Five questions that evolutionists can't answer

[Superman]

And what did you say? Come on, I can't debate you people

Hey asshole, everyone here knows this is above your head. That's why you're a creationist and that's why everyone is mocking you.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Just when I thought I missed all the action.

So, are you going to be parting with that Stratocaster now, or do the good folks here at SDN need further prove their points?

[wishful]

This is what I wanted to say.....

In short

long-winded
you would be aware of this if you were not being spoonfed lies and anti-evolution propaganda by creationist groups
Anyone who quotes this is a liar, who knows absolutely nothing about thermodynamics. You fail.
Creationists HAVE NO EXPLANATION
Lie.

That is certainly not the tack I would take if I were seriously trying to provide answers to the questions.

You might as well have said, "Wishful, you are a long winded liar, who is unaware of being spoonfed lies and propaganda, and you know nothing about thermodynamics." BLA BLA

Those are strong words . Allow me to throw one your way. You people are ridiculous.

[General Zod]

disregurd my last post.... I'm got lost between two differnt forums i'm posting in......


My noobie dumb ass fucked up.

I hear it's easier to tell where you're posting if you remove your head from your ass.

[Admiral Valdemar]

This is what I wanted to say.....

In short

long-winded
you would be aware of this if you were not being spoonfed lies and anti-evolution propaganda by creationist groups
Anyone who quotes this is a liar, who knows absolutely nothing about thermodynamics. You fail.
Creationists HAVE NO EXPLANATION
Lie.

That is certainly not the tack I would take if I were seriously trying to provide answers to the questions.

You might as well have said, "Wishful, you are a long winded liar, who is unaware of being spoonfed lies and propaganda, and you know nothing about thermodynamics." BLA BLA

Those are strong words . Allow me to throw one your way. You people are ridiculous.

Sorry, what? You're currently involved in a "debate" where the second law of thermo-fucking-dynamics is being used to DISPROVE something that has so obviously happened and continues to happen. You may as well just tell me the laws of science are wrong and the sun shouldn't be allowed to rise everyday, because that's how painful this is to someone versed in scientific works.

[wishful]

disregurd my last post.... I'm got lost between two differnt forums i'm posting in......


My noobie dumb ass fucked up.

I hear it's easier to tell where you're posting if you remove your head from your ass.

Duley noted !!!

[General Zod]

disregurd my last post.... I'm got lost between two differnt forums i'm posting in......


My noobie dumb ass fucked up.

I hear it's easier to tell where you're posting if you remove your head from your ass.

Duley noted !!!

It's also easier to be taken seriously in a debate when you learn to spell properly. Or do creationists not believe in dictionaries as well as evolution?

[Batman]

That is certainly not the tack I would take if I were seriously trying to provide answers to the questions.

If you AREN'T what pray is it you are trying to do?

You might as well have said, "Wishful, you are a long winded liar, who is unaware of being spoonfed lies and propaganda, and you know nothing about thermodynamics." BLA BLA

And by and large he would've been correct.

Those are strong words . Allow me to throw one your way. You people are ridiculous.

And for some of us that might very well be true. You will now show us the part where we're WRONG.

[brianeyci]

Do you see the error in logic here?

'The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium'.

Now, what could possibly make you think that the Earth is a closed system (protip: look at the big yellow thing in the sky) or is in equilibrium (hint: radioactive isotope decay and the cooling of the Earth's core).

Compare the bold, italic, and underlined portions. In the quote, it says "not" in equilibrium. And what did you say? Come on, I can't debate you people

I don't see who the fuck you're quoting. You figured out how to put your own name in the quote, why couldn't you put the poster's name in too? By the way there's no italics in that post.

Looks like a person needs a lesson in logic. Whoever posted that is accusing you of saying the Earth is in equilibrium, based on you saying that the Earth's entropy is decreasing (which you say implies god). Let me put this in a way even you should understand.

A: Not in equilibrium
B: Entropy increases over time

The definition, if it is correct, says A => B. So when someone says ~B => ~A, that is the contrapositive and is in other words logically equivalent. "A system not in equilibrium => entropy increases over time" is the same as what the quoted poster is accusing you of saying, "entropy decreases over time (what you guys claim for the existence for god) => a system in equilibrium."

So don't use the word logic unless you actually know what it means dofus. Get some real education too.

[DrMckay]

Uhm, ego stroking and compliments aside, how's about a fossil record for evidence of links to sapiens??

Are you asking for evidence? I provided a link to a convenient website in my first post in this thread.

Edit: here.

oh. no. sorry, just mentioning it, as a part of the Pro-evolution argument.

[Surlethe]

This is what I wanted to say.....

In short

you would be aware of this if you were not being spoonfed lies and anti-evolution propaganda by creationist groups

That is certainly not the tack I would take if I were seriously trying to provide answers to the questions.

You might as well have said, "Wishful, you are a long winded liar, who is unaware of being spoonfed lies and propaganda, and you know nothing about thermodynamics." BLA BLA

Well, let's see. You clearly understand neither the scientific method nor the theory of evolution. Therefore, you can't be aware of the lies and propaganda groups like ICR and AIG feed you. So I challenge you to take the time to go and actually understand science in general, and evolution in particular, and then return to the materials you've accepted unquestioningly and reexamine them in light of your new understanding.

[Dooey Jo]

By the way, I've written a lot of songs on this guitar and I consider it a really valuable piece of my memorabilia. It would pain me greatly to have to give it away.

Tell you what, why don't we just do it like this: You give me the guitar, and then you go to the nearest university library and find out the answer to those questions yourself. You'll find that there are indeed plenty of answers, and that most of the questions are based on misrepresentations of evolution.

You hereby owe me a guitar. I will not pay for shipping.

[Darth Servo]

You hereby owe me a guitar. I will not pay for shipping.

Meh, just take the cash equivalent.

[Stile]

disregurd my last post.... I'm got lost between two differnt forums i'm posting in......


My noobie dumb ass fucked up.

Sorry, I seem to have disregarded all of your posts.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Those are strong words .

And they are spelled correctly. Which is more than can be said about the words used in your posts.

[Ghost Rider]

Just moving this to the HoS. Not to get shut down, but really because dumbass here doesn't want to debate...he wants to get assraped and proclaim how he stood up to Mike Wong and his gang of heathens.

[SirNitram]

So, the kid can't back up one word of his stuff, so he falls back on 'YOU'RE ALL RIDICULOUS!'. We're probably also mean.

[Kamakazie Sith]

This is what I wanted to say.....

In short

long-winded
you would be aware of this if you were not being spoonfed lies and anti-evolution propaganda by creationist groups
Anyone who quotes this is a liar, who knows absolutely nothing about thermodynamics. You fail.
Creationists HAVE NO EXPLANATION
Lie.

That is certainly not the tack I would take if I were seriously trying to provide answers to the questions.

You might as well have said, "Wishful, you are a long winded liar, who is unaware of being spoonfed lies and propaganda, and you know nothing about thermodynamics." BLA BLA

Those are strong words . Allow me to throw one your way. You people are ridiculous.

Use some of that will power, and focus on the rebuttals to your claims. Are you able to respond, or are you just here so you can join the ranks of those who have been banned from SD.net? Is that a badge of honor at some places?

"I went to SD.net! I ignored their rules! They enforced them! My right of passage is complete!!!!"

[Feil]

Just for the sake of target practice....
---

There are thousands of different genetic enhancements required by the Theory of Evolution,

Changes are required. 'Enhancement' indicates the kind of idiotic hierarchal view towards life that scientifically minded people abandoned in the late 19th century.

with a great many of them dependent on many others to provide an advantage.

No shit. A change to the current state requires the existence of the current state.

There are many of these statistical impossibilities required to bring about the evolution of the human species.

Disregarding the foolishness of the term "statistical impossibility", yes. Evolution is unpredictable. There is no way of knowing what specific species will have evolved a hundred million years from now, just like there is no way of knowing what the weather will be like a hundred million years from now. However, saying that "because the existence of the human species was unlikely, the Theory of Evolution is incorrect" is as idiotic as saying "because the presence of a lenticular cloud moving at 44 kilometers per hour south southwest at 0443 Sunday 22 November 2006 directly overhead at Myrtle Beach, South Carolina is unlikely, all the world's meteorologists are wrong" when the cloud is right above you.

How can you, the evolutionist, be sure that you have it right,

Because the evidence (which you haven't seen, or lack the mental capacity to understand) supports the theory (which you don't understand, as you demonstrate later).

Irreducible complexity is something many evolutionists say does not exist in nature.

Because no instance of Irreducible Complexity has been shown to exist in a way that is not a giant appeal to ignorance fallacy.

The "reductionists" believe that there are no limits to an organism's variability and its ability to evolve.

Lies. For one, reductionism is the scientific philosophy that all science can be reduced to the physics of fundamental particles and/or string theory. For two, nobody claims that there are no limits to an organism's ability to evolve; for the blatantly obvious instance, a mutation which prevents the organism from living long enough to reproduce will never be selected, and the organism will never evolve down that path.

However, a new report demonstrates that when three characters[sic] are affected by a gene, the gene cannot change, but is constrained by the dependency of the other characteristics.

Congratulations. You can cite a journal that is neither peer-reviewed nor accepted by the scientific community, and which has spelling errors in its abstracts. Beyond that, what is a characteristic? Size? Length, width, height? Length, width, height, surface area, volume? Length, width, height, surface area, volume, shortest dimension, longest dimension, greatest and least cross-sectional area? This claim is falling over itself to demonstrate its stupidity.

Therefore, evolution is now falsifiable if organisms can be found that have broken this principle.

Yes. Unlike the God Hypothesis, the Theory of Evolution is falsifiable, like the Theory of Universal Gravitation, the Theory of Special Relativity, and all other legitimate scientific theories.


---

Enough plinking for now.

[Patrick Degan]

disregurd my last post.... I'm got lost between two differnt forums i'm posting in......

My noobie dumb ass fucked up.

You did that the moment you quoted that ignorant argument regarding thermodynamics. You're today's target practise, 'Meat.

[Mr Flibble]

I know this is late, but this bit cracked me up:

The trilobite is supposed to be very simple life form, therefore being found in the bottom layers of time (Cambrian). Yet when they are carefully magnified, one will discover that some species have eyes, and complex eyes at that. Professor Levi-Setti, an authority on trilobites, concluded, "Trilobites had solved a very elegant physical problem and apparently knew about Fermat’s principle, Abbé’s sine law, Snell’s laws of refraction and the optics of birefringent crystals … ."

Because you need to be cognizant of snell's laws of refraction in order to have functioning eyes, does this mean that everyone was blind before Snell came along? Not to mention all those people who flunk physics.

Also amusing to the geologist in me is the description of the Cambrian as "the bottom layers of time". I hate to say it but the Cambrian is relatively recent, starting at 540 million years ago. That leaves a little over 4 billion years of Earth's history before the claimed "bottom layers of time".
Incidentally many of the rocks in my area are Precambrian

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just moving this to the HoS. Not to get shut down, but really because dumbass here doesn't want to debate...he wants to get assraped and proclaim how he stood up to Mike Wong and his gang of heathens.

BLOOD EAGLE! BLOOD EAGLE! It is time to make a Blood Eagle of wishful for Odhin!

[Napoleon the Clown]

I was gonna submit this idiot to FSTDT but he's been HoSed. Damn...


So which site did you come from? Christian Forums? Rapture Ready? Free Conservatives? (Note to denizens of SD.net: Avoid the latter two if you don't like weeping for the plight if humanity)

As an aside, saying you've been lied to doesn't mean we think you're a liar. It means you've been fed misinformation. Put serious study into your beliefs and you'll find some really heart crushing things.

[rhoenix]

It couldn't be that this guy can't read his Bible right, or anything - no, the entirety of human knowledge has to be called into question because they stubbornly refuse to admit their interpretation of a book now thousands of years old and edited tens of thousands of times might be wrong.

I've got some questions for wishful here, just out of morbid curiosity:

1. The Catholic Church believed the world was flat. Explain why our planet's representation of a globe is incorrect.

2. The Catholic Church burned people at the stake for having the temerity to suggest there are more planets than ours. Explain why this position was reversed.

3. The Mormons have suggested that one's skin color directly correlates with how much sin they carry. Explain why priests who molest children do not experience a darkening of the skin.

4. Explain why the model of Intelligent Design is falsifiable, and what it predicts. Given an example of the predictive qualities of Intelligent Design.

[Vehrec]

This is what I wanted to say.....

In short

long-winded
you would be aware of this if you were not being spoonfed lies and anti-evolution propaganda by creationist groups
Anyone who quotes this is a liar, who knows absolutely nothing about thermodynamics. You fail.
Creationists HAVE NO EXPLANATION
Lie.

That is certainly not the tack I would take if I were seriously trying to provide answers to the questions.

You might as well have said, "Wishful, you are a long winded liar, who is unaware of being spoonfed lies and propaganda, and you know nothing about thermodynamics." BLA BLA

Those are strong words . Allow me to throw one your way. You people are ridiculous.

WE are rediculous? You are the one rejecting over 150 years of science in favor of the Flying Spagetti Monster or an equivelent being making all the universe in an eyeblink. Or at least, that's what I'm getting out of this. As for your original arguements, #2 has a major flaw in that it seems to ignore that changes in the speed and length of development. A humans skull has a lot more in comon with a infant chimps than with an adult chimps. This is called Neoteny, and is also found in the strange Axolotl of Mexico. #1 claims irreduceable complexity, but only in one gene formation. How do we know that this is not simply a case of genes having evolved co-dependance over time? Master Genes like HOX are well established and are used for the re-evolution of certain features at times. Is this the kind of dependance that is talked about in those articles? Clearly, it's not detramental in any way. #3 talks about isolated incidents. Statisticians and scientists call these 'outliers' and hold that they are not representative of th way the world works. Theists call them Miracles and claim that they are proof of divinity. So is a man who drinks 40 cokes a day an outlier or a miracle? #4 talks about Bacteria evolving into somthing that is not bacteria being required to prove evolution. Why do we have to do that? We've shown that they change over time over and over again! What do you want, E. coli to suddenly absorb archaea and start chemosynthesis down at a volcanic vent? Or is that not enough for you either? #5 is prehaps the biggest target out here. Evolution has no direction. Natural selection is not a process that creates perfect organisms. Examples? The Peacock's tail. The human spine. The Apendix in just about every mammal that doesn't eat grass or other low-nutrient foods.

So, do you want my address so you can mail that guitar to me?