• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution

Expert consensus is that evolution is a fact, a very old earth is a fact, and there was no flood. Your paradigm had its time but encountered too many observations that put it in crisis before it was superseded. YEC thinking has no utility while scientific explanations has it in abundance. Young earth creationism is irrelevant yapping.
 
154 said:
No one said it does.

Is that why you apologized first?



The double-standards here really are astonishing.


JonathanQuick, you were absolutely correct in your eviscerating of the groupthink conformity. Most-effective posts against the tide here are summarily banished, the evidence of humiliation eliminated. I'm sure you have already reasonably concluded that any efforts invested here in any in-depth manner are simply wasted against ears that deliberately, purposely refuse to hear. But please do stick around, and just be a little more selective and efficient with your evisceration. I am enjoying your posts immensely.
Click to expand...

Wow, so when he violates the rules and is treated the same as everyone else? That is double standard? Okey dokey. It was the incivility that was removed, you will note posts with content remain.
 
Originally Posted by laca
Our good old 154... Redefining "irony" and "hypocrisy" with each post.


154 said:
You're always so civil...
Click to expand...

Actually, what about the post was incivil? Suggesting your posting record is rife w/ hypocrisy is not incivil, it is simply reflective of reality.

Here is an abolutely crucial point; criticism of your beliefs is not incivil, violent, nor militant. Beliefs are non feeling entities; disparaging(sp) them is fundamental to debate.

You cannot be persecuted on a forum you willfully enter & post.
 
154 said:
Most-effective posts against the tide here are summarily banished, the evidence of humiliation eliminated.
Click to expand...

Your admittedly alcohol inspired use of obscenity was moved, not removed. It is still there in AAH for anyone to see. If you're so proud of it perhaps you should direct readers to it.
 
154 said:
*yawn*
Click to expand...

Your arguments are truly devastating.

I just countered your claim of a double-standard and this is how you react ?

"Woah! You're right, Belz..., I hadn't noticed that. Sorry."

"No biggy, 154. We all make mistakes."

But no, you'd rather make a "clever" retort for your imaginary supporters.
 
NavyPack said:
Actually, what about the post was incivil? Suggesting your posting record is rife w/ hypocrisy is not incivil, it is simply reflective of reality.
Click to expand...
laca understands, even if you do not. As it wasn't intended for you, that's the extent of my concern regarding your interpretation of it.

Here is an abolutely crucial point..
Click to expand...
No, it's not absolutely crucial. It's no big deal. I don't care about it already. Such rhetorical exercise doesn't matter.

Here's something "absolutely crucial" though: Crucial = crux = cross.
Whether Jesus Christ is exactly who He claims that He is or not is "absolutely crucial."

You cannot be persecuted on a forum you willfully enter & post.
Click to expand...
*phfeww* thanks.


Foster Zygote said:
Your admittedly alcohol inspired use of obscenity was moved, not removed. It is still there in AAH for anyone to see. If you're so proud of it perhaps you should direct readers to it.
Click to expand...
I admitted and confessed what I deliberately included anyway long before you could accuse.
Oh, you got me. Big deal, I got me first. You can't accuse me more than I have and do.
Which makes me bulletproof to you.

Belz... said:
Your arguments are truly devastating.
I just countered your claim of a double-standard and this is how you react ?
"Woah! You're right, Belz..., I hadn't noticed that. Sorry."
"No biggy, 154. We all make mistakes."
But no, you'd rather make a "clever" retort for your imaginary supporters.
Click to expand...
That was a clever retort.
 
Last edited:
154 said:
I admitted and confessed what I deliberately included anyway long before you could accuse.
Oh, you got me. Big deal, I got me first. You can't accuse me more than I have and do.
Which makes me bulletproof to you.
Click to expand...
Ironically, I probably would not have concluded that you were inebriated from reading your post.
 
Foster Zygote said:
Ironically, I probably would not have concluded that you were inebriated from reading your post.
Click to expand...
Because it was only about three quick drinks, after arriving home for the night. Not inebriated, just adjusted a bit in inspiration for the nightcap, and used it as the excuse for posting exactly what I thought at that moment in a Friday night chuckle with some friends.
 
belz... said:
your arguments are truly devastating.

I just countered your claim of a double-standard and this is how you react ?

"woah! You're right, belz..., i hadn't noticed that. Sorry."

"no biggy, 154. We all make mistakes."

but no, you'd rather make a "clever" retort for your imaginary supporters.
Click to expand...

154 said:
that was a clever retort.
Click to expand...

nonsensical statement involving plankton.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
So, 154. Have you given up on trying to argue the science and chosen instead to focus on the "attitude" of other posters?
Click to expand...
This seems to be the case. It would be nice if we could focus on evidence.

I've offered up several examples I'd be happy to discuss.
nylonase, human chromosome 2 fusion, new gene development...
 
joobz said:
This seems to be the case. It would be nice if we could focus on evidence.

I've offered up several examples I'd be happy to discuss.
nylonase, human chromosome 2 fusion, new gene development...
Click to expand...

Surely Answers in Genesis has some obscuration and diversion on those suitable for another cut and paste run?

Here we have an AiG reply to the chromosome two observations:

A Tale of Two Chromosomes (AiG)
Evolutionists can be excellent storytellers. For example, Dr. Ken Miller, a biology professor from Brown University who testified against Intelligent Design (ID) at the Dover trial,1 tells an engaging story that he claims is compelling evidence for evolution. The problem is that because of his naturalistic assumptions, he himself is unable to distinguish fact from fiction, science from conjecture.


[...]

Dr. Miller states, “Our chromosome number 2 was formed by the fusion of two primate chromosomes.”4 Dr. Miller assumes common ancestry and the number of chromosomes is consistent with his belief. However, he misses other important evidence that contradicts his basic claim.

Most importantly, reliable eyewitness testimony is more powerful than circumstantial evidence in establishing historical details. The Bible, inspired by the Creator himself, indicates that humans were created in the image of God and distinct from other animals.5 Humans are clearly distinct from other animals in cognitive and language ability.

[...]

While intelligence in animals is quite fascinating, it is still significantly different from that of humans and gives no hint of common ancestry. The similarities are much more easily explained by the fact that these animals all had a common designer who reused certain excellent design elements much like engineers do in their creations today.
Click to expand...

The evisceration of the claim in all its gory detail here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v3/n1/tale-of-two-chromosomes

The author is right on one thing - scientists are damned good story tellers. I like they way they tie up so many loose threads. Much better than YECs that is for sure - waaay too many plot holes for my tastes.
 
Last edited:
Ladewig said:
I have a request, Pahu. When you make a post like this one, [Mendel’s Laws] would you please say in your own words, what we should take away from each quote and how each quote supports the initial proposition?
Click to expand...

I assume you are intelligent enough to figure out what the post is referring to and what the scientists are concluding. Why should I add my words when the subject has been so clearly presented by those who are qualified.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom