Five questions that evolutionists can't answer

[Mr. Coffee]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief.

Meaning it depends entirely on the "beliefe" of the person and not on the evidence presented.

It does take faith to believe that life appeared as some sort of accident.

Which is why it can be recreated in a lab, *I'm a smarmy asshole*?:roll: Can god/faith be tested in a lab?

There is no proof of this.

See the previous statement, moron.

While scientists have been trying for decades to explain the intricacies of "life by accident" they have not been able to prove it, and they can't replicate it in the laboratory. Nuff said folks...

We can't replicate it in a lab? What the fuck are you smoking, retard? We've been able to reproduce self-replicating molecules for deaces now. And really, self-relication is the only thing need to prove that 1. science is right, 2. the incresing complexity of the chians over time proves evolution, and 3. your lack of anything resembling evidence of your position...

IS ABSOLUTE EPIC FAIL.

[Darth Servo]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief.

Why should we when its not. Logical conclusions from objective evidence does not require faith, nor is it a mere belief.

It does take faith to believe that life appeared as some sort of accident.

Chemical reactions aren't an accident. This has only been pointed out to you a few dozen times.

There is no proof of this.

Other than the mountain of supporting evidence which you ignore.

While scientists have been trying for decades to explain the intricacies of "life by accident" they have not been able to prove it, and they can't replicate it in the laboratory. Nuff said folks...

You know, cavemen said the same thing about lightning and earthquakes. And guess what? We can't create earthquakes in the lab either. So we should abandon the "unproven theory" that they are caused by plate techtonics and instead revert to saying "God is just pissed off again"

I ask again, are you that moron on ST.com Kosh131?

[Surlethe]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief. It does take faith to believe that life appeared as some sort of accident. There is no proof of this. While scientists have been trying for decades to explain the intricacies of "life by accident" they have not been able to prove it, and they can't replicate it in the laboratory. Nuff said folks...

Evolution's about as faith-based as any other scientific claim, moron. What effort have you made to research and substantiate your easily-refuted claims? I've given you far more patience than you appear to deserve, and I've given you far more patience than anybody else has, you self-absorbed hypocrite.

[Mange]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief.

Bollocks. There's a wealth of evidence which proves evolution. Even if the most tangible (for laymen) would instantly disappear, the fossil record, then there would still be evidence in forms of observation, biochemistry etc.

It does take faith to believe that life appeared as some sort of accident.

Here's a fact for you: Evolution is anything but accidental. Selection processes aren't 'accidental'. That's something some people just can't seem to grasp.

There is no proof of this. While scientists have been trying for decades to explain the intricacies of "life by accident" they have not been able to prove it, and they can't replicate it in the laboratory. Nuff said folks...

Ever heard of the Miller-Ureys experiment in which complex organic molecules was formed and which since has been replicated many times over using different variables? Thought not.

[SirNitram]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief.

That'd be because we'd be lying if we said it was faith-based.

It does take faith to believe that life appeared as some sort of accident.

No, it requires observation and experimentation. This is the opposite of faith.

There is no proof of this.

Like when we did it in a lab? Or when we found sugar molecles in a nebula?

While scientists have been trying for decades to explain the intricacies of "life by accident" they have not been able to prove it, and they can't replicate it in the laboratory. Nuff said folks...

They can't? Prove it. Back up one iota of your bullshit. But you won't. You'll ignore all replies and post the same bullshit. Time you were banned.

[Darth Wong]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief.

I suppose it would take faith to believe in it if you are too ignorant to understand it. So for you, it would indeed take a lot of faith to accept evolution. I, on the other hand, have an education. I don't need faith to accept it because I understand the concept.

It does take faith to believe that life appeared as some sort of accident.

Why? Even if we rolled back the clock on science by 200 years and had absolutely no idea how it happened, the fact is that primitive life did appear at some point in the geological record, and this event is no more easily explained by appealing to the supernatural than appealing to the natural. In either case, we wouldn't understand exactly how it happened, but in the latter, at least we know the actor is real.

There is no proof of this.

Why must one prove that life exists due to the actions of the vast and not entirely understood natural universe rather than the actions of a vast and incomprehensible and quite probably fictional god? Does the latter explanation actually explain anything?

While scientists have been trying for decades to explain the intricacies of "life by accident" they have not been able to prove it, and they can't replicate it in the laboratory. Nuff said folks...

Why must scientists prove it, when even complete ignorance of the mechanism still favours a naturalistic explanation over a supernatural one?

PS. Once again, you demonstrate that you can't answer real points. You just post a new argument, as if the previous (easily shredded) arguments did not exist.

[Patrick Degan]

While scientists have been trying for decades to explain the intricacies of "life by accident" they have not been able to prove it, and they can't replicate it in the laboratory. Nuff said folks...

Looks like this bunch are on the verge of doing exactly that.

Eat it.

[Napoleon the Clown]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief.

I will admit that there is small bit of faith to it. But it isn't blind faith, unlike Creationism. Sure we don't have the same evidence that gravity does. But we've got a hell of a lot more than you and your ilk do.

It does take faith to believe that life appeared as some sort of accident. There is no proof of this.

Evolution doesn't claim it was a "cosmic accident" of any sort. It was chance that it happened when it did, but it was essentially inevitable to happen some time. A billion years is a very long time.

While scientists have been trying for decades to explain the intricacies of "life by accident" they have not been able to prove it, and they can't replicate it in the laboratory. Nuff said folks...

Scientists have replicated it in the lab. Imperfect replications, I admit. But that's far more than Creationists have. I'll take imperfect replicas over the hallucinations of goat herders thanks.

[Lord Zentei]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief.

I will admit that there is small bit of faith to it. But it isn't blind faith, unlike Creationism. Sure we don't have the same evidence that gravity does. But we've got a hell of a lot more than you and your ilk do.

It does take faith to believe that life appeared as some sort of accident. There is no proof of this.

Evolution doesn't claim it was a "cosmic accident" of any sort. It was chance that it happened when it did, but it was essentially inevitable to happen some time. A billion years is a very long time.

We have actually observed evolution taking place in nature as well as the lab. So the existance of evolution is not faith based at all: it is a fact as well as a theory.

You're probably thinking of abiogenesis, going by your second comment.

[Darth Wong]

Ah, but the thing is, you will not admit that evolution remains a faith based belief.

I will admit that there is small bit of faith to it. But it isn't blind faith, unlike Creationism. Sure we don't have the same evidence that gravity does. But we've got a hell of a lot more than you and your ilk do.

It takes no faith at all to say that it is the only explanation that makes any sense. That's good enough to call something a fact in most areas of life, without invoking "faith".

[wolveraptor]

I used to think the board's administration was too harsh on trolls. I thought that if we weren't so starved for creationists, we'd be less likely to gang up so viciously on the few that trickle in. But if this is the level of debate I can expect...

Wishful: as a common courtesy, respond to the fucking points you bring up. It's incredibly rude to post bullshit and then ignore everyone's response to it.

[wishful]

What we have is an admission that there is no proof. Yet, you faithfully believe. Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible. You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not. It could be possible that some alien civilization genetically engineered all of the life forms on this planet for all you know. You can't disprove that, can you? I didn't think so...

[Adept]

What we have is an admission that there is no proof. Yet, you faithfully believe.

I see you haven't bothered to take a look at any of the links that have been posted, or creationtheory.org (or talkorigins). There is an abundance of proof. Had you been as "open" to debate as you originally claimed, what with your asinine question-posing, you probably would have thought to look for yourself. I cannot say I am surprised, however.

Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible.

Evolution, on the other hand, can be seen and substantiated by proven methods of looking at the natural world as it once was. Do you even realize that evolution takes hundreds of thousands of years to see? Do you honestly believe that because it is not occuring in the absurdly brief expanse of time that you have been alive, it must not be occuring whatsoever?

You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not

By that ridiculous logic, you are relying on faith when not deciding to jump off a cliff, since much of what we know about gravity initially (and still does, to some degree) involved hypotheticals. Your challenge is to prove that this "faith" you say evolutionists have is more irrational than the faith of creationists in their field.

It could be possible that some alien civilization genetically engineered all of the life forms on this planet for all you know.

Except, you know, there is no proof for that. You're obviously someone who feels that pesky proof business is just about useless, don't you?

You can't disprove that, can you? I didn't think so...

Ooh, witty. Ever proved a negative before?

[General Zod]

What we have is an admission that there is no proof. Yet, you faithfully believe. Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible. You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not. It could be possible that some alien civilization genetically engineered all of the life forms on this planet for all you know. You can't disprove that, can you? I didn't think so...

Main Entry: 1faith
Pronunciation: 'fAth
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural faiths /'fAths, sometimes 'fA[th]z/
Etymology: Middle English feith, from Anglo-French feid, fei, from Latin fides; akin to Latin fidere to trust -- more at BIDE
1 a : allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2 a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3 : something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

Eat it shitstain.

[SirNitram]

What we have is an admission that there is no proof. Yet, you faithfully believe. Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible. You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not. It could be possible that some alien civilization genetically engineered all of the life forms on this planet for all you know. You can't disprove that, can you? I didn't think so...

You aren't actually reading this, are you?

Hey, kiddie. Let's have a test. Nice and scientific. I'll blasphemy as hard as I can(And I can do it pretty hard), and you go and try and violate the theory of Gravity by stepping off a great height.

Survivor wins.

[Lord Zentei]

What we have is an admission that there is no proof.

Quite the opposite, actually. Did you miss the part where we pointed out that evolution has been observed to take place?

Yet, you faithfully believe. Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible. You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not.

See previous point.

It could be possible that some alien civilization genetically engineered all of the life forms on this planet for all you know. You can't disprove that, can you? I didn't think so...

First you rant about proof, now it's disproof you want... See, we know that existing life was not engineered because of the processes that are known to exist, and have been observed, and because of the fossil record.

[Napoleon the Clown]

We have actually observed evolution taking place in nature as well as the lab. So the existance of evolution is not faith based at all: it is a fact as well as a theory.

You're probably thinking of abiogenesis, going by your second comment.

I guess I was a bit unclear. I meant that we don't have as conclusive of evidence of the ToE as it currently exists as we do for gravity.

And believe me, I know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. I was being lazy by not noting that he was talking about the latter.

[Mange]

What we have is an admission that there is no proof. Yet, you faithfully believe.

Are you really that dense? People have explained what sort of proof there is.

Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible. You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not.

Science is based on objective evidence, but apparently that is completely lost on you.

[Patrick Degan]

What we have is an admission that there is no proof. Yet, you faithfully believe. Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible. You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not. It could be possible that some alien civilization genetically engineered all of the life forms on this planet for all you know. You can't disprove that, can you? I didn't think so...

You aren't actually reading this, are you?

Hey, kiddie. Let's have a test. Nice and scientific. I'll blasphemy as hard as I can(And I can do it pretty hard), and you go and try and violate the theory of Gravity by stepping off a great height.

Survivor wins.

I nominate this for the latest FUQ entry.

[DPDarkPrimus]

Except that Nitram meant "blaspheme".

[Batman]

Except that Nitram meant "blaspheme".

Obviously. Apart from that minor typo I heartily second the motion.

[Stile]

Except that Nitram meant "blaspheme".

Obviously. Apart from that minor typo I heartily second the motion.

The Mess has already had that covered for a while. Ever heard the phrase "Swear like a Sailor"?

[Darth Servo]

What we have is an admission that there is no proof.[/qutoe]
I see the moron still doesn't grasp the difference between absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Lack of absolute proof does NOT mean no proof at all.

Yet, you faithfully believe.

Because there is a mountain of EVIDENCE which you insist on ignoring.

Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible. You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not.

Note the words "cannot be seen" even though every honest person in this debate clearly CAN see the evidence for evolution. Wishful is trying to change even the Biblical definition from "cannot be seen" to "will not be seen".

It could be possible that some alien civilization genetically engineered all of the life forms on this planet for all you know. You can't disprove that, can you? I didn't think so...

Once again, the proof is on the part of the person claiming such a thing DID happen. Hey wishful, you can't disprove Zeus didn't create life on this planet in contradiction to your religion, therefor you've just argued that your religion is wrong.

[Astarial]

Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible.

Faith is a belief in that which cannot be proven or seen. Faith is not evidence.

What we have is an admission that there is no proof.[/qutoe]
I see the moron still doesn't grasp the difference between absolute proof and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Lack of absolute proof does NOT mean no proof at all.

Yet, you faithfully believe.

Because there is a mountain of EVIDENCE which you insist on ignoring.

Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible. You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not.

Note the words "cannot be seen" even though every honest person in this debate clearly CAN see the evidence for evolution. Wishful is trying to change even the Biblical definition from "cannot be seen" to "will not be seen".

It could be possible that some alien civilization genetically engineered all of the life forms on this planet for all you know. You can't disprove that, can you? I didn't think so...

Once again, the proof is on the part of the person claiming such a thing DID happen. Hey wishful, you can't disprove Zeus didn't create life on this planet in contradiction to your religion, therefor you've just argued that your religion is wrong.

Because wishful is probably going to argue that evolutionists have to prove evolution, I'm gonna clarify the statement.

The claim violating Occam's Razor must be the one to provide proof. Since evolution is a perfectly reasonable explanation for the development of life and it requires no agent, invoking a god to do the same thing is the theory that needs to be proven.

[Dooey Jo]

What we have is an admission that there is no proof. Yet, you faithfully believe. Faith can be defined as evidence of that which cannot be seen, and is defined that way in the bible.

That's interesting. By posting evidence, one actually admits there is no evidence. Truly fascinating. Also, ze Bibble defines pi as exactly 3.

You are relying on faith whether you want to admit it or not.

But I thought you just said faith is evidence, so you're saying we rely on evidence?

It could be possible that some alien civilization genetically engineered all of the life forms on this planet for all you know. You can't disprove that, can you?

Well done! By discrediting your own position, I can see that you are a few steps closer to accepting the logic and reason of science.

I didn't think

Obviously.

so...

So it is time for you to send me your guitar, or an equivalent amount of dollars.