ROTS Pre-Suit Vader vs. Galen Marek

your ideas fail.
all horses. 'nuff said.

second one-doesn't give the correct defenition for the creationist's theory of how fossils were formed. 'nuff said.

third one--archeopteryx. 'nuff said.

fourth one--Horse. 'nuff said.

fifth one--Amaizing how god had the same basic design in mind for all reptiles and mammals with a few variables. they all have 4 legs a head, and a tale. interesting. 'nuff said

No, the people who challenge it are scientists.
Or do you believe we teach evolution exactly as Darwin theorized it?

I'm not the one who needs to believe the invisible man in the sky created us all 6000 years ago and that anyone he doesn't like burns in a fiery pit and that the only real truth is a 5000 year old book.

I'm not the one who believes that two molecules coliding with each other made all matter, then a lifless ball of rock and ice spawned a single celled organism from inanimate material, then that organism turned into thousands of different species, each one infinitely complex based on an insane man's rantings.

[quote]

http://www.halos.com/ second polonium halo's site.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/radiohalo.asp

now shut up.

so....... you've thrown all kinds of things at me... i disprove them and you say that I didn't. you have yet to refute one thing that I have said. I'm done. goodbye. its no longer intellectual, its now a struggle of stupid and brick headed vs me. If anyone wants to intellectually disprove my points, please pm me. If you want to post links all day and then cry when I either don't feel the necessity to visit your dumb ass 5 trillion word links. I didn't make it tricky, i put down my rebuttal. If i had a source, i quoted the exact part of the source i wanted to say, not the whole Gd link.

I've made my points, ive thrown out yours, and now your back with how scientists don't accept something that isn't fact, and THATS MY POINT!!

Please, if someone thinks that there is something that is unsaid, or wants to show me irrefutable proof of evolution, please pm me.

Originally posted by truejedi
i'm afraid you are the one that posts without an ounce of credibility, yet maintains an attitude of superiority, and infallibility. You not only do that in this particular debate, but you have done so in numerous debates over these forums.

I already told you to summarize your own sources, not expect me to read your sources.

Debates don't consist of: now we are going to take 40 minutes while side A reads everything that side B has read in preparing for this debate. That's ridiculous.

An Essay IS NOT EVIDENCE. when are you going to figure that out? An essay is intepretation of available evidence. You presenting an essay as evidence just shows you are ABSOLUTELY unwilling to do your own research and intepretation.

Now you reveal your own ignorance:
An essay summarizing available scientific knowledge, making the argument, answering and responding to rebuttals and citing sources and facts is evidence.

Knightfall has repeatedly posted a synopsis of what he is trying to say BEFORE posting a link, and if you want an ounce of credibility, you'll do the same. [/B]

Don't want to read it? Guess what? That isn't my problem. the evidence is there. Read it or don't, but you've demonstrated little understanding of the subject or what it entails and seem to just be siding with Knightfall because he's the religious one

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
I didn't make it tricky, i put down my rebuttal. If i had a source, i quoted the exact part of the source i wanted to say, not the whole Gd link.

i agree with this one completely....

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
your ideas fail.
all horses. 'nuff said.

Please, if someone thinks that there is something that is unsaid, or wants to show me irrefutable proof of evolution, please pm me.

Originally posted by truejedi
i agree with this one completely....

Oh, and Knightfall?

http://www.katnoodle.com/wp-content/Jesus-dumbass.jpg

Originally posted by Lightsnake
Oh, and Knightfall?

http://www.katnoodle.com/wp-content/Jesus-dumbass.jpg

k, i'm out, and you're on ignore. So much for debating anything...
Lets make fun of, and mock each other instead. Would u use a jpg like that for any actual debate or discussion? no you wouldn't. You fail.

Wait...he can get away with saying things like 'retard, dumbass' launch numerous insults. I give him one last one after he pulls the whiny drama queen act and YOU get huffy for no reason?

You know what that smacks of? Cowardice in that you won't respond to any point I make against you as well as hypocrisy.

Funny how this thread has shown that creationists can neither read nor argue. They're also incapable of proper grammar.

I love when people get so riled over something so irrelevant.

So. ROTS Vader>Galen.

I’d appreciate it if you would post a link to such large pictures, rather than killing my screen with pictures larger than the width, forcing me into a full 2D scroll wheel.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11

all horses. 'nuff said.

second one-doesn't give the correct defenition for the creationist's theory of how fossils were formed. 'nuff said.

third one--archeopteryx. 'nuff said.

fifth one--Amaizing how god had the same basic design in mind for all reptiles and mammals with a few variables. they all have 4 legs a head, and a tale. interesting. 'nuff said

show me some contrasts between modern day's religion of evolution and darwin's. and its wrong still. it still has far too many holes to be taught as fact in public school.

I'm not the one who believes that two molecules coliding with each other made all matter, then a lifless ball of rock and ice spawned a single celled organism from inanimate material, then that organism turned into thousands of different species, each one infinitely complex based on an insane man's rantings.

I even stayed out of -most- of the Old Testament, which is a veritable SHITSTORM of silliness from our pal, Yahwe.

http://www.halos.com/ second polonium halo's site.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/radiohalo.asp

selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation Are all words that can be (and have) been used to describe Robert Gentry. He is not a scientist, he is a propagandist.

so....... you've thrown all kinds of things at me... i disprove them and you say that I didn't. you have yet to refute one thing that I have said. I'm done. goodbye. its no longer intellectual, its now a struggle of stupid and brick headed vs me. If anyone wants to intellectually disprove my points, please pm me. If you want to post links all day and then cry when I either don't feel the necessity to visit your dumb ass 5 trillion word links. I didn't make it tricky, i put down my rebuttal. If i had a source, i quoted the exact part of the source i wanted to say, not the whole Gd link.

Please, if someone thinks that there is something that is unsaid, or wants to show me irrefutable proof of evolution, please pm me.

Originally posted by truejedi

no. it doesn't. You can point out changes WITHIN a species. You can NEVER give me an example of something that switched species. You can't do it.

tell me, where was creationism "Proven" false. Cause i must of missed the studies on that one.

Occam's Razor = flawed Medieval principle...like Geocentric models of the solar system.

Has there been a move away from the practice? Einstein said (I'm quoting Wikipedia) "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler."

I haven't been told that it is considered incorrect. If there is an argument against it I'd love to hear it.

Then Einstein proceeded to invent General Relativity. Simple? Apparently he didn't take his own advice.

Occam's Razor was inspired by the Bible, by the way...

From my master
Occam's Razor is a philosophical principle which is also part of the scientific method. The original principle comes from a theologian named William of Ockham, who lived nearly a thousand years ago and devised it as a proof that the existence of God is not logical. That may seem contradictory for a theologian, but he was trying to show that you need pure faith to believe in God, and that logic will not help you. The principle he used was the concept of logical parsimony, which says that we should not multiply entities unnecessarily.

Occam's razor says to use the best, simplest explanation that fits. If General Relativity didn't fit, or was unnecessarily complicated, then it would be cut apart. The idea that something must be simplistic to be simple is flawed. An explanation to a child will be simplistic, but a mathematical formula will be simple- with like terms combined, fractions cleared (where applicable) etc.

Also, the Idea that something is inherently wrong just because it relates, is in, or is about the bible is scary. Incest is wrong independent of its ramifications when considered biblically.

Occam's razor is attributed to 14th century philosopher William of Ockham, Enyalus. And it's pretty good in that it says the simplest solution is usually the better.

Not spamming, but most people (in my experience) don't read posted links very carefully.
http://www.creationtheory.org/Introduction/Printable.xhtml

1. "Humans are the most highly
evolved species". This misconception assumes that
evolution has some kind of plan, and that we are its ultimate
product. This is completely wrong (not to mention egotistical). The
imperfect nature of biological reproduction generates diversity,
and the resulting diverse animal populations must struggle to
survive and reproduce. In the African savannah, this process
allowed our ancestors to thrive, resulting in us. In the caves of
Venezuela, deadly foot-long armoured centipedes sit atop the food
chain. In a Japanese waste-water facility, this diversity resulted
in a mutated form of bacteria that lives on man-made nylon.
Creationists tend to assume a plan for evolution because they
project their own mindset onto it, and because they want to believe
that everything leads to humans. However, from a biological
standpoint, we are simply not that special.

2. "Evolution is an attack on
religious beliefs." Evolution is an attack on
certain beliefs, but not on all religion. In fact, many
ancient religions describe humans and animals as related.
Aboriginal religions in particular often depict mankind being
related to the animals, or having been produced from parts of
animals. Buddhism actually teaches that we are so indistinguishable
from the animals that we can be reincarnated as animals, and they
can be reincarnated as us. Judaism, along with its offshoots, is
actually rather unusual in assigning some special status to
mankind, and it is this egotism which leads them to reject
evolution so forcefully. As many adherents to the Abrahamic
religions have put it, "I refuse to believe that I am related
to an ape". People like this actually find the idea of human
kinship with animals to be offensive and inherently hostile to
spirituality, despite the fact that it is a common belief in many
ancient cultures.

3. "Evolution is a controversial
theory, which many scientists are starting to seriously
question." Evolution is controversial among
politicians, but not among scientists. The "Institute
for Creation Research" (ICR) claims that "thousands"
of scientists support creationism (although nowhere near this many
actually submitted their names to ICR's list), while the
National Center for Science Education (NCSE) claims far more
support for evolution. But what is the real ratio? It may be
instructive to look at "Project Steve", in which the NCSE
compiled a list of scientists who wanted to voice their support for
evolution, but included only those whose first name is Steve
in order to limit its size. If you cut down ICR's list[1] using
the same method, only 3 names remain. And how many names does
Project Steve[2] have? 774. In other words, if this is an even
vaguely representative sample, not even 1% of scientists support
creationism. This firmly places creationism in the
"crackpot" category, right alongside 9/11 conspiracy
theories and alien abduction stories. In short, it is quite simply
an outright lie to claim that scientists seriously doubt
evolution.

4. "Microevolution has been
tested, but macroevolution has not." One of the things
that people don't understand about science is that it tests
mechanisms, not histories. It is the mechanism of a theory
which you must use in order to generate predictions, and it is
those predictions that you test. The mechanisms of microevolution
and macroevolution are identical, so by testing microevolution, we
have tested macroevolution. Moreover, even if people insist
on seeing observed speciation events, scientists have produced
those in the laboratory as well. Creationists have now taken to
demanding that scientists produce examples of speciation events in
the wild, knowing full well that most natural speciation events
would take a very long time and that every other criterion has
already been met.

5. "Evolution says that we are
the product of random chance." Evolution, like organic
chemistry, is not based on random chance. There are rules,
and certain combinations are more likely than others. Environments
favour certain traits, and therefore, so do evolutionary processes.
It has often been said that evolution can be compared to monkeys
working on typewriters to produce Shakespeare, but if you had a
system which preferentially picked out the best pieces of text
rather than expecting an individual monkey to randomly type out
Romeo & Juliet, it would work much more quickly. Computer
simulations have been done, but of course, creationists reject them
because they are artificial (I suppose they want us to use real
monkeys).

6. "Evolution cannot produce new
species, it can only change existing ones." If
microevolution continued for long enough, macroevolution would be
inevitable (the difference between "micro" and
"macro" is merely one of scale, after all). The real
question when it comes to speciation is: why would the process of
microevolution suddenly stop at some mysterious boundary? We know
it works, so what's this mechanism for limiting its travel? Do
we arbitrarily assume that Newton's third law suddenly stops
working once we reach a certain distance from Earth? But aside from
this logical concern, this argument is quite specious since we have
observed evolutionary speciation. In one documented example[3],
speciation occurred due to the mutation of a single gene.

7. "Darwinism is
immoral." People often think this because "survival
of the fittest" is considered a very callous social policy.
However, Darwinian evolution is not a social policy! It is a
scientific theory, and it has nothing to do with morality one way
or another. It does not recommend "survival of the
fittest" as a moral ideal or a social policy; it merely states
that it happens in nature. One could just as easily say that the
law of gravity is "immoral" because of all the falling
deaths every year.

8. "Darwinism is a worldview
which promotes ..." There are many variations of this
argument, but they all employ the same tactic of assuming that
Darwinism is a "worldview", just like their religion.
However, nothing could be further from the truth. Darwinism is a
scientific theory; nothing more and nothing less. It does
not tell you what you can or cannnot eat, it does not tell you what
you can or cannot wear, it does not saddle you with guilt for
watching certain movies or listening to certain music, and it does
not tell you who to love or who to hate. In short, evolution
theory does not tell you how to live your life. It is
not a "worldview". All it does is solve a
scientific problem, and those who believe otherwise are simply
lacking comprehension of the nature of scientific theories.

Please, if someone thinks that there is something that is unsaid, or wants to show me irrefutable proof of evolution, please pm me.

What exactly would constitute irrefutable proof of evolution for you? In scientific terms, we already have it. You however, have rejected 'non- christian sites'. Would it help if I told you that the Pope sees no problem with Evolution? The people who raise issues when evolution is discussed frequently have a financial gain in mind, or hope to mobilize a demographic into voting by appealing to their sense of duty to God to protect the country from Atheists and Muslims and the like. There has been ZERO scientific evidence for Creationism, and near universal support from objective Biologists- the people with credibility and authority to agree/dissent from the facts- for Evolution. When someone sets out without a premise to prove, the evidence shows Evolution through Natural selection. You may as well argue with gravity or germs.

Sorry to butt in, but who has been refuting Evolution in favour for Creationism?

Originally posted by Tangible God
Sorry to butt in, but who has been refuting Evolution in favour for Creationism?