you want more proof that evilution is a lie here you go

Abiogenesis would take an infinite amount of time just to get started. So unless we are they result of the passage of an infinite amount of time ? Evolution isn't even plausible. Whether it's a fact or a theory or wetf.

Originally posted by DaRAGE
Macro evolution has not been proven.

In fact genetics says we shoul dbe a pile of sludge in a billion years or so...not developing wings orevolving..
Genetics says we devolve...

Just look at the Y chromosomewhichis going to be gone in like 120,000 years or so

Originally posted by ZeroDeep

There is simply not enough evidence to argue one way or the other.

Two Questions.

Can I ask you which religions exactly believe in creationism?

How is thier not more evidence sided on Evolution than Creationism?

Deep

Judging by your atrocious spelling and grammar it is quite obvious that you are devolving far faster than any of us.

Originally posted by Firepac
Judging by your atrocious spelling and grammar it is quite obvious that you are devolving far faster than any of us.

posted on 17-2-2004 @ 07:22 AM
That's the date of my post you quoted.
Thanks for the troll... 8 years later.

Back then, knowing me, I was probably drunk as a skunk or high off my chops.

In the 8 years that have come and gone, what have we learned? Evolution or Devolution?

I still stand by my post. Geneticists say that we will lose our Y chromosome in 120, 000 years.
Sounds like devolution to me.

But then again we have seen one celled organisms/bacteria become two celled ones, under pressure...

reply to post by BlackJackal


This is the oldest creationist argument.

Darwin even predicted it, and said if you can find one structure that completely exists outside of evolution, the entire evolutionary theory would be null and void.

But you can't.
Saying that something is too complex to understand so therefore it must be created by God, is the same line of thinking that primitives used to throw babies into volcanoes to keep the volcano gods happy.

Most of these complex systems have been explained by scientists and evolutionists.

If you did a little reading, you would know how.

Originally posted by randyvs
Abiogenesis would take an infinite amount of time just to get started. So unless we are they result of the passage of an infinite amount of time ? Evolution isn't even plausible. Whether it's a fact or a theory or wetf.

How are you a gold contributor with posts like this? It's not even based on anything other than ignorance. Infinite time? Can you please demonstrate where you got that figure from? Abiogensis is not evolution so stop with the blatant lies, please. It's really getting old hearing this same tireless argument time and time again. Evolution is not only possible, it has been observed in many situations. Use google, so you don't have to spout complete ignorance on a site that's sole purpose is to deny it.

It baffles me that someone can show off his ignorance as much as the OP.

There are THOUSANDS of what you call transitional fossils, and that FACT has been posted dozens if not hundreds of times on these boards. You claiming there's none just shows off your incredible lack of knowledge, but even worse, it shows off your ignorance is so strong, you can't even accept facts and reality in general anymore.

reply to post by Barcs


It's ignorance to assume evolution can happen without abiogenesis isn't it? If you dismiss creation what is left ?

Doesn't matter at all, everyone sees how ignorant evolution is. Unless you are ingrained in that propaganda.

It's very ignorant not to know how I achieved gold status actually. It's amoung the most basic concepts. And really Barcs you totally set your self up with that kind of reasoning. But I refuse to take cheap shots.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Barcs

 

It's ignorance to assume evolution can happen without abiogenesis isn't it? If you dismiss creation what is left ?

No, it's not. Evolution is genetic mutations sorted out by natural selection. It has nothing to do with how the first life started or abiogensis. A creator could have used the system of evolution as a tool. One doesn't negate the other.

Doesn't matter at all, everyone sees how ignorant evolution is. Unless you are ingrained in that propaganda.

Yes, evolution is so ignorant that its based on observable testable evidence and experiments. If you've got an alternative theory that's got objective evidence behind it to explain the diversity of life, I'd love to hear it.

It's very ignorant not to know how I achieved gold status actually. It's amoung the most basic concepts. And really Barcs you totally set your self up with that kind of reasoning. But I refuse to take cheap shots.

Sorry, I haven't done my research on your gold content, but it just doesn't seem legitimate that a gold contributor on the site could make such blatantly false statements and assumptions about a field of science you haven't studied. I'm not trying to take cheap shots, just stating the obvious about what you said in your post above. The information is out there to learn, regardless of your personal beliefs.

not only am i waiting on proof for either side of evolution,
but waiting on proof on any religion,
proof that will not fall on faith.

Interviewer: "Why don't you believe in evolutionary theory?"

Anti-evoltutionist: "Evolutionary theory is wrong! It's bad science!!"

Interviewer: "Well then what is your theory?"

Anti-Evolutionist: "How would I know! I'm not a scientist!"

What is "Evilution"?

No, it's not. Evolution is genetic mutations sorted out by natural selection. It has nothing to do with how the first life started or abiogensis. A creator could have used the system of evolution as a tool. One doesn't negate the other.

reply to post by Barcs


Ah, but the absence of one most possibly could negate the other, could it not ?

Originally posted by randyvs

No, it's not. Evolution is genetic mutations sorted out by natural selection. It has nothing to do with how the first life started or abiogensis. A creator could have used the system of evolution as a tool. One doesn't negate the other.

reply to post by Barcs

 

Ah, but the absence of one most possibly could negate the other, could it not ?

Not really...but the theory of evolution clearly proves that the whole Adam & Eve story is just that...a fictional story not based on reality.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by Barcs

 

It's ignorance to assume evolution can happen without abiogenesis isn't it? If you dismiss creation what is left ?

This is poor reasoning. Even if evolution is proved false (not likely), that doesn't mean creationism is true. That's a false dichotomy.

Doesn't matter at all, everyone sees how ignorant evolution is. Unless you are ingrained in that propaganda.

Only the scientifically ignorant doubt evolution.

It's very ignorant not to know how I achieved gold status actually. It's amoung the most basic concepts. And really Barcs you totally set your self up with that kind of reasoning. But I refuse to take cheap shots.

The number of posts doesn't indicate the quality of the posts. Anyone can post 3000 words and say absolutely nothing of value.