Evolution is a fact!

Originally posted by telerion
Lang, are you an expert in biology? If not, why do you attempt to speak such sweeping authority of the subject? Even the brightest of biologists are cautious when making generalizations of their entire field. If you are so interested in the subject wouldn't it be a better service to yourself to really study the subject before dismissing it? Many thousa ...[text shortened]...

Never be afraid to challenge your own ideas sincerely. You have everything to gain by it.

You ask me to study the subject? That is the advice you need to give some of(if not all) your evolutionary collegues. Some of your bright biologists have made some pretty colossal errors themselves. For example PiltdownMan, Java Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man. Ernest Haeckel, doctored pictures of embroys to prove human beings went through evolutionary cycle. Only to be convicted of fraud and defrocked. Evolutionary biologists, said that the coccyx was a vestigal organ, a tail. But, without it a human being can't stand upright. The supposed yoke sac in the fetus, is not a bird, but the place where the first red blood cells are formed. I could go on with the errors your supposed honest biologists have been found misrepresenting the truth. You have the audacity to tell me to study. You are still pathetically weak in your knowledge of evolution. I think you need to hide for awhile.

Originally posted by Langtree
I have read Plato's Allegory of the cave. It would seem evolutionists are te one's chained. Why, because when I have confronted some of your collegues, all I and Djb receive are insults. That is the sign of a closed m ind. Evolution still has to solve the problem of the sudden appearance of fossils in the Cambrian. Fossils that are fully formed and f ...[text shortened]... tournament, so please be patient, last night was very trying, 6 hours of chess, and only a draw.

Evolution need not explain the sudden appearance of fossils in the Cambrian because there are fossils which predate the Cambrian. The base of the Cambrian is no longer considered by geologists as the earlest fossil bearing rock. Please do not let facts get in the way of your arguement.

Do you understand thermodynamics?

Originally posted by Langtree
Potatofarmer, the museums of the world are bursting at the seams with fossils, but, no transitionals forms, whatsoever. Science. demands empirical evidence which is still sadly lacking. Evolution, which has been claimed dogmatically by it's adherents, is a speculative discipline. All the latest findings have not added any weight to the favor of evolut ...[text shortened]... are begininng to sound like a CREATIONIST, very good.🙂 I'll be back later, perhaps tomorrow.

I'm sure you'd be pleased to find a transitional fossil or two so I'd suggest you ignore vertebtates, they are very recent, but look back to the evolution of trilobites. Then you might be convinced.

Originally posted by Langtree
You ask me to study the subject? That is the advice you need to give some of(if not all) your evolutionary collegues. Some of your bright biologists have made some pretty colossal errors themselves. For example PiltdownMan, Java Man, Peking Man, Nebraska Man, Neanderthal Man. Ernest Haeckel, doctored pictures of embroys to prove human beings went thro ...[text shortened]... e still pathetically weak in your knowledge of evolution. I think you need to hide for awhile.

Wait. Who's the one constantly being insulted? Isn't that one of your official signs of close-mindedness?

So we have two pieces of evidence:

1) Repeats the same question/accusation over and over while ignoring opponent's responses
2) Insults everyone who disagrees

You have a track record going. Your intolerance for critical thought only harms you.

BTW: Yes, you should study the subject. You're grossly ignorant of it, and no string of insults and mischaracterizations of 'evolutionists' will change that fact. Bottom line: you're talking out your behind.

Originally posted by telerion
Wait. Who's the one constantly being insulted? Isn't that one of your official signs of close-mindedness?

So we have two pieces of evidence:

1) Repeats the same question/accusation over and over while ignoring opponent's responses
2) Insults everyone who disagrees

You have a track record going. Your intolerance for critical thought only har ...[text shortened]... tions of 'evolutionists' will change that fact. Bottom line: you're talking out your behind.

Excuse me? I'm intolerant? I teach in elementary school, why won't the administration allow a fair amount of time for both creationism and evolution? That's INTOLERANT. I REPEAT my questions, because nobody has answered my challenges. My supposed insults are charges against your attempts to disprove the scientific validity of creationism. You last sentence only establishes the fact that you can't answer my challenges. "Yes, you should study the subject, (I have, I'm not an expert, but I am conversant, I have 15 credits in Biology) You're grossly ignorant(in what way?) of it and no string of insults and mischaracterizations of evolutionists will change that fact." Mischaracterization? ( Well, have you obviously haven't studied evolution too closely,) I'm not doing that to the evolutionary biologists did that to themselves. You are not to impressive in your knowledge as some of your collegues. No wonder in Creation//evolution debates, creationists always make the evolutionist look pretty bad.
I as I have said before, and will repeat, science is an empirical discipline, evolution has not produced any evidence that meets that criteria. Creationism is a thory as is evolution, but evidence certainly doesn't favor evolution.

Originally posted by LemonJello
your overconfidence stems from the fact that you feel that no one has proven you wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. if i made the claim that there is a 900 year old monkey on the 32nd moon in the far-off galaxy of Goobledy-Gook who will fart out pink bananas if you pull his finger, i'm also quite confident no one here will be able to prove me wrong. how ...[text shortened]... the idea that satan planted fossils and other evidence for the TOE is not too convincing either.

I have been checking back on all your posts, so I'll be answering each one. You did not defend your position, nor did you answer my challenges. So what did I miss here. Maybe I missed something later.

Originally posted by LemonJello
creationism has not been proven to be anything of the sort. i am a creature of logic and through my rational functions i maintain that creationism makes extremely little sense. in fact, creationism entails faith. faith and reason are like oil and water -- matters of faith have no proof by definition. your beliefs are at best unfounded. at worst, they ...[text shortened]... ust plain wrong.

when did i insult you or demonstrate emotional outburst? your skin is thin.

Well, I didn't miss anything here, you have still failed to answer my challnges. Perhaps, there's something I missed.

Originally posted by LemonJello
i would go so far as to say that you do seem hungry for some evolutionary evidence. however, my question is much more fundamental and i will patiently await an answer. my question is simple: if creationism is faith-based, how can it possibly be the 'logical conclusion'? it's your positive assertion, and i am just asking for supporting documentation.

if you thought i was 'hurl[ing] insults' then i would again say that your skin is thin.

Still nothing.

Originally posted by Langtree
Excuse me? I'm intolerant? I teach in elementary school, why won't the administration allow a fair amount of time for both creationism and evolution? That's INTOLERANT. I REPEAT my questions, because nobody has answered my challenges. My supposed insults are charges against your attempts to disprove the scientific validity of creationism. You l ...[text shortened]... Creationism is a thory as is evolution, but evidence certainly doesn't favor evolution.

You teach evolution and creation to elementary school students?

You want to teach Creation? First exam over Creation. The answer to every question is 'Goddunnit.'

Creationism is a religion. It is not a science. People have answered your questions over and over. It really frightens me that people might place in your charge the education of their child, especially considering your open hostility to learning. Personally, I think you're just scared to be wrong.

By the way, did you take your 15 credits of biology from this school?

http://www.patriotuniversity.com/

You realize that even as you try to win this battle, you are losing the war? Your behavior here is a terrible witness of Christ.

Originally posted by LemonJello
how does any of this address my very fundamental question i posed? your specific blabberings cannot legitimize your general blanket statement that creationism is a 'logical conclusion'. again i will ask: how can something faith-based be 'logical'? how can something that is predicated upon the supernatural be 'logical'? how can a theory that suppresses reason be 'logical'?

Address what fundalmental question. Evolution is also faith based, more so than creationism, given the facts that support creation. You question doesn't help your argument it actually detracts from it, because you are not basing it on any EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

Originally posted by Langtree
Address what fundalmental question. Evolution is also faith based, more so than creationism, given the facts that support creation. You question doesn't help your argument it actually detracts from it, because you are not basing it on any EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.

I think the Hovind flu is spreading . . .

Originally posted by Langtree
Excuse me? I'm intolerant? I teach in elementary school, why won't the administration allow a fair amount of time for both creationism and evolution? That's INTOLERANT. I REPEAT my questions, because nobody has answered my challenges. My supposed insults are charges against your attempts to disprove the scientific validity of creationism. You l ...[text shortened]... Creationism is a thory as is evolution, but evidence certainly doesn't favor evolution.

Hey everybody. What do you get when you cross SVW with Fred Phelps of this fame www.godhatesfags.com/main?

Originally posted by aardvarkhome
Evolution need not explain the sudden appearance of fossils in the Cambrian because there are fossils which predate the Cambrian. The base of the Cambrian is no longer considered by geologists as the earlest fossil bearing rock. Please do not let facts get in the way of your arguement.

Do you understand thermodynamics?

The pre-cambrian still lacks the transitional forms that should appear sometime before the Cambrian. There are still systematic gaps.
What are the Laws of Thermodynamic? I'll focus on the first and second laws. The first, is the conservation of mass and energy. Matter cannot be created nor destroyed The Second Law, has three important applications, first, is classical thermodynamics, which has to do directly with our discussion. the energy availible for useful work in any functioning system tends to decrease, though the total energy remains constant. Second is statistical, where organized system tend to become disorganized. Third, informational, where information tends to get distorted. The first application is also called the Law of Entropy(in turning) Since we live in an open system, Entropy always increases. The Laws of Thermodynamics run contrary to evolution.

Originally posted by telerion
Hey everybody. What do you get when you cross SVW with Fred Phelps of this fame www.godhatesfags.com/main?

Still avoiding my challenges.

Originally posted by Langtree
I teach in elementary school, why won't the administration allow a fair amount of time for both creationism and evolution? That's INTOLERANT.

My supposed insults are charges against your attempts to disprove the scientific validity of creationism.

No wonder in Creation//evolution debates, creationists always make the evolutionist look pretty bad.
...[text shortened]...
Creationism is a thory as is evolution, but evidence certainly doesn't favor evolution.

Wow. That's outstanding. Good luck with all of that.