I challenge everybody...now.

[OTHstrong]

I think evolution is the funniest, silliest, most far-fetched fairytale to ever be called science and I can prove it with this thread.

The challenge is this...You must present evidence that contributes to evolution directly or indirectly, but there is one stipulation. THE RULE IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRE MEASURED DATES. For example- 65 million years, 4.6 billion years, this creature is prehistoric, millions and millions of years ago.

Then you might say" thats not fair because thats 99% of evolution and thats all evolution is based on" That is exactly my point

Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus. These systems are severely flawed and completely inaccurate; they also require a few assumptions. You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.

PS If you are emotionally disturbed about my post remember that name calling or making silly comments does not contribute to your side of the argument

[Decker]

..You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.

...

You absolutely can base a theory on more theories.  It happens all the time.

You dismiss the dating mechanisms of geology and archaeology, and evolutionary biology.  They are dismissed outright by you and you expect an answer.

Good luck!

[MMC78]

Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus.

I challenge you to read a book, educate yourself, and the apologize for being so supremely ignorant.

Everything you see around you including the existence of your life was likely the result of technology via scientific progress.  You are outright dismissing its most strongly supported hypothesis, its principles, and accusing free thinkers and scientists of being liars.

How can you suck from the teat of science and technology and be so antithetical to the progress of humanity?

[OTHstrong]

You absolutely can base a theory on more theories.  It happens all the time.

You dismiss the dating mechanisms of geology and archaeology, and evolutionary biology.  They are dismissed outright by you and you expect an answer.

Good luck!
[/quote I dismiss the dating methods because they are corrupt. You think I don't know how they date things? Everybody does. What I am saying is if you carbon date something the has died a few days ago it might date back to 5000 years ago. This happens all the time, so obvious you can't count that dating method as being propper; same with potassium argon dating. If you go to a museum and ask how do you know the Dino bones are 65 million years old then they will answere and say because of the layer of rock it was found in (the geologic column )and if you ask how how old is this rock and how do you know, they will say its 65 million years old because we found it in the same layer that the Dino bones were found. This my friend is circular reasoning.

All I'm saying is if dating is questionable and thats the basis of evolution the you guys have nothing. Thats just the way it is.

[tonymctones]

I think evolution is the funniest, silliest, most far-fetched fairytale to ever be called science and I can prove it with this thread.

The challenge is this...You must present evidence that contributes to evolution directly or indirectly, but there is one stipulation. THE RULE IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRE MEASURED DATES. For example- 65 million years, 4.6 billion years, this creature is prehistoric, millions and millions of years ago.

Then you might say" thats not fair because thats 99% of evolution and thats all evolution is based on" That is exactly my point

Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus. These systems are severely flawed and completely inaccurate; they also require a few assumptions. You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.

PS If you are emotionally disturbed about my post remember that name calling or making silly comments does not contribute to your side of the argument

we already went over this evolution of bacteria is being observed right now, that is evolution
I think that you have a problem with the theory that humans evolved from an ape like creature and not the concept of evolution

[columbusdude82]

Hold on there, slick! What makes you think you can even begin to understand the "evidence"?!

What are your qualifications? How many years of college do you have under your belt? Degrees?

Any degrees or advanced classwork in biology or genetics?

[OTHstrong]

we already went over this evolution of bacteria is being observed right now, that is evolution
I think that you have a problem with the theory that humans evolved from an ape like creature and not the concept of evolution

This is like presenting a case in court and the witness states her name and age and then lies about everything else. Do evolutionist lie about Micro-e, no and I agree but that is all; very irrelevent to what we are discussing here. I issued a challenged and so far nobody has responded to my challenge.

[OTHstrong]

Hold on there, slick! What makes you think you can even begin to understand the "evidence"?!

What are your qualifications? How many years of college do you have under your belt? Degrees?

Any degrees or advanced classwork in biology or genetics?

CD82 you already know that I don't have a degree and this isn't a job interview. A degree is a positve thing, but it isn't neccessary to have to debate this subject.

I guess no welcome back from you.

[tonymctones]

This is like presenting a case in court and the witness states her name and age and then lies about everything else. Do evolutionist lie about Micro-e, no and I agree but that is all; very irrelevent to what we are discussing here. I issued a challenged and so far nobody has responded to my challenge.

well you see you agree on the concept of evolution then, yes this concept is extended to other theories but the concept of evolution to you is sound...im not saying that we evolved from ape like creatures only that evolution does exist maybe not to the extent that it has been thought in evolutionary theory but the concept like i said and you said is sound

[columbusdude82]

A degree isn't necessary, but university-level advanced classwork is essential.

You wouldn't walk into an advanced algebra seminar of the American Mathematical Society and offer to "debate" the participants on advanced algebra, would you?

What about a physics conference on string theory, would you walk in, grab the mic, and start issuing challenges to the physicists to debate you on string theory?

What makes you think you are any more qualified to issue "challenges" and debate the evidence in biology than in mathematics, physics, monetary economics, computer science, or any other field?

[Deicide]

A degree isn't necessary, but university-level advanced classwork is essential.

You wouldn't walk into an advanced algebra seminar of the American Mathematical Society and offer to "debate" the participants on advanced algebra, would you?

What about a physics conference on string theory, would you walk in, grab the mic, and start issuing challenges to the physicists to debate you on string theory?

What makes you think you are any more qualified to issue "challenges" and debate the evidence in biology than in mathematics, physics, monetary economics, computer science, or any other field?

He has the holy bible and that's all he needs. Who needs real education?! 

[Decker]

I dismiss the dating methods because they are corrupt. You think I don't know how they date things? Everybody does. What I am saying is if you carbon date something the has died a few days ago it might date back to 5000 years ago. This happens all the time, so obvious you can't count that dating method as being propper; same with potassium argon dating. If you go to a museum and ask how do you know the Dino bones are 65 million years old then they will answere and say because of the layer of rock it was found in (the geologic column )and if you ask how how old is this rock and how do you know, they will say its 65 million years old because we found it in the same layer that the Dino bones were found. This my friend is circular reasoning.

All I'm saying is if dating is questionable and thats the basis of evolution the you guys have nothing. Thats just the way it is.

Radoactive dating is highly accurate.  Creationists have twisted data to make it look like a fool's endeavor.  Here's a website that points out just how accurate it is and how it's been perverted by creationists.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/a_radiometric_dating_resource_list.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html#Circularity

The above link debunks your circularity argument.  Here's the prelude:

"The unfortunate part of the natural process of refinement of time scales is the appearance of circularity if people do not look at the source of the data carefully enough.  Most commonly, this is characterised by oversimplified statements like:

    "The fossils date the rock, and the rock dates the fossils."

Even some geologists have stated this misconception (in slightly different words) in seemingly authoritative works (e.g., Rastall, 1956), so it is persistent, even if it is categorically wrong (refer to Harper (1980), p.246-247 for a thorough debunking, although it is a rather technical explanation)."

[I ETA PI]

I think evolution is the funniest, silliest, most far-fetched fairytale to ever be called science and I can prove it with this thread.

The challenge is this...You must present evidence that contributes to evolution directly or indirectly, but there is one stipulation. THE RULE IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRE MEASURED DATES. For example- 65 million years, 4.6 billion years, this creature is prehistoric, millions and millions of years ago.

Then you might say" thats not fair because thats 99% of evolution and thats all evolution is based on" That is exactly my point

Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus. These systems are severely flawed and completely inaccurate; they also require a few assumptions. You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.

PS If you are emotionally disturbed about my post remember that name calling or making silly comments does not contribute to your side of the argument

Jesus fucking Christ, our fucking antibiotics don't work for shit anymore. 
That is because bacteria have EVOLVED to tolerate our antibiotics. 

If evolution wasn't fact you'd still be taking penicillin for every fucking infection you get without any worry. 
Instead you'll be dealing with people dying of simple bacterial illnesses in your life time because the bacteria have EVOLVED to become immune to anti-biotics. 



There's a fucking dick slap in the face of creationism in our every day lives, but morons with zero scientific knowledge feel they have the ability to claim evolution is a lie. 

[Necrosis]

I think evolution is the funniest, silliest, most far-fetched fairytale to ever be called science and I can prove it with this thread.

The challenge is this...You must present evidence that contributes to evolution directly or indirectly, but there is one stipulation. THE RULE IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRE MEASURED DATES. For example- 65 million years, 4.6 billion years, this creature is prehistoric, millions and millions of years ago.

Then you might say" thats not fair because thats 99% of evolution and thats all evolution is based on" That is exactly my point

Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus. These systems are severely flawed and completely inaccurate; they also require a few assumptions. You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.

PS If you are emotionally disturbed about my post remember that name calling or making silly comments does not contribute to your side of the argument

how about bacteria to anti biotics?

how about HIV to anti-virals?

these are clear cut examples of evolution, if not tell me the alternate

[beatmaster]

Jesus fucking Christ, our fucking antibiotics don't work for shit anymore. 
That is because bacteria have EVOLVED to tolerate our antibiotics. 

If evolution wasn't fact you'd still be taking penicillin for every fucking infection you get without any worry. 
Instead you'll be dealing with people dying of simple bacterial illnesses in your life time because the bacteria have EVOLVED to become immune to anti-biotics. 



There's a fucking dick slap in the face of creationism in our every day lives, but morons with zero scientific knowledge feel they have the ability to claim evolution is a lie. 

ouch!!!

now, that was good, but wait, just wait, they will come up with an answer from the bible...

we can't use any anything from billions of years ago, but they can use the little book, why?

[Necrosis]

ouch!!!

now, that was good, but wait, just wait, they will come up with an answer from the bible...

we can't use any anything from billions of years ago, but they can use the little book, why?

it really doesnt matter what they say especially one time hard, he is uneducated and his opinion on evolution is like getting a childs.

[The Master]

I think evolution is the funniest, silliest, most far-fetched fairytale to ever be called science and I can prove it with this thread.

The challenge is this...You must present evidence that contributes to evolution directly or indirectly, but there is one stipulation. THE RULE IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE EVIDENCE THAT REQUIRE MEASURED DATES. For example- 65 million years, 4.6 billion years, this creature is prehistoric, millions and millions of years ago.

Then you might say" thats not fair because thats 99% of evolution and thats all evolution is based on" That is exactly my point

Every single measuring system for dating is 100% bogus. These systems are severely flawed and completely inaccurate; they also require a few assumptions. You can't base a theory on more theories. When you stop to think about it you will realize that evolution without these fairytale dates has nothing, zip, zero, and it doesn't belong and cannot be called science.

PS If you are emotionally disturbed about my post remember that name calling or making silly comments does not contribute to your side of the argument

You = a stupid person haunted by ignorance and irrational faith with no basis in rationality.

You = a moron, and this discussion = not possible because you makes false statements.

[OTHstrong]

ouch!!!

now, that was good, but wait, just wait, they will come up with an answer from the bible...

we can't use any anything from billions of years ago, but they can use the little book, why?

I already agreed with everybody here about micro-e, that isn't an issue, but that doesn't help your evolution theory because there are limitations to micro-e.

it really doesnt matter what they say especially one time hard, he is uneducated and his opinion on evolution is like getting a childs.

I said at the start of this thread that the childish remarks that you make don't contribute anything so why bother.

As you can see my stipulation has crippled your theory.

[The Master]

I already agreed with everybody here about micro-e, that isn't an issue, but that doesn't help your evolution theory because there are limitations to micro-e.I said at the start of this thread that the childish remarks that you make don't contribute anything so why bother.

As you can see my stipulation has crippled your theory.

How can you make stupid statements about radioactive dating being completely inaccurate, when the science (which you clearly don't know shit about) shows that it is accurate? You lack the knowledge to properly evaluate if its accurate or not, and you OBVIOUSLY have not read the research from all angles, you simply believed something you read on a stupid biased site.
Thus, people calling you "too dumb to argue with" ain't writing childish remarks, they are writing the truth....

[columbusdude82]

As the great philosopher Jeff Foxworthy said, "You can't fix stupid."

[The Master]

As the great philosopher Jeff Foxworthy said, "You can't fix stupid."

What's funny: The stupid person = most often more sure about the accuracy of his/hers opinions/beliefs about reality than the smart person, because the smart person understands that a mental model of reality aint reality, and if the mental model = not very well developed, its not applicable to evaluating stuff too complex for it.

Do you seen how sure "Onetimehithard" is about the accuracy of radioactive dating without knowing anything about it exept what he read on some stupid bible site or something?

Hint. Hint. 

[Necrosis]

I already agreed with everybody here about micro-e, that isn't an issue, but that doesn't help your evolution theory because there are limitations to micro-e.I said at the start of this thread that the childish remarks that you make don't contribute anything so why bother.

As you can see my stipulation has crippled your theory.

are you insane? many micros is a macroevolution, it has been proven. we are transitional fossils

[columbusdude82]

are you insane? many micros is a macroevolution, it has been proven. we are transitional fossils

Why do you hate the Lord Jesus Christ so much?

Don't you know that evolution is the work of the devil? You start off believing that evolution crap, next thing you know you're sliding down into a massive lake of fire where Jesus keeps all those who try to think!

Jesus died for your sins. Evolution is a sin. Stop believing in evolution!

[OTHstrong]

What's funny: The stupid person = most often more sure about the accuracy of his/hers opinions/beliefs about reality than the smart person, because the smart person understands that a mental model of reality aint reality, and if the mental model = not very well developed, its not applicable to evaluating reality.

Do you seen how sure "Onetimehithard" is about the accuracy of radioactive dating without knowing anything about them exept what he read on some stupid bible site or something?

Hint. Hint. 

Take a pill or count to 10 pal, calling me stupid changes nothing. what, do you think CD82 is saying "ya he got called stupid, we're winning".

 When you carbon date a dead animal you know the ratio of c-12 to c-14 found in the animal right? The ratio of c-12 to c-14 found in the atmosphere at the time of the animals death is not known and the rate at which it decays is also not known, so what do you do? fill in the blanks with magical numbers. If you make assumptions then your date isn't accurate. I'm going to sleep and tomorrow I'll tell you why the other methods are inaccurate.

Don't bother responding, everybody on getbig knows what you're going to say..............
"This guy stupid"........."He has no education".........."Tell that to a biology teacher"........."you moron"..........."evolution is science"..........blah,blah,blah.

[The Master]

Take a pill or count to 10 pal, calling me stupid changes nothing. what, do you think CD82 is saying "ya he got called stupid, we're winning".

 When you carbon date a dead animal you know the ratio of c-12 to c-14 found in the animal right? The ratio of c-12 to c-14 found in the atmosphere at the time of the animals death is not known and the rate at which it decays is also not known, so what do you do? fill in the blanks with magical numbers. If you make assumptions then your date isn't accurate. I'm going to sleep and tomorrow I'll tell you why the other methods are inaccurate.

Don't bother responding, everybody on getbig knows what you're going to say..............
"This guy stupid"........."He has no education".........."Tell that to a biology teacher"........."you moron"..........."evolution is science"..........blah,blah,blah.

* Basic premise 1: You have no clue about the science behind radioactive dating.
* Basic premise 2: You do not have the skill or knowledge to evaluate and understand the science behind radioactive dating.
* Basic premise 3: Going against the studies on radioactive dating, when one has not even read them while satisfying premise 2 makes you an idiot.
* Basic premise 4: Going against the overwhelming majority of experts in this area when you satisfy basic premise 1 + 2 + 3 makes you an idiot, especially when you claim to know the truth with such conviction.
* Basic premise 5: Believing one can use "common sense" to evaluate a complex phenomena one does not have more than a surface understanding of = makes one an idiot

Argument derived from these premises: You satisfy all 5 basic premises, and you claim to know the truth with conviction although the real experts and tons of studies says you're wrong. Thus, you're a fool, and you're wrong.