Evolution happening before our very eyes? Awesome.

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Fuck you, you're the one in here throwing around claims about it, and here you are admitting you don't know the first thing on the subject. You have been supplied the information with which you can educate yourself, but you are not interested in the truth.

You are wantonly ignorant and you are shamelessly dishonest. How do you live with yourself?

I said that all information comes from an intelligent source amd you replied with a Gegier counter, coin flips, and broen glass.

How does information theory, in your expert opnion, explain the origin of genetic material?

 

[Nik]

nef

Don't get this thread locked.

 

[Nik]

I said that all information comes from an intelligent source amd you replied with a Gegier counter, coin flips, and broen glass.

How does information theory, in your expert opnion, explain the origin of genetic material?

Better yet, how does YOUR opinion explain the origins of genetic material?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

nef

He's adding no value to the discussion here but seems to get a kick out of hanging around.

 

[Nik]

He's adding no value to the discussion here but seems to get a kick out of hanging around.

Yeah, you two are like peas in a pod, eh?

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Better yet, how does YOUR opinion explain the origins of genetic material?

If you been following this thread, and clearly you have been, you know that as a scientist, I believe that the intelligent design model is the best explanation for the origin of life.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Okay, you appear to believe that given enough time, the cummulative effects of microevolutiory effects give rise to macroevolutionary changes. You point to the fossil record, homoolgy, and bio-geography as proof. Okay, let's look at the evidence.

A. Fossil Record
1. All the different, basic kinds of animals appear abruptly and fully functional in the strata - with no proof of ancestors.
2. Plants appear abruptly too. Scientists have been unable to find an Evolutionary history (beginning to end) for even one group of modern plants.
3. Contrary to common belief, most fossils are not of extinct types of animals. Most fossils are very similar (and often totally identical) to creatures living today. Evolutionary history should be filled with temporary, intermediate stages of Evolution, from amoeba to man. Where are they?
4. There is a continuing lack of evidence for Evolution in spite of the millions of fossils that have been discovered.

B. Homology
1. Homologous organisms exhibiting ‘unity of type’, would be expected to show homologous genes and homologous patterns of embryological development. But, wat is being discovered however, are non homologous genetic structures and different embryological development patterns.
2. Homologous structures[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] are arrived at by different routes and the cells giving rise to the different germ layers and their migration patterns are markedly dissimilar. Homologous attributes in the different classes of vertebrates (or even within the same species) are arrived at by different (non-homologous) routes from non-homologous sites in the embryo.[/FONT]

C. Bio-geography
1. The biogeography argument isn’t an argument in favor of evolution—it’s an argument against the Bible. Even if the argument is true, proving the Bible is false doesn’t prove that evolution is true.
2. The only real point of contention between creationists and evolutionists is how long it takes for living things to colonize a new area.
3. In Sursty, Iceland, scientists studying how long it takes an ecosystem to develop. In less than 50 years Surtsey has developed an old-looking ecological system.

I've rebutted your "proof" that the fossil record, homoolgy, and bio-geography is evidence of macroevolution. I'm still waiting for your comments.

I'm also waiting for your theory on the origin of genetic matter.

From the looks of it, I could be waiting for a long time.

 

[Nik]

If you been following this thread, and clearly you have been, you know that as a scientist, I believe that the intelligent design model is the best explanation for the origin of life.

Holy fuck you finally answered a question. I'm in fucking SHOCK.

Next question, what evidence do you have to support intelligent design and why do you write-off the idea of survival of the fittest?

 

[Nik]

I've rebutted your "proof" that the fossil record, homoolgy, and bio-geography is evidence of macroevolution.

Bullshit. You haven't done anything but 1) pull shit out of your ass and 2) be shown how you're wrong. Shit, you won't even click the TalkOrigins link to read about the TWENTY-NINE evidences for macroevolution.

You've done so repeatedly in this thread. Nobody takes you seriously or even respects your opinion, much less your skewed view of evidence.

You refuse to believe things that have evidence to support them and insist on believing things that do not have any supporting evidence.

You, sir, are a failure.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

Bullshit. You haven't done anything but 1) pull shit out of your ass and 2) be shown how you're wrong.

I respond to your questions, and you ignore mine. That's not a conversation.

Clearly your strategy is to try to frustrate me until I go away.

If you can't add any value to this discussion, I'm going to have to have to put you on my ignore list. Tryng to reason with someone who is unreasonable is a waste of my valuable time.

 

[Nik]

And you are on ignore.

What the fuck?

 

[Ruptga]

He's adding no value to the discussion here but seems to get a kick out of hanging around.

From now on in this thread I will refer to you as Pot.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

..

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

What the fuck?

Nice misquote of what I said.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I said that all information comes from an intelligent source...

Which is a bare assertion and patently false.

amd you replied with a Gegier counter, coin flips, and broen glass.

Examples of information being generated at random.

How does information theory, in your expert opnion, explain the origin of genetic material?

It doesn't. It has nothing to say on the matter whatsoever. The issue of information with regard to origins of DNA is something wholly imagined by liar creationists like yourself that don't even understand the subjects about which they make these false claims.

 

[darkswordsman17]

...as a scientist...

Haha, as a scientist you would be one of the biggest failures ever. A pacifist would make a better hitman than you would a scientist.

You know, you might have been a scientist for about 2 minutes, but after what you've posted on this board, its clear you got laughed out (and fired) from every scientific position you've ever held. Teaching your daughter "science" does not make you a scientist, let alone if you're filling her head full of the stuff you've been posting on here. That's actually more along the lines of child abuse.

I respond to your questions, and you ignore mine. That's not a conversation.

Clearly your strategy is to try to frustrate me until I go away.

If you can't add any value to this discussion, I'm going to have to have to put you on my ignore list. Tryng to reason with someone who is unreasonable is a waste of my valuable time.

You have no reason to complain about people ignoring anything you have to say as you're the one that started it.

As opposed to your strategy of pulling buzzwords and looking for rebuttals off of Creationist propaganda sites.

What of value have you added to this conversation? I've read your posts and can't find anything at all. Maybe you need to explain it better, this time without pulling quotes, actually explain it in your own words.

 

[Nik]

Nice misquote of what I said.

My quoting your post and replying:

Today, 01:12 PM

Your previous post:

Last edited by PhineasJWhoopee; Today at 01:17 PM.

I didn't misquote anything. That's exactly what you typed.

Know why I know you're willfully dishonest? Because there's EVIDENCE for it. A concept you seem to think you can bend and stretch and blatantly break to fit your agenda.

 

[Nik]

I respond to your questions, and you ignore mine. That's not a conversation.

So says the guy that answers EVERY QUESTION with another question instead of answering the original question for TWENTY ONE PAGES?

Clearly your strategy is to try to frustrate me until I go away.

Actually, my strategy originally was to have a mature, logical, intelligent conversation with others. You, quite apparently, are here to do nothing but troll.

If you can't add any value to this discussion, I'm going to have to have to put you on my ignore list. Tryng to reason with someone who is unreasonable is a waste of my valuable time.

:sneaky:

 

[Nik]

Teaching your daughter "science" does not make you a scientist...

He's got a DAUGHTER?

 

[totalnoob]

Phin, in addition to the mountains of proof at the talkorigins link you've ignored (at least 5-6 times now), I provided you with additional information in a 9 minute video that proves common descent. Watch it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUxLR9hdorI (Start at 1:05)

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

He's got a DAUGHTER?

A very, very pretty one too, by the way.

 

[PhineasJWhoopee]

I didn't misquote anything. That's exactly what you typed.

Afraid not, go back and read what I wrote.

 

[Nik]

Afraid not, go back and read what I wrote.

Thank you for proving yourself to be a liar, time and time again.

When I quoted you, (and for the next 4.5 minutes or so), when I had quoted you was the only thing you typed out. You went back to edit it, of course, but you really didn't change anything and that doesn't make you any less of a liar.

Besides, YOU are the unreasonable one, as pretty much everyone in this thread keeps telling you.

I put you in my sig for the lulz. It's a true statement, but coming from you is absolutely hilarious because you wouldn't know what "reasonable" is even if it evolved into a trout before your eyes and smacked you in the face.

You simply do not have the mental facilities to comprehend basic ideas. You ignore proof. You ignore evidence and reason. You ignore logic. You have failed in ALL of your posts in this thread. You shouldn't be ashamed of being a dumbass. It just makes you fight harder and makes you look like even more of a dumbass.

You prove it with every single post. All of them.

 

[Nik]

A very, very pretty one too, by the way.

Yeah, and soon she'll be pretty stupid, too, if you keep teaching her that logic and reason are replaced by hocus pocus and religious nonsense.

Besides, I thought you added me to your ignore list?

Either:

1) you didn't and you're a liar or

2) you did, but only as a publicity stunt and click the link to see what I post anyway so you can reply to it.

Face it, assface, you are in this thread with absolutely no idea what you're talking about and are here with the sole intention of trolling.

 

[PowerEngineer]

Nice misquote of what I said.

I respond to your questions, and you ignore mine. That's not a conversation.

Clearly your strategy is to try to frustrate me until I go away.

If you can't add any value to this discussion, I'm going to have to have to put you on my ignore list. Tryng to reason with someone who is unreasonable is a waste of my valuable time.

Okay, the irony of your complaints are just too much for me to pass up.

As to your first complaint, you intentionally misquoted me much earlier in this thread so that you could ignore my question about your alternative explanation for how life came to be. (And given the nature of your comments I'm not at all surprised at what it is.) You are hardly in a position to 'cast the first stone' on misquotes.

As to your second complaint, it is most properly addressed to yourself. No one participating in this thread has ignored questions or sought to frustrate other participants more than you have.

Everyone should let this thread die now!

:thumbsdown: :thumbsdown: