15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

Look, I gave you steps 1, 2, and 3. Denny is giving you steps 5,6. Steps 8,9,10 are almost always taught as evolution in modern Biology courses. You're getting argumentative because steps 4 and 7 have not been proven yet, but we have 80% of "life from nothing" explicitly explained for you. All of this has been found in the last 200 years of human existence. Give it another 100 years, and I guarantee scientists will fill in the gaps.

 

I always love these debates. Nothing spells pwnt like an athiest getting angry over a god they think doesnt exist.

 

who said god? We're talking on the subject of evolution.

 

I think you mean the entire organism is created in man's image.

 

No. A pro science person getting angry over those who think ignorance is a virtue. Atheism is not the issue.

 

Incompleteness is inevitable (see Kurt Gödel.) There is nothing augmentative in pointing out you have a major step missing. But I suppose I should forgive you for thinking so. You probably detect that I think that step is above your pay grade. (Nothing personal, you, Denny or the fellow that modified the code.)

 

message heard loud and clear.

 

Nothing funnier than an evolutionist touting the THEORY of evolution as infallible fact tbh...

 

Who does that? Please, cite me one scientist who says evolution is "infallible". Fact, yes. Infallible? Nothing is infallible.
It's just that in the past 150 or so years no evidence falsifying evolution (which is a FACT, natural selection is the THEORY that explains the FACT) has been found.
And no, bible quotes don't count.

What I want to know is how a thread that started with an absolute absurdity, that I thought had mercifully fallen into the wastebin of the internet, got bumped.

 

Another thing I love about these debates is I dont need to defend god. The creator of life doesnt need my help. Ill go back to laughing at your shitty theory now

 

You sound defensive.

 

Not at all. Who needs defense with an incredible offense. /stotts.

 

Im always correct.

 

Anyone who talks about "your shitty theory" is not open to ideas. I don't talk to them because it's not worth my typing finger. But I know there are always people with genuine questions reading these boards so they are worth my time.

Scientists and the vast majority of the world's literate population accept (not "believe in") evolution by natural selection because it is the best explanation we currently have for observed facts. It may be that someone will develop a better explanation for observed facts. It may be that someone will discover a fact that totally falsifies evolution by natural selection. No scientist rules either scenario out. This is a difference between science and religion; science accepts that new things may be discovered, religion, as Ken Hamm said in the evolution debate, declares a book written 2000 years ago has all the answers, nothing new to see.

If another explanation comes along to replace evolution by natural selection, or facts are discovered that invalidate evolution by natural selection, the new data will come from scientists with a thorough knowledge of biology and related fields. Not from people copying/pasting creationist web sites on a sports chat room.

 

I accept your surrender.

 

LOL. LOLOLOLOL The problem with half of society, is they are so goddamn stubborn, they are willing to ruin the world to be right.

 

FTFY... no matter how stubborn a person is when they're wrong, they're still wrong.