Evolution debunked in 1 paragraph.

[jem]

Quote from Gabfly1:

Jem, it's like information that you don't like bounces right off you. Zero absorption. You are truly information proof.

you are a loon... what info did you provide which supports you thesis. What is your thesis, you are just basically against science.

you produced a video which says evolution has nothing to do with the the evolution of non life to life.

We agree, you proved my point.

 

[Trader666]

That's funny coming from a science illiterate like you who can only parrot atheist talking points

Quote from STUpid:

..which isn't being at all scientific of you.

 

[jem]

Quote from acronym:

Quite the contrary. Darwin could not have been aware of quantum physics, and it's strange machinations. Nor genetics, chromosomes or anything else.

Darwin was just a guy, who had a great , provable theory.
Perhaps you are aware, he did not want to publish his origin of species, precisely because he knew the god botherers would go berzerk over it, in an orgiastic fit of indignation and total, complete lack of rationale.

Convergent evolution, is something I am interested in however......but I'm not about to listen to a god botherer to explain that god just "made" entirely new species, AFTER he made the entire planet, perfectly, 6000 years ago.

What's your take on convergent evolution? I'm as mystified as anyone, as to how completely unrelated species, on different continents, "became" so similar to others, to fill ecological niches.

Who cares that he was concerned about publishing.
Its not like the bible says the earth is only 6000 years old.

My question was made because until recently the et atheists acted like they knew life evolved from non life and it seems to me that like et's atheists... darwin seems to stand for different things to different people.

My thesis is that it is et's atheists who do not accept the current understandings of science.

I really do not care about fundamentalist's ideas about creation because half the stuff they say is not in the bible. The bible should be judged by what is in the bible and et's atheists should be judged by what science says.

 

[stu]

Quote from Trader666:

That's funny coming from a science illiterate like you who can only parrot atheist talking points

When you get anything that even looks like a reasonable argument rather than just infantile insult let me know.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

My thesis is that it is et's atheists who do not accept the current understandings of science.

You can make any unsound, uncorroborated statement, and <strike>often</strike> always do.

Quote from jem:

I really do not care about fundamentalist's ideas about creation because half the stuff they say is not in the bible. The bible should be judged by what is in the bible and et's atheists should be judged by what science says.

Science is not to do with atheism or theism, it's to do with science you goof.

 

[Trader666]

This from the lying ignoramus who "thinks" the 96% part of the universe we have no clue about is the part that we do (barely) understand, and who "believes" unfalsifiability means implausibility.

Quote from STUpid:

When you get anything that even looks like a reasonable argument rather than just infantile insult let me know.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from stu:

..which isn't being at all scientific of you.

In my defense I'm not a scientist.

My theory and conclusion is based on real time first hand observation though. Which is a lot more than I can say for some of your beloved theories.

 

[stu]

As long as you imagine gratuitous insult is all that’s needed for your argument, you’ll remain just as wrong as you ever were.

Quote from Trader666:
This from the lying ignoramus who "thinks" the 96% part of the universe we have no clue about is the part that we do (barely) understand, and who "believes" unfalsifiability means implausibility.

 

[stu]

Quote from Lucrum:

In my defense I'm not a scientist.

My theory and conclusion is based on real time first hand observation though. Which is a lot more than I can say for some of your beloved theories.

In your defense you've made it clear that like a creationist or a flat earther, you come to a point where it is found necessary to be anti-science, which seems to strangely validate some other personal conclusions.

 

[Gabfly1]

Quote from Lucrum:

In my defense I'm not a scientist.

My theory and conclusion is based on real time first hand observation though. Which is a lot more than I can say for some of your beloved theories.

You mean your real-time, first-hand experience with evolution?