wiegraf:

Do you really know what a red herring is? In case you missed it, I'm telling you that the word 'theory' in evolution is used the EXACT same way it is used in relativity.

I don't know for sure that wings on chickens are vestigial and that they were used for flight by an ancestor in the past?

I suppose you're right, god put those wings there because they are delicious.

He did the same with the (sometimes artificially selected) banana. Proof, here


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4yBvvGi_2A

Though he probably thought it funny as well. For instance, he gets to see videos like this one and posts as inane as yours.

Reasoning problems I see. I should prove to you that the universe is gargantuan for a reason. This, after I told you it had NO purpose. In other words, NO reason.....

But as it seems you're particularly special, I'll have to point out I mean no CONSCIOUS reason. Or at the very least, if there were one, it certainly wasn't us. The simple fact that you were customized via evolution to adapt to the universe and not the other way round alone settles that. The product of a haphazard, inefficient, purposeless group of processes that took billions of years to produce you.

I hope you don't assume you're the center of the universe. That all this was created...... just for you?! I see, he made hundreds of billions of galaxies just so we could have a nice view at night. That's why the universe is gargantuan. God really loves us, he goes through so much trouble.

If there is a creator, you aren't even an afterthought. Do you need diagrams to digest this, my good 'free thinker'?

wiegraf:

Which school did you go to?

plaetton:

Oh, by the way, there is no such thing as pseudo-science.
That is just a label for scientific heretics.
In science, wild speculation is allowed and greatly encouraged.

Infact, anything that stimulates thought and imagination is hallmark of scientific quests.

History shows that Every revolutionary idea starts out as a great heresy, and , in the case of science, a pseudo-science.
Alchemy, a pseudo-science, laid the foundations for , and was a forerunner to today's great scientific advancements.

druid06:

What if at the last day religion was right and science was wrong after all the centuries of mathematic and scientific evaluations?

Mr Troll: are you smoking something? Who told you I'm a theist? ooman you cannot reason correctly. That I know. Logic? You propose logic? Nah, I'll pass. Like I said, who said anything about me being a theist?

ooman:

so what are you? A deist?

Mr Troll: I am your pain-in-the-butt.

Mr Troll: really?
Do you care to show how?

really? You do? Awesome!!!
lemme break it down for you man...does this in essence give iron cast irrefutable proof that evolution as you know it Mr wiegraf is undirected, purposeless, totally random and the universe in fact has no meaning? Do you know this for a fact? You really need to look beyond my seemingly trollish OP and really SEE what its about.

wiki:
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[29][30]

Mr Troll:
is this a strawman? Did I say any god put anything anywhere? Are you trying to teach me my trolling job?

Mr Troll:
not even funny. Go watch more saka videos.

Mr Troll:
so the universe has no purpose and is exptremely large for nothing. And you absolutely know this how, O! Most gracious Wiegraf?

Mr Troll:
Wait! Its because well... The universe is just really big and...well, its just US in it and well...its just too big to have ANY purpose. QED abi? Dohohohohohoho!

Mr Troll:
double post in another way. Typical of you, no surprises.

Mr Troll:
ah! Assume for me then go ahead to 'debunk' the assumption. Classic Wiegraf!!!

Mr Troll:
ooooooooh! And here you flatter me. I, a freethinker?

In one sentence I'm a god believer and in another I'm a freethinker. Hmmmm, I must indeed be 'special'. Dohohohohohoho

Mr Troll:
*straight face* Wiegraf you are still proving my OP right, to be quite frank I rated you smarter than this. This is TheHomers specialty and I had him in mind when I coined that phrase but man, you seem to fit right in too. Well...

Mr Troll:
otukpo grammar school
And they didn't teach us that evolution has been proven to be fact!
I guess they need to employ you eh?

Emusan:

Logicboy is very funny, he might have forgotten that two negative words mean 'positive'.

druid06:

Guy, wetin dey do you? Abi bomb dey your head?

Mr Troll: can you print this and paste it on Wiegrafs forehead? Although i wouldn't say science is being hypocritical. Just the baby pseudoscientists on this forum being all presumptuous and haughty.

wiki:

The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.[22][23][24][25][26] One 1987 estimate found that "700 scientists ... (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) ... give credence to creation-science".[27] An expert in the evolution-creationism controversy, professor and author Brian Alters, states that "99.9 percent of scientists accept evolution".[28] A 1991 Gallup poll of Americans found that about 5% of scientists (including those with training outside biology) identified themselves as creationists.[29][30]

There are many scientific and scholarly organizations from around the world that have issued statements in support of the theory of evolution.[39][40][41][42] The American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's largest general scientific society with more than 130,000 members and over 262 affiliated societies and academies of science including over 10 million individuals, has made several statements and issued several press releases in support of evolution.[25] The prestigious United States National Academy of Sciences, which provides science advice to the nation, has published several books supporting evolution and denouncing creationism and intelligent design.[43][44]

wiki:
Additionally, the scientific community considers intelligent design, a neo-creationist offshoot, to be unscientific,[31] pseudoscience,[32][33] or junk science.[34][35] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that intelligent design "and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life" are not science because they cannot be tested by experiment, do not generate any predictions, and propose no new hypotheses of their own.[36] In September 2005, 38 Nobel laureates issued a statement saying "Intelligent design is fundamentally unscientific; it cannot be tested as scientific theory because its central conclusion is based on belief in the intervention of a supernatural agent."[37] In October 2005, a coalition representing more than 70,000 Australian scientists and science teachers issued a statement saying "intelligent design is not science" and calling on "all schools not to teach Intelligent Design (ID) as science, because it fails to qualify on every count as a scientific theory".[38]

In 1986, an amicus curiae brief, signed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners, 17 state academies of science and 7 other scientific societies, asked the US Supreme Court in Edwards v. Aguillard, to reject a Louisiana state law requiring the teaching of creationism (which the brief described as embodying religious dogma).[6] This was the largest collection of Nobel Prize winners to sign anything up to that point, providing the "clearest statement by scientists in support of evolution yet produced."[26]

wiki:
There is a notable difference between the opinion of scientists and that of the general public in the United States. A 2009 poll by Pew Research Center found that "Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public."[45]

druid06:

What if at the last day religion was right and science was wrong after all the centuries of mathematic and scientific evaluations?

Uyi Iredia: Massive support for a theory doesn't make it correct. That's precisely what was the case in the geocentric theory of the Earth's solar system.

wiegraf:

Errm, yes. This is why I ask which school did you go to. From the top of my head

vestigials
shared ancestry
fossils (Btw, fossils map out changes as time progresses (and do note, not ever, not ONCE, have fossils been discovered somewhere that would contradict evolution))
micro evolution which we observe and in fact even manipulate. Simple things like new strains of resistant bacteria alone show this
We've seen the effects of artificial selection and breeding in very short time frames (see even dogs)
Indeed, we've done the simple math. Combine mutation, selection and time, the inevitable conclusion is evolution.
Probably other stuff I've forgotten

Now, do the math.

As for the 'theory' bit, well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support



Here, a list of scientific societies that actually went out of their way to get the cancer that is ID some treatment. Featuring organizations like the royal society.

But I'm sure, considering the expert you are, you know better. You know what they accept as scientific theories and what they don't. And let me make this very clear as you're obviously not as smart as you think you are.. Scientific THEORY, not hypothesis. Theory like GR or the SM, hope that's clear?

We've seen the effects of artificial selection and breeding in very short time frames (see even dogs)

He didn't? Then please explain how an ID managed to create us without manipulating us? Or the universe has no ID or consciousness, yet it has a...... PURPOSE!

Was the guy in the video laughing? He was, incredulously, serious. Just as you are now..

Listen, this is a serious problem. You're too foolish. You make me repeat myself then complain when I do so. This will be my last post wasted on your retardation. So, again, at the very least, WE MOST CERTAINLY ARE NOT THE PURPOSE.

Again, I hope that's clear? If you can actually come up with a reasonable purpose (rather than make a needless assumption just to make yourself feel warm and fluffy inside,) I'm all ears.

You can start searching from the Bible, I hear it's very logical. Good luck. If that fails I suggest you stick to the evidence. This involves; not making $hit up, including purposes when there are PATENTLY non evident.

Well.....
You did notice the bit were I said you evolved to conform to the universe, and not the other way round, yes?

Well, actually, you did fail to grasp any of that, so it might not have been enough.

That was close, I thought you might have actually assumed that. That's why I started that post with "I hope".

Erm, that is what you call yourself. I've come up against your foolishness before. Did you think you could mask it, oga b?

I'm not exactly sure what you hope to achieve with this?

EDITS; Oh yes, I nearly forgot, that you compare the SCIENTIFIC METHOD, built around FALSIFICATION, against dudes who's usual mode of operation is to provide 'evidence' from a book of collected fairy tales by superstitious herdsmen from 2000 years ago shows the extent of your folly. You do know that while most of the scientific world had not particularly given it much thought, they for the most part believed GOD!!! did it until a better theory arrived, yes? One which made predictions and could be tested. One which has been largely spectacularly successful in explaining various phenomena, yes? You think theories built around falsification are wild speculations? I hope no one lets you anywhere near a lab..

As for deist claims, they're completely unnecessary and often times illogical. Most importantly though, again; completely unnecessary. No evidence to back them up whatsoever at all (except odds? That is FAR from good enough). For instance, people say we exist, therefore GOD!!! That's more first class folly right there. We exist, therefore, something exists. That's all existence proves. That's it. The rest is baggage, add gardens, mammy-water and unicorns to it if you wish, it remains BAGGAGE. Deist claims are similar, wishful thinking for the most part. So, as far as ID is concerned, even the marginally more tenable deist claims, no evidence? Don't expect the scientific community to indulge you.

And please use the internet as school obviously failed you, do some reading. Only folk with mental issues (usually brain washing) would deny evolution took place. It's like denying the sun shines. At the very least one would be making a case for guided evolution (like oga @ds is doing). Still folly, but at least sane.Making claims like vestigials don't exist is well..... Stoopidity alone doesn't justify that kind of folly, willful blindness doesn't cut it.. This is worse than that.. Religious people can blame aforementioned brain washing, what's your excuse?

Mr Troll: so basically all you've told me now is that a great many many scientists accept evolution as totally random and meaningless by actually observing the evidence and then this:

wiegraf:

We've seen the effects of artificial selection and breeding in very short time frames (see even dogs)

that is, simulations by intelligent humans to show that other designed beings and species were undesigned and random. Hmmmm...and I'm the brainless olodo here. Ok.

wiegraf:

Yes. Thank you for proving my point.

wiegraf:

As usual, you're confused..
Who asserted this?

wiegraf:

Ooh, I forgot about this. Same page as before, my good and proper scientist..



I like how they have so many sources.
What do they think of ID?


But of course, you know better. Like the various proudly ignorant



Like all these folk, you know better, yes you do
You also know they don't consider evolution a scientific theory. No they don't

mr m.oron:
nice one there. Trying to introduce a red herring. You know, bringing gravity into this will do you no good. Nobodys talking about the theory of gravity here because the word 'theory' as used in 'the theory of gravity' is very different from when its used in 'the theory of evolution' so Mr wiegraf I jump your red herring pass.

mr m.oron:

can you print this and paste it on Wiegrafs forehead? Although i wouldn't say science is being hypocritical. Just the baby pseudoscientists on this forum being all presumptuous and haughty. grin

wiegraf: ^^^^




Again, yes, I'm sure evolution is not a theory. Indeed, true pseudoscience.

wiegraf: ^^^^




Again, yes, I'm sure evolution is not a theory. Indeed, true pseudoscience.

Mr Troll:
When common sense fails, use mockery and insults. Changing my moniker? Hmmm, Mr wiegraf.
Well as a personal rule, I don't troll on my own threads. So bye

Logicboy03:


Guy shut up.....Weigraff schooled you on your ignorance about theories

Mr Troll: say what?
Wheres the schooling? Person wey de go round and around answering what was not asked and ignoring what was asked whether intentionally or not and assuming nonsense when lacking substance and at the end saying absolutely nada.
Say what again? Where's the schooling?

Mr Troll:
When common sense fails, use mockery and insults. Changing my moniker? Hmmm, Mr wiegraf.
Well as a personal rule, I don't troll on my own threads. So bye

Logicboy03:


Trololo

wiegraf:

I'm quite sure I didn't address the op. I'm also sure I did not mention the scientific method and falsification.

But do note, evolution is a FACT.

wiegraf:
Do indulge me. How is it not logical and natural, oh supposed scientist? Or is all you have, as usual, ad hominems (and I nearly forgot, a healthy dose of hypocrisy and projection)?

Mr Troll: dohohohohoho
yo man, lemme school you a bit. i know you have a windows '95 brain and due to the fact that i have a soft spot for you i'll explain it in dumbo terms...

first of all my OP was trying to tell you atheists that while you go about b'itch slapping the theists when they start spewing their 'god of the gaps' nonsense, you yourselves do not have all the answers because man, you dont know for sure if anything caused the big bang. now your captain mr wiegraf 'mumuishly' jumped into the fray and when i asked him, how do you know for sure that evolution as we know it is undirected, totally random and purposeless? the best he could come up with was well...a great many many top scientists say so and because they are infinitely smarter than the general public they must be right. if that is not Appeal to authority then i dont know what is. maybe it tickles his fancy when they put up a 'scientists vs the public' polls forgetting that the said 'public' might be doctors, lawyers, engineers, philosophers who in fact despite not being 'scientists' might know something about the cosmological argument and therefore might not be quite as illiterate as y'all like to imagine.
now tell me again what mr wiegraf schooled me on? what again is his iron cast irrefutable proof that you atheists are not spewing the evolution of the nonsense? eh...some top top scientists BELIEVE so? how did they come about their belief? whargabl whargabl whargabl.

honest advice logic boy: anytime you wanna sign up for a 'team wiegraf' make sure his smart enough. kapisce? i hope so!

Logicboy03:

Lol....I sense butthurt

Atheists dont claim to know everything but you're a troll- you only know how to make spiteful and untrue statements.

davidylan:

that there... is the perfect summation of your own online personae. Kinda strange that you didnt realize this yourself.

druid06:

Exactly!. LogicBoy has so much anger and some unresolved issues and he's always looking for trouble online. He's very irritating.

davidylan:

that there... is the perfect summation of your own online personae. Kinda strange that you didnt realize this yourself.

Logicboy03:

Lol....I sense butthurt

Atheists dont claim to know everything but you're a troll- you only know how to make spiteful and untrue statements.