Since Evolution Is The Answer - Tell Me When Can I Expect To Grow My Wings And Fly

By the way I don't believe in hell or all that crap he is talking about at the end of the video.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Who said I was religious?

---

You did.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

I simply believe that God created the heavens and the earth.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

um.. that isn't a fossil. You know that right?

It is also a really, really bad fake.
.

---

Link?


Footprints of a dinosaur living in the Cretaceous period found in riverbed interleaved with a human footprint!

http://www.zhengjian.org/sci/sci/ima...ootprint_3.jpghttp://www.zhengjian.org/sci/sci/ima...ootprint_4.jpg


A TV Program that Caused Passionate Criticism

In 1996, NBC aired a one-hour prime-time special, The Mysterious Origins of Man. It cited a number of anthropological discoveries, including the footprints mentioned in a prior section, 320 million year old metallic spheres, 2.8 billion year old human femur bones, and the like. The public reaction to the producer of the film came mostly from anthropologists and ranged from fanatical to accusatory and even irrational. The responses included “a group of swindlers,' “the whole film is garbage,' “not any value,” and so on. Predictably, given the conspiracy of silence in the scientific community, none of the scientists were willing to discuss the subject matter in-depth or agreed to conduct further research into the subject matter. The general public believes scientists to be rational and realistic with respect to scientific theory and research. Yet, the subject under discussion proves without a doubt that the scientific community stubbornly holds to a popular theory and is not willing to apply logic and proper reasoning even in face of irrefutable facts.

The man-made hammer of dinosaur age

http://www.zhengjian.org/sci/sci/ima...ootprint_5.jpg

Given comprehensive research on these and other archeological findings, one might ponder deeply on the implications of these findings on the present day view of human evolution. We certainly should ask ourselves as to why these findings contradict what we have been taught since childhood. Haven’t our textbooks taught us that the earliest humans appeared around 30 thousand years ago and that man had evolved from an ancestor in common with the apes? How can we explain anthropological findings such as fossil footprints and metal tools, carbon dated from several hundred of millions of years ago, in light of a human history of only several thousand years? What are the consequences for today’s textbooks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Nope. Debunked and addressed already.

I am ready at any time to consider new evidence as it is presented to me, and will change my mind any time sufficient evidence is provided. I admit when I am wrong.

You can say it a million times, and it will not be any more true on the millionth than it was the first. Sorry.

Why do you want so badly for this to be true?

---

I can ask you the exact same question. And there is no proof of evolution because evolution cannot be observed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

In other words you have faith. :toast

---

Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have good reasons to believe something.

I have trust in the self-correcting methodology of science to get things right.

The trust that the scientists whose work I read have earned comes from my understanding of that work, and of the people themselves.

There is a vast gulf between earned trust and faith, my friend, a very vast gulf indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

You did.

---

Reading the Bible is religious? What religion am I a part of Blake?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

I can ask you the exact same question. And there is no proof of evolution because evolution cannot be observed.

---

Nice, the "I know you are but what am I" tactic. Now you're in complete control.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

I can ask you the exact same question. And there is no proof of evolution because evolution cannot be observed.

---

Fruit flies, yo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Faith is the excuse people use when they don't have good reasons to believe something.

I have trust in the self-correcting methodology of science to get things right.

The trust that the scientists whose work I read have earned comes from my understanding of that work, and of the people themselves.

There is a vast gulf between earned trust and faith, my friend, a very vast gulf indeed.

---

:lolIn other words, you have faith.

faith
fāTH/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

• 1.
  complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  

A TV Program that Caused Passionate Criticism

In 1996, NBC aired a one-hour prime-time special, The Mysterious Origins of Man. It cited a number of anthropological discoveries, including the footprints mentioned in a prior section, 320 million year old metallic spheres, 2.8 billion year old human femur bones, and the like. The public reaction to the producer of the film came mostly from anthropologists and ranged from fanatical to accusatory and even irrational. The responses included “a group of swindlers,' “the whole film is garbage,' “not any value,” and so on. Predictably, given the conspiracy of silence in the scientific community, none of the scientists were willing to discuss the subject matter in-depth or agreed to conduct further research into the subject matter. The general public believes scientists to be rational and realistic with respect to scientific theory and research. Yet, the subject under discussion proves without a doubt that the scientific community stubbornly holds to a popular theory and is not willing to apply logic and proper reasoning even in face of irrefutable facts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

:lolIn other words, you have faith.

---

Could you look up the definitions for faith, and science, and then let us know how they are the same?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

I can ask you the exact same question. And there is no proof of evolution because evolution cannot be observed.

---

I have already provided you with quite a few examples where it has.

Also already debunked.

I have read through a few of the interesting studies myself in college biology.

You ever taken any college-level biology courses?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

faith
fāTH/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

• 1.
  complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  

---

Well, that solidifies it....I now have no clue as to why anyone would want to carry on an actual debate with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmwrecker

Could you look up the definitions for faith, and science, and then let us know how they are the same?

---

He said he has faith in scientist. Once again, it takes faith to believe in evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

He said he has faith in scientist. Once again, it takes faith to believe in evolution.

---

No, it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

faith
fāTH/
noun
[COLOR=#878787 !important][/COLOR]

• 1.
  complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
  

---

My trust is not complete. Sorry. Scientists get things wrong.

further you left out the second part of the deifnition that you are trying to attribute:

Quote:

---

strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

---

You are trying to equate the second part with the first.

As I said, I have a certain amount of earned trust.

When you get sick, do you go to a doctor, rather than a shaman?

bbl

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnsmith

Well, that solidifies it....I now have no clue as to why anyone would want to carry on an actual debate with you.

---

I called him out early on. Did the same with Xmas. You cannot debate with them. They don't understand logical fallacies and the rules of debate so they use one after another since it seems like a good idea to them. They don't know anything about the Socratic method.


From Wiki

The Socratic method is a positive method of hypothesis elimination, in that better hypotheses are found by steadily identifying and eliminating those that lead to contradictions. The Socratic method searches for general, commonly held truths that shape opinion, and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, exploring the definitions or logoi (singular logos), seeking to characterize the general characteristics shared by various particular instances. The extent to which this method is employed to bring out definitions implicit in the interlocutors' beliefs, or to help them further their understanding, is called the method of maieutics. Aristotle attributed to Socrates the discovery of the method of definition and induction, which he regarded as the essence of the scientific method.

End Wiki quote

Instead of identifying and eliminating hypotheses that lead to contradictions, these two claim that there's no contradiction, or if there seems to be it's because humans are too stupid to understand the mind of God.

How can you move forward when your central theme is that neither party has the capacity for critical thinking?

So here we are, almost a month later and still no proof.

trust=faith, spin that shit any way you want so it can fit your theory but you know I am right

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

trust=faith, spin that shit any way you want so it can fit your theory but you know I am right

---

Trust = reasoning based on empirical evidence. You don't blindly trust a stranger, but you do trust a friend.

The onus of proof is upon you. The rest of us can take a siesta and call all claims bullshit without evidence to the contrary and never be guilty of being closed minded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

trust=faith, spin that shit any way you want so it can fit your theory but you know I am right

---

The argument is science v. faith. You are hung up on "trust".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DMC

Trust = reasoning based on empirical evidence. You don't blindly trust a stranger, but you do trust a friend.

The onus of proof is upon you. The rest of us can take a siesta and call all claims bullshit without evidence to the contrary and never be guilty of being closed minded.

---

So RandomGuy is friends with Darwin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmwrecker

The argument is science v. faith. You are hung up on "trust".

---

No, I am saying that evolution is not science. I am not arguing science. Science has to be observed, I ask once again, who has observed evolution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

So RandomGuy is friends with Darwin?

---

RandomGuy trusts his understanding of science enough to be comfortable with the ToE. It doesn't mean he's religiously attached to it and would no doubt shift his thinking if evidence surfaced to warrant the shift. On the other hand, the religious crowd would just dismiss it with the wave of a bible and some creative exegesis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

No, I am saying that evolution is not science. I am not arguing science. Science has to be observed, I ask once again, who has observed evolution?

---

Not that you will read or understand any of this, but . . .

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Reading the Bible is religious? What religion am I a part of Blake?

---

Believing in god is religious

Quote:

---

re·li·gious***(r-ljs)adj.1.*Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

No, I am saying that evolution is not science. I am not arguing science. Science has to be observed, I ask once again, who has observed evolution?

---

I've observed selective breeding. Same difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmwrecker

Not that you will read or understand any of this, but . . .

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

---

Already read this awhile back. Experiments done in the 90s?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

trust=faith, spin that shit any way you want so it can fit your theory but you know I am right

---

This is, by the way, a strawman logical fallacy.

We are using the word in different ways. You may spike the ball, kid, but you aren't in the endzone just because you say you are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Already read this awhile back. Experiments done in the 90s?

---

Sorry, you didn't read it.

Lying about research, lying about what i say, lying about the evidence, and nothing but a string of logically flawed "arguments".

Meh.

Go stand in the corner with the retard who thinks the moon landings were faked, conspiratard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Sorry, you didn't read it.

Lying about research, lying about what i say, lying about the evidence, and nothing but a string of logically flawed "arguments".

Meh.

Go stand in the corner with the retard who thinks the moon landings were faked, conspiratard.

---

:lmao

Why so sad? Because you can't find any evidence?

Trust=faith. End of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

No, I am saying that evolution is not science. I am not arguing science. Science has to be observed, I ask once again, who has observed evolution?

---

I gave you list.

You ignored it.

Not my problem. If you really wanted to know you would go out and find it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Already read this awhile back. Experiments done in the 90s?

---

You asked a question and that study provides a definitive answer to your question. How old is the bible? They should update that thing, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohmwrecker

You asked a question and that study provides a definitive answer to your question. How old is the bible? They should update that thing, right?

---

No, they shouldn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Why so sad? Because you can't find any evidence?

---

:lmao

You sad little man.

Think what you want, I have other things to do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

It matters because there are people that claim they get their morality from the bible.

The bible is not a source of morals.

Answer this question:

Is it moral to slit the throat of a child?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

[non-answer]

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Sorry, this is the kind of question that you don't get to ignore.

I will ask it again for a second time:

Is it moral to slit the throat of a child?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

RandomGuy, do some research and you will find that what your are claiming is wrong and taken completely out of context.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

It is a pretty straightforward, basic question, that should be easy to answer. Feel free to ask me if you want, I will give you an answer the first time you ask it.

For the third time, yes or no:

Is it moral to slit the throat of a child?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Have you studied the book of Hosea, RandomGuy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

That is not an answer to my question, that is evasive bullshit, and you know it. If you can't do me the courtesy of answering something simple, I am not going to give you the courtesy of a reply to yours.

For the fourth time a simple yes or no question:

Is it moral to slit the throat of a child?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Well I need to know if you've read the book of Hosea?

---

Pwd.

You did it to yourself.

The answer is no, it is not moral. I can answer that easily.

You can't.

I can conclude based on an inability to answer that question:

1) You are a lying, dishonest sack of shit.
--only lying dishonest sack of shit would run away from that question.

or

2) You think the answer is yes, making you an evil, sick fuck, but don't want to admit to the world you are that sick and twisted.


I have no interest in talking to either lying sacks of shit, or evil, sick fucks.

I am now convinced you are both rob.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...awedtheory.gif

:lmao

Question: "What are some flaws in the theory of evolution?"

Answer:Christians and non-Christians alike often question whether the theory of evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled “unscientific” or “backwards” by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled.

There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.

Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.

First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.

Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The fossil record might seem to supportpunctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.

While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.

Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.

The second flaw is the problem of extending“microevolution” into “macroevolution.”Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.

Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.

Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.

Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/flaws-th...#ixzz2iUkq3wsN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

:lmao

You sad little man.

Think what you want, I have other things to do.


















Pwd.

You did it to yourself.

The answer is no, it is not moral. I can answer that easily.

You can't.

I can conclude based on an inability to answer that question:

1) You are a lying, dishonest sack of shit.
--only lying dishonest sack of shit would run away from that question.

or

2) You think the answer is yes, making you an evil, sick fuck, but don't want to admit to the world you are that sick and twisted.


I have no interest in talking to either lying sacks of shit, or evil, sick fucks.

I am now convinced you are both rob.

---

Why are atheist so angry? Its not my fault your life has no meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Question: "What are some flaws in the theory of evolution?"

Answer:Christians and non-Christians alike often question whether the theory of evolution is accurate. Those who express doubts about the theory are often labeled “unscientific” or “backwards” by some in the pro-evolution camp. At times, the popular perception of evolution seems to be that it has been proven beyond all doubt and there are no scientific obstacles left for it. In reality, there are quite a few scientific flaws in the theory that provide reasons to be skeptical. Granted, none of these questions necessarily disproves evolution, but they do show how the theory is less than settled.

There are many ways in which evolution can be criticized scientifically, but most of those criticisms are highly specific. There are countless examples of genetic characteristics, ecological systems, evolutionary trees, enzyme properties, and other facts that are very difficult to square with the theory of evolution. Detailed descriptions of these can be highly technical and are beyond the scope of a summary such as this. Generally speaking, it’s accurate to say that science has yet to provide consistent answers to how evolution operates at the molecular, genetic, or even ecological levels in a consistent and supportable way.

Other flaws in the theory of evolution can be separated into three basic areas. First, there is the contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” Second is the problem in projecting “microevolution” into “macroevolution.” Third is the unfortunate way in which the theory has been unscientifically abused for philosophical reasons.

First, there is a contradiction between “punctuated equilibrium” and “gradualism.” There are two basic possibilities for how naturalistic evolution can occur. This flaw in the theory of evolution occurs because these two ideas are mutually exclusive, and yet there is evidence suggestive of both of them. Gradualism implies that organisms experience a relatively steady rate of mutations, resulting in a somewhat “smooth” transition from early forms to later ones. This was the original assumption derived from the theory of evolution. Punctuated equilibrium, on the other hand, implies that mutation rates are heavily influenced by a unique set of coincidences. Therefore, organisms will experience long periods of stability, “punctuated” by short bursts of rapid evolution.

Gradualism seems to be contradicted by the fossil record. Organisms appear suddenly and demonstrate little change over long periods. The fossil record has been greatly expanded over the last century, and the more fossils that are found, the more gradualism seems to be disproved. It was this overt refutation of gradualism in the fossil record that prompted the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

The fossil record might seem to supportpunctuated equilibrium, but again, there are major problems. The basic assumption of punctuated equilibrium is that a very few creatures, all from the same large population, will experience several beneficial mutations, all at the same time. Right away, one can see how improbable this is. Then, those few members separate completely from the main population so that their new genes can be passed to the next generation (another unlikely event). Given the wide diversity of life, this kind of amazing coincidence would have to happen all the time.

While the improbable nature of punctuated equilibrium speaks for itself, scientific studies have also cast doubt on the benefits it would confer. Separating a few members from a larger population results in inbreeding. This results in decreased reproductive ability, harmful genetic abnormalities, and so forth. In essence, the events that should be promoting “survival of the fittest” cripple the organisms instead.

Despite what some claim, punctuated equilibrium is not a more refined version of gradualism. They have very different assumptions about the mechanisms behind evolution and the way those mechanisms behave. Neither is a satisfactory explanation for how life came to be as diverse and balanced as it is, and yet there are no other reasonable options for how evolution can operate.

The second flaw is the problem of extending“microevolution” into “macroevolution.”Laboratory studies have shown that organisms are capable of adaptation. That is, living things have an ability to shift their biology to better fit their environment. However, those same studies have demonstrated that such changes can only go so far, and those organisms have not fundamentally changed. These small changes are called “microevolution.” Microevolution can result in some drastic changes, such as those found in dogs. All dogs are the same species, and one can see how much variation there is. But even the most aggressive breeding has never turned a dog into something else. There is a limit to how large, small, smart, or hairy a dog can become through breeding. Experimentally, there is no reason to suggest that a species can change beyond its own genetic limits and become something else.

Long-term evolution, though, requires “macroevolution,” which refers to those large-scale changes. Microevolution turns a wolf into a Chihuahua or a Great Dane. Macroevolution would turn a fish into a cow or a duck. There is a massive difference in scale and effect between microevolution and macroevolution. This flaw in the theory of evolution is that experimentation does not support the ability of many small changes to transform one species into another.

Finally, there is the flawed application of evolution. This is not a flaw in the scientific theory, of course, but an error in the way the theory has been abused for non-scientific purposes. There are still many, many questions about biological life that evolution has not answered. And yet, there are those who try to transform the theory from a biological explanation into a metaphysical one. Every time a person claims that the theory of evolution disproves religion, spirituality, or God, they are taking the theory outside of its own limits. Fairly or not, the theory of evolution has been hijacked as an anti-religious mascot by those with an axe to grind against God.

Overall, there are many solidly scientific reasons to question the theory of evolution. These flaws may be resolved by science, or they may eventually kill the theory all together. We don’t know which one will happen, but we do know this: the theory of evolution is far from settled, and rational people can question it scientifically.

Read more:http://www.gotquestions.org/flaws-th...#ixzz2iUkq3wsN

---

"Got Questions Ministries seeks to glorify the Lord Jesus Christ by providing biblical, applicable, and timely answers to spiritually related questions through an internet presence."

Translation: a Jeebotard website :lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosit...awedtheory.gif

---

Are you like that dipshit in that thinks he won?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Why are atheist so angry? Its not my fault your life has no meaning.

---

So your life can't be meaningful without religion? Guess nobody told Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris, Peter Higgs, Richard Dawkins, etc. that....

I'm not an atheist.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

No, they shouldn't.

---

:lmao

"killing children is ok"

I think that part needs updating.

"slavery is just fine"

I think that part needs updating.

"Stars can be blown around by clouds"

I think that part needs updating

You haven't really read the whole thing, have you?

:rollin:rollin:rollin:rollin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

Are you like that dipshit in that thinks he won?

---

I know.. that is kinda wierd.

The subtle part of the satire seems to be completely lost on him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clipper Nation

So your life can't be meaningful without religion? Guess nobody told Stephen Hawking, Sam Harris, Peter Higgs, Richard Dawkins, etc. that....

---

Life is infinitely more meaningful without the shackles of stupidity that keeps people bound to 3000 year old worldviews.

If someone is convinced that some magic man in the sky will give them some kind of horrific, boring afterlife in heaven then they know that their earthly life is meaningless.

If you know that this is all there is and when its over... its over... you take things far more seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Why are atheist so angry? Its not my fault your life has no meaning.

---

I do tend to be angry when people like you lie to my face. On the balance I am more disappointed though.

For a second, I thought that you might learn to think for yourself.

You just aren't ready yet.

Sokay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-AyDtD6sPA

---

"creation museum"

:lmao

That chick is creepy. You should see how she talks to/about her kids.

Faith in magic sky gods and their magic books has its costs, and her children get to bear that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Woo Bum-kon

You asked a question and you got an answer. How long are you going to play this game? You ask where an ancestor came from, receive an answer, then ask who the ancestor's ancestor came from. It's getting very lame.

---

It is a big game of "nuh-uh"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Where is the evidence?

---

Quote:

---

Links with hours of evidence

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

nuh-uh!

---

um, ok, here is some more evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

nuh-uh!

---

Ok, what do you want there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

you're a poopy head atheist!!

---

okaaay, and that means what exactly?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

were you there?

---

no, but here is some more evidence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

nuh-uh!

---

You don't really understand any of this do you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

you're a poopy head atheist!!

---

etc..

etc.

etc.

Pretty much the whole thread can be summed up by the kinds of "arguments" that most 4th graders regard as immature. "nuh-uh" and "I'm rubber and you're glue", with a few lame yootoobs thrown in.

Don't forget reassuring emoticons when he (quickly) runs out of lame, grade school quality material :lol

Was this supposed to be funny?

poopy head?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

I know.. that is kinda wierd.

The subtle part of the satire seems to be completely lost on him.

---

I'm pretty sure he thought it was a jab at evolutionists.

Lol funnier than the actual cartoon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Clipper Nation

Don't forget reassuring emoticons when he (quickly) runs out of lame, grade school quality material :lol

---

Pretty much.

Argument by "nuh-uh" and smileys. It makes my case that creationists and biblical literalists tend to be lazy and bad critical thinkers for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blake

I'm pretty sure he thought it was a jab at evolutionists.

Lol funnier than the actual cartoon

---

Yeah, that was funny.

Donning-kruger anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

When you start cheerleading mouse as a great debater, and citing *his* sources.. that is instalose.

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Was this supposed to be funny?

---

It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

http://images.quizilla.com/Y/yourgoo...ndthatssad.gif

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Yeah, that was funny.

Donning-kruger anyone?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning...3Kruger_effect

When you start cheerleading mouse as a great debater, and citing *his* sources.. that is instalose.

:lmao

---

As long as one person reading learns something it was all worth it.

on a side note: Debunk my sources then you can ridicule.

The answer is very good for you because you will eventually grow your wings after you keep trying to jump off of things and flap your arms ....... over thousands of years. Don't give up. :lol

thanks for the support in this thread Rob...we wrecked some evolutionist asses real good....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koolaid_Man

thanks for the support in this thread Rob...we wrecked some evolutionist asses real good....

---

:toast

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koolaid_Man

thanks for the support in this thread Rob...we wrecked some evolutionist asses real good....

---

DMC getting into the show!!!!



:rollin:rollin

lol support group e-hug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koolaid_Man

thanks for the support in this thread Rob...we wrecked some evolutionist asses real good....

---

Oh you were quite convincing.

A virtual fountain of misconceptions.
Science teaching still has a way to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

"creation museum"

:lmao

That chick is creepy. You should see how she talks to/about her kids.

Faith in magic sky gods and their magic books has its costs, and her children get to bear that.

---

Jesus...

She has her PHD in molecular Genetics and made a huge error in saying there is no mechanism for gaining new genetic material? I did not know DeVry gave PHDs out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pgardn

Jesus...

She has her PHD in molecular Genetics and made a huge error in saying there is no mechanism for gaining new genetic material? I did not know DeVry gave PHDs out.

---

she is a lot less impressive when you read her (very few) published articles, and take the time to evaluate her academic credentials. Not all phd's are created equal, if you will pardon the pun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Koolaid_Man

thanks for the support in this thread Rob...we wrecked some evolutionist asses real good....

---

This....... man.............clear.........ly

Knows.........how...to......lay................... down................the.........smack

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LARRY MERCHANT

This....... man.............clear.........ly

Knows.........how...to......lay................... down................the.........smack

---

:lol

RIP thread.

:sleep

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

RIP thread.

:sleep

---

http://thewebsage.com/images/Waving_White_Flag.gif


how the real RandomLie talks to people in the politics forum.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...144746&page=47

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandomGuy

Fuck you.

---

What puzzled me is if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xmas1997

The answer is very good for you because you will eventually grow your wings after you keep trying to jump off of things and flap your arms ....... over thousands of years. Don't give up. :lol

---

Lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Empty

What puzzled me is if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys.

---

Common ancestor, yada yada yada.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mouse

http://thewebsage.com/images/Waving_White_Flag.gif


how the real RandomLie talks to people in the politics forum.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...144746&page=47

---

I'm only that way to people like you who are rude to me. You get back what you put out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Empty

What puzzled me is if we came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys.

---

Because monkeys are well adapted for their environments, just as alligators and other forms of life are.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930.html

Quote:

---

Response:

The theory of evolution does not say that organisms must evolve morphologically. In fact, in an unchanging environment, stabilizing selection would tend to keep an organism largely unchanged. Many environments around today are not greatly different from environments of millions of years ago.

Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes. Species may also evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago.

---

Asked and answered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robdiaz2191

Reading the Bible is religious? What religion am I a part of Blake?

---