The theory of evolution HOAX

[Amarok]

Well, need we say more after looking at that list of scientists with PhD's?? Condemning them all across the board is as absurd as it gets.

Any more so then you dismissing the vastly larger group of PH.D 's that contradict your claim evolution has been refuted . Clearly you must either think them at fault or lying . And wait are you appealing to numbers? even thou you have already stated that majority opinion does not matter . So which is it and does it also count for creationists?

---

READ the articles on creationresearch.org!

You assume I have not or have not read similar stuff. FYI there nothing on this site that I could not find on AIG. and nothing on AIG that has not already been refuted by scientists who don't allow personal beliefs to influence there work.  

If you really hold a true position,

Nothing in science is truth .

it should not make you fear to read articles from the opposition in the least.

This does not follow . A person may not want to read article because they already know what it says. Because someone far braver then you actually bothered to present there arguments themselves rather then just leave a link and expect that to be a conversation . Not as thou already know what they are and why they are flawed.

Yet I see people in this forum saying they refuse to read the articles.

Because we already know what they are going to argue . And I vain present as evidence of there position . Because we have watched and argued with creationists for decades. And there idea's never seem to change or get any better. It's like there forever stuck in 1960 and refuse to move forward.

We all know why that is - because when the articles totally destroy the theory of evolution,

Not that I have seen . Same tired arguments . Same tired fallacies. No wonder they can't get published in an actual science journal . And are rejected . Sorry there are no heroes to be found here.

*POOF*, you have no choice but to believe in God. It's the typical cowardly atheist response.

This does not follow even if evolution were refuted tomorrow . This would not make me any less an atheist . Because atheism is not a belief in evolution it's a lack of belief in god . The defeat of one does not demonstrate the other . Nope it's the typical I done this already and am jaded by yet another In a long line of quacks who give up doing legitimate science or hit up diploma mills to try and push religion in guise of science . Who have for the last 40 years as a movement failed to evolution down or make there own idea's a useful part of mainstream science and instead whine about persecution and weave conspiracies .And play scientists in there club house.

---

Then there's their arguments. Carbon dating is inaccurate. Well, that's true, it is. And we don't have other reliable dating methods, right?

And yet creationist use dating method to claim the earth is young .

And who can argue with complexity, or the human footprints found alongside dinosaur tracks. This points to me that humans did indeed live alongside dinosaurs around six thousand years ago. This proves that The Flintstones is a documentary series, based on real events.

Dinosaurs could not have lived with man . Says who ? . Not evolution . As for complexity really were going there again?

[Little Rik]

How can you say that machine man that you are. You were obviously designed, on a Friday afternoon after a long drinking session.

We are the ultimate in human evolution.

Gee, you must have the ultimate evidence that there is nothing after man?
Please Cyberman show us this evidence.  

We are what your species will become.

We are the perfect survivors.

Perfect?

Does that means that if an earthquake drop the roof on your head you survive and live to tell?

Also horny.

As far as you are young and fit only.
After that is a different story.

[popeyespappy]

forever stuck in 1960 and refuse to move forward.

I think you meant stuck in 960.

[Cyberman]

Rik, fuck off and play with your own age group. I'm not interested in talking to you.

[Little Rik]

Evidence is needed here evidence is needed there but when you ask for evidence to them there is total silence or swearing.

Isn't this hypocrisy?  

[Cyberman]

No, Rik, it's just you. You're too intractably stupid to waste time talking to. Drop off the Earth, okay?

[Little Rik]

No, Rik, it's just you. You're too intractably stupid to waste time talking to. Drop off the Earth, okay?

Oh, well sometime I really wish to drop off the planet considering that I am surrounded by idiots and hypocrites.  
Of course I don't mean you Cyb.  

[The Grand Nudger]

Don't you find it strange that in all of that wishing you never manage to make it materialize?  Wish-magicking shit is kind of your gimmick, isn't it?

[I_am_not_mafia]

The theory of evolution has Been proven impossible repeatedly over the years,

Oh shit. Does this mean that my evolutionary algorithms based on the theory of evolution are not in fact evolving after all? Why then are they so useful? What are they doing instead?

yet people in this forum cling to it anyway because without it the only plausible alternative is creation,

How do I write a creationist algorithm then? Or do I actually need to design my own artificial intelligence? I haven't ever had to do that before. I'm not sure where to begin. I normally just let it evolve and don't care how it works as long as it does.

In fact last time I actually tried to understand what I had evolved was 2005 and it took several weeks.

[Crossless2.0]

How do I write a creationist algorithm then?

I could be mistaken, but I think you start with a null set and then just make up the rest.