Evidence Against Evolution

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
your splitting hairs and for a guy as baldy a you that's just plain dangerous!

I am not splitting hairs at all. Your claim that:
Louis Pastuer proved that you cannot get life from a sterile environment
or that:
what he proved was that life can only come from previous life.
are outright false.
Louis Pastuer nor anybody else have ever proved either of those things. Such proof would almost certainly guarantee the scientist in question the Nobel prize.

Such proof would also go against your religion because you too believe in life not coming from previous life.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
genesis also describes that plants were created before the stars. that light came to be without a source (sun and stars). the robbe has allowed himself to think for a second and discard something outrageously stupid that in now way has any importance to the christian faith anyway. he still thinks the flood happened and methuselah lived for 900 though. not m ...[text shortened]... sts who, surprise!, were not struck down for spreading "falsehoods" about god's creation.

what i profess and why i profess it has no relevance, i could of course refute your claims, but why bother, it had no effect the first ten times, why should i be optimistic that it shall do so now.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
not necessarily so, a day with God is as a thousand years states the Bible, what is more, Paul stated several thousand years later that we are still in Gods rest day, that is the seventh day, and finally there is no basis for assuming that the creative days were a literal twenty four hour period, these divisions of time are man made divisions, in fact, if you check i am sure the Babylonians invented our present divisions of time.

except god says in genesis that he separated light from darkness and called them day and night respectively. and each step of the creation involves such days. so either during the creation there were million years long days or much more likely, the days are meant to be literal so as to instill awe in a bunch of savages who in their stupidity would think god less awesome if he would need several billion years to form suns and galaxies.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I am not splitting hairs at all. Your claim that:
[b]Louis Pastuer proved that you cannot get life from a sterile environment
or that:
what he proved was that life can only come from previous life.
are outright false.
Louis Pastuer nor anybody else have ever proved either of those things. Such proof would almost certainly guarantee the sc ...[text shortened]... uld also go against your religion because you too believe in life not coming from previous life.[/b]

whatever baldy, you keep telling yourself what you need to substantiate your materialism, i say they are true, even yet, we cannot create life from non life despite our technology and we are expected to believe that inert matter did it all by itself, feel your bum mate, perhaps it will bring you a semblance of reality. Can you make life from non life? why cant you? are you not more intelligent than inert matter?

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
except god says in genesis that he separated light from darkness and called them day and night respectively. and each step of the creation involves such days. so either during the creation there were million years long days or much more likely, the days are meant to be literal so as to instill awe in a bunch of savages who in their stupidity would think god less awesome if he would need several billion years to form suns and galaxies.

as i have stated, as per the seventh day, Paul stated that we are still in it, that was two thousand years ago.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what i profess and why i profess it has no relevance, i could of course refute your claims, but why bother, it had no effect the first ten times, why should i be optimistic that it shall do so now.

exactly what i think about twhitehead but he in his infinite patience still tries.

right now he explained to moe(i believe that was the stupidest stooge) what pasteur actually wanted to prove in his experiments and he still won't get it. while curly(thats you) performs a pirhouette and says twhite is splitting hairs.

i still wait for the few times when some new debate topics pop up here.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
as i have stated, as per the seventh day, Paul stated that we are still in it, that was two thousand years ago.

paul supposedly stated that women should not teach. and should be submissive to her man. but you are right, i should debate on this particular piece of paulian wisdom.


paul is wrong or was misquoted.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
i say they are true

Well then you are lying or stupid, or both. You already admitted that the first was false and tried to get out of it by giving the second. You admitted the second was false by accusing me of 'splitting hairs'.

even yet, we cannot create life from non life despite our technology
Why would anyone even try, after all, according to you, Louis Pastuer proved it was impossible. Doesn't anyone these days put any stock in proofs anymore? What is the world coming too?

Can you make life from non life? why cant you? are you not more intelligent than inert matter?
Can you do atomic fusion? Why cant you? Even the inert matter in the sun is more intelligent than you.

feel your bum mate
Surely that is going a bit too far? Is such rudeness really called for here? Or is it because you can never admit when you are caught in a lie because lying is against your religion?

Originally posted by RJHinds
If not, then Robbie must not believe everything written in the Holly Bible.
Genesis describes what God did each day of the week when all things were
created.

Addition: Notice that there are seven days which is the same as a week.

I assume then, that you believe everything written in the holy bible?

BTW, here is a link showing a study of stress producing evolutionary changes in a short amount of time and a short amount of generations, the life form being ordinary bakers yeast and the stress being gradual increase in salinity in the yeast's environment:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/06/110622115311.htm

A god did not do this, men did, in exacting experiments.

Also, I don't see a reply to your pathetic vertical whale argument.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Well then you are lying or stupid, or both. You already admitted that the first was false and tried to get out of it by giving the second. You admitted the second was false by accusing me of 'splitting hairs'.

[b] even yet, we cannot create life from non life despite our technology
Why would anyone even try, after all, according to you, Louis Past ...[text shortened]... ause you can never admit when you are caught in a lie because lying is against your religion?[/b]

A yes, the usual materialistic rhetoric, i dont have any answers therefore ill accuse you of lying or being stupid, more mere unsubstantiated opinions to add to your now legendary catalogue of ad hominens extraordinaire!, for the first premise, that you cannot get life from a sterile environment is practically proven by the second, that life can only come from other life, as proven by Pasteur, perhaps this correlation escaped your notice, perhaps you could not put the two together to form a whole, who can say.

Instead of stating why you cannot produce life from non life, you dishonestly evade the question, basing it on the idea that its impossible. If its therefore impossible, i cannot be lying, can I, making you own accusation, a lie itself. This is illustrative of the type of petty debating tactics that we have come to expect from you, and it produces nothing but endless strife. Please try to turn up the tone.

yes i suggest you feel your bum, did it work, were your roused from your state of delusion? did it give you a warm glow inside? good, now welcome to the real world.

Originally posted by sonhouse
I assume then, that you believe everything written in the holy bible?

BTW, here is a link showing a study of stress producing evolutionary changes in a short amount of time and a short amount of generations, the life form being ordinary bakers yeast and the stress being gradual increase in salinity in the yeast's environment:
http://www.sciencedaily.com ...[text shortened]... n exacting experiments.

Also, I don't see a reply to your pathetic vertical whale argument.

this is not quite right, for the yeast remains yeast, as did the e-coli, as did the malaria experiments, evolution teaches that changes occur to such an extent so as to produce new species, you cannot use this as a valid piece of evidence, its adaptation, not transmutation.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
paul supposedly stated that women should not teach. and should be submissive to her man. but you are right, i should debate on this particular piece of paulian wisdom.


paul is wrong or was misquoted.

Paul is da man, he state all those things, to the glory of the Christ and the father!

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
this is not quite right, for the yeast remains yeast, as did the e-coli, as did the malaria experiments, evolution teaches that changes occur to such an extent so as to produce new species, you cannot use this as a valid piece of evidence, its adaptation, not transmutation.

Here is another 'adaptation' with yeast:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Instead of stating why you cannot produce life from non life, you dishonestly evade the question, basing it on the idea that its impossible.

I was simply showing how illogical your challenge was. The fact that I cannot produce life from non-life has nothing to do with the relative intelligence of my self and inert matter as you foolishly suggested. I demonstrated your lack of logic by giving an example where it was your intelligence that came into question.

If its therefore impossible, i cannot be lying, can I, making you own accusation, a lie itself.
When have I said it is impossible?

yes i suggest you feel your bum, did it work, were your roused from your state of delusion? did it give you a warm glow inside? good, now welcome to the real world.
I see you have been spending time in the debates forum. If that is the level of your conversation then goodbye.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is another 'adaptation' with yeast:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028184.300-lab-yeast-make-evolutionary-leap-to-multicellularity.html

This is "bull". This doesn't prove the theory of evolution.
There was deliberate munipulation by man involved, so at best,
it prove some intelligence must be involved and not that any
thing occured by chance.