A lesson on common ancestry for Dixie
- Thread starter ib1yysguy
- Start date
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
Nice THEORY... too bad it's totally untestable!
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
W
WinterBorn
Guest
Look folks, as often as we post the same things, Dixie can always say the same thing. Its untestable and unobserved.
So, since neither side can show any scientific proof, why do you continue to present it to Dixie as if it matters or will change anything?
So, since neither side can show any scientific proof, why do you continue to present it to Dixie as if it matters or will change anything?
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
It's testable. It's observed. It's as much a fact of established biology as the newtonian physics is to astronomy. It's supported by multiple scientific disciplines, and every new discovery made reinforces the theory.
It's just so much fun to get him to constantly repeat stuff that is so obviously wrong.
The fact that you also think there's no "scientific proof" means you're 100 percent retarded.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
Read the major pwnage:
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/omfg-am-kin-obama-t19010.html
Man, that thread was epic. It's always worth a reread.
http://www.justplainpolitics.com/omfg-am-kin-obama-t19010.html
Man, that thread was epic. It's always worth a reread.
Last edited:
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
The theory of "common ancestry" is not only untestable, we have NO evidence it has ever occurred with ANY human or any other species, for that matter. Things are what they are, they can change and adapt, but they do not change into other things. For the theory of "common ancestry" to be valid or testable, we have to see evidence of things changing from one thing to another, and we simply don't see that happening, or evidence it ever did happen. In fact, even with all the knowledge and science we command, we can't even MAKE it happen in a controlled lab environment!
What you are espousing, goes way beyond simple theories of evolution. Darwin theorized that species, through natural selection, evolved and changed over time. A chimp or ape became more 'efficient' or more 'resilient' but it didn't branch off into another species. Species do not change into other species, it just doesn't happen in nature. It actually DEFIES the theories of Darwin to believe in this cockamamie notion of "common ancestry" as has been articulated here by the pinheads.
W
WinterBorn
Guest
You misunderstand me if you think I do not believe that evolution is the best explanation for the diversity of species.
And there is evidence of the gradual change within a species. But there is no proof of one species evolving into another viable species.
Evidence and proof are very different things.
My point was, why does this single topic come up so often when it is obvious that neither side will convince the other? If the point is just to make fun of different beliefs, then what you are doing is low class.
But if you have a reason besides name-calling, please let me know.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
that depends on what level of evolution you are referring.....most seculars are completely ignorant of what evolution actually teaches.....micro-evolution is observable, macro-evolution is a joke.....
in addition there have been tens of thousands of discoveries that do not reinforce the theory of macro-evolution, but they are rejected (refer to the text Forbidden
Archeology)
Last edited: