HomeFairfax General ForumArrest/Ticket SearchWiki newPictures/VideosChatArticlesLinksAbout
Off-Topic :  Fairfax Underground fairfax underground logo
Welcome to Fairfax Underground, a project site designed to improve communication among residents of Fairfax County, VA. Feel free to post anything Northern Virginia residents would find interesting.
Pages: Previous12All
Current Page: 2 of 2
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 20, 2010 02:47AM

Asswipe wrote:

Blah blah balh..."So if your house was filled with filthy germs and mildew, would YOU do as your incredibly intelligent Yahweh, creator of the universe commanded?"

-HOW DO YOU know that God didn't make some type
of virus that was used to destroy a certain people, and his comandment was instructions for a natural bacterial remedy found in pigeon shit?
Your asking me about NOW. If my house were unclean, NOW.

Why are you acting so retarded, oh anon account user?



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 20, 2010 02:55AM

Anon fag bag wrote:
>"If Yahweh really did create the universe, I just picture him up in heaven laughing so hard that he's rolling around on his cloud in the sky every time a dumb-ass human religious nut like yourself would follow that procedure thinking it actually does something. If Yahweh's intention was to fuel the superstitious bronze-age mind with utter nonsense he accomplished his goal. If he actually wanted to help them overcome their diseases, he could have taught them that many diseases are caused by terrible microorganisms that Yahweh made to cause people to suffer and die. And if they want to live healthier lives they should give up prayers and faith and to stop relying on a god that rolls around on the floor laughing every time someone started gathering cedar, hyssop, scarlet yarn etc... What Yahweh should have told them is to use the scientific method and their brains to learn methods to discover the pathogens that their loving god has inflicted human kind with and to find medicines and treatments to treat diseases caused by Yahweh's pathogens."


Spoken like a true DEVIL worshiper! God's garden of Eden had no disease. And even though God admits to using pestilences as punishments in the Old Testament, does not change the fact that disease is man's own affliction.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 20, 2010 07:56AM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Numbers wrote:
> >"For example, evolution has been proven over and
> over again by use of radio carbon dating, fossils,
> DNA and genomic sequencing. This is evidence that
> can be physically verified."
>
>
> Look Numbers, you have already dug your dick into
> the dirt on this subject TIME and TIME again, to
> no avail. You fucksock.
>
> The proof is the fact that YOU as a 'scientist',
> can NOT create OR destroy matter in a lab!

I'm not sure how this is relevant - is anyone supposing that scientists created matter?

No, then it's not relevant.

Further, if this supposition is true, then it rules out God creating matter. You can be intellectually honest AND pick and choose which science to believe.

> Your theory of evolution is shot to hell with
> creatures like the Aligator and the 300 million
> year old Horse Shoe Crab who failed to 'evolve'
> and remained exactly the same,

This is false. They have adapted to their environment - which is why they are still around. That said, you will have to prove they are 'exactly the same'.

> in the same
> climatic conditions as those who were supposedly
> evolving right around them.

A normal person would look at this and think: Wow, they are suited to their environment while those other (now extinct) organisms were not.

Creationists, on the other hand, some how think that this somehow disproves evolution, in some vague ill-defined way.

> Plus your theory of
> evolution has to allow for a 300 million year old
> UN-changed FROG, to just get up on it's hind legs
> and start carrying on a conversation with you like
> Kermit! And not only is that NOT the case, but
> the notion is as bonkers as the premise of
> evolution itself.

Why *would* a frog need to adapt in this manner?

> Psssst, God's reality that HE created, allows for
> 'evolution' or things adapting or getting better
> also, not just your imaginary reality that 'just
> is'.

This is a contradictory position to take. God allows evolution to occur, yet according to you, it doesn't. So is nature more powerful then God?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Numbers ()
Date: August 20, 2010 11:51AM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The proof is the fact that YOU as a 'scientist',
> can NOT create OR destroy matter in a lab!


This is a silly insinuation that doesn't prove or disprove anything.

And since the professor answered most of your questions already, I'll add that matter actually might be created by energy moving beyond the speed of light. We have no real way to prove this yet, but it's possible if Einstein's theory is right.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 21, 2010 05:00AM

The only thing 'Professor ASS-Gloss' wrote that was relevant was:
>This is a contradictory position to take.
NO it is NOT, the only thing contradicting itself is you idiots!

>God allows evolution to occur,
CORRECT

> yet according to you, it doesn't.

HUH?

> So is nature more powerful then God?

GOD CREATED nature! Dumbass.


'Numbers' wrote:
>And since the professor answered most of your questions

ORLY? Then why no explanation of Electricity? Magnets? Gravity? Alternate Dimensions? Ect.
Ass-Gloss failed to provide anything but a bunch of MUMBO-JUMBO.

> I'll add that matter actually might be created by energy moving beyond the speed of light.

MIGHT? Is that your HYPOTHESIS? Because you were supposed to be refuting what I said with fact, not going off on a wild IRRELEVANT tangent, talking about shit that MIGHT be.

> We have no real way to prove this yet

YOU DON'T SAY! Well then why the fuck talk about something you can't disprove or prove, when you claim you are taking a stand against God from a stance of a 'scientist'? Scientists are NOT philosophers!

Take your skeet-sock off your head and allow your brain to breath son and
STOP YOUR COCKSUCKERY NUMBERS, THE ROYAL SATANIC DICK IS CLEAN GIVE IT A BREAK ALREADY!

.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/21/2010 06:59AM by Troll@AOL.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 21, 2010 05:19AM

oh I forgot:

Numbers wrote:
>I'm not sure how this is relevant - is anyone supposing that scientists created matter?

I didn't know YOU believed matter has to be CREATED.
By the way, what is matter?
And since you as a 'scientist' can NOT create it OR destroy it and you can't even tell me what it is, you can NOT tell me YOU know WHERE it came from or HOW it got here.

by the way, YOU ARE STARTING TO BE A BORE NOW. It used to be fun, but now you just keep rewording the same trash logic and it is getting rather redundant
Keep this shit up, and your garbage posts won't be worth responding to anymore : (

.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 21, 2010 05:23AM

When is that Stephen Hawking guy gonna release his goofy 'Theory of Everything'

I am sure I will get a good laugh out of it.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 21, 2010 05:55AM

Stephen Hawking wrote in A Brief History of Time; that even if we had a TOE[theory of everything], it would necessarily be a set of equations. He wrote, "What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them[the equations] to describe?"


IN OTHERWORDS, what good are the equations that ONLY describe WHAT IS happening in our universe? WHO made the universe happen? A mathemetician?


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Popper for the Peeps ()
Date: August 21, 2010 03:28PM

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not sure how this is relevant - is anyone
> supposing that scientists created matter?
>
> No, then it's not relevant.
>
> Further, if this supposition is true, then it
> rules out God creating matter. You can be
> intellectually honest AND pick and choose which
> science to believe.

How in HELL does the fact a scientist can't create matter rule out GOD creating matter?

Scientists can't perform miracles either.

But God can. It's a basic part of the job description.

Miracles everywhere in this bitch.


> > Your theory of evolution is shot to hell with
> > creatures like the Aligator and the 300 million
> > year old Horse Shoe Crab who failed to 'evolve'
> > and remained exactly the same,
>
> This is false. They have adapted to their
> environment - which is why they are still around.

Here we have the NON-FALSIFIABILITY / CIRCULAR REASONING of evolution.

Every bit of evidence can be twisted to fit the theory. Consequently, Darwinian evolution cannot be falsified.

The clearest way a theory or hypothesis can be falsified is by testing.

Richard Feynman: "The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific 'truth'."

Here's an example:

"A horse, even at full gallop, always has at least one hoof touching the ground."

With the invention of photography, the proposition could be tested, and was proven wrong.




What about: "Over time, humans evolved from bacteria."




Can it be tested by experiment, the sole judge of scientific "truth"?

What is that test and result, please?


> That said, you will have to prove they are
> 'exactly the same'.

No, YOU have to prove they've changed in any SUBSTANTIAL way to score anything more than a silly debating point.


> > in the same
> > climatic conditions as those who were supposedly
> > evolving right around them.
>
> A normal person would look at this and think: Wow,
> they are suited to their environment while those
> other (now extinct) organisms were not.

Circular reasoning.

+ Psychologist's fallacy:

A normal person would look at this think, why hasn't this organism evolved?

> Creationists, on the other hand, some how think
> that this somehow disproves evolution, in some
> vague ill-defined way.

NON-FALSIFIABILITY rears its ugly head again.

EVERY piece of evidence WILL be SHOE-HORNED to fit evolutionary theory.

It's easy, when you don't have to subject silly "just so" theories to experimental verification.

> > Plus your theory of
> > evolution has to allow for a 300 million year old
> > UN-changed FROG, to just get up on it's hind legs
> > and start carrying on a conversation with you like
> > Kermit! And not only is that NOT the case, but
> > the notion is as bonkers as the premise of
> > evolution itself.
>
> Why *would* a frog need to adapt in this manner?

Why *wouldn't* he?

Why *would* a neanderthal "need" to adapt, and a chimpanzee or monkey or gorilla not "need" to?

Because them chimps and monkeys and gorillas is just PERFECT as they is, right?

Folks, that's what the theory says, so you just have to ACCEPT it, mm-kay?


> > Psssst, God's reality that HE created, allows for
> > 'evolution' or things adapting or getting better
> > also, not just your imaginary reality that 'just
> > is'.
>
> This is a contradictory position to take. God
> allows evolution to occur, yet according to you,
> it doesn't. So is nature more powerful then God?

He said God "allows for evolution or things adapting and getting better."

Finches beak stuff.

Not monkey-to-human stuff, which no one has seen, and can't be experimentally tested, and is therefore outside the scope of scientific "truth".

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Kenny_Powers ()
Date: August 22, 2010 06:24AM

Troll @ AOL is proof there is no god. If there were a god, then his life would have some sort of fucking meaning. Instead he sits in a basement (not getting layed) and makes up bullshit arguments about stuff he really doesnt care about. And then he continues to not get layed.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 22, 2010 05:38PM

Unfortunately, you are correct. God would never create a 40 year old virgin!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 23, 2010 08:48AM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only thing 'Professor ASS-Gloss' wrote that
> was relevant was:
> >This is a contradictory position to take.
> NO it is NOT, the only thing contradicting itself
> is you idiots!

How is it 'our' fault if you are intellectually inconsistent?

> >God allows evolution to occur,
> CORRECT
>
> > yet according to you, it doesn't.
>
> HUH?

Exactly - your position is so contradictory you confuse yourself. You *were* arguing that alligators and horse shoe crabs didn't evolve for over millions of years, which shoots evolution 'to hell'. Yet you are also saying that God allows evolution to happen.

This is contradictory.

> > So is nature more powerful then God?
>
> GOD CREATED nature! Dumbass.

Again, this is a result of your position. Keep up and pay attention to your own position.

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> oh I forgot:
>
> Numbers wrote:
> >I'm not sure how this is relevant - is anyone
> supposing that scientists created matter?
>
> I didn't know YOU believed matter has to be
> CREATED.
> By the way, what is matter?
> And since you as a 'scientist' can NOT create it
> OR destroy it and you can't even tell me what it
> is, you can NOT tell me YOU know WHERE it came
> from or HOW it got here.
>
> by the way, YOU ARE STARTING TO BE A BORE NOW. It
> used to be fun, but now you just keep rewording
> the same trash logic and it is getting rather
> redundant
> Keep this shit up, and your garbage posts won't be
> worth responding to anymore : (

1st, I wrote this, not numbers. Second - your boredom is a mask for your ignorance.

Now, to the issue at hand - you are *SUPPOSING* that at one point there was nothing and then there was something. That the universe *needed* creating. I do not make this supposition. Nor do quite a lot of scientists.

The fact is, you don't understand the scientific options on the table. It's a waste of time discussing these issues with you, since not only do you not care to even have consistent positions, you fail to pay attention to what is actually being argued. We aren't your teachers, we have no onus to educate you. I'm done wasting my time with trying to see if you can at least understand the scientific position.

You can't. It's either because you don't care or because you are too lazy to learn.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 23, 2010 09:02AM

Popper for the Peeps Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'm not sure how this is relevant - is anyone
> > supposing that scientists created matter?
> >
> > No, then it's not relevant.
> >
> > Further, if this supposition is true, then it
> > rules out God creating matter. You can be
> > intellectually honest AND pick and choose which
> > science to believe.
>
> How in HELL does the fact a scientist can't create
> matter rule out GOD creating matter?

I don't know - I didn't put this forth. Why don't you explain?

> Scientists can't perform miracles either.
>
> But God can. It's a basic part of the job
> description.
>
> Miracles everywhere in this bitch.

There's no evidence of miracles. Asserting they exist isn't the same as demonstrating they do.

>
> > > Your theory of evolution is shot to hell with
> > > creatures like the Aligator and the 300
> million
> > > year old Horse Shoe Crab who failed to
> 'evolve'
> > > and remained exactly the same,
> >
> > This is false. They have adapted to their
> > environment - which is why they are still
> around.
>
> Here we have the NON-FALSIFIABILITY / CIRCULAR
> REASONING of evolution.

I don't think you understand those terms.

> Every bit of evidence can be twisted to fit the
> theory. Consequently, Darwinian evolution cannot
> be falsified.

Darwinian evolution went out in the 1940's, with the modern synthesis.

Further, you are making vague claims here. Please be specific so that we can correct your errors.

> The clearest way a theory or hypothesis can be
> falsified is by testing.
>
> Richard Feynman: "The test of all knowledge is
> experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of
> scientific 'truth'."
>
> Here's an example:
>
> "A horse, even at full gallop, always has at least
> one hoof touching the ground."
>
> With the invention of photography, the proposition
> could be tested, and was proven wrong.


Okay...?



> What about: "Over time, humans evolved from
> bacteria."

No one actually puts this forth. This is what is called a 'strawman'.

>
>
> Can it be tested by experiment, the sole judge of
> scientific "truth"?
>
> What is that test and result, please?

We can test this strawman by watching bacteria evolve. Since it doesn't evolved into homo sapiens, such a saltationary theory is refuted.

However, I must point out that we *WERE* discussing evolutionary theory, which doesn't require humans to evolve from bacteria.

> > That said, you will have to prove they are
> > 'exactly the same'.
>
> No, YOU have to prove they've changed in any
> SUBSTANTIAL way to score anything more than a
> silly debating point.

No I don't. There is no requirement for such animals to change if they are adapted to their environment. What natural force would require a change?

Think about it.

>
>
> > > in the same
> > > climatic conditions as those who were
> supposedly
> > > evolving right around them.
> >
> > A normal person would look at this and think:
> Wow,
> > they are suited to their environment while
> those
> > other (now extinct) organisms were not.
>
> Circular reasoning.

Nonsense. Please spell it out.

>
> + Psychologist's fallacy:

No such fallacy. At best you could accuse me of an ad-hominem. However, I find it distressing that I would have to point that out for you, doing your homework for you, so-to-speak.

> A normal person would look at this think, why
> hasn't this organism evolved?
>
> > Creationists, on the other hand, some how think
> > that this somehow disproves evolution, in some
> > vague ill-defined way.
>
> NON-FALSIFIABILITY rears its ugly head again.

Nonsense, you are simply confused:

1. You are conflating common descent with the theory of evolution.
2. Natural selection is not the only selection pressure.
3. An easy way to falsify natural selection would be the lack of changing genomes or the lack of beneficial mutations.
4. An easy way to falsify common descent would be to find a homosapien fossil in the permian.

Your claims of non falsifiability are now moot. I've given TWO such tests.

> EVERY piece of evidence WILL be SHOE-HORNED to fit
> evolutionary theory.

Nonsense - this is a baseless assertion.

> It's easy, when you don't have to subject silly
> "just so" theories to experimental verification.
>
> > > Plus your theory of
> > > evolution has to allow for a 300 million year
> old
> > > UN-changed FROG, to just get up on it's hind
> legs
> > > and start carrying on a conversation with you
> like
> > > Kermit! And not only is that NOT the case,
> but
> > > the notion is as bonkers as the premise of
> > > evolution itself.
> >
> > Why *would* a frog need to adapt in this
> manner?
>
> Why *wouldn't* he?

Because there is no environmental change that would necessitate the frog's further adaptation.

Now why don't you answer the question?

> Why *would* a neanderthal "need" to adapt, and a
> chimpanzee or monkey or gorilla not "need" to?

Neanderthals would need to adapt because they were not *fit* for their environment - which is why they went extinct!

As to chimps and gorillas, they are adapted to their environments currently. They are doing fine. IF threatened with extinction they will either die out or adapt.

This isn't that hard.


> Because them chimps and monkeys and gorillas is
> just PERFECT as they is, right?

I wouldn't say perfect. After all, they do evolve with pressure exerted by parasites and such. They just don't speciate.

> Folks, that's what the theory says, so you just
> have to ACCEPT it, mm-kay?

Nonsense, you clearly don't understand the theory. Especially since you are conflating common descent with natural selection.

>
> > > Psssst, God's reality that HE created, allows
> for
> > > 'evolution' or things adapting or getting
> better
> > > also, not just your imaginary reality that
> 'just
> > > is'.
> >
> > This is a contradictory position to take. God
> > allows evolution to occur, yet according to
> you,
> > it doesn't. So is nature more powerful then
> God?
>
> He said God "allows for evolution or things
> adapting and getting better."

He also said that evolution had holes in it. He's trying to argue two different positions which contradict each other.

> Finches beak stuff.
>
> Not monkey-to-human stuff, which no one has seen,
> and can't be experimentally tested, and is
> therefore outside the scope of scientific "truth".

If you accept that natural selection happens, then logically, you have to accept that speciation happens. Especially since it has been witnessed. Look into ring species.

Also, this canard about needing to see something is absurd. No one has seen an atom - so does this mean we don't have atom bombs?


Your post is a prime example of why NO ONE should listen to creationists with regard to science. Creationists are ill informed and confused.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: chachabob ()
Date: August 23, 2010 02:45PM

Dont get me wrong, I believe in God (just disagree how and if we should relate to Him). I'm driven crazy by people whose entire argument for the existence of God is "Its too hard for me to understand..so it MUST be God"

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: The Truth ()
Date: August 23, 2010 02:51PM

God is great

Beer is good

and

People are crazy

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Remember ()
Date: August 23, 2010 02:57PM

So we should all just follow the professor and numbers because science is NEVER wrong.
Scientists never believed the earth was the center of the solar system or that the earth was flat.
So we should just accept everything that they teach even though none of it can be replicated in the lab as pointed out by troll.
The problem doesn't lie with evolution Within the same species, as pointed out, one species getting longer bird beak and such. Teh problem is one species creating an entirely new species. Two different types of evolution, I realize. One is possible, the other, hmmmmmmm.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 23, 2010 03:13PM

'Professor Thesaurus-Gloss" wrote:
>"However, I must point out that we *WERE* discussing evolutionary theory, which doesn't require humans to evolve from bacteria."

Actually it DOES!

>"No I don't. There is no requirement for such animals to change if they are adapted to their environment. What natural force would require a change?"

What NATURAL force? "EVOLUTION"

> "Nonsense. Please spell it out."

Well that is what your argument is, but since you insist; N-O-N-S-E-N-S-E

3. "An easy way to falsify natural selection would be the lack of changing genomes or the lack of beneficial mutations."

POINTLESS STATEMENT, basically you are proving 'Evolution' wrong with this statement.


4. "An easy way to falsify common descent would be to find a homosapien fossil in the permian."

Again POINTLESS STATEMENT, which permian?
This is how small of a scope you evolutionists have when it comes to creation, basically you are only capable of looking into OUR recent history. Not only must YOU prove that life on ANY planet is 'HAPPEN CHANCE' (who made the chance of life a possibility) you have to prove that the matter it is made out of "JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE"

So fuck your illogical bullshit.

>"Because there is no environmental change that would necessitate the frog's further adaptation."

Really? So where is the frogs sonar to detect bugs in zero light conditions? Where is his hard shell to keep him from getting crushed? And on and on. Are you telling me the frog lives/lived on a planet where adaptions such as these would not help? What planet is that? Are you from that planet also?


>"Neanderthals would need to adapt because they were not *fit* for their environment - which is why they went extinct!"

No actually they didn't go extinct, we are Neanderthals that have adapted to our new evironment by EVOLUTIONIST STANDARDS.



>" As to chimps and gorillas, they are adapted to their environments currently."

Really? So it would not bennefit them IN THEIR CURRENT EVIRONMENT to build homes?

>"They are doing fine. IF threatened with extinction they will either die out or adapt."
No they won't die out, by your theory we came from them. So by your standards an elephant might get lost in the woods tomorrow and start eating banannas and living in the trees. Evolution doesn't allow for the possiblilty of extinction!

> "He also said that evolution had holes in it. He's trying to argue two different positions which contradict each other."

Not only does evolution have holes in it, so does your argument that evolution DIS-proves creation of matter AND your theory that God can't create creatures and allow for species to adapt and get better. Somewhere along the line you decided that is something only CHANCE can bring to fruitition. Not only is YOUR mode of thought contadictory but it is illogical (and asinine) in itself.

>"If you accept that natural selection happens, then logically, you have to accept that speciation happens. Especially since it has been witnessed. Look into ring species."

What is your point? Evolution DOES NOT allow for 'speciation'. We all have to be distant mutations of a 'just so happens to be'-bacteria cell, in some mythological primordial soup.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 23, 2010 04:07PM

Remember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So we should all just follow the professor and
> numbers because science is NEVER wrong.

Of course not - however you should be well versed in the material before you decide to declare that 10's of thousands of scientists who have studied the material for their entire lives is wrong.

> Scientists never believed the earth was the center
> of the solar system or that the earth was flat.

Kind of using the term 'scientist' loosely there, aren't you?

> So we should just accept everything that they
> teach even though none of it can be replicated in
> the lab as pointed out by troll.

What the troll said is factually false. Speciation has been witnessed. So, yeah, evolution/natural selection CAN and HAS been replicated in the lab.

> The problem doesn't lie with evolution Within the
> same species, as pointed out, one species getting
> longer bird beak and such. Teh problem is one
> species creating an entirely new species. Two
> different types of evolution, I realize. One is
> possible, the other, hmmmmmmm.

This is a distinction without a difference. I've already pointed out that the species line is 'blurred' (ex. Ring Species). If you accept natural selection (microevolution) then logically you have to accept macroevolution. Since macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolutionary 'steps'.

What you and Troll are confusing with evolution is called saltation.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 23, 2010 04:08PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'Professor Thesaurus-Gloss" wrote:
> >"However, I must point out that we *WERE*
> discussing evolutionary theory, which doesn't
> require humans to evolve from bacteria."
>
> Actually it DOES!

No, it doesn't and you know it. You are a Poe. Discussion over.

Responding to you is a waste of time. Happy trails.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 23, 2010 04:40PM

Professor Idiot-Gloss wrote:
> yeah, evolution/natural selection CAN and HAS been replicated in the lab.

IN THE LAB? Are you retarded?



And I'm a 'Poe' why don't you elaborate?

Why? Because you kn0w you are wrong.

INDEED, discussion OVER.

You LOSE!


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: ITRADE ()
Date: August 23, 2010 04:45PM

So how does a benevolent God let 1 and 2 year old kids be drowned by their moms?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 23, 2010 04:48PM

God has a place for those people who CHOOSE TO do the bad things you speak of.

YOU KNOW THAT, oh yee benevolent one.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Popper for the Peeps ()
Date: August 24, 2010 12:02AM

Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > Further, if this supposition is true, then it
> > > rules out God creating matter. You can be
> > > intellectually honest AND pick and choose which
> > > science to believe.
> >
> > How in HELL does the fact a scientist can't create
> > matter rule out GOD creating matter?
>
> I don't know - I didn't put this forth. Why don't
> you explain?

Then what was the supposition you were referring to, which you claim "rules out God creating matter"?


> > Miracles everywhere in this bitch.
>
> There's no evidence of miracles. Asserting they
> exist isn't the same as demonstrating they do.

There is certainly *evidence* of miracles; proof is a different question.

Anyway, that was a reference to a song lyric = joke.


> > > > Your theory of evolution is shot to hell with
> > > > creatures like the Aligator and the 300 million
> > > > year old Horse Shoe Crab who failed to 'evolve'
> > > > and remained exactly the same,
> > >
> > > This is false. They have adapted to their
> > > environment - which is why they are still around.
> >
> > Here we have the NON-FALSIFIABILITY / CIRCULAR
> > REASONING of evolution.
>
> I don't think you understand those terms.

Non-falsifiability: whatever phenomena occur will be said to be consistent with evolutionary theory.

Circular reasoning: an argument that assumes what it's trying to prove, eg., because all phenomena are consistent with evolutionary theory, evolutionary stasis does not present a problem.


> > Every bit of evidence can be twisted to fit the
> > theory. Consequently, Darwinian evolution cannot
> > be falsified.
>
> Darwinian evolution went out in the 1940's, with
> the modern synthesis.

The same critique applies to neo-Darwinism.


> Further, you are making vague claims here. Please
> be specific so that we can correct your errors.

The royal "we"?


> > The clearest way a theory or hypothesis can be
> > falsified is by testing.
> >
> > Richard Feynman: "The test of all knowledge is
> > experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of
> > scientific 'truth'."
> >
> > Here's an example:
> >
> > "A horse, even at full gallop, always has at least
> > one hoof touching the ground."
> >
> > With the invention of photography, the proposition
> > could be tested, and was proven wrong.
>
>
> Okay...?

I provide this clear example of falsifiability as a counterpoint to my next example, which establishes that macroevolution - humans descent (or evolution) from monkeys - as distinguished from finches beak microevolution, HAS NOT and CANNOT be proved by experiment, and thus fails to meet the sole test for judging scientific "truth."


> > What about: "Over time, humans evolved from
> > bacteria."
>
> No one actually puts this forth.

In fact, they do: "Evolutionary biologists generally agree that humans and other living species are descended from bacterialike ancestors." http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/science/03zimm.html


> This is what is called a 'strawman'.

Actually, your strawman claim is false, per above.


> > Can it be tested by experiment, the sole judge of
> > scientific "truth"?
> >
> > What is that test and result, please?
>
> We can test this strawman...

As noted, there is no strawman here.


> ...by watching bacteria evolve.

And what exactly does "watching bacteria evolve" have to do with testing the proposition that "humans and other living species are descended from bacterialike ancestors"?


> Since it doesn't evolved into homo
> sapiens, such a saltationary theory is refuted.

The claim "Over time, humans evolved from bacteria" does not in any way involve an assertion of saltationism (although your assertion that it does is a nice example of an actual strawman argument).

It states nothing more or less than the proposition asserted in the above-quoted passage from the New York Times.

Such evolution, or descent from bacteria (or bacterialike ancestors) has never been seen,* and cannot be experimentally tested, and therefore the claim lies outside the scope of scientific "truth."


> Since it doesn't evolved into homo
> sapiens, such a saltationary theory is refuted.

You do realize that saying that you have not observed bacteria evolve into homo sapiens supports my point that evolutionary claims - such as humans evolved (or descended, if you prefer) from bacteria - cannot be tested, and therefore, per Feynman, such claims are outside the scope of scientific "truth."


> However, I must point out that we *WERE*
> discussing evolutionary theory, which doesn't
> require humans to evolve from bacteria.

Yes it does.

To wit: "Evolutionary biologists generally agree that humans and other living species are descended from bacterialike ancestors."
(Cf: "we have evolved from bacteria-like organisms" Soft Machines: Nanotechnology and Life, p. 7.)


> > > That said, you will have to prove they are
> > > 'exactly the same'.
> >
> > No, YOU have to prove they've changed in any
> > SUBSTANTIAL way to score anything more than a
> > silly debating point.
>
> No I don't.

Then why did you insist he had to prove "they are 'exactly the same' "?


> There is no requirement for such
> animals to change if they are adapted to their
> environment. What natural force would require a
> change? Think about it.

Alligators jump to escape predators or gather food. So the evolution of wings would provide a competitive advantage. They could have evolved wings along the (fanciful, evidence-free) lines Dawkins proposes ("Perhaps birds began by leaping off the ground." Climbing Mount Improbable, p. 126).

Such a counterfactual is no more dubious than the entirely speculative - untested and untestable - series of events Dawkins proposes for the evolution of flight.

Thus, again, evolution is practically non-falsifiable. If alligators had wings, you would say, well, that's evolution, an adaptation to their environment.

Their evolutionary stasis is explained likewise.


> > > > in the same
> > > > climatic conditions as those who were supposedly
> > > > evolving right around them.
> > >
> > > A normal person would look at this and think: Wow,
> > > they are suited to their environment while those
> > > other (now extinct) organisms were not.
> >
> > Circular reasoning.
>
> Nonsense. Please spell it out.

You assume what you pretend to prove: That a "normal person" would look at the relevant phenomenon and react as you do, rather than asking themselves "why hasn't this organism evolved?"


> > + Psychologist's fallacy:
>
> No such fallacy.

Au contraire. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fallacy

The application here is that you presume a third-party would react to the phenomenon in question (evolutionary stasis in alligators) in the same way that you do; you then use that fallacious inference as a basis for dismissing the views of third parties who interpret the phenomenon differently.


> At best you could accuse me of an ad-hominem.

There's perhaps an implied ad-hominem, but not an express one; and that's not really where the fallacy lies.


> However, I find it distressing that I
> would have to point that out for you, doing your
> homework for you, so-to-speak.

Rather, I had to do your homework for you.

I trust you're suitably distressed by this development?


> > A normal person would look at this think, why
> > hasn't this organism evolved?
> >
> > > Creationists, on the other hand, some how think
> > > that this somehow disproves evolution, in some
> > > vague ill-defined way.
> >
> > NON-FALSIFIABILITY rears its ugly head again.
>
> Nonsense, you are simply confused:
>
> 1. You are conflating common descent with the theory of evolution.

Common descent and the theory of evolution are intimately connected. The modern synthesis presumes common descent. What point have I made that depends on a "conflation" of common descent and the theory of evolution beyond that conflation which the modern synthesis presupposes?


> 2. Natural selection is not the only selection pressure.

I haven't asserted that it is.


> 3. An easy way to falsify natural selection would
> be the lack of changing genomes or the lack of
> beneficial mutations.

Please clarify what you mean by "the lack of changing genomes."

A "lack of beneficial mutations" is in the eye of the beholder. If longer necks gave giraffes an evolutionary advantage, how do we account for the survival of cattle, deer and other short-necked cousins? Why, their shorter necks gave them an advantage, too.

(I don't dispute "beneficial mutations" of the finches beak variety.)


> 4. An easy way to falsify common descent would be
> to find a homosapien fossil in the permian.

This is a variation on Haldane's Precambrian rabbits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit

There are several problems with your test that render it unworkable.

First, it sets up impossible criteria, equivalent to asserting that the claim "all swans are white" could be falsified by finding a black swan in Europe (of course, the black swan which did falsify the claim was found in Australia).

In this case, we know via natural history - separate from evolutionary theory - that homosapiens (earliest specimens circa 450,000 - 200,000 years ago) did not exist during the Paleozoic Era (570 - 225 million years ago). Thus the supposed test sets up impossible criteria.

Second, when actually faced with anomalous evidence, evolutionists in fact engage in "ad hoc tinkering and exceptions in order to make them fit," as did geocentrists with their epicycles. http://www.anthro.psu.edu/weiss_lab/CQ1_WeHoldTheseTruths.pdf

For example, the discovery of grass in dinosaur dung, contrary to the belief that grass evolved some 10 million years after the dinosaur died out. The theory is always flexible enough to incorporate such anomalies.


> Your claims of non falsifiability are now moot.
> I've given TWO such tests.

And both fail (I await your clarification on the "lack of changing genomes" issue).


> > EVERY piece of evidence WILL be SHOE-HORNED to fit
> > evolutionary theory.
>
> Nonsense - this is a baseless assertion.

See my comments below re your treatment of the problem of evolutionary stasis.


Popper for the Peeps Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > It's easy, when you don't have to subject silly
> > "just so" theories to experimental verification.

And since you don't subject your theories to experimental verification, it is very easy to advance dubious, unfalsifiable claims.


Professor Pangloss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > > > Plus your theory of
> > > > evolution has to allow for a 300 million year old
> > > > UN-changed FROG, to just get up on it's hind legs
> > > > and start carrying on a conversation with you like
> > > > Kermit! And not only is that NOT the case, but
> > > > the notion is as bonkers as the premise of
> > > > evolution itself.
> > >
> > > Why *would* a frog need to adapt in this manner?
> >
> > Why *wouldn't* he?
>
> Because there is no environmental change that
> would necessitate the frog's further adaptation.
> Now why don't you answer the question?

First of all, your point is ill-stated in that "the needs that arise during an organism’s life do not induce mutations to satisfy those needs" (Lamarckianism). http://www.anthro.psu.edu/weiss_lab/CQ1_WeHoldTheseTruths.pdf

Second, contrary to your blithe dismissal of the issues, "patterns of stasis in the fossil record constitute a genuine problem for evolutionary theory" http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/stasis.pdf, indeed stasis is "one of the most important unsolved problems of evolutionary biology" http://www.bio.fsu.edu/~dhoule/Publications/HansenHoulestasisfinal.pdf, and may be more difficult to explain than evolution itself. http://www.anthro.psu.edu/weiss_lab/CQ1_WeHoldTheseTruths.pdf

In short, unlike yourself, I don't pretend to have an answer to an unsolved problem.


> > Why *would* a neanderthal "need" to adapt, and a
> > chimpanzee or monkey or gorilla not "need" to?
>
> Neanderthals would need to adapt because they were
> not *fit* for their environment - which is why
> they went extinct!

There are other theories. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinction_hypotheses#Interbreeding


> As to chimps and gorillas, they are adapted to
> their environments currently. They are doing fine.
> IF threatened with extinction they will either die
> out or adapt.
>
> This isn't that hard.

It's not hard for you because you refuse to acknowledge that evolutionary stasis is a problem, indeed an unsolved problem.


> > Because them chimps and monkeys and gorillas is
> > just PERFECT as they is, right?
>
> I wouldn't say perfect. After all, they do evolve
> with pressure exerted by parasites and such. They
> just don't speciate.

You don't see a problem with a species remaining evolutionarily static.

Real scientists do, however.


> > Folks, that's what the theory says, so you just
> > have to ACCEPT it, mm-kay?
>
> Nonsense, you clearly don't understand the theory.
> Especially since you are conflating common descent
> with natural selection.

Common descent and natural selection are intimately intertwined. Please provide a specific, non-trivial example of my conflating the terms.


> > > > Psssst, God's reality that HE created, allows for
> > > > 'evolution' or things adapting or getting better
> > > > also, not just your imaginary reality that 'just is'.
> > >
> > > This is a contradictory position to take. God
> > > allows evolution to occur, yet according to you,
> > > it doesn't. So is nature more powerful then God?
> >
> > He said God "allows for evolution or things
> > adapting and getting better."
>
> He also said that evolution had holes in it.

Did he literally use the word "holes"? Is it clear he was referring to microevolution and not macroevolution?


> He's trying to argue two different positions which
> contradict each other.

Iirc, his claims can be reconciled by analyzing them through the micro vs. macroevolution lens.


> > Finches beak stuff.
> >
> > Not monkey-to-human stuff, which no one has seen,
> > and can't be experimentally tested, and is
> > therefore outside the scope of scientific "truth".
>
> If you accept that natural selection happens, then
> logically, you have to accept that speciation
> happens.

The issue is whether it can be experimentally tested, the touchstone of scientific "truth."

Variations in the size of the finches beak - mircoevolution - can be directly observed.*

Monkey-to-human stuff - macroevolution - has not been observed, and cannot be tested

It is therefore outside the scope of scientific "truth."


> Especially since it has been witnessed.
> Look into ring species.

It has not been demonstrated that this is anything more than a problem in taxonomy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species#Problem_of_definition


> Also, this canard about needing to see something
> is absurd. No one has seen an atom - so does this
> mean we don't have atom bombs?

My position turns on whether a theory can be tested by scientific experiment, not whether we need to "see something."*

Thus theories involving the atom, which we cannot see, *can* be tested: in the atom bomb, as you note, and in a robust variety of tests besides: http://science.jrank.org/pages/620/Atomic-Models-Discovery-electron.html


*Which is not to say that seeing is irrelevant. At the first level of analysis, simply being able to see something can silence debate: nobody disputes gorillas exist, as we can all see them; people denied black swans existed until they were actually seen; people doubt the existence of the Loch Ness Monster because few have actually seen the creature -- if everyone saw it, in the same way we see whales on a whale watch, there would be no controversy as to its existence. Not all matters lend themselves to such analysis - eg, atoms - but many do, and the "seeing is believing" principle can act as a convenient Occam's Razor with respect to the truth content of many claims.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Melissa ()
Date: August 24, 2010 12:13AM

WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If SoulStirrer sees the point made by Epicurus,
> but disagrees with it, does that make him
> bi-Epicurus?


Ha! That was funny.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Being vague is almost as fun as that other thing.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Math Tutor ()
Date: August 24, 2010 12:15AM

Melissa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WashingTone-Locian Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > If SoulStirrer sees the point made by Epicurus,
> > but disagrees with it, does that make him
> > bi-Epicurus?
>
>
> Ha! That was funny.


Melissa=Eli=She Devil

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 02:53AM

Professor Idiot-Gloss wrote:
>"This is a distinction without a difference. I've already pointed out that the species line is 'blurred' (ex. Ring Species). If you accept natural selection (microevolution) then logically you have to accept macroevolution.Since macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolutionary 'steps'.
What you and Troll are confusing with evolution is called SALTATION."


Saltation IS a THEORY OF EVOLUTION, where supporters claim our beginings as bacteria were spawned through a huge and sudden UNEXPLAINABLE change in genetics, but then conveniently attribute all our later mutations to neo-Darwinian 'Gradualism'.

Evolutionist essentially make up the rules as they go.



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 07:55AM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Idiot-Gloss wrote:
> > yeah, evolution/natural selection CAN and HAS
> been replicated in the lab.
>
> IN THE LAB? Are you retarded?
>
>
>
> And I'm a 'Poe' why don't you elaborate?
>
> Why? Because you kn0w you are wrong.
>
> INDEED, discussion OVER.
>
> You LOSE!
>
>
> .

Yes, the discussion is over since you are a Poe. Either that or you are far to ignorant to discuss these topics with. To do so would be a waste of time. You haven't even taken the preliminary step to understand what it is that you are disagreeing with. You are clearly unfamiliar with what the theory of evolution is and how it is distinct from the fact of common descent. You are clearly unfamiliar with empirical evidence and what evidences we have to support the theory of evolution. To instruct you on these topics would take years, since I would inevitably have to go over high school biology with you.

In the end, you don't care enough to actually learn anything.

Hence, it's a waste of time.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Remember ()
Date: August 24, 2010 09:17AM

Pangloss, it appears to me that you are stating that you agree with the theory of evolution (microevolution), but not the theory of descent and saltation. Is that correct? You defend the one by distinguishing it from the other.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 09:38AM

Popper for the Peeps Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > > Further, if this supposition is true, then
> it
> > > > rules out God creating matter. You can be
> > > > intellectually honest AND pick and choose
> which
> > > > science to believe.
> > >
> > > How in HELL does the fact a scientist can't
> create
> > > matter rule out GOD creating matter?
> >
> > I don't know - I didn't put this forth. Why
> don't
> > you explain?
>
> Then what was the supposition you were referring
> to, which you claim "rules out God creating
> matter"?
>

You are now moving the goal posts. I didn't make the claim that sense scientists can't create matter therefore God cannot.

It was pointed out that matter cannot be created or destroyed. I then pointed out that if this were true, then God could not do it either.

You can't say X is impossible and then claim that God can do X.

That's a contradictory position to take.

Get it?


> > > Miracles everywhere in this bitch.
> >
> > There's no evidence of miracles. Asserting they
> > exist isn't the same as demonstrating they do.
>
> There is certainly *evidence* of miracles; proof
> is a different question.
>
> Anyway, that was a reference to a song lyric =
> joke.
>
>

There is no credible or reasonable evidence to support the existence of miracles. For a start, the term would have to have a reasonable definition. I doubt that one can be given.

> > > > > Your theory of evolution is shot to hell
> with
> > > > > creatures like the Aligator and the 300
> million
> > > > > year old Horse Shoe Crab who failed to
> 'evolve'
> > > > > and remained exactly the same,
> > > >
> > > > This is false. They have adapted to their
> > > > environment - which is why they are still
> around.
> > >
> > > Here we have the NON-FALSIFIABILITY /
> CIRCULAR
> > > REASONING of evolution.
> >
> > I don't think you understand those terms.
>
> Non-falsifiability: whatever phenomena occur will
> be said to be consistent with evolutionary
> theory.

Exactly - **you don't understand the term**. Falsifiability refers to the idea that a claim *can* be tested and shown false. So if something is non falsifiable that means there is no possible way to prove it false. There are ways to prove that the theory of evolution is false, the problem for creationists is that they haven't done so.


>
> Circular reasoning: an argument that assumes what
> it's trying to prove, eg., because all phenomena
> are consistent with evolutionary theory,
> evolutionary stasis does not present a problem.

This is hopelessly confused. Circular reasoning does assume what it is trying to prove - that part is correct. However, stating that empirical evidence (ie, 'all phenomenon') are consistent with evolutionary theory is *not* "assuming" what it is trying to prove, it's *empirically demonstrating it*!

As to 'evolutionary stasis', you have not shown how it's an actual problem - you've simply asserted that it is. This is similar to me saying that the moon's orbit is a problem for gravity.


> > > Every bit of evidence can be twisted to fit
> the
> > > theory. Consequently, Darwinian evolution
> cannot
> > > be falsified.
> >
> > Darwinian evolution went out in the 1940's,
> with
> > the modern synthesis.
>
> The same critique applies to neo-Darwinism.

Nonsense, you didn't even know there was a modern synthesis, yet you are now declaring that the same critique applies?! That's hubris.


>
> > Further, you are making vague claims here.
> Please
> > be specific so that we can correct your errors.
>
> The royal "we"?

Should "we" take your inability to be specific as an admission that you cannot be specific?

> > > The clearest way a theory or hypothesis can
> be
> > > falsified is by testing.
> > >
> > > Richard Feynman: "The test of all knowledge
> is
> > > experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of
> > > scientific 'truth'."
> > >
> > > Here's an example:
> > >
> > > "A horse, even at full gallop, always has at
> least
> > > one hoof touching the ground."
> > >
> > > With the invention of photography, the
> proposition
> > > could be tested, and was proven wrong.
> >
> >
> > Okay...?
>
> I provide this clear example of falsifiability as
> a counterpoint to my next example, which
> establishes that macroevolution - humans descent
> (or evolution) from monkeys - as distinguished
> from finches beak microevolution, HAS NOT and
> CANNOT be proved by experiment, and thus fails to
> meet the sole test for judging scientific
> "truth."

This is a strawman. Again, logically speaking, macroevolution is an inevitability if you accept microevolution and speciation. Both of which have been witnessed.

Your argument holds as much water as saying that fission doesn't actually happen because we don't directly observe it. Never mind the indirect evidence.

>
> > > What about: "Over time, humans evolved from
> > > bacteria."
> >
> > No one actually puts this forth.
>
> In fact, they do: "Evolutionary biologists
> generally agree that humans and other living
> species are descended from bacterialike
> ancestors."
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/03/science/03zimm.h
> tml


This is called a quote mine, here's the full context:

"Evolutionary biologists generally agree that humans and other living species are descended from bacterialike ancestors. But before about two billion years ago, human ancestors branched off."

Notice that it says *human ANCESTORS*, not HUMANS. What this is saying is that our distant ancestors, several millions of generation back, were bacteria. This makes sense.

The claim that humans evolved from bacteria *DOES NOT* make sense, since it suggests that a bacteria gave birth to a human being.

This is a nice example of a creationist sleigh of hand, a dishonest distortion of what science actually says.

This should serve as further evidence that one should always be weary of anything a creationist says. They are dishonest.

>
> > This is what is called a 'strawman'.
>
> Actually, your strawman claim is false, per
> above.

No, actually it is a fair assessment. The article suggests a distant relative, your *wording* suggests that scientists believe that bacteria give birth to humans.

Again, this is why people should be careful when reading creationist material. Creationists are dishonest.

>
> > > Can it be tested by experiment, the sole judge
> of
> > > scientific "truth"?
> > >
> > > What is that test and result, please?
> >
> > We can test this strawman...
>
> As noted, there is no strawman here.
>
>
> > ...by watching bacteria evolve.
>
> And what exactly does "watching bacteria evolve"
> have to do with testing the proposition that
> "humans and other living species are descended
> from bacterialike ancestors"?

It shows the mechanism of descent. The *HOW* of evolutionary theory. You do realize that evolutionary theory is an explanation, don't you? Your question here betrays a deep ignorance of science.

You confuse evolutionary theory with the fact of common descent. This is YET another reason not to simply trust creationists. When they are not being overtly dishonest, they are ignorant of what they are talking about.

Common descent - the fact that all animals are related to each other, is evidenced by multiple lines of evidence. One powerful piece is the twin nested heirarchy.


>
> > Since it doesn't evolved into homo
> > sapiens, such a saltationary theory is refuted.
>
> The claim "Over time, humans evolved from
> bacteria" does not in any way involve an assertion
> of saltationism (although your assertion that it
> does is a nice example of an actual strawman
> argument).

Your quote mine has been exposed, your dishonesty out in the open, as evidenced above.


> It states nothing more or less than the
> proposition asserted in the above-quoted passage
> from the New York Times.
>
> Such evolution, or descent from bacteria (or
> bacterialike ancestors) has never been seen,* and
> cannot be experimentally tested, and therefore the
> claim lies outside the scope of scientific
> "truth."

This, again, betrays a misunderstanding of science. Facts, evidence, etc, does not have to be directly witnessed. If it did, gravity, atoms, *CRIMES*, would all be on shaky epistemic grounds!

Further, as pointed out repeatedly, the claims of evolutionary theory AND common descent have been 'tested'. Ring species, the Nylon bug, twin nested heirarchy, etc, etc.

This is a further example of why we shouldn't trust creationists - they are either ignorant of science or far too lazy to actually look anything up.

>
> > Since it doesn't evolved into homo
> > sapiens, such a saltationary theory is refuted.
>
> You do realize that saying that you have not
> observed bacteria evolve into homo sapiens
> supports my point that evolutionary claims - such
> as humans evolved (or descended, if you prefer)
> from bacteria - cannot be tested, and therefore,
> per Feynman, such claims are outside the scope of
> scientific "truth."
>

Notice the rhetorical sleigh of hand here? the article states that bacteria and humans have a common ancestor - NOT THAT BACTERIA GAVE BIRTH TO HUMANS. Yet "Popper for the Peeps" simply lies and states that no one has observed bacteria evolve into homo sapiens!

No one, but ignorant and dishonest creationists make this claim! Let's review the article Popper for the Peeps posted:

"Evolutionary biologists generally agree that humans and other living species are descended from bacterialike ancestors. But before about two billion years ago, human ancestors branched off.

This new group, called eukaryotes, also gave rise to other animals, plants, fungi and protozoans. The differences between eukaryotes and other organisms, known as prokaryotes, are numerous and profound. Dr. Lynch, a biologist at Indiana University, is one of many scientists pondering how those differences evolved."

So Popper, are you ignorant or lying?

>
> > However, I must point out that we *WERE*
> > discussing evolutionary theory, which doesn't
> > require humans to evolve from bacteria.
>
> Yes it does.
>
> To wit: "Evolutionary biologists generally agree
> that humans and other living species are descended
> from bacterialike ancestors."
> (Cf: "we have evolved from bacteria-like
> organisms" Soft Machines: Nanotechnology and Life,
> p. 7.)

You seem deeply confused. For a start, I didn't see that on the page. For a second, 'evolved from', means that in the history of the planet, over 2 billion years (or so), one of our distant ancestors was a bacteria-like organism.

This is NOT equivalent to your claim:

"You do realize that saying that you have not observed bacteria evolve into homo sapiens"

Understand?

> > > > That said, you will have to prove they are
> > > > 'exactly the same'.
> > >
> > > No, YOU have to prove they've changed in any
> > > SUBSTANTIAL way to score anything more than a
> > > silly debating point.
> >
> > No I don't.
>
> Then why did you insist he had to prove "they are
> 'exactly the same' "?

Why would I? He has the burden of proof to back up his contention. He didn't do it. Further, he (and you) couldn't show how stasis actually showed natural selection was incorrect.

In short, it would be a waste of my time to dig up the proper citations, since even if I did so, it would add nothing to the discussion.

>
> > There is no requirement for such
> > animals to change if they are adapted to their
> > environment. What natural force would require a
> > change? Think about it.
>
> Alligators jump to escape predators or gather
> food. So the evolution of wings would provide a
> competitive advantage. They could have evolved
> wings along the (fanciful, evidence-free) lines
> Dawkins proposes ("Perhaps birds began by leaping
> off the ground." Climbing Mount Improbable, p.
> 126).

1. Evolution doesn't work off of what an organism might 'want'. There would have to be existing structures that would incrementally evolve into 'wings'. There is no selective pressure for an alligator to evolve wings.
2. What 'predators' are you referring to?
3. The development of wings in organisms which already had feathers and extra skin that would enable gliding would give an adaptive advantage.

It's completely unclear how such a structure would get selected for in the alligator. Their primary environment is in the water, for Zeus's sake.

This is a completely retarded red herring.

> Such a counterfactual is no more dubious than the
> entirely speculative - untested and untestable -
> series of events Dawkins proposes for the
> evolution of flight.
>
> Thus, again, evolution is practically
> non-falsifiable. If alligators had wings, you
> would say, well, that's evolution, an adaptation
> to their environment.
>
> Their evolutionary stasis is explained likewise.


Again, you misunderstand the terms you are using. I've pointed out that there is no reason for alligators to have wings. I'll also point out that if they did that would make them ILL SUITED for their primary environment.

In short, this line of reasoning is simply retarded. It is an insult to the intelligence of those who are reading.

>
> > > > > in the same
> > > > > climatic conditions as those who were
> supposedly
> > > > > evolving right around them.
> > > >
> > > > A normal person would look at this and
> think: Wow,
> > > > they are suited to their environment while
> those
> > > > other (now extinct) organisms were not.
> > >
> > > Circular reasoning.
> >
> > Nonsense. Please spell it out.
>
> You assume what you pretend to prove: That a
> "normal person" would look at the relevant
> phenomenon and react as you do, rather than asking
> themselves "why hasn't this organism evolved?"

*sigh*, do you wish me to point out that the majority of scientists (and Christians!) accept evolutionary theory?

If someone asked 'why hasn't this organism evolved', that someone would be betraying ignorance to what the theory of evolution maintains. I do not assume that the average person is an idiot.

Why do you?

Let's look at the Coelacant - an organism that creationists claim has not changed, the following from here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html

"Response:

1. The modern coelacanth is Latimeria chalumnae, in the family Latimeriidae. Fossil coelacanths are in other families, mostly Coelacanthidae, and are significantly different in that they are smaller and lack certain internal structures. Latimeria has no fossil record, so it cannot be a "living fossil."

2. Even if the modern coelacanth and fossil coelacanths were the same, it would not be a serious problem for evolution. The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.

3. Coelacanths have primitive features relative to most other fish, so at one time they were one of the closest known specimens to the fish-tetrapod transition. We now know several other fossils that show the fish-tetrapod transition quite well. "

Pay attention to number TWO.

>
>
> > > + Psychologist's fallacy:
> >
> > No such fallacy.
>
> Au contraire.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychologist%27s_fall
> acy

Fair enough, you've finally demonstrated I was wrong on something.

> The application here is that you presume a
> third-party would react to the phenomenon in
> question (evolutionary stasis in alligators) in
> the same way that you do; you then use that
> fallacious inference as a basis for dismissing the
> views of third parties who interpret the
> phenomenon differently.

I would assume that the third party is familiar with evolutionary theory, hence they would recognize when an absurd claim was being made. In short, I assume people are intelligent.

Let's also remember, that alligators HAVE evolved. In fact, there are two living species of alligators!

After all, they are no longer Crurotarsans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crurotarsi), are they?


Again, never trust creationists - they are either intentionally dishonest or too lazy to do research!

>
> > At best you could accuse me of an ad-hominem.
>
> There's perhaps an implied ad-hominem, but not an
> express one; and that's not really where the
> fallacy lies.
>
>
> > However, I find it distressing that I
> > would have to point that out for you, doing
> your
> > homework for you, so-to-speak.
>
> Rather, I had to do your homework for you.
>
> I trust you're suitably distressed by this
> development?

I'm distressed that you haven't done ANY homework in regards to evolution.

You seem to think that none of the following existed (evolutionary ancestors of modern alligators):

Longosuchus meani (an aetosaur), Angistorhinus grandis, (a phytosaur), Saurosuchus galilei (a rauisuchian), Pedeticosaurus leviseuri (a sphenosuchian), Chenanisuchus lateroculi (a dyrosaurid), and Dakosaurus maximus (a thalattosuchian).


> > > A normal person would look at this think, why
> > > hasn't this organism evolved?
> > >
> > > > Creationists, on the other hand, some how
> think
> > > > that this somehow disproves evolution, in
> some
> > > > vague ill-defined way.
> > >
> > > NON-FALSIFIABILITY rears its ugly head again.
> >
> > Nonsense, you are simply confused:
> >
> > 1. You are conflating common descent with the
> theory of evolution.
>
> Common descent and the theory of evolution are
> intimately connected.

Only in that evolutionary theory EXPLAINS common descent. However, the point is you confuse the two.

> The modern synthesis
> presumes common descent. What point have I made
> that depends on a "conflation" of common descent
> and the theory of evolution beyond that conflation
> which the modern synthesis presupposes?

I've repeatedly pointed out your conflation. You confuse the theory with the fact - you ask for how natural selection proves common descent. You (attempt) point out that alligators have not evolved (an outright lie) in an attempt to discredit common descent.

Let's suppose that alligators not evolving did disprove natural selection (somehow). Would this mean that common descent is not a fact?

Not at all. All it would do is leave a hole in how we explain common descent. It would not magically erase the evidence we have for common descent (nested heirarchy, for example).

>
> > 2. Natural selection is not the only selection
> pressure.
>
> I haven't asserted that it is.
>
> > 3. An easy way to falsify natural selection
> would
> > be the lack of changing genomes or the lack of
> > beneficial mutations.
>
> Please clarify what you mean by "the lack of
> changing genomes."

One way to show natural selection to be false would be if the genome didn't change when it was transmitted. If this were the case, then nature could not 'select' any differences to 'favor' one organism over another.

> A "lack of beneficial mutations" is in the eye of
> the beholder. If longer necks gave giraffes an
> evolutionary advantage, how do we account for the
> survival of cattle, deer and other short-necked
> cousins? Why, their shorter necks gave them an
> advantage, too.

WTF?

Do cattle, deer, etc directly compete with giraffes? Further, longer necks aren't what I was referring to, since that would be an accumulation of various mutations, some of which could have been neutral.

>
> (I don't dispute "beneficial mutations" of the
> finches beak variety.)

?

I think you are confusing beneficial mutations with adaptations. They are not necessarily the same.

>
> > 4. An easy way to falsify common descent would
> be
> > to find a homosapien fossil in the permian.
>
> This is a variation on Haldane's Precambrian
> rabbits.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit
>
> There are several problems with your test that
> render it unworkable.
>
> First, it sets up impossible criteria, equivalent
> to asserting that the claim "all swans are white"
> could be falsified by finding a black swan in
> Europe (of course, the black swan which did
> falsify the claim was found in Australia).

Negative, it's simply one quick way to bring doubt. Your problem is that you assume that just because evolutionary theory is falsifiable that means it must be falsified.

You are begging the question.

>
> In this case, we know via natural history -
> separate from evolutionary theory - that
> homosapiens (earliest specimens circa 450,000 -
> 200,000 years ago) did not exist during the
> Paleozoic Era (570 - 225 million years ago). Thus
> the supposed test sets up impossible criteria.

It's 'impossible' because it doesn't align with what we've found. You realize that this is why evolution *passes* the falsifiability test.

You are, again, confusing the ability to be falsified with BEING falsified.

Your point here doesn't absolve this and it's quite odd that you bring it up.


> Second, when actually faced with anomalous
> evidence, evolutionists in fact engage in "ad hoc
> tinkering and exceptions in order to make them
> fit," as did geocentrists with their epicycles.
> http://www.anthro.psu.edu/weiss_lab/CQ1_WeHoldThes
> eTruths.pdf

Ad hom and not impressive since you can't even get it straight what evolution *IS*.

> For example, the discovery of grass in dinosaur
> dung, contrary to the belief that grass evolved
> some 10 million years after the dinosaur died out.
> The theory is always flexible enough to
> incorporate such anomalies.

This is a vague claim. The point that was brought up in your article is that if we found an anamoly, we would have to investigate it. The same goes for this claim.

>
> > Your claims of non falsifiability are now moot.
> > I've given TWO such tests.
>
> And both fail (I await your clarification on the
> "lack of changing genomes" issue).

Negative, you haven't shown how they failed. You've shown that they've passed the test (ie, by demonstrating that there were no humans back then).

Again, you confuse falsifiability WITH falsification!

>
> > > EVERY piece of evidence WILL be SHOE-HORNED to
> fit
> > > evolutionary theory.
> >
> > Nonsense - this is a baseless assertion.
>
> See my comments below re your treatment of the
> problem of evolutionary stasis.

I see my comments, I also see your baseless assertions and your complete misunderstanding of how evolution works.

Your ignorance is no basis for rejecting the theory!

>
> Popper for the Peeps Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > It's easy, when you don't have to subject
> silly
> > > "just so" theories to experimental
> verification.
>
> And since you don't subject your theories to
> experimental verification, it is very easy to
> advance dubious, unfalsifiable claims.
>
>
> Professor Pangloss Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > > > Plus your theory of
> > > > > evolution has to allow for a 300 million
> year old
> > > > > UN-changed FROG, to just get up on it's
> hind legs
> > > > > and start carrying on a conversation with
> you like
> > > > > Kermit! And not only is that NOT the
> case, but
> > > > > the notion is as bonkers as the premise
> of
> > > > > evolution itself.
> > > >
> > > > Why *would* a frog need to adapt in this
> manner?
> > >
> > > Why *wouldn't* he?
> >
> > Because there is no environmental change that
> > would necessitate the frog's further adaptation.
>
> > Now why don't you answer the question?
>
> First of all, your point is ill-stated in that
> "the needs that arise during an organism’s life
> do not induce mutations to satisfy those needs"
> (Lamarckianism).
> http://www.anthro.psu.edu/weiss_lab/CQ1_WeHoldThes
> eTruths.pdf


?

Who supports lamarckianism?


> Second, contrary to your blithe dismissal of the
> issues, "patterns of stasis in the fossil record
> constitute a genuine problem for evolutionary
> theory"
> http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gavrila/PAPS/stasis.pdf,
> indeed stasis is "one of the most important
> unsolved problems of evolutionary biology"
> http://www.bio.fsu.edu/~dhoule/Publications/Hansen
> Houlestasisfinal.pdf, and may be more difficult to
> explain than evolution itself.
> http://www.anthro.psu.edu/weiss_lab/CQ1_WeHoldThes
> eTruths.pdf

Again, this is why we should never trust creationists at their word - you quote the paper of an evolutionary theorist Niles Eldridge. You mischaracterize his position either through dishonesty or ignorance.

HIS position is that of punctuated equilibrium. He *IS NOT* suggesting that common descent that natural selection, etc is incorrect or false or anything of the sort. He's saying that evolutionary gradualism, that species consistently change over millions of years is wrong. INSTEAD, what he and Gould propose is that species stay 'static' for millions of years until a selection event takes place - say a mass starvation, meteor impact, moving to a new environment, etc.

READ THE PAPER YOU LINK TO!

"The fossil record displays remarkable stasis in many species over long time periods, yet studies of extant populations often reveal rapid phenotypic evolution and genetic differentiation among populations. Recent advances in our understanding of the fossil record and in population genetics and evolutionary ecology point to the complex geographic structure of species being fundamental
to resolution of how taxa can commonly exhibit both short-term evolutionary dynamics and long-term stasis."

> In short, unlike yourself, I don't pretend to have
> an answer to an unsolved problem.

Actually you do pretend to - you pretend that this 'problem' means that evolution doesn't occur.

Instead, what you didn't seem to suss out is that the papers you linked to provide reasons for this statis. They suggest that there might be more reasons to look for, but the fact is, they do not argue that common descent did not occur and that natural selection does not happen.

In short, they DO NOT support your position.

So why bring them up?

>
> > > Why *would* a neanderthal "need" to adapt, and
> a
> > > chimpanzee or monkey or gorilla not "need"
> to?
> >
> > Neanderthals would need to adapt because they
> were
> > not *fit* for their environment - which is why
> > they went extinct!
>
> There are other theories.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal_extinctio
> n_hypotheses#Interbreeding

This does not refute what I said - so why bring it up? Are there still neanderthal's around today?

No, they are 'extinct'. Linking to an article that puts forth a highly tentative explanation of this extinction does not somehow mean they are not extinct.

>
> > As to chimps and gorillas, they are adapted to
> > their environments currently. They are doing
> fine.
> > IF threatened with extinction they will either
> die
> > out or adapt.
> >
> > This isn't that hard.
>
> It's not hard for you because you refuse to
> acknowledge that evolutionary stasis is a problem,
> indeed an unsolved problem.

It's not a problem in the sense that is somehow refutes common descent or the theory of evolution.

It's a 'problem' in the sense that scientists seek to explain it - much like the evolution of sex.

Do you get the distinction?

>
> > > Because them chimps and monkeys and gorillas
> is
> > > just PERFECT as they is, right?
> >
> > I wouldn't say perfect. After all, they do
> evolve
> > with pressure exerted by parasites and such.
> They
> > just don't speciate.
>
> You don't see a problem with a species remaining
> evolutionarily static.
>
> Real scientists do, however.

No, they don't, and your papers don't support this nonsense. Your papers support the position that scientists are looking to explain stasis. NO one is arguing they aren't.

What your papers DO NOT support is the ludicris notion that stasis somehow disproves either evolutionary theory or common descent.

This is, yet another example of why people shouldn't listen to creationists - they distort what scientists actually say!


>
> > > Folks, that's what the theory says, so you
> just
> > > have to ACCEPT it, mm-kay?
> >
> > Nonsense, you clearly don't understand the
> theory.
> > Especially since you are conflating common
> descent
> > with natural selection.
>
> Common descent and natural selection are
> intimately intertwined. Please provide a
> specific, non-trivial example of my conflating the
> terms.

I already have.

Pointing out that they have something to do with each other is not enough to get you off the hook. Again, I'll make the point that let's pretend that natural selection was shown to be false.

Would this mean that common descent did not occur?

No, it would not. We have various lines of evidence (twin nested heirarchy) that demonstrate the fact of common descent. It could be that genetic drift and sexual selection were responsible (highly unlikely) for all the changes we observe in nature. Or there could be another, unknown, mechanism for change.

This is the 'non trivial' reason why your conflation is ludicrous.

>
> > > > > Psssst, God's reality that HE created,
> allows for
> > > > > 'evolution' or things adapting or getting
> better
> > > > > also, not just your imaginary reality
> that 'just is'.
> > > >
> > > > This is a contradictory position to take.
> God
> > > > allows evolution to occur, yet according to
> you,
> > > > it doesn't. So is nature more powerful then
> God?
> > >
> > > He said God "allows for evolution or things
> > > adapting and getting better."
> >
> > He also said that evolution had holes in it.
>
> Did he literally use the word "holes"? Is it
> clear he was referring to microevolution and not
> macroevolution?

Why does it matter if he said 'holes' or something similar? No, the artificial distinction (and likely misinterpretation) you are referring to still would not make sense.

> > He's trying to argue two different positions
> which
> > contradict each other.
>
> Iirc, his claims can be reconciled by analyzing
> them through the micro vs. macroevolution lens.

Not if you understand those terms, which you clearly do not.

>
> > > Finches beak stuff.
> > >
> > > Not monkey-to-human stuff, which no one has
> seen,
> > > and can't be experimentally tested, and is
> > > therefore outside the scope of scientific
> "truth".
> >
> > If you accept that natural selection happens,
> then
> > logically, you have to accept that speciation
> > happens.
>
> The issue is whether it can be experimentally
> tested, the touchstone of scientific "truth."
>
> Variations in the size of the finches beak -
> mircoevolution - can be directly observed.*
>
> Monkey-to-human stuff - macroevolution - has not
> been observed, and cannot be tested

Of course that can't be tested - humans did not directly descend from monkeys. This is called a strawman. Homo sapien sapiens directly descended from Homo Erectus (among other species).

(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html)

Macroevolution (the one scientists refer to) can and has been tested: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

> It is therefore outside the scope of scientific
> "truth."

Nonsense - you don't understand science or biology (as evidenced by your conflation of natural selection and common descent), ergo you have no business telling anyone what is 'scientific truth'.

>
> > Especially since it has been witnessed.
> > Look into ring species.
>
> It has not been demonstrated that this is anything
> more than a problem in taxonomy.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species#Problem_
> of_definition

From your link: Ring species illustrate that the species concept is not as clear-cut as it is often thought to be.

This actually supports the notion that various species are interrelated, you realize. After all, if there were distinct species lines, there would not be ring species.

So thanks for backing my position up.

> > Also, this canard about needing to see
> something
> > is absurd. No one has seen an atom - so does
> this
> > mean we don't have atom bombs?
>
> My position turns on whether a theory can be
> tested by scientific experiment, not whether we
> need to "see something."*

The shifting of goal posts has started! Did you not write, in this very post:

"You do realize that saying that you have not observed bacteria evolve into homo sapiens supports my point that evolutionary claims - such as humans evolved (or descended, if you prefer) from bacteria - cannot be tested, and therefore, per Feynman, such claims are outside the scope of scientific "truth." "

By 'observed' are you now implying indirectly observed?

> Thus theories involving the atom, which we cannot
> see, *can* be tested: in the atom bomb, as you
> note, and in a robust variety of tests besides:
> http://science.jrank.org/pages/620/Atomic-Models-D
> iscovery-electron.html
>

And evolutionary theory can be likewise indirectly tested.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Pay attention to these links: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/predict.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.html

(it even has your hero, Karl Popper!):

"However, on the ordinary understanding of falsification, Darwinian evolution can be falsified. What's more, it can be verified in a non-deductive sort of way. Whewell was right in the sense that you can show the relative validity of a theory if it pans out enough, and Popper had a similar notion, called 'verisimilitude'. What scientists do, or even what they say they do, is in the end very little affected by a priori philosophical prescriptions. Darwin was right to take the approach he did.

It is significant that, although it is often claimed that Darwinism is unfalsifiable, many of the things Darwin said have in fact been falsified. Many of his assertions of fact have been revised or denied, many of his mechanisms rejected or modified even by his strongest supporters (e.g., by Mayr, Gould, Lewontin, and Dawkins), and he would find it hard to recognise some versions of modern selection theory as his natural selection theory. This is exactly what a student of the history of science would expect. Science moves on, and if a theory doesn't, that is strong prima facie evidence it actually is a metaphysical belief. [note 4]

A final quote from Hull [1988: 7] is instructive:

Yet another ambiguity constantly crops up in our discussions of scientific theories. Are they hypotheses or facts? Can they be "proved"? Do scientists have the right to say that they "know" anything? While interviewing the scientists engaged in the controversies under investigation, I asked, "Do you think that science is provisional, that scientists have to be willing to reexamine any view that they hold if necessary?" All the scientists whom I interviewed responded affirmatively. Later, I asked, "Could evolutionary theory be false?" To this question I received three different answers. Most responded quite promptly that, no, it could not be false. Several opponents of the consensus then current responded that not only could it be false but also it was false. A very few smiled and asked me to clarify my question. "Yes, any scientific theory could be false in the abstract, but given the current state of knowledge, the basic axioms of evolutionary theory are likely to continue to stand up to investigation."

Philosophers tend to object to such conceptual plasticity. So do scientists -- when this plasticity works against them. Otherwise, they do not mind it at all. In fact, they get irritated when some pedant points it out.

Most scientists are not philosophically inclined and will make use of whatever is a help in their work, but not in the way Feyerabend thought. Reflective scientists know that it's all how you ask the question that counts. Most physicists would not immediately think that atomic theory could be false, either. They are answering the question "is it likely to be dropped later on?" not the philosophical "could it in theory be dropped?" which is a different issue. Philosophers do conceptual tidying up, among other things, but scientists are the ones making all the sawdust in the workshop, and they need not be so tidy. And no cleaner should tell any professional (other than cleaners) how it ought to be done. Creationists who say, "evolution is not like what Popper said science should be, so it isn't science" are like the janitor who says that teachers don't keep their classrooms clean enough, so they aren't teachers."

>
> *Which is not to say that seeing is irrelevant.
> At the first level of analysis, simply being able
> to see something can silence debate: nobody
> disputes gorillas exist, as we can all see them;
> people denied black swans existed until they were
> actually seen; people doubt the existence of the
> Loch Ness Monster because few have actually seen
> the creature -- if everyone saw it, in the same
> way we see whales on a whale watch, there would be
> no controversy as to its existence. Not all
> matters lend themselves to such analysis - eg,
> atoms - but many do, and the "seeing is believing"
> principle can act as a convenient Occam's Razor
> with respect to the truth content of many claims.


In order to determine the truth of evolutionary theory, you'd have to look at the evidence.

You clearly haven't, which is why you deny there's any evidence.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 09:39AM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Idiot-Gloss wrote:
> >"This is a distinction without a difference. I've
> already pointed out that the species line is
> 'blurred' (ex. Ring Species). If you accept
> natural selection (microevolution) then logically
> you have to accept macroevolution.Since
> macroevolution is an accumulation of
> microevolutionary 'steps'.
> What you and Troll are confusing with evolution is
> called SALTATION."
>
>
> Saltation IS a THEORY OF EVOLUTION,

More reason not to take you seriously.

You, sir, are an idiot.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 09:41AM

Remember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, it appears to me that you are stating
> that you agree with the theory of evolution
> (microevolution),

You are confusing terminology, ergo your question is incoherent.

> but not the theory of descent
> and saltation.

WTF?

What 'theory of descent'? How are you linking saltation with modern biology?

> Is that correct? You defend the
> one by distinguishing it from the other.

I have no idea what you are actually putting forth in this post.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Remember ()
Date: August 24, 2010 10:10AM

Pangloss, you wrote "This is a distinction without a difference. I've already pointed out that the species line is 'blurred' (ex. Ring Species). If you accept natural selection (microevolution) then logically you have to accept macroevolution. Since macroevolution is an accumulation of microevolutionary 'steps'.

What you and Troll are confusing with evolution is called saltation."


Troll replied "Saltation IS a THEORY OF EVOLUTION, where supporters claim our beginings as bacteria were spawned through a huge and sudden UNEXPLAINABLE change in genetics, but then conveniently attribute all our later mutations to neo-Darwinian 'Gradualism'.

Evolutionist essentially make up the rules as they go.

And you replied "You are clearly unfamiliar with what the theory of evolution is and how it is distinct from the fact of common descent."

So I take your first statement to be that you agree with saltation or common descent whatever you want to call it because you say that if you believe in microevolution then logically you have to believe in macroevolution. When Troll points out one is another Theory of Evolution, you state they are two different things. So that is your defense to his arugment, different things after you state that logically you have to believ ein both?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 10:26AM

Remember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pangloss, you wrote "This is a distinction without
> a difference. I've already pointed out that the
> species line is 'blurred' (ex. Ring Species). If
> you accept natural selection (microevolution) then
> logically you have to accept macroevolution. Since
> macroevolution is an accumulation of
> microevolutionary 'steps'.
>
> What you and Troll are confusing with evolution is
> called saltation."
>
>
> Troll replied "Saltation IS a THEORY OF EVOLUTION,
> where supporters claim our beginings as bacteria
> were spawned through a huge and sudden
> UNEXPLAINABLE change in genetics, but then
> conveniently attribute all our later mutations to
> neo-Darwinian 'Gradualism'.
>
> Evolutionist essentially make up the rules as they
> go.
>
> And you replied "You are clearly unfamiliar with
> what the theory of evolution is and how it is
> distinct from the fact of common descent."
>
> So I take your first statement to be that you
> agree with saltation or common descent whatever
> you want to call it because you say that if you
> believe in microevolution then logically you have
> to believe in macroevolution.

Saltation is completely different from common descent, microevolution, and macroevolution.

Saltation is no longer accepted (outside of maybe a handful of scientists).

I do not 'agree with' saltation.

> When Troll points
> out one is another Theory of Evolution, you state
> they are two different things.

What Troll pointed out was incoherent. Saltation is not a viable theory of evolution. To try to pass it off *as* evolutionary theory is dishonest.

> So that is your
> defense to his arugment, different things after
> you state that logically you have to believ ein
> both?

I never stated you had to believe in saltation. Saltation is not macroevolution. I think you are confusing them OR you aren't being clear here (since troll specifically stated that saltation *was* evolution).

As to macroevolution, if you accept microevolution and the idea that a population of a species can cut itself off from the main species and evolve independent of that main species (ie, microevolutionarily) then, logically speaking, you have to accept macroevolution, because (generally speaking) macro is just an accumulation of microevolutionary steps. There are a few points to differentiate the two, to be sure, but in general the point stands.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 10:57AM

Here's the problem, as I see it:

Creationists have a problem with common descent, the idea that all animals/organisms share a common ancestor.

In general, they don't have a problem with the theory of evolution - ie, how organisms change over time. This would involve natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, and a few other explanatory method.

What happens is that creationists confuse the two. This has happened here. The claim that alligators don't evolve somehow disproves evolutionary theory.

1. Alligators have evolved.
2. Disproving evolutionary theory does not disprove common descent.


These two are relatively straight forward and already addressed numerous times in this thread. So the entire point of a creationist bringing up alligators to disprove evolutionary theory is wrong headed since what they *MEAN* to attempt to disprove is common descent - which even if they were correct on their points about alligators, they would not be correct with regard to their conclusion that all animals are related.

Now then, it was brought up that stasis is a problem for evolutionary theory. A paper by Niles Eldridge is supposed to demonstrate this.

Even this is a misunderstanding. It's not a problem for evolutionary theory, per say, as none of the proponents is actually arguing against the mechanism of change. What they are arguing against is the rapidity of change.

They support punctuated equilibrium - the idea that evolution happens through fits and starts. That there is a large gap of time where there is stasis and then quick (geologically speaking, still millions of years) periods of change.

It's punctuated change verse gradual change.

Which, sure, is an interesting and lively debated area of science. It is not, however, anything at all related to what Creationists are seeking to demonstrate (ie, that common descent doesn't occur).

It's a red herring that is brought up either out of ignorance (which is understandable, it's a complicated issue) or dishonesty.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 12:19PM

The only thing Professor Ass-gloss wrote that was actually relevant was:
>It was pointed out that matter cannot be created or destroyed.
Good that your DUMB LYING ASS didn't go any farther than insinuating this is not true.

>I then pointed out that if this were true,

YEAH BIG 'IF' asshole

> then God could not do it either.

What a self-righteous LYING piece of shit you are!
WHAT SCIENTIFIC BASIS DO YOU HAVE FOR THIS RETARDED STATEMENT?

>You can't say X is impossible and then claim that God can do X.

WHY? Because YOU say so?
AGAIN I SAID X was impossible for SCIENTIST, you bumbling bozo.

YOU certainly are the SCIENTIFIC definition of a COMPULSIVE LYING DISINFORMATIONIST.

YOUR RETARDED SCIENTIFICALLY-UNFOUNDED STATEMENT ABOUT THE POWER OF GOD IS A GREAT REASON ANYONE READING CAN SKIP RIGHT OVER ALL THAT BULLSHIT YOU JUST WROTE!

I have enjoyed reading your idiocy, thanks for the good laughs!
Speaking of dishonest, I never saw anyone try so hard to decieve people.
But I also never saw anyone do such a bad job at it either.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 01:25PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only thing Professor Ass-gloss wrote that was
> actually relevant was:
> >It was pointed out that matter cannot be created
> or destroyed.
> Good that your DUMB LYING ASS didn't go any
> farther than insinuating this is not true.

You must be frothing at the mouth to attack things I don't say.

> >I then pointed out that if this were true,
>
> YEAH BIG 'IF' asshole
>
> > then God could not do it either.
>
> What a self-righteous LYING piece of shit you
> are!
> WHAT SCIENTIFIC BASIS DO YOU HAVE FOR THIS
> RETARDED STATEMENT?

It's called logic. You should check into it. it's the basis of why I accused you of cherry picking your science.

> >You can't say X is impossible and then claim that
> God can do X.
>
> WHY? Because YOU say so?
> AGAIN I SAID X was impossible for SCIENTIST, you
> bumbling bozo.

No, it's because it's illogical. It doesn't matter if a scientist backs it up or not. Something cannot be and also not be. That is a direct contradiction. If something is impossible it is impossible.

A = A
A cannot also = ~A

This is basic logic.

I suppose you want to argue against that and in doing so you will descend into incoherency.

Good luck with that.

> YOU certainly are the SCIENTIFIC definition of a
> COMPULSIVE LYING DISINFORMATIONIST.
>
> YOUR RETARDED SCIENTIFICALLY-UNFOUNDED STATEMENT
> ABOUT THE POWER OF GOD IS A GREAT REASON ANYONE
> READING CAN SKIP RIGHT OVER ALL THAT BULLSHIT YOU
> JUST WROTE!

Strong argument you just wrote there. Did you want to address anything I actually wrote, or are you simply happy to belch insults?

You seem to be suggesting that God can do the logically impossible. Before I go on, please admit to this.

if not, your post here is entirely moot and your position is inherently contradictory.

In fact, it's contradictory either way.

In short, your argument is irrational and has been demonstrated as such.

But go ahead, chortle about how *I'm* the idiot. ;-)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Yahweh ()
Date: August 24, 2010 01:36PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I never saw anyone try so
> hard to decieve people.

So, you don't go to church every Sunday?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Lurker. ()
Date: August 24, 2010 01:42PM

It's very clear. If you not Catholic you are going to hell! Repent now!

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 02:21PM

I'll break it down for you troll.

You made the statement that scientists cannot create matter in the lab. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.

This is completely irrelevant to anything - especially since it's not necessary for matter to be created. As an atheist, I do not need to suppose that matter/energy was created (ie, I don't have to suppose that something came from nothing).

You are presupposing that it has to be created (which, for other reasons is incoherent, but I digress). Probably because you mistakenly believe the big bang indicates this.

It does not, but that's irrelevant. My point is that if you hold to the idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed, then you can't turn around and claim that God can do it.

If you are saying that scientists don't know how to create or destroy matter, that's a completely different claim. It's also largely superficial and trivial.

In short, this tangent of yours is off base, irrelevant, and only making you look silly.

I'm officially done with it, as it adds nothing to the table - except for your continued blathering. If you have anything else to add, then by all means, do it. I still think you are a Poe and you have added nothing but derision and ignorance to the discussion.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 03:20PM

'Professor' Pangloss wrote:
>"You made the statement that scientists can NOT create matter in the lab. [indeed I did]
Matter cannot be created or destroyed. <-----I NEVER SAID THAT PART LIAR!
This is completely irrelevant to anything"

STOP right there, it IS relevant, AND YOU KNOW IT!
The fact you feel the need to LIE about it's relevancy, DISCREDITS anything else you have to say about this topic.

ONCE AGAIN;
If scientist can not even DESTROY matter, then half-witted wanna-be scientists like yourself have NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS to affirm or deny GOD creating matter.

Only a FOOL like yourself would even try, ASS-Gloss.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 03:24PM

Lastly, 'Professor' Ass-Gloss wrote:
>"You are presupposing that it [matter] has to be created. It does not, but that's irrelevant."

YEAH RIGHT ASSHOLE, TELL ME WHAT ELSE IS 'IRRELEVANT' -oh WISE ONE!

> "My point is that if you hold to the idea that matter cannot be created or destroyed,"

BY MAN YOU FUCKING RETARD, CREATED OR DESTROYED BY MAN(aka "scientists")

>"then you can't turn around and claim that God can do it."

WHY NOT?

AGAIN ARE YOU RETARDED?


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Numbers ()
Date: August 24, 2010 03:30PM

Professor, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

Troll@aol simply does not have the mental capacity to understand even the simplest of explanations, nor does he even attempt to. Having a lucid conversation with such a feeble-minded cretin is not possible.

He's capable of only one angle, which is pre-teen insults and insipid questions about magnets, gravity and the creation/destruction of matter, all of which are answerable through Google and Youtube.

There are some theists/creationists here from time to time that at least offer up viable comments and/or questions, but Troll@aol is certainly not one of them. Nor is he astute in any other subject that any of us have been able to discern.

It seems many here on FU, including myself, have realized the best thing to do is just ignore him.
Not a sermon, just a thought.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 03:40PM

Yeah whatever 'Numbers', thankfully your brainless comentary died off a while back.

NOTHING ELSE TO ADD? To bad for you Numbers, guess your 'out' of the game :(

Keep up the impressive insults though, because we just love how juvenile and ultra-cool you are man!


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 03:41PM

Speaking of leading a horse to water, how's your mother?

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 03:44PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'Professor' Pangloss wrote:
> >"You made the statement that scientists can NOT
> create matter in the lab.
> Matter cannot be created or destroyed. <-----I
> NEVER SAID THAT PART LIAR!

Okay then, *what* was your point?

::Crickets::

> This is completely irrelevant to anything"
>
> STOP right there, it IS relevant, AND YOU KNOW
> IT!
> The fact you feel the need to LIE about it's
> relevancy, DISCREDITS anything else you have to
> say about this topic.

I'm waiting - how is it relevant?

::Crickets::


> ONCE AGAIN;
> If scientist can not even DESTROY matter, then
> half-witted wanna-be scientists like yourself have
> NO SCIENTIFIC GROUNDS to affirm or deny GOD
> creating matter.

Wow, a whole lot of wrong with this.

First and foremost:
1. I'm not a scientist, wanna-be or otherwise.
2. Scientists being able to destroy matter is meaningless. 300 years ago, scientists couldn't create a plane that would fly. That doesn't mean it was impossible.
3. My grounds for denying that God could create matter came from you. It's a simple if-then statement. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, then God could not do it either.

If you are merely stating that scientists cannot currently create or destroy matter, well then, so what?

Scientists could not explain how lightning worked, does that mean that Zeus threw lightning bolts?

Again, you got nothing.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 03:48PM

Oh and lastly 'Numbers',
>it is quite obvious when one tries to expand his vocabulary by consulting a THESAURUS. @ least to me it is you 'cretin'.

Even though you are the SAME person [virtual-MPD], 'Professor Pangloss' is guilty of the same thesaurus using buffoonery.

When you do this, it sticks out like a sore thumb.
Not only is it OBVIOUS but it is not impressive and is a true testament to just how freakin stupid you really are!

.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 03:49PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lastly, 'Professor' Ass-Gloss wrote:
> >"You are presupposing that it has to be created.
> It does not, but that's irrelevant."
>
> YEAH RIGHT ASSHOLE, TELL ME WHAT ELSE IS
> 'IRRELEVANT' -oh WISE ONE!

So then, please tell me how it's relevant.

::Crickets::

> > "My point is that if you hold to the idea that
> matter cannot be created or destroyed,"
>
> BY MAN YOU FUCKING RETARD, CREATED OR DESTROYED BY
> MAN(aka "scientists")

This is a trivial claim, 'man' cannot create or destroy matter currently.

Again, so what? Let's say that we can never create or destroy matter. What relevance does that mean?

::Crickets::


> >"then you can't turn around and claim that God
> can do it."
>
> WHY NOT?
>
> AGAIN ARE YOU RETARDED?

:-)

No, I'm not retarded, I'm beginning to suspect you are. I've led you down an alleyway. You *want* to rely on the scientific law of conservation, but you won't outright say it because it defeats you. You want to be able to claim that God can do anything, but again, I'm waiting for this so I can show it is incoherent. I think you realize this, which is why you won't make it explicit.

So right now I've left you with the position of 'man can do it currently'.

Now you have to justify why that's important at all.

::Crickets::

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 03:50PM

Numbers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor, you can lead a horse to water, but you
> can't make him drink.
>
> Troll@aol simply does not have the mental capacity
> to understand even the simplest of explanations,
> nor does he even attempt to. Having a lucid
> conversation with such a feeble-minded cretin is
> not possible.
>
> He's capable of only one angle, which is pre-teen
> insults and insipid questions about magnets,
> gravity and the creation/destruction of matter,
> all of which are answerable through Google and
> Youtube.
>
> There are some theists/creationists here from time
> to time that at least offer up viable comments
> and/or questions, but Troll@aol is certainly not
> one of them. Nor is he astute in any other subject
> that any of us have been able to discern.
>
> It seems many here on FU, including myself, have
> realized the best thing to do is just ignore him.
>
> Not a sermon, just a thought.


This is all true. I'm a little amused at his triviality. I am quite bored of him though.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 03:55PM

'Professor' ass-gloss wrotr:
>"3. My grounds for denying that God could create matter came from you.
It's a simple if-then statement. If matter cannot be created or destroyed, then God could not do it either."

Man NOT being able to create matter or explain it's existence has no 'if then' correlation to a creative force called God.
So your supposition is STUPID!

Boy, YOU REALLY ARE RETARDED.



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 03:58PM

Sorry but you had me @bored with your
first retarded statement, ass-gloss.

Every statement thereafter was just an
encore presentation of your WILLFUL IGNORANCE.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 04:07PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'Professor' ass-gloss wrotr:
> >"3. My grounds for denying that God could create
> matter came from you.
> It's a simple if-then statement. If matter cannot
> be created or destroyed, then God could not do it
> either."
>
> Man NOT being able to create matter or explain
> it's existence has no 'if then' correlation to a
> creative force called God.
> So your supposition is STUPID!
>
> Boy, YOU REALLY ARE RETARDED.

So your claim is simply that man cannot make or destroy matter? Is this where you are hanging your hat?

Yes or no.

If yes, then please explain why it's important at all.

::Crickets::

I've asked you a few times now. Are you going to play ball? ;-)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 04:08PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sorry but you had me @bored with your
> first retarded statement, ass-gloss.
>
> Every statement thereafter was just an
> encore presentation of your WILLFUL IGNORANCE.

More chortle, *even* less substance.

Are you going to explain how what you've posited is meaningful or relevant?

I'm waiting...

::Crickets::

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 04:12PM

The 'chortle' of your gay ::crickets:: are demonstrating how EVERYTHING I said was and is relevant.

By the way, I told you that Thesuarus was no good for you.

Next time use 'chortle' in the proper context, RETARD.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 04:34PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The 'chortle' of your gay ::crickets:: are
> demonstrating how EVERYTHING I said was and is
> relevant.


I'm still waiting...Bold proclamations without backing are empty...

::Crickets::


> By the way, I told you that Thesuarus was no good
> for you.

Do you mean a thesaurus?

> Next time use 'chortle' in the proper context,
> RETARD.


::Crickets::

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 04:39PM

Point taken.

Thank you for the spelling correction on Thesaurus.

Well it is no surprise you would jump right
on that one, being so familiar with the Thesaurus and all.


::shhhh your gay::


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 04:42PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Point taken.
>
> Thank you for the spelling correction on
> Thesaurus.
>
> Well it is no surprise you would jump right
> on that one, being so familiar with the Thesaurus
> and all.
>
>
> ::shhhh your gay::
>
>
> .

Game, set, match.

You have been unable to justify how it was relevant.

Congrats.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 04:49PM

You're right PROFESSOR!

How stoopid of me. You have definitely proven beyond a reasonable doubt to me, that there is obviously no god. And matter scientifically 'just is'. And there is 'no soul' and we have no purpose on this planet.

How ever did you get so wise, oh worshipful one?

Have you evolved?

Because you still LQQK like a Chimp!


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 24, 2010 04:53PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You're right PROFESSOR!
>
> How stoopid of me. You have definitely proven
> beyond a reasonable doubt to me, that there is
> obviously no god. And matter scientifically
> 'just is'. And there is 'no soul' and we have no
> purpose on this planet.
>
> How ever did you get so wise, oh worshipful one?
>
> Have you evolved?
>
> Because you still LQQK like a Chimp!
>
>
> .


Well look at that, there's hope for you yet. Through your inflammatory rhetoric you've conceded the discussion.

Good for you.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 04:55PM

A chimp that didn't create, or wish itself into existance. Of course.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 05:00PM

Yes exactly, good for me.

Unfortunately, bad, is for you.


Also you said I 'conceded' the discussion???

Again the Thesaurus doesn't seem to work for you.

Conceded does not mean to conclude bozo.

Try again.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 24, 2010 05:02PM

Your repeated improper and illogical use of the English language,
does not support your stance in ANY argument!

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Remember ()
Date: August 25, 2010 10:41AM

While this back and forth is very amusing to me, I must say that I do actually agree with Pangloss on one point. Common descent. Everything does come from one CREATOR.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 11:07AM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes exactly, good for me.
>
> Unfortunately, bad, is for you.
>
>
> Also you said I 'conceded' the discussion???
>
> Again the Thesaurus doesn't seem to work for you.
>
> Conceded does not mean to conclude bozo.
>
> Try again.


:-)

I meant concede, not conclude. I was responding sarcastically to your 'your right' comment.

Wow. Not only did you try to hammer me for incorrectly using a term (which I, in fact, did use correctly), you couldn't even pick up on sarcasm.

::Clap, Clap::

Bravo Troll.

Did you want another shot at showing the relevance of your position?

::Crickets::

No?

Too bad, I guess the FFX Underground will never learn the relevance then. You will take that information to your grave and all of us will be none the wiser.

*Hint* that was sarcasm.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 11:21AM

Remember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> While this back and forth is very amusing to me, I
> must say that I do actually agree with Pangloss on
> one point. Common descent. Everything does come
> from one CREATOR.


You realize that this isn't my position and therefore you *don't* agree with me.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Remember ()
Date: August 25, 2010 12:04PM

What, exactly, is your position then?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 12:46PM

Remember Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What, exactly, is your position then?


I reread what we both wrote and I realize that I might have misunderstood your position.

Are you 'agreeing with me' with regard to common descent.

Or are you 'agreeing with me' with regard to common descent that is a result of one creator?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 25, 2010 01:09PM

Again, your use of the word 'conceded' was TOTALLY incorrect, AND YOU KNOW IT.

Incorrect like ALL of your invalid Lie-potheses.

Again you have failed to show the scientific relevance of
YOUR postition on the creation of matter, = you scientifically LOSE!

I see your gay ::crickets:: are still chortling 'pangloss is a moooorooooon'.
Speaking of moron, 'chortle' is another word you used INCORRECTLY.

You know what Pangloss? You would make a great politician!



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 01:20PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Again, your use of the word 'conceded' was TOTALLY
> incorrect, AND YOU KNOW IT.

?

This is bizarre. I meant that you admitted defeat, that you gave up.

Are you trying to say that to concede means something different?

> Incorrect like ALL of your invalid Lie-potheses.

I chuckled, I admit it.

> Again you have failed to show the scientific
> relevance of
> YOUR postition on the creation of matter, = you
> scientifically LOSE!

?

I didn't bring it up - my position was solidly to refute your position, which has become so watered down that it's trivial.

I've been waiting for you to make it relevant. I *can't* some how retrofit your irrelevant points about matter into relevance.

Here's a hint - do you even know my position as to the creation of matter? The origin of the universe? You should, as I haven't hidden it, but I'd bet that you don't, since if you did, you would realize that matter being created is only slightly tangentially related to my position.


> I see your gay ::crickets:: are still chortling
> 'pangloss is a moooorooooon'.
> Speaking of moron, 'chortle' is another word you
> used INCORRECTLY.
>
> You know what Pangloss? You would make a great
> politician!

I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate the relevance of your position.

::Crickets::

I will be chortling softly until you do. ;-)

Here's a dictionary:
Chortle: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chortle (second most common usage):
: to laugh or chuckle especially in satisfaction or exultation

Concede: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/concede?show=0&t=1282756716
(second most common usage, a or b):
to acknowledge grudgingly or hesitantly
Example: "Although it seems clear that he has lost the election, he still refuses to concede"
Example:


Now, the definitions are on the table and it appears I've used them correctly. So I must ask, what *did you think* I meant when I used those terms??



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2010 01:21PM by Professor Pangloss.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 25, 2010 01:56PM

The definitions are on the table now for all to see, indeed.

Since you are ignorantly acting as though you can not see the BLATANT misuse of the words in the context you chose, I do have to end [conclude] this discussion.


But just for fun here goes;

Pangloss wrote:
>More gleeful chuckling [chortle], *even* less substance.

What are you trying to say here? Are you implying you are GAY, and just sucked the substance out of a cock leaving *even* less?


Pangloss also wrote:
"Through your inflammatory rhetoric you have conceded the discussion."

That is just the thing, if you can't SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE ME WRONG, Then you have no grounds to 'sarcastically' call what I said 'rhetoric'.

Also even if it was rhetoric, it certainly does not concede the discussion, unless you are asserting it does in a sarcastic way. Even then you are still wrong and that would make it just another one of your dumbass NON-objective opinions.

But we can dissect what you said even futher; because you obviously do NOT know the meaning of 'inflammatory' or how to use it in proper context also. Because nothing I said was inflammatory in my 'your right' post, that you claim you were responding to. But if YOU think it was, then that explains why you are so adamant in your retarded unfounded-unscientific circular logic.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 02:47PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The definitions are on the table now for all to
> see, indeed.
>
> Since you are ignorantly acting as though you can
> not see the BLATANT misuse of the words in the
> context you chose, I do have to end this
> discussion.
>
>
> But just for fun here goes;
>
> Pangloss wrote:
> >More gleeful chuckling , *even* less substance.
>
> What are you trying to say here? Are you implying
> you are GAY, and just sucked the substance out of
> a cock leaving *even* less?

?

I'm confused - do you really have this much of a problem reading?

At best, you could say that I was being redundant, but misusing the word??


>
> Pangloss also wrote:
> "Through your inflammatory rhetoric you have
> conceded the discussion."
>
> That is just the thing, if you can't
> SCIENTIFICALLY PROVE ME WRONG, Then you have no
> grounds to 'sarcastically' call what I said
> 'rhetoric'.

So much wrong with this:
1. Science is abductive/inductive, not deductive. In other words, science doesn't work off of 'proof'. Proof is a term for math, logic, and alcohol.

2. It is irrelevant here whether I can prove you wrong or not - I was saying that you conceded, not that you were definitively wrong. You could be totally correct in everything you say and you could still concede. In short - I used the term correctly.

The fact of the matter is, you couldn't show how your stance was relevant. You went out of your way to ignore the matter.


> Also even if it was rhetoric, it certainly does
> not concede the discussion, unless you are
> asserting it does in a sarcastic way.

You are utterly confused - I admitted that I was being sarcastic.

> Even then
> you are still wrong and that would make it just
> another one of your dumbass NON-objective
> opinions.

*sigh*

I used the term correctly and you are grasping at straws to justify the blatant ignorance of the term. You've made repeated claims that I was using the term incorrectly and I've just rhetorically smacked your hand by providing definitions.

> But we can dissect what you said even futher;
> because you obviously do NOT know the meaning of
> 'inflammatory' or how to use it in proper context
> also. Because nothing I said was inflammatory in
> my 'your right' post, that you claim you were
> responding to. But if YOU think it was, then that
> explains why you are so adamant in your retarded
> unfounded-unscientific circular logic.


Now you are trying to say I used 'inflammatory' incorrectly?

Were I you, I would be embarrassed. I've shown that for all your huffing and puffing:

1. You can't justify your opposition to evolution (intellectually).
2. You can't justify how scientists being able to create matter is relevant to anything.
3. You can't justify your claims that I used words incorrectly.


Seriously, this is a red herring that you are engaged in. You are trying to distract from the rebuttals to your position that I've given. To distract from the being asked to provide the relevance to your position on matter. Now you are going to distract from my smacking your hand on using words incorrectly.

Seriously, get back to the point of the thread. You should be embarrassed with yourself. I would be, if I were you. Maybe you just don't understand the terms I've used and you think that other people don't either and you can snow ball people into agreeing with you?

I don't know, you are bizarre and a pseudo-intellectual of the lowest sort.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 25, 2010 03:14PM

1. You can't justify your opposition to evolution (intellectually).

I DID. [your inability to understand/ willful ignorance/ unfounded-unscientific circular logic -is the ISSUE here]

2. You can't justify how scientists being able to create matter is relevant to anything.

I DID. [ AGAIN; your inability to understand/ willful ignorance/ circular logic -is the ISSUE here ]

3. You can't justify your claims that I used words incorrectly.

I DID. [your inability to understand/ willful ignorance -is the ISSUE here ]


'Professor Ass-gloss' also wrote:
> "you are bizarre and a pseudo-intellectual of the lowest sort."

Nice thesaurus work again Watson!

That is funny though, because I wouldn't even go as far as
calling YOU a quasi-intellectual!


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 03:28PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 1. You can't justify your opposition to evolution
> (intellectually).
>
> I DID.

No, you didn't. I rebutted every point you put up. You didn't respond.

>
> 2. You can't justify how scientists being able to
> create matter is relevant to anything.
>
> I DID. [ AGAIN; your inability to understand/
> willful ignorance/ circular logic -is the ISSUE
> here ]

No, you didn't. I rebutted every point you put up. You didn't respond.

>
> 3. You can't justify your claims that I used words
> incorrectly.
>
> I DID.
>

No, you didn't. I rebutted every point you put up. You didn't respond.

>
> 'Professor Ass-gloss' also wrote:
> > "you are bizarre and a pseudo-intellectual of
> the lowest sort."
>
> Nice thesaurus work again Watson!

Wow, so 'pseudo-intellectual' is a 'big word', to you?

How utterly pathetic.

(Do you know what 'pathetic' means? just in case: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pathetic)

How much do you require a poster to dumb down their posts for you?

>
> That is funny though, because I wouldn't even go
> as far as
> calling YOU a quasi-intellectual!
>
>
> .

That's because you wouldn't know what the word meant. You'd look it up and then use it incorrectly. When it was pointed out to you, you would ignore that you were shown to be completely wrong and you would make baseless assertions that you were correct.

;-)

I've nailed you completely and so badly that I should be smoking and you should owe me money.

Chortle!

::Crickets::

I feel bad for any Creationist lurkers - *you* are their representative!

:-)

Chortle!

It's been fun Troll. Did you have anything else to add or are you simply going to assert that I'm wrong. Maybe you are going to delve into the "pee-wee herman" style of discourse, of 'I know you are buy what am I'? Possibly just say I'm gay, or a moron?

I am in rapt attention!

(just in case: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rapt?show=0&t=1282764376 )



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2010 03:28PM by Professor Pangloss.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Yahweh ()
Date: August 25, 2010 03:32PM

Troll, go away.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 03:35PM

Hm...Yahweh has weighed in on this thread...

That certainly puts a damper on my atheistic position... ;-p

Still, I like the cut of his jib...

Perhaps Troll should listen?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 25, 2010 03:36PM

Just because you're WRONG does not mean you have to go out of your way AGAIN to be a PRUDE, by IMPROPERLY using BIG Thesaurus words like 'rapt' you fucking LOSER.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2010 03:42PM by Troll@AOL.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 03:41PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Just because you're WRONG does not mean you have
> IMPROPERLY USE WORDS AGAIN and go out of your way
> to be a PRUDE by using BIG Thesaurus words like
> 'rapt' you fucking LOSER.


Haha!

Now 'rapt' is a big word.

Nice.

Take Yahweh's advise. He is your lord, after all.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Yahweh ()
Date: August 25, 2010 03:42PM

Everyone uses books, Troll. Dont be scared. It wouldnt hurt you to crack one open every now and then. Hell, start with the Bible (cuz I can tell you never read it), but then move on. You shouldnt base your existance off of one book written 2000 years ago.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 25, 2010 03:43PM

'BIG' to you, idiot Ass-gloss.

And go fuck yourself 'Yahweh', it will be good practice
for when you are mouth-servicing Lucifer in the after-world.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2010 03:56PM by Troll@AOL.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 03:47PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'BIG' to you, idiot Ass-gloss.
>
> And go fuck yourself 'Yahweh', it will be practice
>
> for when you are mouth-servicing Lucifer in the
> after-world.
>
>
> .


Yeah, 'big to me', sure, because I'm the one who is having trouble deciphering (for your benefit: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decipher?show=0&t=1282765623 ) posts.

How old are you? 16? 18?

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 25, 2010 03:53PM

So essentially you wrote:
>"You are IN [transported with emotion] attention."

Not only ARE you RETARDED.

Your feeble and futile attempts @making your self sound intelligent, just
re-affirm and give a tangible example of your OBVIOUS MENTAL DEFICIENCY.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 03:59PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So essentially you wrote:
> >"You are IN [transported with emotion] attention."
>
> Not only ARE you RETARDED.
>
> Your feeble and futile attempts @making your self
> sound intelligent, just
> re-affirm and give a tangible example of your
> OBVIOUS MENTAL DEFICIENCY.
>
>
> .

Check out commonly used definition 3:

"wholly absorbed"

Bravo Troll. Bravo.

I actually no longer believe you are being serious here. I mean, you *had to look up* that definition to try to throw it back at me and you, what, simply ignored the next line?

No way. No one is that mentally deficient.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2010 04:00PM by Professor Pangloss.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 25, 2010 04:08PM

So you are using THE MOST UNCOMMON use of a word
you had to CONSULT A Thesuarus for. So YES, YOU
HAVE AN OBVIOUS MENTAL DEFICIENCY!


But let us try just for fun;

I am IN [wholy absorbed] attention
AGAIN you SOUND like a RETARD!

Next time maybe;

"I am RAPT in attention"
........OR
"I am RAPT with attention"

then your ill-informed use won't be so OBVIOUS.

You MORAN!


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/25/2010 04:15PM by Troll@AOL.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Harry Tuttle ()
Date: August 25, 2010 04:11PM

Professor Pangloss = complete domination...

Signatures are for fags

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 04:24PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So you are using THE MOST UNCOMMON use of a word
> you had to CONSULT A Thesuarus for. So YES, YOU

All of the usages are 'common'.

This is really just scraping the bottom of the barrel. For a start, *you* used the second most common usage.

Shit, why am I arguing with you over this? It's clear that you are wrong.

Deal with it.

> HAVE AN OBVIOUS MENTAL DEFICIENCY!
>
>
> But let us try just for fun;
>
> I am IN attention
> AGAIN you SOUND like a RETARD!
>
> Next time maybe;
>
> "I am RAPT in attention"
> ........OR
> "I am RAPT with attention"
>
> then your ill-informed use won't be so OBVIOUS.
>
> You MORAN!
>
>
> .


"Moran" - another clue.

Good show old bean, good show. I must say, for the longest while, I thought you were serious.

You should have posted the picture of the guy holding the 'get a brain, morans!'. That would have been funny.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 04:25PM

Harry Tuttle Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Professor Pangloss = complete domination...


Thanks. :-)

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 25, 2010 04:28PM

Yeah, Professor Pangloss = COMPLETELY DOMINATED.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Date: August 25, 2010 04:31PM

Troll@AOL Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yeah, Professor Pangloss = COMPLETELY DOMINATED.


Okay there chuckles. You have yourself a nice night.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 25, 2010 04:39PM

Ewe two, it has shorely bean fun!

:~ >



.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Yahweh ()
Date: August 25, 2010 04:40PM

Troll, you are as annoying as you are ignorant.

Go away.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: eesh ()
Date: August 25, 2010 04:42PM

Yahweh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Troll, you are as annoying as you are ignorant.
>
> Go away.





It is a bit odd how Troll@AOL has acted on this site, yet wants to represent Christianity whenever there is talk about religion or evolution.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Yahweh ()
Date: August 25, 2010 04:47PM

eesh Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yahweh Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Troll, you are as annoying as you are ignorant.
> >
> > Go away.
>
>
>
>
>
> It is a bit odd how Troll@AOL has acted on this
> site, yet wants to represent Christianity whenever
> there is talk about religion or evolution.


Yeah, I dont get it either;

"May the devil fist your whore of a mother in hell, praise Jesus."

I sure hope this doesn't represent the typical Christian. He hates/fears other religions and doesnt know shit about his.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 25, 2010 04:48PM

Sorry eesh, I simply said the idea of evolution does not equate to proof of a supposed non-existance of God, or a creator.

But yes, I am a 'Christian' in the sense of I believe the jist of the current historical account we call the 'Bible'.

Don't get all scatty with me eeshy-poo and 'Yahweh', just because the 'Professor' failed to do what he claimed he could do.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Numbers ()
Date: August 25, 2010 06:33PM

If your ex gf called you up one day and told you that Troll@aol was your long lost son, what would you do?

A: Shoot Yourself
B: Shoot Troll@aol
C: Shoot the ex gf
D: Go postal and shoot everyone in sight, then turn the gun on yourself

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 25, 2010 08:13PM

'Numbers' = Numb-skull

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: chachabob ()
Date: August 26, 2010 06:28AM

So when you run out of well reasoned arguments you turn to personal attacks? Oh wait, you never had any well reasoned arguments.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 26, 2010 01:59PM

WRONG again, idiot.

No 'personal attacks' were leveled. Just a factual concise description of a lying fool who was futily seeking to decieve others with his evolution crap by using implied intellectualism to reinforce his deciet.

Well he failed.

So I wrote 'Numbers = Numbskull' .

You on the otherhand "chachabob", either are Numbers' gay-devil worshiping lover OR you ARE one of the 1000's of SOCK-PUPPET user accounts Numbers has made to dispurse his insanity accross, so he doesn't appear to be the gigantic virtual-ASSHOLE he actually is.

Looking @your how long you have been a registered user, I'm gonna guess the later.


.

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Yahweh ()
Date: August 26, 2010 03:03PM

I can imagine 5 posts into this thread; Troll sticking his fingers in his ears and yelling over and over “I’m right, you’re wrong, I’m right, you’re wrong, lalalalalalalaâ€

Options: ReplyQuote
Re: How could there not be a God?
Posted by: Troll@AOL ()
Date: August 26, 2010 03:08PM

'Yahweh' = the Official FU Mindless Insult Comic-Sock Puppet

==================================================================================
"Why don't you LOSERS just pack your flower print DOUCHE BAGS
and get your stoopid @$$#$ THE FUCK OFF MY INTERNETZ!"

- 'philscamms' (the YT Watchdog) ; internet & YouTube® extraordinaire.

Options: ReplyQuote
Pages: Previous12All
Current Page: 2 of 2


Your Name: 
Your Email (Optional): 
Subject: 
Attach a file
  • No file can be larger than 75 MB
  • All files together cannot be larger than 300 MB
  • 30 more file(s) can be attached to this message
Spam prevention:
Please, enter the code that you see below in the input field. This is for blocking bots that try to post this form automatically.
 **     **  **          *******   **     **  ******** 
 **     **  **    **   **     **  **     **  **       
 **     **  **    **   **     **  **     **  **       
 **     **  **    **    ********  *********  ******   
 **     **  *********         **  **     **  **       
 **     **        **   **     **  **     **  **       
  *******         **    *******   **     **  ******** 
This forum powered by Phorum.