Evolution is a Fact

May 21, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: News24

Teachers won't have any reason to underperform when they realise that government is taking them seriously, says Ace Moloi .

Comments (Page 5)

Showing posts 81 - 100 of284
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're falling victim to the same stale rhetoric as your evo-counterparts... Experienced at hurling cheap insults and having no clue as to how you can defend your pathetic religion with science.
What I am defending is science. Considering that much of your posting is full of anger, lies and insults, I note the hypocrisy of your crying and whining with much amusement.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#82
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that is the logical law, now how does it apply to evolution?
The “logical law” applies to the information that scientist and researchers conjure after the interpretation of his/her scientific experiments on how biological diversity originated. The “logical law” applies to the abstract concept/idea called the theory of evolution as a scientific method that tests the information that makes up the theory of evolution. This is how the law of non-contradiction applies to the information applied by the theory of evolution.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
How? Be specific.
Here is the evidence to prove that the theory of evolution is a contradictory abstract concept/idea that violates the law of non-contradiction!

First, you and I both agreed on what this “logical law” is with my quote below…
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
"Claiming that something (is and is not) on the same addressed issue or at the same time is a contradictory statement and this violates the law of non-contradiction."
Your response below to my explanation on what the law of non-contradiction was…
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, that is the logical law, now how does it apply to evolution?
Now that an agreement has been made on what the “logical law” is let us continue.

“Biological / Reproductive Species”

“Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species.”

>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

The human race as we know of it as today is a biological reproductive species and we are ALL COMPATIBLE when it comes to the “Biological / Reproductive Species” term I posted above and provided a link to.

To claim that we as a “Biological / Reproductive Species” was the same or shared the same common ancestor as A “Biological / Reproductive Species” with the King Cobra over millions or billions of years ago now demonstrates that over time we became INCOMPATIBLE as a “Biological Reproductive Species” with the King Cobra!

Human beings and a King Cobra were once the same “Biological / Reproductive Species” by sharing the same common ancestor and we was a COMPATIBLE “Biological Reproductive Species” and now we are still both “Biological Reproductive Species” but now we are INCOMPATIBLE?

Compatible and incompatible or opposite/contradictory terms and this is what the theory of evolution is using to describe what a “Biological / Reproductive Species” is. Are we Compatible or not Compatible as a biological reproductive species on planet earth? The theory of evolution switches back and forth on defining this term and this is why it is a contradictory abstract concept/idea. CASE CLOSED!

Don’t even attempt to say over time nature contradict its self by defining a biological reproductive species as compatible and then defining the same biological reproductive species as incompatible.

Once again, compatible and incompatible or opposites/contradictory terms when used to address the same issue at hand and this is what the abstract concept/idea called the theory of evolution is doing.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#83
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Try to shorten your nonsense.

You got part of your answer correct. Animals that can freely interbreed now are one species. Your problem is that you seem to think that individuals evolve. They don't, species evolve.

The fact that a group as a whole will be able to reproduce with all other members that it lives with does not bar evolution. Or even the creation of two different species. Speciesation begin when two populations separate. Each member is able to continually breed with each other and at first if you artificially bring two members together of the the two separate populations they will still be able to breed. Given enough time this will no longer be the case.

No violation of non-contradiction, evolution is just fine.

You cannot disprove the theory of evolution based upon your misunderstanding of the theory.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#84
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
Try to shorten your nonsense.
The fact that a group as a whole will be able to reproduce with all other members that it lives with does not bar evolution. Or even the creation of two different species.
Look at what you are saying. You’re saying that the same information that is synonymous split to different information that is antonyms by evolving. Your abstract concept/idea called the theory of evolution is evolving same synonyms into antonyms when it comes to information you are using to label bio-diversity in nature and this is a violation of the law of non-contradiction and also implying that nature contradict its self by saying nature works one way and then works a completely opposite way on the same thing. Nature doesn’t work this way and neither does information when used to explain how nature works.
Subduction Zone wrote:

No violation of non-contradiction, evolution is just fine.
Yes there is re-read the above quote!
Subduction Zone wrote:

You cannot disprove the theory of evolution based upon your misunderstanding of the theory.
How can you explain the same thing as being a synonym in terminology and then evolving into an antonym in terminology?

Synonym and Antonyms are opposites and when applied to the same thing you have a contradictory statement and this is what the theory of evolution as an abstract concept/idea is doing by saying one species evolves or changes to an opposite species over time.

The law of non-contradiction is constant and your evolving synonym terminology into antonym terminology is not constant is this is a violation!

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#85
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at what you are saying. You’re saying that the same information that is synonymous split to different information that is antonyms by evolving. Your abstract concept/idea called the theory of evolution is evolving same synonyms into antonyms when it comes to information you are using to label bio-diversity in nature and this is a violation of the law of non-contradiction and also implying that nature contradict its self by saying nature works one way and then works a completely opposite way on the same thing. Nature doesn’t work this way and neither does information when used to explain how nature works.
<quoted text>
Yes there is re-read the above quote!
<quoted text>
How can you explain the same thing as being a synonym in terminology and then evolving into an antonym in terminology?
Synonym and Antonyms are opposites and when applied to the same thing you have a contradictory statement and this is what the theory of evolution as an abstract concept/idea is doing by saying one species evolves or changes to an opposite species over time.
The law of non-contradiction is constant and your evolving synonym terminology into antonym terminology is not constant is this is a violation!
Translation:
Infinite Farce wrote:
I am a complete nut job who doesn't have a clue about evolution, but I have such a massive ego that I think I know more about it than all the hundreds of thousands of real scientists that have actually studied it. I think that I can raise an irrelevant red herring and that everyone will be stupid enough to think I am making a real point. I really don't have enough smarts to be able to engage in intelligent conversation so I'll just abuse everyone instead when they point out the flaws in my arguments.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#86
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at what you are saying. You’re saying that the same information that is synonymous split to different information that is antonyms by evolving. Your abstract concept/idea called the theory of evolution is evolving same synonyms into antonyms when it comes to information you are using to label bio-diversity in nature and this is a violation of the law of non-contradiction and also implying that nature contradict its self by saying nature works one way and then works a completely opposite way on the same thing. Nature doesn’t work this way and neither does information when used to explain how nature works.
<quoted text>
Yes there is re-read the above quote!
<quoted text>
How can you explain the same thing as being a synonym in terminology and then evolving into an antonym in terminology?
Synonym and Antonyms are opposites and when applied to the same thing you have a contradictory statement and this is what the theory of evolution as an abstract concept/idea is doing by saying one species evolves or changes to an opposite species over time.
The law of non-contradiction is constant and your evolving synonym terminology into antonym terminology is not constant is this is a violation!
Quite being an idiot. You know that is not what I said at all.

Once two populations are separated they will be affected by different environments.

Try again fool.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#87
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at what you are saying. You’re saying that the same information that is synonymous split to different information that is antonyms by evolving. Your abstract concept/idea called the theory of evolution is evolving same synonyms into antonyms when it comes to information you are using to label bio-diversity in nature and this is a violation of the law of non-contradiction and also implying that nature contradict its self by saying nature works one way and then works a completely opposite way on the same thing. Nature doesn’t work this way and neither does information when used to explain how nature works.
<quoted text>
Yes there is re-read the above quote!
<quoted text>
How can you explain the same thing as being a synonym in terminology and then evolving into an antonym in terminology?
Synonym and Antonyms are opposites and when applied to the same thing you have a contradictory statement and this is what the theory of evolution as an abstract concept/idea is doing by saying one species evolves or changes to an opposite species over time.
The law of non-contradiction is constant and your evolving synonym terminology into antonym terminology is not constant is this is a violation!
Bluenose said it best, you are a nut job.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#88
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
The “logical law” applies to the information that scientist and researchers conjure after the interpretation of his/her scientific experiments on how biological diversity originated. The “logical law” applies to the abstract concept/idea called the theory of evolution as a scientific method that tests the information that makes up the theory of evolution. This is how the law of non-contradiction applies to the information applied by the theory of evolution.
<quoted text>
Here is the evidence to prove that the theory of evolution is a contradictory abstract concept/idea that violates the law of non-contradiction!
First, you and I both agreed on what this “logical law” is with my quote below…
<quoted text>
Your response below to my explanation on what the law of non-contradiction was…
<quoted text>
Now that an agreement has been made on what the “logical law” is let us continue.
“Biological / Reproductive Species”
“Two organisms that are able to reproduce naturally to produce fertile offspring of both sexes. Organisms that can reproduce but almost always make infertile hybrids of at least one sex, such as a mule, hinny or F1 male cattalo are not considered to be the same species.”
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species
The human race as we know of it as today is a biological reproductive species and we are ALL COMPATIBLE when it comes to the “Biological / Reproductive Species” term I posted above and provided a link to.
To claim that we as a “Biological / Reproductive Species” was the same or shared the same common ancestor as A “Biological / Reproductive Species” with the King Cobra over millions or billions of years ago now demonstrates that over time we became INCOMPATIBLE as a “Biological Reproductive Species” with the King Cobra!
Human beings and a King Cobra were once the same “Biological / Reproductive Species” by sharing the same common ancestor and we was a COMPATIBLE “Biological Reproductive Species” and now we are still both “Biological Reproductive Species” but now we are INCOMPATIBLE?
Compatible and incompatible or opposite/contradictory terms and this is what the theory of evolution is using to describe what a “Biological / Reproductive Species” is. Are we Compatible or not Compatible as a biological reproductive species on planet earth? The theory of evolution switches back and forth on defining this term and this is why it is a contradictory abstract concept/idea. CASE CLOSED!
Don’t even attempt to say over time nature contradict its self by defining a biological reproductive species as compatible and then defining the same biological reproductive species as incompatible.
Once again, compatible and incompatible or opposites/contradictory terms when used to address the same issue at hand and this is what the abstract concept/idea called the theory of evolution is doing.
Every argument has already been made 50 times over, the fact still remains. The evidence of evolution is so overwhelmingly present in every paradigm of study in the natural sciences, the refute is not even comprehensible.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Every argument has already been made 50 times over, the fact still remains. The evidence of evolution is so overwhelmingly present in every paradigm of study in the natural sciences, the refute is not even comprehensible.
That is precisely why creationists don't like it. The theory of evolution is what they claim their bible to be, but the theory of evolution is real, with real evidence, real facts. They can't stand that.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#90
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That is precisely why creationists don't like it. The theory of evolution is what they claim their bible to be, but the theory of evolution is real, with real evidence, real facts. They can't stand that.
Even some of the smartest of men (Dempski/Behe) who laid careful arguments are considered in fact morons because they cant devise a way without evolution. But perhaps they earned their paychecks in creating a ledge the cult of hopeful doubters could cling to.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#91
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Even some of the smartest of men (Dempski/Behe) who laid careful arguments are considered in fact morons because they cant devise a way without evolution. But perhaps they earned their paychecks in creating a ledge the cult of hopeful doubters could cling to.
Yes, sadly when religious thought affects some people they lose all ability to think logically. There are 10's of scientists that can do real science yet when it comes to the Bible and creationsim they have a logical disconnect. It is not one hundred percent effective since when they do publish they avoid peer review. That indicates that they know deep down inside that their beliefs are not scientific.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#92
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite being an idiot. You know that is not what I said at all.
Once two populations are separated they will be affected by different environments.
Try again fool.
I am not the FOOL who is sitting here and promoting a foolish abstract concept/idea by saying a word is a synonym and over billions of years that same word used to describe bio-diversity is no longer a synonym but instead an antonym, because this is the way my stupid abstract concept/idea called the theory of evolution works for FOOLS like yourself, blue nose dolphin and kittenkoder. I AM NOT GULIBLE LIKE YOU GUYS ARE!

Once again, you’re the FOOL by accepting a synonyms and antonym is used to describe the same thing in nature and call it sound reasoning. ARE YOU THAT STUPID?!

Not my fault your theory of evolution is garbage and junk information! I am only pointing out the faults in it and you FOOLISH fruit cakes in here get all pissed off and offended.

I really could give a rats azz because this is what I do. I TELL IT LIKE IT IS AND I COULD CARE LESS ABOUT YOUR FEELINGS ARE EMOTIONS because I debunked your foolish pseudo-science!

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#93
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Bluenose said it best, you are a nut job.
You and blue nose are clearly gullible fruit cakes and don't know contradictions are when you see one. You just follow what the majority and what mainstream puts out without putting it to the test because they don't teach you this in schools. You need to learn how to think for yourself and only accept universal concepts and ideas and you would see that that pseudoscience you uphold is nothing but contradictions about nature reality because it clearly violates the law of non-contradictions.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
You and blue nose are clearly gullible fruit cakes and don't know contradictions are when you see one. You just follow what the majority and what mainstream puts out without putting it to the test because they don't teach you this in schools. You need to learn how to think for yourself and only accept universal concepts and ideas and you would see that that pseudoscience you uphold is nothing but contradictions about nature reality because it clearly violates the law of non-contradictions.
Yes indeed it would be a contradiction to say you were not a nut job.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#95
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Translation:
<quoted text>
So I am a nut job for REJECTING the fact that the theory of evolution defines terms such as a biological reproductive species as a synonym (compatible interbreeding species) and then define the same biological reproductive species as an antonym (incompatible interbreeding species).
You obviously don’t know how to think for yourself either.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#96
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
That is precisely why creationists don't like it. The theory of evolution is what they claim their bible to be, but the theory of evolution is real, with real evidence, real facts. They can't stand that.
The theory of evolution is nothing but a flawed abstract concept/idea that constantly contradicts its self and you are too gullible to see that! You have the blind leading the blind in here.

Before you start grabbing empirical evidence and trying to explain how it works there is a thing called speaking in contradictory terms and this is detected by the law of non-contradiction.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#97
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
So I am a nut job for REJECTING the fact that the theory of evolution defines terms such as a biological reproductive species as a synonym (compatible interbreeding species) and then define the same biological reproductive species as an antonym (incompatible interbreeding species).
You obviously don’t know how to think for yourself either.
You will have to be more specific, but there are contradictions to any discipline, they exist and allow for freaks of nature.
In short biology is as mysterious as life itself. There are rules but those rules are sometimes bent. For instance mixing subspecies are not generally viable breeding couples, but they sometimes become viable breeding couples.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Yes, Infinite Farce, you are a fool. You are trying to place absolutes on systems where there is no reason to put absolutes. And of course most important, you are trying to use bad logic to argue against proper logic and science. First off whenever you are discussing a scientific concept or theory the first thing you have to use is the scientific method.

I don't know what you believe, but we have massive evidence that supports the theory of evolution. What do you believe and why?

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99
May 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes, Infinite Farce, you are a fool. You are trying to place absolutes on systems where there is no reason to put absolutes. And of course most important, you are trying to use bad logic to argue against proper logic and science. First off whenever you are discussing a scientific concept or theory the first thing you have to use is the scientific method.
I don't know what you believe, but we have massive evidence that supports the theory of evolution. What do you believe and why?
Lets go with your evolution theory, big bang theory ect ect. Now supposedly the moon was a chunk of earth that got thrown out in the collision during formation. Why is there no life on the moon? Or supposedly anywhere else but Earth for that matter?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100
May 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets go with your evolution theory, big bang theory ect ect. Now supposedly the moon was a chunk of earth that got thrown out in the collision during formation. Why is there no life on the moon? Or supposedly anywhere else but Earth for that matter?
The moon does not have the correct environment for life to appear.

For life as we know it to exist liquid water is a must. If you understood just the least little bit about science you would understand why liquid water is impossible on the Moon.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 81 - 100 of284
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••