Do you believe in evolution?

[racrguy]

Only semantically. In the real world, most "faith" is supported by at least some evidence and "science" has been proven wrong by new science time and time again because its theories necessarily rely on some amount of faith.

If faith has evidence to support it, it's not faith. I will not contend that science has been proven wrong by newer research, that's what science does. It realizes it got things wrong and it corrects itself. Science requires absolutely no faith, and actually abhors its use in regards to the conclusions it comes up with.

Obama believes in evolution, so the opinions quoted above are thus refuted by plain, easy to understand evidence.

I didn't vote for Obama, so your argument is moot. However, this argument still fails before it even gets off the ground. You assume that I base my decision solely on the evolution issue. You can't be further from the truth. Again, spreading lies and bullshit. Please refrain from quoting me or responding to me in the future. You've gotten nothing right, and everything wrong, every single time you've responded to me.

First, you must understand what constitutes an argument, which you obviously do not.

Second, you must understand what contitutes logic, which you obviously do not.

Third, you must understand what constitutes evidence, which you obviously do not.

Notions? Now that's more your speed.

Irony, methinks so....

[The King]

I didn't vote for Obama, so your argument is moot. However, this argument still fails before it even gets off the ground. You assume that I base my decision solely on the evolution issue. You can't be further from the truth. Again, spreading lies and bullshit. Please refrain from quoting me or responding to me in the future. You've gotten nothing right, and everything wrong, every single time you've responded to me.

Are you really that dumb? Obama is simply a perfect example that refutes your statement; whether or not you voted for him is immaterial and shows off your limited reading comprehension.

With regard to your polite request that I refrain from responding to your posts, my polite answer is no. Post incorrect information, and I will refute same whenever I see fit.

[racrguy]

Are you really that dumb? Obama is simply a perfect example that refutes your statement; whether or not you voted for him is immaterial and shows off your limited reading comprehension.

With regard to your polite request that I refrain from responding to your posts, my polite answer is no. Post incorrect information, and I will refute same whenever I see fit.

In plain, easy to understand evidence, my opinion does not refute my opinion. You have, not once, shown how my opinion would make me vote for someone who does not believe in evolution. Therefore you haven't refuted anything. When I post something incorrect, feel free to correct me, but be prepared to prove it. You haven't proven anything yet or even given any evidence that supports one of your numerous claims, that's why I asked you to stop responding to me.

[John -- '02 HAWK]

"A scientific law or scientific principle is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science, like Newton's law of universal gravitation."

The very first line on the page. How does this contradict what I said again? Your definition still puts theory in a position to be given as a title from science where law is a descriptor!! Reading comprehension FTW!!

I'm also just going to sit aside and giggle at the fact that you managed to get called out by The King on a legitimate issue.

Made you read it. I didnt need to. That quote clearly states is that a law is above a theory. Which you are trying to argue the opposite, just as you incorrect in science "granting" anything. Science proves things using the scientific process.

[racrguy]

Made you read it. I didnt need to. That quote clearly states is that a law is above a theory. Which you are trying to argue the opposite, just as you incorrect in science "granting" anything. Science proves things using the scientific process.

Are you dense? The quote states "concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that expresses a fundamental principle of science" which means it is DESCRIBING the theory. Let me break it down for you

statement of a relation

That's a descriptor

fundamental principle of science

That's a theory

In regards to science "granting" anything. It grants a hypothesis with the title of theory AFTER science has proven it via the scientific process.

You may want to CHECK your sources before you use them. I mean, you said you didn't read it, yet you're sitting here claiming that your source says the opposite of what it says.

[The King]

Ok to sidetrack this thread would you vote for somebody that doesn't believe in evolution?

I don't think I could because if a person doesn't believe in something with plain, easy to understand evidence in front of them, why would they believe something else with easy to understand evidence, like how NOT to screw up an economy.

In plain, easy to understand evidence, my opinion does not refute my opinion. You have, not once, shown how my opinion would make me vote for someone who does not believe in evolution. Therefore you haven't refuted anything. When I post something incorrect, feel free to correct me, but be prepared to prove it. You haven't proven anything yet or even given any evidence that supports one of your numerous claims, that's why I asked you to stop responding to me.

You seem to still not comprehend my original reply, so I will selflessly pick apart your post once removed above. You require that a person for whom you would vote "believe in something with plain, easy to understand evidence in front of them." Your words. Your stated position in this thread is that evolution is supported by such evidence, so therefore a person who believes in evolution must by default also believe in "something else" supported by plain, easy to understand evidence, such as how NOT to screw up an economy. Now, Obama believes in evolution, so he must let such plain, easy to understand evidence guide his actions, yet he nonetheless HAS screwed up the economy. Therefore, your position is wrong, disproven by the application of simple logic. Obama is also just one example, not "numerous claims" as you dramatically posted immediately above.

[racrguy]

You seem to still not comprehend my original reply, so I will selflessly pick apart your post once removed above. You require that a person for whom you would vote "believe in something with plain, easy to understand evidence in front of them." Your words. Your stated position in this thread is that evolution is supported by such evidence, so therefore a person who believes in evolution must by default also believe in "something else" supported by plain, easy to understand evidence, such as how NOT to screw up an economy. Now, Obama believes in evolution, so he must let such plain, easy to understand evidence guide his actions, yet he nonetheless HAS screwed up the economy. Therefore, your position is wrong, disproven by the application of simple logic. Obama is also just one example, not "numerous claims" as you dramatically posted immediately above.

You seem to still not comprehend my original answer, nor my response to you after that. Your continued attempt to refute an opinion is entertaining.

I didn't limit the scope of my numerous claims statement to just this thread, which apparently you saw fit to limit for me.

Is it logical to assume that the Creator of all things known to mankind would or should be limited by the confines of your logic?

A claim that a creator exists, without evidence to support it

Evidence of His existence is all around you.....we call it Creation.

A claim that a creator exists, and that it created the universe, without evidence to support it.

Of course I do. All that stuff written in the Old Testament tells the history of God's promise to mankind. The New Testament follows with the history of God's fulfillment of that promise. It's all or nothing in my opinion, and if one is a true believer then the Bible in it's entirety must be considered the Word of God.

A claim that a god exists, and that the bible is its message to people, without evidence to support it.

These are pulled from one thread in the theology corner. You like to make claims and not attempt to provide any support for them.

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

[Silverback]

I am evolution!

[TENGRAM]

You seem to still not comprehend my original answer, nor my response to you after that. Your continued attempt to refute an opinion is entertaining.

I didn't limit the scope of my numerous claims statement to just this thread, which apparently you saw fit to limit for me.


A claim that a creator exists, without evidence to support it


A claim that a creator exists, and that it created the universe, without evidence to support it.


A claim that a god exists, and that the bible is its message to people, without evidence to support it.

These are pulled from one thread in the theology corner. You like to make claims and not attempt to provide any support for them.

It would take an incredibly stubborn person to ignore all of the evidence there is that supports the existence of a creator. Look around you. The complexity of the universe should be enough to show that some grand creator exists. As an analogy, and a twist on a Rene DesCartes' argument, if you can across a transmission in the middle of a junkyard you would not just assume that it formed haphazardly out of the dirt and rocks; you would KNOW that someone engineered it and that someone built it.

And even science itself supports creationism:

I. Every object in a state of uniform motion tends to remain in that state of motion unless an external force is applied to it.

So unless an external force (GOD) acted on this infinitely small, infinitely dense particle proposed by the Big Bang theory, it would never have moved; its atoms would never have moved; it would never have changed.

[The King]

You seem to still not comprehend my original answer, nor my response to you after that. Your continued attempt to refute an opinion is entertaining.

I didn't limit the scope of my numerous claims statement to just this thread, which apparently you saw fit to limit for me.

You should limit yourself to just this thread, because your desperate attempt to save face by bringing in quotes from elsewhare really is comical. No matter to me though, because you have failed regardless.

However, since you have now so generously introduced Creation vs. evolution into this thiread, repeat, since you so generously introduced Creation vs. evolution into this thread, you have exhibited an often seen yet odd example of obsessive behavior. Specifically, that behavior is that few people are so obsessed with religion as those who profess to not believe it or in it.

[racrguy]

It would take an incredibly stubborn person to ignore all of the evidence there is that supports the existence of a creator. Look around you. The complexity of the universe should be enough to show that some grand creator exists. As an analogy, and a twist on a Rene DesCartes' argument, if you can across a transmission in the middle of a junkyard you would not just assume that it formed haphazardly out of the dirt and rocks; you would KNOW that someone engineered it and that someone built it.

And even science itself supports creationism:
So unless an external force (GOD) acted on this infinitely small, infinitely dense particle proposed by the Big Bang theory, it would never have moved; its atoms would never have moved; it would never have changed.

If you want to talk about the existence god, make a thread in the theology corner and we'll discuss it there. I used those quotes to illustrate a point.

This message is hidden because The King is on your ignore list.

Ahhh, silence from incoherent babbling.

[Cobra86]

I absolutely believe in evolution. Look at all the folks that were downtown for the parade yesterday.

[stevo]

Stevo

[stevo]

Or...



Stevo

[stevo]

But more than likely...



Stevo