Creation vs. Evolution page 4

763 posts

Flag Post
I’m just referring to those that can’t digest how their beloved science isn’t omniscient.

you should be a comedian, our imaginary friend. cause that comment is so preciously non-sensical…

 
Flag Post

But true, unfortunately for YOU ALL.

 
Flag Post

Can’t reason with somebody that lives in fantasyland, where women are born from bones and foreskins are given as a ‘bride price’…all great evidence of an intelligent creator.

 
Flag Post

FWW
You see, I’m asking for scientific answers (and about 2 or 3 people MAX are giving them, thanks) – but most of you (at least 5, didn’t count every burp) prefer to resort to trollish-childish “tactics” of insulting-rather-than-disproving…
Well, you truly “help” to prove your point by that… :DDD

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

FWW
You see, I’m asking for scientific answers

… What?

prefer to resort to trollish-childish “tactics” of insulting-rather-than-disproving…

Or there’s always that you’re, y’know, very hard to understand in the first place, and you twist definitions around to “help” your side.

Well, you truly “help” to prove your point by that… :DDD

Because you have done absolutely nothing wrong in the history of ever.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

I’m asking for scientific answers

But you don’t believe in science, or have you changed your mind?

:D

I don’t know why people take you seriously when you abuse that emoticon all the time.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ayumi_Stocking:

I don’t know why people take you seriously when you abuse that emoticon all the time.

I don’t understand why people use emoticons period.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by Ayumi_Stocking:

I don’t know why people take you seriously when you abuse that emoticon all the time.

I don’t understand why people use emoticons period.

:/ … yeah i agree =)

 
Flag Post

:D

But seriously, I’m trying to do just what DR (the main “normal” speaker here, who uses LOGIC more than EMOTIONS) asks me – to speak in the same, in this case “scientific”, terms.
And yet, even this causes some of you to INSIST that I’m using it wrong – when I start DOUBTING your logic and “proofs”.
Basically, you’re not relying on “science proving somebody613 to be wrong”, but rather on your implication that “somebody613 must be a religious fanatic, if he doesn’t automatically accept science like we do”.
The difference is huge, and it’s all in the attitude…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

:D

But seriously, I’m doing just what DR asks me – to speak in the same, in this case “scientific”, terms.

Wait, you are?

And yet, even this causes some of you to INSIST that I’m using it wrong – when I start DOUBTING your logic and “proofs”.

Maybe because… You are? (Or at least might very well be?)

Basically, you’re not relying on “science proving somebody613 to be wrong”, but rather on your implication that “somebody613 must be a religious fanatic, if he doesn’t automatically accept science like we do”.

Well your use of the caps lock doesn’t really help the matter.

And… You kinda are.

The difference is huge, and it’s all in the attitude…

Not really.

 
Flag Post

tenco
But you just proved my point – zero facts, loads of emotions.
Well, YOU never used logic when talking to me, I know.
Sorry for demanding such a stressful task from you…
(Sarcasm…)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

tenco
But you just proved my point – zero facts, loads of emotions.

… Wha?

Well, YOU never used logic when talking to me, I know.

Again, wha?

Sorry for demanding such a stressful task from you…
(Sarcasm…)

And you wonder why people don’t like you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

FWW
You see, I’m asking for scientific answers (and about 2 or 3 people MAX are giving them, thanks) – but most of you (at least 5, didn’t count every burp) prefer to resort to trollish-childish “tactics” of insulting-rather-than-disproving…
Well, you truly “help” to prove your point by that… :DDD

Where’s the troll? Does your Torah not say woman was born from mans rib? Did David not give Saul 200 philistine foreskins for his aughters hand in marriage?…isn’t the Torah your evidence for an intelligent creator, thus everything in it is proof?
Where exactly did I say something wrong? …ah maybe the fantasyland bit…but it is all fantasy, except maybe the 200 foreskins, humans can do terrible things.

Ps, YOU are NOT looking for scientific answers. You have NEVER looked for scientific answers. You wouldn’t know what a scientific answer was if it came up and proposed to you.

 
Flag Post

You can all stop arguing with my imaginary friend now~

somebody613 must be a religious fanatic

You sure act like one, or pretty close to it.

The difference is huge, and it’s all in the attitude…

nah

 
Flag Post

FWW
I’m asking to prove science being right through scientific logic – by also debunking my skepticism on CERTAIN parts and use of CERTAIN terms in science.
This SHOULD be easily done, if science is as objective as you claim.
And some people actually try to do so, thus we have a discussion.
But this post was about those OTHERS that do NOT start a real discussion, but rather resort to stupid troll-LIKE attacks on MY PERSON, rather than on MY CRITICISM.
Like, claiming that I’m ignorant or religious fanatic – INSTEAD of showing WHERE I’m wrong from THEIR point.
Actually, even DR is sometimes (rarely) ending up with “you don’t know nothing” – instead of THOROUGHLY explaining my mistakes.
(And YOU just did it again, instead of addressing it INFORMATIVELY, you addressed it only AGGRESSIVELY-INSULTINGLY…)
While I’m specifically asking to CORRECT me, not ATTACK me.
GOT IT?

 
Flag Post

somebody, don’t play the victim. And hurry up and debunk evolution with scientific logic…my sweet potato you talk a lot but nothing close to scientific logic comes out.

Ps you have to admit 200 foreskins is a pretty sweet deal for your daughter.

 
Flag Post

You don’t understand evolution, so it makes sense that people would say as much. There are actual weak points in the evolutionary theory (weak as in, we don’t understand how a particular mechanism functions but we can still accurately predict that function anyway) and you haven’t mentioned any of them. Your comments read like someone who has yet to read the instructions for an IKEA set, complaining that there are far too few duct screws.

You continuously change the argument, and are not willing to actually address a particular argument you put up once it’s debunked. Have an iota of humility and consider the possibility that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, and are starting at your assumptions and working backwards instead of genuinely trying to understand a school of reasoning that has been the foundation of every single piece of technology you profoundly take for granted.

You’re strawmanning. I skipped the last couple of pages, but on the 2nd page you harped on what you think survival of the fittest means, as if that has any bearings on the theory of evolution in any capacity. There are a multitude of described phenomenon that influences evolutionary changes, not just natural selection. You’re not even addressing the actual claims evolution makes, you’re just making yourself look stupid.

People are mentioning how stupid you look, and you’re taking it personally. Trust me, they’re insulting your opinion, and the only reason that stings is because you are personally married to your beliefs to the point where you wouldn’t get a divorce even if it was what you wanted. You’re certainly not willing to look at her objectively. I think you’d be hard pressed to find a scientifically minded person who wants evolution to be true, as much as they simply accept the evidence as it has been clearly defined and contrasted, and would change their beliefs given evidence that is consistent with their understanding.

 
Flag Post

BYE and go kiss your grandpa’s tail.
Just be sure it’s not full Moon… :DDDDD

(I’m resigning – this was pointless from the outset. For YOU…)

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

BYE and go kiss your grandpa’s tail.

What?

Just be sure it’s not full Moon… :DDDDD

This is not Dragon Ball Z, stop mixing up realities.

(I’m resigning – this was pointless from the outset. For YOU…)

… What?

 
Flag Post

And it’s ME who speaks about FANTASIES??? :DDDDD
(My point hit the target though – YOU showed how serious YOU are. :D BYE.)

On a side note: How come you didn’t think of werewolves, for example? :DDDDD

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

And it’s ME who speaks about FANTASIES??? :DDDDD

I didn’t say that.

(My point hit the target though – YOU showed how serious YOU are. :D BYE.)

… What?

On a side note: How come you didn’t think of werewolves, for example? :DDDDD

Because werewolves are normally canines, not primates.

 
Flag Post

I think I figured out why this place is such a shithole. Having an opinion doesn’t make it right, but before message boards, we had the luxury of keeping retarded thoughts in our heads. Now when 12 year old children get a spark of cognition, we get to read their first steps as a citizen of the intellectual world. I’ve read what I thought was cerebral and profound in highschool: It wasn’t. Instead of pushing it to the back and letting new information take its place, living an online identity means being accountable for everything you’ve ever said forever.

Somebody613 does not have the advantage I had of no one having seen my stupidity, so I got to change my opinions through observation and seem like I started with the right idea to begin with. Instead, we have our identity struggles in public, and thus it’s harder to change or grow out of them. People double down and seek out others with their beliefs instead of passively growing as a social being, and no one matures or learns new ways of thinking. That’s why so many larger forums are putrid piles of this crap over and over again, and little communities actually have individuals that grow and learn over the years.

(I’m not saying you should have my opinion to be considered mature, I’m saying that you shouldn’t make the flimsy, uninformed, overgeneralized remarks that you throw around. You don’t need to prove your convictions to anyone else but yourself. No one here actually gives a shit about you, so if you’re not getting something out of the discussion, stop posting like you’ve promised to several times. Maybe learn about the things people are mentioning, so next time you argue about this you sound more informed? Dare I say, let your beliefs evolve?)

 
Flag Post

BSG
Would you mind taking my name out of your post?
Cause the entirety of it is serious, but using me as a “proven” example is simply rude.

 
Flag Post

… No? Your eagerness to share your clearly uninformed opinions was what caused me to understand the phenomenon. If you don’t think that applies to you, prove me wrong instead of expecting me to edit my perception of you. You don’t get to decide how you’re perceived, only what you say. Don’t say stupid things about one of the most well researched and established fields of science, and don’t deny the reality of this proven method of discovery itself, and I won’t imply that you’re just being immature and gunny. Heck, it isn’t even in your attacks on evolution that reveals your lack of forethought, it’s your thinking in general. You’re either 12, or you have only lived among people who believe the exact same things as you. There’s no other way you could so ineffectively argue with others and still think they’re being mean for not seeing it your way.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

JBG
202 is blah-blah-blah.
210 is more precise, so here we go:
>

My links were towards your claim that evolution is not backed by the scientific method(i don´t care about your silly demands). Which is wrong, because you got a faulty understanding of what testing a prediction from a hypotheses means. A prediction does not need to be a new finding in the future. But a logical conclusion based on the hypotheses that predicts the outcome of the test. And a test can be the observation of something already existing.

For example of such: Prediction P. is that bones/fossils of a specific species will only be found in certain layers of sediments(if those sediments are undisturbed). Tests could not only be digging up the earth yourself, but also A. checking the findings of other people that are digging or going to dig and B. who have already dug up the earth. In this case the prediction would be when A or B are checked against we find that the prediction P holds true.
Prediction P. belongs to the hypothesis that specific species lived at vastly different times on earth and their bones/fossils should thus be buried in sediment layers that where created at the earths surface during those times.