Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.

  • 372 Replies
  • 46827 Views
?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #300 on: December 09, 2010, 04:36:36 AM »
The other branches of science are not questioned because they do not prove the creationist hypothesis wrong, as simple as that.

And since he is avoiding my question of what he needs to observe*, I declare my part of the debate a flawless victory.



*I ask for exemples, he just repeats "macroevolution", in order to me to ask "what is macroevolution then", and he'll go to "change of kind", and the circular reasoning is served.
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #301 on: December 09, 2010, 05:12:13 AM »
Who would you like to see as the main villan in the third Nolan-Batman?

I'm hoping for a more realistic Poison Ivy, kind of like the way they made Raz Al Ghul [sp?] realistic in Batman Begins.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #302 on: December 09, 2010, 05:20:11 AM »
Riddler, come on, best batman villain ever!
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 05:22:16 AM by Kira-SY »
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #303 on: December 09, 2010, 05:22:05 AM »
The riddle, come on, best batman villain ever!

You don't think he might be too close to The Dark Knight's Joker?

?

sillyrob

  • Official Member
  • 3771
  • Punk rawk.
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #304 on: December 09, 2010, 05:42:13 AM »
Now, answer my questions.  

I'm not going through all the pages to do that. The question above you left though was a logical fallacy, so it doesn't need a reply.

It's the same logical fallacy evolutionists gave Kent Hovind numerous times. It does get boring.

OK, put it this way - which branches of science are not religion in your view?

All of science is valid, except Macroevolution and origin theories. Why are these two things not science?

Because they fall outside the scientific method. Neither can/have been observed tested, experimented etc.

There is no way to observe the formation of the universe, so any theory about it is religious or faith based.

Explain to me then why science which deals with mountains, rock formation, rivers etc is valid, when we have never observed these things being formed.  

Most of those things have been directly observed to form. For example rivers are simply when one stream or tributary meets another and they merge together. We can observe sedimentary rocks directly form from rivers.

What you are doing as i said is presenting a typical logical fallacy all evolutionists employ. It's dishonest. This logical fallacy is putting macroevolution on the same level as everything else, in poor attempt to give it some credit.

The fact remains though, Macroevolution cannot be observed, tested - therefore it falls out of science. You are welcome though to believe in it as a religious view.
I know I've seen many mountains form, but I am a rarity in that area.

Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #305 on: December 09, 2010, 05:43:57 AM »
Now, answer my questions.  

I'm not going through all the pages to do that. The question above you left though was a logical fallacy, so it doesn't need a reply.

It's the same logical fallacy evolutionists gave Kent Hovind numerous times. It does get boring.

OK, put it this way - which branches of science are not religion in your view?

All of science is valid, except Macroevolution and origin theories. Why are these two things not science?

Because they fall outside the scientific method. Neither can/have been observed tested, experimented etc.

There is no way to observe the formation of the universe, so any theory about it is religious or faith based.

Explain to me then why science which deals with mountains, rock formation, rivers etc is valid, when we have never observed these things being formed.  

Most of those things have been directly observed to form. For example rivers are simply when one stream or tributary meets another and they merge together. We can observe sedimentary rocks directly form from rivers.

What you are doing as i said is presenting a typical logical fallacy all evolutionists employ. It's dishonest. This logical fallacy is putting macroevolution on the same level as everything else, in poor attempt to give it some credit.

The fact remains though, Macroevolution cannot be observed, tested - therefore it falls out of science. You are welcome though to believe in it as a religious view.

You have never seen a tiny stream become a massive river - it has never been observed.  You have never observed rocks being formed or becoming mountains.   All you have is evidence to show how these things occur.  Same as evolution - it's no different.  

Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #306 on: December 09, 2010, 06:32:51 AM »
 Same as evolution - it's no different.  

Except there is no evidence for evolution.

Many missing links

Many missing links exist within the evolution theory, especially in relation to the fossil record. Since Darwin’s day, evolutionists have still not been able to find them.

Richard E. Leakey: ‘‘Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats.’’

Martin R. D: ‘‘There are no fossils available as plausible ancestors of the primates, leaving the primate tree without a trunk.’’

A. S Romer: ‘‘The origin of rodents is obscure...no transitional forms are known.’’

Robert L. Carroll: ‘‘The transition between pelycosaurs and therapsids has not been documented.’’

Robert L. Carroll: ‘‘We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians.’’ 

Alfred Sherwood Romer:  ‘‘The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown.’’

Evolution is pure faith

Evolution cannot be observed or experimented; it is therefore not scientific but based on pure faith or imagination. Many notable academics have noted upon this.

Karl Popper: ‘‘Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.’’

Michael Denton [On the theory of evolution] ‘‘…as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would have us believe.’’

Dr. Fleishmann: ‘‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’’

L. Harrison Matthews: ‘‘The theory of evolution forms… a faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.’’
Believing is not the same as knowing.

Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #307 on: December 09, 2010, 06:40:37 AM »
 Same as evolution - it's no different.  

Except there is no evidence for evolution.

Many missing links

Many missing links exist within the evolution theory, especially in relation to the fossil record. Since Darwin’s day, evolutionists have still not been able to find them.

Richard E. Leakey: ‘‘Unfortunately no fossils have yet been found of animals ancestral to the bats.’’

Martin R. D: ‘‘There are no fossils available as plausible ancestors of the primates, leaving the primate tree without a trunk.’’

A. S Romer: ‘‘The origin of rodents is obscure...no transitional forms are known.’’

Robert L. Carroll: ‘‘The transition between pelycosaurs and therapsids has not been documented.’’

Robert L. Carroll: ‘‘We have no intermediate fossils between rhipidistian fish and early amphibians.’’ 

Alfred Sherwood Romer:  ‘‘The common ancestor of the bony-fish groups is unknown.’’

Evolution is pure faith

Evolution cannot be observed or experimented; it is therefore not scientific but based on pure faith or imagination. Many notable academics have noted upon this.

Karl Popper: ‘‘Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.’’

Michael Denton [On the theory of evolution] ‘‘…as it was in Darwin’s time, a highly speculative hypothesis entirely without direct factual support and very far from that self-evident axiom some of its more ‘aggressive advocates’ would have us believe.’’

Dr. Fleishmann: ‘‘The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.’’

L. Harrison Matthews: ‘‘The theory of evolution forms… a faith on which to base our interpretation of nature.’’


There is a ton of evidence for evolution.  Just because you and a handful of other cranks dismiss it all out of hand is not my problem. 

Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #308 on: December 09, 2010, 06:45:29 AM »
Believing is not the same as knowing.

Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #309 on: December 09, 2010, 06:47:21 AM »
Yep, that's about the sum of it - except magic wasn't involved (unlike in the Bible). 

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #310 on: December 09, 2010, 06:50:00 AM »
To prove macroevolution you would need evidence things evolve to look drastically different. As far as science is concerned though, man has only ever looked like a man, a fish a fish, a worm a worm etc. You believe man's ancestors were apes, or looked like them - when has it been observed though that we morphed from apes? You beliefs are not rational, and have nothing to do with the real world.

Because we are apes!  By definition, if you define what an ape is, humans fit in that category, the same way we fit the category of mammals, you do agree we are mammals right?  We are also vertebrates, you agree with that right?

We share every single common positive trait that apes share.  Below is the taxonomic definition of a primate, feel free to comment on how we as humans do not fall into that definition.

Quote
?Primates? are collectively defined as any gill-less, organic RNA/DNA protein-based, metabolic, metazoic, nucleic, diploid, bilaterally-symmetrical, endothermic, digestive, tryploblast, opisthokont, deuterostome coelemate with a spinal chord and 12 cranial nerves connecting to a limbic system in an enlarged cerebrial cortex with a reduced olfactory region inside a jawed-skull with specialized teeth including canines and premolars, forward-oriented fully-enclosed optical orbits, and a single temporal fenestra, -attached to a vertebrate hind-leg dominant tetrapoidal skeleton with a sacral pelvis, clavical, and wrist & ankle bones; and having lungs, tear ducts, body-wide hair follicles, lactal mammaries, opposable thumbs, and keratinized dermis with chitinous nails on all five digits on all four extremities, in addition to an embryonic development in amniotic fluid, leading to a placental birth and highly social lifestyle.

So if we are not primates, are we also not mammals?  Are we also not vertebrates?  Because if we are those things that by definition makes us an animal.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #311 on: December 09, 2010, 07:12:13 AM »
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #312 on: December 09, 2010, 07:14:54 AM »
Truthseeker2 is a MicroChristian.

Until he proves that he is a MacroChristian everything he says is gobleygook.

Berny
Eat you Homo Ergaster!
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #313 on: December 09, 2010, 07:18:59 AM »



Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #315 on: December 09, 2010, 07:42:38 AM »
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #316 on: December 09, 2010, 07:45:19 AM »






Believing is not the same as knowing.

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #317 on: December 09, 2010, 08:02:27 AM »
Cass, I'm warning you, stop posting your spam in this quality Batman thread.

Who should play The Riddler if he's brought to the Nolan-verse?

John Depp.



Well, he should be used to playing weird roles by now.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #318 on: December 09, 2010, 08:06:59 AM »


Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #319 on: December 09, 2010, 08:13:06 AM »
Sorry, what has atheism and creationism got to do with Batman?

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #320 on: December 09, 2010, 08:13:41 AM »
See my last point, on religion. I am open to change the debate to origin theories now on the universe.

My simple point was, since no one observed how the universe was created, every single theory about it is religious.

Everyone in this thread is therefore religious. Big Bang is a religion, faith on origins since it can't be observed, tested etc.

Religious - Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity

Can you explain how we are all religious?

I suppose it makes a change from being accused of being a gay atheist. ::)

A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
A cause, belief, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

By definition 1 & 2 (standard dictionary definitions) Atheism is religious:

Court rules atheism a religion
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895

''The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.''

As i said, everyone here, theist or atheist is religious. We all have worldview based on faith how the universe started or why it was created.

Secular Humanism /= Atheism. Also, straw man /= argument.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Trekky0623

  • Official Member
  • 10061
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #321 on: December 09, 2010, 08:41:23 AM »
Hey, Truthseeker.

This thread is now the Batman thread. When you're ready to answer the original question, namely explaining the barrier that stops speciation, we'll talk. Until then, go away, stop changing the subject, and stop avoiding uncomfortable questions.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #322 on: December 09, 2010, 08:43:42 AM »
Who is more hittable? Batgirl, or Catwoman, place your bets misters.

@Chris: Maybe yes, I dunno then... Man-bat? Dc. Freeze?
« Last Edit: December 09, 2010, 08:45:16 AM by Kira-SY »
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Wendy

  • 18492
  • I laugh cus you fake
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #323 on: December 09, 2010, 08:55:05 AM »
Depends on which edition of the characters you're talking about. There have been instances in which Batgirl took up the cloak and cowl when she was only 16. Eww. Otherwise, I'd say Catwoman, mainly because I like cats almost as much as she does.
Here's an explanation for ya. Lurk moar. Every single point you brought up has been posted, reposted, debated and debunked. There is a search function on this forum, and it is very easy to use.

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #324 on: December 09, 2010, 08:58:18 AM »
What about Victor Zsasz? It could take a dark thriller direction to go with the mob war feel of the first two.

Oh and Batgirl, redheads FTW! (16's legal here in the UK ;) )

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #325 on: December 09, 2010, 09:24:02 AM »
In Spain sex consentment is at 13, so I'm going with Chris in this one.

Victor Szasz... I think he's not that famous... what about Clayface?
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences

*

Chris Spaghetti

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 12682
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #326 on: December 09, 2010, 09:37:28 AM »
In Spain sex consentment is at 13, so I'm going with Chris in this one.

Victor Szasz... I think he's not that famous... what about Clayface?

Hrm, I like clayface... could definitely work...

*

berny_74

  • 1786
  • The IceWall! Beat that
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #327 on: December 09, 2010, 09:47:36 AM »
Oh and Batgirl, redheads FTW! (16's legal here in the UK ;) )

Age of consent here in Canada is 16 as well....
But I agree with Wendy's response.
Catwoman, mainly because I like cats almost as much as she does.

Cats are SOOO Cuddly.  And thats all I need in a woman.

Berny
Needs Cuddles.

BTW.  Do you guys still read comics?
To be fair, sometimes what FE'ers say makes so little sense that it's hard to come up with a rebuttal.
Moonlight is good for you.

*

Marcus Aurelius

  • 4546
  • My Alts: Tom Bishop, Gayer, theonlydann
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #328 on: December 09, 2010, 09:48:48 AM »
Hey, Truthseeker.

This thread is now the Batman thread. When you're ready to answer the original question, namely explaining the barrier that stops speciation, we'll talk. Until then, go away, stop changing the subject, and stop avoiding uncomfortable questions.


I would also like him to respond to the taxonomic definition of a primate, and how we don't fall into that category.  Also mammals, vertebrates etc.

?

Kira-SY

  • 1139
  • Ja pierdole!
Re: Truthseeker does not understand the basic concepts of evolutionary theory.
« Reply #329 on: December 09, 2010, 10:08:51 AM »
I read manga, does it count? I've never been much into american comic, i rather the series or movies.
Signature under building process, our apologies for the inconveniences