Prove creationism...I'll shut up!

Started by Blue nocturne63 pages

Originally posted by Captain Falcon
Penn: okay so here's my point. As Charles Darwin wrote, it is interestingly to contomplate an intangled bank, clothes with many plants of any kind, with birds singing in the bushes, and various insects fliding about, and with worms crawling about in the damp earth, and to reflect, that these elaborately constructed forms, so different from another, and yet so dependant on eachother in so complex a manner, have all been produced by laws acting around us, thus, from the war of nature; From famine and death. The most exulted object we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of higher animals, directly follows. There's a grandure in this view of life. Richard Dawkins short description is: Life results from the non-random survival, of randomly varying replicators. Okay, now what's the creatinoist argument?

*Teller hits him with a bible*

Falcon, with all seriousness the theory of evolution is a dud, there no valid transitional forms found( Despite the fact there should be millions if evolution is real), Mutations cannot create new traits, as much as they've tried it's never happened, and natural selection has never been observed to produce new species.

Science comes the Latin word "scientia" which means to know, Science is about questioning and experimenting, Not accepting theories blindly Darwinism doesn't hold up, in all honesty have you ever tested any of the theories you've learned or have just accepted them as true because you were told?

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And evolution too 😆
scientists that think evolution didn't happen: ...

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Falcon, with all seriousness the theory of evolution is a dud, there no valid transitional forms found( Despite the fact there should be millions if evolution is real), Mutations cannot create new traits, as much as they've tried it's never happened, and natural selection has never been observed to produce new species.

Science comes the Latin word "scientia" which means to know, Science is about questioning and experimenting, Not accepting theories blindly Darwinism doesn't hold up, in all honesty have you ever tested any of the theories you've learned or have just accepted them as true because you were told?

what's this got to do with the fact of creationism? Try the prove evolution thread from now on 😉

Originally posted by Captain Falcon
scientists that think evolution didn't happen: ...

And you know this for a fact? 😆

EDIT: Debating darwinism is taboo in the scientific community.

Originally posted by Captain Falcon
what's this got to do with the fact of creationism? Try the prove evolution thread from now on 😉

You agreed to debate on proving evolution, maybe you just forgot.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
And you know this for a fact? 😆

EDIT: Debating darwinism is taboo in the scientific community.

well tell me a SCIENTIST that says evolution is false and not a science. Name me one. Name me one fact against evolution and for anything else?

Originally posted by Captain Falcon
not even close. A 1950s scientist mixed some chemicals simelar to the chemicals in the soup of early earth. He shocked the soup he had and made Amino acids. Amino acids become RNA, then DNA then cells. Now that is life my friend. But he could only get to DNA.

Harold Urey and Stanley Miller

Originally posted by Captain Falcon
well tell me a SCIENTIST that says evolution is false and not a science. Name me one. Name me one fact against evolution and for anything else?

Warwick collins

See cambrian explosion.

Blue nocturne and Captain Falcon, use the edit button for crying out loud.

Originally posted by Storm
Blue nocturne and Captain Falcon, use the edit button for crying out loud.

Sorry.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Harold Urey and Stanley Miller
so you know of this.

and just to recap: Since the 1920s when evolution was allowed to be taught in the US, we have discovered millions of biological evidence including genetics, another million pieces of astronomical evidence indicating the age of the earth and the universe, a million pieces of geological evidence including many, transitional fossils and so-called, missing link pieces of the evolution of man ALL of which supports evolution. If you throw out evolution, you're throwing out every other ****ing scientific discovery since the 1800s.

Originally posted by Captain Falcon
so you know of this.

and just to recap: Since the 1920s when evolution was allowed to be taught in the US, we have discovered millions of biological evidence including genetics, another million pieces of astronomical evidence indicating the age of the earth and the universe, a million pieces of geological evidence including many, transitional fossils and so-called, missing link pieces of the evolution of man ALL of which supports evolution. If you throw out evolution, you're throwing out every other ****ing scientific discovery since the 1800s.

hysterical MILLIONS OF EVIDENCE!!!

Where are these transitional forms stop quoting BS.

EDIT: Paleontology is Responsible for the dating the earth's age, Genetics has not prove evolution there is no proof to it all.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
hysterical MILLIONS OF EVIDENCE!!!

Where are these transitional forms stop quoting BS.

EDIT: Paleontology is Responsible for the dating the earth's age, Genetics has not prove evolution there is no proof to it all.

WHAT? we have the same genes shared in the fossils, infact, did you know that our DNA with chimps is 99% identical? If you read a ****ing book and listen to a scientist, you'll know I'm right.

Originally posted by Captain Falcon
WHAT? we have the same genes shared in the fossils, infact, did you know that our DNA with chimps is 99% identical? If you read a ****ing book and listen to a scientist, you'll know I'm right.

No actually it's less then 95% nice try.

EDIT: And it still doesn't prove a common ancestry.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2278733.stm

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
No actually it's less then 95% nice try.

EDIT: And it still doesn't prove a common ancestry.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2278733.stm

Prove Creationsim or shut up. This is not an evolution debate thread. If you want to debate evolution do it HERE.

So... Where's the proof in favour of Creationism??
(Looks around)
Oh, dear, feeble attempts at disproving evolution again, huh?

Originally posted by The Omega
So... Where's the proof in favour of Creationism??
(Looks around)
Oh, dear, feeble attempts at disproving evolution again, huh?

Answer my question omega and I'll shut up.

You have been reported.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Answer my question omega and I'll shut up.

Prove Creationsim or shut up. This is not an evolution debate thread. If you want to debate evolution do it HERE.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Answer my question omega and I'll shut up.
Isn't the thread, prove creationism and I'LL shut up? I'm looking for the evidence for creation and there still isn't any.

I think what Nocture means is that we only believe we desceded from lesser life and fossils. That is not the case. To say we came from them is the only explanation we've got so far. Rather than argue with us about whether it took place or not isn't helping anyone. Wouldn't it be better if YOU came up with a better theory? Well?

Originally posted by The Omega
So... Where's the proof in favour of Creationism??
(Looks around)
Oh, dear, feeble attempts at disproving evolution again, huh?
That's the only thing they've got. That's why I put it on that 'not to mention' list on post 1.