Washington Times: Darwin's error - Disproving the Theory of Evolution

[Kate]

peter wrote

It's interesting to hear from both sides.

If you like that kind of comedy. I do not find your credulity amusing. At all.

But if that bothers some people here I really don't want to cause a stir.

Liars for Jeebus!

Good job, petey, you're sticking to the script

[Philboid Studge]

Michael wrote

So I'm still kinda new to the whole debate, but I'm starting to feel already that I've encountered pretty much every argument for the existence of a "creator". There's like, five arguments that just keep getting regurgitated and slightly changed.
Then, of course, the ones that are slightly changed for the better don't get shot down as harsh, so all the other creationists pick that up and run with it, tweaking those little details ever so slightly to really ram the point home.

Eventually I'm hoping one of these will evolve into a completely new argument so they don't bore me to tears so much.

Since there are no transitional arguments in the fossil record, it is highly unlikely that any such evolution has or will take place. This suggests that the original base arguments were Unintelligently Designed by jeetards of the highest order, or what scientists call 'irreducible stoopidity.'

Put another way, if contemporary Creationist arguments evolved from earlier forms, why do all the arguments still look like there were thought up my monkeys?

[peter]

Kate,

It's true I'm a Christian. But many Christians believe in evolution. The Catholic church for example, accepts it as a fact.

As I said, I used to believe fully in the theory of evolution. I still believe that some evolution does take place. That's obvious. The question is to what degree. That's what interests me.

[Sol]

peter wrote

.......It's interesting to hear from both sides.........

Smells suspiciously like jerrys 50/50 "theory"
You do realise that there aren't two sides ..... dontcha ?

[Kate]

I don't care what interests you. Why are you here announcing what interests you? Do you think any of us give a shit? You got you some egooey arrogance there.

The honey badger is a badass. He's interestingly nasty.

[peter]

Kate,

I just wanted to explain where I'm coming from, since we were talking about these things. That's all.

[Professor Chaos]

You are what you eat, Peter.

[Kate]

Who is this "we" to which you are referring?
You came here with a retarded, ignorant, disingenuous "query" and we are mocking both you and it. No need to explain where you are coming from, we already knew that, you witless moron.

If that amounts to conversation with your kind, that is a testimony to your pathetic little world.

Act 1, Scene 7. Carry on!

[Kate]

Professor Chaos wrote

You are what you eat, Peter.

[peter]

No need to be so harsh. At least I provide you with some diversion.

[Kate]

Tone Troll Alert!

You provide me with nothing, fucktard. Get over yourself.

[peter]

Okay, then.

[Kinich Ahau]

Hi Peter, Have you checked out Rhino's recent post in the good science thread, it answers creationist arguments in a very clear and concise manner.

Are you influenced by a theist background? you haven't answered that yet.

[Kinich Ahau]

Sorry all, I was on the first page and didn't see his following bullshit.

[Smellyoldgit]

I'll wager pierre is struggling with gravity - after all, it's only a theory - and the other side of intelligent falling is so fucking persuasive to the feeble of mind.