I mix mine with babies that go straight to heaven.

This fool ZIT has abandoned this thread after his ass was owned by many.. But he still has time to go around other threads and troll around...

he's a talented troll, i'll give him that much.

In case Zit wants to revisit this thread after finding something refuting whale evolution on some creationist website.

Of course the first comments I read are part of what's obviously been a long argument about god lol.

Since you have proven yourself to be a stalker, and unable to do simple
research on your own, I'm going to throw you a bone.

In his book, River Out of Eden (Basic Books, 1995), Richard Dawkins tells
a fairy tale how Nilsson and Pelger set up a computer model to prove that
eye evolution could happen in 1/2 million years.

The problem is, it was a complete lie. The computer model never
existed. Dawkins made it up.

David Berlinski:

(from The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, Tom Bethell):

"This notion that there is somewhere a computer model of the evolutionary development of the eye is an urban myth. Such a model does not exist. There is no such model anywhere in any laboratory. No one has the faintest idea how to make one. The whole story was fabricated out of thin air by Richard Dawkins. The senior author of the study on which Dawkins based his claim, Dan E. Nilsson, has explicitly rejected the idea that his laboratory has ever produced a computer simulation of the eye's development."


Let me know if this is enough for you, or if you want me hold your hand
through some of Dawkins' other whoppers.

"Not satisfied with merely demonstrating how gradual changes can bring about features as complex as the human eye, Dawkins states that computer simulation work by Swedish scientists Dan Nilsson and Susanne Pelger (although it is not a computer simulation but simple mathematical model) shows that the eye could have evolved from scratch a thousand times in succession in any animal lineage. In Dawkins' own words, "the time needed for the evolution of the eye... turned out to be too short for geologists to measure! It is a geological blink." And, "it is no wonder the eye has evolved at least forty times independently around the animal kingdom."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_Out_of_Eden

so it was a mathematical model probably done using computers.. wow, WHAT A LIE!!!!!! DAWKINS IS A LIAR!!! please....


try another one..


David Berlinski <-- DISCOVERY INSTITUTE - no freaking **** he is going to lie..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Berlinski

BERLINSKI'S ANTI-SCIENTIFIC SCANDAL
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/blurred.cfm

Give it up, obviously these unqualified trolls think they know enough to disprove years of scientific research because they know how to find creationist websites.

Regardless of whether evolution is true or not, it does nothing to prove that Creationism is correct or that the Christian God exists, both which have significantly less evidence than evolution yet they have no problem eating that **** up.

"Berlinski, along with fellow Discovery Institute associates Michael Behe and William A. Dembski, tutored Ann Coulter on science and evolution for her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism.[8]"


Oh jesus, so this guy is to blame.

Bumping this thread for festeringzit's glorious return.

GOGOGOGO

C'mon guys, give the poor man a break - he must know he's wrong by now. At this point, you're either adding insult to injury or fuelling his hatred for atheists, either way...

....not a chance. If he wants to be a child and give me the whole "call yourself a complete fool and I'll reply to the whale thread" then he's going to get what he wants.

ALTER2EGO -to- VEEDDZZ:

Is that what you all think you're doing? Adding insult to injury and "fueling hatred for atheists"? Really? That would require the OP to become emotionally invested with this topic that he's thoroughly debunking. He's merely schooling you all--like I've been doing in my anti-evolution thread.

Matter of fact, I debunked your beloved evolution MYTH in my anti-evolution thread to such a degree that you all cut tail and ran. Now you've decided to comfort each other by starting up a thread on me. You need each other, because evolution THEORY (not fact) doesn't stand a chance against real scientific evidence.


The fossils evidence says macroevolution never happened. So there goes the macroevolution THEORY (not fact) out the window. Meanwhile, "microevolution" is merely a trick-phrase for "variation of the exact same species of animal." So what's the scientific community left with? Nothing! So they speculate, opine, and use thrick-phrases to impress the gullible.

Scientists in the pro-evolution community have invented a language all their own in which they use deceptive phrases such as "gradualism" and "species transition" and "punctuated equilibrium" and "intermediaries". Suffice it to say, those terminologies were created by pro-evolution scientists for the sole purpose of deceiving laypersons. When it's not fabricated words like the aforementioned, they're writing science fiction books like the type Richard Dawkins wrote.


BTW: I notice a group of you atheists have now decided to show your co-dependence on each other by starting up a thread on me--to comfort one another after I debunked your beloved evolution MYTH. You know what? That's pitiful.

It is pretty funny seeing someone rant on about how they've debunked evolution and talk about real scientific evidence when they still don't even understand the scientific term 'theory'.

Alter2Ego, to expound on Husker's point:

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences:
The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.

.....SO GET IT RIGHT, MAN. Most here do not mind (at all) discussing anything you bring up. Just quit bringing up the SAME STUFF that is 100% wrong. It just serves to make everyone take your posts less seriously.

Yeah, A2E's thread is really weird. He makes assertions, then when several people respond with evidence directly opposing them he ignores those responses. Like when he claims we cannot compare DNA because all the soft tissue has disappeared, a poster quickly shows him how we can use hair to extract ancient DNA and he completely ignores it. At some point shouldn't he be banned for this type of dishonest debating?

Well, mods don't ban people for their ignorance on the subject, unless they clearly start to troll around and brake the rules. I personally don't even bother anymore with these people. A2E is here to preach his nonsense not to actually discuss the ideas.

ALTER2EGO -to- FOLDnDARK:

There are no hairs or skin to be extracted from animals that have been in the ground for thousands of years. The only part of them that survived are the bones in fossilized forms.

Then there's the matter of dating what they do find in the ground. They speculate and make wild guesses about the age of whatever it is they find so that it fits into their debunked evolution theory.

For ancient DNA See:
http://news.discovery.com/animals/hy...le-110601.html

Also Neanderthal DNA.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...bred-dna-gene/

Yup, thats right, every single scientist, in every different scientific field, stretching back to darwins time and beyond, is in on this. They all see that evolution is wrong, that theres no evidence for it, and despite that, all of them continue to assert that its true. Its an actual conspiracy and i for one think it should be stopped.

alter doesn't do links

sorry, just noticed he didn't say that in this thread. he said it in another

This is taken from the Wiki page devoted to ancient DNA found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_DNA

If you follow the link for Otzi the Iceman found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman, you'll see we have an abundance of DNA to work with from a human who lived over 5000 years ago.

This took me about 5 minutes to discover using Google and Wikipedia. Since it was so simple to find, you shouldn't be at all surprised that everyone here realizes you either know you are being dishonest, or you really are so brainwashed that you simply aren't interested in the truth at all. But why you think you can convince people who are is still a mystery.

ALTER2EGO -to- FOLDnDARK:

Right. It took you five minutes to pull up info about what scientists opine is the 5,000-year-old remains of a man. How, might I ask, did they figure the man was more than 5,000 years old?

ANSWER: They speculated.

But you believe it because "scientists" said it; don't you? Next you will be insisting that they used the radio carbon 14 dating method to figure out the 5,000 year timeline. In any event, what does the remains of man have with the hair and soft tissue of animals that are the ancestors of today's animals?

ANSWER: Nada!


For that matter, how would DNA from long-dead animals prove the animals back there didn't look exactly as their modern versions?

ANSWER: It wouldn't.


So we're right back where we started—no evidence of macroevolution in which a squirrel evolved into a bat; no evidence of a whale evolving into a bear; and no evidence of a dinosaur evolving into a bird. Nothing but trick-phrases such as "speciation" and "gradualism" and "species transition" and "punctuated equilibrium" and "intermediaries"—terminologies that were created by pro-evolution scientists for the sole purpose of impressing the gullible.


Meanwhile, the word "evolution" continues to be chained to the word "THEORY" (not fact).

Nailed it. PM'ed another poster and he said he would probably start arguing dating techniques. LMAO