RICKAMAVEN
15 years ago
jackconrad #16

jack that is the first wimpyass response i have ever read from you. it's no better then "oh yea"
donutboy2000
15 years ago
#21


12. Author: pacman357 Date: 09/11/2009  03:06 AM Reply   
It is the folly of the weak-minded, when attempting to engage in debate he would have us believe is somehow intelligent, rational and logic, to simply fall back on name calling, without respect to whether there is any sense at all in trying to label another person. As though applying a moniker on someone else makes it so.

Name-calling has failed to be persuasive as a recognized debate ever since "I’m rubber, and you’re glue" was first coined. It is childishness and idiocy, attempting to masquerade as fact and reason.
RICKAMAVEN
15 years ago
ZRX1200 19

what the hell are you talking about. are you listening to the putz boy's "rick hates women" BS. he is a dufus. he has no describable insight into anything.
he doesn't understand anything. he didn't even understand the more light you let in the more the camera's iris closes to compensate.

i suggest if you have some difficulty with me,at least make it something you personally are upset about.

the copy and paste is from borowitz
donutboy2000
15 years ago
#23

NEWSFLASH!!!!



A camera does not have an iris.
fishinguitarman
15 years ago

Are you serious, Fishy?

JadeRose wrote:






YUP!


The Myth that Evolution is statistically possible.
To avoid allowing this discussion to become too complicated, let me quote a number of well-known scientists.

"The occurrence of any event where the chances are beyond one in ten followed by 50 zeros is an event which we can state with certainty will never happen, no matter how much time is allotted and no matter how many conceivable opportunities could exist for the event to take place" (Dr. Emile Borel, who discovered the laws of probability).

"The probability for the chance of formation of the smallest, simplest form of living organism known is 1 in 10 340,000,000. This number is 10 to the 340 millionth power! The size of this figure is truly staggering since there is only supposed to be approximately 1080 (10 to the 80th power) electrons in the whole universe!" (Professor Harold Morowitz, Biophysicist of George Mason University)

"I could prove God statistically; take the human body alone; the chance that all the functions of the individual would just happen, is a statistical monstrosity" (George Gallup, famous statistician).

"The idea of spontaneous generation of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable even to the scale of the billions of years during which pre-biotic evolution occurred" (Dr. Ilya Prigogine, Nobel Prize winner).

"The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop" (Dr. Edwin Conklin, evolutionist and professor of biology at Princeton University).

"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life’s complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did" (Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner).

"One may well find oneself beginning to doubt whether all this could conceivably be the product of an enormous lottery presided over by natural selection, blindly picking the rare winners from among numbers drawn at utter random... nevertheless although the miracle of life stands ‘explained,’ it does not strike us as any less miraculous...." (French biochemist and Nobel Prize winner, Jacques Monod, Chance and Necessity).

"A further aspect I should like to discuss is what I call the practice of infinite escape clauses. I believe we developed this practice to avoid facing the conclusion that the probability of self-reproducing state is zero. This is what we must conclude from classical quantum mechanical principles as Wigner demonstrated" (Sidney W. Fox, The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices).

"Evolutionary biologists have been able to pretend to know how complex biological systems originated only because they treated them as black boxes. Now that biochemists have opened the black boxes and seen what is inside, they know the Darwinian theory is just a story, not a scientific explanation" (Professor Phillip E. Johnson).

"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going" (Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature , pg. 88).

I have about two more pages of quotes from famous scientists, some Nobel laureates, putting into doubt the notion that evolution is at all possible. However, even from the sample of quotes given above, the reader should be able to see that even evolutionists often embrace their theory as a matter of faith (like a religion), and not because there is any evidence to support it.
Brewha
15 years ago
Evolution is as incontrovertible as geometry – at least to those who actually understand the principals and evidence involved. That is why the Vatican has ratified it.
I know, it’s all very scary. Stupid people are running to and fro saying “evolution denies god”, “man didn’t come from apes”, “kill the heretic” and “Darwin worked for the Devil”.
Believe whatever you like, but don’t slow the wheels of truth because it isn’t perfectly comfortable with your personal view of God and creation.

BTW dounut, a camera has an aperture, which is a mechanical iris – you dim bulb.
Try this one: “tie two birds together. Though they have four wings, they cannot fly”.
See, it proves that birds came from dinosaurs. Really.

Today’s word is “metaphor”.
But who what to get lost in facts anyway?


ZRX – Sorry, I don’t know about Rick’s women issues. When I think of some of the women I dated . . . well, let’s just say there are a lot of “winners” out there . . . .

Rick - Is putzboy the one with the picture of a guy trying to stick a cigar in his ear?

DrMaddVibe
15 years ago

Believe whatever you like, but don’t slow the wheels of truth because it isn’t perfectly comfortable with your personal view of God and creation.

Brewha wrote:




Uh...weren't you the one saying the Catholic church is never wrong?
fishinguitarman
15 years ago
"at least to those who actually understand the principals and evidence involved:


EVIDENCE???

WHAT evidence???????????????????????????


Oh you meant 'lack thereof'...LMAO!



Evolution is not observable, it is not measurable, and it is not repeatable—three absolutely necessary ingredients for any theory to be deemed scientific. To be scientific, evolution must be based on theories that are falsifiable, which means that such theories can be repeated and disproved (if false) by others. The assumptions for any experiment cannot be rigged to lead only to the conclusion that the theory is true (which evolutionists have done). It has to allow the scientist the option of concluding that the theory is false. The scientific method has four steps:

1.Observation and description of a phenomenon or group of phenomena.

2.Formulation of a hypothesis to explain the phenomenon.

3.Use of the hypothesis to predict the existence of other phenomena, or to predict quantitatively the results of new observations.

4.Performance of experimental tests of the predictions by several independent experimenters and properly performed experiments.

If the experiments bear out the hypothesis, it may come to be regarded as a theory or law of nature. It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.

What makes evolution unscientific is that it cannot be tested. Some may object to this statement by saying that we can observe evolution by looking at the rocks and fossils in the Grand Canyon and many other places. The problem with that objection is that evolution, as it is defined, is not rocks and fossils, it is a process of the mutation of one species into another that supposedly continues to this day.

Since any hypothesis has to be based on observation, where can we observe the process of evolutionary mutations taking place? We can’t, because they are not taking place. In actual fact, if evolution were true, we should see many more transitional (intermediate) species of plants and animals than we see fully-formed species, yet we see none. We do not see them in the fossil layers; we do not see them around us in living "half-species." They do not exist.

However, evolutionists are not even looking at the process of evolution. They are looking at what they assume are the results of some hitherto unobserved process that they call organic evolution. They assume the results of that process are recorded in the fossil record. Their theory is based on two mutually supportive (and faulty) assumptions: that the fossils date the rocks, and the rocks, in turn, date the fossils. It cannot be both. You have to pick one or the other and test it.
DrMaddVibe
Brewha
15 years ago
quote=fishinguitarman
"Evolution is not observable, it is not measurable, and it is not repeatable"


Observable: in the extensive fossil record, the uniform predictability of DNA between species, the similarities between all living things. Then there is that whole Galapagos Island thing (you didn’t read about this did you?)

Measurable: in the age of the earth’s records and the steady progression of species that show even before the Cambrian explosion. Carbon dating seldom lies.

Repeatable: It is going on all around us. Man’s artificial selection of plants and animals is biting evidence of the big process. Just because you can’t see the hour hand of a clock move, doesn’t mean it is still.

Look FGM, this is the best information mankind has to offer – no it’s not perfect, but it looks compellingly right to me – and most others. And it is re-tested and demonstrated all the time.
Your counter theory is that God summoned it all into existence in an inordinate fashion? That’s not even a theory! Religions across the world don’t even agree on the manner of supernatural creation – and they truly have zero evidence – not one shred.


Evolution is HOW God did it. It’s like understanding that seeds are how God makes plants grow.

Bet you don’t buy into planetary accretion either . . . .
Brewha
15 years ago

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uprjmoSMJ-o

DrMaddVibe wrote:



LMFAO - twice.
RICKAMAVEN
15 years ago
Stinkdy #4

i shall smite her with my firm sword and she will beg to cleave unto me. thus is the power of my firm sword.
RICKAMAVEN
15 years ago
JadeRose he is as serious as a boil on one of his balls.

the fact that he walks upright on two legs doesn't prove anything to him.
RICKAMAVEN
15 years ago
puyzperson #7

i wish i could understand what you are talking about so i could disagree with you
RICKAMAVEN
15 years ago
donutholeperson




iris

On a digital camera iris is an adjustable aperture used to control the amount of light coming through the lens. The more the iris is opened, the more light it lets in and the brighter the scene will be. Camcorders may also have an iris that works in the the same way as one on a digital camera. However, as you adjust the iris you see the brightness change in the viewfinder.
RICKAMAVEN
15 years ago
Brewha 326


NO, YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT THE DONUTHOLE

PUTZBOY, PUTZPERSON, AND PUTZAYTHING IS NONE OTHER THEN

(DRUM ROLL)

JPOTTS WHO REPRESENTS HIMSELF AS A CHARACTER IN THE SIMPSONS AND WHO FELT THE NEED THE NEED TO INFORM US THAT HE AND HIS SPOUSE WERE PLANNING TO HAVE A SEXUAL ENCOUNTER. SOMETHING APPARENTLY SO RARE, HE FELT THE NEED TO ANNOUNCE IT.

HE CLAIMS TO BE A PROGRAMMER AND IS A CONSULTANT TO FORD MOTORS, FAILING TO UNDERSTAND THAT IF YOU ONLY CONSULT WITH ONE COMPANY, YOU ARE AN EMPLOYEE, BUT SINCE FORD IS CONTINUING SUCCESSFULLY. HE IS OBVIOUSLY AN IMPORTANT EMPLOYEE.
RICKAMAVEN
15 years ago
Brewha #30

IF I PLANT 10 SEEDS IN SEPARATE POTS AND ONLY 7 GROW, ARE THE REST HERETICS. SEEDS WITH NO FAITH, OR HAS GOD A 70%RATE OF RETURN.
Whistlebritches
15 years ago
^Stop YELLING you loud mouthed little man........................................Now go take your meds.



Ron
DrMaddVibe
15 years ago
Darwin was wrong...'nuff said...GAME OVER!
borndead1
15 years ago
Creationists and evolutionists are the mirror image of each other. Both automatically dismiss anything said by "the other side", both cling to impossible timelines and "theories", both have their holy book that is infallible, both have a "saviour", and both feel like they HAVE to wholeheartedly believe one or the other. In this sense they are much like democrats and republicans. Both full of crap.
Users browsing this topic