This thread should be closed.
The issues:
a. have been beaten to death
b. require intelligent bantor about the subject
c. have taken a back seat to the fact that the thread starter and sympathizers are ignoring any points made, albeit points made many times before.
d. makes me want to read through an evolution/creationism discussion that at least exchanges good points and provides supporting evidence, theories and other intelligent dialogue.
**
Then fucking leave.
**
Then fucking leave.
**
All issues that were addressed, but because you enjoy being willfully ignorant and in fact seem to revel in your ignorance, it does not matter, does it.
Then fucking leave.
**
Then fucking leave.
**
Then fucking leave.
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Five months, two weeks, four days, 19 hours, 39 minutes and 9 seconds.
6872 cigarettes not smoked, saving $859.09.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 2 days, 20 hours, 40 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!) **
Although you may be “very nice” and “flexible,” Great Debates is definitely not the place for you.
The smoke-free days are starting to take their toll! 
But once again, Satan brilliantly gets to the point in as few words as possible.
pldennison wrote:
You’d be surprised what some people think.
Once, a Creationist e-mailed me to say that the rise of antibiotic-resistant bacteria was not evidence for evolution!
Hmmm… HideoHo was so eager to discuss Darwin’s Black Box, I wonder what could have happened? He seems to have totally disappeared.
-Ben
Maybe he didn’t expect to run into people who have actually read the book, instead of excerpts and commentaries on Cretinist websites, and who could clearly state why Behe’s little musings are in no way “proof against Darwin”.
Or maybe his supervisor found out that he was spending his time at work posting to Message Boards and had his proxy revoked…
It just goes to show you. The only anti-evolutionists who have the stomach to go toe-to-toe with knowledgable people are those who are religious fundamentalists. Every “creation science” idea can be debated and refuted. Those who try to use “creation science” find themselves demolished and leave. Only the “God said it, I believe it, that settles it” crowd can take the heat.
Honesty, you have shown yourself to be woefully ignorant. “I hate Charles Dickens! After all, his novels don’t discuss what it’s like to be an Australian Aborigine!” “Newton’s theory of Gravitation must be wrong, because it doesn’t explain why I had chicken vindaloo for dinner last night!” Shyeah, right…
Then you claim that you have good reason to reject science, reason, logic, AND religion too, yet you fail to explain WHY. Wait, I know! You must be a solipsist! Yes, you’re a brain in a jar, so you believe in last Thursdayism!
ROFLMAO…
Here are some replies (following the *) I have to a long list of supposed “proofs against evolution” that someone sent to me.
Enjoy!!
-Lupulin
Well, I should be writing my thesis but instead I’m reading through this
list of Eric’s:
> Reasons for Creationism vs. Evolution
> Section 1: Cosmology, Astronomy, Planetary Geology
> 1.1: The sun contains most of the mass, but only 2% of the angular
momentum
> of the solar system. If the solar system had condensed from a gas cloud,
> most of its angular momentum would be in the sun.
> 1.2: Most sets of fundamental constants would lead to a universe in which
> life could not exist. Therefore, the fundamental constants of the universe
> must have been fine-tuned by a creator who wished to bring man into
> existence.
> 1.3: At the present rate of influx of meteoritic dust from space, the
earth
> and moon after 5 billion years should each be covered with a meteoritic
dust
> layer more than 180 feet thick.
> 1.4: The 1st law of thermodynamics states that the energy in the universe
is
> constant. The Big Bang theory states that the universe came out of
nothing,
> so it violates this thermodynamic law.
> 1.5: The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that disorder in the universe
> always increases. This means that the universe could not have started in
an
> ordered state unless it was “wound up” by a Creator.
> 1.6: The rotation of the Earth has been slowing at a rate of 30 seconds
per
> century. If the Earth were billions of years old, the rotation rate at the
> outset would have been so great that the planet could not have held
> together, much less support life.
> 1.7: Quantum mechanics proves the existence of a creator, since there must
> have been some entity external to the universe to observe it and thus
> collapse it into a determinate state.
> 1.8: Big Bang theory says the universe came from nothing. But something
> cannot come from nothing, so God must have created the universe.
> Section 2: Terrestrial Geology, Radioisotope Dating
I’m not a radio-geologist but here are some comments:
> 2.1: Many test using 14C give dates that are obviously wrong or conflict
> with dates given by other radioisotope tests. For instance, a living
mollusk
> was once shown by 14C dating to be dead for 3,000 years.
> 2.2: The ages of rocks are determined by the kinds of fossils they
contain,
> but the dating of the fossils depends upon evolutionary assumptions. The
use
> of the old age of rocks to support evolution is thus a circular argument.
> 2.3: The rate of decay in the geomagnetic field sets an outside limit of
> 10,000 years for the age of the earth.
> 2.4: If the earth were as old as geologists say, uranium decay would have
> put into the atmosphere more helium than we currently find there.
> 2.5: There are places where “older” rock strata lie above “younger” rock
> strata.
> 2.6: Radiometric dating is extremely inaccurate, as is shown by the fact
> that such experiments frequently have error factors of a few million
years.
> 2.7: Many radiometric dating tests have yielded false results.
Evolutionists
> discard all those that are inconsistent with their prior assumptions and
> keep those that “verify” their theory.
> 2.8: Radiometric dating reports the earth to be old only because the
> cataclysmic action of Noah’s Flood changed the radioisotope concentrations
> in the young earth.
> 2.9: Noah’s flood was caused by the condensing of a vapor canopy that
> contained the waters of the flood. Prior to the flood, the vapor canopy
also
> extended people’s lifespans to the huge ages listed in Genesis, because it
> blocked out harmful UV rays.
> 2.10: Niagara Falls is moving upstream at a known rate each year. Its
> current location allows only about 5,000 years since the time it started
> eroding.
> Section 3: Origin of Life
> 3.1: The law of biogenesis states that life comes only from previous life.
> Therefore prebiotic synthesis - which states that life first developed
from
> nonliving molecules - contradicts a major law of science.
> 3.2: Amino acids in living organisms are all left-handed, but in nature,
> equal amounts of left-handed and right-handed amino acids form, so one
would
> expect them to occur in equal proportions in living organisms if
abiogenesis
> were true.
> 3.3: Nucleic acids cannot replicate without the help of proteins.
Proteins,
> however, cannot form unless specified by nucleic acid sequences. Thus,
> genetic systems could not have started naturally.
> 3.4: There are n! ways of an enzyme or DNA strand of n parts forming
> prebiotically. Since the smallest proteins have at least 100 amino acids,
> the chance of forming a particular enzyme prebiotically is at most 1/100!,
> which is small enough to be disregarded.
> 3.5: Even though the Earth is an open system, the second law of
> thermodynamics still poses an insuperable barrier to abiogenesis, since
> order in an open system will increase only when there is a complex system
> (such as a host of enzymes or a supernatural creator) to influence the
> reactions. An increase in order in the absence of such a complex system
> would be like sunshine causing loose parts in a junkyard to assemble
itself
> into a pickup truck.
We’ve discussed this ad nauseum. There’s nothing wrong with fecreases in
entropy as long as total entropy in the universe increasaes with time.
Again, I’ll give the ice formation example - where is the “complex system”
responsible for the local decrease in entropy when water spontaneously forms
ice on my windshield in the mornings???
> Section 4: Biological Evolution, Mutations, Speciation
> 4.1: Chromosome numbers cannot change without producing very harmful
> effects.
> 4.2: The perfection of the structures of the various life forms on earth
> clearly reveal themselves as the work of an intelligent designer. Nowhere
is
> this more evident than in the unbelievably complex human eye.
> 4.3: Evolutionists cannot tell us exactly how most organisms arose. For
> instance, no one can explain what series of mutations could have given
> caterpillars the ability to metamorphose into butterflies.
> 4.4: The genetic variation in populations that allows them to adapt to
> environmental change through microevolution (as revealed in industrial
> melanism and bacterial antibiotic resistance) was deliberately put in
place
> by the creator.
> 4.5: Homologous features do not prove any ancestral relationship between
> organisms, because all classifications above the species level are
man-made
> and arbitrary.
> 4.6: Industrial melanism does not demonstrate evolution at all because no
> speciation occurs.
> 4.7: Mutations are universally deleterious, and thus cannot be a driving
> factor in evolution.
> 4.8: There are plenty of records of mutations causing birth defects, but
> none of mutations causing “birth improvements.”
> 4.9: The rate of mutation is so small that it could never serve as a
source
> of variation.
> 4.10: Macroevolution remains unproved because no one has observed it. In
> fact, macroevolution is in principle unobservable, so evolution must be
> unscientific.
> 4.11: No one has ever seen one species arise from another.
> 4.12: If evolution were true, then fish would have evolved into amphibians
> and land animals more than once.
> 4.13: Sexual reproduction could not have come about through evolution.
> 4.14: There is no evidence for the rapid development of new species.
> 4.15: Natural selection is tautological: the fittest survive, and those
who
> survive are the fittest.
> 4.16: Organisms feature numerous “irreducibly complex” structures and
> processes, which could not have developed via small evolutionary steps.
> Evolutionists have not even tried to explain how such structures and
> processes could evolve.
> 4.17 Given uniform population growth rates, we can extrapolate backwards
> from today’s population to prove that there could not have been humans
> before 10,000 years ago.
> 4.18 Haldane’s Dilemma proves that humans could not have evolved over the
> time span evolutionists say they did.
> 5.1: The feather impressions in fossils of Archaeopteryx are forgeries.
> 5.2: Archaeopteryx is not a transitional form but a full-fledged bird. Any
> reptilian characteristics it displays are mirrored in modern birds such as
> the hoatzin.
> 5.3: Protoavis precedes Archaeopteryx in the fossil record, so
Archaeopteryx
> cannot possibly be a transitional form.
*?
> 5.4: The Cambrian explosion is a sure sign of the activity of the Creator,
> suddenly creating a multitude of complex forms out of nothing. There are
no
> fossils before the explosion.
> 5.5: All of the explanations of gaps in the fossil record, such as the
> invocation of punctuated equilibrium and the low probability of
> fossilization, render the evolutionary prediction of transitional forms
> unfalsifiable.
Damn, I’m getting tired of this! I’m gonna pick a few more then stop…
> 5.7: In their search for transitional forms, the evolutionary community
has
> been taken in by outright fraud, as in the case of Piltdown Man, which was
> accepted as a valid specimen for 40 years, and by unfounded speculation,
as
> in the construction of Nebraska Man from what later turned out to be a pig
> tooth. This shows how unobjective evolutionists are.
> 6.1: It is likely that many structures in the universe were created with
the
> mere appearance of old age.
> 6.2: Evolution teaches that there are no such things as souls, that the
> Bible is fraudulent, and that God does not exist.
> 6.3: Great scientists such as Newton and Kepler believed in a literal
> Genesis.
> 6.4: Evolutionists are trying to take over the school system and force
their
> beliefs upon the students.
> 6.5: Natural processes cannot be the cause of qualities seen in humans
like
> love. For instance, the cause of love must be something loving.
> 6.6: There are many theories of evolution, each of which “conclusively
> disproves” the other.
> 6.8: Electrons are materially inconceivable, but physicists largely accept
> them as real entities. So what is to keep one from accepting the reality
of
> an inconceivable Creator?
> 6.9: The exclusive teaching of evolution in the science classroom violates
> the teaching of multiculturalism, because many different cultures have
> creation myths which contradict evolution.
> 6.11: Nothing can be proven, particularly events in the past. Therefore,
> creationism must be just as reasonable as evolution.
> 6.12: There is nothing wrong with invoking supernatural explanations.
> 6.13: There are many unanswered questions in science, such as the details
of
> the origin of the universe and of prebiotic synthesis. Thus we require a
> supernatural God for explanation.
PHEW!
Speakin’ of strawman arguments against evolution, have you seen the Chick Tract called “Big Daddy”?
It’s at http://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0055/0055_01.asp, and is quite a riot.
I’m still waiting for HideoHo to come back with his quotes from Behe that undermine “Darwinism”. Regardless of the fact that Behe does not question that descent with modification through the mechanism of natural selection is probably the dominant fact of the history of life on Earth.
Heck, I’m still waiting for College Student to post how archaeology supports a literal interpretation of the Bible and disproves “Darwinism”.
(For that matter, I am still waiting for someone whom I shall not name to post at least the title of the book he found in that New Age bookstore near Stonehenge that disproves “Darwinism”. Do I see a pattern here?)
Okay, this amused the hell out of me!
I think that I, in a lampoon of he-who-cannot-be-named, made reference to a book purchased in a New Age bookstore near Stonehenge. I don’t think that he-who-cannot-be-named actually made that reference.
So, I’m laughing over here, but also I am proud that my lampoon was so dead-on, someone I hold in such high esteem thought it was real! 
Yer pal,
Satan - Commissioner, The Teeming Minions
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Five months, three weeks, three days, 13 minutes and 38 seconds.
7080 cigarettes not smoked, saving $885.05.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 3 weeks, 3 days, 14 hours, 0 minutes.
*“I’m a big Genesis fan.”-David B. (Amen, brother!)
Since I’m primarily a lurker on these boards, but one who loves this particular topic of debate (I’m multi-lurking over on The Pizza Parlor even as we speak.) is there any way to let me in on this joke? He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named?
We could tell you, but then we’d have to kill you.
For you see, like the demons of old, we fear that if we name him, he may show up again.
(Hey, it happened on LBMB2 – they mentioned Daniel Schwarr and he appeared!)
I think He-Who-Cannot-Be-Named did in fact mention the book from the New Age section near Stonehenge, though, although since the thread is gone it can’t be proven either way. But I’m pretty sure in his first few posts he mentioned the book he found there that would disprove evolution.
Are you talking about that 21-year-old Christian fanatic who used to keep witnessing here? (I’ve forgotten his handle, so I couldn’t name him anyway.)
Oh, no, he was much older than 21 (at least, that was his claim). His name began with a “P.”
As a clue to the identity of P, is he the banned person in the “what if” thread that someone just re-opened?
I am a little busy right now, preparing a new novel, and filling out patent applications for my new inventions, but next week, when I have time to write a more extensive post on the subject, I will reveal to everyone just who the mysterious poster who cannot be named really was. (note: I shall show not only the board name, but the true identity of the PWCBN, and give a brief proof of those facts I have been able to obtain from certain government files made available to me.) For now, it will have to suffice that the PWCBN is greatly feared here, mostly because his clear logical thinking, and forthright ideals were a threat to the closed minds which congregate here.
When I do post these missives, which will have to be done in several parts, owing to the need for thorough exposition, I will include several references showing his complete debunking of “Evolutionism” and the cabal of science involved in supporting this bankrupt philosophy.
I have to go now, my laboratory work is at a critical stage.
Tris.
HA!
LOL!
PeeQueue