Anti-Creationists......time to speak your clout
Options
Comments
-
-
LOL @ labeling my image "Piltdown Man", and not being able to identify it. You're just spewing ? because you can't deny the evidence.
You can be quick to disprove other ? but not evolution. SMH.
@Vibe, Et al.
I think that in order to fully demolish your ? "evidence" I am gonna have to take down this piltdown man ? ...
This is what you posted....
In the age of Photoshop, do you want me to accept this image as concrete "evidence".... If so, you need to add some text (evidence) to back up its "proof of evolution"
Therefore, I suggested that you get the ? up out of here with that Piltdown man ? ...
I thought you caucasians were up on the slang....I didn't specifically say that one of the skulls that you posted was the Piltdown man....
I suggested that you were posting fraudulent ? , similar to your ancestors @Piltdown.... Therefore "FOH with that Piltdown man ? "......
Can't slick talk and "ether" your way out of this one...
Go ahead and post your evidence for the skulls.......
And I will pretend that I did not drop a video a while back that demolished your theory of evolution
GTFOHWTBS......
Did you think I was gonna let you slide?????"This is why I initially asked what the definition of "evolution" being referred to was, because attempting to disprove natural selection does nothing in the way of disproving biological evolution. "
I have to disagree with this statement. Biological Evolution is a fact. It can not be disproven. Every time we look for it we find it. And realize this is just the change of genetic information within a population over time. The fact this occurs has lead to the various theories explaining evolution.
Disproving Natural Selection would turn the Theory of Evolution on its head.
INDEED.....
-
Going back and forth with you is like a dog chasing it's own tail; pointless. You obviously DON'T know what evolution actually is, as you keep running circles with the same ? . Gold is ethering you ad you keep saying stupid ? , ethering yourself.
My theory image is for Judah, who loves to say "It's just a THEORY!" all the time. -
-
Going back and forth with you is like a dog chasing it's own tail; pointless. You obviously DON'T know what evolution actually is, as you keep running circles with the same ? . Gold is ethering you ad you keep saying stupid ? , ethering yourself.
My theory image is for Judah, who loves to say "It's just a THEORY!" all the time.
Please.......
Your boy @Gold Certificate could only argue semantics.....
Also I would have to agree with Bambu that without Natural Selection the theory of Evolution falls apart since it is the driving force of evolution. While I agree that mutation and change occur in living things and therefore variation would still be introduced we would lose the central pillar of how those changes accumulate within a species.
*EDIT* After rereading the posts it seems Gold_Certificate is arguing the definition of evolution does not include natural selection. This is correct. Bambu is arguing the Theory of Evolution heavily relies on Natural Selection and he is correct.
Without Natural Selection evolution would still occur. Evolution at this level would be defined as a change in a population genetic makeup. This is easily demonstrable in a lab. In fact their has never been an experiment where genetic information was tracked over time that changes did not occur.
However Natural Selection we would not understand why these changes were occurring because when we examine them they tend to appear to be non-random.
@Jaded Righteousness is a little ? ...........
-
LOL
Like I said, it's pointless to even begin to speak to you, after I asked for Piltdown Man to be identified, you kept LOL'ing and re-quoting me over and over. You're saying it's up to me to identify after YOU stated it. After that, I knew your tactic, avoid the questions and arguments with ? -made tactics. It's pointless, you aren't "open minded" to anything. -
LOL....
Respond to the Piltdown man comment then.............LOL @ labeling my image "Piltdown Man", and not being able to identify it. You're just spewing ? because you can't deny the evidence.
You can be quick to disprove other ? but not evolution. SMH.
@Vibe, Et al.
I think that in order to fully demolish your ? "evidence" I am gonna have to take down this piltdown man ? ...
This is what you posted....
In the age of Photoshop, do you want me to accept this image as concrete "evidence".... If so, you need to add some text (evidence) to back up its "proof of evolution"
Therefore, I suggested that you get the ? up out of here with that Piltdown man ? ...
I thought you caucasians were up on the slang....I didn't specifically say that one of the skulls that you posted was the Piltdown man....
I suggested that you were posting fraudulent ? , similar to your ancestors @Piltdown.... Therefore "FOH with that Piltdown man ? "......
Can't slick talk and "ether" your way out of this one...
Go ahead and post your evidence for the skulls.......
And I will pretend that I did not drop a video a while back that demolished your theory of evolution
-
Bruh, you know as well as I do the truths of mana evolution.
Brain growth, upright walking, tools found that match the time of certain bones found that we evolved from, we also have left over ? that we don't use as well, we're still evolving..http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/
The bones found all show a change, from ape-like to modern human. If you don't agree with that, then what other creatures, besides us, walked upright for a living, hunted with tools, painted images, lived in camps etc..? No other upright creature exists like us. -
Bambu Piltdown was exposed by scientist. Science has a self-correcting mechanism as research is always updated and reviewed. Each of the skulls in that photo have had several papers published on them and been examined numerous times by multiple sources. These sources are not exclusively European or white as many organizations actively try to recruit students from the native country the fossils are found.
-
Bambu Piltdown was exposed by scientist. Science has a self-correcting mechanism as research is always updated and reviewed. Each of the skulls in that photo have had several papers published on them and been examined numerous times by multiple sources. These sources are not exclusively European or white as many organizations actively try to recruit students from the native country the fossils are found.
@Whar.... I am fully aware of the Piltdown hoax, which is why I brought it up.
The suggestion that I called one of the skulls in this image the Piltdown man is another fraudulent claim perpetrated to "prove evolution" and garnish a few "ethers"....
I am aware that each of the skulls has research associated with them....
And I am waiting for @Vibe to post some it..Bruh, you know as well as I do the truths of mana evolution.
Brain growth, upright walking, tools found that match the time of certain bones found that we evolved from, we also have left over ? that we don't use as well, we're still evolving..http://listverse.com/2009/01/05/top-10-signs-of-evolution-in-modern-man/
The bones found all show a change, from ape-like to modern human. If you don't agree with that, then what other creatures, besides us, walked upright for a living, hunted with tools, painted images, lived in camps etc..? No other upright creature exists like us.
Another "sign of evolution" according to European scientists was the pineal gland....
We now understand that it produces melanin and synthesises melatonin
-
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
This site also focuses on the Creationism/Evolution debate. So it often has the ID/Creationist argument for the data linked.
Bambu your piltdown argument has major problems with it. The Claim that one of the images could be a hoax is deeply flawed. Lets assume one is a hoax then we are still left with a dozen or more transitional forms between humans and earlier apes. You have to show that ALL of them are a hoax AND explain how no one till you has caught this amazing con.
Demanding that we regurgitate the existing data on these finds else they are hoaxes is just an intellectual cop out. That data is trivially easy to find and several links have been posted further the links provide the original material if you desire to read that source.
It is somewhat hard to even find an argument in your posts. You have claimed possible hoaxes. You posted a Stephen Meyer video that was debunked by my Ken Miller debunked. In fact when ID went on trial Stephen Meyer and the others at the CSR did not even show up to the argument. You make far left field claims like the Pineal Gland is linked to evolution then link a page that does not mention the word evolution.
It seems your central contention against evolution is Natural Selection is false? Is this correct? -
? thats ? evolutionists use to argue...that obviously dont know ? about science. all theories must be falsifiable. they are generally accepted if they are "the most plausible explanation" but thats when presuppositions, politics and pure subjectivity come into play. yall mufuckas is funny.... -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/
This site also focuses on the Creationism/Evolution debate. So it often has the ID/Creationist argument for the data linked.
Bambu your piltdown argument has major problems with it. The Claim that one of the images could be a hoax is deeply flawed. Lets assume one is a hoax then we are still left with a dozen or more transitional forms between humans and earlier apes. You have to show that ALL of them are a hoax AND explain how no one till you has caught this amazing con.
Demanding that we regurgitate the existing data on these finds else they are hoaxes is just an intellectual cop out. That data is trivially easy to find and several links have been posted further the links provide the original material if you desire to read that source.
It is somewhat hard to even find an argument in your posts. You have claimed possible hoaxes. You posted a Stephen Meyer video that was debunked by my Ken Miller debunked. In fact when ID went on trial Stephen Meyer and the others at the CSR did not even show up to the argument. You make far left field claims like the Pineal Gland is linked to evolution then link a page that does not mention the word evolution.
It seems your central contention against evolution is Natural Selection is false? Is this correct?
@Whar....
You seem like an intelligent fellow and I see that you have been following this thread and appreciate your sincerity...
However some of your questions are straw men, as I have clarified my position.....
As far as my far left claims go....
The pineal gland was originally believed to be a "vestigial remnant" of a larger ? . In 1917 it was known that extract of cow pineals lightened frog skin. Dermatology professor Aaron B. Lerner and colleagues at Yale University, hoping that a substance from the pineal might be useful in treating skin diseases, isolated and named the hormone melatonin in 1958..... -
? thats ? evolutionists use to argue...that obviously dont know ? about science. all theories must be falsifiable. they are generally accepted if they are "the most plausible explanation" but thats when presuppositions, politics and pure subjectivity come into play. yall mufuckas is funny....
You're smarter than that.
Science doesn't just say, "oh hey btw we feel this or that happened", they research, test, study, follow, give years and years to their findings and give PROOF. You really are close-minded to science, thinking it's some racist agenda. You're delusional as ? . -
@Bambu, so what's your point with the pineal gland? Do you feel it's etherous or something?
-
You creationists don't have any understanding for Evolution.
Every form is a transitional form, dummies.
We don't have faith in Scientists.
We accept the evidence they've present us.
Creation has no model, no theory, no nothing
One question, have you ever seen something proof into existence?
Apparently, some people have had near death experiences and floated to heaven to smoke some cheeba cheeba with lord have mercy. It's kind of like when crazy people see burning bushes and everybody that wasn't there believes that even though he didn't even show them a sample. Also, similar to dudes imaging that their tighty whiteys are all magical like. Anybody can claim some outlandish ? these days with no proof and get a bunch of people to follow. And then they drink Koolaid, eat cookies, and take dirt naps
-
@Vibe....@Bambu, so what's your point with the pineal gland? Do you feel it's etherous or something?
It simply illustrates the silly "signs of evolution" perpetrated by European scientists....
I grow weary of entertaining your insolence......
You should pray to the gods of your ancestors and beg forgiveness for their fuckery and failed attempts at manipulating the direction of humankind for their own twisted purposes....
Repent for your own ignorance and willingness to continue in their failed ideologies....Amun...
The information about the pienal gland is but one of many etherous comments that I have been deluging your side with..... -
Ether though? I hardly see ether but more so humorous posts.
You don't understand evolution or science. That's that.
Plus this is Truth Writers topic, who has not been apart of this discussion at all. -
That's why I wrote "attempting to disprove"; because natural selection and biological evolution are both objectively observable phenomena. So in the same way that biological evolution can't be disproved, neither can "natural selection" (as defined here)."This is why I initially asked what the definition of "evolution" being referred to was, because attempting to disprove natural selection does nothing in the way of disproving biological evolution. "
I have to disagree with this statement. Biological Evolution is a fact. It can not be disproven. Every time we look for it we find it. And realize this is just the change of genetic information within a population over time. The fact this occurs has lead to the various theories explaining evolution.
Disproving Natural Selection would turn the Theory of Evolution on its head.
"Y does nothing in the way of disproving X" and "X cannot be disproved" are not mutually-exclusive statements. -
@Gold_Certificate
A wise analogy to compare this to how ? trying to disprove Evolution will be nice.
Actually the thread was structured for anti-creationists to "speak your clout".......
So, these ? is trying to prove evolution.....
Take a stab at the DNA evidence rather than pseudo scientific terminology surrounding the duck-billed platypus.....
"the mystery of the origin of the information needed to build the first living organism"
Until such a first life exists Darwinian evolution cannot commence.
-
I'll drop a summary instead:@Gold_Certificate
A wise analogy to compare this to how ? trying to disprove Evolution will be nice.
Trying to disprove evolution is like trying to disprove a thunderstorm.
It merely shows one does not know the definition of that which they are trying to disprove. -
...which is why he's not bothering to argue any of them are a hoax, and instead is citing a commonly recognized hoax as if it's an argument.Bambu your piltdown argument has major problems with it. The Claim that one of the images could be a hoax is deeply flawed.
-
? thats ? evolutionists use to argue...that obviously dont know ? about science. all theories must be falsifiable. they are generally accepted if they are "the most plausible explanation" but thats when presuppositions, politics and pure subjectivity come into play. yall mufuckas is funny....
You're smarter than that.
Science doesn't just say, "oh hey btw we feel this or that happened", they research, test, study, follow, give years and years to their findings and give PROOF. You really are close-minded to science, thinking it's some racist agenda. You're delusional as ? .
? im going by the actual definition of a theory in the scientific realm..i dont have to even deal with that other ? you talking. the thing you ? fail to realize is i'm wary of and not impressed by ANY western institution. that being said, theres something very ill about yall acting like the foundations of evolutionary theory are NOT racist and reflective of darwins spiritual (or lack thereof) when darwins own words tell the tale. if what im saying is so implausible then there would be no need for ethics committees amongst scientists. scientists are humans that lie, manipulate and want/neeed money like any other people. the field of "science" is not a truth serum for all who walk its halllowed halls. wtf? you ? talk with the presupposition thats its implausible or impossible that the whole thing is corrupted in the western context DESPPITE VISCERAL evidence to the contrary. science in the modern context is what it is good and bad, but how can you deny its role in the destruction of today? youre delusional as ? and programmed to the tee. its bigger than race...thats just one part. its bigger than science. its all one part. but your inability to look at the entire picture thru the lense of what all the standardized and s "approved" knowledge results in actually, and not some far off future potential or knowing just to be knowing. if a muthafucka put years and years into a study on whatever and get millions on millions in grants (from HUMAN INDIVIDUALS with AGENDAS) and found some ? that would threaten all that, there is no intrinsic moral or ethical code that would prevent him from doing the easiest thing- the wrong thing. dont try to play me with empty ass lingo like im "close-minded" to science' i know what the i know bruh...im open minded to anything but ? . politics, religion, science, culture...theyre all corrupted as hell in this context of the western world and theyre all tentacles of the same thing. its a snowball effect. therefore its ? to that process u described. if they find proof but theyre the only ones who can determine what "proof" itself is and how it can be guaged then how the ? is it so implausible there are inherent flaws in that reasoning. the only "proof" found is proof that there are species that existed before that dont now and that they look like or function like current species. evolution and creationism are not the only possible theories for how to RELATE that "proof". from the mouths of scientist, theories are the "best possible or most plausible explanation". "most" "best" "plausible" and "possible" are all very subjective terms. according to what and whom are these things qualified as such??? common sense should tell you if a muthafucka cant tell you how life started then they could not posssibly be authoratative about how it works and develops. -
@Gold_Certificate
A wise analogy to compare this to how ? trying to disprove Evolution will be nice.
Actually the thread was structured for anti-creationists to "speak your clout".......
So, these ? is trying to prove evolution.....
Take a stab at the DNA evidence rather than pseudo scientific terminology surrounding the duck-billed platypus.....
"the mystery of the origin of the information needed to build the first living organism"
Until such a first life exists Darwinian evolution cannot commence.
exactly. if you dont know the origin of that information then how the ? can you know any derivatives of it? ? are trained well by ? techno-synthetic ducktales all aimed towards the goal of DEHUMANIZATION.
This discussion has been closed.