Evidence Disproving Evolution

myself | 10/11/02 | gore3000

[RobRoy]

Your post to gore3000 puzzles me. I admit I haven't read every single one of his threads but he is pretty much spot on with is analysis. The name calling can sometimes be subtle, as when someone argues that he is putting himself above a nobel prize winner. That has the same effect as name calling since you are responding to how strong you think his credibility is, as opposed to the veracity of his claims.

Meanwhile, his posts that I have read stay PRIMARILY focused on responding to the veracity of the claims of those whith whom he disagrees. These posts usually show a well thought out and logically conveyed position which is quite easy to understand.

BTW, Jimmy Carter and Yassir Arafat also won nobels.

Sometimes I judge an award by the company it keeps...

[RobRoy]

It's a beautiful world we live in
A sweet romantic place
Beautiful people everywhere

The way they comb their hair
Makes me want to say
It's a beautiful world

It's a beautiful world

For you

It's not for me.

[f.Christian]

To: Hila

Hila...

Evolution is so off, it is only sad that many belive it works.

fC...

'So off' is the defintion of bias...off the wall(reality)---on the floor(rubbish)!

12 posted on 10/18/02 9:08 AM Pacific by f.Christian

[balrog666]

These posts usually show a well thought out and logically conveyed position which is quite easy to understand.

BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHA! I guess it's just too bad that they are wrong then.

[RobRoy]

>>We have a Nobel-class Freeper with us!<<

What!?!? Yassir Arafat is here?!? Or did you mean Jimmy.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but when you're not preaching to the choir, your posts only expose your own tunnel vision. Is it so hard for you to imagine that there are people out there who don’t have a lot of respect for the Nobel or those who achieve it? It takes more than a nobel for someone to get my attention.

And disagreeing with a nobel winner does not make one wrong. In this country, I feel free to disagree with a nobel winner EVEN ON THE TOPIC FOR WHICH HE WON THE AWARD, especially if I can demonstrate that my position MAY have credibility, as Gore3000 has done in numerous posts.

You just refuse to listen, for reasons not necessarily unknown.

Your entire post can be reduced to “name calling,” pure and simple. Did I miss something? Was the debate over? Did someone win?

“They’re trying to find themselves an audience. Their deductions need applause.”
-- Genesis, The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway

[RobRoy]

>>I guess it's just too bad that they are wrong then.<<

Gee, with such a well documented opinion as yours, how can one possibly disagree?

[f.Christian]

divorced from reality...catatonic schizophrenia---evo raving maniacs!

[Gumlegs]

Your entire post can be reduced to “name calling,” pure and simple. Did I miss something? Was the debate over? Did someone win?

I think you missed the following: GoreMMM has posted repeatedly that "all Nobel Prize winners have disproved evolution." He chose the criteria, not me. He linked to Hartwell and quoted Baltimore. I've been showing that neither man's work can rationally be considered to have disproved evolution.

Gore is now trying to change the subject.

[f.Christian]

Open the door(mind) kids...I'm here to fix the sink(science)---McMartin666 preschool recess!

[Junior]

McMartin666 preschool recess!

Well, that explains a lot. You have sought help, haven't you?

[f.Christian]

Mind molesters---evos!

[RobRoy]

>>Junior (#723): Evolution is a theory supported by facts.
gore3000 quoting Junior (#727): Evolution is facts. <<

Actually, to a lay person, there is not really a "core" difference between these two statements. Yes, one could argue the point and gore3000 was not precicely quoting, but the spirit of the quote was still captured.

You're picking at nits.

[f.Christian]

Evo cross thinkers---PERVERTS!

[RobRoy]

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I read the same post you did and it made perfect sense. It is as if you are refusing to even aknowledge the points he is trying to make as opposed to argue whether or not they are correct.

It's hard to carry on a discussion this way. I love WRITTEN debate - you can refer to your previous words to show that people are not responding to what you ACTUALLY WROTE.

It can still be frustrating though, as is starting to come out in gore3000's posts.

[Diamond]

I now understand the fear the Left has of conservatives. I felt a cold fear this AM as I contemplated the inquisitional zeal at which the Creationist pursued their ideology. I have no issue with "what" they believe, but I distinctly got the impression that they would be more than willing to make me believe it at the point of a gun. Should I not convert, it would be a "Holy Murder" to kill the "Infidel".

I fear you Creationists are cut from the same cloth as those that rammed the Twin Trade Towers on 9/11.

I noticed that after a week none of the evolutionists who read your remarks bothered to say anything in rebuttal with facts that are public and readily available.

Supposing for a moment that your fear were connected in some way with reality, and your scurrilous accusation comparing FReeRepublic creationists with the Islamist murderers of 9/11 is not scurrilous, and also supposing that random, purposeless, accidental evolution were true, then in the final analysis what difference does it make whether they succeed or fail in their supposed aim of making you extinct? Why are you complaining about it? On what basis do you condemn it? After all, if FReeRepublic creationists really are aiming to either convert you or kill you at the point of a gun, their actions are just as much a part of the grand evolutionary process as yours are, are they not? If they could get away with it, why not? What does an impersonal universe that is just the result of a gigantic series of cosmic accidents care? What basis does ANY part of the evolutionary process give you to condemn it?

[RobRoy]

>>I've been showing that neither man's work can rationally be considered to have disproved evolution. <<

Then I hereby join gore3000 to disagree with that statement - to a point. I believe their work can be used to chip away at some of the foundational assumptions in many camps of "evolution theory apologists."

Like Rush Limbaugh often does with his political "enemies," you can use these mens own words to discredit them and damage their own theory's, hypothesis' etc.

>>all Nobel Prize winners have disproved evolution.<<

I would agree with that statemnt regarding the winners who have written "very much" on the subject, whoever they may be.

Those who have written little, have said little and therefore may not have done damage to the theory.

[f.Christian]

777

[RobRoy]

Probably the most meaningful post on this thread.

Thanks.

[Junior]

You're picking at nits.

Not really. There are light years of difference between the two statements. That OJ whacked his wife is a theory supported by the evidence. Whether he whacked his wife or not is not an established fact

[f.Christian]

Check this out...

To: f.Christian

JP...

Intelligent Design is to biology what Communism is to economics.

Think about it. Meditate on it. Turn it over & over in your head. But let me step out of the room first to avoid the shockwave...

255 posted on 10/18/02 12:15 AM Pacific by jennyp

fC...

Evolution is reverse--backward Truth/history---LIES!