Evolution is a Lie

[Skaloop]

The bird.

Eggs existed before birds. So, no, not the bird.

 

[Skaloop]

So let's get this straight...you think that is evolutionary theory? You claim that!?

Claim what?

Well, tell your evo brothers next time they try to distance themselves from abiogenesis.

I never mentioned anything about abiogenesis, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Or are you saying evolution started at a certain point?

I wasn't saying that, but yeah, it started when there were imperfect replicators struggling for resources. Exactly what or when that was would be part of abiogenesis, I suppose, but once it was there, evolution would be the process going forward. But there can't have been evolution before there were any imperfect replicators, so I guess it would have had to have started at some point, yes. Although I doubt it could be pinpointed to a specific instant.

 

[dad]

Claim what?



I never mentioned anything about abiogenesis, so I'm not sure what you're getting at.



I wasn't saying that, but yeah, it started when there were imperfect replicators struggling for resources. Exactly what or when that was would be part of abiogenesis, I suppose, but once it was there, evolution would be the process going forward. But there can't have been evolution before there were any imperfect replicators, so I guess it would have had to have started at some point, yes. Although I doubt it could be pinpointed to a specific instant.

Well, so are you claiming it started off before any creature existed, other than one celled thingies?

 

[dad]

Eggs existed before birds. So, no, not the bird.

Nope. Birds first.

 

[Skaloop]

Well, so are you claiming it started off before any creature existed, other than one celled thingies?

Possibly. If it were self-replicating molecules, I'm not sure that would necessarily count as evolution, since those molecules probably wouldn't count as life (as we define it now). It would be some similar sort of process, but not necessarily the same process.

 

[Skaloop]

Nope. Birds first.

According to Creationism, yes. According to evolutionary theory, no. Fish come from eggs. Amphibians come from eggs. Reptiles come from eggs. All those existed long before birds did, and even longer before chickens did. So eggs first.

 

[dad]

Possibly. If it were self-replicating molecules, I'm not sure that would necessarily count as evolution, since those molecules probably wouldn't count as life (as we define it now). It would be some similar sort of process, but not necessarily the same process.

So, you claim that all life, plants, animals, pretty women, etc etc all started with a little thingie so small we could not see it, correct? You claim this is evolution. ...and so we are back at square one....

 

[dad]

According to Creationism, yes. According to evolutionary theory, no. Fish come from eggs. Amphibians come from eggs. Reptiles come from eggs. All those existed long before birds did, and even longer before chickens did. So eggs first.

That is not science, or known, of course. It is an unsupported godless pipe dream.

 

[Skaloop]

That is not science, or known, of course. It is an unsupported godless pipe dream.

If you're talking about the part where I mentioned Creationism, then yes, you are correct.

 

[dad]

If you're talking about the part where I mentioned Creationism, then yes, you are correct.

The part where you mention anything, so I guess that counts....

 

[Delphiki]

The part where you mention anything, so I guess that counts....

Have you ever considered trying to support your own arguments instead of just stating your side and trolling? Or is it that you know you have no base?

 

[AirPo]

Have you ever considered trying to support your own arguments instead of just stating your side and trolling?

Sorry. You should try finding some of dad's old threads.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you ever considered trying to support your own arguments instead of just stating your side and trolling?

Sorry. You should try finding some of dad's old threads.

You guys make it look like the definition of 'troll' is --

• troll: one who doesn't believe as you do and is willing to state his beliefs publicly, and with repetition as needed.

 

[Split Rock]

You guys make it look like the definition of 'troll' is --

• troll: one who doesn't believe as you do and is willing to state his beliefs publicly, and with repetition as needed.

I agree (again) with AVET (oh no!!). Some of you guys recently have been abusing the term "troll." I don't think dad is a troll. He is intransigent, arrogant, and ignorant of what he critsizes so freely, but that does not make him a "troll."

 

[Hespera]

I agree (again) with AVET (oh no!!). Some of you guys recently have been abusing the term "troll." I don't think dad is a troll. He is intransigent, arrogant, and ignorant of what he critsizes so freely, but that does not make him a "troll."

the stopped clock is right once a day, he is more like a stuck calendar.

 

[Delphiki]

I agree (again) with AVET (oh no!!). Some of you guys recently have been abusing the term "troll." I don't think dad is a troll. He is intransigent, arrogant, and ignorant of what he critsizes so freely, but that does not make him a "troll."

On the contrary. He posts to get a rise out of people, I think. The fact that he offers no substance to his arguments - only repeating assertions. And when asked for any kind of evidence or support of his argument, he either repeats himself or insults you. That, to me, is a troll.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

You guys make it look like the definition of 'troll' is --

• troll: one who doesn't believe as you do and is willing to state his beliefs publicly, and with repetition as needed.

No, we make it look like the definition of 'troll' is -- one who dogmatically asserts unsubstantiated claims as realitiy, and calls everyone else crazy for not accepting it.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, we make it look like the definition of 'troll' is -- one who dogmatically asserts unsubstantiated claims as realitiy, and calls everyone else crazy for not accepting it.

Unsubstantiated according to whose standards? yours?

We consider the Bible to be the final Authority for faith and practice.

For substantiation of a claim, we look to the Bible, not a computer paradigm or blueprint drawn up by unregenerate men.

Do you know what psychoheresy is?

It is the intrusion of psychological paradigms into God's church.

By the same token, I suppose we could have what's called 'technoheresy' -- or the intrusion into God's church of technological explanations contrary to the Bible.

There are three men who try to get into our churches from the grave: Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud, and Albert Einstein -- who wouldn't enter them in life, but are now trying from beyond.

 

[hollyda]

And I don't see how people can espouse the same tired arguments against evolution. I'm pretty sure this is even on the list of "arguments that creationists should not use" on the answeringgenesis website. Anyway, it is believed that one group of apes started evolving in such a way that lead way to humans. This is like asking, "If I descend from Mexican ancestors why are there still Mexicans around?" Beyond this, I doubt you even understand the rest of the questions you asked.

This is...kind of brilliant. +1

 

[Nathan Poe]

On the contrary. He posts to get a rise out of people, I think. The fact that he offers no substance to his arguments - only repeating assertions. And when asked for any kind of evidence or support of his argument, he either repeats himself or insults you. That, to me, is a troll.

Except that a troll posts only to get a rise out of people -- dad actually believes the blather he spouts.

AV, on the other hand, is 50/50.