Proof

Originally posted by josephw
Evolution is a theory developed by scientists using scientific methodology.

Evolution isn't science. Jesus Agerg! Common'! You know it's a religion! 😛


God apparently is too complicated for you. lol

“...Evolution is a theory developed by scientists using scientific methodology.

Evolution isn't science. ...”

if what you mean by the “Evolution isn't science” part above is “Evolution isn't a scientific theory” then that whole statement above is a contradiction because a theory developed using scientific methodology is, by definition (albeit usually implicitly so), a scientific theory. If that was not the case then what would distinguish a “scientific theory” from a “non-scientific theory”? (and can you give just one example of a verifiable scientific theory that cannot be developed using scientific methodology? -answer, no ).

but if what you mean by the “Evolution isn't science” part above is NOT “Evolution isn't a scientific theory” but “the PROCESS (NOT the theory) of Evolution isn't science” then neither Agerg nor anyone else is claiming the contrary.

but if what you mean by the “Evolution isn't science” part above in neither the above then what do you mean by “Evolution isn't science”?

“...God apparently is too complicated for you. Lol ...”

How would you like some of your own medicine? -here is some of your own medicine;
...and apparently the concept of science and rational thought is too complicated for you.
There is no cause to belittle people just for not agreeing with your opinion.

Originally posted by josephw
Not me!

I will simply point out the fact that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory.

All the science that has been developed over the last 150 years used to support the theory of evolution is bogus, predicated on mere scraps of evidence, but built up into a mountain that is eroding, and will erode.

The more true science learns about life, t ...[text shortened]...

Mark my words. Of course there will always be numbnuts that will hang on to a dying science.

“... I will simply point out the fact that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. ...”

that is simply a lie; I and others have already repeatedly shown that to be a lie by showing a mountain of valid EVIDENCE for the theory.
Evolution is also a proven fact.

Originally posted by josephw
Not me!

I will simply point out the fact that the theory of evolution is just that, a theory.

All the science that has been developed over the last 150 years used to support the theory of evolution is bogus, predicated on mere scraps of evidence, but built up into a mountain that is eroding, and will erode.

The more true science learns about life, t ...[text shortened]...

Mark my words. Of course there will always be numbnuts that will hang on to a dying science.

Not so. Evolution is a process which can be, and has been, easily demonstrated to be taking place in the real world all of the time. I think the argument you are trying to make is that speciation does not result from evolution. Personally I think you're entirely wrong here as well, but you've at least got a whisker of a chance of defending that position.

Laughable use of insult regarding all those who disagree with your dogmatic 'wisdom' despite your apparent inability to either understand the subject of your argument or clearly express yourself noted.

Originally posted by avalanchethecat
Not so. Evolution is a process which can be, and has been, easily demonstrated to be taking place in the real world all of the time. I think the argument you are trying to make is that speciation does not result from evolution. Personally I think you're entirely wrong here as well, but you've at least got a whisker of a chance of defending tha ability to either understand the subject of your argument or clearly express yourself noted.

thats a complete misrepresentation of the facts, evolution teaches that fish became amphibians, amphibians became reptiles, reptiles became birds (now disputed) birds became mammals and mammals are what gave rise to humans. It relies on a few basic premises, firstly that life evolved from non living matter despite the mathematical improbability (termed abiogenesis for the pedants among us), that aberration cause change at a molecular level resulting in significant change termed mutations (despite the fact that DNA is coded to resist and withstand change and that all mutations are generally inferior, see Drosophila melanogaster experiments). Indeed i find it incredible that in this day and age postulation and scientific dogma are still being heralded as if they are some kind of untouchable and hallowed fact, indeed, I asked Mr Hamilton for an example of a transitory creature and he cited a moth that managed to change colour to suit its environment. I had to laugh, was the moth (a peppered moth by the way) changing into something else? a lion or an eagle? nope it remains to this very day a moth. Even you yourself gave the example of a mouse and a spider that remained strangely enough a mouse and a spider. That is not what evolution teaches and you people know it, so let us stop the pretence, shall we.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
.... and that all mutations are generally inferior, see Drosophila melanogaster experiments.

You are still repeating this lie? Have you forgotten that you stopped talking to me after I previously pointed out that it was a false and you could not admit it?

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are still repeating this lie? Have you forgotten that you stopped talking to me after I previously pointed out that it was a false and you could not admit it?

RC and I just recently had the following exchange on another thread:

RC: i contend that unless they have freed themselves of the practice
of sin (not involuntarily sinning but wilful practice), then they cannot be fully termed a Christian

ToO: What about your long history of lying and using other forms of deceit? Does that mean that YOU "cannot be fully termed a Christian"? Or do you delude yourself into believing that somehow it isn't "willful"? If it's the latter, then you're only kidding yourself, because everyone else knows better.

Your ongoing hypocrisy is appalling.

Good luck trying to get him to admit it. Even if you do, if he remains true to form, he'll only deny it again later.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You are still repeating this lie? Have you forgotten that you stopped talking to me after I previously pointed out that it was a false and you could not admit it?

the content of the text has nothing to do with me, do you understand that, why you feel the necessity to constantly make it personal is a testimony to the weakness of both your debating skill and your inability to comprehend the elements so as to form a whole of the composite parts. I repeat, the text has nothing to do with me personally, i will therefore ask you to state, why you insist on making it personal? why do you do it?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
RC and I just recently had the following exchange on another thread:
[quote]RC: i contend that unless they have freed themselves of the practice
of sin (not involuntarily sinning but wilful practice), then they cannot be fully termed a Christian

ToO: [b]What about your long history of lying and using other forms of deceit? Does that mean that Y ...[text shortened]... to admit it. Even if you do, if he remains true to form, he'll only deny it again later.[/b]

"Today will be a day long remembered. It has seen the death of Carrobie, and soon the fall of the rebellion."

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am just passing on what I have been told many times on these boards. Us atheists have no hope of ever understanding certain aspects of theism unless we first become theists and thus get the assistance of God to enable us to think the right way.

Oh ok. You said it like it was a known fact.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the content of the text has nothing to do with me, do you understand that, why you feel the necessity to constantly make it personal is a testimony to the weakness of both your debating skill and your inability to comprehend the elements so as to form a whole of the composite parts. I repeat, the text has nothing to do with me personally, i will therefore ask you to state, why you insist on making it personal? why do you do it?

The content of what text has nothing to do with you? The text I was referring to was posted by you. The lie that I was referring to was stated by you. How can you claim it has nothing to do with you?
You stated "... that all mutations are generally inferior" which is a lie. In order to try and cover up the lie you referenced an experiment in the hope that a reference would make you look good and that nobody would check up on it. But you forgot that you have posted it before and it has been pointed out to you before that the experiment in question did not back up your lie. The lie is entirely yours.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
thats a complete misrepresentation of the facts, evolution teaches that fish became amphibians, amphibians became reptiles, reptiles became birds (now disputed) birds became mammals and mammals are what gave rise to humans. It relies on a few basic premises, firstly that life evolved from non living matter despite the mathematical improbability (ter ...[text shortened]... hat is not what evolution teaches and you people know it, so let us stop the pretence, shall we.

Indeed, i find it incredible in this day and age with all the information available at your fingertips you continue to regurgitate the same creationist canards over and over, even though they have been pointed out to you numerous times.

Originally posted by twhitehead
The content of what text has nothing to do with you? The text I was referring to was posted by you. The lie that I was referring to was stated by you. How can you claim it has nothing to do with you?
You stated "... that all mutations are generally inferior" which is a lie. In order to try and cover up the lie you referenced an experiment in the hope th ...[text shortened]... ou before that the experiment in question did not back up your lie. The lie is entirely yours.

what has the content of the post actually to do with me personally? absolutely nothing, why dont you address the actual content of the post, are you unable to differentiate between the person posting and the actual content, why do you do it? no its not a lie you moron, it was backed up with a reference, why dont you make any attempt at the reference. Are you aware of the findings of the Drosophila melanogaster experiments, well why dont you make any attempt at the findings, all you have done is what you usually do, open your big fat mouth and spew out an opinion. What is it about the actual content of the post that evades you? what about the actual references contained in the post, why haven't you addressed them? why do you continually try to make you weak and stupid argument personal? why do you do it?

what about these statements, are these also lies,

Encyclopedia Americana, “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”

is that a lie, i want to hear you say it, is the encyclopedia americana also a liar when it states that most mutations are damaging? come on dont be shy, your big fat mouth never let you down before.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Indeed, i find it incredible in this day and age with all the information available at your fingertips you continue to regurgitate the same creationist canards over and over, even though they have been pointed out to you numerous times.

post, content, references, actual content of post, references within the post, ringing any bells.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
post, content, references, actual content of post, references within the post, ringing any bells.

What so we go round that whole circle again,

PK - Rob you're wrong on that point science tells us this...........

RC - Utter conjecture, postulation, opinion etc etc..................

PK - Okay, read these links from science websites which detail peer reviewed journals confirming what i'm telling you.........................

RC - I am uninterested in critiquing these websites

Then we're back to square one.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what has the content of the post actually to do with me personally? absolutely nothing, why dont you address the actual content of the post, are you unable to differentiate between the person posting and the actual content, why do you do it? no its not a lie you moron, it was backed up with a reference, why dont you make any attempt at the reference ...[text shortened]... ost mutations are damaging? come on dont be shy, your big fat mouth never let you down before.

The key word is MOST, i'll repeat that in case you missed it MOST. It doesn't say ALL, it says MOST

Just like the DNA correcting sequence you keep bringing up, it corrects MOST coding mistakes, not all.