GravitonSurge said:
|
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.
|
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....
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
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...
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
Thats a lie... I have replyed to every post you have done...
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
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...
mjordan2nd said:
|
Tar could actually provide the hydrocarbon chains required for many, many organic molecules.
|
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?
mjordan2nd said:
|
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?
|
sometimes tar is used as an antibiotic... I believe epicack(if that is spelled right) is a form of tar...
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
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?
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
I think I answered this question about 5 questions up...
mjordan2nd said:
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.
|
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...
mjordan2nd said:
|
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!
|
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...
mjordan2nd said:
|
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!
|
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...
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
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...
mjordan2nd said:
|
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.
|
Diddn't we go over this?
!King_Amazon! said:
|
There is no scientific PROOF. It's a THEORY with LOTS OF EVIDENCE BACKING IT UP. Not a LAW with PROOF.
|
So which is it? Which one of you is right?