Anti-Moronic

Richmond, KY

#145 May 22, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
None of that has anything to do with the discussion.
<quoted text>
That was my point, exactly, Poindexter.

Neither does your germ postulate, MRSA, or gravity, but you keep throwing out silly off topic random scientific concepts (grasping for straws) hoping to create yet another diversion and avoid your duty of proving evolution is a fact as you foolishly claimed.

"When" you do it, I'm sure all the notable scientists will shake your hand and pat you on the back for doing something not even they have done yet.
Anti-Moronic

Richmond, KY

#146 May 22, 2012
anonymous wrote:
evolution is a theory, but theories are supported by facts (which have come to be determined by direct evidence.) there is no theory to religion-- all evidence that supports religious belief is entirely anecdotal. a person who rejects evolutionary theory due to religious belief is an idiot, especially considering it's completely rational for someone to believe that god could have used evolution to create the world.
Anti-Theist, read the ^above^ comment by some other person. See his first sentence? Notice that even though he agrees with evolution, just as you do, he is also smart enough to realize that evolution is only a theory.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#148 May 22, 2012
"You keep saying, "Is the gravity theory just a theory?" "Is the germ theory just a theory?" You stupidly suggested earlier that Evolution is "just a theory." According to your "logic," Germ, Atomic, Gravitational, Big Bang, Plate Tectonic and Cell theories are "just theories" too, whatever that means.

"You've only made the suggestion that since other scientific theories have been promoted to laws." Laws are descriptions of natural phenomena. Theories are explanations of those observed phenomena. There is no need to "promote" theories to laws. You clearly don't know what scientific laws and theories are.

"That is your OPINION" Whose opinion would it be? Are you stating your own opinion?

"Not FACT" A scientific theory can be a theory and a fact.

"We are not talking about any other theory or LAW or their categorization and/or relevance." All scientific theories are governed by the scientific method. To accept the scientific method, but pick which conclusions you accept, is a contradiction.
Anti-Moronic wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep diverting because you know you goofed big time.
You keep saying, "Is the gravity theory just a theory?" "Is the germ theory just a theory?"
That is off topic.
You've only made the suggestion that since other scientific theories have been promoted to laws, evolution should be as well.
That is your OPINION. Not FACT, as you claim.
We are not talking about any other theory or LAW or their categorization and/or relevance. That is not the debate here at all.
We are not debating the fact that germs make people sick, moron.
The fact remains that today, evolution is still not deemed a fact or a law even in the scientific community.
We are talking about ONLY the THEORY of EVOLUTION, which you claim is a FACT, not a theory.
Now, since scientists still consider evolution a "theory," I'd like you to prove how you know it is fact. You have asserted your scientific knowledge above that of leading scientists throughout history with your foolishly bold and unfounded claim.
You CANNOT under any circumstance, even with your IDEAS about other scientific theories and laws, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that evolution is fact. Not even Darwin could do it.
You say you can. We are all waiting, junior.
Show your proof.
Anti-Idiocy

Richmond, KY

#150 May 22, 2012
* typo: proven
Anti-Lunacy

Richmond, KY

#151 May 23, 2012
Since #149 was deleted, I'll have to repost.

"According to your "logic," Germ, Atomic, Gravitational, Big Bang, Plate Tectonic and Cell theories are "just theories" too, whatever that means."

WRONG.
You are using flawed reasoning.
It's a bit of an association fallacy to claim that because certain theories you condone have been promoted to law, then obviously that must mean evolution should be law too.
That is merely your opinion, not fact.
You cannot make that correlation in order to "prove" evolution. If evolution is fact, then it must be so based on it's own merit, not because other theories earned the right to become laws.
__________

"That is your OPINION" Whose opinion would it be? Are you stating your own opinion?
NO.
This is not about OPINION. You said evolution is FACT. Fact and opinion are different.

Just because you believe evolution should be a fact, does not make it one.

__________
"A scientific theory can be a theory and a fact.
All scientific theories are governed by the scientific method. To accept the scientific method, but pick which conclusions you accept, is a contradiction."

Let me educate you.
You have a hypothesis. If it can be tested and believed, it becomes a theory.
If that theory can be tested (recreated) and proven, it becomes a law.

In order for evolution to be proven, all steps of the scientific method must be utilized. That means you must recreate the processes for evolution to occur.
Since we cannot time travel yet, that is IMPOSSIBLE in the case of evolution and the Big Bang theory. We cannot recreate the early pre-earth environment and we cannot go back in time and recreate the conditions necessary for evolution.
Because those tests cannot be recreated, evolution cannot be promoted to law (fact) and until we witness evolution (not adaptation based on environmental stimuli, like the examples you gave), we cannot prove evolution.

Why do you think scientists, even Darwin himself have struggled with this for hundreds of years.

As I said, if you can prove evolution to be fact, based on it's own merit, not simply because you think it deserves to be a a law since other theories received the same courtesy, then I'm sure you'll receive the Nobel Prize and be patted on the back by all of today's notable scientists, because you will have done something they wish they could do.

YOU CANNOT and WILL NOT prove evolution to be anything more than a theory. If you can, do it.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#152 May 23, 2012
"YOU CANNOT and WILL NOT prove evolution to be anything more than a theory"

You speak as though the word "theory" is an insult in science. You again reveal your ignorance. You don't understand what a scientific theory is. Theories are the highest goals in science.

Proof of evolution: MRSA. Good luck explaining it without Evolutionary Biology.
Anti-Lunacy wrote:
Since #149 was deleted, I'll have to repost.
"According to your "logic," Germ, Atomic, Gravitational, Big Bang, Plate Tectonic and Cell theories are "just theories" too, whatever that means."
WRONG.
You are using flawed reasoning.
It's a bit of an association fallacy to claim that because certain theories you condone have been promoted to law, then obviously that must mean evolution should be law too.
That is merely your opinion, not fact.
You cannot make that correlation in order to "prove" evolution. If evolution is fact, then it must be so based on it's own merit, not because other theories earned the right to become laws.
__________
"That is your OPINION" Whose opinion would it be? Are you stating your own opinion?
NO.
This is not about OPINION. You said evolution is FACT. Fact and opinion are different.
Just because you believe evolution should be a fact, does not make it one.
__________
"A scientific theory can be a theory and a fact.
All scientific theories are governed by the scientific method. To accept the scientific method, but pick which conclusions you accept, is a contradiction."
Let me educate you.
You have a hypothesis. If it can be tested and believed, it becomes a theory.
If that theory can be tested (recreated) and proven, it becomes a law.
In order for evolution to be proven, all steps of the scientific method must be utilized. That means you must recreate the processes for evolution to occur.
Since we cannot time travel yet, that is IMPOSSIBLE in the case of evolution and the Big Bang theory. We cannot recreate the early pre-earth environment and we cannot go back in time and recreate the conditions necessary for evolution.
Because those tests cannot be recreated, evolution cannot be promoted to law (fact) and until we witness evolution (not adaptation based on environmental stimuli, like the examples you gave), we cannot prove evolution.
Why do you think scientists, even Darwin himself have struggled with this for hundreds of years.
As I said, if you can prove evolution to be fact, based on it's own merit, not simply because you think it deserves to be a a law since other theories received the same courtesy, then I'm sure you'll receive the Nobel Prize and be patted on the back by all of today's notable scientists, because you will have done something they wish they could do.
YOU CANNOT and WILL NOT prove evolution to be anything more than a theory. If you can, do it.
Anti-Absurdity

San Jose, CA

#153 May 23, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
"YOU CANNOT and WILL NOT prove evolution to be anything more than a theory"
You speak as though the word "theory" is an insult in science. You again reveal your ignorance. You don't understand what a scientific theory is. Theories are the highest goals in science.
Proof of evolution: MRSA. Good luck explaining it without Evolutionary Biology.
<quoted text>
WRONG AGAIN.

Your reading comprehension skills are not above a 5th grade level apparently.

When I said YOU cannot and WILL not prove evolution to be fact, notice I capitalized the word YOU.
I meant that personally, as in YOU, Anti-Theist cannot and will not do it. I still mean that.

Science may eventually prove it, but YOU, personally, will not.
______

Now, concerning MRSA proving the "theory" of evolution to be a fact.....*CACKLE!*

First, the fact that MRSA exists today, does not prove evolution took place at any other point in history. You cannot prove all life past and present evolved from simply one cellular (bacterial) example. That's ludicrous. As I said, you cannot recreate the environment in which life first began, you were not there and neither were the scientists you claim to trump with your evolutionary revelation.

Second, you are speaking of a strain of bacteria that has "evolved" in the sense of the word meaning changed or adapted to better suit it's environment ONLY. You are not speaking of one kind transforming into another "kind."

The fact remains that MRSA begins as a strain of staphylococcal bacteria, and ends as a strain of staphylococcal bacteria. If something remains of the same "kind" after the supposed change, it has not gone through evolution in the sense you are claiming.
It is simply a more resistant and resilient strain of staphylococcal bacteria.

And, it certainly did not evolve from one species into another. LOL

Furthermore, if it were able to "evolve" due to overexposure to certain antibiotics, that is a result of induced stimuli, not a natural process. Mutation is also not proof of evolution, so don't even bother with that fallacy. I can prove you wrong 1,000 times over.

Still waiting on your PROOF of evolution. I'll be the first to stand for the ovation when you receive your Nobel Prize for doing something NO SCIENTIST has done so far.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#154 May 23, 2012
MRSA developed for several reasons, one being the overuse of antibiotics and another being patients who do not finish their medications.

There is a reason why doctors tell you, if you have staph infection or other infections, to make sure that you finish all your medication. Biologists understand why. Educated people understand.
Anti-Absurdity wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG AGAIN.
Your reading comprehension skills are not above a 5th grade level apparently.
When I said YOU cannot and WILL not prove evolution to be fact, notice I capitalized the word YOU.
I meant that personally, as in YOU, Anti-Theist cannot and will not do it. I still mean that.
Science may eventually prove it, but YOU, personally, will not.
______
Now, concerning MRSA proving the "theory" of evolution to be a fact.....*CACKLE!*
First, the fact that MRSA exists today, does not prove evolution took place at any other point in history. You cannot prove all life past and present evolved from simply one cellular (bacterial) example. That's ludicrous. As I said, you cannot recreate the environment in which life first began, you were not there and neither were the scientists you claim to trump with your evolutionary revelation.
Second, you are speaking of a strain of bacteria that has "evolved" in the sense of the word meaning changed or adapted to better suit it's environment ONLY. You are not speaking of one kind transforming into another "kind."
The fact remains that MRSA begins as a strain of staphylococcal bacteria, and ends as a strain of staphylococcal bacteria. If something remains of the same "kind" after the supposed change, it has not gone through evolution in the sense you are claiming.
It is simply a more resistant and resilient strain of staphylococcal bacteria.
And, it certainly did not evolve from one species into another. LOL
Furthermore, if it were able to "evolve" due to overexposure to certain antibiotics, that is a result of induced stimuli, not a natural process. Mutation is also not proof of evolution, so don't even bother with that fallacy. I can prove you wrong 1,000 times over.
Still waiting on your PROOF of evolution. I'll be the first to stand for the ovation when you receive your Nobel Prize for doing something NO SCIENTIST has done so far.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#155 May 23, 2012
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/...
Anti-theist wrote:
MRSA developed for several reasons, one being the overuse of antibiotics and another being patients who do not finish their medications.
There is a reason why doctors tell you, if you have staph infection or other infections, to make sure that you finish all your medication. Biologists understand why. Educated people understand.
<quoted text>
Anti-Stupidity

Georgetown, KY

#156 May 24, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re leases/2008/01/080121181410.ht m
<quoted text>
Is this supposed to be the coup de gras? LOL

Anti, you need to realize that is not evolution as you want to believe it is.
The word evolve simply means change or development.
Evolve can be used to describe how personalities or opinions change.
Cities evolve or progress.
Adaptation. Change.

Simply put, MRSA begins as Staph and ends as STAPH. It does not transform from one type of bacterium into another. It simply adapts to become stronger much like our bodies respond to vaccinations in order to produce immunity to certain diseases; therefore, making us stronger.

Nowhere in that article is it claiming that this is proof for the THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
You have read that into it because you simply want to believe it. That's sad and very uneducated.

Try again.
Anti-Stupidity

Georgetown, KY

#157 May 24, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
MRSA developed for several reasons, one being the overuse of antibiotics and another being patients who do not finish their medications.
There is a reason why doctors tell you, if you have staph infection or other infections, to make sure that you finish all your medication. Biologists understand why. Educated people understand.
<quoted text>
Of course MRSA developed due to man's negligence. That is not a naturally occurring process.
Think about that.
Even if it were, it would still not be considered evolution of life.
So, your idea is still not proof.

As I said, MRSA begins as staphylococcal bacteria and ends as staphylococcal bacteria.
It does not ever transform from one 'Kind" of living organism into another, which is what evolution is.

The staph simply becomes stronger. That's where the "Methicillin Resistant" characteristic comes in.
The staph is almost vaccinated, in a sense. Little by little, being exposed to small amounts of antibiotics at a time, the staph bacteria are able to form an immunity in much the same way humans respond to vaccinations.
Since the introduction of antibiotics is NOT a naturally occurring process, it CANNOT be considered evolution in the sense Charles Darwin defined. It can only be considered adapting to external (environmental) stimuli introduced by man. Darwin's THEORY of evolution describes a NATURAL process.

Really, Anti... read your science book. Raise your hand more in class and ask your teacher to help you understand these simple concepts. I'm growing weary wasting my time explaining 5th grade science to a person who claimed to be educated. YOU LIED.
Anti-Stupidity

Georgetown, KY

#158 May 24, 2012
Anti, you keep scraping the bottom of the barrel here trying to prove evolution is fact, going from one topic to another, and being proven wrong each time.

The FACT is, scientists have not yet classified evolution as FACT. It is still deemed a THEORY by the scientific community.

You are asserting your knowledge above the most educated people in the world when you try to make the FOOLISH bold claim that it is proven fact.
You're not a scholar. You're simply a Topix boob.

You will search forever trying to find an article saying evolution has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. Perhaps you'll find some crackpot somewhere on the web, or some Charles Dawson liar with an agenda
who will agree with you.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Dawson

In the mean time, the scientific world disagrees with you. Provide them with the proof you say you have, and I'm sure you'll be considered s leading intellectual.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#159 May 24, 2012
"Of course MRSA developed due to man's negligence. That is not a naturally occurring process."

No ignoramus, the process that allows the bacteria to change and survive is evolution by way of natural selection.

The wonderful thing about the bacterial world is that generations go by quickly, allowing humans to observe the evolutionary process in a relatively short amount of time.
Anti-Stupidity wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course MRSA developed due to man's negligence. That is not a naturally occurring process.
Think about that.
Even if it were, it would still not be considered evolution of life.
So, your idea is still not proof.
As I said, MRSA begins as staphylococcal bacteria and ends as staphylococcal bacteria.
It does not ever transform from one 'Kind" of living organism into another, which is what evolution is.
The staph simply becomes stronger. That's where the "Methicillin Resistant" characteristic comes in.
The staph is almost vaccinated, in a sense. Little by little, being exposed to small amounts of antibiotics at a time, the staph bacteria are able to form an immunity in much the same way humans respond to vaccinations.
Since the introduction of antibiotics is NOT a naturally occurring process, it CANNOT be considered evolution in the sense Charles Darwin defined. It can only be considered adapting to external (environmental) stimuli introduced by man. Darwin's THEORY of evolution describes a NATURAL process.
Really, Anti... read your science book. Raise your hand more in class and ask your teacher to help you understand these simple concepts. I'm growing weary wasting my time explaining 5th grade science to a person who claimed to be educated. YOU LIED.
Embarassed for You

Richmond, KY

#160 May 25, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
"To debate it here of all places is ridiculous."
There is no point in debating, according to you, yet here you are debating.
<quoted text>
No, there is no point in debating because there is no point in debating. Not according to me, but according to the intractable and incompatible positions of the two opposing sides of this debate, which I outlined in my prior post. That I as an individual have pointed this out to you is irrelevant; whoever might tell you it's raining outside doesn't change the fact that it is.

I myself am not debating. I am mocking the debate and its participants for their continued exercise in futile posturing and self-congratulatory aggrandizement, all in a forum that has no accountability, nor any real merit other than as a time-sink. In the latter aspect alone has any success been achieved by anyone here.

Since: Apr 10

Location hidden

#161 May 25, 2012
"No, there is no point in debating because there is no point in debating." Here you are again, debating. If it's not worth debating, STFU.

"Not according to me, but according to the intractable and incompatible positions of the two opposing sides of this debate, which I outlined in my prior post." Oh, that gibberish nonsense.

"I am mocking the debate and its participants for their continued exercise" That's nice, but the debate will continue without your permission.
Embarassed for You wrote:
<quoted text>
No, there is no point in debating because there is no point in debating. Not according to me, but according to the intractable and incompatible positions of the two opposing sides of this debate, which I outlined in my prior post. That I as an individual have pointed this out to you is irrelevant; whoever might tell you it's raining outside doesn't change the fact that it is.
I myself am not debating. I am mocking the debate and its participants for their continued exercise in futile posturing and self-congratulatory aggrandizement, all in a forum that has no accountability, nor any real merit other than as a time-sink. In the latter aspect alone has any success been achieved by anyone here.
Embarrassed for You

Richmond, KY

#162 May 27, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
<quoted text>Here you are again, debating. If it's not worth debating, STFU.
It may not be worth debating, but it's quite worth the minimal effort on my part that it takes me to belittle you for trying, for the hilarity alone.
Anti-theist wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, that gibberish nonsense.
I can see where anything reasonable or otherwise damning to your pathetic efforts would seem like gibberish to you. Drooling buffoons have often felt the same about that which they cannot or will not comprehend... in your case, basic common sense, or the differences between "debate" and "self-mockery."
Anti-theist wrote:
<quoted text>That's nice, but the debate will continue without your permission.
Of that I have no doubt at all.

Given your obscene post count, it's clear that you are completely incapable of realizing when the dead horse you are beating is, in fact, dead. Or when the stick you are beating it with is actually a hank of yarn. Or that there never was a horse to begin with.

In fact, given such a monumental number of posts to your "credit," and having afforded a casual glance at a representative sample of them, I've surmised that you in fact feed on such things. It's not difficult to imagine you having nothing else going for you except these digital crusades of yours. Without them, your life would be suddenly imbued with far to much free time and exposure to reality. Suddenly stopping now might well shatter your fragile psyche. Not that such would be a tremendous loss...

So by all means, for your own sake, or for no other reason than my own personal amusement, please continue :-P
Embarrassed for You

Richmond, KY

#163 May 27, 2012
correction: "far *too* much free time"

Apologies. I'd hate to mock you erroneously.
Anti-Ridiculous

Pikeville, KY

#165 Jun 15, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
"No, there is no point in debating because there is no point in debating." Here you are again, debating. If it's not worth debating, STFU.
"Not according to me, but according to the intractable and incompatible positions of the two opposing sides of this debate, which I outlined in my prior post." Oh, that gibberish nonsense.
"I am mocking the debate and its participants for their continued exercise" That's nice, but the debate will continue without your permission.
<quoted text>
You claim to be an intelligent debater then give responses like "STFU"?

I bet you don't see the irony in that.

Stay in school, kid.
Anti-Ridiculous

Pikeville, KY

#166 Jun 15, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
"Of course MRSA developed due to man's negligence. That is not a naturally occurring process."
No ignoramus, the process that allows the bacteria to change and survive is evolution by way of natural selection.
The wonderful thing about the bacterial world is that generations go by quickly, allowing humans to observe the evolutionary process in a relatively short amount of time.
<quoted text>
You call people ignoramus... after claiming that "no scientist or educated person has ever denied evolution" and you were proven wrong?

After using "STFU" as a valid response?

After claiming Einstein was an evolutionist, then failing to prove it and having to change the subject again?

After claiming that evolution is FACT, when it is still classified by scientists as a THEORY?
Really?

Now let me educate you, junior.
You were WRONG again.
It is NOT natural selection. You don't even realize you meant to say "adaptive evolution."
For man to induce a reaction with drugs or other man made stimuli, is absolutely not natural selection, and it's especially not an example of naturally occurring evolution as defined by Darwin.
It is simply the bacteria's way of adapting to a harsh environment.
You need to Google the definition of natural selection and adaptive evolution, then Google "the Theory of Evolution."

By the way, your "The wonderful thing about the bacterial world is that generations go by quickly, allowing humans to observe the evolutionary process in a relatively short amount of time."
was just something you read on "godlessgeekblog" and plagiarized.
It's still merely OPINION, not fact.

I understand why you can't rely on your own original ideas though, junior.

The point is, Evolution is not a proven fact, as you so foolishly claimed. You have still not proven evolution to be fact with your off topic example.
You never will. Ever.
Science may some day, but YOU never will, so stop being willfully silly.
Anti-Opinion

Pikeville, KY

#167 Jun 15, 2012
Anti-theist wrote:
I don't remember what this was about. But the denier of the FACT of evolution is in no position to make insults.
<quoted text>
Even Darwin himself recognized that his "THEORY" had flaws and could not be proven.
He acknowledged it as theory, but you seem to think you have a greater understanding of it than Darwin and even today's scientists who still recognize that it is; indeed, just a THEORY.

"Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such fine graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.”- Charles Darwin from The Origin of Species - Chapter 9.

Those intermediate links have still not been found TODAY, so Darwin's theory is still just a theory.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Richmond Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
I Just Want To Say 12 min EdDoesntKnow 236
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 14 min Fun 159,583
Roe Roe Conner 1 hr Curious 11
Dakota Floyd 3 hr Toco 1
Song Title Game (Aug '09) 4 hr Jennifer Renee 40,372
gt 5 hr truth 1
Hot night 5 hr Mike Brewer 1

Richmond Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Richmond Mortgages