Evolution vs. Intelligent Design

You can't prove that evolution is the right theory with the information we currently have but it certainly makes the most sense and has probably won this debate.

I'll lay off the subject of your school sourworms.

As long as you can't prove it, evolution doesn't "win". But I'm not saying intelligent design wins either. Debates don't always have to have a victor.

This debate does have a victor though, and it is evolution. Based on the arguments and evidence presented evolution is the overwhelming winner.

I disproved all of your evidence though.

You didn't disprove a single thing. All you did was present what you thought was wrong with my points, but no scientific evidence to back up your assumptions.

SourWorms wrote:You didn't disprove a single thing. All you did was present what you thought was wrong with my points, but no scientific evidence to back up your assumptions.

And what evidence did you say to prove us wrong?

I never set out to disprove the existance of God. But look back through the various articles I presented

While you may not agree with the site this is listed on, you have to agree with the facts that it presents. I will give more links too, but this is just a start. They also go over why the Stanley Miller experiment does not prove anything. Very good articel imo, it covers both sides.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/2008/4/Evolution-versus-creation-essays-1.htm

www.geocities.com/manzur_bd/evolution.pdf

^^This one is even better, and actually has cited proof that STANLEY HIMSELF admitted his findings were worthless given the circumstances under which he performed his experiment.

BagoXC25 wrote:While you may not agree with the site this is listed on, you have to agree with the facts that it presents. I will give more links too, but this is just a start. They also go over why the Stanley Miller experiment does not prove anything. Very good articel imo, it covers both sides.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Bible-Studies-1654/2008/4/Evolution-versus-creation-essays-1.htm

www.geocities.com/manzur_bd/evolution.pdf

^^This one is even better, and actually has cited proof that STANLEY HIMSELF admitted his findings were worthless given the circumstances under which he performed his experiment.

When are you going to stop being so stupid. Just stop please.

Evolution exists, and you had accepted that fact not long ago, but since the suggestion that you lost this debate came about you have become a sore loser.

I still havn't said I don't believe in evolution. But if you knew anything about evolution THEORY, you would also know that in order for it to be true, it doesn't JUST require that evolution be true. It also (and most importantly) requires that ALL LIFE came about by the process of evolution. That is the point I was disputing.

And I can't believe you still need to call me stupid to get your...."point"?...across. I guess you could call it a point, but not a well thought out one.

I don't think you are one to distinguish between a well thought out point and one of lesser value, considering your apparent lack of elementary common sense. When you raise evidence, i never again want to see you cite some idiotic, bible-mongering, fairy-tale inventor as a basis for concrete proof. Evolution is more than a theory. Please, don't be stupid anymore. I'm tired of this argument. Just stop being stupid.

YOU HAVE YET to dispute any of my points. All of your posts are completely off topic and non-sensical. Maybe your friend sourworms should teach you how to debate. Your only response to any point made is name calling. And how about you read some of those articles, if you are as smart as you say you are then you should understand them and find them to be true. Because they are.

So you are turning to calling him stupid for not believing in creationist propaganda? The articles you cited are not based in science, but rather assumptions that the bible is actually fact, which if you were as smart as you claim you are, you would know it is not.

In case you didn't know, all life did come about by evolution. If you do not believe in that, then you obviously do not believe in evolution at all. So please, I beg you, make up your mind.

First off, I didn't call him stupid. Second, both articles disproved evolution theory through SCIENCE, not through any kind of interpretation of the bible.

"In case you didn't know, all life did come about by evolution"

All life came about in general? Or all life came to be as it is today? The first one is scientifically impossible, proven time and time again. The second is definitely possible.

I give up. You earlier realized yourself beaten when i brought up that new species of bacteria are discovered every day, as well as the fact that mutation and evolution can be seen on a human time-frame. Yet, you insist that you have left none of my points undisputed. You are in no position, therefore, to continue bringing up new points and arguing I have failed to respond to these idiotic sources. I laugh at your insistence to force your little god theories into scientific fact. Evolution does not disprove god, but god can be disassociated from evolution. I beg of you, please, realize your own stupidity, or at least accept that you are not as smart as you believe yourself to be. If you can ever come to accept this fact, it is possible that you are smarter than i believe you to be.

Adonai wrote:I give up. You earlier realized yourself beaten when i brought up that new species of bacteria are discovered every day, as well as the fact that mutation and evolution can be seen on a human time-frame. Yet, you insist that you have left none of my points undisputed. You are in no position, therefore, to continue bringing up new points and arguing I have failed to respond to these idiotic sources. I laugh at your insistence to force your little god theories into scientific fact. Evolution does not disprove god, but god can be disassociated from evolution. I beg of you, please, realize your own stupidity, or at least accept that you are not as smart as you believe yourself to be. If you can ever come to accept this fact, it is possible that you are smarter than i believe you to be.

You have to refute his arguments before you can say that.

We already refuted all of his arguments, which were not very good to begin with.

Unfortunately for you bible-thumpers out there, carbon dating is actually used to prove biblical events i.e. Noah's flood. But i guess carbon dating is faulty, so Noah's flood never happened.

And Bago, what you said makes no sense. How is it scientifically impossible that all life came about by evolution since 99% of the scientific community seems to believe that is true.

They believe the theory is true even though they have yet to prove it.

And why are you so swayed by what the media tells you about carbon dating? Do you realize how inaccurate it actually is? Scientists use a system of trial and error to find their results, because when they carbon date something over 50,000 year old (which is technically impossible due to the half life of C-14 being relatively short at 5780 [+/- 40 years]), they get a different number almost every time, and it can range from 50,000 years to 300,000,000 years. Do your research on this and you will find these numbers to be relatively true.

BagoXC25 wrote:They believe the theory is true even though they have yet to prove it.

And why are you so swayed by what the media tells you about carbon dating? Do you realize how inaccurate it actually is? Scientists use a system of trial and error to find their results, because when they carbon date something over 50,000 year old (which is technically impossible due to the half life of C-14 being relatively short at 5780 [+/- 40 years]), they get a different number almost every time, and it can range from 50,000 years to 300,000,000 years. Do your research on this and you will find these numbers to be relatively true.

I think we have already been over this. Plutonium/uranium isotopes can be used for dating beyond 50,000 years, accurate to within a million years or so which is exceptional relative to the lifespan of the earth.

Uranium dating STILL has yet to reveal correct age-estimate results on known-age materials, so why should we think that scientists can literally guess the age of completey unknown materials?

If they are so innacurate, why has C-14 dating been used to "prove" Noah's flood. answer that

I never said that it was inaccurate for items less than 50,000 years old. According the the bible, the flood happend between 4300 and 5000 years ago.

BagoXC25 wrote:I never said that it was inaccurate for items less than 50,000 years old. According the the bible, the flood happend between 4300 and 5000 years ago.

Am I really hearing you believe Noah's flood was an actual, historical event? You are dumber than i thought.

Ok, well I guess I'm dumb for believing the bible too. Me along with 2,000,000,000 other people.

I am positive 2,000,000,000 people do not believe in christianity much less take the bible literally.

So you contend that C-14 dating is accurate, which you disputed earlier, but other isotopes used to date farther back are innaccurate? I smell shenss