Evolution...?

[Avante]

So there was the earth void of any animal life, then one day..............well?

And....so there were the oceans just vast amounts of water without any living creatures present, then one day..........well?

[Blake]

Blake, read what I showed you and point out why he was wrong, ok?

Stop being so ing lazy, ok? Being a lazy asshole must suck.

So where was he wrong, well?

He's assuming the only other alternative to god is life springing up from nothing.

You and he are both too limited and stupid to come up with more than two options to human existence.

[Blake]

When are you going to answer my question regarding written history?

Oh right, never. It's okay tho because you're content on staying limited to two options and ignoring peer reviewed scientific research on evolution. No skin off my back.

[Avante]

He's assuming the only other alternative to god is life springing up from nothing.

You and he are both too limited and stupid to come up with more than two options to human existence.

So where was he wrong at little guy? Tell me what he said that was wrong, well?

Blake, stupid is this....Nick Chubb averaged...... hahahaha!!!!!!!! Dude, what in the was that about,,,huh?

[Avante]

When are you going to answer my question regarding written history?

Oh right, never. It's okay tho because you're content on staying limited to two options and ignoring peer reviewed scientific research on evolution. No skin off my back.

Wrong as you always are.

What does written history have to do with some primitive creatures that would evolve into the human we see today, well?

Yes, we did start out as that caveman we know about, we were just never some little fishie,ok?

[Avante]

Since it's a constant topic for conversation, let's at least get it right, ok?

I was a sailor, not a soldier...ok?

I was over there from 69-72, I was 19-22, ok?

While some 16 year olds might have snuck by, this talk of any younger is beyond stupid, keep in mind the drinking age was 18 and these girls had to have work permits. All this stuff about young kids is about the brotels and street walkers, not the bars (when I was there). I hung out in the bars, love to dance.

Now think just a little bit, don't you think it would look funny sitting at the bar with a 12/13 year old drinking....well? What could you talk about with a kid? And, don't you think your buddies would be...."dude, she is just a kid, what's wrong with you?".... yes they would have. And you always ran in packs.

So why ya act stupid/re ed about this....???

I was 6-2 around 240 pounds back then, I needed a big woman (for them) so I looked for just that, a full grown woman with experience. A dancer like me.

ONE MORE TIME

If I had walked by a guy who was messing with some kid I would have told the sick to cool it, if he gave me any I'd beat this sicko to a pulp. that is my stance on that sick .

Is it possible one of those I thought was older was only 16, sure. But that is not looking for kids like some sick ass pedo does, and if I found out yes that did happen it would bug the out of me as I said the first time I ever talked about this.

What's funny is that all of you who get off on this all had a granny or a great granny who was only 15/16 and pregnant, and all of you would have done what we all did and ya know it. What young guy ......me get pussy, oh no......yep, none~~~~

[Avante]

One of the truly great sounds in musicdom.

[Blake]

So where was he wrong at little guy? Tell me what he said that was wrong, well?

Blake, stupid is this....Nick Chubb averaged...... hahahaha!!!!!!!! Dude, what in the was that about,,,huh?

Your biased Christian article/chain mail is wrong in assuming abiogenesis is impossible. It's just not been proven possible yet.

You're too lazy and stupid to understand that tho. Now run back to your comfort zone of hahahahas and youtubes you stupid fat caveman.

[RandomGuy]

Bingo~~~~~~~~

You have no clue what to do, do ya?

[RandomGuy]

Who created the superior being

We did.

Our imaginations are powerful things.

[RandomGuy]

Ok then, what would you expect to find in terms of evidence were this theory to be true?

This is where repeating a definition ends, and understanding begins.

[I've] read the books on the evolution thing, ok?

"I've read books" isn't an answer to the question.

If you truly understood the theory, and were not mentally weak, you could easily answer the question.

...

Again 2nd time:
What would you expect to find in terms of evidence were [the theory of evolution] true?

All I know about the theory of evolution is what I read in a book. What the book was wrong?

The issue is not what you read in a book. It is whether you actually understand what you read. I do not know what book you are talking about, so I cannot speak to your question, which I can only guess is to deflect the conversation from your ignorance, or if you prefer, "mental weakness".

*If* you understood what you read to any depth, you should be able to easily answer the question, it is very basic. All I have to do to prove my point that you don't understand the theory you criticize is simply show you unable/unwilling to answer the question.

3rd time:
What would you expect to find in terms of evidence were [the theory of evolution] true?

Understand what? All life forms evolved from a previous lower life forms, wow, complex.

So you can't actually demonstrate any understanding. All you can do is simply repeat a definition that you may nor may not ultimately understand. I figure three chances to answer an easy question is enough for anyone.


I guess it is easy to see who is "mentally weak" then.

QED

[Avante]

Your biased Christian article/chain mail is wrong in assuming abiogenesis is impossible. It's just not been proven possible yet.

You're too lazy and stupid to understand that tho. Now run back to your comfort zone of hahahahas and youtubes you stupid fat caveman.

Well as of right now it is impossible, right? Damn you're dumb, wow~~~~~~~~~

Dude, tell me again about what a frosh RB averaged in...one...game, hahaha~~~~~~~ That has gotta be the dumbest thing I've seen on this board and Clipper Nation posts here.

[Avante]

Actually conversing with others is a struggle for you isn't it?

[Avante]

So you can't actually demonstrate any understanding. All you can do is simply repeat a definition that you may nor may not ultimately understand. I figure three chances to answer an easy question is enough for anyone.


I guess it is easy to see who is "mentally weak" then.

QED

Do I really have to school you on a dozen topics you know nothing at all about to show just how "mentally weak" you are, well?

You get off on evolution, I don't. That's about interest, ok?

[Blake]

Well as of right now it is impossible, right? Damn you're dumb, wow~~~~~~~~~

No, as of right now we don't know. Damn you're re ed.

Ja, tell me again about what a frosh RB averaged in...one...game, hahaha~~~~~~~ That has gotta be the dumbest thing I've seen on this board and Clipper Nation posts here.

Yeah, you gave Chubb the patented Avante Curse that game. It's what you do. Your failures at predictions are hilarious.

[Blake]

Do I really have to school you on a dozen topics you know nothing at all about to show just how "mentally weak" you are, well?

Making almanac lists involves no brain use, dummy.

Your inability to recognize and use logic is what makes you a 90lb mental midget.

[Avante]

No, as of right now we don't know. Damn you're re ed.



Yeah, you gave Chubb the patented Avante Curse that game. It's what you do. Your failures at predictions are hilarious.

Wrong as usual, no little one it is impossible.

Let's see plus 3000 in my ATS picks last two seasons, nailed Derrick Henry, nailed Nick Chubb, nailed Russell Wilson. Are you ever right?

[Avante]

Making almanac lists involves no brain use, dummy.

Your inability to recognize and use logic is what makes you a 90lb mental midget.

Ya mean like breaking down an ATS play using stats,trends and historical data? Wanna talk sprinting and the importance of speed endurance?

I can hang with you on anything,that's for damn sure.

[Blake]

Wrong as usual, no little one it is impossible.

, you're not even able to understand the word "impossible"

60lb weakling. I could sneeze and blow you over.

[Avante]

, you're not even able to understand the word "impossible"

60lb weakling. I could sneeze and blow you over.

Wrong ...AGAIN~~~~~~~ It is impossible slugger, just like you ever getting anything right.

Little man, I could school you on Texas Tech football, that's how big a mismatch this is.

[Avante]

So it's....

Aliens from outer space.

A MasterDesigner

Littie fishies crawling out of oceans/pools..why?

Hmmmm?

[Avante]

Aren't you guys tired of this ridiculous pedo bull by now? Is it really that interesting? I was just a kid in a bar, big ing deal. I can.."ya shoot ing sick ass............. but it's boring. Come on, let's move on from something that happened some 45 years ago, ya reckon

This was one of my fav back then.

[Avante]

Wow~~~~~~

[RandomGuy]

Ya feel pretty stupid now don't ya little guy, so here ya come doing your usual..."Avante made me look stupid....again".....hahaha!!!!!!!!!!!

That's right ya dumb ...NBOBODY KNOWS. But like you/everyone we all have our little thing, obviously that is mine.

Here ya go one nut.


In 1953 Stanley Miller performed an experiment which rocked the world! He showed that passing a spark through a chosen mixture of gasses will form amino acids, the building blocks of proteins which are the main ingredients of living cells. Given an inch, a mile was taken. We were taught that lightning strikes provided the sparks that formed the amino acids which concentrated in an “organic soup,” and linked together to form proteins. These were claimed to have gotten together with DNA to form the first living cell.


But amino acids will not link together to form proteins! It was a bit like claiming that if bricks formed in nature they would get together to build houses. Proteins are so hard to make that in all of nature, they never form except in already living cells. Never! This scientific fact stands in stark contrast to what was taught.


Which viewpoint is best supported by the evidence? Did life begin without a Creator or did God create it? Evidence that life never comes from non-living materials is so abundant that it is a basic principle of science called the Principle of Biogenesis (living things come only from living things). Atheists and many agnostics have faith that contrary to this basic principle of science, life did evolve spontaneously from chemicals at least once. They now call their theory “abiogenesis” which comes from roots that mean “not Biogenesis.” They no longer use the term “spontaneous generation.”

Is abiogenesis possible? Not only are proteins never formed in nature outside of living cells, the amino acids from which they are built are of two kinds: Half are called left-handed and half right-handed. Only proteins containing all left handed amino acids will work in living things because proteins which contain any right-handed amino acids have the wrong shape and will not connect properly to the proteins around them. It is a bit like when you take a piece out of a puzzle, turn it upside down and try to put it back in where you took it out. It is the same size and shape, but it won’t fit. In nature, all left handed amino acids are only formed by living cells. Amino acids formed in experiments like Miller’s, are half left, and half right-handed so they will not work in the proteins of living things. This is more scientific evidence that life could not form without a Creator. Add it to the fact that in nature, no proteins at all will form outside of cells.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

That is why I take the stance I do on this, now just what was/is that Creator/God/MasterDesigner, yep.....NOBODY KNOWS. So us humans make up trying to explain who/what is responsibe for all this. While dummies like you really think gobly gook at the botton of some pool or ocean.,...hahahaha!!!!!!!!!

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

Abiogenesis is not evolution

That said, even your copy-pasta is factually incorrect.

"But amino acids will not link together to form proteins!"

They will, and do.

Professor Michael Blaber and his team produced data supporting the idea that 10 amino acids believed to exist on Earth around 4 billion years ago were capable of forming foldable proteins in a high-salt (halophile) environment. Such proteins would have been capable of providing metabolic activity for the first living organisms to emerge on the planet between 3.5 and 3.9 billion years ago.

The results of Blaber's three-year study, which was built around investigative techniques that took more than 17 years to develop, are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0405064027.htm


So, to sum up:
1) You can't distinguish between two different theories,
2) you don't understand what evolution is, and
3) your ignorance leads you to repeatedly post that is easily debunked by the thinnest of google searches.


It's almost as if you don't care what is true or not. Maybe you will try telling me all about chemtrails next?

[RandomGuy]

Do I really have to school you on a dozen topics you know nothing at all about to show just how "mentally weak" you are, well?

You get off on evolution, I don't. That's about interest, ok?

Your thread. Your OP.