Summations Only

If you believed the Earth was flat 500 years ago, you would be 1500 years behind.And, your belief would not account for observable data. It would not make accurate predictions. It would not yield any workable results.Can you give us an example of an invention based on flat earth?
Can you give us a paper written by any flat earth believers which adequately accounts for oceans?We are confident in evolution not because we want to be confident in something. We are confident in evolution because evolution accurately explains existing data, it accurately predicts future data, and it yield real world workable products.Can you say the same for Creationism?
Creationism can't account for existing data. It can't predict any future findings. And in THOUSANDS of years it has yet to yield a single product.In short, there's no there there.

Countless lab experiments have been done measuring mutation rates.Can you site a single lab experiment which measures Creationism beams? Explain fetal alcohol syndrome. You are mistaking the environment of the womb with the environment that the parent is in prior to conception.However, I'll take your bait. Take any man and have him spend a couple of months walking around Chernobyl, then use that sperm to create a child.You tell us, did the environment effect his reproductive material?

Wrong. Eratosthenes in 240BC measured the Earth's circumference. To claim that people 1500 years later had "no way of rejecting a flat earth" is just ***. You can see the curve of the Earth on the horizon.
Ships at see are spotted by their sails first, not their hulls.
The shadow of the Earth during a lunar eclipse is round.
Water would pour off the edge of a flat Earth.There's 4 observations off the top of my head in 30 seconds. Not one of which requires a telescope. Of course it does. We look at measurements of change in a population over time. Evolution explains those changes. That's existing data which is explained by evolution.There is Creationist explanation which accounts for changes in populations. Wrong. Also wrong. Also wrong.Here's a tip, you can't just make claims like this without offering ANYTHING to back them up. I don't need to present any evidence to disprove your complete lack of evidence. I just need to tell you you are wrong. Correct, the majority of humans believe in mythical wizards like "God" or "Shiva" and bow to them asking for magical favors or to protect them from natural events.That's what the Creationists do. Then it should have produced at least one working product in the last 2000 years. What has Creationism produced? What new medicine? What new invention? What new treatment?We've been asking and asking, surely you must have SOMETHING that Creationism is solely responsible for. Name one fossil which was predicted by Creationism. Name one previously undiscovered species which was predicted by Creationism. Name one complication of medicine which was predicted by Creationism?I stand by my statement. Creationism has never made a single successful prediction about future data. ... which the Jews stole from the Egyptians. So, really, what you are arguing is that Ra is the one true God and that the Jews had it wrong.Basically, you just shot your entire argument in the foot.The rest of your claims are also about Judaism not Creationism.Are you changing your argument from Creationism should be taught in science class to Judaism should be taught in science class?Seriously? Maybe you should take a moment and figure out exactly what you are trying to argue, cuz right now you are coming across more than a little retarded.

I don't have to give a scenario as to how something can happen without "respective laws" until you can demonstrate that such laws ACTUALLY exist.You haven't.You are the one making the claim here, it's your job to prove it.Take your best shot, then I'll tell you why you are wrong. What laws? How are those "Creationism Beams"? You are supposed to be describing a mechanism of Creationism. Something that we can point at an empty box and have a giraffe come out. Error 1: You don't know there is no evolution on Mars. Right now, the best you can say is that we have not detected life on Mars.Error 2: You are using a set of exactly 2 planets out of literally an uncountable number of planets and saying "because there isn't like on A, therefore B must be magic". WRONG.Error 3: You are claiming that evolution is "critically focused" on Earth as if evolution could only occur here and not on some other planet where there is also life. I admit that right now we don't have evidence of life on other planets, however that does not mean that there is none. We've examined Earth and found life. We've peaked at Mars. We've done just about nothing else. Error 4: You are saying that Earth has equal day/night and that Jupiter doesn't because Jupiter has 12 year long nights. How long are Jupiter's days? Busted. Error 5: You are claiming that the above happens within a fetus regardless of exposure to alcohol. Exactly HOW is the fermentation process effecting the fetus without the fetus being exposed to the fermentation? Error 6: You are claiming that the environment can not effect reproduction. Try having a child after walking around Chernobyl. CLEARLY that environment is going to have an effect on reproduction.Man, you really screwed this whole post up. You should take more time and maybe get a little help from a grown up before you post.

Wrong, but more importantly completely irrelevant. None of that has anything to do with Evolution. None of it provides any evidence for Creationism.At _BEST_ you can say that human societies are built on a few simple principles like "don't kill each other" and "don't take other people's stuff". Hardly exclusive to the Jews. Genesis claims that people are made of clay.
People are not made of clay.
Beginning middle and end of your claim right there. There aren't enough zeros in the internet to describe mathematically how little of the Universe we've explored. You are drawing you conclusions based on the less than 1% of Mars we've explored. We've done NO exploration of any of the other planets, NO exploration of any moons other than a small fragment of our own.You are drawing conclusions not supported by evidence. Wow. Now you are claiming that you know someone who has searched the ENTIRE UNIVERSE PERSONALLY.What's his name? Life exists. Look around you. You lose. First of all, the day/night ratio on Jupiter is NOT a factor in human survival there. Second, who gives a crap if humans are effected by the ratio, we don't live there. It only matters to whatever life LIVES on jupiter.You are trying (and FAILING) to argue that we live on Earth because we fit Earth's day/night schedule - in other words, "It's a miracle that puddles all find the right sized holes".Pathetic. Who claims anything is random? Are you aware of the word "selection" and what it means? Hey, you are the one trying to argue that fetal alcohol syndrome happens in the absence of alcohol. I'm just giving you enough rope to hang yourself. It's not my fault you're sounding ***. If you dont' want to sound ***, stop saying *** things. Chernobyl is a CITY. Are you REALLY going to claim that a CITY is NOT an environment. Show me ON YOUR BODY where your Chernobyl is located.Remember what I said a second about about not saying *** things. Go back and read it again. No, you bow to "Yahweh the Jew Wizard" because your mommy told you to and you think your mommy is always right. Uh huh. Yet here you are crying like a baby and screaming for your mommy. Very convincing.

You've written a lot of *** shit and apparently are only interested in repeating the same flawed claims over and over again. As such, I'm going to scrap most of that crap and just focus on one particularly golden turd of your "logic". Your argument APPARENTLY (and please correct me if I'm wrong) is that since we have yet to discover life elsewhere in the Universe, there is no other life in the Universe.What percentage of the Universe have we adequately searched, in your opinion? 50%? 75%?Go on, tell us.

Here's what I love about the new censorship.Stu.pid gets ***
L.ie gets ***
Shit and Fuck are both A-OKAY!

And the "evidence" consists of...Out of HOW many possible planets? That's RETARDED.If you lose your keys, do you check one pocket in one pair of pants and then conclude that your keys don't exist? Well that rules out Genesis. No life out there means no God.

You wrongly quoted Genesis that man came from iodine and phosophorous. Why should ToE have anything to with anything pre-life? It's a part of BIOLOGY.ToE also doesn't address gravity. So what? I refuted it. Prove that it's finite. Polytheism. No, selection is the opposite of random.Basically your assessment of the entire discussion is woefully wrong, just like all your points have been.Let's sum this up.You believe that Jews are magic because your mommy told you Jews are magic. Period. That's the entire reason you hold your belief.The rest of us deal in facts and don't give a crap what your mommy thinks.End of story.

Edited by Admin, : Hide off-topic content.

Wow, and I thought Joseph was a problem.Do you _REALLY_ not understand the difference between evidence and lack of evidence? REALLY?Joseph is trying to claim that because 1% of the surface of Mars doesn't have life, then the ENTIRE REST OF THE UNIVERSE must not contain life.Now you are trying to claim that because we HAVE EVIDENCE of evolution, evolution must be false because there is MORE evidence for up to obtain.These are fundamental misunderstandings that can't be corrected by someone smarter than you telling you the right answer. You need to go back to step one and get an education.

You said that these two elements are specifically mentioned in the Bible. That was a L.I.E.Now, back on topic.The Bible has NO workable definition of species, therefore Creationism has no workable definition of species.Couple that with Creationisms no workable definition of mechanism and no accounting for existing or future data and you're left with NADA.Edited by Nuggin, : No reason given.

You say that often. Doesn't make it right.Genesis just says "kind". That's not a definition of species. It doesn't even distinguish between family/genus/species.It's a giant fail. As usual. Yeah, that pretty much sums up the entire problem with this discussion.You know one document and you want to pretend it has the answers for everything. The rest of us know more and disagree. You and I both know this isn't true.

So "kind" is the best definition of species because species isn't a word yet.Does that make sense to you?That's like saying "stuff" is the best definition for any given noun because "stuff" is easier to understand than any given noun. Tomato. Lettuce. Carrots. Word salad. Meaning there was one and now there is two. OMGBBQ! It's increased 100%!!!

In my experience the opposite is true. Especially when it comes to Creationists.They are even citing websites (AIG for example) that flat out admit that they are willing to change the facts to fit what they believe.The goal of the Creationist is to convert. Honestly plays no role in their tactics whatsoever.Saying it's "uncivil" to call someone out on their tactics basically is telling the entire science side of the debate to go home.Every post in every debate will be reduced to "Creationist says X" and we're not allowed to confront them on it for fear of being "uncivil".