Started By
Message
re: Intelligent Design Vs. Evolution
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:53 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:53 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
The irony is that you criticize the moral foundations upon which this country was founded and that has engendered great success since its inception, in the name of your neo-darwinistic atheistic philosophy. Smugly believing yourself tobe one of the truly enlightened.... What a joke... you are the real illiterate in this thread. Blindly following "evangelists" like Richard Dawkins, who has already pocketed over 100 million dollars from you and your half-baked brethern
2
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:54 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
This is by far one of the stupidest comments in this entire conversation -- and that's saying something.
It's the crutch of his entire argument as well. It's fricking insane.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:56 am to mattloc
quote:
The irony is that you criticize the moral foundations upon which this country was founded and that has engendered great success since its inception, in the name of your neo-darwinistic atheistic philosophy.
The Book of Genesis has nothing to do with the foundations of the United States.
quote:
Blindly following "evangelists" like Richard Dawkins, who has already pocketed over 100 million dollars from you and your half-baked brethern
I don't like Richard Dawkins. I'm not an atheist. You don't need to be an atheist to know the Book of Genesis is a fairy tale and evolution is real. You're framing a dichotomy that isn't real.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:56 am to mattloc
quote:
The irony is that you criticize the moral foundations upon which this country was founded and that has engendered great success since its inception, in the name of your neo-darwinistic atheistic philosophy. Smugly believing yourself tobe one of the truly enlightened.... What a joke... you are the real illiterate in this thread. Blindly following "evangelists" like Richard Dawkins, who has already pocketed over 100 million dollars from you and your half-baked brethern
I don't feed trolls or Poe's and I'm leaving it at that. You're trying waaaay too hard for a response and you're not going to get one.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 10:59 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
There's tons of support. Why do we have tails in the womb? Why do you think animals look alike in the embryonic stage? Look at number one.
Not only are textbooks using inaccurate drawings, but they are using them to illustrate points that are highly disputed by leading embryologists. The earliest stages of vertebrate embryos are quite different and the existence of the cherry-picked conserved stage often portrayed in textbooks as evidence for common ancestry is being called into question.
Not only are textbooks using inaccurate drawings, but they are using them to illustrate points that are highly disputed by leading embryologists. The earliest stages of vertebrate embryos are quite different and the existence of the cherry-picked conserved stage often portrayed in textbooks as evidence for common ancestry is being called into question.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:01 am to mattloc
quote:
Not only are textbooks using inaccurate drawings, but they are using them to illustrate points that are highly disputed by leading embryologists.
Your evidence?
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:05 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
This process of life is the result of random events billions of years ago. The resultant life form has no purpose other than to survive and reproduce.
That's atheistic Darwinist philosophy in a nutshell.
quote:
Ahh, so you have the answers and the ten or so thousand biologists have it all wrong? Excuse me if I take their word over their own.
There's thousands of scientists who question and reject atheistic Darwinism also.
quote:
"Complex" is rather subjective, don't you think? Evolution does support it, however, and you can go through all the transitional fossils you'd like -- just Wiki it as a fast reference and then read the research papers on it. This isn't difficult.
The human body is complex. Tremendously complex. Random events which produces that tremendous complexity isn't supported by any stretch of the scientific method. It's not science. For example, the Cambrian explosion offers no scientific basis for the theory that the complexity and variety of life was through dumb, meaningless, random events.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:08 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
You really must enjoy beating your head against a wall over and over again.
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 11:08 am
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:08 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
He' talking about the embryology renderings of Ernst Haeckel
LINK
Most recent additions of biology texts don't contain them, and the ones who do do so for historical purposes and say they are no longer considered valid.
It's a red herring that creationists use to "discredit" evolution, not realizing in their ignorance that nothing in evolutionary theory is based on them.
LINK
Most recent additions of biology texts don't contain them, and the ones who do do so for historical purposes and say they are no longer considered valid.
It's a red herring that creationists use to "discredit" evolution, not realizing in their ignorance that nothing in evolutionary theory is based on them.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:10 am to beejon
quote:
No, it's a series of atheistic guesses and suppositions.
I'm guessing that pouring milk on your cereal is too much for you to comprehend.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:11 am to beejon
quote:
For example, the Cambrian explosion offers no scientific basis for the theory that the complexity and variety of life was through dumb, meaningless, random events.
No scientist in the world claims this.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:12 am to beejon
quote:
There's thousands of scientists who question and reject atheistic Darwinism also.
There are not thousands, and the ones who do have a clear biased motive for doing so.
We've been over this.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:13 am to beejon
quote:
I'm very happy. Yes I am.
Thanks for proving my long held theory that stupid people are on average happier than intelligent ones
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:13 am to beejon
quote:
This process of life is the result of random events billions of years ago. The resultant life form has no purpose other than to survive and reproduce.
You don't think that's a bit straw in nature? There's nothing wrong with constructing a straw dragon to slay -- other than you're simply misrepresenting a position.
Or is it safe to assume that religious people hold no value in this life because a better one awaits them after death?
quote:
There's thousands of scientists who question and reject atheistic Darwinism also
I want you to name one, especially a biologist.
quote:
The human body is complex. Tremendously complex. Random events which produces that tremendous complexity isn't supported by any stretch of the scientific method. It's not science. For example, the Cambrian explosion offers no scientific basis for the theory that the complexity and variety of life was through dumb, meaningless, random events.
The human brain is complex, but aside from that only the thumbs are exclusive to humans. Plenty of Apes share similar characteristics and our transitional cousins and ancestors produced some of these things.
Although, even our brain is getting reexamined as apes and monkeys show pretty hilarious similarities between humans and themselves.
There are tons of explanations for the Cambrian explosion but in regards to evidence: The best is recent, and obvious. Just look at all of the transitional fossils for humans.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:15 am to beejon
Bump.
[QUOTE]
Thankfully, we have finally reached the crux of the issue.
You simply do not understand the sequence of events. No life form has ever been produced randomly, not even the very first ones.[/QUOTE]
What were the sequence of events that produced a life form which split into the plant and animal kingdom?
[QUOTE]
Without selection, life wouldn't arise.[/QUOTE]
Why not?
[QUOTE]
Mutation itself doesn't produce anything but changes in the DNA. It doesn't bring about new creatures at all. Random mutation DOES NOT and CANNOT produce new life forms. Period.[/QUOTE]
What does random mutation do if not produce new life forms?
[QUOTE]
Thankfully, we have finally reached the crux of the issue.
You simply do not understand the sequence of events. No life form has ever been produced randomly, not even the very first ones.[/QUOTE]
What were the sequence of events that produced a life form which split into the plant and animal kingdom?
[QUOTE]
Without selection, life wouldn't arise.[/QUOTE]
Why not?
[QUOTE]
Mutation itself doesn't produce anything but changes in the DNA. It doesn't bring about new creatures at all. Random mutation DOES NOT and CANNOT produce new life forms. Period.[/QUOTE]
What does random mutation do if not produce new life forms?
This post was edited on 4/14/14 at 11:16 am
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:15 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
4 Before Homo
4.1 Early evolution of primates
4.2 Divergence of the human clade from other Great Apes
4.3 Genus Australopithecus
5 Genus Homo
5.1 H. habilis and H. gautengensis
5.2 H. rudolfensis and H. georgicus
5.3 H. ergaster and H. erectus
5.4 H. cepranensis and H. antecessor
5.5 H. heidelbergensis
5.6 H. rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium
5.7 Neanderthal and Denisova hominin
5.8 H. floresiensis
5.9 H. sapiens
4.1 Early evolution of primates
4.2 Divergence of the human clade from other Great Apes
4.3 Genus Australopithecus
5 Genus Homo
5.1 H. habilis and H. gautengensis
5.2 H. rudolfensis and H. georgicus
5.3 H. ergaster and H. erectus
5.4 H. cepranensis and H. antecessor
5.5 H. heidelbergensis
5.6 H. rhodesiensis, and the Gawis cranium
5.7 Neanderthal and Denisova hominin
5.8 H. floresiensis
5.9 H. sapiens
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:17 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Thanks for proving my long held theory that stupid people are on average happier than intelligent ones
Thanks for once again supporting my view that atheistic Darwinists do not have the ability to cordially discuss atheistic Darwinist evolution.
Continue on.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:19 am to OMLandshark
quote:
I'm guessing that pouring milk on your cereal is too much for you to comprehend.
I'm guessing (well not really) that you're going to revert to character attacks rather than discuss issues.
And I don't pour milk on my cereal.
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:22 am to StrawsDrawnAtRandom
quote:
You don't think that's a bit straw in nature? There's nothing wrong with constructing a straw dragon to slay -- other than you're simply misrepresenting a position.
Or is it safe to assume that religious people hold no value in this life because a better one awaits them after death?
No, it's not a strawman, it's the result of the atheistic Darwinist theory.
quote:
There's thousands of scientists who question and reject atheistic Darwinism also
I want you to name one, especially a biologist.
LINK
Posted on 4/14/14 at 11:22 am to beejon
quote:
That's atheistic Darwinist philosophy in a nutshell.
And that isn't evolution. Do you really not understand that? Why are you ignoring me? Are you scared of the truth?
Page 45 of 49
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News