SirWere:
Hitler was an atheist

Darwin was a racist

How the Bleep does it concern me


It's like saying


Nnamdi Azikwe was a seccesionist(to the british)

Ojukwu was a secessionist


Hence, all Igbos are secessionists




That make sense to you

BodyKiss:
Well, Hilter and Darwin are not alive anymore, I think you should be worried about your sky daddy. Given that he practiced same "natural selection" against the Egyptians, and the entire world with the Noah's ark sh! tt. He killed thousands of people, selected just mere 8 people and thousands of animals. It is obvious he thinks less of you over other "lower" animals.

ElCount:
you don't get it do you?
Its not just about Hitler being atheist, its also about the theory that propelled him to act the way he did. You guys are defending a theory which belittles you as an individual and yet you guys turn around and say God is ur greatest problem

SirWere:




And you go and pick hitler, neglecting Bill Gates, Paine, and so many other humanist who have enriched the human race for good.


@the bolded, listen to yourself. Have you read about the cause(s) of the World War II from any reputable historian who attributed hitler's aggressive action to jews towards evolution??





Reveive sense, receive wisdom, enlighten your mind.

ElCount:

Typical. You bring up other examples without addressing the issue. Just because these guys are not behaving like hitler doesn't make hitlers' actions any less significant.
You are telling me to receive sense and playing the smart one well go and read up books and articles about hitler, the Nazis and evolution theory then receive your sense.

ElCount:

Typical. You bring up other examples without addressing the issue.

Just because these guys are not behaving like hitler doesn't make hitlers' actions any less significant.

You are telling me to receive sense and playing the smart one well go and read up books and articles about hitler, the Nazis and evolution theory then receive your sense.

SirWere:

There is no issue to adress here. Hence my non adressing....
If I said I understood anything you said above, I'd be deceiving you

The reason I speak like "the smart" one is because I hace actually read you about this things and so can confidently tell you that you're saying bullshit!!!

Again, go read a history textbook, and educate yourself.


I bet you'll cringe when what you posted before.

ElCount:


Not surprised though actually its very much expected because, if u should fault the evolution theory, the only other alternative will be the creationist view and that's the last viewpoint you want to accept

Weah96:

False dichotomy.

ElCount:

You know I could recommend a couple of books for you to read

but you seem like the unteachable type, you claim to be smart yet you can't understand a simple sentence,

just because you read a couple of books on world war II does not mean you read all the books on world war II.

For someone to actually learn you need to be able to un-learn and re-learn and this seems to be the problem with folks today [sand obviously with you.[/s]

Not surprised though actually its very much expected because, if u should fault the evolution theory, the only other alternative will be the creationist view and that's the last viewpoint you want to accept

ElCount:
Really! How is that?

Richirich713:
Hitler on evolution.

SirWere:
Yup hitler was a bastard. An arrogant bastard. But if you think all evolutionists share his view, well......

Richirich713:


Well I don't think all evolutionists share his views.

SirWere:

Please do. Please please do. Mtchewww

Hahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahha
You sir make me laugh

*sighs* A couple of books...... Dude, Tell me any book you see that contradicts my already stated above statement




I agree with the above. What a pity you say such profound things without applying such ptinviples personally.






Hahahahahhhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhaahahahahahahahahahhahaaa..........................


You have a box. It is square in shape and a bit small. You hypothesized and finally came to the conclusion its a phone box.
And then someone comes round and says that all earlier hypothesis are wrong, that there is actually a laptop in that box.

Wouldn't you mock the sh!t out of the dude

ElCount:
Perhaps many of you don't know this but Hitler was an atheist and he believed very much in the Big bang and evolution dud. One ideology that propelled his actions was that "The jews hadn't evolved properly and he had to apply natural selection to eliminate them lest they contaminate the German gene"
Now going to the evolution theory you will find out that his ideology was in place and according to the theory no one can really fault his actions. One can confidently say that this theory played a major role in the second world war because of Hitlers' stance on eliminating the weaker species. This same ideology was also shared by many whites during the slave trade era (even Charles Darwin was a racist).
My question is how would you feel if someone considers you a lower specie to other humans and goes ahead to treat you like a piece of junk with this theory backing his actions owing to the fact that you have also defended this same theory for the better part of your life?

I mean if Hitler and Darwin were alive today they would have thought less of you and likened you to a weaker specie based on this theory and here you are defending this same theory which is an obvious lie and unproven in every respect

McSterling:


Oga, Hitler wasn't an atheist. Even if he was, how does that affect the theory and fact of evolution? You want us to dismiss a theory for which there is an overwhelming body of evidence because one psychopath chose to use it to further his genocidal aims? Hitler also used the antisemitic writings of the reformer Martin Luther to justify his pogrom. Why don't you dismiss Luther and the reformation then?

Next time, do your homework well before coming here to spew drivel.

ElCount:
Oga you go and do you homework, evolution has no evidence not to talk of overwhelming, you guys claim to know it all and are the smarter ones yet all ur arguments reeks of contradictions and fallacies, believe me if I begin to ask you questions on that theory you won't be able to answer one and will as usual resort to ad hominem. No make me pour the vex of my team wey loose match on you this night mtcheeeew!!!

McSterling:
You are pained, eh? Evolution has no evidence, yet it can be observed on a small scale in the lab. Why isn't Fleming's penicillin used to treat malaria today? Of course the causal organisms evolve new ways of combating the medicine, and thus there must be continued medical research in order to beat it. Evolution has no evidence and yet we observe layer upon layer of sedimentary rocks housing fossils in an increasing order of complexity from bottom to top. Never do you find a more complex fossil below a simpler one. NEVER! Evolution has no evidence and yet the genome of organisms derived from DNA sequencing tell us all organisms descended from a common ancestor and speciation only occurred as time passed. Evolution has no evidence and yet reputable scientists the world over believe in it. Evolution has no evidence and the Catholic Church acknowledges it. Evolution has no evidence and many believers who are also scientists believe in it and have sought ways to reconcile it with scripture. Evolution have no evidence and Christian apologists argue that god directed the entire process of evolution.

But really, why should I take you seriously? With the internet and all the information at your finger tips, you have wilfully chosen to wallow in ignorance. In the 21st century, you say something as vacuous as, "there is no evidence for evolution". It is your prerogative though. You know nothing, John Snow.

ElCount:

first of all whatever evidence you think you are observing in the lab is micro-evolution no one has any qualms with that fact, it is true and observable the evolution attached to it is just meant for deception to deceive gullible minds like yours because when they attach the time factor that's when they tell you macro-evolution will occur which till today has no proof whatsoever.

Secondly, the layer of sedimentary rocks you are talking about alongside the fossils is the geologic column. For your information that was assembled artificially by geologist and even at that its still not complete, you will think someone who claimed to be enlightened as you do would know that, I am not going to go deep into that but I will just ask you:
How did you know for sure that the Jurassic rock layer for instance is 70million years old, how did they arrive at that figure?
and how come in the geologic column if it was actually formed over millions and billions of years as they claim, how come there are no traces of erosion, don't you think the rain would have left some marks? Learn to ask the right questions.
I don't know what you mean by more complex fossils I personally don't believe in that. the Trilobite is considered an index fossil by the evolutionist and very ancient, how is it that such an ancient organism ended up with one of the most sophisticated eyes ever known? Perhaps you didn't know about that



Thirdly, DNA sequencing doesn't tell you anything about ancestors that's one atrocious logic common with evolutionists. The Niger bridge and the third mainland bridge are both made of iron, therefore the Niger bridge is an ancestor of the third mainland bridge that's how ridiculous you guys sound.
If DNA sequencing should tell you anything its the fact that "a common designer is involved who decided to use thesame sequence".

Scientist can believe whatever they want they are the ones coming up with the theories to avoid the God question so if they don't believe their theory who will.

The Catholic church believes in micro-evolution which is a proven truth.

Finally, take your own advice, the internet and all informations are at your fingertips make good use of them and stop paddling a boat in ignorance. Ask the right questions. You guys are the ones to always claim to be smart and enlightened but when you start talking ignorance starts oozing out of all your orifices.

Meanwhile below is a picture of a trilobite ur index fossil, and yes thats a human foot, apparently "millions of year ago" humans existed side by side with these trilobites

ElCount:

first of all whatever evidence you think you are observing in the lab is micro-evolution no one has any qualms with that fact, it is true and observable the evolution attached to it is just meant for deception to deceive gullible minds like yours because when they attach the time factor that's when they tell you macro-evolution will occur which till today has no proof whatsoever.

Secondly, the layer of sedimentary rocks you are talking about alongside the fossils is the geologic column. For your information that was assembled artificially by geologist and even at that its still not complete, you will think someone who claimed to be enlightened as you do would know that, I am not going to go deep into that but I will just ask you:
How did you know for sure that the Jurassic rock layer for instance is 70million years old, how did they arrive at that figure?

and how come in the geologic column if it was actually formed over millions and billions of years as they claim, how come there are no traces of erosion, don't you think the rain would have left some marks? Learn to ask the right questions.

I don't know what you mean by more complex fossils I personally don't believe in that. the Trilobite is considered an index fossil by the evolutionist and very ancient, how is it that such an ancient organism ended up with one of the most sophisticated eyes ever known? Perhaps you didn't know about that

Thirdly, DNA sequencing doesn't tell you anything about ancestors that's one atrocious logic common with evolutionists. The Niger bridge and the third mainland bridge are both made of iron, therefore the Niger bridge is an ancestor of the third mainland bridge that's how ridiculous you guys sound.
If DNA sequencing should tell you anything its the fact that "a common designer is involved who decided to use thesame sequence".

Scientist can believe whatever they want they are the ones coming up with the theories to avoid the God question so if they don't believe their theory who will.

The Catholic church believes in micro-evolution which is a proven truth.

Finally, take your own advice, the internet and all informations are at your fingertips make good use of them and stop paddling a boat in ignorance. Ask the right questions. You guys are the ones to always claim to be smart and enlightened but when you start talking ignorance starts oozing out of all your orifices

ElCount:



Meanwhile below is a picture of a trilobite ur index fossil, and yes thats a human foot, apparently "millions of year ago" humans existed side by side with these trilobites

McSterling:

So, your brain doesn't tell you that in the long term, these little changes will sum up into a large one? Simple mathematics: If we continue adding a small decimal like 0.00000001 to say 2, it will gradually approach 2.1. There's an adage which I'm sure you know: little drops of water make a mighty ocean.


I don't know what you mean by artificially. Do you think geologic columns are inferred without evidence? Nature has already done the assembling. All we have to do is observe and infer. It is from these observable strata that we make inferences about geologic columns and section geologic time into Eons, Eras, Periods and Epochs. Ever heard of the
Grand Canyon? The ages of these layers and the fossils found in them are estimated from radiometric dating, I'm sure you know. They aren't precise values as they come with error margins, but they do give us an estimate which cannot be too far from the exact value. For example, carbon dating has been observed to correlate with historically dated documents.


There is a phenomenon geologists call "unconformity". It is a break or hiatus in the deposition of rocks. Sometimes this hiatus is marked by an erosional surface, sometimes it isn't, depending on the rapidity and mode of deposition. So, actually there are traces of erosion in layered rocks.
By complexity I mean the level of organism development or sophistication. You find less sophisticated organisms like
trilobites in lower layers, and more sophisticated ones like mammals in upper layers which correspond to later times in the geologic time scale. If trilobite's aren't ancient, why are they found several layers below in the Paleozoic Era while hominid fossils occur many layers above in the Quaternary? Why the huge gap?
The bolded is blarney. Are bridges or iron organic? Have you observed bridges begetting young ones. Very crude and vacuous analogy there. Assuming a designer only raises an infinite regress of questions. A designer who is outside the universe is beyond the scope of science. For that designer to be within the scope of science, it would have to be testable or observable. Since this isn't the case, it becomes non germane to our purposes. Occam's razor mandates that we cut it out. Science leaves that to metaphysics.


The Catholic Church doesn't distinguish between macro or micro evolution. Here is what they say:

[b]Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an
official position on whether various life forms developed over
the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop,
then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and
their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite
teaching. It allows for the possibility that
man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under
God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of
his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of
the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present
state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and
discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of
evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human
body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the
Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately
created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the
human body was specially created or developed, we are
required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human
soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not
inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.
While the Church permits belief in either special creation or
developmental creation on certain questions, it in no
circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution. [/b]

You'd notice the definite position on "human evolution". I suppose that is what you'll call "macroevolution".


Calm down. Why the constant allusion to atheists claiming to be smarter? Do you feel intimidated by atheists?

McSterling:


The bolded is blarney. Are bridges or iron organic? Have you observed bridges begetting young ones. Very crude and vacuous analogy there. Assuming a designer only raises an infinite regress of questions. A designer who is outside the universe is beyond the scope of science. For that designer to be within the scope of science, it would have to be testable or observable. Since this isn't the case, it becomes non germane to our purposes. Occam's razor mandates that we cut it out. Science leaves that to metaphysics.