Break It Down

Originally posted by googlefudge
The only people who are desperate are the creationists.
You in fact.

You have no clue what you are talking about, as you demonstrate on a daily basis.

A law and a theory are not the same thing, theories never get turned into laws and laws are not theories.

Theories are made of facts and laws, they are included in them.

There are laws of evol ...[text shortened]... ble or true because of what
they call it.

To do so is desperate, which is what you are.

See, this is what I mean by trying to change the meaning of theory.

Theory = a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural and subject
to experimentation, in contrast to well-established propositions that are
regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No it says that you can't claim that science relies on it which is what RJHinds said.

It might be weak, if it were the only argument I had presented, or had.
It isn't.
Evolution has more evidence in support of it (and none against) than almost any other
theory in existence.

And yes, it's the backbone of all relevant science, which you would kno ...[text shortened]... er minority than RJHinds is in the USA.
Which gives you less excuse for being that ignorant.

Which gives you less excuse for being that ignorant

we have a much older record of education than any other constituent part of the United
Kingdom and as a people have produced per head of population many more men of
genius and learning than i care to mention. The only ignorant thing is your repeated
postings of weak and beggarly arguments, like this latest effort that somehow vainly
attempts to cite as my rejection of your arguments as my country of origin. Yes, it
really is that stupid. I would not use terms like ignorance if i were you, they sound,
well, just a little ironic to be honest.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Which gives you less excuse for being that ignorant

we have a much older record of education than any other constituent part of the United
Kingdom and as a people have produced per head of population many more men of
genius and learning than i care to mention. The only ignorant thing is your repeated
postings of weak and beggarly arguments, ...[text shortened]... t use terms like ignorance if i were you, they sound,
well, just a little ironic to be honest.

What I said was; that as you live in a country with a decent education system, you have even less
excuse for not understanding evolution than people living in places with worse education systems,
and/or large populations of creationists brainwashing you before you were old enough to work
things out yourself.

You appear to have failed to comprehend my meaning.

Originally posted by googlefudge
What I said was that as you live in a country with a decent education system you have even less
excuse for not understanding evolution the people living in countries with worse education systems,
and/or large populations of creationists brainwashing you before you were old enough to work
things out yourself.

You appear to have failed to comprehend my meaning.

i was not brought up a Witness, in fact i made a conscious choice to become one when
i was at art school in my twenties, you were saying?. . . . . .you appear to have
completely failed in every single instance to provide even a semblance of an
argument, but that's by the way, im kinda of glad cause i cannot be bothered to
argue.

look googly fudge you cannot call people who object the the theory of evolution as
ignorant, all you can say is that to you it seems plausible, to others it doesn't seem
plausible at all, that does not mean they are ignorant. My objection is that
adaptation is one thing, transmutation quite another, for clearly adaptation happens,
whereas transmutation, well, there are some quite serious arguments against it
which seem to me to be insurmountable, but that's not to say they are perceived the
same way by you. I do not want to get drawn into another fruitless and futile
creation v evolution argument, so ill leave it there.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i was not brought up a Witness, in fact i made a conscious choice to become one when
i was at art school in my twenties, you were saying?. . . . . .you appear to have
completely failed in every single instance to provide even a semblance of an
argument, but that's by the way, im kinda of glad cause i cannot be bothered to
argue.

look googl ...[text shortened]... awn into another fruitless and futile
creation v evolution argument, so ill leave it there.

Sorry Rob, but you are ignorant on the topic of evolution and you choose to be. You have even admitted it on this very forum.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Sorry Rob, but you are ignorant on the topic of evolution and you choose to be. You have even admitted it on this very forum.

simply because i refuse to read a book that you would like to send does not make me
ignorant, in fact, there is a plethora of material available on the internet, you will now
state what it is i dont know about the evolutionary hypothesis.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
simply because i refuse to read a book that you would like to send does not make me
ignorant, in fact, there is a plethora of material available on the internet, you will now
state what it is i dont know about evolutionary hypothesis.

Rob, you yourself admitted said it. Not me. Would you like to search the for the text?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Rob, you yourself admitted said it. Not me. Would you like to search the for the text?

Actually you have just stated in the post above this one that I am ignorant, is this
based on your knowledge of what i understand or a statement made by myself.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Actually you have just stated in the post above this one that I am ignorant, is this
based on your knowledge of what i understand or a statement made by myself.

I believe you are ignorant on the topic of evolution by Natural Selection. I base this on discussions with you i've had over the years, this view was then justified by your own words when you admitted so.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i was not brought up a Witness, in fact i made a conscious choice to become one when
i was at art school in my twenties, you were saying?. . . . . .you appear to have
completely failed in every single instance to provide even a semblance of an
argument, but that's by the way, im kinda of glad cause i cannot be bothered to
argue.

look googl ...[text shortened]... awn into another fruitless and futile
creation v evolution argument, so ill leave it there.

The posts you are responding to were directed at RJHinds to whom I have made many
arguments for the validity of evolution, all of which he ignored, or failed to comprehend.

I can call people ignorant who don't accept evolution because if you know what evolution
is and the evidence for it you can't but accept it because it's true.
In the same way you can't dispute the existence of gravity.

And adaptation and variation IS evolution, I don't know what the 'transmutation' thing is
you are blithering about.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The posts you are responding to were directed at RJHinds to whom I have made many
arguments for the validity of evolution, all of which he ignored, or failed to comprehend.

I can call people ignorant who don't accept evolution because if you know what evolution
is and the evidence for it you can't but accept it because it's true.
In the same way ...[text shortened]... IS evolution, I don't know what the 'transmutation' thing is
you are blithering about.

There is law of gravity and I do not dispute that gravity exists even though
I can not see gravity. I can only see how it works in the same way that
I see how magnetism and electricity works.

There is only a theory of evolution not a law. Therefore, I am within my
rights as a reasoned person to object it until it has been proven and accepted
as a law by science. However, I also reject it on biblical grounds since it,
evolution, appears to contradict the statements of God's creation as told
in the Holy Bible.

Evolutionists appeal to adpatation of species as proof of evolution. However,
evolution is not necessary for that because God has already created the
programs within the organisms to allow for animals to adapt to changing
conditions. These programs have been discovered in recent times with the
scientific discoveries of DNA, RNA, etc.

Originally posted by RJHinds
There is law of gravity and I do not dispute that gravity exists even though
I can not see gravity. I can only see how it works in the same way that
I see how magnetism and electricity works.

There is only a theory of evolution not a law. Therefore, I am within my
rights as a reasoned person to object it until it has been proven and accepted
as a ...[text shortened]... rograms have been discovered in recent times with the
scientific discoveries of DNA, RNA, etc.

Adaptation of species is not proof of evolution. It IS evolution.

Adaptation to the environment for competitive advantage is what evolution IS.

By admitting adaptation happens you are admitting that evolution happens.

You are the one who keeps defining evolution as something it is not and then claiming that
doesn't happen.

And seriously give up on the law/theory thing.
There is nothing beyond theory to get upgraded to.
You know this because it's been explained to you countless times.
You are just lying at this point.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I believe you are ignorant on the topic of evolution by Natural Selection. I base this on discussions with you i've had over the years, this view was then justified by your own words when you admitted so.

yet i am the one who attempted to read Darwins damnable book! I see.

Originally posted by googlefudge
The posts you are responding to were directed at RJHinds to whom I have made many
arguments for the validity of evolution, all of which he ignored, or failed to comprehend.

I can call people ignorant who don't accept evolution because if you know what evolution
is and the evidence for it you can't but accept it because it's true.
In the same way ...[text shortened]... IS evolution, I don't know what the 'transmutation' thing is
you are blithering about.

again this is simply untrue, there are not a small amount of scientists and biologists
who according to your definition must also be ignorant, for they have real problems
with some of its tenets. I have often found this to be true of the materialist, having no
recourse to any other argument they simply resort to terming others who disagree
with their world view as ignorant, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth,
its dogmatic and reeks to the heavens of the type of denunciation favoured by the
meanest religionists of the middle ages.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
again this is simply untrue, there are not a small amount of scientists and biologists
who according to your definition must also be ignorant, for they have real problems
with some of its tenets. I have often found this to be true of the materialist, having no
recourse to any other argument they simply resort to terming others who disagree
w ...[text shortened]... e heavens of the type of denunciation favoured by the
meanest religionists of the middle ages.

Name me these biologists who don't accept evolution. I'm intrigued.