavelengths of energy they give off. We have been to the moon and Mars, we have sampled the elements and compounds confirming much of what we already knew BEFORE we ever visited. Surprises came in % abundance and locations where certain compounds were found. How did we know Pluto was present long before it was actually ever seen? How did we know exactly where to look after telescopes got powerful enough? Have you ever seen wind, how you know it's there? These are all the same type of example, let's see if you can finally digest the obvious.




But do you get a human fetus? And how do you get all the material needed from the big bang.

Energy, and this has absolutely nothing to do with getting a fetus using magic.




Yes skip over the how you got them.

From the compounds of the early earth which are put under conditions we think were present, + lightning, heat
We find organic molecules can be made from water, CO2, NH3, none of which is organic. Sugars, nitrogenous bases, etc.. Can be produced from simple inorganic compounds.





The stop acting like you know everything. Science has no clue and they never will as long as they ignore design.

Science does not deal with design because design requires the super natural, something you have a profound inability to get thru your thick skull that was once dead but arose again. And I don't know everything and science will never prove everything.




I have Ideas also lets stick with facts.

The facts are we have plenty of mechanisms to explain how cells might have arisen. But this is a tough one as the inner structures of early cells don't fossilize well. This is also called honesty. Foreign idea for you, but it should be sampled.


Not really you have not shown any proof my ancestor was a snail.

Yes. This is the stupid question you keep asking. Since I will presume you are human, are we in anyway related? Or did you just magically stork it, while my dad diddled my mom?



Now back to ignore.
I tire of filleting rodents.

[mouse]

fine, what are some facts that back up AD? use your own words-

DNA has an internal mechanism designed with interlocking parts that work together and is able to repair itself, I'm sorry but that shit doesn't come about from a random explosion of nothing.

The universe is designed so that the planet's and stars just happen to be spaced apart just right by chance?

The earth just happens to have water air and plant life animals and humans by chance?

How strong is that bud your smoking?





why would anybody try to prove a point that they never made? nobody here is claiming your ancestor was a snail

If you support Science and evolution you support the big bang and that means all life emerged from warm pools of liquid that includes the snails.

why must you keep asking the same questions I already answered this before

[Blake]

And....

Texas Christian University teaches about "god Krishna"

Lol you think they teach that as fact like they do evolution?

Damn you're stupid. Really really stupid.

[spurraider21]

DNA has an internal mechanism designed with interlocking parts that work together and is able to repair itself, I'm sorry but that shit doesn't come about from a random explosion of nothing.

The universe is designed so that the planet's and stars just happen to be spaced apart just right by chance?

The earth just happens to have water air and plant life animals and humans by chance?

How strong is that bud yoir smoking?
None of that is "proof" of design. All you proved is that things are complex. AD is just your idea of how to explain it. There is no hard evidence of design.







If you support Science and evolution you support the big bang and that means all life emerged from warm pools of liquid that includes the snails.

why must you keep asking the same questions I already answered this before
A) big bang and evolution of life on earth are two different theories that aren't mutually exclusive
B) nobody here ever claimed humans evolved from snails. If you keep insisting that, you're just continuing to prove you are clueless about what evolution is. And if you don't even understand what evolution is, then you are dismissing something you dont even comprehend.

[mouse]

None of that is "proof" of design. All you proved is that things are complex. AD is just your idea of how to explain it. There is no hard evidence of design.


Your so right its so random its almost like going to Vegas and getting 1 million royal flushes in a roll I can see it happening I'm convinced thanks.








A) big bang and evolution of life on earth are two different theories that aren't mutually exclusive

So which one do you not support.



B) nobody here ever claimed humans evolved from snails


Are you actually going to make me post it again? Are you really that thick or just doing a poor job trolling?





If you keep insisting that, you're just continuing to prove you are clueless about what evolution is.

Ok then you tell us all how life came about start with the big bang.




And if you don't even understand what evolution is, then you are dismissing something you dont even comprehend.

I know that you and your Darwin fan club want to skip over how life started, DNA, the Big Bang,The Fibonacci Sequence,Golden Ratio,and other topics that prove design well go right ahead I'll pass on debating with you any further.

SjSHVDfXHQ4

[spurraider21]

Your so right its so random its almost like going to Vegas and getting 1 million royal flushes in a roll I can see it happening I'm convinced thanks.
never said it was probable. but again, that wouldn't be hard evidence of a creator.

plus, even if there was a god, that doesn't rule out evolution at all.



So which one do you not support.
never said i dont support either one. they're different discussions. this thread is about evolution, not the big bang. i also believe in the theory of quantum mechanics. and many other theories. but we are discussing one specific theory in this thread, evolution. the rest aren't relevant



Are you actually going to make me post it again? Are you really that thick or just doing a poor job trolling?
you can post whatever you want as many times as you want. nobody here is claiming snails are human ancestors.



Ok then you tell us all how life came about start with the big bang.
the big bang and evolution are different discussions. this is a thread about evolution, not about abiogenesis or the big bang. you can start a thread about the big bang, or a thread about abiogenesis. i dont want to mix different conversations up



I know that you and your Darwin fan club want to skip over how life started, DNA, the Big Bang,The Fibonacci Sequence,Golden Ratio,and other topics that prove design well go right ahead I'll pass on debating with you any further.

SjSHVDfXHQ4
i've never ignored any of these. i dont see how they prove design, though.

[Splits]

3XXQMDGErL0

[RandomGuy]

Knock it off before I post the banana video.

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/14774283.jpg

Seriously.. that was good.

[RandomGuy]

Science is built to adapt itself to evidence, not the other way around. That's what makes it useful.

http://jokideo.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Well-played-photoshop-well-played.jpg

That is why the earth goes around the sun, and not the other way around.

Unless, of course, you want to be a good christian... then you have to have a debate about it, in which geocentrism is treated with seriousness. Because: BIBLE.

http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/87698-The-sun-revolves-around-the-earth

[RD2191]

http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/14774283.jpg

Seriously.. that was good.
:lol

[boutons_deux]

Don't Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking Harder
http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/06/29/418289762/don-t-believe-in-evolution-try-thinking-harder?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20150705&utm_campaign=mostemailed&utm_term=nprnews

[pgardn]

Don't Believe In Evolution? Try Thinking Harder


http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/06/29/418289762/don-t-believe-in-evolution-try-thinking-harder?utm_source=npr_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_content=20150705&utm_campaign=mostemailed&utm_term=nprnews

Excellent article.


Now try this in the political section.

[Avante]

Civilization sucks. Imagine a week with no stop signs. I'd forgotten just how many stars are up there.

Coffee never tasted better.

So there I sat nursing that coffee next to the fire when a big hoot owl comes over to about 10 feet from me. Not too concerned with the fire. He's watching me, studying me. So I pull out my harmonica and start playing some Noah Lewis. I can tell he/she is digging it. Then I start singing...."I'm locked up in prison, got 99 and a day"....off he's/she goes. Never could sing:(

[Blake]

Oh i just realized Avante has been gone. Sure was smooth around here.

[Avante]

Oh i just realized Avante has been gone. Sure was smooth around here.

This is smooth?

Blake

Not my thing either.

But putting your tongue into a hole that fecal matter comes out of is literally your thing. Worthy of a real lolutsa.

[Blake]

Yeah it was smooth without a fat old man constantly moaning and bitching in every damn thread about other posters

[Avante]

Yeah it was smooth without a fat old man constantly moaning and bitching in every damn thread about other posters

This is smooth?

Blake
Yeah, huge lol when you guys post your imaginings of big black dudes and big cocks, tbh.

[mouse]

175 pages, is there any evidence my ancestors had a tail?

[Avante]

175 pages, is there any evidence my ancestors had a tail?

I can believe wolves evolved into other dogs, saber tooth into other cats, big lzards into small lizards, that type of thing. But there is no way in hell all we evolved from a fish. That is so stupid it's ridiculous.

The worm, the wasp, the gorilla, the cow all came from....a fish, hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[RandomGuy]

What we still do not know and may never know is how the first cells arose. People are working on this as I type, or, should we contact them and tell them to give up? Some of this stuff leads to very important applications in medicine, I suggest they restrain from the go poof mechanism.

They have started to figure that out as well. All you really need is basic simple lipids in small isolated pools.

That is the thing about the "God in the gaps". Every time we fill in the parts we are ignorant about life, the universe, and everything, we find natural processes at work, and no sign of any guiding intelligence, much to the disappointment of Snakeboy and his mistaken assertions about the cambrian explosion.

We will soon be able to build a better human, and once we do, we will show just what an "intelligent designer" can do.

Once we show how haphazardly and stupidly we are really put together, by fixing the things evolution has saddled us with, I wonder what the ID people will say?

[RandomGuy]

I can believe wolves evolved into other dogs, saber tooth into other cats, big lzards into small lizards, that type of thing. But there is no way in hell all we evolved from a fish. That is so stupid it's ridiculous.

The worm, the wasp, the gorilla, the cow all came from....a fish, hahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Offspring inherit traits from parents.
Mutations in DNA happen.
The Earth is billions of years old.

Which one of those is wrong and why?

If none of them are wrong, then you believe in evolution, as you have accepted the underlying assertions required for evolution as we understand it to happen.

[RandomGuy]

No end to it....

DNA functions like a software program. We know from experience that software comes from programmers. We know generally that information—whether inscribed in hieroglyphics, written in a book or encoded in a radio signal—always arises from an intelligent source. So, the discovery of information in the DNA molecule provides strong grounds for inferring that intelligence played a role in the origin of DNA, even if we weren’t there to observe the system coming into existence.

Thus, contrary to media reports, the theory of intelligent design is not based upon ignorance or religion, but instead upon recent scientific discoveries and upon standard methods of scientific reasoning in which our uniform experience of cause and effect guides our inferences about what happened in the past.
Of course, many will still dismiss intelligent design as nothing but “religion masquerading as science.” But intelligent design is not based upon the Bible. Design is an inference from biological data, not a deduction from religious authority.

Even so, the theory of intelligent design may provide support for theistic belief. But that is not grounds for dismissing it. To say otherwise confuses the evidence for a theory and its possible implications. Many scientists initially rejected the Big Bang theory because it seemed to challenge the idea of an eternally self-existent universe and pointed to the need for a transcendent cause of matter, space and time. But scientists eventually accepted the theory despite such apparently unpleasant implications because [they thought] the evidence strongly supported it. Today a similar metaphysical prejudice confronts the theory of intelligent design.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/19/Signature-in-the-Cell-DNA-and-the-Evidence-for-Intelligent-Design.aspx#Article

At least have the intellectual honesty to cite your sources.

Not really an argument or evidence anyway. Just another flawed argument.

Claim CF003:

Source:

Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, p. 13.
Response:


This question is based on some major misconceptions (addressed below). Its overriding logical error, however, is that it is an argument from ignorance. One's inability to find an answer to a question does not imply that the question has no answer.

Information is not meaning and does not, per se, imply any special structure or function. Any arrangement implies information; the information is how the arrangement is described. If a new arrangement occurs, whether spontaneously or from the outside, new information is assembled in the process. Even if the arrangement consists of shattering a glass into tiny pieces, that means assembling new information.

Nothing needs to assemble itself. Evolution and abiogenesis do not exclude outside influences; on the contrary, such outside influences are essential. In abiogenesis, it is observed that complex organic molecules easily form spontaneously due to little more than basic chemistry and energy from the sun or from the earth's interior. In evolution, information from the environment is communicated to genomes indirectly via natural selection against varieties that do not do well in that environment.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF003.html

[mouse]

They have started to figure that out as well.

Who's they?

Science? I thought Science has printeed in the Texts books how the universe and life came about now your saying they lied to us?

[RandomGuy]

Why do I seriously doubt a dummy like you obviously are know more about than [Stephen C. Meyer] does?

What are your credentials?


Meyer earned his Ph.D. in history and philosophy of science in 1991 at the University of Cambridge.

I know more about biology than he does.
I am an accountant. I have a degree in German, and about 95% of a masters degree in accounting.

Why do you think this historian and philosopher statements about biology are credible?

[RandomGuy]

Who's they?

Science? I thought Science has printeed in the Texts books how the universe and life came about now your saying they lied to us?

Snapple wipple, transmablamma flognort.

[mouse]

I would like to see Science create life with hydrogen and helium after getting it to explode.

[Blake]

I would like to see Science create life with hydrogen and helium after getting it to explode.

I'd like to see humans appear out of nowhere

[Avante]

At what point do some of you figure out I'm never ever going to buy we came from fish?

[pgardn]

They have started to figure that out as well. All you really need is basic simple lipids in small isolated pools.

That is the thing about the "God in the gaps". Every time we fill in the parts we are ignorant about life, the universe, and everything, we find natural processes at work, and no sign of any guiding intelligence, much to the disappointment of Snakeboy and his mistaken assertions about the cambrian explosion.

We will soon be able to build a better human, and once we do, we will show just what an "intelligent designer" can do.

Once we show how haphazardly and stupidly we are really put together, by fixing the things evolution has saddled us with, I wonder what the ID people will say?

Thats just the membrane. That's the easy part.

[Blake]

At what point do some of you figure out I'm never ever going to buy we came from fish?

Ok caveman

[spurraider21]

Ok caveman
checkmate

http://i.gyazo.com/14b59445027f0c0ac03ba212b0a22b81.png

[Avante]

Ok caveman

Why act like I'm alone with this? Billions and billions of us don't buy that silliness.

[spurraider21]

Why act like I'm alone with this? Billions and billions of us don't buy that silliness.
http://i.gyazo.com/34491c579731151297cf57149e6f8679.png

[Avante]

Science was wrong before

[ChumpDumper]

Science was wrong beforeSo were you.

About several things.

You may now begin your meltdown.

[RandomGuy]

Thats just the membrane. That's the easy part.

actually, from what I understand it is the hard part. you have to have the membrane for anything else to function, to what I understand. Again, fascinating research.

[RandomGuy]

Why act like I'm alone with this? Billions and billions of us don't buy that silliness.


Fallacy: Appeal to Popularity

Also Known as: Ad Populum

Description of Appeal to Popularity

The Appeal to Popularity has the following form:

Most people approve of X (have favorable emotions towards X).
Therefore X is true.
The basic idea is that a claim is accepted as being true simply because most people are favorably inclined towards the claim. More formally, the fact that most people have favorable emotions associated with the claim is substituted in place of actual evidence for the claim. A person falls prey to this fallacy if he accepts a claim as being true simply because most other people approve of the claim.

Rejected.

[RandomGuy]

I would like to see Science create life with hydrogen and helium after getting it to explode.

Flopple wag ro magrrum.

[RandomGuy]

At what point do some of you figure out I'm never ever going to buy we came from fish?

At what point will you start answering questions honestly?

Doesn't the trolling get old? It is like watching a teenager play with toys for an infant.

[pgardn]

Science was wrong before



And it will be wrong again or need a better model again, I am sure of it.
The Earth is still thought to be round, and populations of organisms change over time.
They both hold solid. Just because you don't like or understand these current models does not invalidate them.


You are totally in over your head Blues Brother.
Go memorize a list, thinking is not something you do well.

[RandomGuy]

175 pages, is there any evidence my ancestors had a tail?

http://img.webmd.boots.com/dtmcms/live/webmd_uk/consumer_assets/site_images/anatomy_pages/medref_370x250_coccyx.jpg

https://www.britannica.com/list/7-vestigial-features-of-the-human-body
#6

Asked for, and given.

[RandomGuy]

So were you.

About several things.

You may now begin your meltdown.

Avante seems to enjoy being wrong about this.

[Avante]

Science was wrong before

[RandomGuy]

And it will be wrong again or need a better model again, I am sure of it.
The Earth is still thought to be round, and populations of organisms change over time.
They both hold solid. Just because you don't like or understand these current models does not invalidate them.


You are totally in over your head Blues Brother.
Go memorize a list, thinking is not something you do well.

Thinking for yourself is so hard, it requires, like reading and stuff.

[pgardn]

http://img.webmd.boots.com/dtmcms/live/webmd_uk/consumer_assets/site_images/anatomy_pages/medref_370x250_coccyx.jpg

https://www.britannica.com/list/7-vestigial-features-of-the-human-body
#6

Asked for, and given.

Mouse walks into a sinkhole again.


Hey mouse man, did you know some people are actually born with tails and have them snipped off? I betcha didn't. Just like you never heard of chicken born with teeth. I guess it was a miracle to upset you.

[ChumpDumper]

Science was wrong beforeThen it gets more right.

That's why science is.

You were wrong before and you stay wrong, just more loudly wrong.

[RandomGuy]

Science was wrong before


Fallacy: Ad Hominem

Description of Ad Hominem

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

Person A makes claim X.
Person B makes an attack on person A.
Therefore A's claim is false.
The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Science gets things wrong, has done, and will do.

Problem is that the attack "science was wrong before" has no bearing on whether it is right about this.

More infantile fail.

http://www.cpsc.gov/PageFiles/74827/09146b.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Then it gets more right.

That's why science is.

You were wrong before and you stay wrong, just more loudly wrong.

Science is wonderfully self-correcting in that.

XdddbYILel0

If you have the time, you should watch that. Wonderfully put together, simple, well-paced, and hits all the major points.

It talks about the self-correcting aspect of science, as does the "burden of proof" video that I post from the same channel.

[RandomGuy]

Mouse walks into a sinkhole again.


Hey mouse man, did you know some people are actually born with tails and have them snipped off? I betcha didn't. Just like you never heard of chicken born with teeth. I guess it was a miracle to upset you.

Babies with tails is #6 in the britannica entry. :D

[RandomGuy]

Why act like I'm alone with this? Billions and billions of us don't buy that silliness.



I live in Asia and is very surprised that almost all religious people here accepts evolution. When I asked them why they said its because of what the Dalai Lama said... "If science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism will have to change. In my view, science and Buddhism share a search for the truth and for understanding reality."

[cantthinkofanything]

Babies with tails is #6 in the britannica entry. :D

also #5 on Jared's search history

[Avante]

We were never a fish, how anyone can believe that is amazing,

[SnakeBoy]

We were never a fish, how anyone can believe that is amazing,

sup Jared?

[admiralsnackbar]

We were never a fish, how anyone can believe that is amazing, But why? We share obvious similarities with fish. We can trace intermediary species that connect our branches. The timelines work. Accepting we were made by an arbitrary Bronze Age god (who could be different if certain battles had been lost, and who hasn't communicated directly in 2 millennia) from nothing, and that no inter-species variations have occurred since then is more believable? If so, again: why? It's ok not to know, but if you're going to posit that you do, you should explain yourself, chief.

[Avante]

But why? We share obvious similarities with fish. We can trace intermediary species that connect our branches. The timelines work. Accepting we were made by an arbitrary Bronze Age god (who could be different if certain battles had been lost, and who hasn't communicated directly in 2 millennia) from nothing, and that no inter-species variations have occurred since then is more believable? If so, again: why? It's ok not to know, but if you're going to posit that you do, you should explain yourself, chief.

If you have some need to be a fish be a fish, I don't wanna be a fish.

[pgardn]

If you have some need to be a fish be a fish, I don't wanna be a fish.

Well you had gill slits as an embryo.
Hate to break the news.
Hopefully they are gone.

Some poor kids are born with openings and have them sewn shut.
Amazing world isn't it Avante? You also had a long tail, hope it shortened up. Mine did but damn it still hurts to fall on it. Maybe take a look at the pictures again. They do have some words you will have to read though damnit.

[Avante]

Is this a Texas thing, this wanting to be a fish thing?

[Avante]

What gets me about this is why some worik so hard at this? This.....see see see sees huh huh huh. I BELiEVE IN EVOLUTION YOU NEED TOO ALSO.

Are you kidding me? Why would anyone care what others think about it? This need to be a fish, hahahaha!!!!!!

[ChumpDumper]

Is this a Texas thing, this wanting to be a fish thing?


What gets me about this is why some worik so hard at this? This.....see see see sees huh huh huh. I BELiEVE IN EVOLUTION YOU NEED TOO ALSO.

Are you kidding me? Why would anyone care what others think about it? This need to be a fish, hahahaha!!!!!!If you didn't want to be a fish, why did you have gill slits and a long tail, Avante?

[RandomGuy]

http://www.clipartbest.com/cliparts/9i4/jyo/9i4jyokiE.jpeg


I guess. Let me know when you are ready to stop playing.

[spurraider21]

Is this a Texas thing, this wanting to be a fish thing?
nobody said they want to be a fish.

[Avante]

nobody said they want to be a fish.

Hell if they didn't. This....WE WERE A FISH DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!!!.....is all over the place here. I;m guessing Texans have this trip about fish.

[spurraider21]

Hell if they didn't. This....WE WERE A FISH DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!!!.....is all over the place here. I;m guessing Texans have this trip about fish.
they're saying our ancestry includes fish. doesnt say they want to be a fish.

a statement is different than a desire.

[RandomGuy]

Hell if they didn't. This....WE WERE A FISH DAMN IT!!!!!!!!!!!.....is all over the place here. I;m guessing Texans have this trip about fish.

:sleep

[RandomGuy]

RTJS1UHIj6k

[Avante]

they're saying our ancestry includes fish. doesnt say they want to be a fish.

a statement is different than a desire.

I'd believe that if some didn't try soooooo damn hard to sell we were a fish. I think a lot of Texans wanna be a fish.

[Avante]

RTJS1UHIj6k

You try way too hard shorty, ok? Let it go, alright? If you wanna be a fish, be a fish, alright?

[spurraider21]

I'd believe that if some didn't try soooooo damn hard to sell we were a fish. I think a lot of Texans wanna be a fish.
Nobody wants to be a fish. We are saying that our ancient ancestors were fish

[RandomGuy]

You try way too hard shorty, ok? Let it go, alright? If you wanna be a fish, be a fish, alright?

Meh, whatever, kid.

[RandomGuy]

http://www.empowertexans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/White-Flag-e1406739911857.jpg

I accept. May the magic man in the sky not torment you infinitely.

[RandomGuy]

oA7VvJU5Lqw

[Avante]

Nobody wants to be a fish. We are saying that our ancient ancestors were fish

You really do believe that idiocy don't you? So we are actually related to a snail, right?

[Avante]

I accept. May the magic man in the sky not torment you infinitely.

May that fish that became an elephant, a T-Rex and a worm fart on you.

[spurraider21]

You really do believe that idiocy don't you? So we are actually related to a snail, right?
snails aren't our ancestors, no.