In America, atheists are still in the closet

[It aint necessarily so]

Buck Crick wrote:

"IDists" are not against evolution. They embrace evolution.

Like a wife beater embraces his wife.

[Catcher1]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you saying that we must 'refute' astrology?
Question: Just how dumb are you?

Lots of Americans believe in astrology.

And ours is the greatest nation on earth.

Therefore astrology is a valid hypothetical theory worthy of peer-reviewed academic study.

It may even prove to be irrefutable.

[Double Fine]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
I am all for the fossil record being used as evidence.
I'm saying it does not support Darwinism.
You are saying the fossil record is inadequate because it is inadequate.
Worded differently, you are saying the fossil record is inadequate because fossilization is inadequate.
I said the fossil record is inadequate to be supportive of Darwinism.
You are agreeing, but saying it would be adequate if things had just happened differently.
Sorry, Moron. The record is what it is, not what it could be.
I made no comment of "what it could be".
The fossil record is not supportive of Darwinism.
You are incapable of forming a coherent position.

Once again, your comments show ignorance about the process of fossilisation and the legitimacy of the fossil record.

The fossil record not only supports Evolution, it is the strongest indicator that it happened. I have never once said that it is inadequate.

What you don't understand, is WHY the fossil record shows what it shows.

All aside, you failed to answer my question (as usual)

What happens to dead animals Buck? Does the fossilisation fairy just preserve them neatly?

[Double Fine]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Evolving is evidence of evolving, then.
That's brilliant.

What statement do you disagree with?

With mammals that are different from reptiles, or that toilet seats cannot evolve?

[Double Fine]

Catcher1 wrote:

OTTG

OYGOM

(Off you go, old man)

[Double Fine]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
That's not evolution, that's reproduction.

A parent bringing forth an infant is reproduction.

Reproduction is, of course, the means by which evolution occur

[Catcher1]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
OYGOM
(Off you go, old man)

I was late this morning, no time to spell it out.

[Double Fine]

barefoot2626 wrote:

<quoted text>
Persons are referred to as PhD's all the time, e.g., a room full of PhDs...
Best of luck on your continued English comprehension lessons.

Yeah, right.

[HTS]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Once again, your comments show ignorance about the process of fossilisation and the legitimacy of the fossil record.
The fossil record not only supports Evolution, it is the strongest indicator that it happened. I have never once said that it is inadequate.
What you don't understand, is WHY the fossil record shows what it shows.
All aside, you failed to answer my question (as usual)
What happens to dead animals Buck? Does the fossilisation fairy just preserve them neatly?

Darwin was embarrassed by th fossil record and admitted that it didn't support evolution. Archaeopteryx, the poster child for evolution, had been descried before 1859

[Catcher1]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeah, right.

Speaking of which, check out this women's water polo sequence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[Double Fine]

HTS wrote:

<quoted text>
Darwin was embarrassed by th fossil record and admitted that it didn't support evolution. Archaeopteryx, the poster child for evolution, had been descried before 1859

You have spelt 'Archaeopteryx' correctly.

On everything else, you are dead wrong.

[Nontheist]

Buck Crick wrote:

<quoted text>
Obama's classmate from Columbia has come out and said he never saw him there. And nobody he knows in the class saw him.
How did a poor kid with poor grades get into Columbia and Harvard Law, and how did he pay for it?
The classmate said his theory is he applied as a foreign disadvantaged student. Why the sealed records?
I heard he also didn't pay taxes. Ever.(How ya' like that, Harry Reid?)

It's almost like you're saying he doesn't exist...?!?!

YOU DON"T THINK HE'S THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER(we don't call it god), DO YOU?

[Double Fine]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Speaking of which, check out this women's water polo sequence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

She deserves a medal

[Buck Crick]

Nontheist wrote:

<quoted text>
It's almost like you're saying he doesn't exist...?!?!
YOU DON"T THINK HE'S THE INTELLIGENT DESIGNER(we don't call it god), DO YOU?

I think he might be only a teleprompter.

[Double Fine]

Okay peeps

Doube Fine is away.

Women's day tomorrow, which is a public holiday.

God bless our women. In fact, Double Fine appreciates the holiday so much, that he will attempt to lay a lady in his backseat either tonight/tomorrow morning

But... Double Fine leaves you with this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[It aint necessarily so]

HTS wrote:

IANS: The evolutionary hypothesis relies on absurd extrapolations that are self evident fallacies.
The literature is replete with examples of natural selective breeding (microevolution). It is contended that because genetic variability can produce small changes over short periods of time, great changes can occur over millions of years. Such an assumption is completely illogical, because macroevolution must occur by different mechanisms.

We went over this before, and you ignored my rebuttal. Icicles, remember:

http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

HTS wrote:

A greyhound capable of a running speed of 43 miles per hour can be selectively bred from a gray wolf in less than one thousand years of selective breeding. If one calculated the increase in speed from a gray wolf to a greyhound over time by simple linear extrapolation, it could be projected that given another 4,000 more years a breed would be produced capable of speeds in excess of 115 miles per hour. Such an extrapolation is, of course, ridiculous. Yet these sorts of false extrapolations are utilized by scientists to defend fundamental mechanisms of Darwinian evolution.

Modern apples have been selectively bred from much smaller less sweet varieties similar to crabapples. One cannot suppose that with continued breeding man could produce a 50 pound apple with ten times the sugar concentration as present day apples. Yet evolutionists simplistically imagine that the ancestry of a hundred foot blue whale involved a simple extension of selective breeding from a microbe.

Man's average life expectancy has more than doubled in the last 100 years.*(67.5 years)
This does not suggest that life expectancy after another hundred years will be 135 years.

But why tell me? I know.

And an icicle hanging from a gutter cannot grow to a million centimeters. There are processes that cannot be extrapolated beyond a certain physical limit because of physical constraints, and others that can go on and on and on and on for eons.

Anyway, I have already rejected this argument, and you have repeatedly ignored that. Now you bring it again.

HTS wrote:

In almost all areas of scientific investigation simple linear extrapolations as proposed by Darwinists are invalid. This is common knowledge among all scientists and most of the lay public.

It is common knowledge among most scientists that evolution is correct. What Americans believe about evolution is irrelevant to the topic, embarrassing, and a becoming a national emergency:

"46% Americans Believe In Creationism According To Latest Gallup Poll" June 5, 2012 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/amer...

I blame your church.

[Buck Crick]

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
My bad. You had just read, "Are you saying that micromutation eventually becomes macromutation over longer time periods? I'm going to take an antievolutionist position here and just declare that impossible." http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T...

"Micromutation" was an errant word I used instead of "microevolution".

The contention of others is that macroevolution is only microevolution over a longer time period.

This is incorrect.

I let Double-Fine keep asserting it and calling me names for a while. Once he was well out on a limb, I then proved him wrong.

[HTS]

Double Fine wrote:

<quoted text>
You have spelt 'Archaeopteryx' correctly.
On everything else, you are dead wrong.

I read Origin of Species cover to cover. He plainly acknowledged that the fossil record did not contain the predicted transitional forms. Here's what Eldridge said about it...

“But his Chapter 9 [first edition of Origin of Species]) on the imperfections of the geological record is one long ad hoc, special-pleading argument designed to rationalize, to flat-out explain away, the differences between what he saw as logical predictions derived from his theory and the facts of the fossil record."

(Eldredge N., "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York, 1985, pp.27-28).[top]

This is an evolutionists speaking....

[Buck Crick]

Catcher1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Buck.
Can you please expand on this part of your argument?
It may not be clear to everybody.

Sure. I will expand it.

This is the original;

"Bwahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahaaaa... "

This is the expanded version:

"B-w-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h- a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a- h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h- a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-h-a-a-a- a-..."

I hope that was helpful. If not, I can expand on it more.

[Buck Crick]

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Buck, as always, is playing word games again.
The earth is not technically "round"-i.e., perfectly spherical.
It is slightly larger in circumference around the equator than when measured around the poles.
Buck will not say this in order to be able to continue to attempt to belittle you.
Buck is a perfect asshole.

I wouldn't say 'perfect'. But I'm flattered.