Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[jem]

Quote from stu:

Lol!
All your silly insults and pathetic remarks and you're still angry after months and months for not fathoming the blindingly obvious.

So that's why you're confused. It's with unfalsifiable and implausible , because you couldn't discriminate two sentences from each other.

Of course a Celestial God is just as much of an unfalsifiable claim as is a Celestial Teapot. They both are capable of being tested , verified by experiment or observation in reality as the other is.

In other words …they aren’t.
You must prefer English at 3rd grade level.

Honestly , you can't grasp even that and you think you've half an idea about 96% of the universe.
Don't make me laugh..

This is why arguing with an zealous atheist is so frustrating... they refuse to accept science and the keep spouting brain dead ideas.


EVIDENCE OF RANDOM CHANCE

a. Stu what evidence do you have the universe was created by random chance?

zero


vs...

EVIDENCE OF A DESIGN

b. Yet we have nobel prize winners stating the universe appears designed.

We have documented the evidence of design on et from nobel prize winners and others dozens of times.

CONCLUSION

the random chance hypothesis has a much proof as a celestial tea pot.

the design hypothesis has noble prize winners and other top scientists stating the fine tunings of the universe indicate our universe appears designed.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Ricter:

Of course you know this, but one thing some deniers have not discovered or figured out is that science does not mean "theory" in the same way the layman uses it.

Precisely. It's that damn false equivalency thing, over and over again.

 

[bigarrow]

<object style="height: 390px; width: 640px"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Virqo-pI5c?version=3"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/2Virqo-pI5c?version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="640" height="390"></object>

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from jem:

This is why arguing with an zealous atheist is so frustrating... they refuse to accept science and the keep spouting brain dead ideas.

EVIDENCE OF RANDOM CHANCE

a. Stu what evidence do you have the universe was created by random chance?

zero

vs...

EVIDENCE OF A DESIGN

b. Yet we have nobel prize winners stating the universe appears designed.

We have documented the evidence of design on et from nobel prize winners and others dozens of times.

CONCLUSION

the random chance hypothesis has a much proof as a celestial tea pot.

the design hypothesis has noble prize winners and other top scientists stating the fine tunings of the universe indicate our universe appears designed.

The Bible is not a textbook.

 

[trendlover]

Quote from Lucrum:

Oh I'm not anti-science, I'm anti-stuPID. And some of the unproven so called "scientific" theories require one hell of a lot of faith to embrace without question. I'm merely questioning them, not necesarily dismissing them. I'm a little more open minded than that.

Quote from stu:


Scientific theories are not only theories as you've said they are.
Science simply does not embrace theories without question as you say it does.
An unproven scientific theory still contains proofs and facts despite what you think.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"Almost every imaginable heritable variation in size, length, width, or number of some physical aspect of animals has been recorded (Johnston and Selander 1973; Futuyma 1998, p. 247-262). This last fact is extremely important for common descent, since the major morphological differences between many species (e.g. species of amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and birds) are simple alterations in size of certain aspects of their respective parahomologous structures."
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section5.html

 

[Eight]

Hee hee... they've been stretching the "age" of the Universe for decades because people keep doing this annoying thing of finding evidence that things have not had enough time to evolve... in fact they've uncovered plenty of scientific evidence that it's mathematically impossible for things to evolve but never mind all that, people like Stu will keep on playing politics and calling people
"Anti Science" and "Flat Earthers" and "Deniers", all that shit that people like him do..

They even have the idea of infinite alternate universes, that's Eternity for Atheists that want to hide from God!! LOL

Let's see, what other ideas have our great "Scientific Thinkers" come up with that are just so great.. Oh, of course, Socialism!! Let's all share the wealth and give me some while you're at it! Come the revolution we'll all have a Mercedes I guess!!

Socialism is just theft of wealth! Thieves don't prosper I guess because the governments of the world are trying to figure out how to pay for all the stuff they promised, or really how to make the minimum payments on the loans they've all taken out on the prosperity of their grandchildren... I'd hate to be born today. Owing $500,000 the day you are born is indeed a cruel fate...

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from Eight:

Hee hee... they've been stretching the "age" of the Universe for decades because people keep doing this annoying thing of finding evidence that things have not had enough time to evolve... in fact they've uncovered plenty of scientific evidence that it's mathematically impossible for things to evolve but never mind all that, people like Stu will keep on playing politics and calling people
"Anti Science" and "Flat Earthers" and "Deniers", all that shit that people like him do..

They even have the idea of infinite alternate universes, that's Eternity for Atheists that want to hide from God!! LOL

Let's see, what other ideas have our great "Scientific Thinkers" come up with that are just so great.. Oh, of course, Socialism!! Let's all share the wealth and give me some while you're at it! Come the revolution we'll all have a Mercedes I guess!!

Socialism is just theft of wealth! Thieves don't prosper I guess because the governments of the world are trying to figure out how to pay for all the stuff they promised, or really how to make the minimum payments on the loans they've all taken out on the prosperity of their grandchildren... I'd hate to be born today. Owing $500,000 the day you are born is indeed a cruel fate...

Educate yourself please.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe

 

[stu]

It seems creationists really can't even distinguish between a scientific theory and a guess, yet they'll try and kid themselves they can nevertheless discern what scientific evidence is, describes and explains.

And yes Eight, your problem really is that the creationist arguments you and the rest of ET's ridiculous religionists use , so sad they find it necessary to be anti-science, are the same ones promoting a Flat Earth.

If you call that having an open mind, then your brains must have already dropped out from it.

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

It seems creationists really can't even distinguish between a scientific theory and a guess, yet they'll try and kid themselves they can nevertheless discern what scientific evidence is, describes and explains.

And yes Eight, your problem really is that the creationist arguments you and the rest of ET's ridiculous religionists use , so sad they find it necessary to be anti-science, are the same ones promoting a Flat Earth.

If you call that having an open mind, then your brains must have already dropped out from it.

From what I can tell...

apparently hawking just guesses and doesn't understand science as well as Stu.

" As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]"

---


I hope the readers understand that - other than the multi universe hypothesis - it seems credible scientists have not made the claim that random chance caused the universe in decades and the one that did write about it in a peer reviewed paper, - issued a retraction.

Stu and the et atheists are spouting brain dead science.

 

[Betapeg]

Quote from jem:

From what I can tell...

apparently hawking just guesses and doesn't understand science as well as Stu.

" As Stephen Hawking has noted, "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."[4]"

---

Key word, "seem". He did not say they were adjusted just so our form of life could exist. Let's get past this blasphemy of Stephen Hawking's views, shall we? Here is what he really believes.

===========================================

In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

In his new book he rejects Sir Isaac Newton's theory that the Universe did not spontaneously begin to form but was set in motion by God.

In June this year Prof Hawking told a Channel 4 series that he didn't believe that a "personal" God existed. He told Genius of Britain: "The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...od-was-not-needed-to-create-the-Universe.html

"I have lived with the prospect of an early death for the last 49 years. I'm not afraid of death, but I'm in no hurry to die. I have so much I want to do first. I regard the brain as a computer which will stop working when its components fail. There is no heaven or afterlife for broken down computers; that is a fairy story for people afraid of the dark.”

"The question is: is the way the universe began chosen by God for reasons we can't understand, or was it determined by a law of science? I believe the second. If you like, you can call the laws of science 'God', but it wouldn't be a personal God that you could meet, and ask questions."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...airy-story-for-people-afraid-of-the-dark.html

I hope the readers understand that - other than the multi universe hypothesis - it seems credible scientists have not made the claim that random chance caused the universe in decades and the one that did write about it in a peer reviewed paper, - issued a retraction.

Stu and the et atheists are spouting brain dead science.

What an absolutely ridiculous lie. Chaos Theory explains in vivid detail how random our universe really is and how order can come from such randomness.