Evolution is a False Religion not Proven Science.

that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.
I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.
1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

1) Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.
and your diversion means the same?....
The diversion is yours. Biological evolution is denied by fundies because it directly contradicts creation tales and fables. Your denials are driven by your lack of knowledge regarding science.
the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism and eventually into a human being is denied by me because there is no scientific evidence it ever happened.....that conclusion comes to me because I have more knowledge of science than you do......
You give yourself credit for nothing. If you had ever had an introduction to biology, you would never had made such a statement.

As usual, you slither away when you're tasked with supporting your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Thrill us with the evidence you have for Noah's Ark and biblical tales. Identify for us how all of existence began 6,000 years ago.
I'm sorry....there seems to be static in your transmission.....did you ask about evidence for 150k year old AGW?.....
 
So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?
Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it.).

That's completely untrue. The working hypothesis is TIME. With bacteria we're talking about an organism that can replicate in a matter of hours and has had billions of years to do it.
 
LOL! What silly ignorance to think "pond scum" might ever with time and chance evolve into a human body and brain the most complex well designed thing in the known universe. PLEASE!

No, of course not. What really happened was that Superhero Godman waved his magic wand, and everything appeared instantaneously! I mean, why would anyone question that?
 
So how could the genetic information of bacteria gradually evolve into information for another type of being, when only one or a few minor mistakes in the millions of letters in that bacterium's DNA can kill it?
Again, evolutionists are uncharacteristically silent on the subject. They don't even have a working hypothesis about it.).

That's completely untrue. The working hypothesis is TIME. With bacteria we're talking about an organism that can replicate in a matter of hours and has had billions of years to do it.
LOL! What silly ignorance to think "pond scum" might ever with time and chance evolve into a human body and brain the most complex well designed thing in the known universe. PLEASE!

Ignorance is in closing one's mind. What's silly is thinking anyone would dismiss the notion, just on your say so.
 
I understand where you're coming from..., partially. While religious beliefs do come from faith, if you want to tell us our "scientific" assumptions are wrong, you're going to have to do it in a scientific manner.
I am.....I am pointing out that your beliefs have not met the requirements of the scientific method.....


That's ludicrous. You've been belittling the methods used, twisting how they were used or claiming they weren't used at all. The only thing you haven't done is to actually point out how evolutionists' beliefs are wrong. That would require YOU using the scientific method properly, which has not been in evidence the entire thread.
seriously?......my argument from the very beginning has been that the evolutionists are wrong for not remaining true to the scientific method.....thus I have been demonstrating why the methods used were not the methods of science and pointing out where they haven't been used at all......that IS me using the scientific method properly.....
Then you clearly need to read up on scientific methods. And anyways, how can someone who thinks an invisible being poofed everything into existence argue about scientific methods as relating to where we come from?
I am quite familiar with it....in fact, I can quote from memory the section that your argument fails.....testing.....
Ya the part that fails is the part about everything being proofed into existence. So please don't argue about scientific methods, if anyone has a bogus anti-scientific claim, it's you, douchebag. :D
then can you demonstrate that the claim humans evolved from single celled organisms is falsifiable?......if I gave you the next six million years to come up with an experiment proving a single celled organism could even evolve into a multicelled organism and you didn't, would you acknowledge the claim is false?.....
This is typical for fundies.
so its typical for fundies to ask you to provide evidence supporting your claims?.....
You have the evidence for biological evolution.

What you refuse to do is support your claims to magic and supernaturalism.
Evolution is a bad joke bunk science silly ideas that little sin loving God haters try to use hoping that they can avoid their final judgment day.LOL.
Hey look, gysm has another sock. :lol:
 
that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.
I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.
1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

1) Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.
and your diversion means the same?....
The diversion is yours. Biological evolution is denied by fundies because it directly contradicts creation tales and fables. Your denials are driven by your lack of knowledge regarding science.
the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism and eventually into a human being is denied by me because there is no scientific evidence it ever happened.....that conclusion comes to me because I have more knowledge of science than you do......
You give yourself credit for nothing. If you had ever had an introduction to biology, you would never had made such a statement.

As usual, you slither away when you're tasked with supporting your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Thrill us with the evidence you have for Noah's Ark and biblical tales. Identify for us how all of existence began 6,000 years ago.
I'm sorry....there seems to be static in your transmission.....did you ask about evidence for 150k year old AGW?.....
Why not just acknowledge that you're going to sidestep questions put to you with your usual pointless babble?
 
...and the world revolves around Jerusalem, and the sun revolves around the earth....
and life crawled out of a mud puddle and human beings and yeast have a common ancestor.....
Why don't you and the rest of the Christian Taliban actually challenge the science community with your creation model of gods, talking snakes and the result of fruit theft?

Have you read the news- biological organisms evolve, science cures disease and, as noted, the earth revolves around the sun. The prayer leader at your madrassah may instruct you differently, so the next time you need competent medical care, rattle bones and pray.

Let us know how that works out for ya'
 
"]
[
Why not just acknowledge that you're going to sidestep questions put to you with your usual pointless babble?

He's one of the messageboard types who thinks that in order to prove him wrong you have to get him to admit he's wrong. Like if he doesn't say 'uncle' he hasn't lost the argument.
 
I have to go with Sealybobo on this one. I just don't think the line was that distinct.

Well what defines a species determines that an individual is either a homo sapien or not.

I don't think the line is that clear. For there to be viable offspring the two species have to be very close. A homo sapien born to non-homo sapien parents will have no other homo sapien to mate with. He/she will need to mate with another non-homo sapien, which makes the offspring what? I just don't see sudden transition, but more of a gradual transition.
 
I have to go with Sealybobo on this one. I just don't think the line was that distinct.

Well what defines a species determines that an individual is either a homo sapien or not.

I don't think the line is that clear. For there to be viable offspring the two species have to be very close. A homo sapien born to non-homo sapien parents will have no other homo sapien to mate with. He/she will need to mate with another non-homo sapien, which makes the offspring what? I just don't see sudden transition, but more of a gradual transition.

I'm probably being unclear but I was just trying to point out that since every individual of the genus Homo has to be or have been either homo sapien or not homo sapien therefore there had to have been a first human. Of course it was complex and gradual.
 
that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.
I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.
1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

1) Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.
and your diversion means the same?....
The diversion is yours. Biological evolution is denied by fundies because it directly contradicts creation tales and fables. Your denials are driven by your lack of knowledge regarding science.
the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism and eventually into a human being is denied by me because there is no scientific evidence it ever happened.....that conclusion comes to me because I have more knowledge of science than you do......
You give yourself credit for nothing. If you had ever had an introduction to biology, you would never had made such a statement.

As usual, you slither away when you're tasked with supporting your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Thrill us with the evidence you have for Noah's Ark and biblical tales. Identify for us how all of existence began 6,000 years ago.
I'm sorry....there seems to be static in your transmission.....did you ask about evidence for 150k year old AGW?.....
Why not just acknowledge that you're going to sidestep questions put to you with your usual pointless babble?
I will acknowledge I only use that sidestep when pointless babble is required to balance your pointless babble......if you choose to waste my time with comments about 6000 year old earths I will always respond with questions about your belief in 150k year old AGW......
 
"]
[
Why not just acknowledge that you're going to sidestep questions put to you with your usual pointless babble?

He's one of the messageboard types who thinks that in order to prove him wrong you have to get him to admit he's wrong. Like if he doesn't say 'uncle' he hasn't lost the argument.
I've never lost an argument.....the longest discussion I've had over the years with an atheist lasted over 500 pages......
 
"]
[
Why not just acknowledge that you're going to sidestep questions put to you with your usual pointless babble?

He's one of the messageboard types who thinks that in order to prove him wrong you have to get him to admit he's wrong. Like if he doesn't say 'uncle' he hasn't lost the argument.
I've never lost an argument.....the longest discussion I've had over the years with an atheist lasted over 500 pages......

lol, see what I mean? ...and I'm guessing that 400 pages of that argument involved you denying or avoiding irrefutable facts.
 
I have to go with Sealybobo on this one. I just don't think the line was that distinct.

Well what defines a species determines that an individual is either a homo sapien or not.

I don't think the line is that clear. For there to be viable offspring the two species have to be very close. A homo sapien born to non-homo sapien parents will have no other homo sapien to mate with. He/she will need to mate with another non-homo sapien, which makes the offspring what? I just don't see sudden transition, but more of a gradual transition.

I'm probably being unclear but I was just trying to point out that since every individual of the genus Homo has to be or have been either homo sapien or not homo sapien therefore there had to have been a first human. Of course it was complex and gradual.

No. I get what you are saying. I just don't think it works that way. But it is all speculation and a professional biologist I am not.
 
that's the fifth time someone has quoted that......nothing has changed since the last time it was discussed.....still nothing more than a cluster of single celled organisms that reproduce and die, one cell at a time.....

Just like the birthers, every time someone produces the evidence you demand, you either simply deny it exists or move the goalposts.
I haven't moved any goal posts.....I'm still asking for the same thing I have been since January.....proof that a single celled organism ever evolved into a multicelled organism.......and there's a good reason to deny it exists......the reason is, it doesn't exist......if it did, one of you fools would have produced it since January.....instead I just get the same failed arguments, over and over and over.....

You are establishing a false premise to argue from, which is that unless scientists can reproduce some event in a laboratory, it cannot be considered a valid theory.

We can't recreate the 5 billion year history of the Earth in a lab. That does not in any way reduce science's estimate of the age of the Earth to simply a guess equal in merit to the Bible's 6000 year age of Earth estimate.
1) close.....you have to have some form of evidence that exhibits the claim passes at least an initial test of being falsifiable....
2) like Hollie, you should reserve your arguments about 6000 year old earths to discussion with people that believe in 6000 year old earths.....the claim is meaningless in an argument with me....

1) Evolution is easily falsifable were a Creator to make himself known and were then to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that he could create complex living creatures, fully formed, by design.

In other words, evolution is falsifiable by the so-called Intelligent Design theory.
and your diversion means the same?....
The diversion is yours. Biological evolution is denied by fundies because it directly contradicts creation tales and fables. Your denials are driven by your lack of knowledge regarding science.
the evolution of a single celled organism into a multicelled organism and eventually into a human being is denied by me because there is no scientific evidence it ever happened.....that conclusion comes to me because I have more knowledge of science than you do......
You give yourself credit for nothing. If you had ever had an introduction to biology, you would never had made such a statement.

As usual, you slither away when you're tasked with supporting your claims to magic and supernaturalism.

Thrill us with the evidence you have for Noah's Ark and biblical tales. Identify for us how all of existence began 6,000 years ago.
I'm sorry....there seems to be static in your transmission.....did you ask about evidence for 150k year old AGW?.....
Why not just acknowledge that you're going to sidestep questions put to you with your usual pointless babble?
I will acknowledge I only use that sidestep when pointless babble is required to balance your pointless babble......if you choose to waste my time with comments about 6000 year old earths I will always respond with questions about your belief in 150k year old AGW......
Yet, another sidestep.
 

Forum List

Back
Top