3582Views317Replies

Author Options:

What To Rebel Against Answered

Just talk about Rebelling!!

Discussions

0
None
CrLz

7 years ago

Inaction.

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.

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ho7GaI2rCwI

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

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 Ask.com. Take a look-see.
http://my.sitemark.com/skate6566/tiles
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.

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.

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?

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.

OoooOOOo! I do believe that is the rare, Teacher-Burn. :D

so you are believing that you are once a monkey?

umm...
DUDE, THAT'S A STUPID THING TO SAY...
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

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.

Are you old?

Was it sensible to try and convert a qualified scientist and firm atheist from a position of ignorance?

Did you not admit to the mere possibility of evolution being true making you "uncomfortable"?

Young, foolish, scared.

kiteman I am going in to ask one simple question right here in this comment do you have faith in evolution

No.

I also do not have faith in gravity, chairs or mice.