Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

And in this video (filmed AFTER he wrote The God Delusion), Dawkins when pressed estimates a 1% probability of the existence of God, admits that nobody knows how life began and further admits intelligent design is a possibility.
http://youtu.be/9M_ZF8r5e7w

You can spew all the insults and obfuscations you want but it doesn't change Dawkins' admissions which are crystal clear.
Quote from Gayfly:

Dawkins covers it fully, and he discusses how shits like Trader666 (and now you) seek to obfuscate that which has already been substantiated time and again.
More...
 
Quote from Max E. Pad:

I already said that im not religious, and i dont know whether or not a god exists, i firmly believe in evolution, but there is obvious gaping holes in evolution which can not be explained by natural selection.

Now why dont you explain to me how it became beneficial for us as humans to lose the ability to swing from trees like monkeys could?
More...
There are no gaping holes. Read Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, and prepare to be amazed.

As for your swinging monkey comment, we are cousins of chimpanzees and somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys. Regardless, natural selection is always about trade-offs. There is only so much energy that can be concentrated on any single attribute before it takes away from another. I cannot specifically answer your question because I don't know. However, I do know that whatever attributes mutated over time for our more recent ancestors, the bottom-line trade-off obviously favored our present form. Remember, embryos can't simply have it all. By and large, it's pick and choose, give and take. Overdeveloping one attribute comes at the expense of another. And yes, Dawkins discusses the "economics" of evolutionary change.
 
Wrong again STUpid. Do you need a course in English in addition to one in basic science? Or are you lying again?

I was talking about theories versus laws and never said gravity doesn't exist. You've incorrectly spoken about "laws" of physics that are actually theories because you're STUpid. Gravity obviously exists but as I've said before there are only theories of gravitation and none of them fully explains it.
Quote from STUpid:

You observe gravity, yet Trader666 says there are ONLY theories about it.
You can observe the building blocks of life emerging from inorganic matter, but you say there are ONLY theories about it.

Your denial of reality seems to now have moved away from gravity as ONLY a theory, to life from non life as ONLY a theory.

Trader666 now seems to have some way to go to catch up with you, although it's obviously going to be a terrible struggle for him to first get over the old mistakes he made in much earlier posts.
More...
 
Quote from Trader666:

And in this video (filmed AFTER he wrote The God Delusion), Dawkins when pressed estimates a 1% probability of the existence of God, admits that nobody knows how life began and further admits intelligent design is a possibility.
http://youtu.be/9M_ZF8r5e7w

You can spew all the insults and obfuscations you want but it doesn't change Dawkins' admissions which are crystal clear.
More...
Settle down. No one can prove god does not exist any more than they can prove that a spaghetti monster does not exist. The comparison may seem silly to you, but it is an even-handed comparison from an evidentiary standpoint. Can you not see when he patronizes you with a throw-away? So he throws you an inflated 1% bone and you're all giggles. Even at that overly generous mulligan of 1%, you're still willing to overlook the 99%? It's amazing on just how little straw some people can thrive.

How life began is a matter of statistical probability, which Dawkins goes on at some length to explain. It is not about certitude of the form creationists have about their faith. It is about scientifically valid statistical probability which is far more than you and your creationist buddies have at your disposal.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

There are no gaping holes. Read Dawkins's The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution, and prepare to be amazed.

As for your swinging monkey comment, we are cousins of chimpanzees and somewhat more distant cousins of monkeys. Regardless, natural selection is always about trade-offs. There is only so much energy that can be concentrated on any single attribute before it takes away from another. I cannot specifically answer your question because I don't know. However, I do know that whatever attributes mutated over time for our more recent ancestors, the bottom-line trade-off obviously favored our present form. Remember, embryos can't simply have it all. By and large, it's pick and choose, give and take. Overdeveloping one attribute comes at the expense of another. And yes, Dawkins discusses the "economics" of evolutionary change.
More...

An example of tradeoffs is sickle cell disease. It allows people in those regions where it is prevelent to be more tolerant of malaria but it has its own downsides.

Seneca
 
That's funny!!! :D I should settle down after the shrill temper tantrum you threw when I first posted Dawkins' video?

Let me get this straight... first I was quote mining, then I took him out of context, then it was about not being able to prove a negative, and now he's patronizing? (I may have missed some of your desperate obfuscations).

If your total ignorance of logic is any indication of your "knowledge" of "statistical probability" then please spare us more parroting of concepts you don't understand.
Quote from Gayfly:

Settle down. Can you not see when he patronizes you with a throw-away? So he throws you an inflated 1% bone and you're all giggles. Even at that overly generous mulligan of 1%, you're still willing to overlook the 99%? It's amazing on just how little straw some people can thrive.

How life began is a matter of statistical probability, which Dawkins goes on at some length to explain. It is not about certitude of the form creationists have about their faith. It is about statistical probability which is far more than you and your creationist buddies have at your disposal.
More...
 
You never said how your marriage to your half-sister is going. Since this thread is about evolution, inbreeding is not a good thing. Sorry :eek:
Quote from shortie:

Trader666, you were gone for 3 months. what happened? were you busy reading up on evolution?
More...
 
Quote from Trader666:

And in this video (filmed AFTER he wrote The God Delusion), Dawkins when pressed estimates a 1% probability of the existence of God, admits that nobody knows how life began and further admits intelligent design is a possibility.
http://youtu.be/9M_ZF8r5e7w

You can spew all the insults and obfuscations you want but it doesn't change Dawkins' admissions which are crystal clear.
More...

I doubt the viability of Dawkins' estimate. Any attempt to establish the probability of God as < 100% is based on arbitrary pseudo-science.

We can, however, simply redefine God to the point that God is 100% a certainty (eg 'God is the Universe').

In any case who cares what Dawkins says? It isn't as though he's proven himself a deep creative philosopher. He'll never make it into the pantheon of great thinkers. Anybody with a slightly above average I.Q. can assemble a persuasive attack on organized religion.
 
this thread is about sex if you bother to read the opening post

but i bet you would not know what sex is

:)

since you can't comprehend the opening post it appears your reading comprehension is lacking

but i am no doctor and can't help you there either, sorry

:(

also you seem to be obsessed with inbreeding (did something bad happen to you as a child?)

-- Shortie Freud Out

p.s. i think i am gonna start adding the dumbest ones to my ignore list
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top