15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

[ding]

Genesis 1 obviously. You pick. It's all just silliness to me.

You are inferring you have read it and I don't believe you have.
Be specific; I know it's hard for you, but give it a shot.

Dude, won't go on record for shit. I would say he was intellectually dishonest but I he's not intellectual. He's a google surfer who searches for anything that confirms his bias. He dismisses his defeats and ignores his incongruities.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Kind of hard to tell who you are responding to. I guess you don't want them getting alerts.

Creatio ex nihlo is a belief of the Judaeo-Christian faith, dummy.

That you see life as a struggle instead of an amazing, precious and rare gift speaks volumes about you and your biases and lack of objectivity.

Sure looks like you're pretending to respond to me, but failing miserably and just talking to yourself as usual.

 

[ding]

Kind of hard to tell who you are responding to. I guess you don't want them getting alerts.

Creatio ex nihlo is a belief of the Judaeo-Christian faith, dummy.

That you see life as a struggle instead of an amazing, precious and rare gift speaks volumes about you and your biases and lack of objectivity.

Sure looks like you're pretending to respond to me, but failing miserably and just talking to yourself as usual.

I'm defeating you.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Sorry, this isn't a board game. You're just angry because your nonsense still fails to impress me. Run along now back to your safe zone, wimp. Bubbye!

 

[ding]

Sorry, this isn't a board game. You're just angry because your nonsense still fails to impress me. Run along now back to your safe zone, wimp. Bubbye!

You aren't that important, bro.

 

[Grumblenuts]

By deduction. Nobody likes yellow. Therefore ding will post 20 pages of copypasta ontological nonsense that PROVES yellow is the best, and then he will declare victory.

Indeed. A shame that many seem not to have noticed the pattern yet. I get obsessed with selling Aether theory at times - which is obviously never "nothing." You've argued with me about it. So has ding. Time and again. But I've never even considered spamming the board with copypasta like he does. Like a two year old. Now he feigns shock and anguish that I still find his "nothing theory" utterly ridiculous. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Uh huh.

 

[ding]

By deduction. Nobody likes yellow. Therefore ding will post 20 pages of copypasta ontological nonsense that PROVES yellow is the best, and then he will declare victory.

Indeed. A shame that many seem not to have noticed the pattern yet. I get obsessed with selling Aether theory at times - which is obviously never "nothing." You've argued with me about it. So has ding. Time and again. But I've never even considered spamming the board with copypasta like he does. Like a two year old. Now he feigns shock and anguish that I still find his "nothing theory" utterly ridiculous. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Uh huh.

Yellow is the best

 

[abu afak]

Gravity is as fact as anything
Wow are you an ignoramus

Evolution is also a fact.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

 

[abu afak]

.....

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`

.

 

[abu afak]

I'm defeating you.

LOL Bible Belt.
You couldn't defeat anything with your 95% one-line posts.
Of course, there IS nothing to say/No Evidence on your side TO say.
You could cut it to 5 letters: 'Faith.'

`

 

[abu afak]

ANOTHER IDIOT CHIRPS IN
See the OP.

Science is always about someone's theory. Evolution is a conglomeration of theories that until proven, remain just theories. Back when i was young, a Brontosaurus was the largest animal at the time, slow moving and cold blooded, today the theories are that it is warm blooded and not so slow. Until one is actually seen, the theory still remains.

And as I've said 100 times here...
Science doesn't deal in "Proof", only math does.
Science deals in theories affirmed over time.
Evolution has stood the test of time - 160 years- and a burst of New sciences. (and 100,000 fossils found only in the correct strata.)
All relevant ones help confirm it, (DNA, Isotopic dating, etc) and NONE Contradict it.
Evolution has Overwhelming EVIDENCE. (God NONE)

`

 

[abu afak]

The truth is people weren't taught human evolution. Human evolution isn't a fact. Even Darwin didn't say that. Furthermore, there is no valid evidence for a common ancestor. That kills it right there. And who wants to be a monkey's uncle like you? Are you hairy, eat bananas, sh*t in the jungle, and walk on fours?

indent]
abu afak

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
By John Rennie - July 1, 2002
Editor-in-Chief, Scientific American

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

Opponents of evolution want to make a place for creationism by tearing down real science, but their arguments don't hold up

www.scientificamerican.com

[.....]

1. Evolution is only a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary School that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty -- above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a Scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature.
So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution -- or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter -- they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution."..."

`[/indent]

 

[abu afak]

By deduction. Nobody likes yellow. Therefore ding will post 20 pages of copypasta ontological nonsense that PROVES yellow is the best, and then he will declare victory.

Indeed. A shame that many seem not to have noticed the pattern yet. I get obsessed with selling Aether theory at times - which is obviously never "nothing." You've argued with me about it. So has ding. Time and again. But I've never even considered spamming the board with copypasta like he does. Like a two year old. Now he feigns shock and anguish that I still find his "nothing theory" utterly ridiculous. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Uh huh.

He's a very strange one.
He needs lots of attention.
Usually get's it with one-line nonsense and persists until he doe.

`

 

[Grumblenuts]

Usually get's it with one-line nonsense and persists until he doe.

a deer, a female deer
Ray, a drop of golden sun
Me, a name I call..

Oh, stop that, Nuts!

 

[abu afak]

Dude, won't go on record for shit. I would say he was intellectually dishonest but I he's not intellectual. He's a google surfer who searches for anything that confirms his bias. He dismisses his defeats and ignores his incongruities.

It's not easy finding somtheing of yours to quote that's more than one line.=/seentence.

 

[ding]

It's not easy finding somtheing of yours to quote that's more than one line.=/seentence.

Less is more when it comes to dealing with the intellectually unenlightened.

 

[abu afak]

Indeed. A shame that many seem not to have noticed the pattern yet. I get obsessed with selling Aether theory at times - which is obviously never "nothing." You've argued with me about it. So has ding. Time and again. But I've never even considered spamming the board with copypasta like he does. Like a two year old. Now he feigns shock and anguish that I still find his "nothing theory" utterly ridiculous. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Uh huh.

You should just Ignore Ding.
I would call him a one-line wonder, but oft he doesn't make it past 6 or 7 words.
An inveterate No-content last-worder.
`

 

[Grumblenuts]

You should just Ignore Ding.

I was.. for well over a year now! Wtf? You probably just woke him. Great.. he'll be slithering out from under yonder rock any moment..

 

[abu afak]

I've won ever since arriving here because you, atheists, atheist scientists, and other sinners have lost since the 1850s. All you had to do was produce one OBSERVABLE evidence for evolution and would have won. For example, a monkey that walks like a human....

"...The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.

For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.
But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly..."

`

 

[james bond]

"...The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries.

For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows.
But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly..."

`

Those were all human as we see the different types of humans today. For example, we have DNA in people today from the Neanderthal. That is OBSERVABLE. OTOH, you have no DNA of anything like an ape-human. Again, you lose and I win!