176 replies to this topic

[Br Cornelius]

ziczac, on 06 September 2012 - 01:29 PM, said:

hahahah.... don't tell me you are a darwinist?

Why wouldn't he be - all the evidence supports Darwin.

Don't tell me your a Creationist

Br Cornelius

[ziczac]

@ questionmark _ first of all when accuse someone of being ignorant without being able to provide a viable explanation to your "Theory", you need to learn the ethics of speech. An ignorant person would reply back to you using the same tone but since most of Darwin followers who do so blindly, always defend themselves with anger, I am the more confinent it is because they are clueless and that's their only way.
your theory is still a theory... even evolution still has questionmarks about it in case you "read". you asked two scientific questions which I replied to and proposed a theory which indicates that human were designed to walk on four, theories will always be theories. I can talk to you for hours on Marx's A doesn't equal A and no mathematician can prove it to be wrong or right.

so stick to scientific questions or else don't lose your temper!

[ziczac]

@ Alien Abducter -  so what do we have here another supporter of the Monkey/planet of apes theorist ...hahahhaha...
you darwinists really have alot in common, not only you like the fact that you are all originally monkeys but also you make spelling mistakes! probably that's why you believe so... hahahhahah
by the way, I can scientifically prove that the monkey theory is nothing more than a justin bieber song... it only attracts stupid teenagers ... hahahhahahah

[Render]

ziczac, on 07 September 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:

@ questionmark _ first of all when accuse someone of being ignorant without being able to provide a viable explanation to your "Theory", you need to learn the ethics of speech. An ignorant person would reply back to you using the same tone but since most of Darwin followers who do so blindly, always defend themselves with anger, I am the more confinent it is because they are clueless and that's their only way.
your theory is still a theory... even evolution still has questionmarks about it in case you "read". you asked two scientific questions which I replied to and proposed a theory which indicates that human were designed to walk on four, theories will always be theories. I can talk to you for hours on Marx's A doesn't equal A and no mathematician can prove it to be wrong or right.

so stick to scientific questions or else don't lose your temper!

Ah, the ever so popular faux-argument of "It still is just a theory". It expresses no more than a lack of insight in what a scientific theory trully means. Of course the theory of evolution, like the theory of relativity is in a way, just a theory. But for ppl from your background this automatically entails that this is no more than an unproved belief, which can be replaced by any alternative "theory" out there. Like the theory of genesis. But these two meanings of theories are being unjustifiably equated.
A scientific theory is more than just a presumption. If it holds truth it explains a series of facts, coherently and is also entwined with several other theories from other scientific fields. For example: theory of evolution is linked to chemistry, paleontology, geology and many more fields. If the theory of evolution would be so wrong, like you claim, then all these other fields have to be wrong too. Which is not the case.

Of course there are still unsolved things in science. But instead as taking that as proof that everything must be wrong, science does whatever it can to fill in the blanks.

Your pseudo-scientific view focusses on an isolated presumption and takes that as evidence that the entire theory is flawed. Which proves a severe misunderstanding of scientific theories as a whole.

[ziczac]

Well "Render",  I have to say that I respect what you said because it's smartly put but can't like or agree with because it made no difference at all to the subject discussed.
I like all theories and specially contradicting ones... I have fallen in love with the Dialectical Materialism but I don't take it seriously. I like Freud and Nitzsche but you gotta admit that they were both crazy and no sane mind would grasp their ideas.
back to the point you made and which has no validity at all, even if all darwins "assumptions" are true, this doesn't prove that God doesn't exist! so I wonder what's this fuss about this stupid theory. Also, the suggestion that humans were designed to walk on four doesn't deny that their is a God. God's plan would have been a variety of creatures that evolve from different forms to others.
I personally think that our race would change to be of a certain shape in the future given the changes in life styles, climate, and others..... but what couldn't convince me is the somewhat dumb suggestion that we have evolved from monkeys especially that this was scientifically disproven. If you wish I can provide details.

[FurthurBB]

ziczac, on 07 September 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Well "Render",  I have to say that I respect what you said because it's smartly put but can't like or agree with because it made no difference at all to the subject discussed.
I like all theories and specially contradicting ones... I have fallen in love with the Dialectical Materialism but I don't take it seriously. I like Freud and Nitzsche but you gotta admit that they were both crazy and no sane mind would grasp their ideas.
back to the point you made and which has no validity at all, even if all darwins "assumptions" are true, this doesn't prove that God doesn't exist! so I wonder what's this fuss about this stupid theory. Also, the suggestion that humans were designed to walk on four doesn't deny that their is a God. God's plan would have been a variety of creatures that evolve from different forms to others.
I personally think that our race would change to be of a certain shape in the future given the changes in life styles, climate, and others..... but what couldn't convince me is the somewhat dumb suggestion that we have evolved from monkeys especially that this was scientifically disproven. If you wish I can provide details.

What does proving that we did not evolve from monkeys have to do with the theory of evolution?

[Br Cornelius]

ziczac, on 07 September 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Well "Render",  I have to say that I respect what you said because it's smartly put but can't like or agree with because it made no difference at all to the subject discussed.
I like all theories and specially contradicting ones... I have fallen in love with the Dialectical Materialism but I don't take it seriously. I like Freud and Nitzsche but you gotta admit that they were both crazy and no sane mind would grasp their ideas.
back to the point you made and which has no validity at all, even if all darwins "assumptions" are true, this doesn't prove that God doesn't exist! so I wonder what's this fuss about this stupid theory. Also, the suggestion that humans were designed to walk on four doesn't deny that their is a God. God's plan would have been a variety of creatures that evolve from different forms to others.
I personally think that our race would change to be of a certain shape in the future given the changes in life styles, climate, and others..... but what couldn't convince me is the somewhat dumb suggestion that we have evolved from monkeys especially that this was scientifically disproven. If you wish I can provide details.

Your going to derail this thread into one of does God exist - please take it to the Spirituality vs skeptism board where it belongs and leave us in the science board to discuss Science. Your unsupportable statements are lowering the tone.

Br Cornelius

[ziczac]

what does your question mean?!!!!!

[Br Cornelius]

ziczac, on 07 September 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

what does your question mean?!!!!!

If your talking to me - it wasn't a question it was an instruction.

Br Cornelius

[ziczac]

@ "Skeptic/abductor" - I offered supports but I don't just throw everything I know. I respect the will. So I ask if you want to hear, I can easily provide support as I suggested in my earlier note.

And such a very superficial comeback that was!!!! whenever someone raises the topic on God's existence, some would link it to spirituality. My answer was not to you. My answer was to the user who asked if God was busy on a Monday when added the appendix to human body or something like that ... I don't even recall what he said. So yes ...

you don't know how to spell (abductor and not abducter) and you don't also focus on discussion!!! hahahahha... I love when there are users like you... it makes it even more fun....

[ziczac]

hahahhah.... you seriously need help when it comes to focus! the question was obviously addressed to Further BB. you should have guessed since you use the logic of "Science" people :) hahahhaha... you are really funny

[Br Cornelius]

I suspect you are trolling us here - because you cannot think that you can be taken seriously in a discussion of science.
This creationist vs evolution has been discussed so many times before (in the skeptics vs spirituality forum where it belongs) that I suggest you revive one of those threads rather than derailing this one.

If you have anything serious and/or meaningful to contribute to the discussion at hand - feel free.

Br Cornelius

[ziczac]

you haven't raised attractive points to take part in. The only one that caught my attention where those two questions which I happened to have answers to. I don't see any other good questions in here and I promise you when I see ones, I will definitely have my time around you guys

[Br Cornelius]

ziczac, on 07 September 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

you haven't raised attractive points to take part in. The only one that caught my attention where those two questions which I happened to have answers to. I don't see any other good questions in here and I promise you when I see ones, I will definitely have my time around you guys

You will not see anyone seriously raise God in a discussion of "Natural Disasters" so maybe you are looking in the wrong place.
I have yet to see a creationist put up a credible attack on Evolution in any thread that has ever taken place here. I seriously doubt that you have the capacity to break that trend. the fact that you have not made a single substantive point beyond rhetoric is ample proof of your incapacity.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 07 September 2012 - 01:12 PM.

[ziczac]

uhm... that's because everything that should have been said against evolution was already said! and that there alot of questions that evolutionists failed to answer. To name a few:
- did non-living things evolve to life?!!!! in other words how the first living organism came to life? and that's the most stupid question which I am sure your genius Darwin had no answer to
- again the apes thing has been subject to experiments which failed totally ( I can give you facts)
- how did the sun and earth came to life? without those two no living cell can exist!
- History is very short and there is still no proof of evolution other than that which has been witnessed on insects and only to some other form insects!!!
- Evolutionists didn't start their theory from zero. They started from a place with no explanation to the benining or origin!!!
- No transitional fossils have ever been found!
- My favorite one: evolution doesn't operate within a closed system and therefore isn't subject to the law of thermodynamics!

oh !!! I can't believe you dragged me into this so verrrry repeated subject that all smart people now keep it behind

please move to something more challenging and if you want I can challenge you ...