Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[popeyespappy]

Evolution theory has long since been disproven by the gaps in the fossils record. Not one single bone has ever been found that connects one creature with something entirely different. That's why the proevolution scientists frequently lament the "gaps" in the fossils record.

So, when scientists used evolutionary theory to predict exactly which stratographic layer they'd need to dig in to find a transitional form between fish and tetrapods, and then literally found one there, it was just an accident? Hmm?

I talked about tetrapod evolution in the fossil record a couple of pages back in response to A2E's repeated lie about no transitional fossils. Of course the ignorant cunt ignored my post as I'm sure she will ignore yours. Shubin's book Your Inner Fish refutes every lie she has told in the first few chapters.

PopeyesPappy to Alter2Ego. You are a lying bitch and an intentionally ignorant fucking cunt aren't you? Please do the world a favor and go play in traffic. Preferably before you breed. The world needs your genetic line to go extinct.

[Anomalocaris]

Evolution theory has long since been disproven by the gaps in the fossils record. Not one single bone has ever been found that connects one creature with something entirely different. That's why the proevolution scientists frequently lament the "gaps" in the fossils record.

A2E, reach around your neck and feel for some lumps under your skin beneath your skull. These are bones, called cervical vertabrate. There are 7 of them right on your veryself that you can touch and feel whenever you like. Yes, scientists know they are there even if you deny their existence.

Why are they important, because they are traditional fossils that connect parts of one creature, something you can your human body, with parts of another, a brain that certainly isn't human, more like a baboon.

See, these is no gap. Your body evolved from monkeys, as shown by a continuous,unbroken line of 7 transitional cervical vertabrates that connects it to a head that still thinks like a monkey.

[Michael Schubert]

Evolution theory has long since been disproven by the gaps in the fossils record. Not one single bone has ever been found that connects one creature with something entirely different. That's why the proevolution scientists frequently lament the "gaps" in the fossils record.

A2E, reach around your neck and feel for some lumps under your skin beneath your skull. These are bones, called cervical vertabrate. There are 7 of them right on your veryself that you can touch and feel whenever you like. Yes, scientists know they are there even if you deny their existence.

Why are they important, because they are traditional fossils that connect parts of one creature, something you can your human body, with parts of another, a brain that certainly isn't human, more like a baboon.

See, these is no gap. Your body evolved from monkeys, as shown by a continuous,unbroken line of 7 transitional cervical vertabrates that connects it to a head that still thinks like a monkey.

Religion and Science are also not two opposing view points. Creationists say you can only either reject God and accept evolution, or you accept God and reject evolution, which is objectively false. Charles Darwin was never even an Atheist; his religious views fluctuated throughout his lifetime. In fact, On the Origin of Species reflects theological views, and only rejects God's omnipotence. Watch that video I posted earlier about the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. It's very informative. This one is excellent, too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

[Anomalocaris]

Religion and Science are also not two opposing view points.

Actually, religion is pretense and pretense is the opposite of science.

It may be that in a given time and circumstance, conflict between a given religion and science simmers in the background and is not etched in sharp relief. But that's just a monster covered by a flimsy rug.

For a long time, the dismetrically opposing foundations of science and christianity is swept under the rug, to the point where the religious even forgot it existed. But christainity is build upon a cosmological pretense and a escatological pretense. The progress of science is such that cosmology is the first place in which it mastered the strength of evidence to knock the legs out from under pretense. This is why science and christianity has been in ever intensifying conflict since.

There are other relgions such as buddhism where the pretense is somewhere else. Science is a progressive craft and its main body does not make overreaching claims without rigorous step by step progress to get there. It has not yet gotten to the point where the pretenses of buddhism is brought into the sharpest relief by science. But it will.

[Alter2Ego]

Religion and Science are also not two opposing view points. Creationists say you can only either reject God and accept evolution, or you accept God and reject evolution, which is objectively false. Charles Darwin was never even an Atheist; his religious views fluctuated throughout his lifetime. In fact, On the Origin of Species reflects theological views, and only rejects God's omnipotence. Watch that video I posted earlier about the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. It's very informative. This one is excellent, too.

ALTER2EGO -to- MICHAEL SCHUBERT:
It depends which religion you are referring to. FYI: There is such a thing as true religion and false religion.

Charles Darwin was never even an Atheist; his religious views fluctuated throughout his lifetime. In fact, On the Origin of Species reflects theological views, and only rejects God's omnipotence. Watch that video I posted earlier about the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism. It's very informative. This one is excellent, too.

As for your views on Charles Darwin's philosophy, during which he flip-flopped between atheism and paganism, I have him pegged as atheist for several reasons. One important reason is that he attempted to kick Jehovah to the curb by pushing abiogenesis theory (the believe that life can come from non-life by itself). Even after abiogenesis theory was debunked by Louis Pasteur in 1859, Charles Darwin persisted in speculating abiogenesis theory.

[popeyespappy]

I see you are still spewing the same old tired lies, A2E.

[Minimalist]

There is such a thing as true religion and false religion.

Balls.

It's all shit.

[Anomalocaris]

She is 50% right. There definitely are false religions.

[Minimalist]

100% of them.

[Alter2Ego]

So, when scientists used evolutionary theory to predict exactly which stratographic layer they'd need to dig in to find a transitional form between fish and tetrapods, and then literally found one there, it was just an accident? Hmm?

I talked about tetrapod evolution in the fossil record a couple of pages back in response to A2E's repeated lie about no transitional fossils. Of course the ignorant cunt ignored my post as I'm sure she will ignore yours. Shubin's book Your Inner Fish refutes every lie she has told in the first few chapters.

PopeyesPappy to Alter2Ego. You are a lying bitch and an intentionally ignorant fucking cunt aren't you? Please do the world a favor and go play in traffic. Preferably before you breed. The world needs your genetic line to go extinct.

ALTER2EGO -to- POPEYESPAPPY:
I distinctly recall reading forum rules that says: "No personal attacks."

3. No Personal Attacks
As a discussion based forum, the ability to interact civilly is very important. Attacks made in jest (with the understanding of both/all parties - tacit or otherwise) are allowed, as are off-handed comments that do not escalate into flame wars. Staff will take the context of each insult into consideration before taking action. Provoked insults (as determined by staff) will not incur a warning, but they are not encouraged. In the case of unprovoked insults, staff will attempt to ascertain if an attack was in jest, and will discuss the attack with both parties where possible and then decide what action to take. Members are encouraged to use the "report post" button if they believe a post violates this rule. This rule does not cover attacking someone's argument. It's perfectly reasonable to say, "That argument is stupid", but it is recommended to back it up with sound reasoning.

http://atheistforums.org/rules.php


You are on permanent Ignore. You will remain on "Ignore" until my account at this website is cancelled or until I leave voluntarily.

After what you told to me at Post 151, do you seriously think I want anything further to do with you? I cannot even read the tripe you post anymore, much less respond to it, because you are now on my "Ignore" list. Whenever anyone quotes you so that your posts become visible to me, I will simply scroll past without reading.

Now, how does that grab you?


FYI: I do not deal with people who are convinced that foul language is proof of high intellect. We are all adults. Act your age. Learn to disagree without resorting to out-of-control, juvenile behavior, such you used at Post 151. I am as convinced that you are wrong in your philosophy, as you and other atheists are convinced I am wrong. We will probably never agree. But that is no reason for using demeaning language towards those that have an opposing viewpoint. People with opposing viewpoints can have intelligent discussions, while disagreeing with one another. There is nothing wrong with discussing and disagreeing at the same time. The problem comes in when certain ones think they must destroy their opponents.



Now, go ahead and curse some more. I guarantee that I will not be reading it ever again.