Every monkey who was walking around is human already. And evolution is also already happen to our species. This question is very strange and obvious to answer.
And every human who walks around believing in evolution, is trying to become a monkey.  I'm now convinced this guy is simply trolling. There is no way someone is this stupid. All his comments become pretty funny when you consider the other creationists are lapping up his trolling. |
|
|
|
The failure of evolution is in two parts: 1. All the foundational evolution scientists always say in their basic, foundational evolution papers, wording to the effect of: "if, maybe, it looks like, possibly, probably," etc. This means that they do not know, and that they do not have proof; 2. All the scientists and people who build on this foundation of: "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc., are saying that they don't know and don't have proof, right along with the foundational papers they build on.. That's all there is for evolution. There is "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc., and those who base their stuff on the "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc. There is no proof that says "definitely," that is not based on "if, maybe, it looks like, possibley, probably," etc. Forget it. Evolution is a hoax. your argument? That scientific papers don't use the word definitely? I would probably believe creationism as well if I was this uneducated. You are even more clueless than the other guy. If the two of you could go back to elementary science classes for a couple of years, then come back and message me, that would be great. |
|
|
|
Well Im sorry I am not peer-reviewed. Go read the peer-review please.
Well, I'm sorry I'm telling lies instead of facts. - This is how you sound. |
|
|
|
are the same kind.
It is worth noting the word "kind" is a completely nonsense term, made up by creationists, that has no bearing whatsoever on proper scientific taxonomy. Not surprising that you would use it, since we know you don't understand science at all. |
|
|
|
Saying that they also found that the bluish and reddish cichlids interbreed is saying nothing, that's not an argument against my evidence.
There is no point trying. He does not understand and refuses to learn. |
|
|
|
So just say you dont wish to talk just read what is per-reviewed and what is not..... You fake wanting to talk. So no need to talk to you.
This is per-reviewed this is not. So much of a constructive debate.... And I thought you actually wanted to know the truth. You are just interested what is per-reviewed. So be it. I realise now you don't understand science at all, but this is particularly hilarious. Peer reviewed research is the highest quality of evidence that exists. You are accusing me of only being interested in facts. While this is true, it is hilarious that you would destroy your own argument by admitting that I am interested in the facts while you are not. |
|
|
|
You dismiss the sources just because they are creationist when I told you their are creationist sources.........
Yes. I provided original scientific research, peer-reviewed, and published in reputable independent journals. I expect a similar quality of evidence in return. Incoherent ramblings from a completely biased creationist site do not qualify. I am now realising, having typed that, that maybe once again this is my mistake for assuming you understood what constitutes "evidence". |
|
|
|
|
Sigh. I thought, for a second, we were going to get an original argument or an actual piece of evidence. Instead you have gone back to copy-pasting from some nonsensical, pseudo-scientific creationist website.
|
|
|
|
I will just present you their findings if you would like to know the arguments of the other side.
YES. It only took me asking you thirteen times. I eagerly look forward to you presenting some evidence. |
|
|
|
I have - none of it is true. But it would take an awfull lot of time to explain it to you the falsehood of all 50.
I see. You have some knowledge that all the world's best scientists don't, but you can't be bothered to explain it. Makes sense.  For the twelfth time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument. |
|
|
|
So you are not even going to read the mountains of evidence I give you, but just assume that it is wrong. How very scientific and logical of you For the eleventh time, give me a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, or you have lost the argument. |
|
|
|
Listen.... Just pick 5 of them ok? You seriously want to me to write about 50 of them? So, what you are saying is there is just too much evidence for evolution. At least we agree on something. nobody has ever seen something evolving that they can prove is evolution and not something else Apart from Shaposhnikov over 70 years ago, which was where I started this discussion, and the countless other examples I have provided you with. I'm done with this argument. I have provided mountains and mountains of evidence which you have both failed to counter even once. The very fact you use words like "accident" and "random" shows that you have a deep, deep ignorance about science and evolution, and zero willingness to learn. You can play your word games and make stupid points about World of Warcraft and students as long as you like, but until I see a single piece of evidence that evolution is a hoax, I'll consider this argument won. |
|
|
|
|
I still cannot fathom why you are yet again caught up with 2008 as some arbitrary cut off.
Here are the facts:
Miller-Urey produced amino acids.
Multiple other experiments have also produced up to 33 amino acids.
You have failed to produce any valid criticism or evidence to the contrary, therefore these facts stand.
Argument is over.
You can play stupid word games all day long, claiming scientists "changed the definition of specie", but it doesn't change the facts.
Evolution is a fact, and you have failed to even come close to proving otherwise.
|
|
|
|
You do not understand there is no such thing as counter-evidence. There could be the evidence to the contrary, or evidence that your statements are not true - a counter statements. I do not have to be right in order to prove you wrong. But you have not proved me wrong. You have not proved a single thing. Mountains of evidence? Ok I agree. But for what? For natural selection and adaption? Yeah there shit tons of it. The evidences for new specie that is separataed aka - could not breed with the specie he orignated from? There is no a single one. So you've already forgotten the list of 50 or so I gave you yesterday? If you can't access that paper, I would refer you to this handy list of approximately 50 more examples of new species being created in a lab. Evidence for availability of abiogenesis? Veeeeeeeery shady to say the least. You only prove that - noone has cought you on the lie yet. You have failed to discredit a single one of the multiple papers I gave you, therefore you must also believe it is true. |
|
|
|
Lets assume im deluded and complete moron. That does not make you right. I have mountains of evidence supporting my position. You have repeatedly failed to discredit any of it or provide any counter-evidence of your own. That makes me right. |
|
|
|
Those are wrong premises. You cannot assume the changed experiments and not the same experiments... Repeated means repeated. Should I give you dictionary? It means making the same once again.........
You have just a big problems with words.... You need better dictionaries. You cannot say something is repeated when it is not repeated.... clearly........
You've made it abundantly clear you don't understand the scientific process or scientific terminology. You can stop repeating the same incorrect point over and over again. It's boring. Now, if you would like to actually disprove any of the studies or offer some of your own evidence, rather than squabbling about terminology, I'm listening. If not, I'll assume that you agree with me regarding the spontaneous production of amino acids. |
|
|
|
There was no other circle than in your head ok? All you can do is insulting your debater... Thats all you are suceeding in. And yes i feel enoughly insulted.
You compare me to a Nazi then complain about being insulted? Wow. Ok I insulted you. Once... And you did that constantly. It was not a lie to point out that you do not understand the scientific process. changed experiment is not the same experiment. Failed experiment is not the same as succesful experiment. If one denies a simple logical and language constructs like you do - there is no point in even talking to such a person because he is illogical. If one denies language and his rules, you cannot convince him to stick to rules of logic and language using the language and logic that you constantly violate by calling things the same when they are not the same. As I explained above, I was using general scientific terminology, and it was my mistake for assuming you understood that. Again, I assumed you understood that experiments that are repeated and redone are generally modified in some small ways to prove some new points. There is zero point exactly repeating an experiment that has already been proved. This is basic science 101. Again, my mistake for assuming you understood this.
My original points still stand, however. There are literally hundreds of experiments of different early Earth conditions, all producing amino acids. You have failed to discredit this in any way shape or form. |
|
|
|
|
This is becoming more commonplace, and the banks have every right to do this.
Money spent on a credit card is not your money. It is the bank's money, and they have a duty to ensure their money is spent wisely and will be paid back.
|
|
|
|
There was no other circle than in your head ok? All you can do is insulting your debater... Thats all you are suceeding in. And yes i feel enoughly insulted.
You compare me to a Nazi then complain about being insulted? Wow. Ok I insulted you. Once... And you did that constantly. It was not a lie to point out that you do not understand the scientific process. |
|
|
|
There was no other circle than in your head ok? All you can do is insulting your debater... Thats all you are suceeding in. And yes i feel enoughly insulted.
You compare me to a Nazi then complain about being insulted? Wow. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
