PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Evolution is a Fact.

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Most creationists don't seem to realize this, evolution is a fact.  That life changes is a fact, that life has changed since it's been on this planet is a fact.  The common descent of all life on earth is a fact.  This is observed, this is uncontestable based on the evidence.  Evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution explains how it happened and how it is happening today.

From here:
EvoFact

"We have two reasons to say evolution is fact: First, all the patterns we observe in nature point towards a nearly four billion year long history of evolution of life on earth. Putting a fancy word on it, this is Consilience. Multiple independent lines of evidence (from classification, development, fossil record, molecular biology etc.) all point to a branched evolutionary tree of life. Second, the anatomy and biochemistry of organisms is filled with quirky features, things that only make sense as artifacts of history. Again, putting a fancy term on it this is Dissonance. "

There are no objective biological organizations who do not accept evolution.  Virtually all biologists accept it.  It is observed.  Anyone who doesn't believe in evolution is on a par with flat earthers or geocentrists.


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:22 AM on October 27, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Being a creationist sure sounds tiresome.

I mean, they have to cope with every branch of science that independently have found the same...

And they have to give it a lot of thought before giving a straight answer, so it can make a little sense, even to themselves...

Example: Did God make chimpanzees 95% in His image?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:47 AM on October 27, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so... your 2 foundational principles on which u place that which u believe are "cosilience" and "dissonance"?  this is nothing but strange.

in the words of henrik ibsen, "a minority MAY be right, but a majority is ALWAYS wrong."  cosilience is far from a good reason to just "drink the koolaide".

and dissonance is only proof of turbulence.  it is meaningless.

in fact, i find most of what is said to state this point, which is made over and over, nothing but fancy amphigory.

sorry

-d

 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 11:59 AM on October 27, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 11:59 AM on October 27, 2008 :
so... your 2 foundational principles on which u place that which u believe are "cosilience" and "dissonance"?  this is nothing but strange.

in the words of henrik ibsen, "a minority MAY be right, but a majority is ALWAYS wrong."  cosilience is far from a good reason to just "drink the koolaide".


Couldn't have said it better myself. All those silly gravitationalists... Because there is such a consensus towards gravity's existence, they have to be wrong. Valid logic if I've ever seen it.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:42 PM on October 27, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:42 PM on October 27, 2008 :

Couldn't have said it better myself. All those silly gravitationalists... Because there is such a consensus towards gravity's existence, they have to be wrong. Valid logic if I've ever seen it.


yeah -yeah...

(Me:  slight grin - mild chuckle)

the quote was merely a rhetoric statement of principle; not meant to be stated as a fact or law.  the point that it makes goes back to the elementary school rhetoric of jumping off a bridge - making the point that doing something or believing something simply because it's the general consensus no matter how false it COULD BE is not a good reason at all.

-d

(Edited by dijonaise 10/27/2008 at 3:20 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 3:17 PM on October 27, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 3:17 PM on October 27, 2008 :
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:42 PM on October 27, 2008 :

Couldn't have said it better myself. All those silly gravitationalists... Because there is such a consensus towards gravity's existence, they have to be wrong. Valid logic if I've ever seen it.


yeah -yeah...

(Me:  slight grin - mild chuckle)

the quote was merely a rhetoric statement of principle; not meant to be stated as a fact or law.  the point that it makes goes back to the elementary school rhetoric of jumping off a bridge - making the point that doing something or believing something simply because it's the general consensus no matter how false it COULD BE is not a good reason at all.

-d

(Edited by dijonaise 10/27/2008 at 3:20 PM).



You violate the principle you're talking about on a daily basis whenever you put a cell phone to your ear, get into a car, or swim in a pool. These activities, along with hundreds more, all carry the possibility of killing you... And yet you do them.

Your objection therefore goes to more to weight than truth. Whether or not you follow through with the majority depends on how reliable you believe the majority's opinion to be. When you think it is reliable, the fact of the matter is that you follow it like a lemming -- we all do. So basically, what your argument boils down to is just another argument from incredulity: "It doesn't convince me, so I'm not believing it."


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:08 PM on October 27, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But they make predictions. And they hit!

Are all of them constantly lucky?

They make products employing evolutionary principles. They find fossils and oil. They develop vaccines.

They don't jump off bridges.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 6:16 PM on October 27, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 2:17 PM on October 27, 2008 :
the quote was merely a rhetoric statement of principle; not meant to be stated as a fact or law.  the point that it makes goes back to the elementary school rhetoric of jumping off a bridge - making the point that doing something or believing something simply because it's the general consensus no matter how false it COULD BE is not a good reason at all.


And how do you feel about believing something because of having spent many long hours in the laboratory studying it?




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 8:24 PM on October 27, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

so... your 2 foundational principles on which u place that which u believe are "cosilience" and "dissonance"?  this is nothing but
strange.


What's strange about it?  Didn't you understand the context in which it was used?

and dissonance is only proof of turbulence.  it is meaningless.

LIke I said, you don't understand the point.  Dissonance in this case points to biological structures that are best explained by evolution, like vestigial structures.  And is therefore, not meaningless at all.

in fact, i find most of what is said to state this point, which is made over and over, nothing but fancy amphigory.

No comment on the fact that virtually all (over 99%) biologists accept the theory of evolution.  Or on the fact that we directly observe evolution?  All you're throwing around is semantics, guess that's all you have...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 10:28 PM on October 27, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

dj, would you say that snakes never had limbs or hips?


-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:04 AM on October 28, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

but, see...i don't see it that way at all.  what i see is all of the branches saying, "ok, let's see how this can fit within the great evolutionary scheme."
i think that's the crux of what we creationists are saying:  that if the branches disregard the notion of evolution, other theories have a place.  

what i mean is this:

i was watching a now popular show on the discovery channel a couple of weeks ago. (it's called 'jurassic fight club')  i'm one of the strange creationists that actually enjoys shows like this.  so, don't get me wrong...i'm a geek, and i like to see different fields of science come together even when i don't completely agree witht the end result.  this is the perfect example.

basically, to be brief about it...

there was discovered a herd of Pachyrhinosaurus that had been grouped together.

(again, i'm being very brief)

the general consensus was that they all apparently drowned in a flood.

of course, being a creationist, i was even a little more attentive after hearing the word flood.  maybe that's actually a bad habit, but still...that's the way it is.

what was interesting to me was that there was no evidence whatsoever that these animals were pushed into a river by another pack of dinosaurs, and ...in fact...there wasn't even credible evidence that there ever even was a river there.  but what was funny to me was how EVERYONE jumpped on board with the idea that this was OBVIOUSLY the case - that the herd was OBVIOUSLY pushed into a river by another pack and all drowned.

now, i'm not saying that wasn't the case.  it sure could have been.  but for everyone to come to this conclusion baffles me.

perhaps it was simply to make for an interesting show with apparent closure in order to keep ratings up.  i think this is most likely the case.

but i was just baffled at how everyone came to this conclusion based on ... well...nothing.  well, really...it just showed how they all based it on a preconceived notion.

i have the show on dvr, and i've watched it twice now, and i still feel the same way.  there was absolutely no evidence of the conclusion, but because the conclusion fit in well with the great scheme of evolution, all agreed and went on witht their business.

this one example of why the i.d.ers and creationists are going against the grain.  we just think that instead of coming to a conclusion in order to make it fit into the grand scheme of evolution, other possibilities CAN be explored.

-d

(Edited by dijonaise 10/28/2008 at 1:47 PM).

EDITED FOR OBJECTIIVITY:
i was able to come across a copy of this episode online, and i watched it again in its entirety, and i must admit that i have to give credit when it is due.  there was more evidence leading to the conclusion than i previously stated.  so - it turns out - this isn't the perfect example that i thought it was.  HOWEVER, i still hold my view that they were incredibly quick to jump to the conclusion.  there CERTAINLY were other scenarios that could have taken place.  i'm not even advocating the global flood here, although - i still think that this could be another bit of evidence.
i'm just saying that...well...let me put it this way:

they discovered a herd of dinos that were buried in a specific type of sediment, thus leading to the conclusion of the herd drowning in a flash flood.  okay  - i'm on board.  then they discovered a couple of teeth (actually, how many teeth - we're never told) of a t-rex type of precursor dino.  some of the bones of the Pachyrhinosaurus had a few spiral-type fractures and what looked like tooth marks.  this all led the scientists to the conclusion that the herd was backed into a flooding river by two t-rex types (how they came up with that number isn't stated).  the herd drowned, was washed downstream, and piled up in a bend in the river.  the t-rex dinos then followed them downstream, and trampled over them as they feasted.
i'm just stunned at how they could give such an absolute conclusion based upon the obscurity of the evidence.
just because there happened to be a tooth or two mixed in with the bones doesn't mean that the herd was being chased into a river.  and just because there were spiral fractures in some of the bones doesn't mean that the only option is that the predators were trampling on the carcasses.

the fact is - there are other scenarios, and those scenarios weren't even given the slightest consideration.

does this mean that this happened due to the global flood?  eh - in this case - probably not.  i'm leaning toward the local flash flood thing, or heck, even just a fast-flowing river.  we see herds get overtaken trying to cross rivers even today.  but we COULD look into it through the eyes of a 'global floodist', couldn't we?  even to rule it out?
i'm only saying that this is a good example of how quick the scientific community will jump to a conclusion if it sounds "sexy" enough.





(Edited by dijonaise 10/28/2008 at 3:23 PM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 09:21 AM on October 28, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The lack of a river doesn't mean that a flood wasn't the case. This past year the flooding of places in the Mid West occurred without rivers in the area. Furthermore, how do you know there wasn't a river? Creationists tend to be horrible geologists. Creationists tend to forget that what is stated in such programming tends not to be the entire issue. For example, reporting on the reconstituted dinosaur veins and blood was a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of what actually occurred. I suspect the episode did much of the same. Generally if the all of the findings, including the hard geology was discussed, no one would watch it.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 3:50 PM on October 28, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 3:50 PM on October 28, 2008 :
The lack of a river doesn't mean that a flood wasn't the case. This past year the flooding of places in the Mid West occurred without rivers in the area. Furthermore, how do you know there wasn't a river? Creationists tend to be horrible geologists. Creationists tend to forget that what is stated in such programming tends not to be the entire issue. For example, reporting on the reconstituted dinosaur veins and blood was a tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of what actually occurred. I suspect the episode did much of the same. Generally if the all of the findings, including the hard geology was discussed, no one would watch it.



i realize this completely.  that's why i stated what i did about the ratings being an issue with the show's producer.

but the question that u ask is exactly the point.  

"how do you know there wasnt' a river?"

i don't, and by the lack of evidence provided, nobody knows.  but maybe there were a lot of the pieces missing due to the editing process.  but that's just it...

am i to just take their word for it because they're scientists, and they're on tv?

eh- maybe i'm just disappointed in the show.  i really don't like the resolute tone used in the face of lacking evidence, and that's what this particular show is all about.  perhaps the evidence is there, but they sure don't let the viewer know one way or the other.

perhaps it's actually a bad example simply due to the fact that it's just a tv show trying to increase ratings.  but, then again, this is EXACTLY the way most people get their info.

-d
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 5:04 PM on October 28, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 4:04 PM on October 28, 2008 :

but the question that u ask is exactly the point.  

"how do you know there wasnt' a river?"

i don't, and by the lack of evidence provided, nobody knows.  

Far more likely is that they didn't present the evidence.

but maybe there were a lot of the pieces missing due to the editing process.  but that's just it...
 I doubt they ever even shot it, producers wouldn't waste the effort.  I do a lot of public outreach speaking, and I can assure you I don't give all of the evidence for the things I show.  Remember, you're watching entertainment, not science.

am i to just take their word for it because they're scientists, and they're on tv?


If you are watching for entertainment, yes.  If you are interested in the science, you have to put in some work yourself.

eh- maybe i'm just disappointed in the show.  i really don't like the resolute tone used in the face of lacking evidence, and that's what this particular show is all about.  perhaps the evidence is there, but they sure don't let the viewer know one way or the other.

perhaps it's actually a bad example simply due to the fact that it's just a tv show trying to increase ratings.  but, then again, this is EXACTLY the way most people get their info.

-d

Getting your science from a TV show would be like getting your theology from an Elvis Presley gospel record.




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 7:14 PM on October 28, 2008 | IP
dijonaise

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Apoapsis at 7:14 PM on October 28, 2008 :


Getting your science from a TV show would be like getting your theology from an Elvis Presley gospel record.





i agree completely.

but u have to admit that, in general, the public on both sides of the fence does just this.  for instance, my boss comes in all the time spouting out the latest thing he heard on the discovery channel as if it were his primary source of, not only entertainment, but information.  the general public doesn't have time to sit and research every single claim made on tv.  now, on the other hand, i have family members that barely read the bible, but call up to discuss how wonderful the latest message was from their preacher.

in both cases, i have to just nod and smile even though i might disagree due to the amount of research i've put into it.

and i truly suspect that this is how most of the world is.  well, at least most of the country.

what can i say?  i guess i agree with you.  we can't rely on a tv show for evidence of evolution just as we can't rely on any ol' preacher for evidence of creation.  we can only rely on our own research.

i do, however, wish that creationists were given equal time to discuss their side.  

can u imagine what would happen if a creationist-based program hit the air on a station such as the discovery channel with a show that left out MUCH of the needed evidence to support the end conclusion that these animals died in a flood, therefore, we can conclude that as the great flood waters were receding, these animals that had drown were washed into their current position?

sure - it's quite debatable, and probably not even the case.  but they would be giving just as much evidence as the other program.  

but there would be such an outroar of "this isn't science!  this is just propoganda!" even though we can proclaim that the show is only meant for entertainment.  but we don't hear this at all when THIS evolution-based show proclaims something without providing the evidence.

this is why we creationists view it as being an unfair playing field.

Edit:

now that i think about it.  perhaps it isn't really unfair in the world of television.  i mean, we DO have our evengelical channels, which can discuss such things.  but these r more meant for preaching.  maybe we need to have a "creation science" channel.  i suspect, though, that it would be greatly scrutinized.

how would u feel if there were such a channel?  (not being rhetoric - an honest question).
a nationally broadcast channel where scientists discussed cases just like the one we're discussing, and put a creationist spin on them. 

(Edited by dijonaise 10/29/2008 at 09:48 AM).
 


Posts: 72 | Posted: 09:42 AM on October 29, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from dijonaise at 08:42 AM on October 29, 2008 :

this is why we creationists view it as being an unfair playing field.

Edit:

now that i think about it.  perhaps it isn't really unfair in the world of television.  i mean, we DO have our evengelical channels, which can discuss such things.  but these r more meant for preaching.  maybe we need to have a "creation science" channel.  i suspect, though, that it would be greatly scrutinized.

how would u feel if there were such a channel?  (not being rhetoric - an honest question).
a nationally broadcast channel where scientists discussed cases just like the one we're discussing, and put a creationist spin on them.


Well, as I look through the channels, I see three networks with exclusively religious broadcasting, one other that is predominately religious, and three public access channels that have little but recorded church services.  I'd estimate that religious programming exceeds science programming by somewhere between 2 and 3 to 1.  Creation "scientists"?  Carl Baugh and Ken Ham can be viewed regularly, but so what?  They have zero credibility.

Why is that?  Because science is a process, a process of discovery and spreading of knowledge.  If you have a theory and can back it up and demonstrate it's correctness to others, they will accept it.

Where is the equivalent process for "Creation Science"?  As you and Dubie have so readily demonstrated, "Creation Science" is more about egos than the search for the truth.



-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 9:02 PM on October 29, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

"Creation science" isn't science BECAUSE it begs for the results of any investigation. Not for any other thing, i believe.

If there was such channel... I'd feel it would be disinformation. EVERY creationist "evidence" i've found was biased and oblivious of evidence that explained things in other way than creation/flood.

I agree with you that scientist take lots of things for granted. But what you really ask of them is to doubt exactly of those things that contradict the Bible. And that's not scientific. And if they doubted all accepted notions all the time, they wouldn't get anywhere.

This doesn't sound scientific either, but they have to use their intuition to doubt (like when Einstein intuited that he had to doubt about simultaneity).

You kinda ask them to replace their intuition with the Bible. And that makes sense to you, because of your beliefs. But it doesn't to those who don't share them.

PS: dijonaise, do you think that snakes never had limbs or hips?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 9:07 PM on October 29, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I think this post has gotten off track.  The point is evolution is a fact, it is not only supported by all available evidence but it is observed.  The theory of evolution explains it.
Our understanding of evolution is so good we can and do practically apply it in farming medicine, industry.
Those who claim that there is some debate on whether or not evolution occurs are dead wrong.  Real scientists, real biologists overwhelmingly accept the theory of evolution.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 11:47 PM on October 29, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 10:47 PM on October 29, 2008 :
I think this post has gotten off track.

My goodness, I don't think that's ever happened before! ;-)  

The point is evolution is a fact, it is not only supported by all available evidence but it is observed.  The theory of evolution explains it.

And gravity is a fact that is explained by the Theory of Gravity.

Of the two, the Theory of Gravity is far more likely to have major revisions than the Theory of Evolution.


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 07:54 AM on October 30, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Do creationist agree that gene duplication happens?

Do they agree that mutations happen?

Do they agree that male and female mix their genes to produce offspring different from their parents (only species with sex, which is an evolutionary boost)?

Do they agree that not all of the offspring survive?

Do they agree that the survival is partly random and partly non-random?

When all of that happens, how could that NOT lead to evolution?

What mechanism would God devise so that life wouldn't evolve in spite of all of that? And why would He do such a thing?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 09:42 AM on October 30, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

When all of that happens, how could that NOT lead to evolution?

Exactly!  Evolution is inevitble!

But, once again, no creationist has addressed the point that evolution is observed, is accepted by over 99% of the world's biologists and is a fact.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 02:32 AM on November 5, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I personally think we need to pull out our dictionaries here.
theory-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge
hypothesis- an educated guess[b]
of what education, we dont know? teachers teach what they believe..Or what the goverment governs them to teach!!
Evolution-The process of developing.
Gradual development.

i dont think debating that evoltion is a fact is or ever will be a problem because evolution in definition is saying that we as babies grow to be adults it's common sence

sure evolution is a fact. but the theory of evoltion is a theory
wich means Darwin guessed.. and in so doing peaple found his theory to be rather intriguing and fascinating.. over time peaple researched and researched and made his theory fit, made it work because it was such a cool idea. later the theory of evolution became so popular it took over creationism in our schools, somthing that was taught world wide for centuries in schools was now obsolete due to some guys opinion. our country was founded on religion dont forget!
At the point were our american goverment decided to take creationism out of the schools is were the theory of evolution became very biased. if you dont give two points of perspection to our kids there biased to believe evolution, and at that point it becomes brain washing..
There is alot of things wrong here!!!
1. who are we to suddenly go against the teachings of our ancestors.
2. forcing our kids to learn evolution based on an opinion(educated guess) same thing. seriously its brain wahing to the t.
its the same thing the germans did
3.in this day and age we have technology to tell us in the future that we did invent a nuclear weapon, we did invent a airplane, we did create computers, and now we have videos and history books and tons of other undeniable ways to prove that this stuff exists and really did happen, but our ancestors only had paper and pen or pencil and we now years later want to say that the bible isnt true, thats kinda ignorant if you ask me..
Heres a new fact for you the bible is a history book=fact
4.there is more believable evidence in creationism than in evolutionism, for every proof evolutionist give there is a more commen sence argument with creationism, it isnt even hard for anyone who believes in creation to prove the theory of evolution is overly diagnosed to a point commen sence is no longer involved. its so distorted with pardon my french bull sh*t you cant see clearly through it..
5.the possibility that there are things in this world that we cant possibly comprehend like god!!!! kinda like infinity theres so many things in science that proves there is no such thing as infinity yet scientist use it all the time(there has to be a begining and an end bla bla bla).. somthings are beyond our comprehsion, science is always trying to prove things to be right or wrong obviously!! you know with the usual scientific method hypothesis(educated guess!!experimentation,blabla,proof& conclusion..

6. who are we to question the bible!!! its our history book. NO instead LETS QUESTION THAT PROOF, THE ONE GOD GAVE US!!!

 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 05:56 AM on November 5, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

theory-An assumption based on limited information or knowledge

This is not the definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory.  Since we are talking science here, we should use the correct definition, from here:
ScientificTheory

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts. "

So right off the bat, you're wrong, you don't know what a theory is.

i dont think debating that evoltion is a fact is or ever will be a problem because evolution in definition is saying that we as babies grow to be adults it's common sence

Once again, pay attention, we're talking about the biological theory of evolution, we are talking about evolution as a change in the allele frequencies of a population of organisms.
we're talking about speciation.  If you want to discuss scientific matters, you have to learn a scientific vocabulary.  We're not talking about babies growing up....

sure evolution is a fact. but the theory of evoltion is a theory

It's a scientific theory, that means there are a number of facts and observations that support it, it has been tested extensively and has not been proven wrong.  It has made thousands of predictions that have been proven correct.

wich means Darwin guessed

Completely wrong.

over time peaple researched and researched and made his theory fit, made it work because it was such a cool idea.

OK, kind of right, the theory of evolution has changed to fit the facts as we've come to understand them better.

later the theory of evolution became so popular it took over creationism in our schools, somthing that was taught world wide for centuries in schools was now obsolete due to some guys opinion.

Nonsense, creatinism was proven wrong over 200 years ago, decsively proven wrong.  Not due to some guys opinion but because of the facts.  Creationism just couldn't be accurate.

our country was founded on religion dont forget!

And don't forget the founding fathers wisely said we must keep religion and government seperate.  And don't forget most of the founding fathers weren't conventional christians but Deists.

At the point were our american goverment decided to take creationism out of the schools is were the theory of evolution became very biased. if you dont give two points of perspection to our kids there biased to believe evolution, and at that point it becomes brain washing..

Sorry you've made a ton of mistakes here!  As stated before, creationism was disproven over 200 years ago, well before Darwin and the Theory of evolution.  A scientific theory is not bias, the people who study it might be, but peer review objectifies that bias.  Two points of view???  What the hell are you talking about?  There is no other scientific alternative to the theory of evolution, so there is no other point to teach.  Do you make this claim to other scientific theories?  Do you want science teachers to teach that the earth is flat also?  It's another point of view, you don't want to brain wash the kids into thinking it's a sphere do you?  Please explain this rather stupid point you've made...

There is alot of things wrong here!!!

And you're making all the mistakes!

1. who are we to suddenly go against the teachings of our ancestors.

Our ancestors were superstitious primitives, why shouldn't we go against them?!?!

2. forcing our kids to learn evolution based on an opinion(educated guess) same thing. seriously its brain wahing to the t.
its the same thing the germans did


Utterly stupid!  Evolution is a fact, the theory of evolution explains it.  There is no scientific alternative, it's the only thing we can teach.  Evolution is the foundation of modern biology, nothing in biology makes sense without it.
It's not brainwashing, it's teaching real science.

3.in this day and age we have technology to tell us in the future that we did invent a nuclear weapon, we did invent a airplane, we did create computers, and now we have videos and history books and tons of other undeniable ways to prove that this stuff exists and really did happen, but our ancestors only had paper and pen or pencil and we now years later want to say that the bible isnt true, thats kinda ignorant if you ask me..

Well, you're kind of ignorant if you think an ancient book written by primitive, superstitious goat herders beats modern science!  That's unbelievably stupid, if you ask me!

4.there is more believable evidence in creationism than in evolutionism

It's called the theory of evolution, not evolutionism.  And evolution is an obserrvable fact, the historical evidence for it is overwhelming and there is absolutely NO evidence for creationism or a god.  

6. who are we to question the bible!!! its our history book.

We're pretty darn smart for questioning the bible when it comes to science and history because the bible isn't a book of science or history, it's nothing more than a primitive book of superstitions.

NO instead LETS QUESTION THAT PROOF, THE ONE GOD GAVE US!!!

No such thing as god.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 06:49 AM on November 5, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

all i can do is laugh man your saying everything i said is stupid.. for being  soo wise you cant even  take the time to think mabey some of what he said is true instead even before you were done reading you were thinking of any way to prove me wrong and you right.. that is called objective thinking.. you need to realy re read what i said and come up with some senceable  and more inteligent debateable literature.. dude my definition was true, come on its the more commen sence defintion... and anyone knows a theory is an educated guess we were taught that in school. your behind the bs and you cant see clearly through it.. teaching  our new found science vs what we taught for thousands of years isnt even in camparison.. your bsing me and not coming up with any kind of inteligent thought. i hate to be so mean but you really have to try harder man...

   Heres a question what are the chances that we as human beings and using very little of our brains might not be able to comprehend god, so with that inmind we try soo hard to figure out why and where we came from we invented a theory called evolution. and with very little evidence, and most of the evidence we disprove ourselves. I'll tell you why, because we just cant figure out why and where, and ohh boy there has to be a scientific explantion behind it.. we are prone to try and understand, we cant help it its only human (after all we were created by god). i dont claim to be a GREAT CHRISTIAN, BUT I KOW THAT, IF THERE IS AN ETERNITY COUNT ME IN! THERES A LITTLE COMMON SENCE FOR YOU!!! LOL


(Edited by admin 11/5/2008 at 08:40 AM).
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 08:08 AM on November 5, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

common sence man we have gotten away from common sence..if believing there is a god is soo rediculous why isnt believing we came from apes even more rediculouse.???? they date the world through layers of the earth were they have found both ape and modern day man, in these layers of earth what can you say of that??they have also found creatures that havent gone extict that still exist!!???what r your arguments to that>???
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 08:48 AM on November 5, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

our country was founded on religion dont forget!

Actually, most of our founding fathers were diests and did not hold particularly strong Christian beliefs.  That's why they did not burden the US Constitution with any particular religious beliefs.  They strongly believed in the seperation of church and state.  That is one reason why the US courts have continually struck down any attempt by Creationists to introduce Creationism in public schools.  

the theory of evoltion is a theory
wich means Darwin guessed..


I agree with Demon - you obviously don't understand what a scientific theory is, otherwise you would never have made that comment.  Nor do you understand what the theory of evolution really is, or how mountains of evidence from many different branches in science support it.  Theories are not mere guesses.  Lay people use the word 'theory' to mean a guess, but a theory has a completely different meaning in science.  

How do you explain the fossil record without evolution?  Just because you can't casually see evolution happening on a macro scale doesn't mean it isn't happening.  You can't casually notice that the continents are drifting apart, but they are - there is conclusive scientific evidence of that, and the theory of plate tectonics explains why it is happening.  You can't casually notice that the Himalayan mountain range is still rising as India continues to push against Asia, but it is happening.

How do you explain that our examination of DNA genomes of different species fit the predictions of the theory of Evolution extremely well?

1. who are we to suddenly go against the teachings of our ancestors.

Sure, you might as well teach alchemy instead of chemistry; astrology instead of astronomy; voodoo instead of medical science; flat earth creationism instead of geology.  Yeah, our ancestors knew how things really worked!


2. forcing our kids to learn evolution based on an opinion(educated guess) same thing. seriously its brain wahing to the t.
its the same thing the germans did


Are the theories in physics, chemistry, geology, astronomy, etc; educated guesses too?  Maybe that PC you're reading this sentence with was developed with educated guesses.  Maybe the X-ray machine that is used to examine your teeth for cavities when you go to the dentist was built from educated guesses.  Maybe the Large Hadron Collider that was just powered up weeks ago was built on educated guesses!

Your comments betray your lack of understanding of the things you are trying to debate.  The true brain-washing and guessing, and dumb guessing at that, occur in places like the Creationist Museum in Kentucky, the Discovery Institue, and on the countless Creationist websites on the internet.


6. who are we to question the bible!!! its our history book. NO instead LETS QUESTION THAT PROOF, THE ONE GOD GAVE US!!!


A literal interpetation of the Bible is already proven wrong.

4.there is more believable evidence in creationism than in evolutionism, for every proof evolutionist give there is a more commen sence argument with creationism, it isnt even hard for anyone who believes in creation to prove the theory of evolution is overly diagnosed to a point commen sence is no longer involved. its so distorted with pardon my french bull sh*t you cant see clearly through it..


I would like to see some of this proof for Creationism that you talk about.  As the saying goes - put up or shut up.

5.the possibility that there are things in this world that we cant possibly comprehend like god!!!! kinda like infinity theres so many things in science that proves there is no such thing as infinity yet scientist use it all the time(there has to be a begining and an end bla bla bla).. somthings are beyond our comprehsion, science is always trying to prove things to be right or wrong obviously!! you know with the usual scientific method hypothesis(educated guess!!experimentation,blabla,proof& conclusion..


Your disdain and ignorance of science is quite apparent.  Science is not trying to prove things 'right or wrong' - science is about trying to understand why the world and universe are the way they are.  You don't like some of the things science reveals about the world (or us), so you mock it.  But mocking doesn't make the truth go away.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 12:40 PM on November 5, 2008 | IP
orion

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

common sence man we have gotten away from common sence..if believing there is a god is soo rediculous why isnt believing we came from apes even more rediculouse.???? they date the world through layers of the earth were they have found both ape and modern day man, in these layers of earth what can you say of that??they have also found creatures that havent gone extict that still exist!!???what r your arguments to that>???


I have a good idea of what examples you're referring to.  But just to be clear, why don't you come right out with the details of what Creationist arguments you're referring to.  Then we don't have to guess at what you're talking about.
 


Posts: 1460 | Posted: 1:04 PM on November 5, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

all i can do is laugh man your saying everything i said is stupid..

Well it was stupid, like where you didn't know how a scientific theory is different from the common usage of the word theory that's found in the dictionary.  Lke I said how can we intelligently discuss science when you don't understand what the terms mean.  
It was also stupid to think schools should teach different "points of view".  In science, when it comes to biology, there is only one "point of view" and that's the theory of evolution, there is nothing else to teach.
It was also stupid of you to think Darwin formulated the theory of evolution based on a guess.  Quite frankly, the list of your mistakes goes on and on.  I see you don't want to discuss them specifically...

that is called objective thinking.

No, science is based on objective thinking, the theory of evolution is based on objective thinking.  What you were saying is subjective thinking, special pleading, primitive superstition, dogma, stuff with no evidence to back it up.

you need to realy re read what i said and come up with some senceable  and more inteligent debateable literature..

Why should I do that, you can't counter the points 've made, evolution is logical, SENSIBLE, observable, testable and a fact.  You can't disprove this.  

dude my definition was true, come on its the more commen sence defintion... and anyone knows a theory is an educated guess we were taught that in school.

Not in science class you weren't!  A scientific theory is very different from the dictionary definition you gave, until you realize that, you don't know what you're talking about.

your behind the bs and you cant see clearly through it..

What BS is that?  Modern biology?  What?  I say, when you try to claim the bible teaches science or history, you're the one hiding behind the BS.

teaching  our new found science vs what we taught for thousands of years isnt even in camparison..

You're right, there is no comparison, "newfound" science wins every single time.

your bsing me and not coming up with any kind of inteligent thought. i hate to be so mean but you really have to try harder
man...


All you have to do is disprove the points I've made, evolution is an observable, testable fact, the theory of evolution explains it, virtually every biologist in the world accepts it.
Until you (or anyone for that matter) can do that, you got nothing.

Heres a question what are the chances that we as human beings and using very little of our brains might not be able to comprehend god, so with that inmind we try soo hard to figure out why and where we came from we invented a theory called evolution.

Here's one for you,what are the chances there even is a god???  I'll tell ya, slim and none.  We developed the theory of evolution based on the overwhelming evidence and it is so accurate, so successfull, we use the theory of evolution in medicine, farming, industry.  How can it be wrong if we can use it so successfully?

and with very little evidence, and most of the evidence we disprove ourselves.

WRONG!  There is a massive amount of evidence supporting the theory of evolution, don't you do any research?!?!

I'll tell you why, because we just cant figure out why and where, and ohh boy there has to be a scientific explantion behind it..

Just like everything else, there is a scientific explanation behind it, the theory of evolution, every biologist agreses...

we are prone to try and understand, we cant help it its only human (after all we were created by god).

Prove we were created by god, better yet, show us any objective evidence that a god even exists...

i dont claim to be a GREAT CHRISTIAN, BUT I KOW THAT, IF THERE IS AN ETERNITY COUNT ME IN! THERES A LITTLE COMMON SENCE FOR YOU!!!
LOL


And since most christians accept evolution, where's the problem for them?

(Edited by Demon38 11/5/2008 at 4:00 PM).
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 3:53 PM on November 5, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

if believing there is a god is soo rediculous why isnt believing we came from apes even more rediculouse.????

Because we have overwhelming evidence that it happened.  And you seem to have forgotten, man is an ape.  We have NO evidence that a god even exists, let alone created us...

they date the world through layers of the earth were they have found both ape and modern day man, in these layers of earth what can you say of that??

Yeah so what, we find modern day man and ape alive RIGHT NOW!  No problem for evolution, no problem at all.  Seems the only problem here is your ignorance of science, biology and evolution.

they have also found creatures that havent gone extict that still exist!!???what r your arguments to that>???

Once again, so what?  Does nothing to disprove evolution...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 4:05 PM on November 5, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 12:22 AM on October 27, 2008 :[/b]
Most creationists don't seem to realize this, evolution is a fact.  That life changes is a fact, that life has changed since it's been on this planet is a fact.  

You are right, there is no argument here..
evolution in term means The process of developing. Gradual development.
The problem is that you are insinuating that evolution as a term is the same thing as the theory of evolution, i honestly think you need to learn your terms better. there is evolution as a term and there is the theory of evolution two things with very similar meanings the difference is the theory of evolution  goes into depth and tries to say we evolved from monkeys.. stop insinutating, get your sh*t strait.

Quote from Demon38
"This is not the definition of a SCIENTIFIC theory.  Since we are talking science here, we should use the correct definition"

"As used in science, a theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena.
Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. A clear distinction needs to be made between facts (things which can be observed and/or measured) and theories (explanations which correlate and interpret the facts. "
[/b]

one problem scientific theories are always considered to be “works in
progress.”  No scientist worth his/her salt is ever going to say,
“This is a FACT” to be carved in stone forever.no scientific theory is
considered "absolutely true.''
your definition was you insinuating again..your reaching..So right off the bat, you're wrong, you don't know what a theory is.lol

Quote from Demon38
"Once again, pay attention, we're talking about the biological theory of evolution"

no your wrong your insinuating the theory of evolution to be the same as evolution.. the fact that i dont support evolution goes along the same lines as many of the other theories proven wrong through out time like The elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire, and water.), Aristotle: Motion is perpetuated by the convinence of air. Disproven by Galileo and even The theory that the Earth was flat. Disproved years ago by studies finding the Earth is actually in spherical structure.

Quote from stealth3000
wich means Darwin guessed

Quote from Demon38
"Completely wrong."

no according to its definition and commen sence it is correct!!!!
now you sound like alittle kid i know you are but what am I.

Quote from Demon38
"OK, kind of right, the theory of evolution has changed to fit the facts as we've come to understand them better"

everytime they make them fit its biased to there beliefs and everytime its proven wrong even when they prove themselves wrong its biased and says no, and gives a bs excuse. its an on going biased belief supported by An opinion not any facts buddy..

Quote from Demon38
"creationism was disproven over 200 years" ago

[b]Hahaha it was no more disproven than the theory of evolution was disproven,
IM TELLING YOU MAN, YOUR REACHING!!!

]Quote from stealth3000
There is alot of things wrong here!!!

Quote from Demon38
"And you're making all the mistakes"


there are no mistakes its your opinion vs mine
youve gotten way of track. the title is "EVOLUTION IS A FACT" which i have proved is true but not the insinuation evolution and the theory of evolution  is the same...Mabey you should change the name to(The theory of evolution i believe to be a fact)

quoted by stealth3000
"they date the world through layers of the earth were they have found both ape and modern day man, in these layers of earth what can you say of that??"

Quote from Demon38
Yeah so what, we find modern day man and ape alive RIGHT NOW!  No problem for evolution, no problem at all.  Seems the only problem here is your ignorance of science, biology and evolution.

let me be more specific as i was very drunk when i wrote that. they date the world through layers of earth and in those layers they first find lets say a monkey(wich they try to make us believe is a monkey evolving into a man. lol) so they give this a date of 1billion 2 trillion or however old they think the world is and then later on they find a modern day man in the same rock or earth/ same time zone. it goes against the theory of evolution. Its happend over and over and over. they keep proving it wrong and ignoring the facts. its soo biased it stinks.. its ignorance at its worst..

were is this missing link???

no no lets go back to this statement...

Quote from stealth3000
all i can do is laugh man your saying everything i said is stupid..

Quote from Demon38
Well it was stupid, like where you didn't know how a scientific theory is different from the common usage of the word theory that's found in the dictionary. Lke I said how can we intelligently discuss science when you don't understand what the terms mean.
sorry no your wrong!!!! you dont know the differnce between evolution and the theory of evolution, i gave you the definitions wich you tried to manipulate. and now your own phrase of how can we intelligently discuss science when you don't understand what the terms mean. falls back on you!! because your trying to say the the english dictionary is wrong and trying to say the scientific method is proving facts were it is realy  trying to  interpret the facts and as i stated earlier that no scientific theory is considered "absolutely true.''

but i do think i have come to a conclusion on debating with you now!! my conclusion is simple. based on the biased aproach you have given and the lack of uninteligent objective thinking..."Arguing On The Internet Is Like Running In The Special Olympics: Even If You Win, You're Still Retarded."



[center]
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 10:27 PM on November 5, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

one problem scientific theories are always considered to be “works in
progress.”  No scientist worth his/her salt is ever going to say,
“This is a FACT” to be carved in stone forever.no scientific theory is
considered "absolutely true.''


Completely false. A scientific theory is an explanation for huge bodies of facts -- it's a unifying idea. Just because that body of facts may experience continuing additions and some intricacies of the theory may change does not make the core concepts of the theory incomplete.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 10:40 PM on November 5, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

considering you didnt even understand your own title and the meaning before i cleared it up for you.. if you would wish to further debate and start a new forum that is politically correct by  changing the name to

(I BELIEVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TO BE A FACT)

i will gladly debate that too in a correct name and definition based forum..[b]
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 10:43 PM on November 5, 2008 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from stealth3000 at 10:43 PM on November 5, 2008 :
considering you didnt even understand your own title and the meaning before i cleared it up for you.. if you would wish to further debate and start a new forum that is politically correct by  changing the name to

(I BELIEVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TO BE A FACT)

i will gladly debate that too in a correct name and definition based forum..[b]



That's unnecessary. This thread is about how evolution is a fact, which is true. That life changes over time is a fact; that life has changed over time is also a fact. The Theory of Evolution describes how this change occurs, and its description is demonstrably accurate.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 12:53 AM on November 6, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You are right, there is no argument here..
evolution in term means The process of developing. Gradual development.
The problem is that you are insinuating that evolution as a term is the same thing as the theory of evolution, i honestly think you need to learn your terms better. there is evolution as a term and there is the theory of evolution two things with very similar meanings the difference is the theory of evolution  goes into depth and tries to say we evolved from monkeys.. stop insinutating, get your sh*t strait.


I'm not insinuating anything, I'm saying it and backing it up, evolution, as described by the theory of volution, is a fact.  Plain and simple.  You are the one who can't keep his shit straight!  Life on earth changes, new species emerge from old spcies, All life on earth arose from a common ancestor, this is a scientific fact, whether you understand it or not.

one problem scientific theories are always considered to be “works in
progress.”


And that is not a problem, it is a strength!  No scientific theory is above the evidence, all scientfic theories can change or be falsified IF new evidence is found to do so.  Religious dogma, on the other hand, can not do this, it is chained to primitive myths that have been disproven.

No scientist worth his/her salt is ever going to say,
“This is a FACT” to be carved in stone forever.no scientific theory is
considered "absolutely true.''


True, no theory will EVER become fact, but they still explain facts.  Evolution is an observable fact that is best explained by the theory of evolution.

your definition was you insinuating again..your reaching..So right off the bat, you're wrong, you don't know what a theory is.lol
No, you're the one who doesn't know the dfference between a fact, evolution and a theory, the theory of evolution.  Can you explain to us the difference between the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity?  You always ignore the tough questions we ask you, why is that?

no your wrong your insinuating the theory of evolution to be the same as evolution..

No I'm not, evolution is a fact, allele frequencies in populations change over time, new species arise, this is testable, this has been observed, it is a fact, it is evolution.  The theory of evolution explains WHY it happens.
I can't believe you still can't understand this.

the fact that i dont support evolution goes along the same lines as many of the other theories proven wrong through out time like The elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire, and water.), Aristotle: Motion is perpetuated by the convinence of air. Disproven by Galileo and even The theory that the Earth was flat. Disproved years ago by studies finding the Earth is actually in spherical structure.

Yes, but unlike those theories and also creationism, the theory of evolution has NOT been falsified, or proven wrong.  It is SO well supported by evidence that over 99% of the world's biologists accept it, it is the most important concept in modern biology.    No one has any evidence that disproves it.

no according to its definition and commen sence it is correct!!!!
now you sound like alittle kid i know you are but what am I.


Ha ha, no you're still wrong.  Darwin didn't guess, and your common SENSE is seriously lacking.  Darwin formulated the theory of evolution after years of observation and classification and research.  Didn't you know he was the naturalist on the H.M.S. Beagle?
So no, he certainly didn't base evolution on a "guess"...

everytime they make them fit its biased to there beliefs and everytime its proven wrong even when they prove themselves wrong its biased and says no, and gives a bs excuse. its an on going biased belief supported by An opinion not any facts buddy..

Nope, completely wrong.  Every time the theory of evolution has been changed, has been improved, has been modigied, it's not based on bias, it has  been   based on science, on experiments, on new observations, on new, objective evidence.  I dare you to show us just one example that supports your crazy claim, go ahead, I dare ya....

[b]Hahaha it was no more disproven than the theory of evolution was disproven,
IM TELLING YOU MAN, YOUR REACHING!!!


I'm not reaching at all, classic creationism was disproven over 200 years ago.  That you don't know about it or accept it's falsification is your problem.  The earth is not 6000 years old, it is over 4 billion.  there could never have been a world wide flood.  And evolution is a fact.

there are no mistakes its your opinion vs mine

Nope, not my opinions, but the objective facts.  Evolution is obsevable, testable, a fact.
Your opinions have been proven wrong, simple as that.

let me be more specific as i was very drunk when i wrote that. they date the world through layers of earth and in those layers they first find lets say a monkey(wich they try to make us believe is a monkey evolving into a man. lol) so they give this a date of 1billion 2 trillion or however old they think the world is and then later on they find a modern day man in the same rock or earth/ same time zone. it goes against the theory of evolution. Its happend over and over and over. they keep proving it wrong and ignoring the facts. its soo biased it stinks.. its ignorance at its
worst..


Everything you say here is untrue.  Why don't you give us a specific example of what you claim?  Because you can't.  You're just repeating lies you've heard that you and your sources can't back up.  First of all, objects aren't just dated by what layer they are found in, they are more accurately dated by radiometiric dating which is highly accurate.
Secondly we have NEVER found any out of date fossils that contradict evolution, NEVER has happened.  And since you can't show us any, your claim that we have is just plain WRONG.

were is this missing link???

The missing link between what and what?  We've found plenty of links between more primitive apes and man, so man's evolution from more primitive forms is a fact.

but i do think i have come to a conclusion on debating with you now!! my conclusion is simple. based on the biased aproach you have given and the lack of uninteligent objective thinking..."Arguing On The Internet Is Like Running In The Special Olympics: Even If You Win, You're Still Retarded."

Well, I've disproven all your claims, supported all mine, asked you questions you refuse to answer, so the only one here acting retarded is you...
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:01 AM on November 6, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I feel like a glossary is needed in this forum. A sticky perhaps. Something very basic. Something easy to read.

Biological evolution = change in the frequency of the alleles over time.

Allele = an alternative form of a gene (like an isotope to an element).

Scientific theory = a model that explains what we observe and allows predictions.

Humans = apes.

Also, stealth3000, please, consider using Firefox (because it's better) and install an English dictionary.
English is not my native language, and i'm having a hard time reading your posts.

Kind regards.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:34 AM on November 6, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 12:53 AM on November 6, 2008 :
Quote from stealth3000 at 10:43 PM on November 5, 2008 :
considering you didnt even understand your own title and the meaning before i cleared it up for you.. if you would wish to further debate and start a new forum that is politically correct by  changing the name to

(I BELIEVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TO BE A FACT)

i will gladly debate that too in a correct name and definition based forum..[b]



That's unnecessary. This thread is about how evolution is a fact, which is true. That life changes over time is a fact; that life has changed over time is also a fact. The Theory of Evolution describes how this change occurs, and its description is demonstrably accurate.

ok lets see here its unnecessary, no you see its not because my point has been proven time and time again this forum ended up talking about the  theory of evolution not evolution wich is a fact,  dameon was insinuating that evolution and the theory of evolution is the same, wich it is not. two things with similar, but not the same thing the theory of evolution goes into extensive detail on how cells and humans evolve from a different species wich is preposterious!! all im saying is if you wanna debate the theory of evolution... not evolution then he needs to start a new forum that is correct name and definition based.. do you see what im saying???? i believe in evolution, i do not believe in the theory of evolution!! so i simply think if he or she wants to talk about the theory of evolution it should be called
(I BELIEVE THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION TO BE A FACT)
and even that would be preposterouse because even most and probably all scientist wouldnt even say the theory of evolution is a fact!!! theymight say its a work in progress.. you see if it were a fact then it would be considered a law!!!! wich it will never be because its simply not true.. it couldn't possibly there is too much realistic more commen sence proof that its is not!!!


 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 09:01 AM on November 8, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 03:01 AM on November 6, 2008 :

I'm not insinuating anything, I'm saying it and backing it up, evolution, as described by the theory of volution, is a fact.  Plain and simple.  You are the one who can't keep his shit straight!  Life on earth changes, new species emerge from old spcies, All life on earth arose from a common ancestor, this is a scientific fact, whether you understand it or not.
ok man here we goo again yes you are no im not yes you are!!! you ARE insiuating it is the same thing. plain and simple!!!, and man you havent backed anything  up with nothing more than giberish...
one problem scientific theories are always considered to be “works in
progress.”


And that is not a problem, it is a strength!  No scientific theory is above the evidence, all scientfic theories can change or be falsified IF new evidence is found to do so.  Religious dogma, on the other hand, can not do this, it is chained to primitive myths that have been disproven.
same bs thing you been saying to me "can you prove it" no you cant. you havent backed anything up!! and you just admitted were talking about the theory of evolution and not evolution, soo change the name!!! dogma huh???? this guys smart!!!

No scientist worth his/her salt is ever going to say,
“This is a FACT” to be carved in stone forever.no scientific theory is
considered "absolutely true.''


True, no theory will EVER become fact, but they still explain facts.  Evolution is an observable fact that is best explained by the theory of evolution.

good i see your starting to kinda pay attention exept for the part about best explained.. you see evolution (evolution on a small scale like saying  we grow, flowers grow, trees grow) in term is best explained through commen sence on a small scale not on the scale that the theory of evolution goes too..

your definition was you insinuating again..your reaching..So right off the bat, you're wrong, you don't know what a theory is.lol
No, you're the one who doesn't know the dfference between a fact, evolution and a theory, the theory of evolution.  Can you explain to us the difference between the fact of gravity and the theory of gravity?  You always ignore the tough questions we ask you, why is that?

wow ohh wow that doesnt even make much sence at the begining there!!!!??? it was you admiting again that the theory of evolution and evolution are not the same thing
big scale small scale, big scale small scale..change the name man you making yourself look stupid!!! what tuff questions are you talking about you havent given any?? is that question a joke???? graity is a law omfg!!!! the theory of evolution is a theory!!! boy that was a tuffy!!!!

no your wrong your insinuating the theory of evolution to be the same as evolution..

No I'm not, evolution is a fact, allele frequencies in populations change over time, new species arise, this is testable, this has been observed, it is a fact, it is evolution.  The theory of evolution explains WHY it happens.
I can't believe you still can't understand this.

omg dude i am not arguing that evolution is a fucking fact!!! new species arive every day its called imbreeding. my question is if the theory of evolution explains evolution and you just admitted to it being two different things why are we debating the theory of evolution????

the fact that i dont support evolution goes along the same lines as many of the other theories proven wrong through out time like The elemental theory (that all substance is made of earth, air, fire, and water.), Aristotle: Motion is perpetuated by the convinence of air. Disproven by Galileo and even The theory that the Earth was flat. Disproved years ago by studies finding the Earth is actually in spherical structure.

Yes, but unlike those theories and also creationism, the theory of evolution has NOT been falsified, or proven wrong.  It is SO well supported by evidence that over 99% of the world's biologists accept it, it is the most important concept in modern biology.    No one has any evidence that disproves it.

no one has evidence??? as i scratch my head dumbfounded in amazment that somone can say somthing that off the wall??

no according to its definition and commen sence it is correct!!!!
now you sound like alittle kid i know you are but what am I.


Ha ha, no you're still wrong.  Darwin didn't guess, and your common SENSE is seriously lacking.  Darwin formulated the theory of evolution after years of observation and classification and research.  Didn't you know he was the naturalist on the H.M.S. Beagle?
So no, he certainly didn't base evolution on a "guess"...

everytime they make them fit its biased to there beliefs and everytime its proven wrong even when they prove themselves wrong its biased and says no, and gives a bs excuse. its an on going biased belief supported by An opinion not any facts buddy..

Nope, completely wrong.  Every time the theory of evolution has been changed, has been improved, has been modigied, it's not based on bias, it has  been   based on science, on experiments, on new observations, on new, objective evidence.  I dare you to show us just one example that supports your crazy claim, go ahead, I dare ya....

to change a theory to fit your belief is biased !!! otherwise you wouldnt have to change it at all.. here is enough proof for you. if not there is somthing wrong, and this is going no were..
http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

[b]Hahaha it was no more disproven than the theory of evolution was disproven,
IM TELLING YOU MAN, YOUR REACHING!!!


I'm not reaching at all, classic creationism was disproven over 200 years ago.  That you don't know about it or accept it's falsification is your problem.  The earth is not 6000 years old, it is over 4 billion.  there could never have been a world wide flood.  And evolution is a fact.

evolution disproves itself all the time and you have faith in it still???? and your right evolution is a fucking fact on a small scale not the theory of evolution!!

there are no mistakes its your opinion vs mine

Nope, not my opinions, but the objective facts.  Evolution is obsevable, testable, a fact.
Your opinions have been proven wrong, simple as that.

ahh man it sounds like your getting worked up.. dont do that its all right man!!! the thing is, is that science isnt ignorant enough to be objective thinking its actually abstract thinking!!!

let me be more specific as i was very drunk when i wrote that. they date the world through layers of earth and in those layers they first find lets say a monkey(wich they try to make us believe is a monkey evolving into a man. lol) so they give this a date of 1billion 2 trillion or however old they think the world is and then later on they find a modern day man in the same rock or earth/ same time zone. it goes against the theory of evolution. Its happend over and over and over. they keep proving it wrong and ignoring the facts. its soo biased it stinks.. its ignorance at its
worst..


Everything you say here is untrue.  Why don't you give us a specific example of what you claim?  Because you can't.  You're just repeating lies you've heard that you and your sources can't back up.  First of all, objects aren't just dated by what layer they are found in, they are more accurately dated by radiometiric dating which is highly accurate.
Secondly we have NEVER found any out of date fossils that contradict evolution, NEVER has happened.  And since you can't show us any, your claim that we have is just plain WRONG.

dude or dudet or whatever(???) you havent shown anthing more than that.. so what ru talking about??? and yes man it has happend and will happen again until all america realizes we've been teaching bogus theories..

were is this missing link???

The missing link between what and what?  We've found plenty of links between more primitive apes and man, so man's evolution from more primitive forms is a fact.

ru kiding me!! ru teling me you dont know what im talking about here!!!!????  no sir they havent... they found apes and man no inbetween..

but i do think i have come to a conclusion on debating with you now!! my conclusion is simple. based on the biased aproach you have given and the lack of uninteligent objective thinking..."Arguing On The Internet Is Like Running In The Special Olympics: Even If You Win, You're Still Retarded."

Well, I've disproven all your claims, supported all mine, asked you questions you refuse to answer, so the only one here acting retarded is you...



you really havent proven anything exept your own words have proven yourself wrong.. quit pulling that out of your ass about not answereing any stupid questions because you havent presented me with a single hard or intelligent question yet!!! like i said before change the name man.. it at the least has to be correct name and definition based.. you made a mistake just admit it man!!!! let all the biased go and admit it.. i find it funny how you didnt answere me on changing the name, but i know why you didnt aswere me!! cause you know your wrong man!!! at least about evolution and the theory of evolution being two differnet things, if not i must tel you this will be the last responce to a collumn that is not even talking about evolution but the theory of evolution... i cant waist anymore time arguing with objective thinker as aposed to an abstract thinker. it like a pesimist vs a optimist?? you have to take shit in to consideration...
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 10:14 AM on November 8, 2008 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Poe's Law?


-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:48 PM on November 8, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No... There's method to his madness.

stealth3000, please, don't quote an entire post. If all of it needs to be replied, quote each statement and reply to each one of them. So this looks tidier.

Do as Demon38 does.

As for the "evolution" and the "theory", they can't be kept apart. The fact needs an explanation.

I wonder what yours is. Because creationists have lots of theories.

Poor scientists have but one...

Scientists take all the given pieces, and put them together the best way they can.

Creationists choose their pieces carefully (like bacterial flagellum), and force them in strange and diverse patterns ("theories") resembling biblical stories.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 01:32 AM on November 9, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anyone else's troll radar going off the scale?
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 7:21 PM on November 9, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no but my twilight zone radar has been going off for along time!!!
dududduuduudududuuduuuduuduuu
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 12:48 AM on November 11, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

welcome to the twilight zone here we debate rediculouse matters that can be solved by merely using common sence, but we object  to commen sence anyways
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 12:53 AM on November 11, 2008 | IP
Obvious_child

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from stealth3000 at 12:53 AM on November 11, 2008 :
welcome to the twilight zone here we debate rediculouse matters that can be solved by merely using common sence, but we object  to commen sence anyways


If you believed that, why haven't you addressed this?

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=35790

For someone who claims that there is more evidence for creation then evolution, it should be easy for you to address that.
 


Posts: 136 | Posted: 03:36 AM on November 11, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Our "God given" common sense is often wrong.

If it was enough, scientific method wouldn't be necessary.

Our common sense makes us believe in things that don't exist, like simultaneity.

Or that light has to be either a particle or a wave.

A definition attributed to Albert Einstein states: "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

From Wikipedia:
Participants in political debates sometimes appeal to common sense, particularly when they have exhausted other arguments. For example, partisans have attacked civil rights for African Americans, women's suffrage, and homosexuality — to name just a few — as contrary to common sense. Similarly, opponents of many scientific and technological advances have invoked common sense. Such misuse of the notion of common sense exemplifies the fallacy of argumentum ad populum (appeal to the masses).



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 06:04 AM on November 11, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

i speak of commen sence alot because i believe america has gotten away from commen sence thinking. i believe the fact that science has become so full of bullshit and we cant see clearly through it, we cant make sence of things the way american science says it is. that we go away from commen sence thinking in order to make these theories fit. [b]when our commen sence and obvious truths dont even tell us somthing to be true we are in a bit of trouble.. [b]but they teach these theories in our schools today and our kids are being brain washed into thinking this crap is true.. so weve also become a biased belief nation..these forums prove that there is more creationist vs evolutionist usually 3 to 1 at the least..

honestly we need to start thinking on a more commen sence grounds..


 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 12:37 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Obvious_child at 03:36 AM on November 11, 2008 :
Quote from stealth3000 at 12:53 AM on November 11, 2008 :
welcome to the twilight zone here we debate rediculouse matters that can be solved by merely using common sence, but we object  to commen sence anyways


If you believed that, why haven't you addressed this?

http://www.youdebate.com/cgi-bin/scarecrow/topic.cgi?forum=3&topic=35790

For someone who claims that there is more evidence for creation then evolution, it should be easy for you to address that.


IT WAS!!!


 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 12:39 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

IT WAS!!!

Wow!  It's obvious you still don't have aclue!

Here's the overwhelming consensus of science on evolution, from here:
Evolution

"Evolution is a fact, not a theory. Scientists generally agree that Darwin’s Theory of Evolution is the correct explanation of how life on earth evolved. Even if other scientists come up with other theories about how evolution works, evolution itself remains a fact. Let’s consider this in light of another scientific fact - gravity. Gravity is a fact. How gravity works is a theory. Current theories about gravity might be disproved, but gravity remains a fact."

So let's move on, you've been completely proven wrong.  All biologists accept evolution is a fact.  All you've demonstrated is you don't understadn how science works and you don't understand evolution (and you don't know how to spell "sense").


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 12:56 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from stealth3000:
i speak of commen sence alot because i believe america has gotten away from commen sence thinking.
Common sense is not "thinking". It's prejudice.

i believe the fact
That sounds oxymoronic  (not an insult, mind you).

that science has become so full of bullshit and we cant see clearly through it
Some of us can, fortunately.

we cant make sence of things the way american science says it is.
"American science" agrees with the rest of the world.

that we go away from commen sence thinking
Common sense was carved by evolution and culture in the field of our normal experience.

Current science deals with things far beyond our normal experience, like greatly big, the greatly small and, in the case of evolution, the long lasting.

Common sense fails even in the field of our normal experience. In those fields it has very little to do.

in order to make these theories fit.
The alternative is to make reality fit our prejudices (and that involves a lot of ear covering and eye shutting).

[b]when our commen sence and obvious truths
Obvious? What do you mean? That you're smart and we're stupid?

dont even tell us somthing to be true we are in a bit of trouble.. [b]
Yes. We are. But there's science, luckily.

but they teach these theories in our schools today
What's the alternative? The Bible? The Quran? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

and our kids
How old are you (if you don't mind my asking)?

are being brain washed into thinking this crap is true..
Brainwashing looks more like reading one book alone, chanting, repeating, etc.

so weve also become a biased belief nation..
Show us evidence of that bias. Show us your claims in scientific terms. Or at least try. Or say it in your own words, but addressing specific points of the theory you're objecting to.

these forums prove that there is more creationist vs evolutionist usually 3 to 1 at the least..
Not a proof. Because this forum isn't representative. There are lots and lots of creationists who don't know how to use a computer.

honestly we need to start thinking on a more commen sence grounds..
Honestly: no.



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 05:50 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
stealth3000

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WOULD RATHER HAVE OUR KIDS TAUGHT ONE INACCURATE THEORY AS APOSED TO TWO POSSIBILITIES... THAT SHOWS PREJUDICE.. ANOTHER THING IS THE WAY YOU BROKE MY SHIT DOWN!! DONT DO THAT!! IT MAKES YOU OUT TO BE OXYMORINIC.. LOL. NO YOU OBVIOUSLY CANT SEE THROUGH THE BULL.. YOU CANT ARGUE COMMEN SENCE AND SCIENCE IT PUTS YOU IN A FIELD OF WERE NO MORE THINKING IS DONE AND ONLY BIASED BECOMES INEVITABLE.. NO NO I DONT THINK IM SMARTER IM JUST SAYING THAT I USE COMMEN SENCE AND RELIGION AND YOU USE WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT IN OUR AMERICAN BIASED  SCHOOLS.. NO NO YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG YOUR THE PREJUDICE, WITH BIASED BELIEFS AND BRAinwashed might i add...brain washing is being taught one thing without your own opinion!! wich american schools do.. how old ru???? aperently more mature than you watever the age diffenence is!!! show evidence???look in your kids science book duh!!!! theres lots and lots of both evolutionist and creationist who dont know or use computers!!! you just showed prejudice though by saying that!! and yes we do need to use more commen sence!!!




(Edited by admin 11/12/2008 at 07:48 AM).
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 07:36 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
wisp

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WOULD RATHER HAVE OUR KIDS TAUGHT ONE INACCURATE THEORY AS APOSED TO TWO POSSIBILITIES...
Why two?

Depending on your definition of "possibility" there are lots (including the Flying Spaghetti Monster account for creation), or there is only one (evolution, of course).

ANOTHER THING IS THE WAY YOU BROKE MY SHIT DOWN!! DONT DO THAT!!
I reply to each part of what you say. It's better than addressing the whole shit. I wish you did the same.

IT MAKES YOU OUT TO BE OXYMORINIC..
Makes me out... what? What's "out to be"? Did you try to put "ought"?

Perhaps it's an idiom i don't know. I'm not trying to make fun of you. It's just that English is not my native language.

LOL. NO YOU OBVIOUSLY CANT SEE THROUGH THE BULLSHIT.. YOU CANT ARGUE COMMEN SENCE AND SCIENCE IT PUTS YOU IN A FIELD OF WERE NO MORE THINKING IS DONE AND ONLY BIASED BECOMES INEVITABLE..
Well, that's common sense: a field of where no more thinking is done and only biased becomes inevitable. That's a good definition you got there!

NO NO I DONT THINK IM SMARTER IM JUST SAYING THAT I USE COMMEN SENCE AND RELIGION AND YOU USE WHAT YOU WERE TAUGHT IN OUR AMERICAN BIASED  SCHOOLS..
Does your common sense tell you that i was taught in American schools?

I was born in Argentina and (sadly) i never left. Not even for a short vacation. =(

NO NO YOU GOT IT ALL WRONG YOUR THE PREJUDICE, WITH BIASED BELIEFS AND BRAinwashed might i add...brain washing is being taught one thing without your own opinion!!
Yes, you're right.

wich american schools do..
You're probably right about this one too (it's true for Argentina at least). It kinda sucks.

how old ru????
Thirty, thank you. And you? ^_^

aperently more mature than you watever the age diffenence is!!!
That's not apparent. Not to me at least.

What's maturity, and how does it show?

show evidence???look in your kids science book duh!!!!
My kid is a toddler.

theres lots and lots of both evolutionist and creationist who dont know or use computers!!!
There's no such a thing as an "evolutionist". I'm not an evolutionist. I just know stuff.

The more a person knows the better the chances that he knows computers and evolution.

you just showed prejudice though by saying that!!
That's true. All i can say in my defense is that it falls within the field of my normal experience.

and yes we do need to use more commen sence!!!
What do you mean, and what's your basis?



-------
Quote from Lester10 at 2:51 PM on September 21, 2010 in the thread
Scientists assert (by Lester):

Ha Ha. (...) I've told you people endlessly about my evidence but you don't want to show me yours - you just assert.
porkchop
Would we see a mammal by the water's edge "suddenly" start breathing underwater(w/camera effect of course)?
Contact me at youdebate.1wr@gishpuppy.com
 


Posts: 3037 | Posted: 08:01 AM on November 12, 2008 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.