At 1/1/12 10:02 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote:

At 12/28/11 11:47 AM, Adam-Beilgard wrote:

come to this chatroom and actually speak voice to voice with like people who have the time to go through each and every one of your little defenses (.........)

I went there, they said I was Sound and I was banned.

Bravo

Someone mentioned it long ago but but you should read Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins (Climbing Mount Improbable would be my suggestion).

But even if you do you will still never win the debate: You make your closing argument, the person in opposition goes "Wow!.........my braaaaain" and faints. When they come to they say "Thank you sir, you have removed the shackles of my religious beliefs, I am forever indebted to you". - Not fucking likely.

Intelligent Design is theistic, to prove it is impossible but for those who believe in it Faith bridges that gap - faith usually instilled via indoctrination from birth.

In the debate you mention they ask you to prove something and if you can't they reckon they have won?

With religion, faith means people can assume what's in their religion is a truth, so its not something that has to be proven by a believer it's something that has to be disproven by a non believer which is frankly impossible with anything theistic.

Hypothetically If it was possible with 100% certainty to prove evolution is the correct theory and intelligent design is false; those that believe in intelligent design most likely will continue to do so.

At 1/1/12 02:32 PM, MsRukia wrote:

Clearly you need to work on your people skills like most evos do, maybe instead of rushing to the conclusion that your belief is automatically right, maybe you should take your own advice and do some research of your own, find all the supposed problems with it and see if you can find answers, rather than simply insulting people who show skepticism towards your belief and pretending that what they say means nothing when you contradict your own self by taking such an aggressive stance when replying to them.

I doubt you remember that this post started as a question on how to argue evolution, my answer I think was , "don't argue evolution," me you n all the other evos that were drawn to this conflict know that if I choose to keep up the convo, all of you will simply resort to neutrality and tell me to respect your beliefs and not the usual "EVOLUTION IS RIGHT CUZ I AM SCIENTFIC PERSON AND EVOLUTION IS SCIENCE!!!"

So I guess I'm just going to skip that and just not reply anymore because I don't need the win.

Also I know there is a very high chance that the people who have been replying to me are most likely kids between the ages of 12-17 and are in the rebellious phase and come here probably every night and look for people to push their beliefs on, make fun of and act as if a belief makes you a better or less of a person.

Why do I say say well people here clearly have lost sight of the actual point and meaning of debating and arguing, truth is the real goal, but I suppose self satisfaction and arrogance are the prize all the kids want nowdays.
So I hope you guts remember what I've....."said aka typed" and one day realise that you can't just go along with what people tell you because it could cost you alot more than you think should you be wrong, and I know most of you guys will probably give the appearance of brushing this of n acting like I don't know what I'm talking about, but clearly I would have to not know what I'm talking about in order for you guys to feel comfortable enough to give such aggressive and offensive replies, maybe some people here need to move from their minds back into reality where the big boys are.

At 1/4/12 09:26 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Also I know there is a very high chance that the people who have been replying to me are most likely kids between the ages of 12-17 and are in the rebellious phase and come here probably every night and look for people to push their beliefs on, make fun of and act as if a belief makes you a better or less of a person.

Why do I say say well people here clearly have lost sight of the actual point and meaning of debating and arguing, truth is the real goal, but I suppose self satisfaction and arrogance are the prize all the kids want nowdays.
So I hope you guts remember what I've....."said aka typed" and one day realise that you can't just go along with what people tell you because it could cost you alot more than you think should you be wrong, and I know most of you guys will probably give the appearance of brushing this of n acting like I don't know what I'm talking about, but clearly I would have to not know what I'm talking about in order for you guys to feel comfortable enough to give such aggressive and offensive replies, maybe some people here need to move from their minds back into reality where the big boys are.

You don't know what you're talking about.
Your whole religion is 'what other people have told you'.
Reality is what we can see and prove.
You haven't proven one thing in any of your posts.
Atheism is the absence of belief in a deity - not a belief.
Science is the pursuit of truth.
Pursuit implies movement.
Religion plants itself in thousand(s) year old superstition.
You talk with more arrogance than anyone here.

0/10
Go troll somewhere else.

At 1/4/12 09:26 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Also I know there is a very high chance that the people who have been replying to me are most likely kids between the ages of 12-17

;;;;Shaggy...my daughters are older than 12 & 17 !
So that means I have to be as well ! !

truth is the real goal, but I suppose self satisfaction and arrogance are the prize all the kids want nowdays.

;;;
Part of the problem Shaggy, is you wouldn't recognise a truck if it was parked on your foot IF the evidence presented went against your belief in God & the bullshit which is the B ig I mbecellic B ook of L ies & E mbelishments.
Any evidence presented about evolution no matter what ,gets the flimsiest excuses from you.
But you never mention some of the FACTS about of your good book.

First off if you are using a Kings James Bible, it was written in 1611. That's 1 Thousand ,6 hundred & eleven years AFTER Jesus supposedly lived !

First off it was decided in 1604 by King James that the 2 competing bibles of the time in England the Geneva bible & the Bishop's Bible was pro royal , but few commoners or clergy used it.....seems James loved the Geneva one too...but it was very anti monarch ( & as a King I can understand why he wanted to change it ) So he got 54 scholars together to re write the Holy bible...once again ! ! !
This task given to 54 scholars who were broke up into teams of 6 sub commitees. these Scholars then proceeded to investigate all these sources for their 'New & Improved' bible.

The Kings James Bible drew on the ;
Hebrew bible from 500 BC (before Supposedly Jesus was born)
The Septuagint from 250 BC
The New Testiment 50 to 150 AD (supposedly after Jesus's death)
The Old Latin translations 200Ad
Latin Vulgate translation 383-405 AD
Alcuin Bible ca 800 AAD
Paris Bible 1200AD
Wycliffe Bible 1382 AD
Guttenburg Bible 1455 AD
Erasmus Translation 1516 AD
Luther Bible 1522-34 AD
Tyndale Translation 1526 AD
Coverdale bible 1535 AD
Mattthew Bible 1537 AD
Great bible 1539 AD
Geneva Bible 1560 AD
Bishop's Bible 1568 AD
Douai-Rheims Bible 1582-1610

So when you quote or hold your unshakeable views in your Religious Leanings as it stands against evolution...please understand why I call the bible a book of fiction A book of lies & embelishments...because god wrote none of it.
It has been written & rewritten & edited so damn much by men, there's nothing but what the makers wanted in there. Which is to put the fear of God in people & make it easier for Gov & Church to control them ! ! !
But evolution text which is also written & rewritten by men (and women) is bullshit & lies & made up & whatever your put down is this time. yet the bible & the science texts are just like todays newspaper & all of it is controled by the editors.

Yet your bible is right ,so that's why the harder you thump it, the funnier I find it . At least with fossils etc we have something tangible, evolutionary evidence is provable & not based on an editor or group of editor's under the control of the Church & King .

Have a nice day

At 1/4/12 09:26 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Also I know there is a very high chance that the people who have been replying to me are most likely kids between the ages of 12-17 and are in the rebellious phase and come here probably every night and look for people to push their beliefs on, make fun of and act as if a belief makes you a better or less of a person.

Why do I say say well people here clearly have lost sight of the actual point and meaning of debating and arguing, truth is the real goal, but I suppose self satisfaction and arrogance are the prize all the kids want nowdays.
So I hope you guts remember what I've....."said aka typed" and one day realise that you can't just go along with what people tell you because it could cost you alot more than you think should you be wrong, and I know most of you guys will probably give the appearance of brushing this of n acting like I don't know what I'm talking about, but clearly I would have to not know what I'm talking about in order for you guys to feel comfortable enough to give such aggressive and offensive replies, maybe some people here need to move from their minds back into reality where the big boys are.

I'm actually 20 and only on since I dislocated my knee and can't go back to work for a week.

Anyways, I'm looking at these "aggressive" responses made and I would have to say is they are arguing in the correct way. There was a question and they answered it to the best of their abilities by lectures, novels and pictures, for it is hard to find a biologist who can run their own record of fossils who is "12-17". You on the other hand have basically looked over some points and just moved the argument towards bickering back and forth. Since the burden of proof is upon the biologists with the claim that we we evolved from a singular cell organism (bacteria from a comet when it hit the Earth), I would hope that you take a closer look at the case presented before dismissing it; thank you.

At 12/14/11 06:27 PM, Tydusis wrote: The big point about Tolerance is: if you don't like something, either get away from it and ignore its existence or shut up and deal with it. Whining about it is not going to solve it and acting on it is likely to give more problems than solutions.

Come on, that isn't tolerance. That's cowardice. There's a difference between not throwing the toys out the pram over things that are kinda inevitable (ie adverts) and just deciding to ignore it when bad things are happening. Hate to invoke Godwin, but it's this kind of "tolerance" that allowed the Nazis to take power while a largely passive intelligentsia and a largely passive Europe chose various forms of appeasement.

There's a difference between the (Buddhist) concept of reducing suffering through reducing craving and the (coincidentally not Buddhist) principle of unconditional inaction.

Though kudos for sticking to the 3rd path throughout :)

At 1/4/12 09:14 AM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Clearly you need to work on your people skills like most evos do, maybe instead of rushing to the conclusion that your belief is automatically right, maybe you should take your own advice and do some research of your own, find all the supposed problems with it and see if you can find answers, rather than simply insulting people who show skepticism towards your belief and pretending that what they say means nothing when you contradict your own self by taking such an aggressive stance when replying to them.

There's a preetttyyyy big difference between making fun of a psuedo- intellectual, self-righteous, patronising (I would say troll, but I'm scared to think you may actually believe what you're saying) and having a genuine scientific debate. That difference is about 200 years old my friend, back when evolution's predictions were started to be confirmed en masse.

So I guess I'm just going to skip that and just not reply anymore because I don't need the win.

Correction:

because I don't win.

SHaggy, check out this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/16424096

Damn Evolutionists, are playing god by creating a new life form ~:x

At 1/5/12 06:20 PM, morefngdbs wrote: SHaggy, check out this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/16424096

Damn Evolutionists, are playing god by creating a new life form ~:x

It's not a new life form. It's an ant with roid rage. All they did was use a hormone to change the ants development and bring out previously recessed traits. The ants are still part of the same species, there hasn't been any mutations, and if any of these supersoldier ants were male they could still mate with the colony's queen and produce perfectly normal ants of any caste. Of course, that doesn't make you stupid for making the claim, any evolutionist trying to justify their belief would shout at the "new species" that's essentially identical to the old one. This reminds of the hobbits that were found. There was no DNA evidence to indicate they were any different from normal humans and their skeletons were the same as a normal human's, especially a child's since they're roughly the same size and proportional structure, but that didn't stop people from declaring them a new species.

Simple answer: Attack not the man, nor his vision; attack the man's flaws.

DARE I SAY EVIDENCE

for the the Theory of Evolution of course....

:P

At 1/5/12 07:04 PM, djack wrote:

At 1/5/12 06:20 PM, morefngdbs wrote: SHaggy, check out this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/16424096

Damn Evolutionists, are playing god by creating a new life form ~:x

The ants are still part of the same species,

;;;
Never claimed anything about a new Species dude.
Just a new form of ant for that particular species.
Calm down...deep breaths lol.
Just

At 1/6/12 02:59 AM, RPGShadow wrote: DARE I SAY EVIDENCE

for the the Theory of Evolution of course....

P

Good common example. but there are countless examples such as these, examples on other species of fish and the difference between their colored spots on their scales depending on the predators in the area. So the ponds with no predators had more colors to attract females.

ALso an experiment with various bacteria was made, as they multiplied some were kept frozen in labs, creating virtial fossils, a record of their evolution, and all groups differed from one another and of course from the original bacteria.