What To Rebel Against

Just talk about Rebelling!!

Picture of What To Rebel Against
1-100 of 319Next »
CrLz4 years ago
Der Bradly6 years ago
I rebel against evolution!!! (yep it is not true)
You are one hell of a waste of space if you don't believe evolution is true. It's like denying the holocaust.
Also evolution is fact AND theory, the same way that gravity is fact and theory. We know that gravity exists/we know that evolution exists. If newtons laws were proven wrong, gravity would not stop/If Darwin was wrong, evolution would not stop. Gravity and evolution are facts in that they exist. The theory is how they work and how they came to be.

Over 99.9% of the scientific community views evolution as fact.
Below is a little argument I wrote up a year ago or so, so far no ones been able to properly counter it. But someone on here probably will.

For something to be created, it must have a parent. This is irrefutable unless you believe in magic. Explain how the human race was created (or any other race for that matter) without a parent. It MUST have evolved from a simpler organism. Now to counter my argument you will probably ask me how this simpler organism was created without a parent? Well to answer that, well no one can answer that, yet. But there is a whole field of study dedicated to it. Look up Abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is the study of how nucleic acids came to be. Here is where the evolutionary argument is stronger than the creationist argument. If we can discover ONE SINGLE fact, the fact of how nucleic acids came to be, then we can say that all other life forms evolved from these nucleic acids. But how do many organisms evolve from 1 acid. Well nucleic acids are created from proteins which are created from amino acids. These amino acids created (under different conditions) different proteins which created different nucleic acids. Creationists have to say that all living things came to be. They did not evolve from each-other and they all were created without any evolution at all. Thus they have to say that millions of different species were created and they have to prove this. The evolutionists only have to say that ONE organism was formed and the rest evolved from it. Now this argument is based on evolution being true. But if you look at fossil evidence then you can almost certainly determine that evolution is a FACT. You do not need carbon dating to do this, as some skeptics say that carbon dating is inaccurate. You can take fossils from different rock layers (such as the grand canyon) and can determine the approximate age of it. By doing so you can order the fossils from old to new, and you can see step by step how the organisms evolved. But still, carbon dating is a STRONG tool to show how old fossils are.

BTW: Those who say evolution is a mathematical impossibility: I just give them this. 1/3=.333 3x1/3=3x.333 1=.999 . This means that all systems have flaws, but that does not mean that the entire system is flawed either. This is also a good analogy for the people who think that carbon dating is inaccurate.
YOU wrote lines upon lines of a comment that wasn't true at all , therefore wasted of space by.... YOU!

BECAUSE proof of MACROEVOLUTION (e.g A dog turning into a cat) has NEVER been scientifically proven! It's nothing but pure speculations.

Learn before you speak.
Read these PDF files, and then try commenting again.

evolutiongems.pdf(595x782) 348 KB
Radiometric dating.pdf(612x792) 765 KB
Macroevolution has been proven, and your definition of it (a dog turning into a cat is a strawman argument. Evolution doesn't work that way.
Please watch this video before displaying your close minded ignorance again.
Actually macro evolution has been proven.
Evolution is a big fail. Anyways That comment was months old, I am still a creationist, but I do not argue against evolution anymore (Causes too much of an uproar)
I rebel against evolution and Al Gore and NOBODY CAN CHANGE MY MIND THEY ARE BOTH FALSE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not true like gravity is not true.
prove me that evolution is true
i will gie you $
Well, you could start here.

Now, since there is overwhelming evidence of Evolution, and practically no scientist opposes it, and *laughs* Absolutely none for your creationism myth, we must go with the one with the most evidence to support it, none to contradict it, and practically no scientists to go against it.

Of course, that's logically, but since you reject evolution I don't expect you to think logically.
I don't hate science, i love science! And there is no evidence in the page.
LMFAO!!!111!111 You must not have read the page at all.
they just explain macroevolution, not tell why its true
If you would follow the links...
seriosly, no evidence
Fine. You must be blind, but fine. Then I refer you to a page of links I compiled using the very most basic search techniques including google and Take a look-see.
Don't worry, the /tiles just shows the pictures of the sites smaller so you can fit them all on one page.
this is proof of micro evolution, not macro. and if you want bigger anserws just ask me on this site
As I have told you elsewhere, the only people who use the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are creationists. To scientists, it is all "evolution". You accept that Skate's references prove "microevolution" to your satisfaction, ergo, you accept evolution as fact. Congratulations.
(removed by author or community request)
Which is exactly what evolution is.
give me some proof of macroevolution
Why did you remove your statement that you believe "microevolution is just one species becoming another"?
because you were getting the wrong assumtion, and if a bird makes a new variety, its still a bird, not a reptile, nor a fish. and you still haven't answered my question.
Now you're back-tracking. As you well know, evolution does not claim that a reptile directly begat a bird - it took many generations over even more years. Each generation was transitional, a tiny step from past to future forms.
kiteman tat is like saying in 10,000 years a mule will not only have children but it will have fish children without gills.
and you yourself said you respect people who believe in god where is youre respect?
Why is it disrespectful to question assumptions? Why does "respect" have to mean "believe without qualification"?

And what on Earth are you on about with the mule comment? Organisms that do not reproduce do not have ancestors, and so are excluded from evolutionary processes.

With all due respect, could you tell me where you learned about evolution?  School?  Or church?
now anserw my Question
Why? There's no need - you have admitted that evolution is correct.
there is a need... and i said that a bird will create a bird, a reptile will create a reptile and so on. now anserw the Question.
Again i laugh. this is just an accuse to cover up the fact that there is no transitional fossils
The "because I said so" argument demonstrated with quite some skill there.
huh? english please
Oh the irony.
seriosly speak in english.
He is speaking English, and very clearly. You are claiming that I am wrong, that tens of thousands of other professional scientists are wrong, and you are expecting us to beliee you simply because you say so. What are your qualifications, that you can overturn one and a half centuries of carefully-documented science with a simple declarative statement? What degrees do you hold? What doctorates? What peer-reviewed papers have you published? How many decades have you spent in the study of the biological and physical sciences that you have the qualification to expect us to believe you over the whole of the modern scientific community?
yes i am claiming that. and you are claiming that thousands of Christians are wrong? and does the rest of that really mater? bill gates made incredible software and did not go to collage intill several years later.
On what grounds?

On the one hand are literally millions of individual pieces of corroborating evidence, all of which has been peer-reviewed and subject to repeated examination.

On the other hand, you have a single book, riddled with errors and contradictions, large parts of it plagiarised from earlier religions, originally lacking all punctuation (and even spaces between words), and subjected to numerous politically-motivated edits.

And Bill Gates is irrelevant - he got in on the ground floor of a new technology, he has never tried to claim that centuries of science are wrong.
1. you have not given me any evidence for macro evolution 2. that book does not contain everything, there is evidence all around the earth 3. you never gave me a lie from hovind...
1. Yes I have, both addressed to you, and in several other places around the site in threads that you have read. To briefly summarise: fossils. Mitochondrial DNA. Observed instances of it in action. 2. The book is your main source of information, and is the only source you have of an alternative hypothesis that could stand in stead of evolution. As for "evidence all around", the nearest you have given to evidence is a carving of a mythical creature on a Cambodian temple, with a declaration that it is "obviously" a stegosaurus, so humans "obviously" lived with dinosaurs. You conveniently glossed over the fact that the same carving also provides equal evidence that humans "obviously" lived with many-headed cobras and cats in wigs playing pelote. 3. Creation. Creation Science. Irreducible Complexity. The whole of the "DrDino" website. His financial records.
1. i said MACRO, you have not stated any info about it. 2. the bible is basicly are main sorce of info, but there is proof all around the world, you've just denided it all 3. you are specificly ignoring the question.
While we're at this, and you've been given so much evidence, how about you giving me some evidence? If you want to list stuff, all you have is a badly contradicted, badly translated book.
1. Evolution is evolution - those who study and understand it make no distinction in matters of scale. The "micro vs macro" distinction was created specifically by creationists as an attempt to dismiss examples of evolution in action. Don't believe me? Find a science text that uses the terms.

2. Denied what? You haven't given any, beyond the bogus "stegosaurus" carving.

3. I was answering it with examples of his lies.

Just claiming I am not answering your questions does not make me wrong. Technically, I do not need to provide evidence for any of my claims, because I am not making any. I am stating the observed facts and reiterating the accepted paradigm of the scientific community. You, however, wish to overturn the accepted model with extraordinary claims ("the universe was created in less than a week by an undetectable supernatural being" and "there were no civilisations more than 4000 years ago").

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I am afraid that "it's obvious, but you're ignoring it" doesn't even count as poor evidence, never mind extraordinary evidence.
2. Ever read "Where the Wild Things Are"?
LOL - years ago.
Oh boy, is this the old Logical Fallacy: Argument from Majority?
Let's look at it this way.

A lie is a lie even if everyone believes it. A truth is a truth even if nobody believes it

Now, you could probably turn that around about what Kiteman said about scientists... but you'd be wrong.

See, science has facts, proof, evidence, and observations.
Well, that and a fairly good track record
  • Polio cured
  • Light bulbs
  • Computers
  • Your iPod nano.
Creationists have... er... well... um.... you know.... like... the bible?\
And a fairly bad track record.
  • Dark Ages
  • Inquisition
  • This war we're in. (not exactly creationists, but religion in general)
  • Truth and scientific facts are now... debated?
Oh, but it
  • makes you feel good about dying.
Which is all that matters, right? Who cares if science is being pushed out of the science classroom as long as you don't feel bad about someone dying.
Apparently you get $ now.
if he wants money, he'll have to go to
Oh dear. That was surely a burn.
What I meant was: That website has nothing to do with money or claiming it. Unless it was some sort of clever ruse set up by yourself to try and get the beloved K-man to visit a creationist website in the hope that they have better arguments than you.
well they offer 250,000 dollars to anyone who can convince them that evolution is true.
Well that's not likely then is it. They can just say "No, I'm not convinced" to everything, regardless of how conclusive it is.
i am pretty sure thats what evolutionists are doing.
We're not offering money. Why can't they do something a bit more... Christian with the money and use it to help the needy rather than serving as flamebait?
i am talking about clinging on to what they have learned.
Who's clinging? I find myself standing proud on a firm foundation of millions of pieces of mutually-corroborating evidence. You, on the other hand, are clinging to a plagiarised myth, hanging onto every word fed to you by your pastor.
JohnJY Kiteman5 years ago
Kitedude, that was to far, and evelotion isn't true, the Bible is much more likely. First it wasn't written by one person, and it revolves around the same subject, Christ, and God. Second, these records are hundreds of years old. In simple terms, ITS HAD HUNDREDS OF YEARS TO THINK ABOUT. And until Darwin came around, ALMOST NOBODY QUESTIONED IT. Believe what you want, but don't tell people there wrong, and say You, on the other hand, are clinging to a plagiarised myth, hanging onto every word fed to you by your pastor. (0/I/IPl373 Bu7f@(3, U /I/33D 70 5hU7 uP.
kelseymh JohnJY5 years ago
Spelling, puncutation and grammar might lead to people taking you more seriously. If only you knew enough to know what you were talking about.

So the Bible wasn't written by the One Lord of All? It was actually written by a bunch of fallible humans, hundreds of years after whatever events they were claiming to describe? Interesting perspective.

And the whole thing is about one man? What about the 2/3 of it that doesn't revolve around the second to last prophet?

Why, exactly, should written records from multiple authors, with little or no empirical corroboration (for example, documents from other cultures describing the same events), take precedence over physical data spanning roughly four billion years?

The development of species over time was a major topic of scientific research for two generations before Darwin was born (look up "Erasmus Darwin" sometime), let alone before he took his "college year off" tour of South America. Darwin's only contribution to that scientific endeavor was to develop the correct description of the process (natural selection, or descent with modification) by which species could develop over time.
  • If "people believed it for hundreds of years" makes something true, then almost every other religion on the planet has far greater validity than christianity.
  • If "almost nobody questioned it before" means it's right, why do we not still believe that we see things due to rays from our eyes?
I am quite open to the idea that evolution is wrong. All you have to do is provide evidence to back up your claim. Evidence that refutes the millions of pieces of corroborating evidence from dozens of branches of science.

At the moment, all you have is a book that is full of hundreds of factual errors and internal contradictions, and is not even published in the order it was written.
you know i have been reasearching creatism for quite a while, and i am firmly mounted on a giant mountain of a realality that has changed my life
Researching it?

So why is the only "evidence" you have been able to show us one dodgy carving of a rhino that you claim is a stegosaurus?

Where's the real evidence?

Where is your biological system that could not have evolved?

Where is your repeatable data proving that the whole science of astronomy is wrong?

Where is your repeatable data that the whole science of nuclear physics is wrong?

Where is your repeatable data proving that dendrochronologists can't count?

Where is your evidence that the whole science of molecular genetics is wrong?

"Research" requires more than checking a few websites when your pastor tells you to.
Until we have a reason to let go of what we believe, then we'll stick with what makes sense most to us.
then please tell Kiteman that
That applies to everything. Think about it, you'll believe that the earth is round until someone proves otherwise. You'll believe that there are 8 planets in the solar system until someone proves otherwise. That's how science works, Kiteman knows it better than I do, he's a science teacher. He's also from my experience not one to back down from an argument about creationism.
actually i know the earth is round
and kiteman doesn't know it very well from what he's told me
And therein you've proven my point. You know the earth is round because someone has proven it to be so. Until someone proves that or why something is so, the most popular theory (i.e the one that makes sense more) is regarded as true. Plus, you basically just said that you know about Kiteman more than he does.
There's not a lot of point in visiting Dr Dino (unless you want to buy a plaster-cast of a human footprint that was supposed to have been found with a dino print, but , significantly, without any sign of the associated dino print).

DrDino was started by Kent "Proven Liar" Hovind in the late 80s to try and push his "Creation Science" nonsense. Nobody who follows proper scientific rigour can prove to them that evolution is real, since their definition of "proof of evolution" basically comes down to "show us a species that has sprung whole and unique from another, wholly different species". Since this patently does not happen, and has never been part of evolution, Hovind's money is safe.

(At least, until the IRS see sense and tax him like a business instead of a "church".)
"show us a species that has sprung whole and unique from another, wholly different species". thats why i kinda laugh at your evolution theory.
What? You're laughing at your own claims, and using that as evidence that evolution is wrong??
Hah, if I was in it for the $, I wouldn't be a teacher!

Odd, all the stuff down the right hand side of the page is laying over half the reply box. I can't see most of what I'm typing. I hope the spelling is OK.

It's over the preview box as well - I shall have to post and hope.

I see he removed it, but he admitted that evolution is true there, people who plan to come along and read that and say "wut happen'd heere?"
pk kiteman dgm aa xacidityx not to be rude but will you guys SHUT UP kiteman aa xacidityx just say you rebel against religion dgm just say you rebel against evolution.
I would invite you all to prayerfully study the king james version of the bible.
Er, you do know you've resurrected a two-year-old thread, don't you?

But, since you seem interested, I do rebel against religion, any more than I rebel against synchronised swimming. I simply do not follow it.

(And would you like me to supply a list of the over 800 factual errors and internal contradictions in the KJV?)

Acutally, there's like 17 links. One or more proves macro.
i am sorry but they don't prove anything.
Perhaps if you read them...
Oh wait, I don't expect a creationist to be able to read.

Sorry, am I picking on you? Perhaps you should take everyone who picks on you and drive them right off the edge of the earth. ROFL!
prove to us its false evolution is innocent until proven guilty
why is there no any proof of civilization before 4000 B.C.
Oh, this I've got to hear... On what grounds do you, a follower of a religion based on a religion whose calender counts the current year as 5769?
yeah, your point is?
I suggest you go back and ask your pastor - if you can't see the fallacy in your own claims, then you are well overdue another dose of meme therapy.
bumpus Kiteman6 years ago
OoooOOOo! I do believe that is the rare, Teacher-Burn. :D
so you are believing that you are once a monkey?
i believe in god too!

but here's the thing:
what that would mean is that we are not monkeys, but come from monkeys, but aren't monkeys ourselves...
i know that... i am just telling them what they think they once was
hmm... does kiteman believe in god?
nope... i am trying to convince him
the chances of that are as much as him convincing you
me convinced? Never!
so you can't possibly convince him, now can you?
i am through with him. he does not respect me.
no, he just thinks you're a stubborn child who doesn't have real "faith", but just believes what he reads in a book...

he doesn't mind people who just have faith...
oh yeah, and stopping the argument should help
thats what i am trying to do, now i know Kiteman is just plain mean.
How is it "mean" to hold up your claims for examination in the cold light of day?

You jumped into this argument with both feet and eyes wide open.

You will not find me complaining if you challenge my claims with evidence, but you keep expecting me to listen to claims proven to be lies years before you even heard of Hovind.
you told me i was a little foolish kid and that i am believing Christianity only because i am scared.
1-100 of 319Next »