Evolution is stupid

BigChrisfilm · Post by **BigChrisfilm** » Thu Jun 22, 2006 10:40 am

GOOD GRIEF WILL SOMEONE GIVE ME SOME PROOF OF EVOLUTION BEFORE I PUNCH MYSELF SQUARE IN THE FACE! LOL.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:26 pm

Scrotum wrote:Anyway, You want a hug Harv?

Only if you promise to be a theist.

theleftone · Post by **theleftone** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:31 pm

harvey1 wrote:
Scrotum wrote:Anyway, You want a hug Harv?
Only if you promise to be a theist.

And an American.

Easyrider · Post by **Easyrider** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 5:52 pm

The Persnickety Platypus wrote:Our ape-like ancestors have been genetically tracked to modern humans.

Please name for us the specific hominid for which there is conclusive genetic DNA evidence for, showing it as man's direct-line ancestor.

BigChrisfilm · Post by **BigChrisfilm** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:00 pm

harvey1 wrote:
BigChrisfilm wrote:
BigChrisfilm wrote:Doesn't matter. KJV is the infallible word of God, and if it has a comma so we can understand the original context, then it has a comma.
I read through your links, but I'm not completely satisfied. For example, here are some of the comments in those links:

Is the Authorized Version (AV) or the King James Version to be considered the perfect Word of God in the English language?... Obviously, the Authorized Version is not one and the same as the Original Autographs

We believe... that the King James Translation is the best English Translation of the Bible.

We believe the King James Version to be this Holy Bible, the inspired, preserved Word of God in the English language. We do not mean that the English language translators were inspired as they translated.

The Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Received Text of the New Testament (Textus Receptus) are those texts of the original languages we accept and use

We believe that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts which underlie the King James Version (the Masoretic text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament) are the preserved words of God.

We believe that the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament are the preserved Word of God. It is our practice to use only the King James Version.
I could have cited many more comments from your own links. Obviously there's people out there who make extreme claims such as the comma is divinely inspired because its in the KJV, but I've never met a Christian who has ever said such a thing.

BigChrisfilm wrote:Second of all, I am a christian, and you are not. Unless you are christian, keep your noise out of my religion please, lol.
Oh my. Oh my. Well, I can be glad that I am in the second largest Christian denomination in the world, and my church wants people to get their nose in the Christian religion. Why do you wish to keep people out of the Christian faith? Anyway, you're doing a good job at accomplishing that goal by your ad homs and quoting chapters in Ecclesiates that don't exist.

http://bibleresources.bible.com/passage ... ersion1=51
Don't call me a liar. Also, you say you are part of the 2nd biggest Christian denomination. Which one is that?

BigChrisfilm · Post by **BigChrisfilm** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:03 pm

Wyvern wrote:
Well, why should I believe it? You act as if there is so much to choose from that you need to figure out just what I want before you can give me some. The fact is, there is none. Just one peice of evidence that we come from a different kind than a human. How about that.
You have stated previously that you reject the fossil record. That limits us to what is here right now. Sorry but evolution generally does not work in the time scales you are trying to limit it to. Again you are not trying to find evidence of evolution, given the constraints you have placed for acceptable evidence. If you would accept the fossil record this would be a different story but you have stated when shown pictures even of such things that all you see are a bunch of bones, or you question whether all the original pieces are there.

So when I see a bunch of bones, and I don't know where they came from, and given your religions history of fabricating evidence for Evolution thorugh fake fossil records, I shouldn't be skeptical? If that is what you want to use as evidence, mabey you need a better theory.

BigChrisfilm · Post by **BigChrisfilm** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:06 pm

Scrotum wrote:
This is an example of Bacteria LOSING information. That is the opposite for evolution friend. Need something better than that to make me believe I came from a rock.
Opposie evolution? Evolution just means change. What would the opposite of evolution be? I dont understand? None-Change?

You seem to believe that Evolution means "improving" ir "gain", am i right in suspecting this? Ask Harv about it, i have no doubt he will waste time rying to explain what Evolution actually is.

I know evolution is just change. I guess I need to define my terms. I am not talking about changes in the different kinds of animals, unless it is creating a different kind of animal. I am talking about the fact that we would have had to gain information through mutation, and natural selection would have to keep that species alive long enuff for another exact replica mutation to form, so they could have kids. Is that possible, I guess, but why would you want to believe that over the bible?

BigChrisfilm · Post by **BigChrisfilm** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:09 pm

juliod wrote:
and only Juliod provided any evidence for evolution, and you did respond to that
If you can call it a response. I mean, he proved he doesn't know what evolution is (again), doesn't know what information is, and didn't even look at the link I posted (since the title of it is "evidence for macroevolution").

He's not reading our posts, just coming back with another uninformed low-brow creationist spew.

And we find he is a King-James-Onlyist. As if god spoke to the Israelites in Elizabethan English! Woo hoo!

...move along... nothing to see here...

DanZ

I didn't look at the link because it was from talkorigins.com. I read the New Living Translation, and the KJV is my final authority. I read the NLT because it is easy to understand, but if it starts to sound contradictory, I always look it up in ole faithfull. lol.

harvey1 · Post by **harvey1** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:09 pm

BigChrisfilm wrote: http://bibleresources.bible.com/passage ... ersion1=51
Don't call me a liar.

Funny how fast the KJV gets dumped when you have the New Living Translation to choose from. You've lost all credibility with me. Goodbye.

BigChrisfilm · Post by **BigChrisfilm** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:11 pm

harvey1 wrote:
Scrotum wrote:No, because you insited on calling atheism a ´Philosophy´
Atheism is a philosophy.

Scrot wrote:You remind me of him Harv.
What a coincidence, because you remind me of him. If he comes upon a piece of evidence that makes him an atheist, then he'll be you. Scary thought, huh? Two of you...

I am glad I have become the object of ccomparisson between stupid and ignorant.

BigChrisfilm · Post by **BigChrisfilm** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 6:12 pm

Scrotum wrote:
harvey1 wrote:
Scrotum wrote:No, because you insited on calling atheism a ´Philosophy´
Atheism is a philosophy.

Scrot wrote:You remind me of him Harv.
What a coincidence, because you remind me of him. If he comes upon a piece of evidence that makes him an atheist, then he'll be you. Scary thought, huh? Two of you...
I dount it, im an elitist Facist atheist (realist). The only master he ever has is "God", and IF God owuld appear, he would never follow him because he wants "freedom", thats irony for you.

Anyway, You want a hug Harv?

Wrong. Does it feel good to be that sure of yourself?

Debating Christianity and Religion

Evolution is stupid

Evolution driving me BONKERS!

Re: Evolution is stupid

Re: Evolution is stupid