.

No one's posting in this thread because NO ONE GIVES A **** ANYMORE. Everyone else has moved on. Why can't you?

No one's going to take you up on your challenge, because no one cares. Not because you "win", not because you've "outsmarted" anyone, but because you've successfully driven everyone off by acting like an *******.

Face it. You posting here isn't going to change anything. You're not making the world a better place. You're not changing people's lives. You're not making people "see the light". You're just being a jackass for no other reason than to try to "prove" your own superiority.

This thread HAS NO PURPOSE. Let the damn thing die already.

How defensive.

If you were capable of producing a contrary argument you would. I know it, you know it. You might as well drop the act and admit defeat.

I said it before: If you try to draw your faith into a logical debate or attract scientific inquiry to it, you deserve to have your faith dragged through mud. It's your mistake - not ours. Either defend it to the end or admit defeat. If you give up you lose anyway. Deal with it.

Except, you know, not.

You seem to think that I'm taking a side in this argument. I'm not. I actually agree, partially, with your side; Arguing science with religion is ridiculous. One cannot prove or disprove the other, and so comparing the two is pointless, which is why I havn't even tried to take a side in this thread.

But the discussion died with the last thread. Leave the damn thing to rest. Seriously. No one gives a **** anymore. The only thing you're proving is the fact that you're unable to give up until you "win", and that's just sad. Please, grow up and move on.

Clearly you do, or else you wouldn't be complaining about it.

SF_GoldG_01 is clearly still interested in having an e-argument and I'm not going to let him have one until he finishes his other business. If you don't "give a ****", go away and leave us to it.

You know what would be awesome? If we can get it made a rule that any creationists that haven't tried to refute the arguments in this thread get banned the next time they try to argue against evolution.

THIS IS YOUR THREAD, GUYS. IF YOU WANT TO DEFEND CREATIONISM, NOW IS THE TIME.

You know, generally someone has to accept a challenge. Otherwise that is guerilla debating.

Guerilla debaters = CAPTURED

PFC Jodi Smith will remain OUTSIDE the fence. Guerilla debators will not be tolerated.

I wouldn't be in this thread IF WEREN'T SPAMMING MY DAMN E-MAIL!

Don't hold it against him, all guerillas worship a false god. Simply explain to him that he should not blow himself up.

hahahaha

Don't worry. Even if you did have a proper enough grasp of the forum interface to disable thread auto-subscription, I'd still bring the thread to you.

Oh, I thought you were sending him guerilla spam warfare.

No PFC Jodi Smith for you.

Not to be an jerk, (CoW), but I actually still am interested in this. Just because it's good entertainment. Sorry

[edit: and to comment on your point about "he [gold] obviously has no education so you shouldnt ask him to argue on this point, go argue bio with biologists, etc etc" .. this is what happened
--Post vaguely involving evolution theory
--Gold comes in and makes a seemingly ridiculous or over-the-top claim
--People refute him
--He gives the impression that he thinks he knows what he's talking about with various pieces of "evidence"
--This spawns responses with various pieces of counter-evidence and challenges to disprove them

The whole purpose of the last bullet point and forward is to make apparent his lack of education (which evidently has succeeded as you've taken clear note), and thereby debunk his credibility. The goal is to get him to stop arguing on the basis that he knows what he's takling about. Tenshu's challenge is INTENDED to be unanswerable to him -- if it is unanswerable, it underscores the point. It's not being left alone by now because everyone accepts gold's incredibility .. except for gold. Or, at least, he's acting like he's not.]

Jon C's post count says 0x1bed

Yours says 0x1ed.

...

Hahha, now Jon's says 0x1bee

That is even more funny than what I said!

And so another thread involving Gold gets derailed. :p

Lets talk about graffiti again.

Graffiti sucks.

Discuss.

Why won't the squirrels leave my nuts alone?

Man, Platypette is HOT.

screw you, graffiti is awesome.

Suck.

Guess they are big, juicy and tasty.




And I just made myself sick.

Sick with longing!

awk... waaaard!

Kiss Hank's *** and he'll give you a million dollars. Don't kiss his *** and he'll kick the **** out of you.

.

This is where the thread should end. You can't help the wilfully ignorant.

omg

<3

Alright...

First, to define terms, by Creationism I mean the theory of Intelligent Design though not necessarily by the God of the Bible.

By evolution, I mean the scientific theory, that by a series of mutations, single cell organisms have evolved into the more advanced creatures we have today. This does not concern the existence of a God.

I know nothing about natural history. Why should I try to argue about it? I'll only end up making myself look like an idiot. I'd be like my Grandmother arguing about video cards. I happen to believe in Creation and this is why:

Concerning the vast amount of Evolution supporting scientists in relevant fields, 95% of people are being, and have been taught evolution in school. In collage courses that deal with natural history, a much higher percentage of teachers are evolutionist. There is also a great deal of pressure toward evolution from students and teachers alike. Of course most natural historians are evolutionists! It's a vicious cycle.

Because we cannot directly observe natural history and we have so little data, different theories can be made to fit the facts. Modern science has helped greatly by providing us with more puzzle pieces, but the constant change in Evolutionary theory leads me to believe that we are much further from completing the puzzle that we are from starting it. I think most scientists in relevant fields will agree with me on this one.

Another thing to consider is that no one is objective. No one will throw out such a widely accepted theory just because they find one piece of evidence that contradicts a small part of it. He will simply modify the theory and move on. This is natural and part of the way theories develop. However, due to the controversial nature of natural history this is driven to a bit of an extreme. One must also consider the constant bias of most people to their own opinions, especially among those who claim to be objective.

Because of the aforementioned things, I have given credence to the few creationists I know who sound like they know what know what they are talking about. I also think that the "six days" in the Bible was probably a literal six days. Maybe I'm wrong. I really don't care. It doesn't effect you or me. It doesn't prove or disprove any philosophy and it has no effect on the progression of other sciences. It is a topic worthy of discussion of you happen to be knowledgeable in it, but to constantly harp on it is ridiculous. So just quit the constant arrogance, ok? I'm not like that about creationism, so you really have no right to rub it in my face all the time.




EDIT: Oh, and I wasn't using squirrels on islands as a basis for creationism. Just a bit of friendly speculation. Alas, despite my best efforts, the forces of stupid prevailed and a flame war was born.

You just described approximately 99% of the discussions on these forums.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]You just described approximately 99% of the discussions on these forums.[/QUOTE]

OMG 99.9% BIG DIFFERENCE j00 SUXORZ

Long long ago, in a laboratory far far away, scientists figured out that chimpanzees have 24 chromosomes in their sperms and eggs, whereas humans only have 23. Therefore, these great scientists theorized that two of our chromosomes might have fused together sometime in the recent past (aka million years ago.). Their theory made 3 predictions:

1) One of our chromosomes would look like two of the chimp chromosomes stuck together.
2) This same chromosome would have an extra sequence in it that looked like a centromere. Centromeres are the things in the middle that microtubules grab onto to divide a pair of chromosomes during mitosis.
3) It would also have telomeres (ends) but in the middle - and they would be in reverse order. Sort of like this:

ENDchromosomestuffDNEENDchromosomestuffDNE

See the "DNEEND" in the middle? That's what two telomeres would look like if two chromosomes were stuck together.

Lo and behold, these theories were put to the test. To test prediction 1, know that chromosomes all have a unique banding pattern. A "fingerprint." To test 2 and 3, you need sequence data. Telomeres and centromeres have characteristic DNA sequences.

What did those scientists find:



H=human, C=chimp, G=Gorilla, O=orangutan.



and



So how about it, non-evolutionists? Here, staring you in the face is not only evidence that chimps are our cousins (they may explain your last family reunion) but also a clue as to how it occured: two chromosomes fused, which could have altered gene expression in ways to change body plans.

Happy refuting!

scigirl

I don't know why I bother responding to a thread like this but has anyone ever clicked "Dr. Dino" in my link? Its pretty relavent to the topic.

Well I had a little look Savage and I couldn't believe what he was saying. I clicked on the link about the appendix. I was expecting to hear at least some decent debate over the function of the appendix in the human body and how this compares to other species. But instead, he tells you it does a whole load of things without backing any of it up then promptly goes into a tirade against some sort of medical conspiracy to rob us of our appendices! He even goes on to suggest that a ruptured appendix is not that dangerous, that it's worse to have it removed and that instead you should just take some herbal laxatives and that would magically fix it. He decides he's the one who's right because he read some books that said otherwise and the entire medical community is wrong and don't know what they're talking about.
Then when you look at his sources he lists a bunch of books written by self-proclaimed "herbalists" and uses that to dispense his own form of medical advice? Another book on the list is written by a creationist attacking darwinism written by a metallurgy engineer. Obviously a real expert in the field of zoology!
Sorry, Savage but I don't think you can call Dr Dino the most credible source.

DUCT TAPE!