It's like this moron, everyone knows and understands the theory of evolution. The bottom line stupid is that it has holes a mile wide in it, ok? And you know this as does all the idiots who try to peddle it.
I think we saw most those holes exposed in this thread which was why I started it. I don't buy it at all, it's a load of bull . If dummies like you can't see the holes in why am I not surprised?
You are obviously too stupid to make a dent, ok? So why not just accept the fact guys like me poke fun at guys like you, and move on.
No.
No they don't.
And you certainly don't understand it.
You are speaking of the Earth being exactly the right distance away from the Sun.
WTF does this have to do with evolution?
Now you think you know, but warning, you don't.
Because you have not a clue as to what evolution is in science.
And when you attempt to answer this, you will make a fool of yourself yet again.
Because it's pretty awesome when it gets things right. Do you want to live in a cave gathering roots and insects?
No.
Why do you not have to do that anymore?
Science.
You need to apologize to science and thank it for everything it has given you.
So don't post in the evolution thread anymore, dummy.
Yes, yes they do. Where you got this idea it's some big complex ordeal? It's not at all.
I'll go slow idiot...
I was OBVIOUSLY using the distance from the sun as just another example of a MasterDesign, dude, are you really as dumb as you appear?
I thought Blake was stupid, sheesh~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No.
No you don't.
Evolution has nothing to do with a master design Fckn idiot.
Give me your definition of biological evolution.
Now.
I will prove you don't get it. Or that you do.
Are you simply re ed? Do you really think any MasterDesigner is going to go about it this way? Why?
And, are you kidding me? got you don't tell..NOW..what the are you thinking?
Stupid, where are you getting this totally stupid idea that any kind of evolution is complex? It might be to your dumb ass.
Again.
What is your definition of biological evolution since you are so sure it's wrong?
Now get ready to get pummeled.
Hmmm?
2. Biologya. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations,often resulting in the development of new species. The mechanisms of evolutioninclude natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, mutation,migration, and genetic drift.
lol can't even use his own words.
Stupid.
I could have posted it a little differently but why? If asked when did Lead Belly die how many ways can ya give out that Info?
What gets me is how can anyone think all that isn't readily available? I could learn all I need to know about evolution in what 30 minutes?
What gets me is you think pasting a dictionary definition makes you think you are an expert on evolution.
So to sum it up. The following can be extracted from your position:
1. You don't believe populations of living things change over time.
2. They may go extinct. Poof.
3. Others somehow appear. Poof. Only the creator can accomplish this.
4. There is no connection between species of organisms.(a basic tenet of Evolution is relatedness)
5. Species are all made by some creator specially on their own distinct from other living things.
6. Its still going on today at the creator's whim. Or has creation stopped?
Feel free to add on or take away from the six above.
Please.
Its so boring for you, you got it all figured out after what you explain as a very simple thing.
So please, help those of us who are awed by the subject to understand how we are missing the simplicity by working with the 6 above.
Please.
You;re boring me amigo.
Answer these.
Too many questions and no answers
It can also be noted that evolutionists only discuss this subject in the broadest terms. If evolution is true, why don’t they give us answers to our many questions?
- Where did all the 90-plus elements (iron, barium, calcium, silver, nickel, neon, chlorine, etc.) come from? How was it determined how many bonds each element would have for combining with other elements?
- How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
- Where did the thousands of compounds we find in the world come from—carbon dioxide, sodium chloride, calcium hydroxide, hydrochloric acid, oxalic acid, chlorophyll, sucrose, hydrogen sulfide, benzene, aluminum silicate, mercaptans, propane, silicon dioxide, boric acid, etc.? They could not have developed from the elements, because elements rarely react with each other. For example, did all the salt in the ocean form by sodium reacting with chlorine (a gas)? Therefore almost all compounds had to have been created as compounds. When did all the compounds we find in the world develop—before the big bang, during the big bang, after the big bang? When evolutionists use the term “matter,” which of the thousands of compounds is included? When evolutionists use the term “primordial soup,” which of the elements and compounds is included?
- Why do books on evolution, including grade school, high school and college textbooks, not include such important, basic information? Evolutionists are masters of speculation; why don’t they speculate about this?
copypasta from a creationist site is boring.
that's ok as long as others can see how you and your misguided Darwin supporters avoid the hard questions and facts it's all good.
Last edited by mouse; 06-09-2015 at 08:30 AM.
not able to respond or debunk the copy and paste is entertaining.
I did respond.
There is nothing to debunk.
So then you admit to design?
My response is no.
You seem to think that uncertainty disproves science. Uncertainty is the reason there is science.
Simply ascribing everything to "God did it" is lazy and would have left you in a cave eating bugs.
Biological evolution does not cover the Big Bang you old dork.
Quit changing the question.
Biological evolution simply deals with life once it was present.
You want to know what was before the Big Bang? Science can't answer that.
Science can attempt to answer how the first self replicating molecules arose that used energy and material from the environment. (This is a possible definition of life) So far biochemical evolution has not made it clear exactly how cellular life arose. We have some ideas, but no it's not entirely clear at all and may never be. We do have some very good ideas how the first chemical elements arose AFTER the Big Bang.
The above is the current state of things.
So NOW answer one question concerning biological evolution
Do you believe populations of living things change over time?
No because your worried you may come across as being another misguided poster at ST or No, because your not going up on your stubborn ways you have invested to much of your life on no matter how foolish they may make you look.
You seem to think unproven theories proves science. I thought Science was based on "facts"You seem to think that uncertainty disproves science. Uncertainty is the reason there is science.
what facts prove we evolved from snails?
When did I mention God?Simply ascribing everything to "God did it" is lazy and would have left you in a cave eating bugs.
Dude make another coffee (not decaf) your not talking to another Club Creationist.
I will leave it up.
The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution.
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological en ies are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable. Usually, this pattern is attributed to cladogenesis compressed in time, combined with the inevitable erosion of the phylogenetic signal.Incredible Evolutionary “Big Bang” Supports Darwin’s Theory
Added by James Fenner on September 13, 2013.
Saved under Charles Darwin, Evolution, Science
Tags: top
image: http://guardianlv.com/wp-content/upl...in-650x342.jpg
Scientists think evolutionary Big Bang is supported by Darwin
A brand new research study, conducted by a group of Adelaide scientists, suggests that there was an incredible acceleration in the rate of evolution, some 580 million years ago. This was likely to have occurred during the “Cambrian explosion,” a period in time when many collections of modern animals rapidly materialized. These findings seem to support the notion of an evolutionary “Big Bang,” a process which, according to the latest research efforts, seems consistent with Darwin’s theory of evolution.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote