Evolution Officially Debunked!!!

furiousracer313, please watch every single vid, the entire movie you posted in your op has been completely debunked in these vids....

For anyone interested – check them out.

























[edit on 14-12-2008 by andre18]

It's actually funny no one reacts at my previous post.

Originally posted by vasaga

Originally posted by angel of lightangelo
Unless you factor in the amount of time that is far beyond your comprehension. Or...care to share with us which creation myth or religion is less "far fetched?"

I'll be glad to. First of all, let's start with abiogenesis shall we.

yes lets

In the past, they thought that flies appeared from garbage itself.

and was disproved by scientists who tested its worthyness to become a thoery, it fails correct

Two centuries later, that belief came up again but with bacteria and algae. A scientist came along again, and he showed that life only comes from other life, including large animals and also algae and bacteria. That is basic biology.

and was disproved by scientists who tested its worthyness to become a thoery, it fails correct

Now there's that primordial soup thing, which is completely hypothetical btw (no proof..),

o'rly?

wherein a chain of chemical reactions took place and formed a single cell. Then a group of those cells grouped themselves together in colonies to form more complex organisms. This turned into fish blabla and then turned into man.. According to this, every single creature can be traced back to a single cell, which is represented by that tree of life.

someones been paying some attention

These are ALL ASSUMPTIONS. There is no proof whatsoever. They use these assumptions for the rest of the theory.

but not paying enough attention it seems

assumptions means without testing

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov...

these are just some of the paper held on pubmed about chemical evolution

we may not know all the answers yet but everytime an experiement succeeds(and they really really have) we get closer

like the spontaeous creation hypothesis chemical evolution has and is bieng tested daily, but unlike the spontaneous creation hypothesis its being proven right not wrong

not to mention organic compounds litterally litter the universe, and these organic compoiunds we have observed them form naturally, then recombine and form more complex molecules

Rna the precursor to Dna has even been found in space along with numerous other naturally occuring molecules life on earth is dependant on

astrobiology.arc.nasa.gov...

www.space.com...

not assumption im afraid, its based on testing and our best of understanding of it from those tests

They are simply separate. I didn't make this up, a lot of paleontologists say so. After two centuries of intense research, the paleontological evidence for evolution is VERY rare AND highly questionable.

it is? ahh so the evidence of Arceheopteryx displaying both reptilian and avarian charachteristics

having a lung structure thats intermediary between reptilian and what is now found only in birds(they have very sepcialised lungs) but then we have also found similar lung systems to arcaheopteryx in many dinosaurs even T-rex had basic through lung system which would turbo charge its edurance rates,

how about the s shaped timpanic ear structure found only in cetaceans? that we have found and been able to trace back through intermediary fossils back to ambulacetus a quadroped that is adapted to a semi aquatic life style(it lived kinda like otters) not only the timpanic ear bone, theres also displayed in this fossil line up a drift of the nostrils higher and higher up the skull until it is fixed in the position we find today in certations, again this fossil line up also shows atavistic reduction of the hind limbs to further support this line up, the skull attachment also shows the same change over time, the placment of the inner ear shows the same drift pattern

we have multipul species of fish fossil showing an increase in amphbian charachteristics and fin modification to allow them to move on land then continue to become legs

really you did make this up, or someone else did you just repeated it verbatim without bothering to check

There are no links. There is also no indication that the situation will change in the future. If you don't believe me, ask a paleontologist or search about all those fake "apehumans" they made up with bones of man and apes.

i dont beleive you and i have spoken to palentologists and more importantly i checked my own understanding and payed attention

which made up people are we talking about?

piltdownman? a hoax that was proven to be so by science

nebraska man? a misidentification proven to be so science

what happens when the body is found in situ and they cant make it up? like Lucy? like the bodies of 20 other australopithecus they found several mile away that from the way thier remains were stacked it appears the group were killed by a flash flood

litterally thousands of skeletal remains of individuals in multipul species of transitional species from our common ancestor to modern man exist, try lokking at some real science not answersingenesis they are a little unrealiable when they have claearly on thier site we will ignore every and any scienctific findings that dont agree with the bible

Besides that, all the things they use as links, for example that flying reptile that had feathers, is still very far from conclusive.

your right it isnt 100% conclusive but when its combined with the many other seperate transitions shown in the fossil record the weight of evidence while still not bieng 100% conclusive make it impossible to ignore

for it to be 100% conclusive we would need to invent a time machine go back in time sit there for millions of years and watch it

its beyond all reasonable dought, even the competing theory still has them eveloving not from dinosaurs but from and older common ancestor speices of both dinosaurs and birds, and the evidence for this hypothesis is slim

Also a lot of paleontologists claim that humans did not change at all since their first appearance and that the whole apehuman thing should be thrown in the garbage. They even call evolution a mythology.

ok time for a challenge name 10, name 10 palentologists of the last 10 years who have said and still beleive this?

even Behe Phd the only really credable(well until the dover trial and what he said on the stand showing his extreme bias) accepts common decent

when the most qualified member of the discovery institute cant argue with the weight of evidence so has to accept it i think your making it up, or again quoting verbatum what someone else without a clue made up

Now we go into evolution within the cells themselves. Biochemists say that mutations are not fixed to natural selection in the first place.

because it isnt thats what evolutionary thjoery its self says

Natural selection only eliminations anomalies that mutation can create. It stabilizes. Nothing more, nothing less. If living organisms were different in the past does not mean organisms have changed,

thats precisley what it means, natural selection weeds out the mutations that lead to a disadvantage, when all those posative or benging mutations add up things change over time

only that they became extinct. They don't "make" new organisms. That's a BIG assumption they make.

based on overlapping evidence from the fossil record dna analysis, comparative anatomy, taxonomy phylogenetics bio chemistry

no assumption my friend tested and proven

It's just a general agreement. No proof here. And even "simple" organisms like algae and bacteria are real complex and not something nature just comes up with by chance.

good job evolution isnt bliond chance then but a strictly controlled mechanism of nature

Biochemists also claim that the basic of the life structure is the same but this does not mean that it evolved, but exactly the opposite, that life stayed the same, because evolved life would mean a more complex structure and that's not the case.

no it means they share common traits that in some way they are linked

and all the other evidence shows that evolution is the leading number 1 casue of change

The genetic data however, is different. When comparing man to other species, humans are original and did not evolve from any other species.

except we share most of ouyr genetics with chimps, we know the average mutation rate per generation in a species, we know the genetic variance of our dna and chimps we know the average generation rate of both species when you do the maths it works out dam near perfect when you factor in disease and predation

Genetic data does not support an organism evolving into a more complex one at all.

except it does at every turn

we share 20,000 ERV's with chimps, for it to be purley random and not the result of common ancestry for just 16 of those its around

1 in 2,057,400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

and thats just the 16 K class thing how much bigger thats numbers going to get with ALL 20,000






[edit on 14/12/08 by noobfun]

PART 2

Now we come to the geological timescale and rock strata. They search for "layers" where they find fossils. They say if something is deeper buried, it's older, but that's simply not true.

it really really is true

The layer they say is actually a bank, and not the actual layer. Something buried deeper can easily be younger than something on the surface. The layers form sideways gradually and sometimes even instantly,

evidence bring some

form instantly and sideways? you better bring some real scientifc data to back this up my friend

They say, a layer came a few million years ago (carbon dated, ill get into that later),

you cant carbon date rock strata

it only works with orgnanics

a few million years passed, then another layer etc, but they are looking at banks, which is wrong. I'm not gonna explain this too deep.

no its a constant build up the layers when comressed show snapo shots of time periods, when the enviroment chnages they type of strata layed down alters as well

Research this yourself or look at this video and its other parts (starts after 1:40) till part 6:
www.youtube.com...

even a simple look at the diagram he is s=using discredits his own words

look at the picture the banks are coloured brown orange blue yellow

the brown had to have formed first and therefore BE older for the orange to build ontop of it, which had to be older for the blue to form on top of that and the same with the yellow

unless your suggesting some how magically the blue floated up and the orange snuck in underneath

and that is an inaccurate portrayl, the top layer would cover the lower layers at the edge it wouldnt suddenly change into a completley different type of strat just becasue it it sinks a little deeper, they dont grow sideways the top layer grows across covering the bottom layer

that video is laughable aand blatantly misrepresents what voltaire(a staunch athiest and anti bible flood believer) actually observed

shall we ask a REAL geologist?

Fossils in rock can therefore not be carbon dated.

[ becasue a fossil is rock so its cant be carbon dated becasue it IS rock not becasue it is found in rock

Most fossils are found in rock strata. Dating those by "layers" is far from accurate, and no carbon-14 can be applied.

it is just as accurate as carbon dating and uses exactly the same method just a different element then carbon

if C14 is accurate then so is every other testing method

And rock strata often do not have any radioactive material to give indication. Therefore they often use lava or crystalline rocks nearby (which don't contain fossils..) which sometimes do contain radioactive material to date the fossils..

you dont need radioactive matrerial

argon argon dating uses gas trapped in the rocks molecules and so do many others and guess what there are many many dating methods that can be used to date things so we ccan test with 1 then confirm with another the accuracy of the original test

Then we come to radio-isotope dating, and we'll use uranium as an example. Uranium decays into lead. They compare what's left of uranium in the rock, the formed lead, and the rate of decay to give a time indication for how long it took for the lead to form. But there are a few problems with this. You don't know if there was lead there in the first place

dosesnt matter its not the amount of lead its the amount of radioactivity thats bieng tested

that did not decay from the uranium, and lot of rocks contain lead that didn't come from uranium.

and lead being inert wouldnt contain any readioactivity so thats not a problem as its not the amount of lead fiund that matters

This make the rock appear a lot older than it actually is.

no becasue they are not testing for lead amounts

Another problem is that uranium can leak out of the rock because of humidity and other stuff, which will also make the rock appear a lot older. They tested this with lava that was 200 years old, and the calculations said it was 22 million years...

this has nothing to do with uranium

they used a test which gave the accurate date that you just stated was 200 years old, the reason it gave a false reading is becasue they used the test wrongly and knowingly ..which has been shown as that was why they did the test to show how testing rock with some impurities collected on the way can lead to false dating so other scientists make sure the rocks they test dont have them and give flase results

it is a lie the creationists willingly use becasue they dont give the relevant information about the test just the bits they think work for them

Another problem is that they assume the rate of decay has remained constant, which is also highly unreasonable.. There are too many influences that cause this to change..

no there isnt ^_^

and they dont assume its been observed and its testable, when you know the decay rate you can estimate how much it will decay in a set period of time and then test its accuracy

not only that but in shorter lived decay rates they can litteraly sit there and test it real time to see if the many many elements with short decay rates all decay ata constant, and they do

so its been tested by several methods and been shown to be constant

they dont just guess at this stuff ya know they test it works before they use it to test things

So.. After reviewing these facts it's obvious evolution has ZERO factual support in science..

yes after reviewing your none facts it is apparent

unfortunatley we like to use real facts, that have been observed tested numrous times and all support each other where they overlap further proving each one of those overlapping facts and thooeries as correct

please get off you tube and early 1980's poor quality documentaries that even at the time could easy be proven wrong and actually look and learn at what we do know and can test and prove accurate


well i did react to it and tore it all to shread, the reason i didnt do it last night when i first read it was becasue it was 2AM and i wanted some sleep, and the reason its taken a while today is becasue i actually check my facts and present credable sources for my information, maybe you typed to soon if you had waited 20 minutes for me to finish both parts it would have saved you a reply



[edit on 14/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 14/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 14/12/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 14/12/08 by noobfun]

Originally posted by noobfun

In the past, they thought that flies appeared from garbage itself.

and was disproved by scientists who tested its worthyness to become a thoery, it fails correct

Two centuries later, that belief came up again but with bacteria and algae. A scientist came along again, and he showed that life only comes from other life, including large animals and also algae and bacteria. That is basic biology.

and was disproved by scientists who tested its worthyness to become a thoery, it fails correct.

Actually no. It was thought it was a scientific fact, just as the flies, but then proven to be wrong. And i did say they debunked it in my explanation. The point is, primordial soup will also be debunked. Actually already is but they still persist..

Now there's that primordial soup thing, which is completely hypothetical btw (no proof..),

o'rly?

Yes really. They made it up and then started testing it.

but not paying enough attention it seems
assumptions means without testing
*list of links*
these are just some of the paper held on pubmed about chemical evolution
we may not know all the answers yet but everytime an experiement succeeds(and they really really have) we get closer
like the spontaeous creation hypothesis chemical evolution has and is bieng tested daily, but unlike the spontaneous creation hypothesis its being proven right not wrong

Well, there is still no proof. If you have proof you can make some of the compounds with a soup, it does not mean life derived from it. You know why? If you take a cell, you poke it, every ingredient flows out. You take all those ingredients, put them in the soup, they will not form back to a single cell. EVER.

not to mention organic compounds litterally litter the universe, and these organic compoiunds we have observed them form naturally, then recombine and form more complex molecules
Rna the precursor to Dna has even been found in space along with numerous other naturally occuring molecules life on earth is dependant on
*links*
not assumption im afraid, its based on testing and our best of understanding of it from those tests

I just gotta react to this one separately. And they wan't us to believe there's no life out there??

it is? ahh so the evidence of Arceheopteryx displaying both reptilian and avarian charachteristics having a lung structure thats intermediary between reptilian and what is now found only in birds(they have very sepcialised lungs) but then we have also found similar lung systems to arcaheopteryx in many dinosaurs even T-rex had basic through lung system which would turbo charge its edurance rates,

Oh really? Here's my answer:
news.bbc.co.uk...
If they are willing to do that, how reliable is that whole evolution thing? Really..???? Be honest with yourself here.

how about the s shaped timpanic ear structure found only in cetaceans? that we have found and been able to trace back through intermediary fossils back to ambulacetus a quadroped that is adapted to a semi aquatic life style(it lived kinda like otters) not only the timpanic ear bone, theres also displayed in this fossil line up a drift of the nostrils higher and higher up the skull until it is fixed in the position we find today in certations, again this fossil line up also shows atavistic reduction of the hind limbs to further support this line up, the skull attachment also shows the same change over time, the placment of the inner ear shows the same drift pattern

Oh come on... This sounds like Pokémon. Everyone can make that up.

we have multipul species of fish fossil showing an increase in amphbian charachteristics and fin modification to allow them to move on land then continue to become legs

Yeah of which they usually only have 20-30% of the bones................

i dont beleive you and i have spoken to palentologists and more importantly i checked my own understanding and payed attention
which made up people are we talking about?

It doesn't matter which one.
www.youtube.com...

what happens when the body is found in situ and they cant make it up? like Lucy? like the bodies of 20 other australopithecus they found several mile away that from the way thier remains were stacked it appears the group were killed by a flash flood

So the flood is true? Anyway, that's the whole problem right there. Something miles away is certainly not a guarantee it's from the same species, let alone the same being.

litterally thousands of skeletal remains of individuals in multipul species of transitional species from our common ancestor to modern man exist, try lokking at some real science not answersingenesis they are a little unrealiable when they have claearly on thier site we will ignore every and any scienctific findings that dont agree with the bible

Not really. First, i'm not a christian or anything, and second, the artists make up a lot of stuff about the fossils and the fact that they do that is already proof that they know there's no true evidence.

your right it isnt 100% conclusive but when its combined with the many other seperate transitions shown in the fossil record the weight of evidence while still not bieng 100% conclusive make it impossible to ignore

That great weight of evidence your talking about is not great at all..

ok time for a challenge name 10, name 10 palentologists of the last 10 years who have said and still beleive this?

You really think they want to challenge it officially so their career would end? They only say it in private, and when they come with another theory, like Behe, they get ridiculed.

thats precisley what it means, natural selection weeds out the mutations that lead to a disadvantage, when all those posative or benging mutations add up things change over time

Except positive mutation are not possible and never have been observed.

based on overlapping evidence from the fossil record dna analysis, comparative anatomy, taxonomy phylogenetics bio chemistry no assumution my friend tested and proven

Yeah like i showed, that evidence isn't really evidence.

The rest of part 1 I'm not gonna bother reacting to because i have no space left for it. You get the idea...

Originally posted by vasaga
Actually no. It was thought it was a scientific fact, just as the flies, but then proven to be wrong. And i did say they debunked it in my explanation. The point is, primordial soup will also be debunked. Actually already is but they still persist..

"Actually no" what? You're disagreeing with Noob, but then admittin gin the same sentence the exact same thing he said?

Do you even know what "primordial soup" is? If so, explain how it has been debunked?

Now there's that primordial soup thing, which is completely hypothetical btw (no proof..),

o'rly?

Yes really. They made it up and then started testing it.

I'm still waiting for you to type your understanding of what primordial soup is... and also to show how its debunked...

Well, there is still no proof. If you have proof you can make some of the compounds with a soup, it does not mean life derived from it. You know why? If you take a cell, you poke it, every ingredient flows out. You take all those ingredients, put them in the soup, they will not form back to a single cell. EVER.

Nice for you to be able to account for an event that happened 5 billion years or so ago... with absolutely no background in abiogenesis at all...

Maybe you should read current theories... instead of just assuming on this one...

I just gotta react to this one separately. And they wan't us to believe there's no life out there??

who said this?

Oh really? Here's my answer:
news.bbc.co.uk...
If they are willing to do that, how reliable is that whole evolution thing? Really..???? Be honest with yourself here.

Erm... evolution has no need to be "reliable". Its not a faith... its a theory... When new information comes along, it adapts to include the new findings in their theory...

However, as much as you believe Evolution has been "debunked", it still stands as a scientific theory... this must mean it hasn't been debunked eh?

Oh come on... This sounds like Pokémon. Everyone can make that up.

Seriously? hehe

Noob is gonna deliver the smack down on this one... I can sense it... so I'll leave this comment to him

No use taking his fun, eh?

Yeah of which they usually only have 20-30% of the bones................

Which is enough to show what they need to see... and it is still 20-30% more physical evidence than you have brought to the table...

It doesn't matter which one.

Actually it does... Someone better bring some credentials to the table...

So the flood is true? Anyway, that's the whole problem right there. Something miles away is certainly not a guarantee it's from the same species, let alone the same being.

Erm... floods happen dude... get over yourself...

DNA testing can prove its from the same species... I'm also confident that anthropologists have the training and experience to be able to determine species by remains...

]That great weight of evidence your talking about is not great at all..

come on then... lets see your evidence supporting this "fact". I'd love to destroy the credibility of any sources you list that state this....

You really think they want to challenge it officially so their career would end? They only say it in private, and when they come with another theory, like Behe, they get ridiculed.

No, Behe gets ridiculed for introducing non-science... Scientists are actually praised if they can actually debunk a popular theory...

Behe just makes # up as he goes... and connects dots in the wrong order... THIS is why he's ridiculed.

Except positive mutation are not possible and never have been observed.

www.newscientist.com...

read carefully... then explain to the "class" how you were wrong...

Yeah like i showed, that evidence isn't really evidence.

Where? did I miss it? You haven't shown anything as far as I can tell.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by nj2day]

Originally posted by noobfun
PART 2
it really really is true

No it isn't. It's obvious you didn't watch the video at all looking at all that crap you just posted. THEY DO PROVE IT SCIENTIFICALLY, but i guess you turned it off after one minute and didn't bother..

evidence bring some
form instantly and sideways? you better bring some real scientifc data to back this up my friend

www.youtube.com...
www.cnt.ru...
Watch this whole part, till they show you the experiments, or read the document below the video, including the two sources. If you don't bother doing any of those two, i won't bother discussing with you. Is that clear?

you cant carbon date rock strata

Yeah i know, i told that later on..

no its a constant build up the layers when comressed show snapo shots of time periods, when the enviroment chnages they type of strata layed down alters as well

See sources above.

look at the picture the banks are coloured brown orange blue yellow the brown had to have formed first and therefore BE older for the orange to build ontop of it, which had to be older for the blue to form on top of that and the same with the yellow unless your suggesting some how magically the blue floated up and the orange snuck in underneath and that is an inaccurate portrayl, the top layer would cover the lower layers at the edge it wouldnt suddenly change into a completley different type of strat just becasue it it sinks a little deeper, they dont grow sideways the top layer grows across covering the bottom layer
that video is laughable aand blatantly misrepresents what voltaire(a staunch athiest and anti bible flood believer) actually observedshall we ask a REAL geologist?
*videos*

See the sources above. They debunk those two videos already.

becasue a fossil is rock so its cant be carbon dated becasue it IS rock not becasue it is found in rock

Yes i know...

it is just as accurate as carbon dating and uses exactly the same method just a different element then carbon

No it isn't. See the sources above and what i explain below.

if C14 is accurate then so is every other testing method

If every duck i see is brown all ducks must be brown. Formal fallacy.

you dont need radioactive matrerial

You do if strata are no time indication.

argon dating uses gas trapped in the rocks molecules and so do many others and guess what there are many many dating methods that can be used to date things so we ccan test with 1 then confirm with another the accuracy of the original test

The argon-argon dating they use is based on radioactive argon... Check wikipedia... Now we already know you don't really know what you were talking about here...

dosesnt matter its not the amount of lead its the amount of radioactivity thats bieng tested.
and lead being inert wouldnt contain any readioactivity so thats not a problem as its not the amount of lead fiund that matters

This make the rock appear a lot older than it actually is.

no becasue they are not testing for lead amounts

I'm not even gonna bother to debunk this.. Read what i explained again. I explain how it works. The amount of uranium AND lead is fundamental.

they used a test which gave the accurate date that you just stated was 200 years old, the reason it gave a false reading is becasue they used the test wrongly and knowingly ..which has been shown as that was why they did the test to show how testing rock with some impurities collected on the way can lead to false dating so other scientists make sure the rocks they test dont have them and give flase results

Stop making excuses you have no backed up evidence for.

it is a lie the creationists willingly use becasue they dont give the relevant information about the test just the bits they think work for them

That's exactly what you're doing now with that uranium thing...
*video*
That video is false. It does not matter if the argon-40 has a parent or not. It's still the same type of matter and there is no difference between one that came from potassium and one that was already there. If you make hydrogen with chemical processes it does not make the hydrogen different than any hydrogen found in nature..

and they dont assume its been observed and its testable, when you know the decay rate you can estimate how much it will decay in a set period of time and then test its accuracy

THAT IS ASSUMING THE RATE STAYED THE SAME, which is unlikely.

not only that but in shorter lived decay rates they can litteraly sit there and test it real time to see if the many many elements with short decay rates all decay ata constant, and they do. so its been tested by several methods and been shown to be constant. they dont just guess at this stuff ya know they test it works before they use it to test things

If it does that now does not mean it was so in the past. And they don't guess, they make assumptions. A LOT of assumptions..

yes after reviewing your none facts it is apparent yes after reviewing your none facts it is apparent unfortunatley we like to use real facts, that have been observed tested numrous times and all support each other where they overlap further proving each one of those overlapping facts and thooeries as correct

What you are saying is plain false...

please get off you tube and early 1980's poor quality documentaries that even at the time could easy be proven wrong and actually look and learn at what we do know and can test and prove accurate

You didn't watch the video so don't comment on it. And you please get off the brainwashing that they are giving you and start thinking for yourself.

well i did react to it and tore it all to shread

WHAHAHAHA...

Originally posted by nj2day
"Actually no" what? You're disagreeing with Noob, but then admittin gin the same sentence the exact same thing he said?

Learn to read buddy. He did not say the same. He said it didn't get a chance to become a scientific fact, while i say, it was a scientific fact until proven wrong. That's very different.

Do you even know what "primordial soup" is? If so, explain how it has been debunked?

Yes i do know. "the perfect atmospheres, buildings blocks, pressure and temperatures, exposed to energy, for RNA and DNA to form thus forming the first single cell". In a nutshell that is, since it's a bit more complicated. The earth was supposedly in that state at a certain time. But, like i said, they can make a few building blocks now, but they can not make a living cell. As long as they can't do that, it's not proven. You can say we're getting closer, but as long as it's not done, it's no proof. Period. If you try to headshot someone in call of duty, and you missed by one pixel, but you were soooooo close, you still did not hit him. Period.

Nice for you to be able to account for an event that happened 5 billion years or so ago... with absolutely no background in abiogenesis at all... Maybe you should read current theories... instead of just assuming on this one...

Maybe you should think that there might not even be a 5 billion years ago for this planet. No I don't believe the bible is a factual time scale and that everything only exists for 6000 years because that's even more retarded. And besides, those theories you're talking about are still hypothesis, and no fact.

Who said this??

Both NASA as religion people. NASA refuses to admit they found bacterial life on mars in 1979, while that is the case, but never mind this. That's not on-topic.

Erm... evolution has no need to be "reliable". Its not a faith... its a theory... When new information comes along, it adapts to include the new findings in their theory...

OMG nice excuse dude. It's actually evidence that they are making stuff up. Maybe not all but certainly a lot of it. That only is already questionable for the whole theory itself. Do you still trust a theory that actually NEEDS falsification to survive? Would you trust a scientist that LIED to you about the truth or his theory? I certainly wouldn't trust him anymore and also the theory.

However, as much as you believe Evolution has been "debunked", it still stands as a scientific theory... this must mean it hasn't been debunked eh?

That's no guarantee. And you know it. The only reason it's still a theory is because they don't want a superpower involved because they can't prove it or disprove it. And since they have nothing to replace the theory with, they decide to stick with it... It's that simple. Just like in the past they stick with a lot of Gods because they have nothing better to come up with.

Which is enough to show what they need to see... and it is still 20-30% more physical evidence than you have brought to the table...

Yeah right.. With 20-30% you can only imagine the whole being around it..

Actually it does... Someone better bring some credentials to the table...

No it doesn't because neither of them show a link.

DNA testing can prove its from the same species... I'm also confident that anthropologists have the training and experience to be able to determine species by remains...

Most fossils are rocks so there's no such thing as DNA testing in that case..

come on then... lets see your evidence supporting this "fact". I'd love to destroy the credibility of any sources you list that state this....

You are not able to because you can't even see it or deny it.

No, Behe gets ridiculed for introducing non-science... Scientists are actually praised if they can actually debunk a popular theory...Behe just makes # up as he goes... and connects dots in the wrong order... THIS is why he's ridiculed.

Oh really? Past has shown this is not true. If there's a new theory that contradicts the other it's rejected and ridiculed. If there's a new one that fits in the old one, it's accepted easily. Look at molecules, atoms, quarks etc. They fit in each other, so they accept it. Look at string, rejected.. At least now the accepted matter is only vacuum fluctuations..

www.newscientist.com...
read carefully... then explain to the "class" how you were wrong...

This does not mean anything. It's widely known that bacteria can become immune to certain medicine and that they adapt that way. What really is important here is that they show that bacteria actually form a colony to form a larger organism. As long as there's no evidence for that, they can not claim evolution is true, because that's the whole basis after the primordial soup or primeval soup (whichever you believe is right).

Where? did I miss it? You haven't shown anything as far as I can tell.

It's not my problem if you reject it before looking at it.

Well, if there ever was a time to just say "The heck with it!" I would have to say it is about "Now."
There is way to many arguments that can be contested from either side of explanation. As one of the posters had stated, "It is pretty much all an 'Acceptance' of a belief."
I for one don't buy into the whole "Creator" scam, or the Bible is a "Divine" book from a higher power. Though I do lean towards the "Sciences" of this issue, it is only my part of the analogies, they are not for sale and I am not giving them as a force fed food for thought.
The title of this thread is totally misleading and it was the reason why I even posted here, hoping it would be some kind of "New" found evidences of this being factual and respectable. It was neither.
ferociousracer313 has a different frame of thinking than myself, and there will always be another question to a very appropriate and widely accepted scientific finding, because it is not what the OP "Wants" to hear.
As like a majority of you posters of this particular thread, "There nothing to be seen here, move along." Is the exact feeling I get with all the rebutting with nothing more than "He said/She said" accusations and finding's that aren't proven one way or the other.
If you are a "Skeptic" of the Bible, you more than likely favor the "Evolutionary" points of views for topical conversation, and if you are the religious type, you will automatically and adamantly defend your personal faiths and beliefs of what is written in the Bible and what you have been brought up to accept as fact.

Arguments don't produce anything but a major headache, and trying to conclude things as a "Factual" basis without proofs is an argument in the making, which is the vicious cycle now taking place here.
Though it does deserve to be discussed and pondered on, it is an "Unaccepted" science for the facts, none provable by Biblical explanations, that are currently out there. It will only be answered one of two ways , "We create a time machine and go back to the beginning of it all." or "God all mighty comes down for a visit and puts it all to rest." Which, no stretch of the imagination, will probably never happen, well, not in my life time any way.

We are getting blue in the face from lack of "Oxygen" so, "take a breath and be content with your own thoughts of what is what." For now, it is a moot point of topical discussion and will be argued for years to come from both or either side when the questions and issues a rise.

Originally posted by vasaga
Learn to read buddy. He did not say the same. He said it didn't get a chance to become a scientific fact, while i say, it was a scientific fact until proven wrong. That's very different.

Ah, then you are so incorrect it hurts... Scientific Fact = Law. I think what you mean is, just as noob suggested, a hypothesis that was proven incorrect... therefore, never had enough clout to make it to theory.

Yes i do know. "the perfect atmospheres, buildings blocks, pressure and temperatures, exposed to energy, for RNA and DNA to form thus forming the first single cell".

Not really... "Primordial Soup" refers to simple the organic matter (Monomers) that were formed and fell into the oceans... meaning that the oceans + simple organic compounds = soup. I don't understand why this is a difficult theory to understand...

Our oceans today contain simple organic compounds as well do they not?

In a nutshell that is, since it's a bit more complicated. The earth was supposedly in that state at a certain time.

Supposedly isn't the correct word... I suppose evidence they can gather through rock formations and sedimentary rock evidence is going to be "fake" too? just like most other evidence you can so callously disavow?

But, like i said, they can make a few building blocks now, but they can not make a living cell. As long as they can't do that, it's not proven.

Erm... they've only been working on it for a while now... this process originally could have taken Billions of years...

You can say we're getting closer, but as long as it's not done, it's no proof. Period. If you try to headshot someone in call of duty, and you missed by one pixel, but you were soooooo close, you still did not hit him. Period.

Unfortunately to your line of reasoning, scientific theories are not as black and white as you suggest... They don't need to be 100% correct or else they are incorrect... this isn't how it works...

They will continue their experimentations until they can replicate the beginnings of life...

However, why are you only bringing up 1 aspect of abiogenesis? This is a facinating topic...absolutely fascinating! Take some time to read a little more about it... You might learn that we could be witnessing abiogenesis take place once again on our planet... as we speak... The implications are astounding!

Maybe you should think that there might not even be a 5 billion years ago for this planet. No I don't believe the bible is a factual time scale and that everything only exists for 6000 years because that's even more retarded. And besides, those theories you're talking about are still hypothesis, and no fact.

No, I believe you mean theory... there's a difference between hypothesis and theory... a huge difference...

However, mutiple sciences can agree on something... the earth is indeed between 4 billion and 5 billion years old... (4.5 is the most widely used number... we'll go with that). I strongly suggest if you are going to refute physicists, cosmologists, biologists, geologists, and radiologists... you better come up with some serious credentials...

Both NASA as religion people. NASA refuses to admit they found bacterial life on mars in 1979, while that is the case, but never mind this. That's not on-topic.

Hahahaha so you bring back something which has no evidence? hehe wait a second here... aren't you discrediting everything I say as "theory" and "Hypothesis"? I'm sure you have some sort of evidence to this right? solid evidence?

Don't bother typing it here... Instead I suggest you contact CNN... they'll be eager to hear from you.

OMG nice excuse dude. It's actually evidence that they are making stuff up.

how? how does this show they are making stuff up? Doesn't this show they have a little objectivity and are willing to change their views based on findings? I mean, compare this to a 2000 year old fairy tale...

Maybe not all but certainly a lot of it. That only is already questionable for the whole theory itself.

I want you to show conclusive evidence that they are making stuff up...

Do you still trust a theory that actually NEEDS falsification to survive?

show me this false evidence...

Would you trust a scientist that LIED to you about the truth or his theory? I certainly wouldn't trust him anymore and also the theory.

No, a single scientist does not make a theory... Theories are supported by research and observations from the entire scientific community...

If a single scientist lied... we don't consider him a scientist anymore... as objectivity is one of the foundations of science... this is why creation science and I.D. scientists are completely snubbed from the mainstream of science

That's no guarantee. And you know it. The only reason it's still a theory is because they don't want a superpower involved because they can't prove it or disprove it.

You demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method, and what hypotheses, theories and laws actually are.

And since they have nothing to replace the theory with, they decide to stick with it... It's that simple. Just like in the past they stick with a lot of Gods because they have nothing better to come up with.

Science doesn't NEED to "replace" a theory... if its false, its false... science will start over again, and see what it can find... remember, science thinks failure is just as good as success... both further the understanding of the universe.

Yeah right.. With 20-30% you can only imagine the whole being around it..

sigh... again... there ya go... are you sure you're not Amish? They too think that science is evil...

No it doesn't because neither of them show a link.

Sigh... I want credentials.

Most fossils are rocks so there's no such thing as DNA testing in that case.

Key word... MOST... you forget that this does not mean ALL...

You are not able to because you can't even see it or deny it.

Ah, so just a decree by fiat... and I'm to believe you why?

Oh really? Past has shown this is not true. If there's a new theory that contradicts the other it's rejected and ridiculed. If there's a new one that fits in the old one, it's accepted easily. Look at molecules, atoms, quarks etc. They fit in each other, so they accept it. Look at string, rejected.. At least now the accepted matter is only vacuum fluctuations..

You need to keep up with theory... String theory is back... and is one of the basic tenants of M-theory... but I digress...

Lets start a list then... start listing off Scientists who were shunned for proposing unpopular ideas that turned out to be true...

This does not mean anything. It's widely known that bacteria can become immune to certain medicine and that they adapt that way.

Than you agree that your statement about there never being a mutation that was shown to be positive is wrong and incorrect? here, I'll quote you to avoid misunderstanding: "Except positive mutation are not possible and never have been observed..

What really is important here is that they show that bacteria actually form a colony to form a larger organism. As long as there's no evidence for that, they can not claim evolution is true, because that's the whole basis after the primordial soup or primeval soup (whichever you believe is right).

Ah, you moved the goalpost... I prove your statement wrong, and apparently its not enough, because the goalpost has moved to proving abiogenesis... remember, we're talking evolution when we're talking mutations... not abiogenesis... two different scientific fields.

It's not my problem if you reject it before looking at it.

Ah, so blame me for your lack of evidence now?

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The big question is why can't science and God be in the same room together?

Can someone answer me that?

This all so stupid

Well trying to scientifically verify that there is a dude sat on a throne, wearing a toga and judging makind is kind of hard, but that is only one viewpoint of God, not saying it's wrong, or right, just saying, this idea would be hard to marry with science, but other ideas? Not at all.

Best question on here so far from what I've seen, mainly just people trying to prove each other wrong.

EMM

Now for the Real Bible quote;

What I don't understand is, how can the King James bible be considered the real bible?!? It has, at it's own admission, been doctored for recent times?? Surely the 'real bible' would be the original 'word of God'?

Boggles the mind, God couldn't get it right the first time, so he left it up to man, to change and make it better? If we knew better than God, why are we reading a book by God telling US how to behave?!!? Surely we know better!!

Sorry for the rant, I don't understand why people continue to read the edited versions rather than the original.

[edit on 14-12-2008 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]

Originally posted by nj2dayAh, then you are so incorrect it hurts... Scientific Fact = Law. I think what you mean is, just as noob suggested, a hypothesis that was proven incorrect... therefore, never had enough clout to make it to theory.

No, they believed it was a fact, and thus a scientific theory. Then a scientist came along and threw that theory in the trash. I am not wrong. You are.

Not really... "Primordial Soup" refers to simple the organic matter (Monomers) that were formed and fell into the oceans... meaning that the oceans + simple organic compounds = soup. I don't understand why this is a difficult theory to understand...

I actually explained it more detailed than you. What do you mean no?

Our oceans today contain simple organic compounds as well do they not?

Sure. Did you see a bacteria form out of it? Guess not.

Supposedly isn't the correct word... I suppose evidence they can gather through rock formations and sedimentary rock evidence is going to be "fake" too? just like most other evidence you can so callously disavow?

Reread all those stuff about dating and you'll see what i mean.

Erm... they've only been working on it for a while now... this process originally could have taken Billions of years...

Yeah, therefore they can never prove it and it will stay an assumption, just as one might assume that little green men live on mars.

Unfortunately to your line of reasoning, scientific theories are not as black and white as you suggest... They don't need to be 100% correct or else they are incorrect... this isn't how it works...

They don't need to be 100% correct, but there needs to be evidence, and there isn't any yet. Only indications.

They will continue their experimentations until they can replicate the beginnings of life...

I think they won't be able to.

No, I believe you mean theory... there's a difference between hypothesis and theory... a huge difference...

I know.

However, mutiple sciences can agree on something... the earth is indeed between 4 billion and 5 billion years old... (4.5 is the most widely used number... we'll go with that). I strongly suggest if you are going to refute physicists, cosmologists, biologists, geologists, and radiologists... you better come up with some serious credentials...

They also agree that the moon was separated by the earth with a big splash hypothesis but there's no proof. Again, if the dating is not accurate, they can't know. It's certainly not 6000 years, but it might be 500 million instead of 4.5 billion so to speak. That's just an example and don't take that number as a fact.

Don't bother typing it here... Instead I suggest you contact CNN... they'll be eager to hear from you.

I'll post it anyway, so that you see I'm not making stuff up.
www.space.com...

how? how does this show they are making stuff up? Doesn't this show they have a little objectivity and are willing to change their views based on findings? I mean, compare this to a 2000 year old fairy tale...
I want you to show conclusive evidence that they are making stuff up...

Do you still trust a theory that actually NEEDS falsification to survive?show me this false evidence...

Follow the links i provided in one of my previous post, including one from BBC explaining clearly that reptile bird thing was a hoax.

No, a single scientist does not make a theory...

Oh really? Einstein came with theory of relativity..

Theories are supported by research and observations from the entire scientific community...

Of course.. Just like that big splash theory again. Something being supported by a large community does not make it true.

If a single scientist lied... we don't consider him a scientist anymore... as objectivity is one of the foundations of science... this is why creation science and I.D. scientists are completely snubbed from the mainstream of science

Uhuh.. That's the whole point. If somebody makes a claim that is not in line with current beliefs, they will say he is lying, ending his career, and of course, the great scientists don't want that. So they stay quiet. Simple.

You demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of the scientific method, and what hypotheses, theories and laws actually are.

I demonstrate the truth. As long as they have nothing to replace something with, they will stick with it. It has always been this way, and they try to find a way around to prove it anyway.

Science doesn't NEED to "replace" a theory... if its false, its false... science will start over again, and see what it can find... remember, science thinks failure is just as good as success... both further the understanding of the universe.

When has science started over? And what you say is not true. Look at the sphinx. Archeology has shown that it is more than 10.000 years old (if the measurements are correct) but the egyptologists still say it was build by the egyptians 4000 years ago.

sigh... again... there ya go... are you sure you're not Amish? They too think that science is evil...

I don't think science is evil. I think misleading people with something and letting them believe something is science is evil...

Sigh... I want credentials.

Look at lloyd pye. Oh wait.. He's ridiculed.. Look at Nassim Haramein.. Oh wait.. he's ridiculed too.. Look at Behe.. Oh wait.. He's ridiculed too.

Key word... MOST... you forget that this does not mean ALL...

True, but since there aren't that many out there, DNA testing can not be done. If you have DNA of a bone, the other 100 fossils in rocks you found, you can't compare the DNA to them.. So it's a duality here, and that duality is simply too rare to compare DNA.

Ah, so just a decree by fiat... and I'm to believe you why?

I don't care if you do or not. It's your choice to believe anything you want, be it truth or a lie.

Lets start a list then... start listing off Scientists who were shunned for proposing unpopular ideas that turned out to be true..

Nikola Tesla, Columbus, everyone who wanted to try to fly, everyone who thought the earth was round, need i go on?I don't have room for the rest so i won't bother. But: www.youtube.com...

[edit on 14-12-2008 by vasaga]

Originally posted by blowfishdl
reply to post by furiousracer313

 

Absolutely nothing was taken out of context. He called upon a 6 year old to answer the question, a 6 year old. This is an example of how he is creating this illusion of stupidity on the science side of debate. He makes it seem as though a 6 year old can debunk science (laugh out loud).

He is clearly an entertainer, not a scientist. He does not use facts, he uses humor and disrespect for the scientist crowd to get believers. The problem with Christianity is they have this vendetta to recruit Christians regardless of what extent they must go through.

Just found a debate, going to watch it all the way through. Here it is.
Debate

I just watched the debate. Thanks for posting it.. I like how Dr. Kent Hovind destroyed Dr. Michael Shermer.. Didnt u?

I'm in agreement with Vasaga, the scientific method, although valid, only builds on what we already know and to me, disregarding ideas, based on what we already know is a bad idea, since what we know is very little.

For instance, disregarding a technology because it goes against a 'law of physics'? laws of physics are products of a human mind, which is inefficient at best, not saying they aren't true, just saying, they can only be applied to our current knowledge. Will these laws still stand a thousand years? I don't think so, but it's always possible.

Evolution is a sound idea and one I partially subscribe to myself (micro, macro I'm still not sure about) but I don't think that it is completely right, who are we to say what happened centuries ago, let alone what happened billions of years ago?

We have bodies of evidence that we analyse and conclude, but the conclusions drawn are based on such a finite perspective how can people be so sure that it's right?

Not only this, but we have ideas like plasma cosmology STILL being shunned by the majority, yet it has predicted so much and explained some major problems that face our current model, yet has it been accepted? how about even taken seriously? Alot of people who subscribe to this theory are still considered fringe, or pseudoscientists? That sounds like a broken system to me, a system that prevents progress and inhibits growth and expansion, but promotes proress only in specific areas, IMO a very linear idea.

Sorry, went a bit off topic, but it was an example so hopefully it will be tolerated.

EMM

reply to post by ElectroMagnetic Multivers


Thanks man. At least i have some support over here.. Kind of a problem usually because i don't follow religion but don't blindly follow science either.

Originally posted by vasaga
No, they believed it was a fact, and thus a scientific theory.

Than what "theory" are you talking about? Theories have names... name it.

Then a scientist came along and threw that theory in the trash. I am not wrong. You are.

If I'm remembering correctly, Pasteur set up an experiment to test the hypothesis...

I actually explained it more detailed than you. What do you mean no?

No, you tried to explain the origins of the soup... not the soup itself... one hypothesis at a time mate.

Sure. Did you see a bacteria form out of it? Guess not.

sigh... for real?

did you research abiogenesis like I suggested? can you tell us what the potential new "life" we are witnessing is coming from?

Reread all those stuff about dating and you'll see what i mean.

Radiocarbon dating has been proven accurate... you are forgetting the most accurate methods used.. instead, capitalizing on the weaknesses of some methods when used improperly.

]Yeah, therefore they can never prove it and it will stay an assumption, just as one might assume that little green men live on mars.

erm... no... they will prove it someday... or they will disprove the entire theory... however, disproving a scientific theory doesn't mean "magic man dun it".

They don't need to be 100% correct, but there needs to be evidence, and there isn't any yet. Only indications.

There is evidence.... however, since a theory is based off of multiple hypotheses... each hypothesis is proven valid... this is your proof.

I think they won't be able to.

Science doesn't care what your opinion is. Nor mine for that matter... pure objectivity is paramount.

They also agree that the moon was separated by the earth with a big splash hypothesis but there's no proof.

thats one theory... theories are built around facts and verifiable hypotheses... therefore, they must be disproven... and not proven.

Again, if the dating is not accurate, they can't know. It's certainly not 6000 years, but it might be 500 million instead of 4.5 billion so to speak.

But radiometric dating is very accurate... especially when using Uranium-Lead Dating. As there are two different isotopes to test using this method... if both methods yeild the same time period, you're spot on...

its only got a margin of error of aprox 3%...

That's just an example and don't take that number as a fact.

Don't worry, I haven't seen anything you've typed worthy of taking as fact.

I'll post it anyway, so that you see I'm not making stuff up.
www.space.com...

Ah yes... they found possible remains of fossilized microbes... this isn't big news... but its only signs of life... and not life itself.

This is nothing "secret" or unpopular... they just need more samples for further testing to determine if microbes did indeed evolve on mars.

Follow the links i provided in one of my previous post, including one from BBC explaining clearly that reptile bird thing was a hoax.

LOL this has long been an argument used by creationists... archeoptryx is a hoax...

Nah, its not, its been proven... they've found complete fossils with traces of feathers.

Oh really? Einstein came with theory of relativity..

Einstien did not conduct all the experements to validate the hypotheses he used in developing this theory...

A theory isn't called a theory until its been peer reviewed as well... Einstein stood on the shoulders of other scientists, to put an idea to connect their findings... committed the idea to paper... presented it to other scientists... when other scientists decide that the idea has merit, and is supported by ALL available evidence... the scientific community promotes the idea into "theory"

Of course.. Just like that big splash theory again. Something being supported by a large community does not make it true.

Its beyond a large community... its supported by independent verifiable hypotheses... Hypotheses that can be verified again and again, and prove to be true 100% of the time...

Uhuh.. That's the whole point. If somebody makes a claim that is not in line with current beliefs, they will say he is lying, ending his career, and of course, the great scientists don't want that. So they stay quiet. Simple.

No, the point was that if a scientist ceases to be objective, than they are discredited...

You can not tamper with the data set because you wish your hypothesis to be true...

Einstein showed many ideas to be false... why wasn't his career ruined?

I demonstrate the truth. As long as they have nothing to replace something with, they will stick with it. It has always been this way, and they try to find a way around to prove it anyway.

No, Truth is verifiable or it is your perception, and not truth. Again, ignoring my point.. did science have anything to replace string theory with when they abandoned it? Not in the slightest... did this stop them? nope...

Maybe a moot point, as string theory is back with several modifications, and is now called "M" theory.

When has science started over?

The Earth is Flat
The sun revolves around the earth
the earth is in the center of the universe
The speed of light is constant
Light is a wave
Light is a particle
Light travels in a straight line
Human Thought originates from the Heart
The electron is the smallest unit of matter
The Sound barrier cannot be broken

Do I really need to continue? or does this suffice?

And what you say is not true. Look at the sphinx. Archeology has shown that it is more than 10.000 years old (if the measurements are correct) but the egyptologists still say it was build by the egyptians 4000 years ago.

Egyptology is not a science. To most experts It's considered a Cultural Study...

letting them believe something is science is evil...

Ah, so you get to unilaterally decide what is science and what isn't?

Look at lloyd pye. Oh wait.. He's ridiculed.. Look at Nassim Haramein.. Oh wait.. he's ridiculed too.. Look at Behe.. Oh wait.. He's ridiculed too.

You're going to use a Cryptozoologist, a spiritualist, and a guy who's best evidence is irreducible complexity?

seriously... Haramein thinks god is an "Anti-gravity device".

This IS pseudoscience... and has absolutely no basis in reality... nothing more than fanciful fairy tales...

I think you can do better...

True, but since there aren't that many out there, DNA testing can not be done. If you have DNA of a bone, the other 100 fossils in rocks you found, you can't compare the DNA to them.. So it's a duality here, and that duality is simply too rare to compare DNA.

Yet, there is enough to compare them... and they do... often...

A side point: Bones aren't the best bet for DNA... Teeth are... sometimes skin samples are found as well...

I don't care if you do or not. It's your choice to believe anything you want, be it truth or a lie.

obviously you do... or you wouldn't be so determined to refute everything I say.

Nikola Tesla,

Wasn't really shunned... The only thing that drove people away was his over the top demonstrations of his Tesla Coil...

You most likely don't hear much of him because Edison took credit for most of his work.

Columbus

Most decidedly not a scientist

everyone who wanted to try to fly, everyone who thought the earth was round, need i go on?I don't have room for the rest so i won't bother.

Nor are those people scientists... you were to provide a list of people who were shunned by the scientific community for proposing unpopular theories... (theories MUST be supported by valid proven hypothesis, or it isn't a theory at all).

You haven't done that...

I don't have time to watch Youtube right now... maybe i'll get to it later though...

I'm not suprised you didn't acknowledge the fact you were shown 100% wrong on your comment on evolution...

Just a heads up though... I swore I wasn't going to contribute to this thread... and I did without realizing it was in my subscriptions... If you like, i am in about 3 or 4 threads right now discussing similar topics... feel free to pop in to continue this...

I don't want to be a contributer to the OP's ATS points until he can remain inside the T&C, as well as ceasing the trolling for points...

I look forward to seeing you!


Mod Edit: Fixed quote tags.


[edit on 14-12-2008 by GAOTU789]

I won't bother commenting on you because we keep discussing in a circle anyway. I have better things to do, like reading earths forbidden history, a book that appeared in another thread. Have fun proving evolution, don't get a heart attack when you get old and they say it was false after all.

Originally posted by furiousracer313

Originally posted by blowfishdl
reply to post by furiousracer313

 

Absolutely nothing was taken out of context. He called upon a 6 year old to answer the question, a 6 year old. This is an example of how he is creating this illusion of stupidity on the science side of debate. He makes it seem as though a 6 year old can debunk science (laugh out loud).

He is clearly an entertainer, not a scientist. He does not use facts, he uses humor and disrespect for the scientist crowd to get believers. The problem with Christianity is they have this vendetta to recruit Christians regardless of what extent they must go through.

Just found a debate, going to watch it all the way through. Here it is.
Debate

I just watched the debate. Thanks for posting it.. I like how Dr. Kent Hovind destroyed Dr. Michael Shermer.. Didnt u?

This debate was extravagant. I believe Dr. Michael Shermer won the debate with flying colors. Dr. Michael Shermer provided scientific evidence that provides the framework for the theory of evolution. Dr. Kent Hovid (Christian Preacher/Entertainer whom this thread is based upon) then stood up and told the college students at a pristine college that their college professor is lying to them. That's not only rude and disrespectful, but that's also not providing evidence for your side of the argument.

This is how Christians think they "win" debates, and probably how you thought he won too. Instead of providing irrefutable evidence as Science does, they stand up there and say "I'm right and you're wrong, and if you don't believe me you will burn in hell fire for all of eternity".

Thanks for the threat you Christian psychopath. I wonder if he's ever thought about the fact that by damning people to Hell he becomes closer to Satan than the scientist ever will be.

Originally posted by nj2day

Originally posted by Xtrozero
The evolution of man is a theory… this is a belief or faith of how man evolved. Creationism is also a belief or faith of how man evolved…

If you're going to describe evolution as a belief or faith... than you must describe creationism as a fairy tale...

No my friend EVOLUTION is a fairy tale...

Yea i saw some of the videos and he doesnt do anything to debunk them. He says the same in the debate video that was posted by someone earlier when Kent Hovind demolished the evolutionary theory. Go to page 4, it should be on there listed as Debate. U should watch it and learn something.