Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of1,835
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
smoke

Leicester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 27, 2009
 

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 27, 2009
 

Judged:

2

1

"There are very few hard facts in science"? WHAT???

Cure. Pointless but cute.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Jul 27, 2009
 
OOps! Cute.
BlackNGoldHead2T oe

Trumann, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Jul 27, 2009
 
Sounds like a pretty fair assessment to me!
Chaz

Manchester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

1

1

"There are very few hard facts in science."

...

That statement is so patently obvious it doesn't even require response.

"It isn't science because it isn't provable."

No science involved with theory is provable, because all theories must be falsifiable. If your evidence can not be proven false, then your run the risk of following the wrong line of facts. All theories must be repeatedly tested for validity - that's how theory works.

"String theory. Dark matter. The big bang. Stuff like this can't be tested or proven."

Is it really so hard to read a science book? Hell, you can look this stuff up on wiki and find dozens of ways to test these theories. Once again, this guy shows that the best way of debating science, is to ignore it.

"Now, I like science."

Sure, you just don't understand it.

"If you can't prove something, it should not be presented as scientific fact."

Theories are comprised of facts. If the facts are in favour of a theory, the theory has passed the test that fact presents. When a theory passes multiple test, and can be used to make accurate predictions, it is largely accepted.

"There are some fundamental questions that science just doesn't have any answers for."

Sure, just as there are some "fundamental questions" that can't be answered by philosophy, sprituality, history, psychology or maths.

"And to all those non-scientific types: don't just accept what you're force-fed."

There goes another irony meter. "Don't accept what they tell you - just what I tell you. After all, they can't censor the comments like I can." Idiot.

Honestly, where did this guy crawl out from?
Nuggin

La Quinta, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 27, 2009
 

Judged:

2

2

2

BlackNGoldHead2Toe wrote:
Sounds like a pretty fair assessment to me!
That's because your from Arkansas, dipshit.
BlackNGoldHead2T oe

Trumann, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 27, 2009
 

Judged:

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because your from Arkansas, dipshit.
And your from Cali, we know what that makes you!
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 27, 2009
 
Fortunately, science doesn't care one iota what WhatYouOughtToKnow, Smoke or Mr. BlackNGoldHead2Toe thinks.

Their opinions will make NO impression on science or the rest of the world (other than being a minor irritation for those of us who spend way too much time on the internet).

Hypocritically, WhatYouOughtToKnow, Smoke or Mr. BlackNGoldHead2Toe will continue to happily use and benefit from ALL of the progress and technological innovations science keeps on churning out on an almost daily basis.
Nuggin

La Quinta, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 27, 2009
 
BlackNGoldHead2Toe wrote:
<quoted text>
And your from Cali, we know what that makes you!
Yup, educated.

Go back to screwing chicken, hillbilly
BlackNGoldHead2T oe

Trumann, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Jul 28, 2009
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, educated.
Go back to screwing chicken, hillbilly
And give you the evidence, you need for evolution, no way... LMAO!
Level 1

Since: Jun 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 28, 2009
 
BlackNGoldHead2Toe wrote:
<quoted text>
And give you the evidence, you need for evolution, no way... LMAO!
We already have everything we need.
BlackNGoldHead2T oe

Trumann, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 28, 2009
 
Midnightblues wrote:
<quoted text>
We already have everything we need.
Right, thats why it's so debatable.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 28, 2009
 
BlackNGoldHead2Toe wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, thats why it's so debatable.
Debate? What debate?(shrug)

There is no debate - not scientifically speaking, anyway. The people who have a problem with it are the ones who don't like it because they think that their god is incapable of evolution. So they try to push it into public schools using political pressure and PR campaigns. Creationists don't give a flying fig about science. So they don't do any. Which is why there's no scientific debate.
BlackNGoldHead2T oe

Trumann, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 28, 2009
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Debate? What debate?(shrug)
There is no debate - not scientifically speaking, anyway. The people who have a problem with it are the ones who don't like it because they think that their god is incapable of evolution. So they try to push it into public schools using political pressure and PR campaigns. Creationists don't give a flying fig about science. So they don't do any. Which is why there's no scientific debate.
Right, thats why they are examining the fossil records and disputing it as well. Can it be you don't like checks and balances? A fair take in the classroom? Or an idiot christian, in your estimation, butting in?
Chaz

Manchester, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 28, 2009
 
BlackNGoldHead2Toe wrote:
<quoted text>
Right, thats why they are examining the fossil records and disputing it as well.
This simply is not accurate. You are NOT examining the fossil records - just disputing them. The only objections I have seen from to the fossil evidence are "they're just similar, but that doesn't mean anything".

Fact is, over 99% of scientists accept the evidence of evolution, and currently understand evolution as the dominant theory of biodiversity. There is real "debate" about the evidence, at least not in the actual scientific community.

The objections to evolution do not come from science - they come from the media. Cynical, lying creationists conning people into swallowing their unscientific bias in order to sneak religion into the classrooms, because they know that their objections simply don't hold weight in the scientific arena.

This is not a "debate" between two sides. This is simply defending science against non-science.
BlackNGoldHead2Toe wrote:
Can it be you don't like checks and balances?
Evolution has been checked and balanced thousands of times by the world's leading biologists and life scientists.

We're welcome to take on board any objections or discrepencies you perceive in evolution, but the sad truth is that most of those objections so far have been founded not on science, but on ignorance.
BlackNGoldHead2Toe wrote:
A fair take in the classroom?
What, in your estimation, would be a "fair take" in the classroom?

Last time I checked, allowing an unproven, unscientific notion based in theology to be taught alongside tested, accepted scientific theory that has withstood over 100 years of academic scrutiny is not fair.
BlackNGoldHead2T oe

Trumann, AR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 28, 2009
 
Chaz, the debate is on! Has been for 100 yrs. I must say the evidence is there, but as Darwin's stepchild has said for every stride made, it creates to wholes. I believe, it to be a fair observation. To simply dismiss one's doubts as ignorance, or the debate as only ,by the media, is absurd. There are many scientist who once believed evo, but now do not. They are far better qualified than I am. Why did they turn their backs on something, virtually established if it were so easily proven. This is one of my many discontentions. I want to learn more, as I have with the bible, for myself, that I will not be led astray by a fine sounding argument.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 28, 2009
 
BlackNGoldHead2Toe wrote:
There are many scientist who once believed evo, but now do not.
Name them.

You have been seriously misled on this point. The vast majority of scientists support ToE. In the life sciences, which are the scientists that really count since ToE is their specialty, the percentage is well over 99% accepting ToE.

Those that do reject it do so almost exclusively for religious, not scientific, reasons.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 29, 2009
 
BlackNGoldHead2Toe wrote:
Chaz, the debate is on! Has been for 100 yrs. I must say the evidence is there, but as Darwin's stepchild has said for every stride made, it creates to wholes.
I think you may have missed the point. Creationists criticise ToE because there is not a completely continuous record of fossils (so far) that accounts for every creature that ever lived. There are, admittedly, gaps in the fossil record. However, when a new fossil is discovered that fits in one of those gaps, creationists say "AH HA! Now there are two gaps. Ignoring the fact that the original gap has been filled in.
BlackNGoldHead2Toe wrote:
... I will not be led astray by a fine sounding argument.
???

“Church of Latter Day Heathens”

Since: Feb 09

Austin, Tx

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 29, 2009
 
BlackNGoldHead2Toe wrote:
I will not be led astray by a fine sounding argument.
But you HAVE been led astray by a lame sounding argument!
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jul 29, 2009
 
>>>>BlackNGoldHead 2T oe
To simply dismiss one's doubts as ignorance, or the debate as only ,by the media, is absurd.

>>>Gillette
But Christian Creationism (and its stealth cousin, Intelligent Design) are played out ALMosT EXCLUSIVELY in the media. Another poster once described ID as "an artifact of revivalism or a type of popular theater competing for political bandwidth and leverage."

These people do no scientific research of their own and simply nitpick at certain parts of evolution theory because, and ONLY because, it seems to invalidate their literal, wooden, factual reading of the Christian Genesis creation myth.

>>>>BlackNGoldHead 2T oe
There are many scientist who once believed evo, but now do not.

>>>Gillette
False, there are a tiny handful, they are ALL converts or adherents to some for of conservative of fundamentalist Christianity, and most of them are NOT biologists, but rather MDs, computer programmers, DENTISTS (!), etc. and so are OUT OF THIER FIELDS when they criticize evolution.

>>>>BlackNGoldHead 2T oe
Why did they turn their backs on something, virtually established if it were so easily proven.

>>>Gillette
Ask their pastors and Bible teachers. They have the answer.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of1,835
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

15 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 min KAB 126,934
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min JM_Brazil 105,880
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) 4 hr MikeF 1,236
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 hr polymath257 168,476
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 12 hr sant 13,467
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Tue ChristineM 13,936
Science News (Sep '13) Tue nanoanomaly 2,670
•••
•••
•••
•••