Creation/Evolution

There have been 245 threads on evolution since 2004.

Just kidding - I haven't actually counted them!!

But I am somewhat curious - after all those innumerable discussions, is anyone from either side willing to confess that they have been - even a little bit - influenced by the opposite point of view?

C'mon, be honest!!

Originally posted by CalJust
There have been 245 threads on evolution since 2004.

Just kidding - I haven't actually counted them!!

But I am somewhat curious - after all those innumerable discussions, is anyone from either side willing to confess that they have been - even a little bit - influenced by the opposite point of view?

C'mon, be honest!!

I for one am at zero.
I truly believe there is room for creationists and evolutionists in Gods grand plan.
(I'd like to know what Fabian thinks)

Originally posted by CalJust
There have been 245 threads on evolution since 2004.

Just kidding - I haven't actually counted them!!

But I am somewhat curious - after all those innumerable discussions, is anyone from either side willing to confess that they have been - even a little bit - influenced by the opposite point of view?

C'mon, be honest!!

yes the more i discuss the 'science', the more convinced i am of its lack of scientific credibility. for example, only yesterday i was reading an article which stated, get this, that aquatic deer were the ancestors of whales and yes, this was dished up with the usual dogma, and a side salad of 'missing link found'. But do not question it, for then peoples belief systems start to crumble around them, they feel vulnerable and start to point the cannons. The worst i have heard is that about 50 million (might as well be zillion squillion years ago) whales came from the sea, evolved on land and then went back to the sea', all said with a straight face. yes I do not deny variety of species, but this transmutation of one species to another, has no basis in the fossil record, is pure and utter hypothetical and makes the zaniest creationist look sane and sensible. I wouldn't ike to know what Fabian thinks, he is quite clear on the issue and will have us libelled and labelled and in a jam jar sitting on his desk before you can say, can i have some toast with my marmalade!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes the more i discuss the 'science', the more convinced i am of its lack of scientific credibility. for example, only yesterday i was reading an article which stated, get this, that aquatic deer were the ancestors of whales and yes, this was dished up with the usual dogma, and a side salad of 'missing link found'. But do not question it, for then ...[text shortened]... a jam jar sitting on his desk before you can say, can i have some toast with my marmalade!

Vacation is good, I wish to you and yours good vacation along with good vibrations🙂

But your variation is easily refuted and thus Fabian and the evolutionists will kill you now on the spot my trustee feer like a wee salmon in a barrel I reckon, whattapitywhattapity😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Vacation is good, I wish to you and yours good vacation along with good vibrations🙂

But your variation is easily refuted and thus Fabian and the evolutionists will kill you now on the spot my trustee feer like a wee salmon in a barrel I reckon, whattapitywhattapity😵

Lol, Hi my Trusty feer,I do not fear the Fabian nor his compatriot Proper Noobster, i challenged those woosies to a gave of chess, but the declined on the pretext that i was too lowly rated for them to bother with, only Andrew Hamilton was brave enough! Let them show the refutation, it is a theory destined to fade away my friend. i thank you kindly Beetle, i go up to Scone Palace in my own country, the ancient crowning place of the Kings of Scotland, beside the river Tay. With me i take Andrew Soltis book, Bobby Fischer rediscovered, (was following one of your mentors the other day, Master Szabo v Master Fischer, Olympiad , Liepzig, 1960), when Master Szabo points out a draw back to blacks fourth move! peace be to you my illustrious friend, when i reach at least 1900, then we can play, for the honour of Ancient Greece and the legendary Kings of Scotland! (a Scotsman fought in the last siege of Constantinople! I say we can take it back!)

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Lol, Hi my Trusty feer,I do not fear the Fabian nor his compatriot Proper Noobster, i challenged those woosies to a gave of chess, but the declined on the pretext that i was too lowly rated for them to bother with, only Andrew Hamilton was brave enough! Let them show the refutation, it is a theory destined to fade away my friend. i thank you kindly ...[text shortened]... of Scotland! (a Scotsman fought in the last siege of Constantinople! I say we can take it back!)

Alas, the refutation in inevitable, and Fabian et al they 'll come after you in numbers -but I know that you 'ld rather burn than disappear🙂

Hey Rabbie, you can anytime pick your colours and challenge me for a game or two 3/0 or 3/7, sure thing🙂

Lucky you, these are perfect places for vacation, and them books of yours fine just the same; now I 'll enjoy a ginseng tea with my Maria wishing well for you and yours, for I banned myself from the holy malt experience till 2010, May 16, after my terrible blunder at my game against the strong Englishman rjcw😵

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes the more i discuss the 'science', the more convinced i am of its lack of scientific credibility. for example, only yesterday i was reading an article which stated, get this, that aquatic deer were the ancestors of whales and yes, this was dished up with the usual dogma, and a side salad of 'missing link found'. But do not question it, for then ...[text shortened]... a jam jar sitting on his desk before you can say, can i have some toast with my marmalade!

…The worst i have heard is that about 50 million (might as well be zillion squillion years ago) whales came from the sea, evolved on land and then went back to the sea', all said with a straight face.
...

This is simply based on the fact that they are mammals and the first mammal was a land animal and all land animals have sea animals in their ancestry if you go far enough back -all this is simply scientific fact so I don’t see why you would think this is absurd.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes the more i discuss the 'science', the more convinced i am of its lack of scientific credibility. for example, only yesterday i was reading an article which stated, get this, that aquatic deer were the ancestors of whales and yes, this was dished up with the usual dogma, and a side salad of 'missing link found'. But do not question it, for then ...[text shortened]... a jam jar sitting on his desk before you can say, can i have some toast with my marmalade!

Or we can believe God made everything.

Who then sent his son (or himself depending upon which branch of gullibility you believe) who worked as a carpenter for a few years after being born from a virgin mother, who just happenned to pull off the biggest blag yet -

'I'm pregnant'

'But we've never had sex'.......

Long silence

'It's God's son'...............

Joseph confirms himself as the most stupidly gullible man ever to walk the earth.

Jesus then dies for our sins and then has a book written about it all. And then more people are killed/murdered in the name of that book than we could possibly imagine.

Give me the fossils any day of the week.

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The worst i have heard is that about 50 million (might as well be zillion squillion years ago) whales came from the sea, evolved on land and then went back to the sea', all said with a straight face.
...

This is simply based on the fact that they are mammals and the first mammal was a land animal and all land animals have sea animals in t ...[text shortened]... ugh back -all this is simply scientific fact so I don’t see why you would think this is absurd.[/b]

He thinks gay people are sinners who choose to be the way they are Andrew.

If he doesn't understand that basic concept, the rest of science is just going to pass him by. Which it plainly does.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes the more i discuss the 'science', the more convinced i am of its lack of scientific credibility. for example, only yesterday i was reading an article which stated, get this, that aquatic deer were the ancestors of whales and yes, this was dished up with the usual dogma, and a side salad of 'missing link found'. But do not question it, for then ...[text shortened]... a jam jar sitting on his desk before you can say, can i have some toast with my marmalade!

…The worst i have heard is that about 50 million (might as well be zillion squillion years ago) whales came from the sea, evolved on land and then went back to the sea', all said with a straight face.
...

This is simply based on the fact that they are mammals and the first mammal was a land animal and all land animals have sea animals in their ancestry if you go far enough back -all this is simply proven scientific fact so I don’t see why you would think this is absurd.

…yes I do not deny variety of species, but this transmutation of one species to another, has no basis in the fossil record, is pure and utter hypothetical and makes the zaniest creationist look sane and sensible.
….

How do you explain the progression from primitive species to more complex and advanced species in the fossil record? -is that all just a huge coincidence!? -and what about all the other evidence for evolution? All that mountain of evidence for evolution makes the creationists that deny all the evidence just look crazed and delusional by denying all the very well established known facts -only such a creationists would not be able to see this!

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
[b]…The worst i have heard is that about 50 million (might as well be zillion squillion years ago) whales came from the sea, evolved on land and then went back to the sea', all said with a straight face.
...

This is simply based on the fact that they are mammals and the first mammal was a land animal and all land animals have sea animals in t ...[text shortened]... ugh back -all this is simply scientific fact so I don’t see why you would think this is absurd.[/b]

umm have you looked at the difference between an aquatic deer and a whale? and yet Andrew you ask why this is absurd.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
He thinks gay people are sinners who choose to be the way they are Andrew.

If he doesn't understand that basic concept, the rest of science is just going to pass him by. Which it plainly does.

i have stated in a private conversation with Andrew, that if you are to take the very basic premise for the evolutionary hypothesis, in that its main function is to pass the genetic code from one generation to the next, then, it appears to me, that in order to do that, heterosexuality would be the natural state of affairs, would it not? therefore i am correct to call anything other than this, unnatural, according to the most fundamentally basic principle of the evolutionary hypothesis. one fails to see, how this basic and fundamental function could be completed naturally, among humans, in any other way, barring artificial insemination, which is not a product of nature, but the laboratory, perhaps in your wisdom you could explain this seeming anomaly of yours!

I have not changed my mind at all. I beleive in Theistic evolution.

Thanks, Thomas, for this admission.

I think I've got my answer - nobody budged an inch in the last 5 years at least!

I wonder if anybody received new insights in any of the other threads?

Or do we all "preach to the converted"? (No pun intended!)

What a frightening waste of energy!