|
|
USER COMMENTS BY WILL |
|
|
Page 1 | Page 6 · Found: 125 user comments posted recently. |
| | | |
|
|
5/15/07 10:42 AM |
Will | | Common Sense Land | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Abigail, Actually, scientists don't state that man has been on the earth only 8,000 years. Man has been in its present state for at least 200,000 years. In fact, a hominid (read: pre-human) fossil found in Ethiopia dates back to between 3 and 3.6 million years ago.Where you got 8,000 years, I will never know. Yamil, My question was written by me. The fact that it is a popular question (as it should be) has no bearing on the facts that: (1) You have shown everyone that you are intellectually dishonest (2) You have plagarized someone else's work (3) You are avoiding the question with semantics and arrogance You and I sir, have nothing left to talk about. However, for anybody that wishes to see solid proof of the theory of evolution, ask yourself this question: Please explain how humans and other primates can have the exact same endogenous retroviral inserts in the exact same part of their genome, without there being a common ancestry. Yamil will have to make a jab at me after I post this because he is the type that always has to have the last word. But intelligent discourse with him is impossible, so he's on "ignore" as far as I'm concerned. |
|
|
5/14/07 11:16 PM |
Will | | Common Sense Land | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Yamil, Your post regarding ERV's: (1) was obviously not your own work, (2) was a strawman, and (3) did not answer the question.Your entire post was basically, "I'm going to ignore your question and explain how this thingy is really complex so I don't understand how it could happen". All you have done is merely acknowledge that they do indeed exist, but I'm still not convinced that you actually know what they are. So tell me, Mr cut-and-paste argument: Please explain how humans and other primates can have the exact same endogenous retroviral inserts in the exact same part of their genome, without there being a common ancestry. Hint: You may wish to find out what an endogenous retrovirus is. So thus far, you have forgotten to answer the question, copy-and-pasted an answer that you thought would work without citing a source, and then arrogantly exclaimed "Ha!" at the end of the plagarized post. Just so you know. Theist: Belief makes evidence Atheist: Evidence makes belief |
|
|
5/14/07 7:37 PM |
Will | | Common Sense Land | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Neil, It's neat how you magically made the letters appear in front of my face just now. Since you obviously couldn't have a computer or anything, right? What? You mean you trust the scientific method as long as it suits your world view? Cool. Wish I could be that two-faced.Your bridge analogy was laughable. You just used the scientific method to demonstrate that some bridges will fail after a certain number of attempts. Congratulations. And naming fallacies, while making you look smug, doesn't help your argument since everybody is ignoring SOLID EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION. The challenge at hand is: Please explain how humans and other primates can have the exact same endogenous retroviral inserts in the exact same part of their genome, without there being a common ancestry. And of course Gerard's addition: why do other endogenous retrovirusses consistently appear in analogous parts of the genomes of other creatures. Always close together in vertical groupings in a particular branch of the phylogenic tree, instead of all over the place? Good luck. And everybody pay attention to how Yamil posts next, as I mentioned below. |
|
|
5/14/07 1:25 PM |
Will | | Common Sense Land | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Yamil, How ironic that a young earth creationist brings up fossils. You say it's "scarce", but you neglect to bring up what we HAVE found. The fossil record will always be relatively scarce and Darwin never predicted that it wouldn't be (when was the last time you dug up something that was 200 million years old?)[URL=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/images/hominids2.jpg]]]Take a look at this picture[/URL]. That is a great collection of fossils. Of the intermediate and transitional forms, scientists also have: Reptile-birds Reptile-mammals Legged whales Legged seacows, etc. (see link below) Faced with this kind of evidence, you cannot say that science does not have transitional forms or a great fossil record. If you are interested in learning more, please [URL=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html]]]Take a look at this web page[/URL] That is why it was hard to take Yamil's claims seriously- I've seen clear evidence for things he so blindly dismisses because of *snicker* faith. Facts are facts. Faith is faith. If the two conflict, the facts should win. |
|
|
5/11/07 4:42 PM |
Will | | Common Sense Land | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Yamil, "Funny, I have not quoted anyone and you claim that I take advice from false teachers. And you take advice from saints, right. It's that what you are getting at?" Try again. ""Here's a good start..." Now hold on horsey, you are already trying to go from subject to subject without answering anything." Show me an intelligible argument and I will answer it. You have yet to do so with regards to evolution, so I thought I would show you 100 million year old FOSSIL, which completely contradicts your belief system. It was fun for me, what can I say? Oh, and way to avoid hard evidence for evolution and a transitional fossil at that. Can't face the facts and don't know anything, so you bring the argument back to...a non-argument. Well done "You are going to have to do better than that if you are going to strut over here claiming to be smarter than everyone else simply because you affirm that your great grandad was a flee-infested monkey." Strawman. And arrogant at that. "P.S. I see since you can't catch any fish over here, you resort to bring your monkey friends over here. So predictable." You, sir, are a wonderful example of a Christian. Everybody should congratulate you for being such a wonderful, compassionate, Christ-like figure. |
|
|
5/11/07 2:32 PM |
Will | | Common Sense Land | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Yamil, What you have just shown is an inability to understand basic concepts due to your delusion, and you managed to be more arrogant than most at that. Your last post dripped with ignorance of the theory of evolution. I feel that I can talk about the bible (for example) because I've read it, studied it, and continue to read it almost every day. You, on the other hand, take false arguments from false teachers and accept them as fact. If you take the time to educate yourself on a subject such as evolution, feel free to talk about it. Otherwise, shut the hell up. Here's a good start: Transitional fossils are common, but this one grabs the attention of people more than others. This fossil is roughly 145 million years old, by the way. [URL=http://images.google.com/images?q=archaeopteryx&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-USfficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi]]]archaeoptery[/URL] [URL=http://www.exn.ca/dinosaurs/story.asp?id=1997052102&name=archives]]]Another Bird-Dinosaur[/URL] |
|
|
5/8/07 2:04 PM |
Will | | Common Sense Land | | | |
|
Add new comment Reply to comment Report abuse
|
Cbcpreacher, Three strawmen in a row does not equal a valid argument. Discerning Believer, We did not evolve from monkeys, and the theory of evolution does not say that. Kyle Smith, Thank you for an intelligent, well thought-out post. I do not, however, presuppose evolution and "deep time" as you state. I used to presuppose a young earth just like you, and did not "believe" that evolution could be true. I quoted "believe" to distinguish the difference between belief and knowledge, or faith and facts as it were. The truth is that evolution is a theory, and it is also a fact. (See definition for scientific theory and do a ton of research on evolution if you have any questions about this). As logical beings, you and I must take the evidence we are given and discern between reality and beliefs. I did my research, and it turns out that every single young-earth creationist counter-claim to the theory of evolution either patently misrepresents evolution, is simply a lie, is incorrect on many levels, or all of the above. To demonstrate this, take any claim that Kent Hovind (for example) makes with regards to evolution and then research it on www.talkorigins.org There are many great examples there. Also, pls come over and check out www.atheistforums.com Will |
|
|
|
Jump to Page : 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 |
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|