RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (21) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   
  Topic: Challenge to Evolutionists< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:41   

Hey Supersport,

Since your memory is all of 9 seconds long (you do believe in the measurement known as the second, right?), let me remind you of your stupidity.

People have posted about the polydactylity in horses, about increased fitness due to pigmentation changes, and numerous other things.  You don't even DISCUSS these things when brought up.

Instead of replying to the information brought up,you immediately ask other, unrelated questions.  This can be shown later on in the thread when it was the goal to resolves the issue of genetic information.

You brought up this issue by asking a question.  Several people offered to answer this question.  You responded by saying that your question was unanswerable.  Instead of trying to resolve this issue by restating the question, clarifying terms, or discussing related subject matter you:

1.  Called people childish
2.  Started to ignore the subject as if you had never broached it in the first place
3.  Moved on to other unrelated topics

By these actions, you show yourself to be a first class jackass.

Now, how about resolving one issue, JUST TO LET US KNOW YOU'RE SERIOUS:

What is meant by genetic information, or is your question meaningless?

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:42   

Too many the buttons I hit.  Ooops.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:58   

Quote (blipey @ Sep. 20 2007,07:41)
Hey Supersport,

Since your memory is all of 9 seconds long (you do believe in the measurement known as the second, right?), let me remind you of your stupidity.

People have posted about the polydactylity in horses, about increased fitness due to pigmentation changes, and numerous other things. †You don't even DISCUSS these things when brought up.

Instead of replying to the information brought up,you immediately ask other, unrelated questions. †This can be shown later on in the thread when it was the goal to resolves the issue of genetic information.

You brought up this issue by asking a question. †Several people offered to answer this question. †You responded by saying that your question was unanswerable. †Instead of trying to resolve this issue by restating the question, clarifying terms, or discussing related subject matter you:

1. †Called people childish
2. †Started to ignore the subject as if you had never broached it in the first place
3. †Moved on to other unrelated topics

By these actions, you show yourself to be a first class jackass.

Now, how about resolving one issue, JUST TO LET US KNOW YOU'RE SERIOUS:

What is meant by genetic information, or is your question meaningless?

polydactylity is not a selectable change....it's a genetic defect......and the pigmentation in the flies surely has not proven scientifically to result in more breedings....your assumption that this slight color change would make the opposite more attracted is a wild guess. † If you have evidence to the contrary you're welcome to present it.

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,07:59   

Since people have kept parakeets in cages for hundreds of years, it seems that SuperDumbAss is saying that parakeets should be born with their own cage.

If there are no such things as genes with functions, DumbAss, then what is this all about?

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
Erasmus, FCD



Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:00   

Panadaptationist caricatures of evolution are boring.  There is no bottom to the well of cretinist stupidity.

--------------
You're obviously illiterate as hell.†Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:00   

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Sep. 20 2007,07:59)
Since people have kept parakeets in cages for hundreds of years, it seems that SuperDumbAss is saying that parakeets should be born with their own cage.

If there are no such things as genes with functions, DumbAss, then what is this all about?

hurry, your 3rd grade class is starting...you're going to be late.

by the way, I never said genes don't have functions, what I said is genes cannot be defined...just like the mind has functions yet can't be defined.  Geez.  Get it right.

  
Reciprocating Bill



Posts: 4265
Joined: Oct. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:06   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:04)
This forum is pathetic. †Truly pathetic. †I ask you mental lightweights about mutations in my OP...never do I get a single answer...

Stop me if you've heard this, Sport: the trollery and horseshit you are vending is tiresome and empty, you and yours are not participants in serious discourse on these matters, and no one here really gives a rat's ass about what you think or what your contrived challenges are.

--------------
Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."
- David Foster Wallace

"Here’s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."
- Barry Arrington

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:07   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,07:31)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,07:14)
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.

Production of Ethane, Ethylene, and Acetylene from Halogenated Hydrocarbons by Methanogenic Bacteria

Reduction of U(VI) to U(IV) by indigenous bacteria in contaminated ground water

Microbiological degradation of pesticides in yard waste composting.

Microbial Diversity in Uranium Mine Waste Heaps

The abstract for that last one bears repeating

 
Quote
Two different uranium mine waste heaps near Ronneburg, Thuringia, Germany, which contain the remains of the activity of the former uranium-mining Soviet-East German company Wismut AG, were analyzed for the occurrence of lithotrophic and chemoorganotropic leach bacteria. A total of 162 ore samples were taken up to a depth of 5 m. Cell counts of ferrous iron-, sulfur-, sulfur compound-, ammonia-, and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria were determined quantitatively by the most-probable-number technique. Sulfate-, nitrate-, ferric iron-, and manganese-reducing bacteria were also detected. In addition, the metabolic activity of sulfur- and iron-oxidizing bacteria was measured by microcalorimetry. Generally, all microorganisms mentioned above were detectable in the heaps. Aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms thrived up to a depth of 1.5 to 2 m. Up to 99% of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans cells, the dominant leaching bacteria, occurred to this depth. Their numbers correlated with the microbial activity measurements. Samples below 1.5 to 2 m exhibited reduced oxygen concentrations and reduced cell counts for all microorganisms.


SuperSport, do you understand what the world "thrives" means?

Did you miss this one Super?

Now, it's your turn to pony up the proof.

Quote
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.


I've met your challenge. Are you too much of a coward to meet mine?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
blipey



Posts: 2061
Joined: June 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:11   

Supersport,

Do you vote for school board members in my area?  If so, you should meet Ftk--and we have a problem.  If not, congratulations, you won't have to read me anymore.

--------------
But I get the trick question- there isn't any such thing as one molecule of water. -JoeG

And scientists rarely test theories. -Gary Gaulin

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:26   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,08:07)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,07:31)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,07:14)
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.

Production of Ethane, Ethylene, and Acetylene from Halogenated Hydrocarbons by Methanogenic Bacteria

Reduction of U(VI) to U(IV) by indigenous bacteria in contaminated ground water

Microbiological degradation of pesticides in yard waste composting.

Microbial Diversity in Uranium Mine Waste Heaps

The abstract for that last one bears repeating

†  
Quote
Two different uranium mine waste heaps near Ronneburg, Thuringia, Germany, which contain the remains of the activity of the former uranium-mining Soviet-East German company Wismut AG, were analyzed for the occurrence of lithotrophic and chemoorganotropic leach bacteria. A total of 162 ore samples were taken up to a depth of 5 m. Cell counts of ferrous iron-, sulfur-, sulfur compound-, ammonia-, and nitrite-oxidizing bacteria were determined quantitatively by the most-probable-number technique. Sulfate-, nitrate-, ferric iron-, and manganese-reducing bacteria were also detected. In addition, the metabolic activity of sulfur- and iron-oxidizing bacteria was measured by microcalorimetry. Generally, all microorganisms mentioned above were detectable in the heaps. Aerobic and anaerobic microorganisms thrived up to a depth of 1.5 to 2 m. Up to 99% of Thiobacillus ferrooxidans cells, the dominant leaching bacteria, occurred to this depth. Their numbers correlated with the microbial activity measurements. Samples below 1.5 to 2 m exhibited reduced oxygen concentrations and reduced cell counts for all microorganisms.


SuperSport, do you understand what the world "thrives" means?

Did you miss this one Super?

Now, it's your turn to pony up the proof.

 
Quote
show me where it's been proven by way of controlled experiment.


I've met your challenge. Are you too much of a coward to meet mine?

sorry, none of these prove natural selection. †"Thrive" in this situation simply means the organisms adapted to the environment and lived happily -- there is no proof that natural selection was responsible. †It could just as easily been an internal, adaptive response. †To prove natural selection science would need to conduct controlled experiments on actual animals, marking and tagging them so they have irrefutable proof which ones live or die, thus failing to reproduce.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:29   

just curious......so who's worse...me or the afDave guy (or whatever his name is) you guys were talking about?  By the way, anyone know where he debates?

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:31   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,07:15)
SuperSport the cubicle dwelling troll Said
Quote
Weíve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases.


I responded with  
Quote
Why don't the "fast breeders" suffer genetic diseases? Bacteria etc? Millions of generations gone past, and yet here they all still are ready to infect your food at the slightest chance.


SuperSport the dilbert knock off said
Quote
Probably diet.....bacteria don't eat an assortment of chemicals, fats, salts, additives, hydrogenated oils, sodas, chips, fries, burgers, onion rings, Cheetos, fruit juice and corn dogs.....we do. Add on top of that exposure to pollution, industrial toxins, city water that's been loaded with fluoride and chlorine, pesticides, and all kinds of other contaminates.  It's causing a wholesale degeneration in the genome.

And I posted
Quote
Bacteria found in radioactive waste Hanford. U.S. Scientists studying the soil beneath a leaking Hanford nuclear waste storage tank have discovered more than 100 species of bacteria living in a toxic, radioactive environment that most considered inhospitable to all forms of life.


Yet SuperSport has not commented. I've just destroyed a big part of your pathetic belief "system" (not really, as we know you are a Troll, but let's carry on pretending).

Typical dishonest YEC behavior.

Super, the issue at hand was not to "prove" natural selection as you well know.

I asked why bacteria are still around if genomic deterioration puts an upper limit on the number reproductve events, as you said.

YOU said it was because bacteria are not exposed to the toxins humans are.

I note that they are, and that they thrive on it.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:32   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:29)
just curious......so who's worse...me or the afDave guy (or whatever his name is) you guys were talking about?  By the way, anyone know where he debates?

AFDave "debates" in the same style as you.

I.E not at all.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:35   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:26)
sorry, none of these prove natural selection.  "Thrive" in this situation simply means the organisms adapted to the environment and lived happily -- there is no proof that natural selection was responsible.  It could just as easily been an internal, adaptive response.  To prove natural selection science would need to conduct controlled experiments on actual animals, marking and tagging them so they have irrefutable proof which ones live or die, thus failing to reproduce.

Oh, and what's you reason for why bacteria can "adapt to the environment and live happily" and bypass the genomic deterioration problem you claim exists, and humans cannot?

What's the difference between the two?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:36   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,08:31)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,07:15)
SuperSport the cubicle dwelling troll Said
 
Quote
Weíve recently learned from J.C. Sanford that the genome is degenerating. We see proof of that all around us with all the new crop of genetic diseases.


I responded with †
Quote
Why don't the "fast breeders" suffer genetic diseases? Bacteria etc? Millions of generations gone past, and yet here they all still are ready to infect your food at the slightest chance.


SuperSport the dilbert knock off said
 
Quote
Probably diet.....bacteria don't eat an assortment of chemicals, fats, salts, additives, hydrogenated oils, sodas, chips, fries, burgers, onion rings, Cheetos, fruit juice and corn dogs.....we do. Add on top of that exposure to pollution, industrial toxins, city water that's been loaded with fluoride and chlorine, pesticides, and all kinds of other contaminates. †It's causing a wholesale degeneration in the genome.

And I posted
 
Quote
Bacteria found in radioactive waste Hanford. U.S. Scientists studying the soil beneath a leaking Hanford nuclear waste storage tank have discovered more than 100 species of bacteria living in a toxic, radioactive environment that most considered inhospitable to all forms of life.


Yet SuperSport has not commented. I've just destroyed a big part of your pathetic belief "system" (not really, as we know you are a Troll, but let's carry on pretending).

Typical dishonest YEC behavior.

Super, the issue at hand was not to "prove" natural selection as you well know.

I asked why bacteria are still around if genomic deterioration puts an upper limit on the number reproductve events, as you said.

YOU said it was because bacteria are not exposed to the toxins humans are.

I note that they are, and that they thrive on it.

depends on what the toxin is...pour gas or chlorine on them or some other toxic substance and see what happens.   Bacteria were designed to consume toxins....using this as an example of non-degeneration is silly.

  
JonF



Posts: 634
Joined: Feb. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:38   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:29)
just curious......so who's worse...me or the afDave guy (or whatever his name is) you guys were talking about?

You're slightly worse. †Dave tries (unsuccessfully) to pretend to be interested in truth, you don't even make that effort.
Quote
†By the way, anyone know where he debates?

Like you, he doesn't debate ... just regurgitates.

He runs away from one place to another.  Just like you.

  
carlsonjok



Posts: 3325
Joined: May 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:40   

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Sep. 20 2007,08:32)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:29)
just curious......so who's worse...me or the afDave guy (or whatever his name is) you guys were talking about? †By the way, anyone know where he debates?

AFDave "debates" in the same style as you.

I.E not at all.

I would note one difference, and that is that AFDave emphasizes volume where Sporty emphasizes velocity.

--------------
It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. †We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,08:46   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:36)
depends on what the toxin is...pour gas or chlorine on them or some other toxic substance and see what happens.   Bacteria were designed to consume toxins....using this as an example of non-degeneration is silly.

Helping chlorine-eating bacteria clean up toxic waste

Computer modeling could help chlorine-hungry bacteria break down toxic waste

And so on. There are plenty more.

And when you say "pour gas or chlorine" did you have a specific gas in mind? There are more then one you know.

 
Quote
or some other toxic substance


So the substances I linked to are not toxic? Strange defenition of toxic that you have.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:11   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,08:36)
Bacteria were designed to consume toxins....using this as an example of non-degeneration is silly.

Ah,
There are many nasty bacterial infections
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/bacterialinfections.html

As you say that bacteria were "designed" would you care to speculate on why the "designer" was so keen on killing the old and infirm via Streptococcus, Staphylococcus, and E. coli infections?

There are plenty more too.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:16   

Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:27   

Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport. †Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution. †Is it simply because they hate God? †Or do you think it's more complicated than that.

the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc. †Evolutionists first rule out creation, or any evidence pointing to such, and then on top of that foundation, they only accept evidence that supports their pre-conceived notions.

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:29   

Quote
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple.  He told me privately that he  doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment


This true, Supersport?

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:30   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:27)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.

the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.  Evolutionists first rule out creation, or any evidence point to such, and then on top of that foundation only accept evidence that supports their pre-conceived notions.

Sounds like you are describing yourself.

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:30   

Quote (Arden Chatfield @ Sep. 20 2007,09:29)
Quote
CARM's SS is a troll, pure and simple. †He told me privately that he †doesn't believe a word he posts, that it's all entertainment


This true, Supersport?

lie....make that person (whoever it was) present proof of such.   I will say I do post for entertainment value sometimes...and sometimes I say things in goofy ways just to get a rise out of people, but I do believe what I say.

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:31   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:27)
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.

the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.

SS,

You have ignored all the evidence presented above.  All the arguments presented above that refute your statements so, who has the inability/unwillingness to acknowledge the truth?

"hatred for the idea that they were created"...are you really that stupid?

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:34   

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,09:31)
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:27)
 
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport. †Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution. †Is it simply because they hate God? †Or do you think it's more complicated than that.

the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.

SS,

You have ignored all the evidence presented above. †All the arguments presented above that refute your statements so, who has the inability/unwillingness to acknowledge the truth?

"hatred for the idea that they were created"...are you really that stupid?

why don't you answer my OP...then you can answer why it would be that natural selection is responsible for adapting populations when it has been proven that individuals are adaptive.

after you do that successfully you can go about your normal IQ-less game of calling people stupid.

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:34   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:30)
lie....make that person (whoever it was) present proof of such.

When you present proof for a single assertion of yours then maybe you can demand other people to present proof.

About these bacteria....

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
oldmanintheskydidntdoit



Posts: 4999
Joined: July 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:37   

Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:34)
Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,09:31)
 
Quote (supersport @ Sep. 20 2007,09:27)
   
Quote (improvius @ Sep. 20 2007,09:16)
Hey there sport.  Sorry if you've already answered this, but I was hoping you could share your thoughts on what motivates the people who support evolution.  Is it simply because they hate God?  Or do you think it's more complicated than that.

the inability to see both sides of the issue -- hatred for the idea that they were created -- rebellion -- inability/unwillingness to investigate the truth....etc.

SS,

You have ignored all the evidence presented above.  All the arguments presented above that refute your statements so, who has the inability/unwillingness to acknowledge the truth?

"hatred for the idea that they were created"...are you really that stupid?

why don't you answer my OP...then you can answer why it would be that natural selection is responsible for adapting populations when it has been proven that individuals are adaptive.

after you do that successfully you can go about your normal IQ-less game of calling people stupid.

Every time you use the word "proven" why don't you add a link to the information that "proves" your case.

Otherwise anybody can write anything and consider it "proven"

I've "proven" unicorns don't exist.

I've "proven" that bacteria are designed.

I've "proven" supersport ignores difficult questions.

See what I did with the last one there?

--------------
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gaugerís work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand
Gordon Mullings

  
Steverino



Posts: 411
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:37   

"why don't you answer my OP...then you can answer why it would be that natural selection is responsible for adapting populations when it has been proven that individuals are adaptive."

In your mind it has.  Please post the research test data.

--------------
- Born right the first time.
- Asking questions is NOT the same as providing answers.
- It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys show up!

   
supersport



Posts: 158
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Sep. 20 2007,09:39   

Quote (Steverino @ Sep. 20 2007,09:37)
"why don't you answer my OP...then you can answer why it would be that natural selection is responsible for adapting populations when it has been proven that individuals are adaptive."

In your mind it has. †Please post the research test data.

copout....I've already shown it many times.

  
  603 replies since Sep. 17 2007,22:32 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (21) < ... 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]