Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

Quote from byteme:

Again. Wow.

If you were genuine, you would have made an earnest effort to learn about the topic by now.

I applaud the patience of the people on here who have been humoring you.
More...

Nice work taking a sentence out of context. Congratulations.

In my sentence i was pointing out the fact that it would be detrimental to a bird, if they lost their wings. Much like it is detrimental to us as humans to lose the ability to swing from trees.
 
Quote from stu:


You can observe the building blocks of life emerging from inorganic matter, but you say there are ONLY theories about it.
More...
Has anyone observed life evolving from non life, first hand?
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

What about the evidence and how creationists reached their conclusions? Again, you keep obfuscating.
More...
Actually that quote was from someone more intelligent and knowledgeable on the subject than you or I. How does that make me guilty of obfuscating?
 
Quote from Pekelo:

The stupidity level in this thread is way too high for my standard, but just for educational purposes...
More...

Says ET's paper trading pizza delivery guy who moonlights playing his ukelele in cheap hotel bars.
 
Quote from jem:

you really do not understand the science do you....

the stats are overwhelmingly impossible against life forming on earth from non life, by chance.

Do you want the quotes again... do you understand why Dr. Crick the nobel prize winning DNA guy suggested that maybe life got here via pan spermia.

The best guess is that it would take something like the perfect timing and alignment of 250 substances (read variables) to form that first cell.

the idea of that happening by chance is trillions and trillions and trillions to one. There has not been enough time to take the chances and there was probably not enough substance on the earth to allow the chances.... its almost folly to suggest it happened by chance.

thats the science....

One noble prize winners said that its this absurd.... it would be like expecting a golf ball to play a golf course at par by random chance just because a golfer could play the course at par.
More...
<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/U6QYDdgP9eg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="425" height="349" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3OwSARYTK7w" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_W._Szostak#Awards_and_honors
 
Quote from Hansel H:

We can, however, simply redefine God to the point that God is 100% a certainty (eg 'God is the Universe').
More...
Doesn't work.
"We" can't reasonably redefine things into existence by simply replacing one name with another .
If "we" can, then Gilbert is God+1 , Gibert is a 100% certainty, 'Gilbert is the Universe' .
 
Quote from Trader666:

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.
More...
Ok Mr Angry keep your wig on. Now you're just making yourself look more and more ridiculous.

Gravity obviously exists... that's a start, but how do you prove it's gravity existing , and not pixies pushing down on things existing, or Intelligent Falling existing, so not a law, not a proof of what exists. Just your own personal fantasies embodied by the name gravity?

You say you were talking about ' theories versus laws'
Well theories are laws, laws are theories. The laws of physics are scientific empirical tests via the scientific method, which are theories that have never failed.
You dummy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top