Evolution is a Joke part XII

Do you know how ignorant and ridiculous you sound? ...or are you just dishonest?

Fact is, Evolution IS A FACT and the the Theory of Evolution explains that fact via natural causes. The debate in the world of Science is over...it's a non-starter. The only people who are two stupid, dishonest or ignorant to acknowledge that FACT are bible-babblers...people who need the feel of a warm, fuzzy hug from their mythical sky fairy.

There, fixed that for you. Grow up and learn some science.

- - - Updated - - -

Prove it.

 

Disprove it. All you have a delusional doubts, not rational affirmations. Evolution is as much a theory as anything else.

 

Well I am not in agreement with the quantum nature of the BB anyway, save for quantum loop gravity playing a role that could possibly get around my holy grail of creation* which is the KCA, and its beautifully simple and elegant premises (3) and the logical syllogism those three premises support, which ultimately infers GID** created the universe by being the ‘cause’ that caused the big bang to begin its processes.


reva

 

Agree and the rabid attacks that anyone suffers who happen to point out that fact that evolution is INDEED a theory shows that the poor souls who nearly worship Darwin and his obsolete theory are in denial and are executing an double standard of global proportions! .

reva

 

Sorry, that's not how it works. You claim "god", you carry the burden of proof...or go away. There is no evidence whatsoever for any god, or the requirement for any god being necessary. NONE.

Second, Evolution is a fact...gradual change over time is a fact, that IS Evolution. Denying just makes you look ignorant.

The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of that FACT via natural causes...which are supported by mountains of evidence. Your comment, "Evolution is as much a theory as anything else." only goes to show you don't understand what a "theory" is in Science.

Steven J. Gould explains it pretty well:

 

KCA is based on assumptions. It assumes that things can begin to exist. On what grounds is this assumption made? We don't know if the universe has always existed and that the Big Bang was just at the point all the universe was compressed into an infinitesimally small point, from which it expanded.

 

Your argument is a strawman. First, no one worships Darwin in the same way you worship your mythical sky fairy. You just need to portray it that way in a dishonest attempt to convince others that, acknowledging Darwin's concept is like a religion. It's not. No more so than acknowledging Newton or Einstein for Gravitational Theory...or the scientists of developed Nuclear Theory or Germ Theory.

Fact is, you're not real honest about your claims.

 

...talk about having blind faith...

 

Hows about history and eyewitness acounts. That works in any court of law.

 

Faith=Believe without proof. The theory of Evolution has mountains of proof, no faith required. Tell me how your belief in a mythical sky fairy is the same thing as my understanding of the Theory of Evolution?

You're not honest about your claims either.

 

Funny, all you fundies want to (*)(*)(*)(*) an moan about Evolution and the Theory of Evolution...but yet, you can't provide any evidence to disprove it. Maybe you should start a thread called, "Pissing into the wind because we like the taste."

**** on!

 

It has mountains of speculation described as truth accepted by the gullible who pretend to exercise reason as silver bullet against that which they do not know nor understand. The Gospels were written before the temple destruction in Jerusalem and they are all eyewitness acounts by living human beings who saw with their own eyes the miracles of the Living God. They are also accounts of the fullfilled prophecies of the old testament prophets, hundreds of prophecies, fulfilled in the life of one man. The odds of which are astronomical. A God who can do these things is also a God who can create everything. That is why God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and Omniscient. He is God and we are accountable to his word whether we accept it or not and its not God's problem it is ours he has made his way and creation plain and unambiguous, well, except through pretentious and partially exercised reason.

 

Have you read the book I recommended "Song Of The Dodo"

 

Really?...the fossil record, DNA, endogenous retroviruses and obersevations....Yeah, just keep hand-waving what you don't understand. You don't like to learn, do you?

Nothing verifiable, nothing to test...just claims. You know, "A Tale of Two Cities" took place in London and referenced real people but that doesn't make the book a historical reference. Many of the claims made in the bible like age of the earth, all creatures created at the same time, global flood, parting waters have all been debunked.

There is not proof of any god's existence and much proof that claims for all god's eventually go by the wayside as we learn more. Yours will soon follow.

 

Do you understand what "theory" means in a scientific context?

Actually, try going into a court and offering your "eyewitness account" of a supernatural event. Like, you saw the accused rise up into the sky in a flaming chariot. They would discard your testimony as insane.

 

The high school "AP" course is very dumbed down. I have an MD degree, a bachelor's degree in biology, about 20 scientific publications, and have over a decade of experience working in scientific research. I assure you, I do not understand most of the evidence behind evolution. I highly doubt you do either.

 

Or alien ghosts? I've heard an old halloween record that features those.

 

- - - Updated - - -

Have you ever debated a conspiracy with a die-hard kook?

If you answered 'no,' you have failed to see creationists and their claims for what they truly are.

 

His point was that you don't need to understand everything, you just understand the fundamentals and the most important pieces of evidence.

 

YEEEEUP!...I'm debating the wingnut 7-11 who believes:
1. Agent Greer, the driver of the JFK limo is the one who assassinated JFK when he slowed down, pulled out a gun, turned and shot JFK in the front of the head, made the gun disappear...turned and drove away.

2. No planes hit the WTC.

There is no bottom to the depth of his crack-pottery.

 

And I'm still waiting for you to prove your first premise true.

 

I see a glimmer of hope for you.

 

You have that backwards. It is the mind/consciousness that directs the electricity.
The Mind is not in the brain. The brain is just the receiver.
Evidence that it continues....you are using finite hardware to attempt to detect it.
You have to develop better more sensitive hardware.

Research? You have a lot of catching up to do in that department.

- - - Updated - - -

Of Course.

 

The scientists don't understand it either.

 

What do you mean dishonest?
Do you think that I am not stating my honest opinion?
Why do you think that I am any more ignorant than you are?
Because I disagree with the idea of evolution?
Then I guess these guys are "ignorant" too:

Dr. Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, has said that he is convinced that life could not have evolved on this planet from non-life.
Francis Crick & L.E. Orgel, “Directed Panspermia,” Icarus journal, 19, p. 341–346; also Francis Crick, Life Itself (New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1981).
-----------------------------------------------------
“The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle.”- Evolutionist and world class expert on the chemistry of DNA, Dr. Robert Shapiro, Robert Shapiro, Origins — A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, 1986, 128.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Mathematician's View of Evolution
Granville Sewell
Mathematics Dept.
University of Texas El Paso
The Mathematical Intelligencer 22, no. 4 (2000), pp5-7
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sew...s/mathint.html