The Stupid Lie called The Theory of Evolution

[rightwinger]

So you take the stand that horses had to have appeared fully formed, out of nowhere?

Not necessarily, but I don't believe they came from a different genera because no evidence supports that. Science isn't... well, we don't have any better explanation so this must be it!

Not necessarily? You leave open the possibility that living creatures did in fact appear fully formed out of nowhere?

So you don't believe, for example, that this ever really happened:

I believe you have ZERO scientific evidence to prove that happened.

As someone who believes in Science, I don't leave anything out of the realm of possibility.

I just love the "poofed into existence" critics.... at some point in time, even by your own theories.... something inorganic decided to become something organic and "poofed" into existence. Why is your poofing any less extraordinary than mine?

Did a creator "poof into existence"?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

God made bodies of all animals and man based on the same Master-plan. All of them eat, digest, egest, respire, copulate, hear, see, taste, etc. So all of them have similar organs to perform these functions. He also graded animals and man according to the complexity of functions He gave them. So amoeba comes near the beginning, fishes and frogs later, followed by cats, dogs, tigers, lions and finally by Man.

The Master-plan of God was obvious to anyone even before Charles Darwin. Charles Darwin made use of this Master-plan for devil's lying purpose. He studied the anatomy of each animal in detail and understood the gradation system of God. He placed all animals on the table starting with the lowest and ending with the highest, Man. And he lied that the higher animals "evolved" from the lower ones, although they were created just like that by God.

The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all. There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind. And none even before his history, even if we suppose that the earth and its inhabitants were made before the history of man.

And I supposed you just happen to have evidence of this.....?

And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....

Again the same old drama! TOE is a stupid, blatant lie. And if TOE is a lie, then the only possibility is #ID (#Intelligent Design). Don't go astray into other arenas. If u want to talk about the providence of God, then we can discuss that in some other thread.

You can't even prove God exists, so...........

basically, I think I'll leave you to your fantasies, I can see you're not open to debate.

…along with facts and the truth.

 

[sealybobo]

I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.

You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.

So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas

Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.

Why? Is it the first time anyone has ever shown you the evidence? I suspect youve already seen/heard the evidence and You didnt grasp or believe any of it.

In other word the facts go over your ignorant God fearing head

 

[sealybobo]

So you take the stand that horses had to have appeared fully formed, out of nowhere?

Not necessarily, but I don't believe they came from a different genera because no evidence supports that. Science isn't... well, we don't have any better explanation so this must be it!

Not necessarily? You leave open the possibility that living creatures did in fact appear fully formed out of nowhere?

So you don't believe, for example, that this ever really happened:

I believe you have ZERO scientific evidence to prove that happened.

As someone who believes in Science, I don't leave anything out of the realm of possibility.

I just love the "poofed into existence" critics.... at some point in time, even by your own theories.... something inorganic decided to become something organic and "poofed" into existence. Why is your poofing any less extraordinary than mine?

Did a creator "poof into existence"?

They can't believe the cosmos have always existed but this God creature they can't even prove exists lives forever

 

[sealybobo]

I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.

You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.

So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas

Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.

You are the one that created an OP based on a religious myth..

Devil is behind TOE and she has no argument to defend it because it is a stupid lie. If she has no arguments, how will she make u argue? Case closed. Victory achieved. TOE is stupid, blatant lie. The only other option is ID. Since the universe is too too complex, the person who created it can rightly only be called GOD.

Now it's a person?

 

[sealybobo]

I have already proven that God exists and that Roman Catholicism is the truest religion. I am not going to get dragged into this discussion again. The purpose of this thread is not religious. God is proven simply because TOE is wrong. The only other possibility is ID and the designer is God. U have nothing to argue for TOE and are talking irrelevant things and the devils are laughing their hearts out in the sidelines.

You're dragging yourself into the argument. See we have mountains of evidence for evolution. If you use science logic evidence and reason evolution is what you conclude. Its the only logical and rational conclusion.

So your thread is about your delusion/religion. And it's not just atheists who realize Catholicism is made up lie. Just ask born again Mormons Jews Muslims and jehovas

Please offer yr mountains of evidence for evolution. Don't worry about religion and delusion.

You are the one that created an OP based on a religious myth..

Devil is behind TOE and she has no argument to defend it because it is a stupid lie. If she has no arguments, how will she make u argue? Case closed. Victory achieved. TOE is stupid, blatant lie. The only other option is ID. Since the universe is too too complex, the person who created it can rightly only be called GOD.

God is not a person...

Even better. There is no god

 

[sealybobo]

And if God was so damn good, why did he make so many humans with defects? 1/4 of people have mental issues, and then there is cancer and other diseases.....

Perspective.

I know a young man who turned 19 the other day, I was over at his house to celebrate his birthday. He has down's syndrome and probably won't live to see 30. I say this in all sincerity, I learn more from him in 30 minutes than I learn from asswipes here in a year. He is a beautiful person with a beautiful soul and he touches the lives of everyone who meets him and spends some time with him... does he look funny? Yes. Does he sound and act different? Yes. Does he have a health condition? Of course. But he is still a beautiful person with a beautiful soul. And I am sure the same can be said for many you call "humans with defects."

One of the most inspirational people I've ever known, passed away last month. She had muscular dystrophy and was confined to a wheelchair. She was in her 40s... doctors said she wouldn't live past her teens. She was an Accounting professor at a private college. She became a CPA and had her own business. She won Miss Wheelchair Alabama. She was funny and witty, and she simply didn't know the meaning of "I can't!" She had her own custom van which she drove all over the south. When we first met, she jokingly told me she liked "long walks on the beach." An incredibly amazing person despite her disability.

I hate to break this to you, but you probably have your share of defects. I doubt that you are a perfect human being. So what makes you believe your defects are okay and others aren't? I think it's about perspective... God puts these people here to teach us and show us about life. I've presented just two personal examples of people you would find "damaged" but I've gained more from them than I could ever gain from you. My life is far more enriched knowing them than it would ever be in knowing you. And I'm not alone... when my friend passed away, the family was overwhelmed with the outpouring of sympathy from thousands and thousands of people who's lives she had touched. It was truly amazing.

So God made her defective to teach us a lesson? Nice

 

[Boss]

All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.

What else would they be composed of?

The point is that there is no reason a chemical reaction could not have occurred that formed the first organic molecules,

something you denied was possible.

I didn't deny anything was possible. I am arguing what is proven. There are lots of things we can imagine there being no reason why... that's not science, that's speculation. It's really no different to say "there is no reason a God could not have created the universe with life already in it." ...Something you deny is possible.

Now... back to your theory... what was so special about these first molecules? Why are we unable to cause a chemical reaction to create organisms in a lab? If your theory is true you should be able to repeatedly test it with predictable results. Where is the science? We know that pretty much anything that bonds with carbon can become organic but that doesn't explain why it happens.... we don't know why, like billions of other things we don't know why. If the gravitational constant hadn't been precisely as it was, the reactionary fission of hydrogen would have never created carbon. There would be no carbon in our universe, thus, no life.

I'm a big believer in Science. But that doesn't mean what many of you assume. I don't accept conclusions made by conventional wisdom exploiting Science. I guess you can call me a Science "purist" in that sense.

 

[NYcarbineer]

All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.

What else would they be composed of?

The point is that there is no reason a chemical reaction could not have occurred that formed the first organic molecules,

something you denied was possible.

I didn't deny anything was possible. I am arguing what is proven. There are lots of things we can imagine there being no reason why... that's not science, that's speculation. It's really no different to say "there is no reason a God could not have created the universe with life already in it." ...Something you deny is possible.

Now... back to your theory... what was so special about these first molecules? Why are we unable to cause a chemical reaction to create organisms in a lab? If your theory is true you should be able to repeatedly test it with predictable results. Where is the science? We know that pretty much anything that bonds with carbon can become organic but that doesn't explain why it happens.... we don't know why, like billions of other things we don't know why. If the gravitational constant hadn't been precisely as it was, the reactionary fission of hydrogen would have never created carbon. There would be no carbon in our universe, thus, no life.

I'm a big believer in Science. But that doesn't mean what many of you assume. I don't accept conclusions made by conventional wisdom exploiting Science. I guess you can call me a Science "purist" in that sense.

You would like to recreate 5 billion years of Evolution in a lab?

 

[NYcarbineer]

All organic molecules are composed of inorganic elements.

What else would they be composed of?

The point is that there is no reason a chemical reaction could not have occurred that formed the first organic molecules,

something you denied was possible.

I didn't deny anything was possible. I am arguing what is proven. There are lots of things we can imagine there being no reason why... that's not science, that's speculation. It's really no different to say "there is no reason a God could not have created the universe with life already in it." ...Something you deny is possible.

Now... back to your theory... what was so special about these first molecules? Why are we unable to cause a chemical reaction to create organisms in a lab? If your theory is true you should be able to repeatedly test it with predictable results. Where is the science? We know that pretty much anything that bonds with carbon can become organic but that doesn't explain why it happens.... we don't know why, like billions of other things we don't know why. If the gravitational constant hadn't been precisely as it was, the reactionary fission of hydrogen would have never created carbon. There would be no carbon in our universe, thus, no life.

I'm a big believer in Science. But that doesn't mean what many of you assume. I don't accept conclusions made by conventional wisdom exploiting Science. I guess you can call me a Science "purist" in that sense.

Science goes with the best explanation. It does not engage in a binary exercise where everything not indisputably proven must then be considered the equivalent of anything not proven.

 

[Boss]

Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.

In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.

That is not how science works.

It's EXACTLY how Science works.

Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?

Are you sure about that?

Science doesn't conclude. Science is the practice of asking questions about what we don't know. Once you have drawn a conclusion, Science is over... it's work is done. You are now practicing Faith in a Belief.

Proof, in terms of what you believe, is totally subjective. What you may find as proof, I may find meaningless. I often like to use the O.J. Simpson trial to demonstrate this point... the jury had the proof he was guilty, they simply didn't believe the proof.

In essence, Science can't prove anything, it merely presents a prediction of probability of possibilities. WE use that to draw conclusion... to say we have "proven" something. Science has nothing to do with our faith.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.

In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.

That is not how science works.

It's EXACTLY how Science works.

Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?

Are you sure about that?

Science doesn't conclude. .

Oh for chrissakes...

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

 

[Boss]

Science goes with the best explanation.

No, it quite simply DOESN'T. In fact, that is the antithesis of Science and pretty much the reason Science became a thing. Humans were running around "going with the best explanation" of things.... but sometimes, the best conventional wisdom explanation of something is completely wrong.

 

[Boss]

Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.

In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.

That is not how science works.

It's EXACTLY how Science works.

Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?

Are you sure about that?

Science doesn't conclude. .

Oh for chrissakes...

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

"Draw a conclusion" is not an act of Science... it is a human act.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Science goes with the best explanation.

No, it quite simply DOESN'T. In fact, that is the antithesis of Science and pretty much the reason Science became a thing. Humans were running around "going with the best explanation" of things.... but sometimes, the best conventional wisdom explanation of something is completely wrong.

So a scientific theory is the opposite of the best explanation that science has for any given question? WTF?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Your means of argument is to simply set the burden of proof measure so high that of course it cannot be met.

In step two, once you declare that your proof requirement hasn't been met, you reject evolution on an arbitrary Pass/Fail grading system.

That is not how science works.

It's EXACTLY how Science works.

Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?

Are you sure about that?

Science doesn't conclude. .

Oh for chrissakes...

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

"Draw a conclusion" is not an act of Science... it is a human act.

Science is a human act, dumbass.

 

[Boss]

It's EXACTLY how Science works.

Science works by setting the burden of proof so high that nothing can be deemed factual?

Are you sure about that?

Science doesn't conclude. .

Oh for chrissakes...

The steps of the scientific method are to:

• Ask a Question
• Do Background Research
• Construct a Hypothesis
• Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment
• Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion
• Communicate Your Results

"Draw a conclusion" is not an act of Science... it is a human act.

Science is a human act, dumbass.

Now you're confusing yourself. Science is conducted by humans, it's not a human act. You can't say, "I am going to science you up some facts today!" You may go conduct Science and conclude a fact... but Science has nothing to do with what you conclude or any other actions you take as a human. Your analyzing of data and conclusion could be flawed. That's why you call what you do a THEORY.

 

[PK1]

The placement of animals in the right order is the only "proof" that Evolutionists are offering to the world and that is not a proof at all. There are no proofs of evolution in the entire history of mankind.

---
It's amazing how science ignorant you are. Stupid calling others stupid. LOL.

Science provides evidence, and with sufficient supporting evidence, we can decide if claiming "proof" is justifiable.
There is tons of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, both biological and physical.

What "proof" is there for claiming "God did it"?
Any evidence at all ??????????
.

 

[Boss]

Science goes with the best explanation.

No, it quite simply DOESN'T. In fact, that is the antithesis of Science and pretty much the reason Science became a thing. Humans were running around "going with the best explanation" of things.... but sometimes, the best conventional wisdom explanation of something is completely wrong.

So a scientific theory is the opposite of the best explanation that science has for any given question? WTF?

That's not what I said.

Do you know how many scientific theories have proved to be wrong? And not just wrong but sometimes not even in the same ball park as correct. It's because Science continues to ask questions and doesn't conclude answers. Science doesn't give one solitary shit that you've drawn your own conclusions. If you wish to abandon Science and have faith in your conclusions, that's up to you... not Science... it keeps on working whether you like it or not.

 

[Boss]

There is tons of evidence supporting evolutionary theory, both biological and physical.

There is tons of evidence supporting micro-evolution. Small adaptive changes over time to produce new species within a genus taxa. There is exactly NO evidence to support macro-evolution. There are theories... yes! But Science has never been able to demonstrate change in organisms across genera lines. In fact, the more Science discovers about mitochondria, the more we realize this theory has some serious flaws.