|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:09 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Junior wrote: |
| JMO wrote: |
| lol is there a reason you guys are responding to the most obvious troll in the history of time.. |
Its because ...troll or not..Olivencia is speaking an uncomfortable truth that evolutionists cannot bare to contemplate. As he says..
[ |
Speaking of troll....
You set up a thread to come in at the last second and throw in some completely irrelevant crap about a 'creator'.
Strawman, much?!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
But what can you expect of such an unfalsiable hypothesis? If fossilized humans were to be discovered in open embrace with pet brontosauri, evolution would have no problem in quickly producing a patronising patter to cover the gaffe. The new finding would not disprove their mania, they would just bring it into the fold, like every other of the hundreds of continuous contradictory discoveries. |
On the contrary, scientists have said finding something like that would DESTROY evolution.
Get your facts straight before projecting your ignorance.
When asked what would disprove evolution, J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionary biologist and geneticist, stated "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian".
And guess what. There aren't any such fossils. 
Next. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runthegauntlet wrote: |
On the contrary, scientists have said finding something like that would DESTROY evolution. |
What they claim and what they do, are two vastly different things. 
Actually they did find human footprints in the same strata as dinosaurs.
Predictably it was simply steamrolled over by the evolutionist cabal who at first ridiculed and cast doubt on the findings as a kneejerk reaction, before variously claiming the prints were faked, not human, etc etc.
| Quote: |
| Get your facts straight before projecting your ignorance. |
You see, when you start to get mouthy over an objective discussion it not only reveals the depths of your determination to believe your imaginary fantasy at all costs, it also results in the thread being locked and all discussion curtailed. Which is presumably what you want as facts are too uncomfortable to deal with anyway.
The OP is an example of hundreds of discoveries..in which evolutionists have made grandiose claims, set them in stone, propogandised every 3rd grade child for decades with, then suddenly been forced to admit their dogma was totally wrong.
The litany of hoaxes, deliberate fabrications and hasty false conclusions surrounding evolutionists and their dupes, palaentologists, would make any scientist and rational person wince. Its more than enough to consign this gobbledygook to the trashcan. With global warming it took one very vague email. With evolution, nothing is enough...not only because its subjective make-believe, but because human instinct refuses to consider God. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 3:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| runthegauntlet wrote: |
On the contrary, scientists have said finding something like that would DESTROY evolution. |
What they claim and what they do, are two vastly different things.
Actually they did find human footprints in the same strata as dinosaurs.
Predictably it was simply steamrolled over by the evolutionist cabal who at first ridiculed and cast doubt on the findings as a kneejerk reaction, before variously claiming the prints were faked, not human, etc etc.
| Quote: |
| Get your facts straight before projecting your ignorance. |
You see, when you start to get mouthy over an objective discussion it not only reveals the depths of your determination to believe your imaginary fantasy at all costs, it also results in the thread being locked and all discussion curtailed. Which is presumably what you want as facts are too uncomfortable to deal with anyway.
The OP is an example of hundreds of discoveries..in which evolutionists have made grandiose claims, set them in stone, propogandised every 3rd grade child for decades with, then suddenly been forced to admit their dogma was totally wrong.
The litany of hoaxes, deliberate fabrications and hasty false conclusions surrounding evolutionists and their dupes, palaentologists, would make any scientist and rational person wince. Its more than enough to consign this gobbledygook to the trashcan. With global warming it took one very vague email. With evolution, nothing is enough...not only because its subjective make-believe, but because human instinct refuses to consider God. |
No, that was DEBUNKED. Try again!
TOTALLY wrong?!
I fail to see how the theory of evolution has been proven wrong when YOUR OP expressly states that it did absolutely no such thing. All it did was change the time line. "The evolutionary tree as we consider it now remains the same, but the timing of the tree changes."
Now, please share, in that convoluted imagination that you're so eager to manifest, how that rejects evolution in any way? Puhlease, make me laugh some more.
Mouthy? At this point it's just *facepalm* over and over again.
Let's just get this out there to make this abundantly clear who is using 'fantasies' and 'make-believe' at this point.
Correct me if any of this is.... inaccurate:
You believe some entity in the sky created the universe in 6 days, a man from some dust, and a woman from that man's rib. Then man and woman met a TALKING serpent who got them to eat some fruit, thus ushering in original sin and setting the stage for Jebus later on down the road. And then they had a few kids. Then, the kids all slept together, along with the parents, to populate the Earth. Then 'god' realized he'd messed up, killed everybody except for one man and his family and two of every animal that just happen to be within walking distance of his little boat. *global flood* (HA). Then said man repopulates the Earth in the same incestuous fashion. Let's not forget the guy living in the whale for three days. The sun not moving for half a day or whatever, cities being destroyed by brimstone, burning bushes, dividing seas, etc., etc.
Then, a few years down the road, said 'god' impregnates a 'virgin' woman...with himself.... so that he can be killed, 'save' the world and usher in a new kingdom. A new kingdom so aptly described by some nutter doing shrooms on the island of Patmos.
That about cover it?
Now, what's that about fantasy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| runthegauntlet wrote: |
On the contrary, scientists have said finding something like that would DESTROY evolution. |
What they claim and what they do, are two vastly different things.
Actually they did find human footprints in the same strata as dinosaurs.
Predictably it was simply steamrolled over by the evolutionist cabal who at first ridiculed and cast doubt on the findings as a kneejerk reaction, before variously claiming the prints were faked, not human, etc etc.
|
The 'scientist' you're using for your 'dino/human' stuff.
Dr. Carl Baugh
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh
His degree in Archaeology is from Pacific International University... which he is the *cough* 'President' of....
Fun little snippet from above link:
In July 2008, Baugh was in contact with Alvis Delk and James Bishop, who claimed to have found a dinosaur-human print fossil.[21] Bishop is a convicted murderer and Delk has a history of selling faked artifacts.[22] Baugh bought the "fossil" from Delk who used the money to pay his medical bills.[23] On the authenticity of the claims, reporter Bud Kennedy noted, "since no scientists were involved, about all we really know so far is that the museum has a new rock."[24] Biologist PZ Myers critiqued Delk's "fossil" saying Baugh "is falling all over himself praising the authenticity of this blatant fake."[25][26] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runthegauntlet wrote: |
| All it did was change the time line. |
You mean, the evos deferred humiliation yet again by simply pushing back the imaginary dates even further.
They have a habit of this because their original neat progression of lifeforms from simple to complex has failed to survive the reality of discoveries in the real world. Instead, they are finding complex "advanced" organisms to be contemporaneous with supposed ancestral simple forms at every turn. Because of course, everything was created much the same as it exists today, at the same time..in the beginning.
But evos have unlimited imaginary time to save face with, not to mention a magic wand they can buzz over a rock and punch suitable dates into. A four legged animal is found in strata older than single-celled organisms? No worries, just say they evolved even earlier and that single cells never changed at all.
They always have a get-out clause. The Coelecanth was originally proclaimed to be an extinct primitive fish that had begun to walk, a transitional form. Of course it still exists unchanged and it does not "walk". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| runthegauntlet wrote: |
| All it did was change the time line. |
You mean, the evos deferred humiliation yet again by simply pushing back the imaginary dates even further.
They have a habit of this because their original neat progression of lifeforms from simple to complex has failed to survive the reality of discoveries in the real world. Instead, they are finding complex "advanced" organisms to be contemporaneous with supposed ancestral simple forms at every turn. Because of course, everything was created much the same as it exists today, at the same time..in the beginning.
But evos have unlimited imaginary time to save face with, not to mention a magic wand they can buzz over a rock and punch suitable dates into. A four legged animal is found in strata older than single-celled organisms? No worries, just say they evolved even earlier and that single cells never changed at all.
They always have a get-out clause. The Coelecanth was originally proclaimed to be an extinct primitive fish that had begun to walk, a transitional form. Of course it still exists unchanged and it does not "walk". |
Clearly your penchant for delusion and ignorance are no match for common sense, logic, and science, so I really have nothing more to offer. So I will just leave you to revel in your absurdity and hope that you will at least research a bit before propagating blatantly errant information like your dino/man thing. Good night.
Ah, final parting quip for anyone that might be lulled into thinking you actually have a semblance of a clue as to what you're talking about.
"The coelacanths, which are related to lungfishes and tetrapods, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period. They were considered the "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River in 1938."
Seriously. Do you read anything that isn't on a xtian site? A two second search will save me from having to spend two seconds destroying your 'arguments'.
Bolding mine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 4:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| runthegauntlet wrote: |
"The coelacanths, which are related to lungfishes and tetrapods, were believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period. They were considered the "missing link" between the fish and the tetrapods until the first Latimeria specimen was found off the east coast of South Africa, off the Chalumna River in 1938." |
Exactly, you just confirmed my point. And?
When evos label something a "transitional form", they are invariably and always looking at either simply an extinct, distinct species, or one that may later be found extant ..and completely unchanged.
Presumably if they had only found platypus fossils rather than the living creature they would have labelled it a transitional between reptile and mammal? It amazes me how you instantly accept somebody's conjectured and imaginitive interpretation of what happened as fact because he works at a university. So do numerous climate scientists who you presumably dismiss as corrupt charlattans based on a single strange and equivocal email. if thats enough for you then surely a procession of deliberate fakes is enough to remove any shred of credibility from evolutionists? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
When evos label something a "transitional form", they are invariably and always looking at either simply an extinct, distinct species, or one that may later be found extant ..and completely unchanged. |
You pretty clearly don't understand what a transitional form really is. You also pretty clearly don't understand what the theory of evolution actually posits.
| Junior wrote: |
| if thats enough for you then surely a procession of deliberate fakes is enough to remove any shred of credibility from evolutionists? |
I'd say this thread is enough to remove any shred of intellectual credibility from you, frankly. Claims like this:
| Junior wrote: |
| With evolution, nothing is enough...not only because its subjective make-believe, but because human instinct refuses to consider God. |
are beyond retarded. The human instinct refuses to consider God?
1) A strong majority of people in the world believe in God.
2) Protestant Christians alone make up a majority of American citizens.
3) People are constantly suggesting that we replace evolution with Creationism.
The reason the theory of evolution is popular in scientific circles while creationism has no traction at all has nothing to do with human instinct refusing to consider God. Quite the opposite; the scientific process is a constant struggle against the human instinct to believe in religion. No, the reason evolution is the prominent scientific theory regarding life's diversity is because 100% of availible data either implies evolution occurs or is neutral with regards to the claims made by the theory of evolution, and 0% of availible data implies life was created from scratch by a magical invisible man. You bring up cases like scientists reconsidering the timeline of evolution, but that's exactly what science does: it adapts to new information. Only religion -- and the fools that turn to it for truths about the physical world around us -- believe they have 100% of the answers and that their world view will never be in need of revision.
In fact, condemning the scientific method with regards to evolution while using scientific data and scientific consensus as the basis of your support for global warming is utterly ridiculous. If scientific consensus is meaningless with regards to evolution, then it's even more meaningless with regards to anthropogenic global warming, as there's not only less consensus, but the consensus that does exist relies on far less data. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Junior
Joined: 18 Nov 2005
Location: the eye
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
In fact, condemning the scientific method with regards to evolution while using scientific data and scientific consensus as the basis of your support for global warming is utterly ridiculous. If scientific consensus is meaningless with regards to evolution, then it's even more meaningless with regards to anthropogenic global warming, as there's not only less consensus, but the consensus that does exist relies on far less data. |
The scientific consensus with regard to anthropogenic global warming was/is overwhelming.
Yet a single dubious email was enough to have this board filled with hand-wringing deniers claiming to have lost all faith in science and our civilisation because the scientists were corrupted profiteering charlattans.
How easily they binned an entire scientific theory and its consensus! based not on actual data but conspiracy theories of suppression and a rigged peer-review process.
Yet with evolution all is different somehow. No revision, retraction, fake, forgery, faux pas, hoax or demonstrably false conclusion can ever dent their blind faith in their ape-molecule ancestry. Nothing is allowed to dent the supposed credibility of their beloved evolutionists. They are beyond flaw, beyond cuorruption, beyond criticism. Their wild and fantastical brainfarts are to be taken as gospel, the most tenuous link becomes a concrete fact, the most imaginative reconstruction takes on the level of a photo.
Don't you find this double standard at all odd?
Outlined in numerous threads prior to this I demonstrated abundant cases of falsifications amongst evolutionists. Things so ridiculous, collections of bones glued together yet found miles and regions apart, plaster-of paris sculptures, flawed reconstructions. yet its all ok for evolutionists, but not climate scientists? The Climatologists can be corrupted, but evolutionists are infallible? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 5:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Junior wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
In fact, condemning the scientific method with regards to evolution while using scientific data and scientific consensus as the basis of your support for global warming is utterly ridiculous. If scientific consensus is meaningless with regards to evolution, then it's even more meaningless with regards to anthropogenic global warming, as there's not only less consensus, but the consensus that does exist relies on far less data. |
The scientific consensus with regard to anthropogenic global warming was/is overwhelming.
Yet a single dubious email was enough to have this board filled with hand-wringing deniers claiming to have lost all faith in science and our civilisation because the scientists were corrupted profiteering charlattans. |
The scientific consensus with regards to evolution is even more overwhelming. Yet all it takes is a story about a magical invisible man for you to lose faith in it. I don't think you're in any position to attack them at all.
| Junior wrote: |
| Yet with evolution all is different somehow. |
Of course it's different. With anthropogenic global warmings, there's immense benefit involved in potentially lying, on both sides. The urge to deny it comes from the political right and corporate interests, the urge to accept it comes from the political left and environmental interests. Either way, there's a huge amount of bias on both sides, and a huge amount of potential material gain to be had by falsifying.
No such incentives really exist with evolution. The supporters of the theory do it because they truly believe it, the deniers reject it because they truly believe in God (And yes, religion is overwhelmingly the cause for denial. Almost no one rejects it based purely on the science.). So yes, of course it's different.
| Junior wrote: |
| Outlined in numerous threads prior to this I demonstrated abundant cases of falsifications amongst evolutionists. Things so ridiculous, collections of bones glued together yet found miles and regions apart, plaster-of paris sculptures, flawed reconstructions. yet its all ok for evolutionists, but not climate scientists? The Climatologists can be corrupted, but evolutionists are infallible? |
Evolutionists aren't infallible. In fact, they're very fallible, and they admit it. That's why they revise their stance when new data comes along. It's science in its truest form. Their willingness to adapt their theory to new data is exactly why it's so credible. It's religion that claims to be infallible. It's religion which claims to have all the facts and have a perfect record of history. It's religion which asserts something that flies in the face of all availible data, yet refuses to revise its theory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ontheway
Joined: 24 Aug 2005
Location: Somewhere under the rainbow...
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Many Christians (perhaps the majority, other than the fundamentalists) believe that God created Earth and all the life on Earth, and that evolution was the process whereby God created life on Earth. The bible tells what God did, not how it was done. The Bible is not a cookbook.
Eventually, religion adapts to the reality of science, or it dies. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
itaewonguy
Joined: 25 Mar 2003
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 7:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
man you guys are like dogs with freesbies!
every few months these debates come up and its the same out come..
a locked thread! a couple members banned! and no sign of god and no proof we evolved from nothing!
you guys will die not knowing the truth! live with it!
this thread will be locked.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
| Many Christians (perhaps the majority, other than the fundamentalists) believe that God created Earth and all the life on Earth, and that evolution was the process whereby God created life on Earth. |
I don't see what the big debate is. God (if He exists) created evolution.
Is everyone happy now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
runthegauntlet
Joined: 02 Dec 2007
Location: the southlands.
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ontheway wrote: |
Many Christians (perhaps the majority, other than the fundamentalists) believe that God created Earth and all the life on Earth, and that evolution was the process whereby God created life on Earth. The bible tells what God did, not how it was done. The Bible is not a cookbook.
Eventually, religion adapts to the reality of science, or it dies. |
No, many Christians don't believe that.
It's all rather pointless, isn't it? If you don't take Genesis as literal, then the whole Adam/sin thing didn't happen. Which means there was no point for the 'virgin birth'. Which pretty much negates the whole Jesus saving us from our sins things. Which is the basis of all of Christianity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
