Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: June 3, 2024, 12:31 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
(May 5, 2014 at 11:04 am)Revelation777 Wrote:
(May 5, 2014 at 12:13 am)Aral Gamelon Wrote: [Image: 0NKzG6i.png]

Look son at the picture that is slightly crooked on the wall, pay no mind to the elephant in the room.

Holy shit, this guy gives enrico a run for his money.
[Image: bbb59Ce.gif]

(September 17, 2015 at 4:04 pm)Parkers Tan Wrote: I make change in the coin tendered. If you want courteous treatment, behave courteously. Preaching at me and calling me immoral is not courteous behavior.
Reply
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
(May 6, 2014 at 12:36 pm)Aral Gamelon Wrote:
(May 5, 2014 at 11:04 am)Revelation777 Wrote: Look son at the picture that is slightly crooked on the wall, pay no mind to the elephant in the room.

Holy shit, this guy gives enrico a run for his money.

Not comparable. Revs strings random wishes together and call it "arguments". Enrico strings random syllables together and call it "post".
Reply
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
Quote:Again, it is an unprovable theological assertion that God would not place the same nonfunctional sequences at the same locus in separate species. He may have a purpose for doing so that is beyond our present understanding.
Or the shorter version: "thank god for unprovable assertions."
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

-Stephen Jay Gould
Reply
Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
(May 6, 2014 at 12:45 pm)Chuck Wrote:
(May 6, 2014 at 12:36 pm)Aral Gamelon Wrote: Holy shit, this guy gives enrico a run for his money.

Not comparable. Revs strings random wishes together and call it "arguments". Enrico strings random syllables together and call it "post".

I'm convinced Enrico randomly generates all of his posts with something like http://www.wisdomofchopra.com

Unfortunately, the random quote generator may in fact be his brain.
Reply
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
(May 4, 2014 at 10:18 pm)Revelation777 Wrote: Argument #2: Evolution of Species

The evolutionist Kerkut defined the “general theory of evolution” as “the theory that living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” He goes on to say, “The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p.157.

Kerkut made this statement in 1960.

That was 55 years ago. Evidence has passed him by, by decades.

Quote:My argument is not that change doesn’t take place within species over time. My argument is that no matter how long the time frame, there is no substantial scientific evidence that a microbe has evolved into a human being. Additionally, there is no substantial scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can produce a living cell regardless of time and/or chance.

But you're not making an argument. You're making unsupported assertions.

The people with actual credentials can explain, with evidence and not breaking any scientific laws, how this can happen.

So, again all you prove is that you got nothing.

You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
Reply
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
This Micro Macro evolution argument is stupid. Seeing as You guys will move the goal post. Remember when horse evolution never could happen? I do and now all of a sudden it can.
[Image: guilmon_evolution_by_davidgtm3-d4gb5rp.gif]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOW_Ioi2wtuPa88FvBmnBgQ my youtube
Reply
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
(May 6, 2014 at 3:27 pm)ThePaleolithicFreethinker Wrote: This Micro Macro evolution argument is stupid. Seeing as You guys will move the goal post. Remember when horse evolution never could happen? I do and now all of a sudden it can.

Spot on. 'Micro' and 'macro' evolution are exactly the same thing - it is a difference of degree, not of kind.

It is rather like saying, 'I believe in sugar cubes, but lorry loads of sugar are impossible.'

Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Reply
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
So what's argument number 3?
To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player,
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
Reply
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
(May 6, 2014 at 8:28 pm)Lemonvariable72 Wrote: So what's argument number 3?

Who cares? Looks like he opened with his "best" material.
Reply
RE: Argument #2: Evolution Of Species
The waits between 'arguments' (read: baseless, unsupported assertions) are logarithmic. 6 days between the one and two, we're looking at three weeks and 2 rule change suggestions before we get to argument #3: If I evolved from a monkey, how come there are still monkeys?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great

PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  What's your stance on bringing back extinct species? Fake Messiah 80 3101 March 12, 2024 at 8:50 am
Last Post: brewer
  New human species discovered in the Phillipines downbeatplumb 5 687 April 13, 2019 at 6:17 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Bumblebee officially added to endangered species list Foxaèr 13 1457 July 3, 2018 at 3:06 pm
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  Without rape, most animal species would go extinct Alexmahone 34 4590 May 25, 2018 at 11:25 am
Last Post: sdelsolray
  Strange troglodyte species found in Turkmenistan cave Foxaèr 4 886 September 26, 2017 at 7:18 am
Last Post: Gawdzilla Sama
  New Species Found in Oregon brewer 31 6434 February 11, 2016 at 10:34 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  Do you think we could/will ever have two dominant[prime] species? Heat 11 3374 November 21, 2015 at 9:12 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  Remains of new human species found ignoramus 32 6760 September 10, 2015 at 7:34 pm
Last Post: MTL
  Is there enough time for SPECIATION for million species drkfuture 11 6175 July 30, 2015 at 7:52 am
Last Post: Alex K
  Invasive Species IATIA 11 2756 July 17, 2015 at 7:25 pm
Last Post: rado84



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)