Hoax of Evolution 1860 replies

Please wait...

jeff & eddie

Spreading the Word.

50 XP

12th March 2006

0 Uploads

412 Posts

0 Threads

#1851 13 years ago
yWizePapaSmurfy;3661260I really don't see how we can even have an argument now: Evolutionists need proof. Creationists do not. [/quote] Generally speaking, most religions require faith. Some however, do not. Because no two religions are alike, and thus each have their own standards of faith and 'proof' to go with them. However, generally speaking, the biblical account of creation and for the mechanisms to which we see life on earth, so coincide with each other. Evolution is masqueraded as science, my objection is that it is not science. Since it does not fit the definition of science, nor can it stand up to the rigors of it tests.
Sedistix;3661709Most is a complete exaggeration. Perhaps most private schools named after saints do, but mainstream public schools are sticking steadfast to the theory which holds the most evidence, evolution.

Not quite. In kansas city for example, there is an uproar and the wheels are in motion to see fit that the theory of evolution is taught along side creationism. Also, most classes of biology today, come with a readers note to the student, informing them that evolution is not science, and merely an unscientific theory.

[quote=repRESENT the US;3662061]I know this is off topic, but biology in high school and college are absolutely NOTHING alike. Even AP Bio doesn't even come close to college Biology. Well, unless you're going to a sub-par college or one that is not known for its science courses.

Trust me, you're in for a treat (and a hell of a lot of work).

I couldn't agree with you more. The real problems with evolution IMO came to light in college. To me, the answer was finally so clear, and so obvious.




MrFancypants Forum Administrator

The Bad

218,501 XP

7th December 2003

0 Uploads

20,055 Posts

11 Threads

#1852 13 years ago

Well it looks like Tycoon/Ash also would like to see answers to posts that were previously not addressed. You know the drill, please refrain from posting anything that doesn't relate to the questions brought up by Tycoon until we get all that old stuff sorted out.




Flash525

The Carbon Comrade

50 XP

14th July 2004

0 Uploads

15,103 Posts

0 Threads

#1853 13 years ago

Thank You Fancy Pants. :) Anyway, posts I have made since 'returning' to this thread, and in order of date posted, up until this very post here:

Now, going through them Post by Post, I shall tell you what you've failed to answer. Starting with Number #1.

TycoonYou rarely (if ever) give us resources to your facts, and by resources, I don't mean the Bible. As real as that 'Book' is, it doesn't cover everything. Whilst it may seem like it does, it doesn't.
Jeff & EddieI’ve cited sources where they need to be. Most of this information I’m going over, is common sense. At least it’s supposed to be, especially if the reader has in the very least taken college-level biology/genetics courses. Maybe my expectations were too high. Is this subject really beyond you? I’m genuinely curious.[/quote][/quote]Here, I mention that you fail to give reasonable source for your information. You reply to this with "most of it is common sense". No, it isn't. Where is the common sense, that the planet and everything on it has only existed for 6000 years?[quote=Tycoon]No doubt you still believe that the Earth has only been around, for what? So many years, I forget the number you used, though I know it was ridiculously small. Likewise, you've told us a load of other stuff, that (yet again) you've not given any valuable resources for.[quote=Jeff & Eddie]6000 years. Which collaborates not only the geological column, but also the sediment stratification in the oceans. Which coincidentally, fits perfectly with the hierarchy of the biblical families in the holy book. I could see this heap of evidence being ignored legitimately, provided that said person is scientifically and biblically illiterate.

For this, I would like proof please. Some genuine resources for this information. Next, we venture onto the 2nd post. For this, there is little point me quoting anything. I've simply asked for proof of your claims, and am still waiting for them. Onto Number #3. Nothing to say here, pretty much continues from Number #2. I am still waiting for that proof of your claims. I am curious though, here, you claim that School teaches us that the Earth has only been around for 6000 years, yet, not only was I not taught that at School, but it was within this thread, and by you, that I first heard of this 'rumour'. Is it possible, that your School is teaching you wrong? Number #4. No Need to say anything on this, a collection of jokes. Continuing onto Number #5. Here, I find myself still waiting for some genuine sources from you, of which back up your claims. Five posts on... In addition, the post you made previous to that, is about that of which we currently know, and possible theories, thus, nothing concrete. This being the case, you'd simply be theorising your claims, rather than actually knowing them for a fact. Number #6. Here, you completely skip what I said previous to your post, and ask others to give you something, thus ignore what I have said without reason. Therefore you got Negative Reputation (for ignorance). The threat of giving you more was simply to get your attention (which it did), though not for long. Posts #7, #8 #9 & #10 are completely ignored by you all together. #10 isn't really an issue, as it is addressed to Fancy Pants, however #7, #8 & #9 are valid. What I would like to know / see, are sources for your claims that the Earth has only existed for 6000 years, some sources where it says that Noah had Dinosaurs on his Arc, and some sources for this evolution theory of yours. That is three things (3). If you can't provide genuine sources for these, or continue to ignore my posts, then I rest my case, and respectfully request (as both FileFront Member, and Community Member) that this thread be closed. My simple reason for this, is that if the thread starter cannot provide any sources to his / her claims, then they must be false, and his theories alone, thus this 'discussion' will simply go on and on, and with no closing point.




repRESENT the US

I don't spend enough time here

50 XP

10th April 2007

0 Uploads

27 Posts

0 Threads

#1854 13 years ago

jeff & eddie;3665180 Also, most classes of biology today, come with a readers note to the student, informing them that evolution is not science, and merely an unscientific theory.

I couldn't agree with you more. The real problems with evolution IMO came to light in college. To me, the answer was finally so clear, and such obvious.

Being that I am actually in college currently, I can honestly and fairly say that you're wrong. I don't know where you drew such assumptions (or conclusions, rather). Maybe your college (a parochial one, perhaps) issued such handouts. But, at top research universities like Rutgers, Columbia, UPenn, such handouts are non-existent.

So tell me, if the top universities are neglecting to include such "important" information in their syllabi, are they wrong? Should we simply disregard what these top scholars are teaching us?




BladeV2

Twisted God

50 XP

7th April 2004

0 Uploads

534 Posts

0 Threads

#1855 13 years ago
Generally speaking, most religions require faith. Some however, do not. Because no two religions are alike, and thus each have their own standards of faith and 'proof' to go with them. However, generally speaking, the biblical account of creation and for the mechanisms to which we see life on earth, so coincide with each other.

For example, World's been alive for 6000 years, Noah's Ark, Dinosaurs=last 6000 years, Stopping the sun in the sky..., Dude, I most of the stories in the bible don't adhere to the laws of nature. Like turning someone into a pillar of salt. Or sporadically raining fire and brimstone on someone.

Also, I'd like to point out that the people that most people that object to evolution do so solely on religious grounds, usually Christians too (yet not the pope...). There might be like 3 that don't, and they just don't feel that natural selection isn't an adequate answer. That yells bias in the way people read facts, etc.

And the fact that no one actually doubts evolution in more elite universities, and in the Northeast US in general, is damning. A hoax could never be perpetuated for over a century.




yWizePapaSmurfy

Pink Unicorns...think about it

50 XP

14th September 2006

0 Uploads

346 Posts

0 Threads

#1856 13 years ago

Well Tycoon, it turns out that jeff & eddie has no sources, at least that's what he said in answer to my request for sources. He also has no proof outside the Bible because he believes that he doesn't need to prove Creationism for some reason I forget (But apparently Evolution does need proof for some reason.;)) and for that reason he can't disprove Evolution because he doesn't think it exists despite all his readings and all the sources we've shown.

Other questions I can't comment on, but he hasn't been here since he answered my questions, further adding to my disillusionment that I was special.




jeff & eddie

Spreading the Word.

50 XP

12th March 2006

0 Uploads

412 Posts

0 Threads

#1857 13 years ago

MrFancypants;3665317Well it looks like Tycoon/Ash also would like to see answers to posts that were previously not addressed. You know the drill, please refrain from posting anything that doesn't relate to the questions brought up by Tycoon until we get all that old stuff sorted out.[/quote]

I really hate to do this to you, I really do Fancypants. But im going to have to deny your request. I have stated that I will ignore him, and I intend to do just that. I will not go back on what I have said--and I am holding my ground. I will not move. If that means this discussion cannot continue, or must be brought to an end, then so be it. I am keeping my word. "Tycoon" / "Ash" or whatever, will not get a response from me. I have better things to do.

[quote=yWizePapaSmurfy;3665898]Well Tycoon, it turns out that jeff & eddie has no sources, at least that's what he said in answer to my request for sources. [...] (But apparently Evolution does need proof for some reason.)

See the bolded?

All apparently lost in this discussion, because the supporters of evolution apparently do not know what evolution is. What science is, or what the scientific method is. It's unfair for me to at this point to continue a debate when those who oppose me, cannot construct a scientific argument. No offense to you personally.




Junk angel

Huh, sound?

166,880 XP

29th January 2007

0 Uploads

15,678 Posts

0 Threads

#1858 13 years ago
But apparently Evolution does need proof for some reason.

This is more an attack on the fact, that you do say creationism more or less requires no proof

wraithcat God cannot be observed God cannot be proven God cannot be replicated God cannot be tested God cannot be predicted God defies our current laws of physics (chaos theory--it's impossible to know both heading and vector of all particles in the universe at the same time--this is a prerequisite for omniousness)

Also I'd like to get an answer to this from here




Flash525

The Carbon Comrade

50 XP

14th July 2004

0 Uploads

15,103 Posts

0 Threads

#1859 13 years ago
yWizePapaSmurfy;3665898Well Tycoon, it turns out that jeff & eddie has no sources, at least that's what he said in answer to my request for sources. He also has no proof outside the Bible because he believes that he doesn't need to prove Creationism for some reason I forget (But apparently Evolution does need proof for some reason.;)) and for that reason he can't disprove Evolution because he doesn't think it exists despite all his readings and all the sources we've shown.[/quote]Then I rest my case, and the case of this thread by saying that his thoughts, theories and opinions are his, and his alone. They aren't facts, they are all fictional. Jeff / Eddie - If anything you had to say had the slightest meaning, then somewhere on the Internet, there would be proof of this. Seeing as there isn't, I can only conclude that you are an attention seeker. [quote=jeff & eddie;3666208]But im going to have to deny your request. I have stated that I will ignore him, and I intend to do just that. I will not go back on what I have said--and I am holding my ground. I will not move. If that means this discussion cannot continue, or must be brought to an end, then so be it. I am keeping my word. "Tycoon" / "Ash" or whatever, will not get a response from me. I have better things to do.

Therefore, Fancy Pants, could you please Lock This Thread. What is strange though, is that 'you' (Jeff/Eddie) sent a message to Fancy Pants, asking for this thread to be unlocked not that long ago, and now, because 'I am back, and you can't answer my questions' you simply don't seem to care. Might as well admit defeat on this one. I am sorry, but without sources, there is no argument. Anyway, I look forward to seeing this thread locked. I can't say I'll miss it.




yWizePapaSmurfy

Pink Unicorns...think about it

50 XP

14th September 2006

0 Uploads

346 Posts

0 Threads

#1860 13 years ago

Ah, yeah, I was *poking* at that for a reason, jeff & eddie.

I was stating that there is no argument, scientific or otherwise, since you have not brought forth a scientific counter argument.

But yeah, no offense, hope you got my PM of apologies.