Just a joke, seems like a truism to me. People with weaker arguments tend to be louder, and take them more personally, especially religious debates.
You mean like your 20 lines to his 4?--5x louder Spoiler Or if you want this thread only examples I see a 6x one right here. Not even counting that it wasn't a full line of text. Spoiler
First, let's just keep this in here, so we're not taking up two threads. I have to say man, if you haven't heard of the DI in the context of the Dover trials and stuff, the whole nitty-gritty of the creationist-evolution debate may not be our best bet for debate. It's not one that anyone can win it either, I can toss science at you all day long, but your worldview isn't even close to mine, so we can't really debate. I'm not conceding but I don't see a lot of point to this.
Now I'm wondering if I should continue with this or not... ...After all, it is different from that awful 'God Thread'...
Lol, oh yeah, I remember that! That happened in the God thread. In a way Purexist is correct in saying that evidence and especially LOGIC is ignored by people with faith. That's why society has advanced so slowly because people hold on to there old ways and don't advance forward. The evidence behind Evolution is solid, with many different types of bones that are similar to humans that were recovered. Creationists that don't believe in evolution reject many thousands of proofs that it exists. Does anyone remember the Black Plague that occured hundreds of years ago? The bacteria spread quickly and killed many millions. Humans died conistently for 20 years straight. Then something unbelievable happened. The bacteria didn't affect them anymore. Why is this? Well, humans became immune to the bacteria through a change in their body. If such a change did not exist, then we would all be dead. If this isn't convincing, then what about the many colored butterflys. Or rabbits. Or cats. These animals evolved in order to camoflauge with their environment. Humans aren't very different. People born in warmer climates such as America tend to grow more hair than people born in a 150 F Sudan. Creationists reject the idea of DNA. This means when they look at their own toes and then look at smothers and see that they are different, they ignore evidence that their own bodies are different from others. __________________________ The god debate thread is not awful. It's filled with facts against the theory of evolution (def. An inaccurate belief or something that is not supported with facts). We were all glad you left at your own will. Thanks for doing so. PS- The bible never said not to hang around non-religious people.
Like it was yesterday. Though my question for this thread is: why are these two ideas so mutually exclusive? Isn't the belief that creationism played a part in the beginning (before organic life) and evolution took over a valid idea?
That's where you get me. I can't deal with that. No sir. You firmly state something without backing yourself up in any way, shape, or form. It makes me want to go and search for it just to prove you wrong. Well, I won't.
This image is probably one of the best examples proving evolution is true. It shows how these finches who were all the same and who were assumingly transported by a traveling ship of the time ended up on galapagos islands and evolved over time to the food that was around them. The first had to adapt to the new food and survive but over a longer time period they had to evolve to make their life easier to their surroundings. This is evolution because these birds are all from the same origin of a seed eating finch. Over time and by evolving the beaks of the birds changed deppending on what they ate. Most of these varients of finch are unique to the galapagos meaning that theres no way they could of came from multiple groups of finches.
The beautiful thing is you saw this and ignored the rest of the debate. Look, you never responded to your fellow Christian in the God debate and proceded to request a lock. This was so idiotioc of you, and you believe in the bible so much, yet YOU are the one who should direct me to this proof. And you refuse to? What are you erico? (paragraphs of personal attacks) All 11 years in Sunday school that I was in Erico did not once have a teacher proclaim that atheists are bad, delusional people and shouldn't be talked to. Since when, have you EVER use evidence to back up your argument? Never rather than ever sounds correct to me. Retaliate... On a more related note, someone respond to what Eyeless Sid and I said on the previous page before debating further. Yes, Pepsi, I saw your answer and will read it further, I just wanted to put this response out here. @ Pepsi, it depends on which way or area you are covering. That was my interpretation on the information that I had at hand.
I wasn't in the debate in the first place. I am... The One... yea, I'm not really taking you seriously because I'm not going into this debate thang seriously anymore. I'm just trying to ignore it. Okay, you got me, I don't use a backup... Well, you won. Game over. Okay bye.
This is why you failed in the "God" debate as well you jump in comment then leave. Then when someone responds you just say well I wasn't really in the debate. Then DON'T post. lol the best way of ignoring something is to not look at it or respond to it.
I really hope everyone that believes in evolution actually knows how it started. If not, then I'm a Christian that knows more about evolution than an evolutionist. Pretty sad... So here is a real quick explanation on how Charles Darwin started evolution. He visited two islands. On both islands, there was a certain species of turtles. They were almost exactly the same. The only difference was that on 1 island the turtles had long necks, and on the other island the turtles had small necks. Now, the evolutionists call that evidence saying the turtles grew longer necks. I call that a bunch of retarded morons that don't know science!!!!!!! This is sort of confusing so pay attention. Lets start with genes. How do you look the way you do, talk the way you do, or have a certain hair color? It is called genes. If your dad is tall, you will most likely be tall. If both your parents have blue eyes, you will, most likely have blue eyes (That has to do with dominant genes and recessive genes which I will not go in to). Well that is how everything with the turtles really happened. There is island A and island B. Two turtles were on island A. The male had a long neck and the female had a short neck, or the other way around. They mated and had babies. Say they had 100 babies. Well since the turtles mated sexually, not asexually, genes from both parents were passed down. So there was something like 50 short neck turtles and 50 long neck turtles. Are you with me so far? Now on island A, there is food in the bushes. So the turtles need long necks to be able to reach the food. On island B, the food is on the ground, so even though there can be long necks and short necks...(I will go into this one later) All 100 turtles started on island A. Some of the turtles decided to swim from island A to island B. Now, there is something like 25 long neck turtles and 25 short neck turtles. Well since the food is in bushes, the ones with shorter necks will have trouble getting food. They would still get some food, but not much. So the turtles with short necks won't prosper. Some short neck turtles would reproduce, but once again, more than most of those babies will have short necks. The ones with short necks will pretty much die off. The turtles with long necks, will all be able to reproduce. They can get as much food as they want. The only way one might die is by some weird accident or of course, old age. But here is the thing, pretty much all the long neck turtles will keep reproducing. After a few generations, there will be way more long neck turtles than short neck turtles. Soon enough, all the short neck turtles will finally die off. Now, every single generation that comes will consist of long neck turtles. Do you see where I'm going with this by now? From earlier, I said that about 50 turtles swam to island B. Say something like 10 turtles died off in the journey to this other island. Now your left with 40 turtles. Something like 20 have short necks and 20 have long necks. Well since the food is on the ground, all the turtles on this island can eat. So all the turtles eat fine and reproduce. Now since all of this is coming off the top of my head, I can't really remember the reason that all the turtles now have short necks. But here is still a logical guess - You know how if you don't use your muscles than they basically go away, they turn to flab. If some small animals leg is completely broken, they leg pretty much goes away or detaches itself. The leg or arm goes away because it is not needed. Now how many people have ever seen some small animal running around or something like that, that has a limp leg just hanging off to the side? Not me. I only see the animal with a small stub like thing. Well losing what you don't use or need happened with the turtles. They didn't have to stretch their necks to get food. All they do is look down and start eating. So now this entire island has short neck turtles. So someone (Charles Darwin) comes along. He does not know what has been happening over years and years and years. So he comes to the conclusion that the short neck turtles swam to the island with the bushes and grew longer necks. No. That is not what happened. The necks of the turtles never grew. One of the original turtles that mated had a long neck (from before) and reproduced. His genes for a long neck were passed on for many generations. The mother that had a short neck also passed on her genes for many generations. Everybody that believes in evolution calls that evidence. Now since most evolutionists barely even have half a brain, I bet they will not understand anything I said. They will probably reply to me saying something like, "Ur reTard3d! U dun know wat u say1n!!!! Lo1 Lo1" Have I made it clear enough that Charles Darwin's original theory is a bunch of bullsh*t? I would really like to see someone prove me wrong on this. Please try.
Chris, I agree completely. Some of the posts on this thread are insane, and yours is rational. I really support that wall of text, but, from my understanding (I'm not sure) you and Darwin are on the same page. I thought that evolutionists before Darwin said that the turtles grew long necks, and then Darwin proved them wrong by saying what you did. If you looked this up and I'm wrong, just say so, because I even want to know.
(I sent you a message going into more detail.) If you go up to around the top of the page then you will see a quote I made. It was someone saying the turtle stuff is proof of evolution. I purposely quoted that to have some more facts. Well on the part that evolutionists call that evidence.
You don't seem to have even a basic understanding of evolution, nor do you understand the differences between it and Darwinism. I'm going to go ahead and wait for a few years until you mature and take some biology classes. Once you do, come back, and if this website is still alive you can rejoin the conversation (Or, you can read those two links and try again)
Your whole argument is void because of this part. Tell me, how did the mommy and daddy turtles get to have such different sized necks? You basically took evolution to be truth and then tried to disprove it.