Hahaha! You can talk! :rolleyes:

You and me both. I wish I could debate like that. I think it just takes a little more effort than most are willing to exert is all.

Anyone and just about everyone here is willing to hear what you have to say, but if you give us an uninformed and unintelligible opinion, we're going to judge you and everything you say based on that. Present us with intelligent posts and an informed opinion or factual information and we will listen to you. You type and talk like a 12 year old, everything you say is incredibly biased, and any time anyone gives you anything that hints that you might be even slightly wrong, you avoid that and comment on something else(and usually give some more unintelligible bullshit.)


For instance, a few years ago MJordan typed very similar to how you do, and I thought he was an idiot and a moron at the time, but he presents himself as a very intelligent young man, and that's how I see him now. I've got almost 3 years on him and he talks like a professor compared to me.


I feel I must comment on your "unable to look at the facts" statement. The irony of this statement is that you're pretty much just describing yourself. Mjordan presented numerous facts to you and you ignored them.

THEY HAVE EVIDENCE TO BACK THEIR THEORIES. The electromagnetic force can't be put together piece by piece. That doesn't mean we don't have significant evidence towards the existence of an electromagnetic force in the natural world. That was the whole point of my "building a computer" analogy. I guess you missed it. What I was trying to say is you don't need to know something piece by piece to put together something working, whether that be a working computer or a working theory.

Lets try another, less subtle analogy. Though legal vernacular and scientific vernacular are significantly different, I think the American government attempts to use the scientific method in their judicial system, so I think this is a valid, and far less subtle analogy.

Lets say you're a homicide detective. It's 8 AM, you get to work, and find out you have a new case. A woman was murdered last night at 10:22 PM in a hotel. You go and investigate the case. You discover that the woman was killed by blunt force trauma to the head. After the autopsy is performed, you discover by the shape of the indentions in her skull that the most likely weapon used to kill her was a baseball bat. You also find that she suffered vaginal tearing. This indicates that she was most likely raped. Luckily for you, the medical examiner also find semen on the woman. After running the DNA sample through the database, you find that it is a perfect match to a John Doe, a registered sex offender. You go back to the hotel and get security tapes. You don't see the murder itself, but at 10:24 PM you see John Doe on the same floor as that woman with a bloody baseball bat walking towards the elevator. You get a search warrant, go to John Doe's house. You find the baseball bat. After running the residual fluids on the bat through some testing, you find that the blood on the bat matches our victim's blood. John's shoes also have some traces of her blood on them.

Here, any logical person would deduce that John murdered our young woman. There is apodictic evidence pointing towards it.

The evidence:
- indentions in the victim's head
- vaginal tearing
- John being a registered sex offender
- the DNA match of the semen to that of John
- the seucirty tape
- the bat
- the blood on the bat
- the blood on the shoes

Though detectives have a good outline of how the murder was performed, they can not put it together piece by piece. They can not show the jury how John swung at the woman. They can not show the jury exactly how she was raped. They can not tell the jury what went through her head while she was being raped. They can not tell the jury just what went through his head while he was beating her with the baseball bat. But any reasonable person would conclude that John Doe killed our young woman. It would be lunacy to assume that she raped and bludgeoned herself to death, or that the four year old across the hall raped and bludgeoned her to death. Which is, for all practical purposes, what you are doing. Lunacy.

The sad thing is, the evidence towards John Doe's guilt in this case is far less conclusive than the evidence we have pointing towards the validity of evolution.

Evolution does not happen by accident or chance. It is stupid to assume it does. It is very precise. That does not, however, mean that there is some intelligent, omnipotent, omnipresent force guiding it. You really should do some reading on evolution. You seem to be grossly misinformed about how it works.

Again, it is not chance. Consider the Miller-Urey experiment. After simulating the conditions of a young earth, 15% of the carbon introduced in the experiment had formed organic compounds after only a week. 13 of the 22 amino acids found in proteins had also formed within one week. This experiment strongly indicates that the building blocks for life could be produced by inorganic processes, and do not require life first to synthesize them. If, like you said, that this is a simple one in a trillion chance then it just happend again. That's twice. In a row.


That's the entire point. Most transitional abilities are not vestigial. They are useful to the animal. These traits make them more fit to survive in their given environment. After further evolution, they will become even more adept at surviving in their environment.

Negative. Photons are quanta of light, or energy. By light I mean anything on the electromagnetic spectrum. Light, of course, observes the phenomenon of wave-particle dualty. When an electron is excited it moves to an outside orbital. This gives the electron more potential energy. This extra energy comes from absorbing a photon of particularly the right frequency. To calculate the right frequency, you divide the increase in potential energy by Dirac's constant. When an electron moves back to an inside orbital, it emits a photon. The frequency of this photon can be calculated in a similar manner. Don't take my word for it, though:

But natural selection makes it very different from rolling a die with a trillion different sides. Evolution is not random. It is precise. Darwin's verson of the evolution of the eye very much coincides with fact, and our natural world.

If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically? I believe if you look at it objectively, you will find it has far more flaws.

I do not know much about meteorology, however I have a friend who will own you, chew you up, and spit you out on this topic. If you would like, I can get her. However, this is not the appropriate thread to discuss global warming. You can create another one if you like, and I will have her post on behalf of myself, or her give me the facts anyway.

I also presented many other facts in my previous two posts which you ignored completely. If it is possible for you to do so, I would like to see a rebuttle on those points. Or can you not rebuke them?

Also, you never answered my original question. What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

mj amazes me at times. I actually need to wake up my freaking brain so I can read and comprehend his posts. I hate meteorology but I gotta take it to get a Physics Degree so plz have her post something on that.

He's obviously plugging his ears and going "LALALALALA".

No more flash

Thank you.

It's still on every other page of this thread. I felt it necessary.

You ripped off what I said earlier!

Actually I believe on page 2 I said something similar and then on page 4 you ripped off what I said. So there.

Yes, the John Doe case has a lot more evedence... unlike evolution(which has none)...

So if evolution works the way you say, then the information for the evolutionary change must be in the DNA of everything, meaning that scientists would have seen a corrilation between animals, and humans...

If you knew about the entire experiment you would have known that the experiment also produced a toxic compound along with the proteins, no life could heve even begun...

Like I said before, if everything happened so perfectly wouldent it be in the DNA of everything to come out so perfectly?

I woulden't mind if you brought her to the debate... be my guest...

I answered this question... I said that if you could show me concrete evidence of evolution then I would be convinced... I guess nobody looks at my posts...

For pete's sake, man! Get your spelling sorted out! If there's one thing a lot of us hate, it's reading a post with spelling errors every other word.

Your claims that evolution has no evidence is irrelevant, since you've childishly ignored any evidence I have presented to you. Furthermore, the evidence I have presented does not even encompass a significant fraction for the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution. Until you grow the balls to rebuke the evidence I have presented, I should take it that I have clearly and concisely presented a very small portion of the evidence pointing towards the validity of evolution, and that I have won that portion of the debate since you clearly have nothing else to say about it.

They have...

I have read extensively on the Miller-Urey experiment, and have no ever heard of any toxic compounds that would prevent the formation of life given ample amount of time. However, once again, biology completely shoots over your grimy, undersized cranium, and you once again have missed the point of the experiment. This experiment demonstrated that the building blocks of life could form on their own in the proper environment. That was its purpose. Any toxins that may have formed do not defeat that purpose. Furthermore, life needn't evolve exactly the way it is now. What is toxic for us needn't be for life that is somewhat chemically different from us, as it almost undoubtedly would be. However, I'm fairly certain no life-threatening toxins were found in the experiment. Furthermore, proteins were not formed in the experiment. Get your facts straight.


Make a thread about it.

THEN READ YOU FUCKING FUNK-BUNNY! I will represent the very small amount of evidence I have presented:

(Not really evidence for evolution, but evidence towards spontaneous abiogenesis.)

Now why don't you pull your head out of your ass and actually reply to the facts, Captain Oblivious? While you're at it, why not answer the simple fucking questions that I've been asking over and over. I'll put them in big font for you so you don't accidently miss them, because I know reading must be a bit of a challenge for someone so mentally challenged.

What would it take for me to reasonably convince you of the validity of evolution?

Evidence has been presented. Until you can learn to answer what's been presented thus far, I'm not about to bite and give you anymore. If you wanted to objectively look at the matter at hand, you could easily google it, but you're a fucking troll. Nevertheless, this is the most fun I've had on Zelaron for quite a while, so I'll continue to feed you facts as long as you continue to feed me your ignorance.

If you look at evolution so critically, why not examine your own theory as critically?

MJ, there's no other explaination than this guy is a troll. He's getting off on you doing all this pretty much. And it's really annoying.

I really cannot see any other way he could be so stupid. It's just not possible.

Yea, but this is still the most fun I've had here for a while, so I'll continue to bite.

You know what's going to happen now, right?

He'll come on, and post a reply: "but you still havent given me any evedence".

And then say the bible is proof that christianity is right and science is wrong.

I admit, I haven't actually read his posts since Pg1... I skim them and use them as a summary of mj's posts! :p

Has Draco mentioned the Bible at all?

Actually, I figured since no one showed me any evidence I had nothing elts to say... but, in light of what you said...
any evidence that pointed tward evolution was either a fake or just something that was 'believed' to be an evolutionary creature... yet all of those things were dissmissed...
I guess you could say that I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...

I found this web site on the Miller-Urey experiment...

<http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/MillerUreyexp.html>

I noticed the sentence last sentence where it talks about what formed in the flask... it said that various tars formed...

As a direct quote from Wikipedia, "Tar is a disinfectant substance, and used as such."...

Now if you think of a common single celled organism that we kill off using disinfectants, you can see that tar is your toxic compound :p ...

Lets stay at a higher level than childish name calling...
And I have answered your question about four or five times now... it almost seems as if you don't like my answer and you want me to change it...

Like I said above, "...I am still waiting for the evidence that finally helps evolution...", untill you can give me proper facts on this you have nothing...

I will get to that later... soon as I disprove evolution...

HAHAHAHA!

Oooh look! I see the seasons changing...

You're not going to disprove evolution, and you're not going to show how the bible is proof of anything, because everyone here but you has a brain.

MJordan has presented you with facts you fucking bitch. Reply to them or bow the fuck down.

You can't simply decree by fiat that the evidence presented is fake or "make believe," since you, a forum troll, knows nothing compared to world renowned biologists. Not to mention the fact that most of the stuff I've presented is verifiable. Either state why it's fake, or admit that you have absolutely no knowledge of anything, and admit defeat.

Observed speciation is fake? How the fuck is that even possible.

Again, you should learn scientific vernacular. In the context of biology, tar simply refers to a large heap of hydrocarbons and other moleucles jumbled up in pretty much a disorganized mess. If you actually wanted to say something negative about the Miller-Urey experiment, at least say something smart. If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar, I may have conceded that point to you. I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar. However, the point of the Miller-Urey experiment was to demonstrate spontaneous generation of amino acids, which it did.

This was not the only experiment of this kind, of course. What about the Oro experiment, which created Adenine along with amino acids.

Anyway, lets get back on topic.

Lets stay at a higher level than 75. IQ-wise.

Then you seem to be doing a hell of a job avoiding the answer to it. But I mean more specifically. What type of evidence do you want? Fossilized evidence? That's what you said earlier. Negate the evidence I have presented to you then, and I will feed you more. The evidence is pretty much thought to be incontestable by most of today's biologists, and by the content of your posts I doubt you're smart enough to come up with something new on your own.

Ya know, this troll is actually fun. Draco, if you could, could you reply to this thread as well: http://zelaron.com/forum/showthread.php?t=41042

If a mod wouldn't mind, could I request that be bumped?

Fossils were creating by millions of gnomes working with varying sizes of chissels and intricately fashioned tools.

Gah MJ, you worry me sometimes.

Ah, how could I have missed that? My bad!

I didn't say that, you really have got to stop saying things that I did not say... I was stating that bones that were believed to have been early man were usually fakes or ones that scientists thought were human...

In the Miller-Urey experiment the tar created could not have helped the situation... i mean, if something is going to come from this experiment it certainly will be affected by the tar... also I looked up Antibiotic it said that it "Kills or inhibits the growth of bacteria and other microorganisms."...
So if you combine the two definitions of tar and antibiotic, you get absolutely no life....
And if you don't agree with that, then tar in the 'soup' would cause the amino acids to not move and not generate any organisms any way.:p ..

Can we please stay on subject here?

I WANT ANY EVIDENCE THAT IS NOT A FICTIONAL THOUGHT...
Any evidence like that is meant to help keep evolution alive... if either side could disprove it then it wouldn't be much help would it?

Ok so he's giving you all this evidence and you're ignoring it because you believe it's "fake."

Prove it's fake then.

Provide evidence of this.

All you have done so far is ignore facts presented to you, or even worse, claim them false without providing any counter-evidence.

If you don't cite sources or provide evidence in your next post, I'm going to consider banning you for being a troll and for your many duplicate accounts.

Ah crap... this guy is making me bash my head against my keyboard so much that now it's bloody and broken in two.

I demand you PayPal me £60 to replace it!

What trolls do best. He's a pretty good one too.

Grav, most likely MJ would prefer you not ban him, since he seems to be enjoying arguing with a brick wall. If it were me I'd say ban his ass.

Is this guy Kyeruu? I had considered the idea but dismissed it because this guy came long before Kyeruu if I remember right and Kyeruu doesn't put "..." after every sentence in every post he makes.

1.) You came here to first try and disprove evolution with your third grade understanding of science and English, and then to prove that the bible is true? Well, thus far you're failing miserably. People here are not going to take your "durr durr it's faaaake (*drool*) durrrrr" at face value. The evidence I have provided here is fairly easily accessible to anyone. If you think it's fake, state why, or shut up.

2.) You refuse to reply to my whole post, especially the facts that I give you. The only thing you say is that they're fake. And then provide no evidence. Simply because you think them to be fake, or want them to be fake, doesn't actually make them fake.

I present examples of speciation to you. You say my evidence is fake. When I call you out on it, then you say it's not fake, and that you never said that. Then at the bottom of your post, you once again say that the evidence I have presented is fake. You contradict yourself entirely too much.

Tar could actually provide the hydrocarbon chains required for many, many organic molecules.

WHAT? There were no antibiotics in the Miller-Urey experiment. And you do realize that we have tar today. We also have antibiotics today. And we have life today. Or is that evidence fake as well?

Again, you don't understand the definition of tar. Tar is simply a hydrocarbon chain which has many random molecules that bind to carbon's free valence electrons. Basic chemistry. This would not significantly hinder the movement of amino acids.

It's fairly on subject. I would prefer that you not inject morphine or any other minor tranquelizers directly into your brain before typing out a post. That's all I meant, and I think that is very much on topic.

So, now you're saying that the speciation is a fictional thought? Because that was evidence that you said wasn't a fictional thought at the top of your previous post.

Or do you not like the fossils? They're all well-substantiated in scientific evidence.

Do you not like the phylogenetic tree? It matches up well on both anatomical and molecular levels, pretty much ascertaining the fact that it is a valid tree.

Do you not like the fact that bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics? Your beef is with the bacteria then, quit arguing with me and argue with them. Or is this a fictional fact? Not only evolutionists are making up fictional facts, now doctors too. Holy fucking shit. The world is one big conspiracy. You're not actually standing on a spherical object. The world is flat. That's just a theory purported by evolutionists to make people doubt God.

Do you not like the beneficial mutations that have occurred and been observed in recent times? Damn, you would make a mean God. Not allowing your people to recieve the benefits that they naturally get. You should argue that with God, though, those benefits are clearly observable.

You don't like the Miller-Urey experiment? Too bad. You could do it yourself and verify it with simple high-school equipment. And if you don't like Miller-Urey, how about the Oro experiment? Or is that one made up too? Of course! It makes perfect sense! Anything tangible, in the real world, that can actually happen and has been observed happening is make believe! Only God, who exists in a fantastical world outside our universe called heaven is real!

How about the transitional animals? Are they all fake too? Are flying squirrels just robots created by those big bad scientists to make people think transitional animals are real? Do hawks really not have better eye-sight than us? Could it be that we have the best eye-sight there is, so there is no way our eye-sight could possibly be transitional and evolving. BY GOLLY, YOU'RE RIGHT!

So which of those is fictional? The speciation? The squirrel? The beneficial mutations? If you really think any of those are fake, state which ones, and then cite why you think they're fake.

Evidence is fact you moron, it can't be disproved. It can be looked at a new way, yes, but it can't be disproved. The theories created by those facts, however, often can be.

Basically, give us counter-evidence and tell us why you think the evidence I have presented to you is fictional quick, prick.

Or just save face and admit defeat. You're not convincing anyone of anything right now. You're simply becoming the laughing stock of Zelaron.

Dude...you read wikipedia...that's so terribly inaccurate in so many ways on so many different topics...

And mj, IQ does not have any links to ones thought complexity, it does; however, have a lot to do with ones thought speed and mental reflexes. For the actual complexity and power of his thoughts you must look at his CSF score.

Nevertheless, there does seem to be a strong correlation between the two.

I don't have duplicate accounts this is the only one I have.... I would like you to prove to me that I have duplicate accounts....

Remember Lucy, the 'oldest' remains of a human(on an evolutionary basis)...
The thing I don't get is that they find what looks like a monkey skelaton, but it has only one tooth that is similar to a human... If that were true then I could say that dogs were closely related because they have canine teeth... I think scientists like to exaggerate on things to bring it into their favor...

Thats a lie... I have replyed to every post you have done...

O.K, look.... I am going to clear this whole thing up...
I am saying that adaptation is true, animals can adapt to their surroundings... (example)when you take a hot shower for a couple of days does your skin not feel like you have been burned after a while? (My other example) Remember the frogs in the forest... if there are two types of frogs one yellow and one green, since the trees are going to allow the green frogs to hide easier the green frogs will dominate(natural selection)...
The thing I am against is evolutionary 'benifits' that seem to come out of the blue and help out an unsuspecting creature... if evolution is true why is it that some animals evolved, but others diddn't... take monkeys for example, if they all came from the same evolutionary line why is it that some are still monkeys and others are 'evolved humans'? You would expect from DNA that they all would have evolved, and we would have no monkeys left on Earth... Explain that to me...

But tar, being an antibiotic, would prevent the rise of any single celled organisms... also, remember when you said, "If you had said that based on the Miller-Urey experiment, most of the earth should have been covered in Tar," and "I don't believe there is any geological evidence for the world ever being covered in tar."... if the Miller-Urey experiment caused tar to form, why is it that this did not occur all over the world? whats the chance of it happening in one single spot especially if the entire area is flat... if there were no trees and the only thing tall was a mountain why did lightining strike that one specific spot?

sometimes tar is used as an antibiotic... I believe epicack(if that is spelled right) is a form of tar...

So if the tar as you said before would give the amino acids the needed hydrocarbon atoms... wouldn't the hydrocarbons need energy to break away from eachother to form with the amino acids? This would require another lightining srike.... also in the Miller-Urey experiment did they not just use a spark that has at least a tenth of the power of lightining? would their experiment have been fried if they used a bigger shock?

I think I answered this question about 5 questions up...

I DID NOT SAY THAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have really got to read my posts a little more closely... Look fossils that have been found recorded and researched have nothing to do with evolution... they are just animals that have turned into stone, they are not transitional and do not point to evolution... animals that come from the same line with similar looks and traits as their parents has been proven...
Bacteria become more tolerant to antibiotics because of exposure(another example of adaptation) also I would talk to bacteria, but I am just waiting for evolution to give them the capacity for speech...

Ya know... I don't believe I have ever heard of the Oro experiment...
Like I said before, I will get to the bible and God later... lets finish this debate first...

Have you seen any transitional animals? Because if you have, I would love to see it... Flying squirrels are just another form of squirrel, like flying fish are another form of fish...

Benificial mutations: I have seen frogs in contaminated water that develop bad or missing legs, I have seen people who have extra arms or even heads that did not work... I really doubt that evolution is any better, I mean based on that, I would seriously doubt that evolution is so perfect that there would be no problems with the creatures that come of it...

Diddn't we go over this?

So which is it? Which one of you is right?

Most likely MJ is right, he's smarter than me.

Regardless, you're a fucking idiot.

I'm not sure this constitutes true irony, but it is hilarious nevertheless.

http://www.picaroni.com/IPs.gif

I'll also take this time to show you how evidence works.

Interesting correlations between all these accounts:

All were registered with yahoo email accounts that look suspiciously like throw-aways:
madarisbrian1+yahoo.com
amma_430+yahoo.com
fancyman20202000+yahoo.com
glazerade0703+yahoo.com
ianmc042+yahoo.com
ammanuelgerena+yahoo.com

Of the accounts that have birthdays, the year is listed as either 1988 or 1989.

Each of these accounts was registered in February 2007.

I could also delve deeper into the ellipsis obsession, but that would be wasting my time.

I think the conclusion is obvious.

But that's not rock solid "evedence", Grav! You could have made it up! :rolleyes:

Gravs evidence is fake.

P.S. I was going to mention to him that admins can check for matching IP adresses but I thought it would be more fun to just watch Grav prove it.

P.S.AGAIN. What's also funny about this is Grav already pointed out Draco's multiple accounts in THIS thread. Now Draco denies having multiple accounts. Pretty funny.

Would this be caused by a school network? Because me and a few friends found this website at school, mainly because of the games, but I was the only one to stick around and get into the froums... I believe that the 'throw away' e-mail accounts are acctually my friends e-mail addresses... I am sorry if it appeared to look like this...
also the e-mail accounts, we all needed similar accounts because we need to send our homework... yahoo seemed to be the most popular in class...