Evolution is crap! Squawk! (Page 25)
BelgianStrider: I can understand that point of view of you, even Corwin seems of getting tired to try to make them understand that they don't have any clue about science.
It seems that it will be real limited wankfests for them:
- no idiot counter dictions from them to scientific evidences
- no insulting from them when out of arguments
- no stupid erroneous interpretation from them to get themselves wriggled out of definitive lies from them.
- no contradictory logic and fallacious statements to be pointed out to them
- just littles heads shaking "yes" when put a dime in the slit ... ( i don't know if you ever met those things in shops in your area's - loooooong time ago. A head of a young afro guy, where you could donate for all those catholic caritative good goals - as a very young lad I was fascinated to see that head wiggling when putting coins in it, I had no notions of "being caritative" though.... ow has I been "abused due to naivety" by "black coats" already at that very young age ???)
wow they will soon find themselves even boring
I know, I know those are "generalisations" and "ad hominem attacks", those are fallacies ..... thus
Evolution is a crappy fairy tale, every decent honest well educated, rational and thinking person knows that ....
kittybobo34: This is why I generally quit arguing with them.. the points made bounce right off their bony heads.
BelgianStrider: it seems no "indecent dishonest biased nitwit" is keen to reply to all their fallacious scientific crap.
It is "fun" to see how they support each others imbecilities.
They also give clear evidences that they are completely unable to see the differences between biology "ToE" and social Darwinism, in other words "how to see a society". (What is undeniable a misuse of science, just like christianism misuses science too), and mix it as a religion "in fine".
Also it is extremely arrogant to claim that chistianism is the only true religion that brought morality (they clearly are forgetting that Buddhism is amongst the first ones with moral viewpoints); not that long ago (also a thing they seem to be willing to deny), those same christians were convinced colour people were inferior and could be misused for slave labour, and actually some of them still have that opinion that white is superior. (strangely most of them also on the south of that belt, they also are quite fan of that confederate flag)
BelgianStrider: anyway every decent honest well educated (by the bible) person knows evolution is completely crap
BelgianStrider: kittybobo: indoctrinated people are the summum of "bony heads", Otto Skorzeny, léon degrelle were convinced indoctrinated nazis, even the facts that showed nazi's atrocities did not change their point of view concerning "Dem Übermensch", "Also sprach Zarathustra" und "Der Fûrher ist ein grösse Genie" (Btw Nietzsche had a Darwinist social viewpoint, and was one of those "philosophers" misunderstanding and misusing science).
PS I use for Skorzeny capitals because, although he was a convinced nazi, he did not participated in those atrocities and was a valiant fair subaltern officer with a code of conduct in his battles (like Generalfeldmarschall Rommel, although the General started to change his opinion concerning dolfke at the end of the African campaign, what resulted ultimately to his "suicide" - officially deadly complications of campaign wounds, after the operation "Valkyrie" ). Skorzeny was a brilliant tactician with exceptional daring successful special operations. Rommel was a real desert fox as he could well interpret the messages send by the US ambassador in Cairo to the US and anticipate the British movements (the secret war of intelligence, it was "ultra" that could give the allies the clue, from that time on, strangely enough that diplomat got not that accurate info, sometimes even incorrect; the diplomat just did honestly his job after all - even after "Pearl Harbour" (though poor cryptography ...).
BelgianStrider: 6 reasons why not believing in evolution....
wait reason one ... vestigial organs does not occur and can not occur because there has to be more adding information and not decaying? So if it is true the human (in their optic, as the top of the creation) should be able to fly, have a more sharp vision than the eagle, run faster than a leopard and be able to dive deeper and longer than a whale. We (after all) do all those things, though; none of all those without our intelligence and technology.
we do have one irrefutable vestigial organ: our tail bone ...
Ow btw, that reasoning does that not contradict reason 4, mutations create decay ????
eeeeeuuuuhhhh but you did told us in reason 1; there is no decay because there is no vestigial organs ..so in my humble opinion reason 4 seems to contradict reason 1 ..we should have vestigial organs because it seems mutations are only loosing and thus decaying information ...
So what ?? Option 1 or option 4???? No vestigial organs and thus never decaying mutations; or only decaying mutations that has (de facto) to result in vestigial organs - cfr reason 1.
Ah right; similar characteristics seems to prove intelligent creation instead of evolution?
Poor Edison, poor Bell, poor Morse, poor Pasteur, poor Alan Turing.. all those guys with great ideas to be able not to stick on conventional thinking... So why, if an intelligent designer is behind all that, did not come with some complete new biological revolutionary design, without any relationship with all other creatures?
We do have numerous revolutionary innovations in all of our technologies, and that "ID" would have none ???
So he just made an assumption that can even be contradicted in a very basic logical way. Why not a complete "new design" without any relation with any other creature?
THAT, in fact, would indeed tend to give evidences of an ID.
Damn already 3 of 6 "out" like that in 5 minutes, what about the 3 others, ok we need a little more investigation
BelgianStrider: ToE scientists are Darwinist's indoctrinated nitwits that just tell lies and plotting conspirations against any religion (eeeeuuuuh may be just the christian one - as they clearly do contradict the bible - though what about the other religious "theories" about "creation", are they false then???) Well if we believe some guys, as it is a belief; no need of proof of course. - again why that specific religious belief has to be more true than another?
BelgianStrider: ah still one point he is coming with: that, following his reasoning, tend to assume about intelligent design, all those, by ID created, species are living in the same conditions, have the same "food" and drinking, thus that ID used the same "tools" and that is the reason there are such morphologic similarities (and a total absence of revolutionary complete different biological intelligent design btw...)
There are two slight problems in that reasoning:
A. In ToE, It is the environment that has an enormous impact in the "survival of the fittest" and by consequence in evolution, hence the morphologic similarities. (thus "de facto" he confirms what ToE just preconises)
B. Where can be assumed any ID as "morphologic similarities" is inexistent following other creationists ???? (Damn they are even contradicting each other?)
It seems those two slight problems are in fact "major" problems.
Conclusion: "Houston we've had some serious and major problems in logic reasoning"
Evolution is a fairy tale full of contradicting biased nonsense and contra scientific
BelgianStrider: It is obvious that indoctrinated imbeciles will never see those idiocies crammed by other so called scientific doctorated imbeciles.
BelgianStrider: re: "Angry Beaver: Please provide proof that Darwin's work ever said man was descended from apes..... This should be interesting.... "
Darwin postulated the notion that humans & apes have a common ancestor. His error is based on the false notion that similarities between birds, fishes, mammals and reptiles means that all life is related genetically--which of course has never ever been proven to be true in any way whatsoever. Thus he opened the door to the false notion that complex life forms evolved from simpler ones through natural selection & genetic mutations--which again has never ever been proven to be true in any way whatsoever.
We know now of course from exhaustive fruitfly studies that natural selection never produces evolution due to genetic stasis preventing it from happening. We also know that there is no scientifically proven series of mutations that has ever led to any kind-level mutations. The conflation of normal natural genetic variations (which actually occurs within each kind of creature due to normal genetic expression) with the unverified biased, bogus, & imaginary beliefs of evolutioners is just a congame because it has never been shown to have ever occurred...
Tsssktsssktsssktsssk again lies and biased info....
"Darwin postulated the notion that humans & apes have a common ancestor. "
Correct and that will be the only decent and correct statement in his biased blabla.
"His error is based on the false notion that similarities between birds, fishes, mammals and reptiles means that all life is related genetically--which of course has never ever been proven to be true in any way whatsoever. "
Darwin's notion of morphologic similarities is proven scientifically just by pure biologic studies.
It is proven by DNA studies that every species is genetically related: hence the ability to elaborate the phylogenetic tree (accepted by several scientific specialities, i.e. biology, micro-biology, palaeontology and anthropology...)
"which of course has never ever been proven to be true in any way whatsoever."
is in fact a pure lie, as a little more literature will indicate to him his statement is completely incorrect, and he is clearly willingly denying facts that are proving he is incorrect.
"Thus he opened the door to the false notion that complex life forms evolved from simpler ones through natural selection & genetic mutations--which again has never ever been proven to be true in any way whatsoever."
ToE stipulates the notion of evolution for all lifefoms, and the base of all life is indeed the most simple unicellular lifeform. Complex lifeforms can evolve to other complex lifeforms, that does not imply that the "ancestor" has to be a "simpler" lifeform. Here is the fallacious and incorrect reasoning from him
DNA studies do give clear evidences that the theory sounds valid and again the phylogenetic tree give also clear evidences about the origin of all lifeforms, the unicellular lifeform.
Again he gives biased and misleading info. Again he is willingly denying clear evidences that make ToE a sound theory. The last phrase "no prove" is just a clear lie.
"We know now of course from exhaustive fruitfly studies that natural selection never produces evolution due to genetic stasis preventing it from happening. We also know that there is no scientifically proven series of mutations that has ever led to any kind-level mutations."
Incorrect and complete biased info.
Several studies of fruit flies demonstrated on the contrary the evolution to different kinds of fruit flies in several specific conditions; which means those fruit flies, after several generations, did not or could not interbreed anymore.
Which means two different kinds in a specie and thus "macro-evolution".
Thus YES there has been kind-level mutations in labs... It has been done; it is still done...
If he goes to the correct "sources" he will find that his statement is completely wrong.
"The conflation of normal natural genetic variations (which actually occurs within each kind of creature due to normal genetic expression) with the unverified biased, bogus, & imaginary beliefs of evolutioners is just a congame because it has never been shown to have ever occurred..."
If he means "there is no evidences that a fish will evolve in 100 years to a chicken" or in other words "changes of species in a human lifetime"... everybody will agree with that. It will never happen. (that is also the reason evolution spend millions of millions of millions years) It is again a bias info that pretends evolutionists are believing or ever will believe in that false fairy tale, we can even indicate that statement as a sneaky fallacious lie.
Again a complete bunch of incorrect, false and biased info - even clear lies.
Angry is correct by asking to prove that Darwin did postulate "man is a descendant of the modern ape"... You will never find it.... thus that claimed "Darwinian statement" is completely false.
BelgianStrider: "zeffur: Some evo chumps hate God/religion..."
is a fallacious statement by limited generalisation.
First of all some atheists do have probs with evolution and also can hate god/religion.
Other religious indoctrinated idiots do hate other gods/religions (so "de facto" they hate god/religion).
Then there are clear "evo chumps" that are strong religious minded or believe in ID.
Again if a majority think ToE is not an idiot theory, that does not mean "de facto" they are all atheists... thus religion haters.
Even R. Dawkins shows clear evidences of having no problems with those who believe, but he has clearly problems with those having the opinion that his freedom of atheism is not legitimate.
Zeff clearly belongs to that class of "believers"
MJ59: Religious nuts are way better at hating folk, they have a multitude of sayings from a book to justify it!
Like this chap on same sex marriage:
Blackshoes: About time !
Blackshoes: SIn is SIn !
“Jesus answered them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin.”
Blackshoes: Romans 3:23
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;”
Hate is ok if the zealot's handbook says so!
BelgianStrider: Hi oldmate welcome,
I would start to extremely mind when zealots of that kind obliges me to gave my through (like a goose) with their indoctrinated ideology and forbid my liberty of criticism.
Of course that is my pure European view and "historical experience" - it seems I still belong to that baby-boom generation after WWII
I do have also a extremely aversion to people that are unable to see they might be wrong.
Now, Blackshoes gives evidences of a very limited, narrow and strongly religious viewpoints.
Whenever he seems to admit there are flaws in his views he rushes back to that herders book.
Though, about same sex matrimony, as a specialist concerning the holy writings he should clearly knows that Jesus never exposed explicitly any opinion concerning same gender love.
All those refusals are found in the elder (bronze aged) books, in fact the talmud- old testament (christians call it the old testament because the new testament speaks just about the exploits of the messiah - one priest said to us in class "Jesus was similar as a "Rockstar" in that time" and he probably was)
Strangely enough, it is the two offspring of that bronze aged herder's book religion written in Hebrew that preach "convert or get 20 cm shorter from above".
It is a fact ideologic indoctrinated idiots are dangerous. It has again been cl
early shown in January in the US and yesterday in Liège (Belgium).
Several tried to get decent discussions with those two in their previous (deleted) forum.
It seems that, like me, others even don't want to waste any energy in it.
Just observing their idiocies, I even have to admit that I only read 0.1 % of blackshoes' input, as 99% of his input are lengthy tantrum of "copy-pastes" full of contradiction.
I have to admit I sometimes can't restrain myself to give comments and I now prefer to bring it here then there.
Though we are now really convinced
Evolution is a modern religious fairy tale ... Squawk!!!