Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-4041-

Evolutionism

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-14 4:55

Nothing is more humorous than when an evolutionist pokes fun at creationists or IDists for not putting forth a scientific theory to explain life.

First of all, life is not scientific -- life is spiritual. Contrary to what evolutionists say, what makes us human is not the shape of our jaw bone or the size of our heads. Life is something that controls and manipulates the matter it occupies. Thus, those who claim to be able to describe life scientifically are kidding themselves because life is more than material -- it's metaphysical, which by definition is in conflict with science. Science is the study of the material world. I believe they are asking us to play a game, which includes defining life according to a flawed premise.

What's truly laughable about all this is that the "science" evolutionists put forth is not science at all. Like I said, "science" is (or should be) the study of the material world. But what the world's evolutionists have forced down our kids' throats is not science. Instead it's long list of "what ifs," "probablys," "maybes," and "more-than-likelys."

And their so-called evidence is NEVER visible. Never. For example, every creature on earth is said to have evolved from a common ancestor. Thus there must, be thousands and thousands of common ancestors that link each creature to the next. For example, lions and tigers must have a common ancestor....man and ape must have a common ancestor...squirrels and skunks must have a common ancestor...bats and whales must have a common ancestor. Of course none of these common ancestors have been found -- or will ever be found -- but we're just supposed to take their word for it because they know more than us. But the reality is, this is not science -- this is nothing but brain-rotting blind faith in an intellectually bankrupt theory.

But the fairytale doesn't stop there. Evolutionists have made a living the past 75 years on the Big Joke that is the unseen beneficial random mutation. I honestly believe this is the most ridiculous aspect of the whole theory. The notion that a once-in-a-multi-million chance mutation can be beneficial and spread throughout a population via sexual reproduction is truly outrageous -- especially when you consider that populations are often separated by hundreds or thousands of miles and mutations are 99% destructive and/or deadly. Not only that, but a grand total of only 4,000 hominid bones have been dug up...(this includes humans, australopithecus, Neanderthals, Homo erectus, etc) Thus, there simply is not enough of a population for the likely occurrence of beneficial random mutations. Of course cumulative selection of thousands of such mutations has never -- and will never -- be witnessed.
And the fairytale continues. THE most crucial aspect to the whole evolutionary farce is natural selection. This, as well, has never been documented, studied or witnessed. As far as I know there have never been controlled experiments on animals in an attempt to prove this concept. Once again, we are supposed to fall in love with the theory -- not any actual evidence.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-14 6:47

I stopped at "spiritual". You might want to change that to "metaphorical" and delete anything afterwards.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-14 7:07

These trolls are never very interesting. If you're debating a creationist and want us to do your homework for you, fine, but be upfront about it.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-14 11:43

You're wrong.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-14 13:16

sage for sage's sake

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-14 15:51

Copy pasta.

http://www.tddir.com/fitness-and-nutrition/article-3220.html

That said, though, this person has obviously never actually passed a high school biology course, let alone made any serious attempt at even minimal research. Willfully ignorant, delusional, spewing logical fallacies, etc, etc.

Same old retarded fundie shit. Yawn. Why can't these people just fuck off?

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-14 18:32

I especially liked,

>but we're just supposed to take their word for it because they know more than us.

Yep. Bend over and take it, that is, unless you've got the intelligence and the devotion to do some meaningful research. Which the author doesn't.

Name: STU 2008-11-18 1:44

what the fuck is this ? http://buzz.igg.com/igg/5419291

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-18 3:29

first time i've visited this board, and the first thing I see is copypasta trolling.

good game.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-21 0:43

the post up there was long. I woander wahat ist said

Name: sage 2008-11-21 23:55

sage

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Name: hobbit 2008-11-23 8:55

OP said that no one has witnessed natural selection. This is because Darwin's theory is reletively new. It only came to light about 150 years ago. It seems pretty weird that you would observe natural selection over this time seeing that this is a very short time, relative to the beginning of life. Saying that evolution is bunk based on the last couple hundred years where science and scienific research really started to develope is like saying Obama is a bad president based on his first 5 minutes in office. Scientists barely scratched the surface and yet your complaining. You will probably complain Obama is a bad presindent before he can put his family photo on the desk in the oval office. That is all I have to say.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-23 10:49

>>12
OP said that no one has witnessed natural selection because he doesn't understand basic scientific tools of analysis such as carbon dating and *gasp* digging for fossils.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-26 21:41

I lol'd.

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-27 1:24

Jeepers, he could have condensed that long thing with "I am bad at science, help me please"

Name: Anonymous 2008-11-28 0:12

>>12
Um, except that we HAVE witnessed natural selection.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-01 0:09

>>First of all, life is not scientific -- life is spiritual. Contrary to what evolutionists say, what makes us human is not the shape of our jaw bone or the size of our heads.
Yeah. It's the people around us.
Life is social.

Go outside more. Live a little.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-01 12:42

There are no creationists on /sci/. Just another troll thread folks.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-01 17:56

I could rip on this all day but the replies show that everyone is not as dumb as the OP. Science does not try to define the meaning of life as you seem to insinuate, they explain natural events in the world with numerous test and check. Little thing called scientific method. 2 there is a little thing called plate tectonics that explains how the continents drift around the globe some collide together and over millions of years for mountains (India and China). Others drift away and become islands (Australia). Thirdly, The whole bit about no evidence is just stupid and no matter what you think you know there has been more evidence show in favor of evolution than Creationism. In fact there is no evidence for the creatonism you are suppose to rely on blind faith.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-01 20:18

>>19
"the replies show that everyone is not as dumb as the OP"

No: the replies show that not everyone is as dumb as OP.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-02 1:21

Fossils appear in rocks that were formed many thousands of years ago. Yet there are a number of fossils that just don't make geological or historical sense. A fossil of a human handprint, for example, was found in limestone estimated to be 110 million years old. What appears to be a fossilized human finger found in the Canadian Arctic also dates back 100 to 110 million years ago. And what appears to be the fossil of a human footprint, possibly wearing a sandal, was found near Delta, Utah in a shale deposit estimated to be 300 million to 600 million years old.

Humans were not even around 65 million years ago, never mind people who could work metal. So then how does science explain semi-ovoid metallic tubes dug out of 65-million-year-old Cretaceous chalk in France? In 1885, a block of coal was broken open to find a metal cube obviously worked by intelligent hands. In 1912, employees at an electric plant broke apart a large chunk of coal out of which fell an iron pot! A nail was found embedded in a sandstone block from the Mesozoic Era. And there are many, many more such anomalies.

Name: 4tran 2008-12-02 2:30

>>21
Creationism doesn't explain these anomalies any better.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-02 12:54

>>22
Those anomalies aren't anomalies. They're hoaxes.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-02 16:26

Does this LOOK like a human finger to you?

http://home.texoma.net/~linesden/cem/finger/finger.htm

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-02 22:38

>>24
It looks like a tiny bread.
If you for a moment think that looks like a fossil of anything, much less a human finger, you're an ignorant fool.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-03 0:30

I laugh. I don't even care that people believe in creationism anymore, it's not gonna change.

I hate religion, and I subscribe to one.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-03 1:40

I use to get so mad when people spew religious shit outta their mouths, now I just don't give a fuck anymore. When some bible thumper tries to talk god with me, I just smile and nod now. It makes them go away quicker too.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-03 20:53

>>26
I don't even care that people believe in creationism anymore, it's not gonna change.
What do you base that belief on?
Creationism has been on the decline continuously since Darwin wrote Origin. Sounds to me like you're just trying to make excuses for laziness and social apathy.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-03 21:24

>>21
The tl;dr is that nothing legitimate has yet been found that has contradicted Evolution in any significant way. At least, not in any way that Evolution can't either explain entirely or adapt to.

1) "A fossil of a human handprint, for example, was found in limestone estimated to be 110 million years old."
2) "What appears to be a fossilized human finger found in the Canadian Arctic also dates back 100 to 110 million years ago."

Ah, yes, the works of "Dr." Carl Baugh. Infamous for dozens of poorly executed hoaxes over the last few decades, all of which are easily debunked by high schoolers (literally, I've seen science fair projects debunking them). His pitiful attempts can only be regarded as an exercise in legendary trolling. It's gotten to the point that even most Creationists go out of their way to urge people NOT to cite his work, lest they get laughed out of the room by anyone with a functional brain. The only people who actually believe his claims are the people who haven't done a shred of actual research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh
http://paleo.cc/paluxy.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC120.html

Baugh has claimed to have found several "handprints", but all are painfully obvious forgeries. Like most of his "footprints" (of both the "dinosaur" and "human" varieties), all of his "handprints" show obvious tool impressions-- drill bits, chisels, etc.

The "finger" was not even a fossil, it was verified to be just a regular rock. Sandstone, to be precise, the infillings of ancient shrimp burrows, common in Cretaceous rock. Contrary to common misconceptions, the CT scans do NOT show bones, but the natural density grain of the specimen.

But the clincher is that NONE of Baugh's "discoveries" are ever documented "in situ", one of the most basic requirements for paleontological evidence.  As such, because they cannot be reliably linked to an actual ancient formation, the finds would be worthless even if they were genuine.

The "finger" wasn't even excavated, let alone "in the Canadian Arctic". It was found in a loose gravel pile outside of Glen Rose, Texas. Three guesses as to where Baugh's "Creation Evidence Museum" is. The address on their site is "3102 FM-205, Glen Rose, TX".

3) "And what appears to be the fossil of a human footprint, possibly wearing a sandal, was found near Delta, Utah in a shale deposit estimated to be 300 million to 600 million years old."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC102.html
http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/antelope.php

They only appear to be sandal-clad footprints to someone who isn't an archaeologist (or even a geologist) and when they are taken out of context. The pattern is a well documented spalling (fracturing) effect. In the rock the "prints" were taken from, there was a fracture running along the face of the rock. There were also other "prints" with identical features but in many various non-footprint shapes. Also, all of the "prints" are isolated examples-- there is no trail, just those shapes taken out of context. Then there's the matter of the "prints" not even really looking like real prints. No weight distribution, no wearing of the heal, traction, etc. Not to mention the fact that the "prints" were found among (real) trilobite fossils, which would mean someone was walking on the bottom of the ocean. Etc, etc, etc.

4) "So then how does science explain semi-ovoid metallic tubes dug out of 65-million-year-old Cretaceous chalk in France?"

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/livet.php

There's apparently nothing TO explain, otherwise Druet and Salfati would have continued talking about it. The fact that nothing further happened after the specimens were taken in for study suggests that it turned out to be a simple explanation and they were too embarrassed to come out and admit it.

5) "In 1885, a block of coal was broken open to find a metal cube obviously worked by intelligent hands."

http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/cube.php

Read the text, look at the picture. It isn't a "cube" at all and it seems fairly obvious to me that it is indeed meteoric. The only reason for suggesting it MIGHT not be meteoric is that it happened to lack certain trace metals, which isn't unheard of. To say that it is "obviously worked by intelligent hands" is bullshit and nothing more than the result of uninformed rumor.

6) "In 1912, employees at an electric plant broke apart a large chunk of coal out of which fell an iron pot!"

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC131.html
http://www.badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/wilburton.php

Anecdotal evidence (in the form of a letter written *36 YEARS* after the discovery), not in situ, multiple simpler and more reasonable explanations, etc. The "evidence" for the claim is laughably weak.

7) "A nail was found embedded in a sandstone block from the Mesozoic Era."

http://badarchaeology.net/data/ooparts/kingoodie.php

Similar to the above examples, what was a curiosity in 1844 is easily explained today. The nail was not embedded, it had simply been lying against the sandstone when the boulder clay was rested on top of it, pressing the nail a mere 25 mm into the sandstone. Hardly surprising considering the properties of the materials and the forces involved. Plus, without any surviving evidence, we are forced to assume nothing out of the ordinary was found.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-03 21:39

>>29
LOL it just occurred to me that 21 was copy pasta. Sure enough, plenty of google hits. Mostly for some "ancient technology video lecture" scam site. WTF.

Damn I fail. Oh, well. :)

Name: AnOnYmOuS 2U 2008-12-04 6:53

Okay Op, I'll bite just this once.

Material is derived from the smallest of life, and, yes, you could classify that as metaphysics, but to deny what we see entirely blinds you from what is metaphysical. That is why people don't listen to fools. It's a waste of their time and metaphysical material energy.

Yet again, when you don't believe it, and don't research it, what you do is exclude it through denial and rhetorical non-sequitor.

First off, you said "never". Allow me to destroy your "never" and insert a possibility.

Bats and whales...yup, you've lost the debate already. You came to the table to negotiate the terms of voluntary scientific evolutionary methodology surrender, and now you are in a heated debate and search for the truth. Are you prepared?

Mutation and reproduction...examples;
Spanish Influenza
AIDS
...should I continue?

Where did you get your numbers? Did you get them from a creationist's website for those who need to spout rhetorical non-sequitor?

As far as you know, the Earth is flat, laws of motion contradict biblical ideals, and anything that challenges what is known should be destroyed.

Lastly, science isn't about accepting what you are told, and believe it as truth such as you would expect form church. Science is about questioning what is known or stated, researching alternative examples and looking for the truth within the paradox of perceivable expressions.

So, sir OP, what more can you possibly bring to the table...more bullshit you would have us swallow whole and smile with our shit-eating grins, "Yummy, this is great, can I has sum moar?"

Go Fuck Yourself, You Fucking Child!
Ah, thank you. Ah thank you. No need for applause.

Name: AnOnYmOuS 2U 2008-12-04 7:01

Ah...I forgot something. The possibility.

All humans are wrong 99.99999% of the time.
Care to admit your fortuitous surrender?
I hope not, I am itching for a heated debate, and yes, I will bring my weapons of mass destruction, thermonuclear-biochemical debate. If you aren't prepared, it won't matter; I will have no mercy for you and your mind may suffer irreparable damage...you may believe me for one second and that vulnerability I will exploit. Just give me that chance and I'll make it all come true before your eyes, and your precious beliefs will change without you. Your mind will fold like a cheap tent, your speech will become defensive, and eventually you too will cry yourself to sleep wondering how you could have lost.
You lost because you thought you were right. I won because I knew that I was not. And that makes your seeming victory out to be a cold lump of shit...which you most likely will eat...and you eat it well, I see.

Name: AnOnYmOuS 2U 2008-12-05 15:39

Also, here is why some religifags commit failyou're.
Implicit memory, illusion-of-truth syndrome.
There, mystery solved. It can happen to anyone; just learn from this mistake and you won't repeat your history, or rather you will refrain from dooming yourself. :)

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-05 19:14

You guys do realize this is just a troll copypasta right?

Name: AnOnYmOuS 2U 2008-12-06 4:23

btw, op is faggotree. Silly faggot, get out of that tree.

If I had to guess why creationists boast about God and evolution as being non-provable...*giggle*...I would have to say that it's the age-old disease that most people have, "I have to be right, which means you must be wrong" syndrome. This is reinforced by implicit memory, illusion-of-truth effect. They say and hear the same bullshit over and over and finally believe it as truth after a while. I think this is also called indoctrination.
"Indoctrination of a doctored application." Brainwashing? Hypnosis? A means of controlling the ignorant masses by those who are self-aware and evolved...oh, that's right, evolution doesn't exist, silly me. I guess self-awareness, free-will, and choice don't exist either...silly me. I bet that means that what is most prevalent in the minds of ignorant masses would be doubt then? When in doubt, faith? When it appears to be a lie, believe?

Good luck with that, I'll be jeering from my office on the 105th floor whilst I calculate how much money I made while typing this. :)

Name: AnOnYmOuS 2U 2008-12-06 4:33

And to support the Declaration of Conscience;

    * The right to criticize;
    * The right to hold unpopular beliefs;
    * The right to protest;
    * The right of independent thought.

So, *plllllewwwww* jog on.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-07 10:39

>>35
You've been mentioning "implicit memory" all over the place recently. Also, you've been using it wildly out of context (performing learned tasks isn't quite the same as reinforcing one's belief system). Is it just another word you came across a week ago and decided to give your own definition and apply liberally?

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-07 16:58

A more correct term would be memes.  Religion was the original /b/

Name: AnOnYmOuS 2U 2008-12-09 3:26

>>37
Wow, someone who actually knows how to do research...good for you. Bout fucking time too. BTW, there was an effect of implicit memory that I was actually referring to, and that is illusion-of-truth effect which is a part of implicit memory. If you really are up for it, wiki it and find out what it means and what you will see, cannot be unseen. :)

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-09 7:11

>>39
I understand where you're coming from, but in the case of evangelical Christians and Creationists "positive reinforcement of belief" is what's happening, not this subtle illusion-of-truth effect. Many Creationists have heard the evolution side of the story many times but are still unwilling to call it true; it's their environment and their peers that are responsible for getting in the way of clear thinking.

Name: Anonymous 2008-12-09 11:05

NEVER FORGET THE HEROES THAT GAVE THEIR TIME AND THEIR LIVES TO DIE FOR THE GREATER CAUSE OF MAKING THE PLEASURE OF BEING CUMMED INSIDE A GOOGLE MEME. YOUR SACRIFICE WILL NOT BE FORGOTTEN.

NVR FGT

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List