Is Evolution a fact or a belief?

[Gibberish]

Evolution is a totally false belief system that can be disproved when a truly honest and thorough debate is allowed on this subject between two professional individuals who represent the two opposing views of evolution vs creation.

Evolution only survives as well as it does since it is so well protected from honest inquiry and examination among the academic elitists. These elitist manipulate evidences and research, carefully guarding and blocking full investigation and inquiry into the so called data backing the theory. There are many evolutionist scientist who have been embarrassed and exposed in formal university debates so that they and many of their colleagues will no longer debate certain creationist scientists for fear of being made a fool of all over again.

These evolutionist in these debates can resort to various tricks such as slanderous mean spirited attacks that have nothing to do with the facts under consideration. Or they shoot off into trying to change the focus of the debate when they get caught making stupid contradictions or false claims. So they can end up relying on a bag of tricks when things start looking bad for them, proving everything they got is just empty deceptions.

What a nice mean spirited rant meant to change focus of the debate from factual evidence to elementary school name calling.

Evolution is definitely fact. However it does not disprove creationism.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Evolution is a totally false belief system that can be disproved when a truly honest and thorough debate is allowed on this subject between two professional individuals who represent the two opposing views of evolution vs creation.

Evolution only survives as well as it does since it is so well protected from honest inquiry and examination among the academic elitists. These elitist manipulate evidences and research, carefully guarding and blocking full investigation and inquiry into the so called data backing the theory. There are many evolutionist scientist who have been embarrassed and exposed in formal university debates so that they and many of their colleagues will no longer debate certain creationist scientists for fear of being made a fool of all over again.

These evolutionist in these debates can resort to various tricks such as slanderous mean spirited attacks that have nothing to do with the facts under consideration. Or they shoot off into trying to change the focus of the debate when they get caught making stupid contradictions or false claims. So they can end up relying on a bag of tricks when things start looking bad for them, proving everything they got is just empty deceptions.

Creationism is the belief system, evolution is a matter of scientific theory. And when dealing with matters of complicated biology, who better than our elites? Why are you using elite as a derogatory word?

As for the bold:

1. What creationist embarrassed an evolutionist in a debate?
2. What evolutionary biologists have been blocking "honest inquiry?"
3. All of the evidence for evolution is a matter of public record, and is easily falsifiable.

Do you have a source for any of your claims? Or did you just make it all up?

Because the fact is, scientists are tired of leaving their labs in order to combat non-science and pseudo-science. People claiming that their hypothesis (which explains nothing) is a scientific theory, and that other scientific theories are "only theories" as if the word meant guess.

Richard Dawkins no longer does formal debates because the creationist's tactics haven't changed, its nothing new, and the only purpose the debates serve is to put make a creationist look like an equal next to a real scientist, and that real science should be taking theistic claims about cosmology on equal standing with those that ACTUALLY HAVE EVIDENCE.

This video is perfect evidence of Dawkins making short work of creationist idiots, and the scientifically inept such as yourself:
[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qR_z85O0P2M[/YOUTUBE]

Also, I keep a link in my sig for the benefit of "you people."

 

[Rhapsody1447]

This is a wonderful article between Richard Dawkins and Francis Collins. Dawkins hardly makes Collins look like an idiot, if anything it is the other way around. Some of the quotes that I liked:

TIME: Dr. Collins, you believe that science is compatible with Christian faith.

COLLINS: Yes. God's existence is either true or not. But calling it a scientific question implies that the tools of science can provide the answer. From my perspective, God cannot be completely contained within nature, and therefore God's existence is outside of science's ability to really weigh in.

COLLINS: Certainly science should continue to see whether we can find evidence for multiverses that might explain why our own universe seems to be so finely tuned. But I do object to the assumption that anything that might be outside of nature is ruled out of the conversation. That's an impoverished view of the kinds of questions we humans can ask, such as "Why am I here?", "What happens after we die?", "Is there a God?" If you refuse to acknowledge their appropriateness, you end up with a zero probability of God after examining the natural world because it doesn't convince you on a proof basis. But if your mind is open about whether God might exist, you can point to aspects of the universe that are consistent with that conclusion.

God vs. Science | TIME

 

[black wolf]

I find Collins' argument invalid. To 'open-mindedly' conclude the existence of a God from the seeming, apparent order of the universe is to assume a first cause, a divine intelligence, that would have to be much more complex by a very high degree. Physics, chemistry and biology all show that complexity comes from simplicity. To insert a complex being as a cause for and an origin of simplicity without evidence is illogical.

 

[Cephus]

I find Collins' argument invalid. To 'open-mindedly' conclude the existence of a God from the seeming, apparent order of the universe is to assume a first cause, a divine intelligence, that would have to be much more complex by a very high degree. Physics, chemistry and biology all show that complexity comes from simplicity. To insert a complex being as a cause for and an origin of simplicity without evidence is illogical.

Not only that, but as illogical as it is to insert a complex being as a cause for the universe, it is even more irrational to ascribe motivations, feelings and rewards for believing in this complex being. The first is merely silly, the latter is outright ridiculous.

 

[black wolf]

And the wheel turns full circle. Holding on to irrational, silly and ridiculous beliefs is a product of natural evolution: reproductive strength through community and comfort.

 

[realquest 6ggwr44q]

[*]What creationist embarrassed an evolutionist in a debate?
[*]What evolutionary biologists have been blocking "honest inquiry?"
[*]All of the evidence for evolution is a matter of public record, and is easily falsifiable.
[/LIST]
Do you have a source for any of your claims? Or did you just make it all up?

Hello Lachean thank you for your comments. I will have to respond to you in two different post so here's my first reply to you:

I disagree with you I think Creationism is an absolute fact and evolution is absolute lies & delusions (no mean spirit intended just being flat honest about how I believe). One example of blocking honest inquiry would be the original bones that are claimed to be the links between man & ape are never allowed to be examined first hand. Only castings are available so therefore you are having faith in those who make the castings & keep the evidence locked up safe away from any real examination.

I think all the major high profile creationist have had many experiences of getting blocked from further opportunities of debate after handing their opponents embarrassing defeats. The evolutionist go into excuse making & hiding so no further humiliating encounters are experienced. For one example see Walter T. Brown he is an creationist from the Center for Scientific Creation. These expert evolutionist debaters seem to be very hard to find since Walter Brown has to try to put up a $200 reward for students to help find one of these universities/college science professors that can take him on in a debate that is thorough, open and honest. I quote from his web site:

"The best way, I believe, to clarify the creation-evolution controversy is to have a thorough, written, publishable, strictly scientific debate. Both sides would lay out their case, much as I have in The Scientific Case for Creation on pages 6–93. Then each side would respond, point-by-point, to the case for the other side. Both sides would have the right to publish the finished exchange. I have sought such an exchange since 1980, but have not had a serious, qualified taker. Many leading evolutionists know of the offer. When I speak at universities and colleges, I offer students a $200 finder’s fee if they can find an evolutionist professor who will complete such a debate. I am repeating that offer here to the first student who can find such a science professor."

Several excuses are given by evolutionists.

1. “I don’t have time.” Response: Many do not have time, and of course, they need not participate. However, others have the time to write books attacking and misrepresenting creationist positions. Many are teaching what I feel are outdated evolutionary ideas and refuse to place themselves in a forum where they must defend what they are teaching. If you are going to teach something, you should be willing to defend it, especially if taxpayers are paying your salary.

2. “Creation is a religious idea. It is not science.” Response: Creation certainly has religious implications, but much scientific evidence bears on the subject. Only the scientific aspects would be permitted in this written debate. An editor would remove any religious, or antireligious, comments from the exchange. If my comments were only religious, the editor would strike them from the debate. I would have nothing left to present, so the evolutionist would win by default. (Incidentally, evolution also has religious implications.)

3. “I don’t want to give creationists a forum.” Response: Of the thousands of scientific controversies, the creation-evolution controversy is the only one I know where some scientists refuse to exchange and discuss the evidence. That is an unscientific, close-minded position.

4. “I don’t know enough about evolution.” [Carl Sagan’s answer], or “I am qualified in only one aspect of evolution.” Response: A team of evolutionists could participate in the debate.

5. “Any debate should be in refereed science journals.” Response: No journal would allocate the number of pages needed for such a debate. Besides, the journals you refer to are controlled by evolutionists, so they would likely not provide a platform to have their beliefs criticized. Nor do they publish any research questioning evolution and supporting creation. Publishers of these journals would be severely criticized by their subscribers and advertisers if they did. (The few evolutionists who participate in oral debates often admit how much they are criticized by other evolutionists for participating in a debate.) In a well-publicized case, one journal, Scientific American, withdrew a contract to hire a highly qualified assistant editor when the journal’s executives learned he was a creationist. "

full article & source here : http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ426.html

 

[realquest 6ggwr44q]

What a nice mean spirited rant meant to change focus of the debate from factual evidence to elementary school name calling.

Evolution is definitely fact. However it does not disprove creationism.

Gibberish thank you for taking time to reply to my comments.I am sorry if you see what I wrote as mean spirited, can you explain how what I wrote is mean spirited? Also can you tell me how by what I wrote that I am seeking to change focus of the debate?

I believe evolution is definitely not a fact of any kind, it is a fantasy and It is completely incompatible with creationism.( I don't mean this in a mean spirited way it's just bluntly what I believe)

 

[realquest 6ggwr44q]

I'd like for you to disprove evolution without resorting to bible quotes.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wr6uvUNJLww[/YOUTUBE]

Hello Hatuey, How are you? There are different kinds of evolutionist theories, I would guess the main two fit into these categories : theistic evolution and atheistic evolution. Please tell me which kind of evolution you believe in? If you are unsure or don't believe in evolution please tell me which of these you would like me to try to disprove, I don't think I need the Bible to quote from just the logic & scientific facts disproves evolution on it's own.

Can you explain why you don't think the Bible should be referred to? Do you think the Bible is a mystic book that doesn't teach that science, reason & logic go together with supernatural revelation? Then this is a false concept, the Bible doesn't present itself that way. That is mostly modern man's concept of religion which he tries to superimpose on the Bible so he doesn't think he has to consider it's claims with any real seriousness. The Bible doesn't ask people to believe things that can't be demonstrate and proven.

 

[Hatuey]

Hello Hatuey, How are you? There are different kinds of evolutionist theories, I would guess the main two fit into these categories : theistic evolution and atheistic evolution. Please tell me which kind of evolution you believe in? If you are unsure or don't believe in evolution please tell me which of these you would like me to try to disprove, I don't think I need the Bible to quote from just the logic & scientific facts disproves evolution on it's own.

I believe the theory of a "creator" defeats itself. It's basically the belief that human life is so complex that it must have been "designed" or "created" by somebody(something?). Correct? Well then where this creator come from? I mean surely you don't believe that an entity that has the power to create life must have come out of the blue? It itself must have been created but by who? By greater beings. And who were they created by? What the creationist theory suggest is more speculation then actual science. It is more belief then anything. It is the belief that when science can not yet explain something then it obviously means that "God" or some semantically named entity must be responsible. It is a theory that does not seek to explain how we came to be. It only says "oh since we can't yet explain this little part of nature something we don't see hear or have any contact with is responsible." This my friend is not science. It's an opportunistic approach to science.

Can you explain why you don't think the Bible should be referred to?

Because thousands of years ago(before the Bible) Egyptians had texts that just like the Bible were used to as "proof" when debating our existence. Today we look at those texts and think of them as fairy tales created by ancient lunatics. I think the same of modern day religious texts.

Do you think the Bible is a mystic book that doesn't teach that science, reason & logic go together with supernatural revelation?

4 legged bugs. The sun revolving around the earth. Enough said.

That is mostly modern man's concept of religion which he tries to superimpose on the Bible so he doesn't think he has to consider it's claims with any real seriousness. The Bible doesn't ask people to believe things that can't be demonstrated and proven.

So what does the bible ask you to believe in? That which can be proven and demonstrated? Show me a 4 legged bug. I'll show you a man walking on water.

 

[Gibberish]

I believe evolution is definitely not a fact of any kind, it is a fantasy and It is completely incompatible with creationism.( I don't mean this in a mean spirited way it's just bluntly what I believe)

I believe evolution can be seen all around us everyday. Living things evolve to fit new environments on a daily basis be it physically or mentally, small changes or large changes. Creationism cannot be seen in any aspect of life and is only a story found in books written by men who heard other stories.

Evolution is a proven science, though not on the scale that we are talking about (Single-cell organisms into Humans). Creationism is not proven in a single bit, unless you can prove a Creator blinked all man kind into existence without using circular logic (God created all living things because God said God did).

 

[Gibberish]

The Bible doesn't ask people to believe things that can't be demonstrate and proven.

So Christians don't have to believe God create the universe in six days or that a woman was created from a rib bone of a man? Since these things cannot be demonstrated or proven...

 

[Gilgamesh]

It would seem that "God"....can't afford the bad publicity that would follow.

Once Evolution is accepted, Adam and Eve get the boot. I think we can all extrapolate from there, as every single player in the books is descendent from those two people.

God may have made the earth, but evolution picked up the ball and ran with it.

Orthodox and Conservative Jews have managed textual criticism fairly well. The most recent edition of Skeptic magazine features an Orthodox Jewish scientist who reconciles his religious beliefs with the facts of natural selection. And, the Etz Hayim edition of the Tanakh includes numerous references to the archeological deconstructions of Torah accounts, and the demythologization of David and Solomon, as well as Moshe and Abraham.

 

[Cephus]

So Christians don't have to believe God create the universe in six days or that a woman was created from a rib bone of a man? Since these things cannot be demonstrated or proven...

Not only cannot it be demonstrated or proven that it happened, it can be absolutely disproven and demonstrated to never have happened. Same with every single case in the Bible where a supernatural claim is open to scientific inquiry. Creation? Never happened. The flood? Nonsense. The resurrection? Complete bull.

 

[Hatuey]

Not only cannot it be demonstrated or proven that it happened, it can be absolutely disproven and demonstrated to never have happened. Same with every single case in the Bible where a supernatural claim is open to scientific inquiry. Creation? Never happened. The flood? Nonsense. The resurrection? Complete bull.

Yeah I'd love for somebody to show me how a man can cure leprosy simply by saying he does. I have no doubt in the power of prayer and faith. I do however am skeptical of the miracles or feats said to have been performed by any religious figure. Christian or otherwise.

 

[Duke]

Evolution is a totally false belief system that can be disproved when a truly honest and thorough debate is allowed on this subject between two professional individuals who represent the two opposing views of evolution vs creation.

Okay. Since you brought this up, I expect you are referring to yourself as the professional individual who represents creation. In that case, I shall be the professional individual who represents evolution. Let us have a truly honest and thorough debate.

Evolution only survives as well as it does since it is so well protected from honest inquiry and examination among the academic elitists. These elitist manipulate evidences and research, carefully guarding and blocking full investigation and inquiry into the so called data backing the theory.

Elitists? Are you saying that all of earth's biologists, scientists who know evolution is fact, are part of some committee to deceive the general public, some conspiracy among their rank of elite? Can you give evidence to back up this totally rational claim that is in no way reminiscent of Hitler's theories about the Jews?

There are many evolutionist scientist who have been embarrassed and exposed in formal university debates so that they and many of their colleagues will no longer debate certain creationist scientists for fear of being made a fool of all over again.

How interesting. Do you have any links for this, any sources? But I digress, this is irrelevant, what happened in other debates is pointless, right?

These evolutionist in these debates can resort to various tricks such as slanderous mean spirited attacks that have nothing to do with the facts under consideration. Or they shoot off into trying to change the focus of the debate when they get caught making stupid contradictions or false claims. So they can end up relying on a bag of tricks when things start looking bad for them, proving everything they got is just empty deceptions.

Why are we talking about other people's debates? Why don't we try making your own? I challenge you to "make a fool of me". I won't do any mean-spirited attacks, or rely on my magic bag of tricks, and I expect you to fit the same standards (which means no quoting the Bible).


Duke

P.S. Unless I get to quote the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

 

[Cephus]

Yeah I'd love for somebody to show me how a man can cure leprosy simply by saying he does. I have no doubt in the power of prayer and faith. I do however am skeptical of the miracles or feats said to have been performed by any religious figure. Christian or otherwise.

It's amazing they never happen to have an unbiased medical doctor around to check out their miraculous claims, isn't it? Funny how they used to 'heal' people in the Bible all the time, but as soon as medical science showed up, all that stopped. It's one of those things that makes you go 'hmmm'.

 

[rivrrat]

P.S. Unless I get to quote the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Pastafarians UNITE!

Yar!

 

[Duke]

It's amazing they never happen to have an unbiased medical doctor around to check out their miraculous claims, isn't it? Funny how they used to 'heal' people in the Bible all the time, but as soon as medical science showed up, all that stopped. It's one of those things that makes you go 'hmmm'.

Yeah, why would God, in all of his benevolence, just stop curing people? That doesn't make much sense. Maybe he's on a mean streak. :roll:


Duke

 

[Duke]

Pastafarians UNITE!

Yar!

Ramen!

Have you been Touched?

:mrgreen:


Duke

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Have you been Touched?

I've been touched by his noodly appendage.

 

[realquest 6ggwr44q]

Hello Lachean thank you for your patience.

2.What evolutionary biologists have been blocking "honest inquiry?"3. All of the evidence for evolution is a matter of public record, and is easily falsifiable.

EXAMPLE: The Piltdown hoax is the most famous archaeological hoax in history. Even when Piltdown was proven totally false beyond all doubt that took from 1912 to 1953 before it was exposed as a forgery. That's 42 years of successful cover up and why? Because the fox is in charge of guarding the hen house that's why. Evolutionist carefully guard and keep their mystic finds out of reach away from real critical examination as much as possible.

In the 1920s, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains of Piltdown and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth. Weidenreich, being an anatomist, easily exposed the hoax for what it was. However, it took thirty years for the scientific community to concede that Weidenreich was correct. Even when they can no longer hide that what they have is a fake they refuse to even admit it for 30years!

Evolutionist are totally desperate for anything that can be shown as tangible proof and always resort to trickery because there is no real proof. Also the lies and excuses used to cover up this embarrassment of the Piltdown hoax is another evidence again of how obvious their deceitful excuse making is once again at work. Because evolution itself is totally false it is only natural that deviousness is just an inherent part of the evolutionist belief system. 30 years for this bias deceptive scientific community to admit Piltdown was a fake, there's nothing scientific about these scientist they are totally corrupt with no conscience and arrogant to the uttermost thinking they are so special they don't have to admit that they are using fabricated fake evidence.

source: Piltdown Man - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Because the fact is, scientists are tired of leaving their labs in order to combat non-science and pseudo-science. People claiming that their hypothesis (which explains nothing) is a scientific theory, and that other scientific theories are "only theories" as if the word meant guess.

Richard Dawkins no longer does formal debates because the creationist's tactics haven't changed, its nothing new, and the only purpose the debates serve is to put make a creationist look like an equal next to a real scientist, and that real science should be taking theistic claims about cosmology on equal standing with those that ACTUALLY HAVE EVIDENCE.

Here's the elitist evolutionist attitude once again giving the snobby impression that their's is the only right opinion and everyone who dare disagrees must be anti scientific. Fact is many creationist are equally qualified scientist who only want to debate about scientific facts but evolutionist fear any real, fair and thorough debate therefore endless excuses are generated to cover the real reasons for avoiding embarrassing encounters.

This video is perfect evidence of Dawkins making short work of creationist idiots, and the scientifically inept such as yourself

Lachean , I have watched this Dawkins video and I am not very impressed with it, are you sure you want to have a thorough discussion about the topics on video or is that off limits? I find the creationist in this video very disappointing but they are mostly amateurs and Dawkins is an old time professional in his field. I might add that I have always found Liberty University disappointing.

Most of the creationist asking Dawkins questions on this video where just students, amateurs & visitors, there were I believe just 2 professors asking 3 whole questions, big deal. There where no professional Christian creationist who specialize in debating these things in a format that allows for a more complete exposure. This video doesn't seem much different than Mike Tyson having a boxing match with a 93 year old grandma. Lachean why are you not able to point to a video with Dawkins debating a worthy opponent, does Dawkins need to be matched against rank amateurs to look good? This video is perfect evidence that again proves my point evolutionists need all kind of tricks and special advantages to keep from being exposed for the fakes they are.

 

[Duke]

2.What evolutionary biologists have been blocking "honest inquiry?"3. All of the evidence for evolution is a matter of public record, and is easily falsifiable.

Really. I have a fossil on my desk that I found in Australia. It is of an ancient, extinct, organism, a type of mollusk. It was on the ground, and I picked it up while hiking. It is an example of evolution, in fact, it is evidence for evolution. Show me how "easily falsifiable" (which isn't a word) the evidence for evolution is; prove to me it's a fake.

EXAMPLE: The Piltdown hoax is the most famous archaeological hoax in history. Even when Piltdown was proven totally false beyond all doubt that took from 1912 to 1953 before it was exposed as a forgery. That's 42 years of successful cover up and why? Because the fox is in charge of guarding the hen house that's why. Evolutionist carefully guard and keep their mystic finds out of reach away from real critical examination as much as possible.[/QUOTE]


If what you say about almost all scientists being in some cultish conspiracy is true, why would the Piltdown Man ever been discovered to be false?

The thing is, Piltdown Man doesn't even fit today's idea of the evolution of humans. It in no way invalidates evolution, no more than UFO hoaxes invalidate astronomy.

Do you have any evidence backing your theory that scientists worldwide conceal and deceive? Do you have any support whatsoever that biologists "carefully guard and keep their mystic finds out of reach away from real critical examination as much as possible"?

Evolutionist are totally desperate for anything that can be shown as tangible proof and always resort to trickery because there is no real proof.

Always? Are you saying that every fossil dug out of the ground since the beginning of mankind is trickery and hoaxed? The fact that there was one biological hoax, once, does not mean whatsoever that everything to do with biology is fraudulent.

Do you have any evidence supporting your claim that scientists, in every single occasion, resort to trickery?

You claim there is no real proof. What's all of this, then?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Because evolution itself is totally false it is only natural that deviousness is just an inherent part of the evolutionist belief system.

A question of clarification: Do you believe that organisms do not and have not changed to suit their environment, thus evolving?

30 years for this bias deceptive scientific community to admit Piltdown was a fake, there's nothing scientific about these scientist they are totally corrupt with no conscience and arrogant to the uttermost thinking they are so special they don't have to admit that they are using fabricated fake evidence.

You have one example of forgery that occurred a long time ago and was in no way a part of an overreaching conspiracy, and yet you claim that all biologists and those who study evolution are using fabricated and fake evidence. That's like saying that everything we know about medicine is wrong because someone faked an injury once.

You seem to like Wikipedia, I've got a link for you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_evolution

The wide range of evidence of evolution provides a wealth of information on the natural processes by which the variety of life on Earth developed.
Fossils are important for estimating when various lineages developed. As fossilization is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard body parts and death near a site where sediments are being deposited, the fossil record only provides sparse and intermittent information about the evolution of life. Evidence of organisms prior to the development of hard body parts such as shells, bones and teeth is especially scarce, but exists in the form of ancient microfossils, as well as impressions of various soft-bodied organisms.
Comparison of the genetic sequence of organisms has revealed that organisms that are phylogenetically close have a higher degree of sequence similarity than organisms that are phylogenetically distant. Further evidence for common descent comes from genetic detritus such as pseudogenes, regions of DNA that are orthologous to a gene in a related organism, but are no longer active and appear to be undergoing a steady process of degeneration. Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is also done largely by comparison of existing organisms. Many lineages diverged at different stages of development, so it is theoretically possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor.

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

Tell me, is this part of the conspiracy, too?


Duke

 

[realquest 6ggwr44q]

Hello Duke how is it going? Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, I see you have put some thought into your answers. This is what I have to say to you so far, you'll have to wait until I can complete the other part or parts:

Okay. Since you brought this up, I expect you are referring to yourself as the professional individual who represents creation. In that case, I shall be the professional individual who represents evolution. Let us have a truly honest and thorough debate.

I don't consider myself an expert or a professional in any way about anything and I don't have a college degree but I think I may be able to defend my beliefs quite reasonably and debate about creation vs evolution or anything concerning the Bible. I am all for honest and thorough debate but I already see signs from you that it's not going to be so thorough since you already want to ban the Bible.

Elitists? Are you saying that all of earth's biologists, scientists who know evolution is fact, are part of some committee to deceive the general public, some conspiracy among their rank of elite? Can you give evidence to back up this totally rational claim that is in no way reminiscent of Hitler's theories about the Jews?

I don't mean to be saying that there is a conspiracy among evolutionist in the sense that they have all got together and made a plan and an agreement to fool the public even though there may be some conspiring at times in smaller circles of scientist who manipulate facts & evidences. I mean it in the sense that evolutionist are bias, deceived and dishonest about what they believe and they fail to observe and present evidence in a fair, open and impartial manner. Therefore it just happens to be a unity of deception that works together quite well since they all harbor a similar devious spirit which they may or may not be aware of. It may even be characterized as unconscious bias operating at times but that is only because they have deliberately chosen to accept false suppositions.

How interesting. Do you have any links for this, any sources? But I digress, this is irrelevant, what happened in other debates is pointless, right?

Why are we talking about other people's debates? Why don't we try making your own? I challenge you to "make a fool of me". I won't do any mean-spirited attacks, or rely on my magic bag of tricks, and I expect you to fit the same standards (which means no quoting the Bible).

I provided one such link already are you going to respond to it? I will try to find more if you need more. I disagree with you, what happens in true honest debates is of great value and evidence in and of itself since the debates I am referring to are between what would be the best men that the scientific field has to compete against each other. To consider this insignificant seems suspicious unless I misunderstand what you're saying here. Of course if your talking about amateur debates, yes those debates would be of little value.

I don't yet quite understand this fear of the Bible evolutionist have. I think evolution can be proven false without the Bible and just logic, scientific facts & history can defeat it every time, so if you feel safer going this route then so be it. To me all honest and open debate should allow for a free flow of any ideas and being able to draw from any area of thought and any of the various disciplines. Yet if you feel that you need to put those restrictions on this debate I say OK.

P.S. Unless I get to quote the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

I don't fear anything you can bring up about these false religions.

 

[bismitch]

Hello Duke how is it going? Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post, I see you have put some thought into your answers. This is what I have to say to you so far, you'll have to wait until I can complete the other part or parts:

Okay. Since you brought this up, I expect you are referring to yourself as the professional individual who represents creation. In that case, I shall be the professional individual who represents evolution. Let us have a truly honest and thorough debate.

I don't consider myself an expert or a professional in any way about anything and I don't have a college degree but I think I may be able to defend my beliefs quite reasonably and debate about creation vs evolution or anything concerning the Bible. I am all for honest and thorough debate but I already see signs from you that it's not going to be so thorough since you already want to ban the Bible.

Elitists? Are you saying that all of earth's biologists, scientists who know evolution is fact, are part of some committee to deceive the general public, some conspiracy among their rank of elite? Can you give evidence to back up this totally rational claim that is in no way reminiscent of Hitler's theories about the Jews?

I don't mean to be saying that there is a conspiracy among evolutionist in the sense that they have all got together and made a plan and an agreement to fool the public even though there may be some conspiring at times in smaller circles of scientist who manipulate facts & evidences. I mean it in the sense that evolutionist are bias, deceived and dishonest about what they believe and they fail to observe and present evidence in a fair, open and impartial manner. Therefore it just happens to be a unity of deception that works together quite well since they all harbor a similar devious spirit which they may or may not be aware of. It may even be characterized as unconscious bias operating at times but that is only because they have deliberately chosen to accept false suppositions.

How interesting. Do you have any links for this, any sources? But I digress, this is irrelevant, what happened in other debates is pointless, right?

Why are we talking about other people's debates? Why don't we try making your own? I challenge you to "make a fool of me". I won't do any mean-spirited attacks, or rely on my magic bag of tricks, and I expect you to fit the same standards (which means no quoting the Bible).

I provided one such link already are you going to respond to it? I will try to find more if you need more. I disagree with you, what happens in true honest debates is of great value and evidence in and of itself since the debates I am referring to are between what would be the best men that the scientific field has to compete against each other. To consider this insignificant seems suspicious unless I misunderstand what you're saying here. Of course if your talking about amateur debates, yes those debates would be of little value.

I don't yet quite understand this fear of the Bible evolutionist have. I think evolution can be proven false without the Bible and just logic, scientific facts & history can defeat it every time, so if you feel safer going this route then so be it. To me all honest and open debate should allow for a free flow of any ideas and being able to draw from any area of thought and any of the various disciplines. Yet if you feel that you need to put those restrictions on this debate I say OK.

P.S. Unless I get to quote the Qu'ran, the Bhagavad Gita, and the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

I don't fear anything you can bring up about these false religions.

Whoa whoa wow there dude, don't insult my god. That last line ticked me off. What basis do you have to prove that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster? I pray to him and sacrifice the joy of eating spaghetti to please him. Are you saying that I'm an ignorant fool? How are you not the ignorant fool for saying that the Christian god exists?