The Truth

[Protos]

Reasons why evolution is false:

1) Evolution states that it is the change of the DNA of a species by their physical surroundings over a long period of time. That it is a mutation at random. Yet these random mutations have been shown to prove nothing by scientists who were evolutionists and thus started believing in God. The chances of a cell arising from the primordial soup is the same as a tornado sweeping through a large pile of metal and making a Boeing-747. Evolutionists who have started to look for fossils have become convinced that evolution is untrue when layers of missing fossils that should be there aren't. The incredulities are so much more than Creationism that it gets to the point of believing something that makes less sense.

2) Evolution is also unsupported by any facts. An atheist would say, "But what about all the fossils?" Well those fossils aren't supporting evolution, evolution is supporting them. Evolution is a theory which proposes to explain the evidence. This same evidence cannot be used to support evolution vice versa. It's like claiming that the Earth has conscioussness on the fact that there is gravity and then using the fact that there is gravity to support your statement that the Earth is a living thing. All scientists that study evolution and were evolutionists have become believers that there is a God, based on what I have said. I can bet that none of you in here have made the slightest attempt to back up what you are talking about except for the brainwashing hogwash they give you at school that you were forced to memorize.

3) The biggest part of evolution is natural selection. It is the principle that the weakest and those that are least fit to survive die out fastest, and the stronger continue to reproduce. Let's say we have 3 groups of three different species. Group A, B, and C. Let's say that at first these three groups are at an equal level of chance of survival. Then all of a sudden Group A supercedes the rest. In order for this to happen. Group A must have more and more weaker members removed. So what we get is a very strong group A with very little people. So what natural selections says is that the more die out, the stronger they are. That makes sense to ignorance. What kind of nature where it wants to produce the best, kills the most of it? In all cases, everybody loses members of their group, yet you people claim that there will be more, which is in fact the death of species, not the survival. Furthermore, the stronger Group A is the more weaker members it can sustain. This can best be seen with people today. Technology allows us to have people alive with diseases that would have wiped out any other member of the same species. Those people have children and thus our species gets weaker and weaker the stronger we get.

How does this make sense, if you claim to be people who aren't ignorant and in fact hold that the opposite is true? If species survive by competition and not cooperation, then why isn't everyone fighting each other? That's because evolution is a sad, pathetic man's dream of becoming famous. His name was Charles Darwin. Not only did he steal work from people such as James Hutton (1726 – 1797) who wrote on gradual changes of the Earth's surface. His theory was how the Earth was formed stating it was either from molten rock or how things were found on the ocean sea floor. He introduced the theory of gradualism. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1774 – 1829), Georges Cuvier (1769 – 1832), and Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Darwin did it for fame. Others have done it for power. Communism, and Marxism were based on the idea of no God because it was the "opiate of the people" Karl Marx may have believed that, but Stalin certainly did not, who killed millions just so he'd stay in power. Why are you an atheist? Because of a theory that is refuted by scientists? Or because you have been brainwashed to believe the crap that your science teacher taught you. If you all like to use science, show me some proof besides your personal theories about evolution.

[psyadam]

Why are you an atheist? Because of a theory that is refuted by scientists? Or because you have been brainwashed to believe the crap that your science teacher taught you. If you all like to use science, show me some proof besides your personal theories about evolution.
I doubt any of us athiests are athiests because we believe in evolution. Please take a look at hte topic entitled "So, why is your choice atheism? " in the General discusion forum--I have a post in there as well.

[Another brick in the wall]

Go to www.talkorigins.com Read every article. Or better yet, go to your local college and ask the biology teacher about evolution. Ask your doctor about evolution. And you might want to read up on some of the other relevant posts on this forum.

The reason communists (and many other kinds of dictatorships) suppress religion is because the leaders don't want the people to hold allegiance to anyone else. The relationship between atheism and communism is tangential; and there have been innumerable religious dictatorships.

Open your eyes, open your mind.

[vheltrite]

i dont get it...........
just be practical..............
follow what you believe is right.................

[GodlessHeathen]

1) Stop reading information on "Creation Science" websites.
2) Buy books on Evolution and Abiogenesis and educate yourself. Don't just blindly believe what someone tells you. Whether you want to believe it or not, "Creation Science" is not correct.

[Crackerus Dadderus]

The chances of a cell arising from the primordial soup is the same as a tornado sweeping through a large pile of metal and making a Boeing-747.
Most don't agree that a "cell" "arose" from the primordial soup. How did it get up out of the soup? Must be those little cell legs. You should really read up on the subject before quoting that ridiculous 747 comparison.

Evolutionists who have started to look for fossils have become convinced that evolution is untrue when layers of missing fossils that should be there aren't.
And where are those fossils supposed to be? I didn't know we had a fossil map of where organisms died and preserved remains were left, much less where layers of them are. It really didn't take much time away from your bible studies to formulate your opinions on this stuff did it?

All scientists that study evolution and were evolutionists have become believers that there is a God, based on what I have said.
Thanks for the laugh on that one.

An atheist would say, "But what about all the fossils?" Well those fossils aren't supporting evolution, evolution is supporting them. Evolution is a theory which proposes to explain the evidence. This same evidence cannot be used to support evolution vice versa.
Do you know anything about scientific theory? Did you read through this post before clicking submit?

So what natural selections says is that the more die out, the stronger they are. That makes sense to ignorance.
You're IQ is below 70 isn't it? You do understand that the model applies to generations? Just because the weak are dying out, doesn't mean the strong stop having offspring. It's a gradual process, what about this are you not understanding?

Why are you an atheist? Because of a theory that is refuted by scientists? Or because you have been brainwashed to believe the crap that your science teacher taught you.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe in talking snakes or donkeys, unicorns, Some dad his kid and their flying sidekick the holy ghost - the same as I don't believe in fairies, Santa, or mickey mouse. I don't need comfort from some sky god. I am an atheist because I am not weak. I am an atheist because I rid myself of my brainwashing.

Hopefully, for the betterment of our species, you will not have kids.

[calpurnpiso]

The chances of a cell arising from the primordial soup is the same as a tornado sweeping through a large pile of metal and making a Boeing-747.
Most don't agree that a "cell" "arose" from the primordial soup. How did it get up out of the soup? Must be those little cell legs. You should really read up on the subject before quoting that ridiculous 747 comparison.

Evolutionists who have started to look for fossils have become convinced that evolution is untrue when layers of missing fossils that should be there aren't.
And where are those fossils supposed to be? I didn't know we had a fossil map of where organisms died and preserved remains were left, much less where layers of them are. It really didn't take much time away from your bible studies to formulate your opinions on this stuff did it?

All scientists that study evolution and were evolutionists have become believers that there is a God, based on what I have said.
Thanks for the laugh on that one.

An atheist would say, "But what about all the fossils?" Well those fossils aren't supporting evolution, evolution is supporting them. Evolution is a theory which proposes to explain the evidence. This same evidence cannot be used to support evolution vice versa.
Do you know anything about scientific theory? Did you read through this post before clicking submit?

So what natural selections says is that the more die out, the stronger they are. That makes sense to ignorance.
You're IQ is below 70 isn't it? You do understand that the model applies to generations? Just because the weak are dying out, doesn't mean the strong stop having offspring. It's a gradual process, what about this are you not understanding?

Why are you an atheist? Because of a theory that is refuted by scientists? Or because you have been brainwashed to believe the crap that your science teacher taught you.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe in talking snakes or donkeys, unicorns, Some dad his kid and their flying sidekick the holy ghost - the same as I don't believe in fairies, Santa, or mickey mouse. I don't need comfort from some sky god. I am an atheist because I am not weak. I am an atheist because I rid myself of my brainwashing.

Hopefully, for the betterment of our species, you will not have kids.
Very well said......you forgot to point out to him his brain is infected by Christ-psychosis, then you would have made him aware of the WHY of his delusions............:)

[peepnklown]

Protos
1 – Your first mistake is equating Evolution and atheism.

[ekimmike2002]

that's dumb so they seperated from the state an the society
what abput if ya die is there real heaven and hell? well they exist?
well some tried but they failed because the never return

[kmisho]

The chances of a cell arising from the primordial soup is the same as a tornado sweeping through a large pile of metal and making a Boeing-747. Evolutionists who have started to look for fossils have become convinced that evolution is untrue when layers of missing fossils that should be there aren't. The incredulities are so much more than Creationism that it gets to the point of believing something that makes less sense.
I am going to answer this creationist post once and only once. After this I will never answer another creationist who trots out these trite and fallacious arguments.

The above is simply wrong in terms of the theory of evolution. IF evolution were theorized to be strictly a matter of chance then the above would not be wrong. But this is not the theory of evolution. In evolution, chance PLUS natural selection is what yields the results. The theory is that chance genetic mutations occur and that these changes yield offspring with qualities differeing (for better or worse) from their parents. If the new qualities are advantageous then the mutation is simply more likely tobe carried into the next generation since the odds of the mutated offspring surviving long enough to mate have increased.

2) Evolution is also unsupported by any facts. An atheist would say, "But what about all the fossils?" Well those fossils aren't supporting evolution, evolution is supporting them. Evolution is a theory which proposes to explain the evidence. This same evidence cannot be used to support evolution vice versa. It's like claiming that the Earth has conscioussness on the fact that there is gravity and then using the fact that there is gravity to support your statement that the Earth is a living thing. All scientists that study evolution and were evolutionists have become believers that there is a God, based on what I have said. I can bet that none of you in here have made the slightest attempt to back up what you are talking about except for the brainwashing hogwash they give you at school that you were forced to memorize.
This segment is so full of errors, false analogies and straw men that it is hardly worth responding to...but I will this once. That life on earth evolves is so completely supported by experiment and observatuion that to deny it makes one the equivalent of a flat earther. I will not go into the evidence here for 2 reasons. First, the many facets of evidence are available in hundreds of books and websites. I'm not paid to be a teacher, especially of those who do not want to learn. Second, arguing evidence with creationists only plays into their hands. Creationism is so patently absurd from a strictly rational and philosophical perspective that evidence for creationists is, in fact, irrelevant. The statement that "All scientists that study evolution and were evolutionists have become believers that there is a God." is either a result of ignorance or an outright lie. A friend of mine is a PHD in biochemistry who studies genetic mutation on a daily basis and I can assure you is in no danger of turning into a creationist.

The biggest part of evolution is natural selection. It is the principle that the weakest and those that are least fit to survive die out fastest, and the stronger continue to reproduce.
This, my creationist friend, is again WRONG. Evolution does not state as an absolute that the fittest survive. This is simply false by modern standards. More accurate would be to say, "The least fit POPULATION is the most likely to become extinct." Evoltuion does not hand out prizes for being fit. Consider this: A lake is filled with various types of fish, some evolved to be more suited to the current habitat of the lake as it is now and some less so. The lake dries up and all fish die. Being fit does not guarantee survival nor does being less fit assure species failure. In reality, the least fit can by sheer accident survive long after some objectvely more fit species dies off. There are even times when being more fit by certain criteria can actually be a disadvantage, especially to individual animals. This is another aspect of how the word "randomness' applies to evolution.

His name was Charles Darwin. Not only did he steal work from people such as James Hutton (1726 – 1797) who wrote on gradual changes of the Earth's surface. His theory was how the Earth was formed stating it was either from molten rock or how things were found on the ocean sea floor.
In the above brief remark exists both an ad hominem and a straw man. Claiming that Darwin stole some material (even if he did) does not invalidate modern evolution theory. Nor does Darwin being wrong about certain aspects of geology, which then was a fairly new science and, as such, riddled with errors and sepculation.

kmisho

[vheltrite]

the truth lies within you

[ghoulslime]

Don't even bother to educate yourself. Get a six pack of beer and watch TV. You are a complete fucking dork. Any attempt to engage any of your idiotic points is total waste of effort..

[vheltrite]

a really waste....

[Metman07]

All scientists that study evolution and were evolutionists have become believers that there is a God, based on what I have said.
Wow. Buddy you are deluded beyond belieft. Please cite a survey that backs up this absurd claim of yours. If you do some quick Google searches, you will find that the OVERWHELMING (and that's an understatement) majority of biological scientists believe in the theory of evolution as does an overwhelming majority of all scientists. Please, read something other than Creation "Science" literature.

It has perhaps escaped your attention that when Darwin published the Origin of Species, almost all scientists were creationists. Almost 100% of them. He was derided and ridiculed for his theory. Today his theory is a bedrock of modern biology and medical science. If you are so convinced about your theory, get your worked published in a neutral, peer-reviewed scientific publication. Because to date, the Creationists have failed to produce even a single article that meets the standards of a respected scientific journal. If the theory of evolution is so obviously flawed then do something to convince the scientific community.

[Paradox]

Reasons why evolution is false:
Yeah, im sure with a few sentences you can disprove one of the most well-established, well-proven, long-standing theories in the history of mankind, that has the backing of the vast majority of people in the actual scientific community. Ofcourse the vast majority of the people who have spent there lives actually researching this subject are completely wrong, while you armed with a religious bias against evolution and im guessing little to no knowledge about science think you can disprove evolution. OK, take your worst shot.

1) Evolution states that it is the change of the DNA of a species by their physical surroundings over a long period of time. That it is a mutation at random
Hell no. Your already contradicting yourself. Why dont we look at the defintion of random

Random.
ran·dom
adj.
Having no specific pattern, purpose, or objective.

If evolution states that the change of DNA is based by there surroundings, it is not random as it does have specific pattern. So it isnt random mutation.

Yet these random mutations have been shown to prove nothing by scientists who were evolutionists and thus started believing in God
I dont buy this bullshit. Who the fuck are these evolutionists who started believing in god. You know, a few name might be helpfull. As far as im concerned your just making shit up, or just parroting someone else who is making shit up.

The chances of a cell arising from the primordial soup is the same as a tornado sweeping through a large pile of metal and making a Boeing-747
I knew you were just parroting bullshit someone else made up. You read some of Fred Hoyle's literature (or the literature of another creationist who copied Fred Hoyle) and think your an expert on evolution. It might surprise you to learn that quoting people isnt actually considered scientific evidence.

Evolutionists who have started to look for fossils have become convinced that evolution is untrue when layers of missing fossils that should be there aren't
Once again you make some asinine claim about what evolutionists are thinking but you fail to mention sources or names.

The incredulities are so much more than Creationism that it gets to the point of believing something that makes less sense.
Not only are you making up strawman evolutionists, now your making up word. What the fuck does "incredulities" mean.

2) Evolution is also unsupported by any facts. An atheist would say, "But what about all the fossils?" Well those fossils aren't supporting evolution, evolution is supporting them. Evolution is a theory which proposes to explain the evidence. This same evidence cannot be used to support evolution vice versa. It's like claiming that the Earth has conscioussness on the fact that there is gravity and then using the fact that there is gravity to support your statement that the Earth is a living thing. All scientists that study evolution and were evolutionists have become believers that there is a God, based on what I have said. I can bet that none of you in here have made the slightest attempt to back up what you are talking about except for the brainwashing hogwash they give you at school that you were forced to memorize.
Let me get this shit straight, your claiming that all scientists that have studied evolution and were evolutionsts have become believers. Not only do you claim this, but you claim it without any source of information, then you go on to say "I can bet that none of you in here have made the slightest attempt to back up what you are talking about". Since i know that your typical response to me asking for a source for this claim would result in you hypocritically telling me that i dont have a source that contradicts that claim, i may aswell give some sources now.

According to Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23 By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science... That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14%. That would make scientists who believe in creationism fringe lunatics.

According to the E. J. Larson and L. Witham study, published in the peer-reviewed scientific journal "Nature", July 23, 1998 issue a survey of all 517 Mational Academy of Science members in biological and physical sciences resulted in just over half responding: 72.2% were overtly atheistic, 20.8% agnostic, and only 7% believed in a personal God.

Seems to me your full of it Protos. Not only are the majority of biologists evolutionists, but the vast majority of the National Academy of Science dont believe in god either. Now it would be great if you could show me the sources to your claim that the majority of scientific community are really creationists who reject evolution. Until then, i'll just assume your making shit up to support your arguments.


3) The biggest part of evolution is natural selection. It is the principle that the weakest and those that are least fit to survive die out fastest, and the stronger continue to reproduce. Let's say we have 3 groups of three different species. Group A, B, and C. Let's say that at first these three groups are at an equal level of chance of survival. Then all of a sudden Group A supercedes the rest. In order for this to happen. Group A must have more and more weaker members removed. So what we get is a very strong group A with very little people. So what natural selections says is that the more die out, the stronger they are. That makes sense to ignorance. What kind of nature where it wants to produce the best, kills the most of it? In all cases, everybody loses members of their group, yet you people claim that there will be more, which is in fact the death of species, not the survival. Furthermore, the stronger Group A is the more weaker members it can sustain. This can best be seen with people today. Technology allows us to have people alive with diseases that would have wiped out any other member of the same species. Those people have children and thus our species gets weaker and weaker the stronger we get.

How does this make sense, if you claim to be people who aren't ignorant and in fact hold that the opposite is true? If species survive by competition and not cooperation, then why isn't everyone fighting each other?
I'd say kmisho & Crackerus Dadderus did a good job of establishing this is a bullshit. so moving on


That's because evolution is a sad, pathetic man's dream of becoming famous. His name was Charles Darwin
When the fuck did darwin ever mention his aspirations of fame?

Not only did he steal work from people such as James Hutton (1726 – 1797) who wrote on gradual changes of the Earth's surface. His theory was how the Earth was formed stating it was either from molten rock or how things were found on the ocean sea floor. He introduced the theory of gradualism. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1774 – 1829), Georges Cuvier (1769 – 1832), and Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Darwin did it for fame.
Darwin never took any credit for the works James Hutton, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Georges Cuvier, and Charles Lyell. There research led to the book "Origin of Species".

Others have done it for power. Communism, and Marxism were based on the idea of no God because it was the "opiate of the people"
Damn you are stupid. Communism is based on egalitarianism and collectivism. Too bad the propaganda campaign of the 1950s suceeded in brainwashing america into thinking the communism is inherently connected with atheism. Truth is, christians had practiced communism before they even called it communism. The Diggers (aka The True Levellers) are a great example of this. Communism bears alot of striking similarites between christianity anway. Both disdain individuality and love conformity and both want to control the market.

Karl Marx may have believed that, but Stalin certainly did not, who killed millions just so he'd stay in power. Why are you an atheist? Because of a theory that is refuted by scientists? Or because you have been brainwashed to believe the crap that your science teacher taught you. If you all like to use science, show me some proof besides your personal theories about evolution.
You think atheists are doing the brainwashing here. look around you, christians are spending billions sending missionaries to third world countries to brainwash starving children into christianity. How many times do you get a knock on the fucking door at 7:00AM in the morning from some stranger who wants to talk to about darwin, NEVER!!! However mormons, jehovahs witnesses and other intolerant arseholes from different sects of christianity think its fine. I find it hilarious that your saying this, when you have come running to an atheist message board to insult our worldview, while i generally leave people alone with there religious beliefs unless they come talk to me. We arent doing the brainwashing here.

And for the record, i dont believe in god because the lack of empirical evidence in his/her/its existence. Even if evolution was disproven, that doesnt auotmatically establish the existence of an invisible, omnipotent, omnipresent, omibenovolent, omniscient, omnieverything being that dictates everything in the universe.

[Ownthink]

Go to www.talkorigins.com Read every article. Or better yet, go to your local college and ask the biology teacher about evolution. Ask your doctor about evolution. And you might want to read up on some of the other relevant posts on this forum.

The reason communists (and many other kinds of dictatorships) suppress religion is because the leaders don't want the people to hold allegiance to anyone else. The relationship between atheism and communism is tangential; and there have been innumerable religious dictatorships.

Open your eyes, open your mind.
Actually, that's quite ignorant of you. Real Communism, as outlined in the Manifesto, has never been put into practice. Communism ISN'T a dictatorship, and any society that calls itself "Communist" but that is a dictatorship, isn't communist. Cuba, Vietnam, USSR, etc were NOT Communist. Anyone who has a sense of equalityt does agree with the Social Utopia that is Communism.

[Tenspace]

The chances of a cell arising from the primordial soup is the same as a tornado sweeping through a large pile of metal and making a Boeing-747.
Most don't agree that a "cell" "arose" from the primordial soup. How did it get up out of the soup? Must be those little cell legs. You should really read up on the subject before quoting that ridiculous 747 comparison.
"Waiter, there's a primordial cell in my soup."
"What's a primordial cell doing in your soup?"
"Evolving."

:lol:

[vheltrite]

certainly....... =)

[bobfritzelpuff]

Reasons why evolution is false:

LOTS O (dont look, bad word incoming) BULLSHIT
Need I bother explaining? It has been done by so many other people... How about picking up a book called "The Blind Watchmaker". Easy read, very good at smashing your arguments into little tiny peices.

If you prefer to remain ensconsed by your delusions, ignore this and go on thinking that your god exists.

[vheltrite]

evolution is a fact!!!

[peepnklown]

Protos
Take a biology book and smash your head with it. :lol:

[Protos]

The chances of a cell arising from the primordial soup is the same as a tornado sweeping through a large pile of metal and making a Boeing-747.
Most don't agree that a "cell" "arose" from the primordial soup. How did it get up out of the soup? Must be those little cell legs. You should really read up on the subject before quoting that ridiculous 747 comparison.
Seeing how you actually read up on the subject. I studied biology long enough to know that those who claim that evolution is true believe in chemical evolution because that's the only explanation proposed that explains how the first cell came. Seeing how little education you have, let me enlighten you on the subject of chemical evolution:
Proposed by the Russian chemist/biologist Oparin, chemical evolution says that during the young Earth, life developed from the pre-existing conditions out of a primordial soup. This was supposedly an accident by which the early eukariotic cell was made. This cell eventually went on to add the mitochondria, its "powerhouse" which is thought of by evolutionists to have been a stray bacteria that somehow got stuck in there and stayed. The reason they speculate that is so, is because of its double phospholipid layer, as opposed to the single one that covers cells. This is what chemical evolution proposes, and an experiment was carried out by which the pre-existing conditions for life were recreated by scientists in a laboratory. Though they did not develop life, an object that had most of the conditions met was created, Proteinoid Microspheres. These had a cell covering, but they didn't reproduce. If you claim that you believe in evolution but not in chemical evolution then you are just as ignorant as you claim people who are Creationists to be.

Evolutionists who have started to look for fossils have become convinced that evolution is untrue when layers of missing fossils that should be there aren't.
And where are those fossils supposed to be? I didn't know we had a fossil map of where organisms died and preserved remains were left, much less where layers of them are. It really didn't take much time away from your bible studies to formulate your opinions on this stuff did it?
I do not go to Bible studies. I never said that I believed in God, nonetheless that I was a christian. This topic isn't about my personal life as you seem to believe by chatting about it and wasting other people's time. This topic is about evolution. The Earth has something that you may not know called layers. And each of those layers come from a different time. As volcanoes spew out hot magma which is melted at extreme pressures and temperatures below the Earth's crust, it forms new layers. Thus, the deeper the layer, the older it is. The way volcanoes reach the earth's crust is when tectonic plates at convergent boundaries slide over each other, and the bottom layer is melted by the surface of the mantel which creates hot magma, which rises through a volcano and out as lava. Based on evolution and geology scientists figure out which layers are supposed to contain which fossils. According to geologists who excavated those layers, nothing of the sort was found; there were simply no fossils.

All scientists that study evolution and were evolutionists have become believers that there is a God, based on what I have said.
Thanks for the laugh on that one.
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)

"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)

"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")

Had a good laugh now?

An atheist would say, "But what about all the fossils?" Well those fossils aren't supporting evolution, evolution is supporting them. Evolution is a theory which proposes to explain the evidence. This same evidence cannot be used to support evolution vice versa.
Do you know anything about scientific theory? Did you read through this post before clicking submit?
I'm betting you're some 11 year old kid brainwashed by his science teacher who is probably your father/mother/both, so stop asking questions that contribute nothing to the discussion. The reason you need facts to support a proposition is the same reason that you don't believe in God. That is why I stated that evolution has no facts and you believe in something that is unproven, and if you knew something called analogy you would understand why I made that association with the Earth being consciouss.

So what natural selections says is that the more die out, the stronger they are. That makes sense to ignorance.
You're IQ is below 70 isn't it? You do understand that the model applies to generations? Just because the weak are dying out, doesn't mean the strong stop having offspring. It's a gradual process, what about this are you not understanding?
My IQ is 156. If you actually read what I posted instead of skimming through it, you would realize that I was talking about the requirements for a species to get stronger. It means killing more and more weaker ones. Since each member and individual of that group/species isn't at the same strength which is one of the foundations of natural selection, then there will always be a stronger member. This means that the more members you kill, the stronger ones you will have. By you, I mean natural selection, since it is common knowledge that someone who isn't strong enough to outrun a bear will not survive, unless by accident.

Why are you an atheist? Because of a theory that is refuted by scientists? Or because you have been brainwashed to believe the crap that your science teacher taught you.
I'm an atheist because I don't believe in talking snakes or donkeys, unicorns, Some dad his kid and their flying sidekick the holy ghost - the same as I don't believe in fairies, Santa, or mickey mouse. I don't need comfort from some sky god. I am an atheist because I am not weak. I am an atheist because I rid myself of my brainwashing.

Hopefully, for the betterment of our species, you will not have kids.
Well I see now that I have wasted my time debating on a subject which you have little knowledge of. When you reach 7th grade and pass biology with an A+ then IM me, because quite frankly you're answering just for the argument, not arguing the points that I have made. You think you know something when in fact you're making an uneducated person out of yourself. This is why I said to present me evidence and not your personal theories. From now on I will disregard any personal beliefs and propositions unless you provide with facts out of real books, not school biology textbooks, and I will only answer to people who don't come to this forum to chat and debate on my personal life. I neither mention in my previous post that I believed in God, nor that I was a Christian which once again those of you that wrote that assumed as you have with your so called "proofs" of evolution. As you can see I know a lot on this subject because once I used to believe in evolution too. I wasn't an atheist, but I just believed it based on the brainwashing they had given me in school. I have never gone to church until the previous month of my life, nor have I ever gone to Bible studies which I know for a fact won't answer any questions that anyone might have, just give you more, or try to brainwash you into believing in Christ instead of truly believing just as evolution has.

[ocmpoma]

"Seeing how little education you have, let me enlighten you on the subject of chemical evolution..."
Protos, if you are so highly educated, why do you equate abiogenesis and evolution?

"Based on evolution and geology scientists figure out which layers are supposed to contain which fossils. According to geologists who excavated those layers, nothing of the sort was found; there were simply no fossils."
Which layers? Which fossils?

"The reason you need facts to support a proposition is the same reason that you don't believe in God."
Possible, but the fossil record is evidence for evolution, which would be a perfectly valid, falsifiable scientific theory even if we had never seen a fossil. While it is certainly true that people have been wondering about fossils for longer than they have been debating evolution, and it is true that evolutionary theory helps us to understand the fossil record, the fossil record is evidence for evolutionary theory just as black holes, which are better understood through relativity, are evidence of relativity. Oh, and the fossils aren't the only evidence.

"This means that the more members you kill, the stronger ones you will have."
Natural selection does not mean killing the weaker members. It means that some individuals are more likely to procreate, their offspring will resemble them; thus, over time, a population changes to resemble what were in previous generations the 'fitter' subjects. Perhaps if you re-state your argument from part 3) of your original post in grammatically correct English, I can better explain where your misunderstandings lie. As it is, I can't really understand what you typed.

[vheltrite]

Wtf!!!

[Heather]

All right, I'm almost convinced that this person is an Atheist posing as a Christian, but I'm going to take the bait just for the hell of it.

For one thing, Protos, you have claimed multiple times that everyone here is just proposing random personal opinions with no backing for their claims, yet you have failed to provide any sources yourself. Care to explain? (here's a hint - quotes by random scientists are NOT considered sources).

Evolution states that it is the change of the DNA of a species by their physical surroundings over a long period of time.
... This isn't a complete sentence.

Yet these random mutations have been shown to prove nothing by scientists who were evolutionists and thus started believing in God.
What mutations? You are being far too vague. On average, there is one mutation for every million base pairs. Since there are billions of base pairs in each organism, that works out to hundreds of mutations in your typical organism. Albeit, most mutations are neutral, but some are beneficial. But it's not only mutations that cause evolutoin - it's also the toss-up of sexual reproduction. Genes from one parent, when combined with genes from another parent, can produce an offspring that is better equipped to survive than either of the parents. These two factors, when coupled with natural selection, are primarily what cause evolution.

The chances of a cell arising from the primordial soup is the same as a tornado sweeping through a large pile of metal and making a Boeing-747.
Whoa...slow down. I thought we were talking about evolution? Evolutionary Theory has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of life.

Evolutionists who have started to look for fossils have become convinced that evolution is untrue when layers of missing fossils that should be there aren't.
Actually the condition of the fossil record was predicted quite well by evolution. You see, a good scientific theory is always able to provide accurate predictions of what we will (and will not) find in a given situation. The Theory of Evolution predicts that we will find sequences of organisms in the fossil layers (in other words, animals will slowly become more advanced as you get closer to the top). Interestingly enough, this is exactly what we have found.

Evolution is a theory which proposes to explain the evidence. This same evidence cannot be used to support evolution vice versa.
A theory is supposed to explain natural phenomena. This is the purpose of a scientific theory. Now, as to your second sentence, can you provide a source?

It's like claiming that the Earth has conscioussness on the fact that there is gravity and then using the fact that there is gravity to support your statement that the Earth is a living thing.
Let me help you out. You are claiming that scientists are using tautological reasoning, or circular reasoning, to support their claims. This claim, however, is false unless you can prove otherwise. The burdon of proof is on you to prove your claims.

All scientists that study evolution and were evolutionists have become believers that there is a God, based on what I have said.
Odd...this isn't what all recent surveys have shown. Besides that, many evolutionists are Christian, and most Christians are Theistic Evolutionists.

I can bet that none of you in here have made the slightest attempt to back up what you are talking about except for the brainwashing hogwash they give you at school that you were forced to memorize.
Yet you have still failed to provide any sources for your own claims. :rolleyes:

Let's say that at first these three groups are at an equal level of chance of survival. Then all of a sudden Group A supercedes the rest. In order for this to happen. Group A must have more and more weaker members removed.
But I thought you said all of them were equal? Your anaology makes no sense, and it is not an accurate representation of evolution. For group A to supercede the rest, group A must produce offspring that are better adapted to their environment than the members of group B or C. This does NOT happen suddenly. Evolution takes a long time - there is no 'sudden' about it.

What kind of nature where it wants to produce the best, kills the most of it? In all cases, everybody loses members of their group, yet you people claim that there will be more
I do wish that anti-evolutionists could form a coherent sentence...but no matter. Like I said before, evolution happens very slowly. For each member of the species that is removed due to it's less-than-adequate genetics, there will be a new member produced that is better adapted. Just do some research on population dynamics for more information.

Technology allows us to have people alive with diseases that would have wiped out any other member of the same species. Those people have children and thus our species gets weaker and weaker the stronger we get.
This is only half-true. Yes, humans have somewhat dampened the evolutionary process in our own species. But this poses no problem for evolution. It's just a side-effect of intelligence.

If species survive by competition and not cooperation, then why isn't everyone fighting each other?
I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Are you talking about people? If so, the reason that people aren't fighting each other is that it wouldn't help us to survive in this society. Humans are social creatures. What good would it have done our ancestors to go around killing each other? However, working together and aiding each other definately helped our chances for survival. If you are talking about other animals - the same is pretty much true. However, different species are always competing with each other for food, habitat, and territory. Even humans are similar in this sense. In this way, everyone is "fighting each other".

Also, evolution allows for different species to have different habitat niches. This makes it much easier for multiple species to live peacefully with each other.

Not only did he steal work from people such as James Hutton (1726 – 1797) who wrote on gradual changes of the Earth's surface.
This is an ad hominem, as someone pointed out earler. The Theory of Evolution is the result of many studies and research before, during, and after Darwin's time. A solid scientific theory, such as the Theory of Gravity or the Theory of Evolution, does not rely on the writings of one man alone.

Besides this, Darwin did not steal Hutton's work. Hutton was a geologist - one of the first to go against the commonly held Neptunist theories (that rock formations were the result of a huge flood). He recognized that rock formations were still occuring, that the process of forming rocks must have taken millions of years. He pushed the date of the earth from a few thousand years to a few million years. He even went so far as to point out that such mechanisms (gradual formation and change) might have been responsible for the biodiversity we see today. He mentioned this is his book, The Theory of Earth. However, he didn't go into much detail and his ideas were not much more than observations. His book was so dense that not many people tried to continue with his work - that is, until Darwin came along and furthered it.

Natural selection was not an idea created by Darwin himself. It was thought about and discussed well before Darwin. This has been known for quite a while. Sorry, but ad hominem conspiracy theories will get you nowhere when you are dealing with a widely accepted scientific theory.

Darwin did it for fame. Others have done it for power. Communism, and Marxism were based on the idea of no God because it was the "opiate of the people" Karl Marx may have believed that, but Stalin certainly did not, who killed millions just so he'd stay in power.
Ad hominem.

Why are you an atheist? Because of a theory that is refuted by scientists?
Source, please?

If you all like to use science, show me some proof besides your personal theories about evolution.
This goes both ways, doesn't it? Show me some sources to back up your rediculous claims.

Regardless, evolution has been observed repeatedly, both in the lab and in the field. I've seen it, others have seen it...move along.

Just to humor you - what sort of evidence would you like to see in order to believe evolution? Observed cases of speciation? Microevolution? Macroevolution? Or is it going to take some form of saltation in order for you to accept it?


Heather

[Paradox]

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
I didnt know quotes were considered scientific evidence. Quote me on this "YOUR FULL OF SHIT". Its so hard to find paleontologists that disagree with evolution, that now intelligent design supporters are quoting people that have been dead for nearly 100 years.

"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
Its funny how your quoting Albert Fleischmann who claims evolution is obselete, when Albert Fleischmann has been dead since 1942. So few experts support ID that your resorting to referring to obscure german zoologists that are long dead.


"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
Luther Sunderland is an aerospace engineer, who knows nothing of biology. I'll talk to a biologist when i want to hear about the evolution versus creation debate, and i'll talk to luther sunderland when i want to hear about the moon landing hoax debate.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
Louis T. More (1870-1944), a dead physicist and dean at the University of Cincinnati, who knew a shitload about physics but nothing about biology and paleontology.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")
This quote is completely taken out of context. Check out the refutation at Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html). Scroll down untill you see Quote #4.7


Had a good laugh now?
Yeah i have had a great laugh at your expense.

[vheltrite]

:lol:

[calpurnpiso]

"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
I didnt know quotes were considered scientific evidence. Quote me on this "YOUR FULL OF SHIT". Its so hard to find paleontologists that disagree with evolution, that now intelligent design supporters are quoting people that have been dead for nearly 100 years.

"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
Its funny how your quoting Albert Fleischmann who claims evolution is obselete, when Albert Fleischmann has been dead since 1942. So few experts support ID that your resorting to referring to obscure german zoologists that are long dead.


"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
Luther Sunderland is an aerospace engineer, who knows nothing of biology. I'll talk to a biologist when i want to hear about the evolution versus creation debate, and i'll talk to luther sunderland when i want to hear about the moon landing hoax debate.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion... The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational." (Dr. L.T. More)
Louis T. More (1870-1944), a dead physicist and dean at the University of Cincinnati, who knew a shitload about physics but nothing about biology and paleontology.

"The fact of evolution is the backbone of biology, and biology is thus in the peculiar position of being a science founded on an unproved theory -- is it then a science or faith? Belief in the theory of evolution is thus exactly parallel to belief in special creation..." (Dr. L. Harrison Matthews, in the introduction to the 1971 edition of Darwin's "Origin of Species")
This quote is completely taken out of context. Check out the refutation at Here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part4.html). Scroll down untill you see Quote #4.7


Had a good laugh now?
Yeah i have had a great laugh at your expense.
One can not discuss reality and science with those unfortunate folks infected by neurological disorders that makes them ignore empirical facts while embracing the delusions produced by this HIBV ( human immunodeficiency brain Virus). Can a mentally healthy person reason with a schizoafective person or one suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy? Those under religious psychosis are not much different...:)

[ElDiablo]

Protos,

I think you need to read the book "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins. Your Boeing 747 theory will be thoroughly flushed down the toilet. Read the WHOLE book and then you can open your yap.:rolleyes::/

Later,

[ghoulslime]

Don't even bother to educate yourself. Get a six pack of beer and watch TV. You are a complete fucking dork. Any attempt to engage any of your idiotic points is total waste of effort..
I don't think that a fuckwit like this should be allowed to enjoy the pleasures of beer, and the fox network might be a bit challenging for him, so perhaps some advanced bible study (followed by a delicious bowl of shit) would prove to be a better pastime. Alternatively, GS, perhaps you would be kind enough to set him up with that stinky witch girl you definately did not sleep with, for sure.
That's an excellent idea! I'll set him up with a oral sex manual first then let him have at it! They were made for each other. God does have a plan!

[ghoulslime]

Protos
Take a biology book and smash your head with it. :lol:
First take an anatomy book and find your head, Protos. :o Then get on your knees and give me head.

[Crackerus Dadderus]

Protos,
I leave your quoted sources out of this, although I'm pretty sure one was taken care of on a different thread. I believe though you were asked to provide a study, not creationists quotes on the issue.

Your IQ is 156 - that's amazing. If your IQ is 156 you must know that almost every IQ test will give you a different score. Let me know the ONE you took so I can do the same. Since you're floating yours out there, I'll tell you I've scored between 140 and 165.

The purpose of my cell comment was obviously lost on your incredible intellect. Your 747 comparison is weak to say the least. It also shows you don't think for yourself, rather believe blindly what you're told.

I understand about earth layers, as do most people here, we've all taken earth science. So because a scientist didn't find a fossil in one place, there can't be some anywhere else in that layer? The comment was stupid - admit it. No scientist has checked every place on earth that a certain layer exists to find a fossil. And even if one could, the very nature of fossils is such that one doesn't have to be there anyway. Not everything gets fossilized. But of course you knew that.

I'm still having a good laugh - thanks!

I'm actually a 26 year old kid. And only the mentally handicapped don't need evidence to support a claim. That IS why I don't believe in god - there is no evidence.

You proved again you haven't quite grasped the whole natural selection thing. I'll let you think on it.

I actually passed the 7th grade, and then Advanced Biology. I even took the AP test while I was in high school. I believe I got a 4 on it - but I might be wrong. No I take that back, I didn't take the Biology test - not sure they even offered it - I took the Chemistry test.

You are truly a pathetic person. If it makes you feel good to think I'm and uneducated asshole - feel free. Just please - don't have any children.

EDIT: I apologize to everyone for this one - I easily get drawn into this crap. Just for the record, I do not believe a high IQ automatically equates into having knowledge. I will freely admit to anyone that there are a number of things I could use a little schooling on. I may test high on IQ tests, but I do not think myself "smarter" than someone who scores lower. There are millions of people out there that have a wealth of knowledge and insight I know I can never have.

[calpurnpiso]

AHHHH..IQ tests! Protos definitively took his at Bob Jones "University"
Can anyone see the obvious?.....don't expect comments base on reason and empirical facts from defective brains where religious delusions are in control.....Can we get apples from a pear tree?.......:)

[snap crafter]

Funny you mention that cal, it reminds me of that banana tree they manipulated to taste like an apple. In theory I suppose we could get something to the effect of an apple from a pear tree with years of trying.

[James]

Dear Protos -

You're a cock a cock a cock
a cock-cock-cock-cock.
a cock a cock, a cock-cock-cock;

And your knowledge of evolution, in particular concerning statistical evidence (your knowledge on 'primordial soup' is lacking, especially considering that scientists have been successful in creating it (does this not worry you, man creating life?).

Your false logic, concerning evolution is pitiful. Please tell me of these 'scientists' who, upon studying evolution suddenly turned to God?

That is also similar to the tale of Darwin saying he was wrong upon his deathbed.
If Newton had said that his theory on gravity was wrong, would we start floating? Evolution is a theory, dick-wad, and it is currently the most supported, scientifically accurate theory on which other theories and models can be built upon. Do tell me what supports creationism, other than the blind 'faith' of the millions of sub-intelligent ignorant who support it.

Evolution states that it is the change of the DNA of a species by their physical surroundings over a long period of time. That it is a mutation at random.

Hmm, no it doesn't. Evolution usually states that it is the survival of effective DNA (survival of the fittest), where, over a 'long period of time' (many millions of years), non-effective physical characteristics are phased out. DNA is not changed by an animal's physical surroundings, it is the animals ability to survive in its physical environment that causes it to survive, and for animals with effective DNA (the dominant surviving creatures) to breed. Nothing too random about that. I think you make the mistake of thinking (in your faith) that these 'mutations' are akin to something out of 'X Men.' Sadly, like your religion, you are wrong.

Evolution is also unsupported by any facts. An atheist would say, "But what about all the fossils?" Well those fossils aren't supporting evolution, evolution is supporting them. Evolution is a theory which proposes to explain the evidence. This same evidence cannot be used to support evolution vice versa. It's like claiming that the Earth has consciousness on the fact that there is gravity and then using the fact that there is gravity to support your statement that the Earth is a living thing. All scientists that study evolution and were evolutionists have become believers that there is a God, based on what I have said. I can bet that none of you in here have made the slightest attempt to back up what you are talking about except for the brainwashing hogwash they give you at school that you were forced to memorize.

Would an atheist really say that? No, I think an atheist would probably say, read some scientific journals, or even better, read at all. Get Darwin's 'Origin of Species,' get every other book on evolution (not written by some 'right-wing bastard ministry,') and educate yourself.

Actually, fossils do support evolution. You make the statement 'fossils aren't supporting evolution,' without saying why you think this, other than giving a rather confused and ill-conceived bit of 'word play.' 'Evolution is a theory which proposes to explain the evidence.' Do not all theories base themselves upon evidence. Saying that evolution attempts to explain evidence is actually the same as saying that evolution uses evidence to explain itself. A big 'oops' from you there.

Fossils are not a 'secular lie,' but a perfect, preserved (well, they beat the Dead Sea Scrolls) example of adaptation over millions and millions of years. The very concept of extinction (the eradication of an entire species, in case you don't know) supports the concept of 'survival of the fittest.' Dodo doesn't kill man, man kills Dodo. Man is fitter, man survives, Dodo doesn't. Dodo doesn't adapt, Dodo dies. Man kills rabbit, there are a thousand more rabbits. Rabbits have survived because of their ability to reproduce. Essentially, fossils show the 'prototypes' (for want of a better word) of many of the world's living creatures.

The biggest part of evolution is natural selection. It is the principle that the weakest and those that are least fit to survive die out fastest, and the stronger continue to reproduce. Let's say we have 3 groups of three different species. Group A, B, and C. Let's say that at first these three groups are at an equal level of chance of survival. Then all of a sudden Group A supersedes the rest. In order for this to happen. Group A must have more and more weaker members removed. So what we get is a very strong group A with very little people. So what natural selections says is that the more die out, the stronger they are. That makes sense to ignorance. What kind of nature where it wants to produce the best, kills the most of it? In all cases, everybody loses members of their group, yet you people claim that there will be more, which is in fact the death of species, not the survival. Furthermore, the stronger Group A is the more weaker members it can sustain. This can best be seen with people today. Technology allows us to have people alive with diseases that would have wiped out any other member of the same species. Those people have children and thus our species gets weaker and weaker the stronger we get.

This nonsense is so confused, I cannot be arsed to pick it apart. It doesn't need anyone to pick it apart, just read the shit. You use your worldly ignorance to attempt to argue. What sort of fallacy is that? Or rather, a 'phalluscy,' ha ha.

How does this make sense, if you claim to be people who aren't ignorant and in fact hold that the opposite is true? If species survive by competition and not cooperation, then why isn't everyone fighting each other? That's because evolution is a sad, pathetic man's dream of becoming famous. His name was Charles Darwin. Not only did he steal work from people such as James Hutton (1726 – 1797) who wrote on gradual changes of the Earth's surface. His theory was how the Earth was formed stating it was either from molten rock or how things were found on the ocean sea floor. He introduced the theory of gradualism. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1774 – 1829), Georges Cuvier (1769 – 1832), and Charles Lyell (1797-1875). Darwin did it for fame. Others have done it for power. Communism, and Marxism were based on the idea of no God because it was the "opiate of the people" Karl Marx may have believed that, but Stalin certainly did not, who killed millions just so he'd stay in power. Why are you an atheist? Because of a theory that is refuted by scientists? Or because you have been brainwashed to believe the crap that your science teacher taught you. If you all like to use science, show me some proof besides your personal theories about evolution.

How could anyone get this deluded. It sounds like the uneducated ramblings of an inbred Christian minister, attempting to win some 15 year-old children onto his side.

You sound about that age. You have thrown a few misrepresented facts together, added a pinch of ignorance, mixed it together with some bizarre ideas on communism (what do you actually know about communism, other than what Daddy or the reverend twat told you?

You have also attempted to rubbish evolution-theory in about 3 crap arguments. Considering that the theory is supported by the most brilliant minds of today (and any thinking person), how do you expect to extol the virtues of your own thinking (I assume you are a creationist) by being a dick, and talking shit. Creationism is a 'theory,' (like the 'tooth-fairy' is a theory) supported by ignorance, faith, and superstition alone.

So piss off.

[vheltrite]

piss off :lol:

[psyadam]

It appears that Protos isn't a frequent yet, but if he is still posting, I would be interested to know what IQ test he took and if it's possible for the other members to take it in the 'net free. I too don't believe that you should use those as a childish way to say "I'm better than you", but they can be fun. Just don't pay for the "analysis" or they drop your score ;)

[calpurnpiso]

Funny you mention that cal, it reminds me of that banana tree they manipulated to taste like an apple. In theory I suppose we could get something to the effect of an apple from a pear tree with years of trying.
LOL..well in this era of technological advances an autistic savant's brain can be manipulated with bio hard-drives filled with bio-chips to expand on Einstein theory of relativity....but this will take years....and an autistic savant he'll remain. I think those under Christ-psychosis are not unlike very intelligent scientists who had bee suffering from retina pigmentosa, keep it secret from everyone, and suddenly they are blind, but pretend to be able to see!. Protos reminds me of such an individual. Unfortunatelly he doesn't realize we in this forum are NOT mentally blind, like him.....:)