Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions
Home Register FAQ
Go Back   Darkforum.com - Dark Stories, Dark Art, Poetry, Photography, Debates and Discussions > Discussions > Topic Discussions
Reload this Page Science Disproves Evolution
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-22-11   #821
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 744
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 174,536

Codes, Programs, and Information 3


Life contains matter, energy, and information (e).

e. How can we measure information? A computer file might contain information for printing a story, reproducing a picture at a given resolution, or producing a widget to specified tolerances. Information can usually be compressed to some degree, just as the English language could be compressed by eliminating every “u” that directly follows a “q”. If compression could be accomplished to the maximum extent possible (eliminating all redundancies and unnecessary information), the number of bits (0s or 1s) would be a measure of the information needed to produce the story, picture, or widget.

Each living system can be described by its age and the information stored in its DNA. Each basic unit of DNA, called a nucleotide, can be one of four types. Therefore, each nucleotide represents two (log24 = 2) bits of information. Conceptual systems, such as ideas, a filing system, or a system for betting on race horses, can be explained in books. Several bits of information can define each symbol in these books. The number of bits of information, after compression, needed to duplicate and achieve the purpose of a system will be defined as its information content. That number is also a measure of the system’s complexity.

Objects and organisms are not information. Each is a complex combination of matter and energy that the proper equipment—and information—could theoretically produce. Matter and energy alone cannot produce complex objects, living organisms, or information.

While we may not know the precise amount of information in different organisms, we do know those numbers are enormous and quite different. Simply changing (mutating) a few bits to begin the gigantic leap toward evolving a new organ or organism would likely kill the host.

“Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day.” Norbert Wiener, Cybernetics; or, Control and Communication in the Animal and the Machine, 2nd edition (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1948), p. 132.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-11   #822
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,950
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 5,883
Whatever X is, it's meaningless to say, "Nature has not been observed to produce X" when you use this as a basis to ignore nature producing X. This is the black swans problem.

Also most significant mutations are harmful, the problem with this kind of writing is that the author is actually pig ignorant about what evolution even says as a theory.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-11   #823
SilentShade
The King Douche
Admin
 
SilentShade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Whispers
Posts: 22,148
SilentShade will become famous soon enoughSilentShade will become famous soon enough
Credits: 804,573
The Author???? Pahu is pig ignorant himself, he will not even make one post using his own words because he knows he is full of shit. They even warn of folks like him in the bible itself, false prophets. And anyone who goes around spouting nonsense in order to establish themselves as better than someone else, like Pahu here, fits the bill as far as I am concerned.

This level of scientific sabotage by religious nuts hurts everyone, including themselves.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
S.O.D.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-11   #824
Jordyn
paraphiliac
 
Jordyn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: the Big Sky Country
Posts: 24,684
Jordyn is on a distinguished road
Credits: 825,236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyshade View Post
The Author???? Pahu is pig ignorant himself, he will not even make one post using his own words because he knows he is full of shit. They even warn of folks like him in the bible itself, false prophets. And anyone who goes around spouting nonsense in order to establish themselves as better than someone else, like Pahu here, fits the bill as far as I am concerned.
we have enough of them these days, fortunately most lack the charisma and understanding to actually bring about the end of the world as predicted, by them and their predecessors, the more i believe in a god the less i believe in prophecy and it's prophets.


Quote:
This level of scientific sabotage by religious nuts hurts everyone, including themselves.
I second this motion, i have better neurotic quirks to be a nut over and for all it's complexities, science fascinates me more so than established dogma.
__________________
blah, blah, blah...
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-11   #825
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 744
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 174,536

Compatible Senders and Receivers


Only intelligence creates codes, programs, and information (CP&I). Each involves senders and receivers. Senders and receivers can be people, animals, plants, organs, cells, or certain molecules. (The DNA molecule is a prolific sender.) The CP&I in a message must be understandable and beneficial to both sender and receiver; otherwise, the effort expended in transmitting and receiving messages (written, chemical, electrical, magnetic, visual, and auditory) will be wasted.

Consider the astronomical number of links (message channels) that exist between potential senders and receivers: from the cellular level to complete organisms, from bananas to bacteria to babies, and across all of time since life began. All must have compatible understandings (CP&I) and equipment (matter and energy). Designing compatibilities of this magnitude requires one or more superintelligences who completely understand how matter and energy behave over time. In other words, the superintelligence(s) must have made, or at least mastered, the laws of chemistry and physics wherever senders and receivers are found. The simplest, most parsimonious way to integrate all of life is for there to be only one superintelligence.

Also, the sending and receiving equipment, including its energy sources, must be in place and functional before communication begins. But the preexisting equipment provides no benefit until useful messages begin arriving. Therefore, intelligent foresight (planning) is mandatory—something nature cannot do.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-11   #826
Sik Simon
Ate God
Overlord
 
Sik Simon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The hood, US
Posts: 17,808
Sik Simon is on a distinguished road
Credits: 26,977
Ima do like frog does.
...
ribbit (bump)

Dont make me Biblicate you man, I think you are a lackin in that
'[yes i just created a word]
__________________
*Saunters by with a devil-may-care look in my eye.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-11   #827
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 744
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 174,536

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 1


When the same complex capability is found in unrelated organisms but not in their alleged evolutionary ancestors, evolutionists say that a common need caused identical complexities to evolve. They call this convergent evolution.

For example, wings and flight occur in some birds, insects, and mammals (bats). Pterosaurs, an extinct reptile, also had wings and could fly. These capabilities have not been found in any of their alleged common ancestors. Other examples of convergent evolution are the three tiny bones in the ears of mammals: the stapes, incus, and malleus. Their complex arrangement and precise fit give mammals the unique ability to hear a wide range of sounds. Evolutionists say that those bones evolved from bones in a reptile’s jaw. If so, the process must have occurred at least twice (a)—but left no known transitional fossils. How did the transitional organisms between reptiles and mammals hear during those millions of years (b)? Without the ability to hear, survival—and reptile-to-mammal evolution—would cease.

Concluding that a miracle—or any extremely unlikely event—happened once requires strong evidence or faith; claiming that a similar “miracle” happened repeatedly requires either incredible blind faith or a cause common to each event, such as a common designer.

a. “...the definitive mammalian middle ear evolved independently in living monotremes and therians (marsupials and placentals).” Thomas H. Rich et al., “Independent Origins of Middle Ear Bones in Monotremes and Therians,” Science, Vol. 307, 11 February 2005, p. 910.

“Because of the complexity of the bone arrangement, some scientists have argued that the innovation arose just once—in a common ancestor of the three mammalian groups. Now, analyses of a jawbone from a specimen of Teinolophos trusleri, a shrew-size creature that lived in Australia about 115 million years ago, have dealt a blow to that notion.” Sid Perkins, “Groovy Bones,” Science News, Vol. 167, 12 February 2005, p. 100.

b. Also, for mammals to hear also requires the organ of Corti and complex “wiring” in the brain. No known reptile (the supposed ancestor of mammals), living or fossil, has anything resembling this amazing organ.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-27-11   #828
moom
Banned from DF
 
moom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1
moom is on a distinguished road
Credits: 1,019
Congrats on being fr0g's first spammer-ban!

Last edited by thefr0g; 09-28-11 at 07:43.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-11   #829
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,950
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 5,883
I am intrigued and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-11   #830
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 744
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 174,536

Convergent Evolution or Intelligent Design? 2


It is illogical to maintain that similarities between different forms of life always imply a common ancestor (c); such similarities may imply a common designer and show efficient design. In fact, where similar structures are known to be controlled by different genes (d) or are developed from different parts of embryos (e), a common designer is a much more likely explanation than evolution.

c. “By this we have also proved that a morphological similarity between organisms cannot be used as proof of a phylogenetic [evolutionary] relationship...it is unscientific to maintain that the morphology may be used to prove relationships and evolution of the higher categories of units...” Nilsson, p. 1143.

“But biologists have known for a hundred years that homologous [similar] structures are often not produced by similar developmental pathways. And they have known for thirty years that they are often not produced by similar genes, either. So there is no empirically demonstrated mechanism to establish that homologies are due to common ancestry rather than common design.” Jonathan Wells, “Survival of the Fakest,” The American Spectator, December 2000/January 2001, p. 22.

d. Fix, pp. 189–191.

Denton, pp. 142–155.

“Therefore, homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes, and homology of phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotypes. [emphasis in original] It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. ... But if it is true that through the genetic code, genes code for enzymes that synthesize proteins which are responsible (in a manner still unknown in embryology) for the differentiation of the various parts in their normal manner, what mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs, the same ‘patterns’, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938, and it has not been answered.” [Nor has it been answered today.] Gavin R. deBeer, formerly Professor of Embryology at the University of London and Director of the British Museum (Natural History), Homology, An Unsolved Problem (London: Oxford University Press, 1971), p. 16.

e. “Structures as obviously homologous as the alimentary canal in all vertebrates can be formed from the roof of the embryonic gut cavity (sharks), floor (lampreys, newts), roof and floor (frogs), or from the lower layer of the embryonic disc, the blastoderm, that floats on the top of heavily yolked eggs (reptiles, birds). It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from. Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be pressed back to similarity of position of the cells of the embryo or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately differentiated.” [emphasis in original] Ibid., p. 13.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-28-11   #831
Sik Simon
Ate God
Overlord
 
Sik Simon's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: The hood, US
Posts: 17,808
Sik Simon is on a distinguished road
Credits: 26,977
You are the idealistic anti-thesis aren't you.
__________________
*Saunters by with a devil-may-care look in my eye.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-11   #832
Lenina
Mad Kangaroo sex
Moderator
 
Lenina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: McFuck
Posts: 13,334
Lenina will become famous soon enough
Credits: 375,174
I'm already picturing the duct tape over your mouth. Haha!
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You'll never understand it
Try to buy and brand it
I win, you lose, cause it's my job
To keep punk rock elite
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-11   #833
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 744
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 174,536

Vestigial Organs


Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix plays a role in antibody production, protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths (c), and safely stores “good bacteria” that can replenish the intestines following bouts of diarrhea, for example (d). Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

a. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution....An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” S. R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3, May 1981, p. 173.

b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe, “Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).

c. “The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.” Gordon McHardy, “The Appendix,” Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.

“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system. ” N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.

d. “...the human appendix is well suited as a ‘safe house’ for commensal bacteria, providing support for bacterial growth and potentially facilitating re-inoculation of the colon in the event that the contents of the intestinal track are purged following exposure to a pathogen....the appendix...is not a vestige.” R. Randal Bollinger et. al., “Biofilms in the Large Bowel Suggest an Apparent Function of the Human Vermiform Appendix,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 249, 2007, p. 826.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-30-11   #834
Dark Messiah
Half-Wit Intellectual
Admin
 
Dark Messiah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Beautiful Sona-nyl
Posts: 14,950
Dark Messiah will become famous soon enough
Credits: 5,883
Wait, now he's just reposting the things he's already posted.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-02-11   #835
Necropolis
Higher Principality
 
Necropolis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Mataku
Posts: 2,987
Necropolis is on a distinguished road
Credits: 107,372
Life does not come form Inorganic matter... what do you think we are made of?

Bones are Fluorite, and other things. We are Water and Iron and a whole mixture of other inorganic matter that we change to suit our needs. We are in fact made from the inorganic shit lying around us.

The Universe has to have had a beginning is a fallacy. There is nothing to say the laws that exist within this universe apply outside it. It could be subject to rules or a lack of that we can not comprehend. The Universe is, is fact. Anything else is mere subjective daydreaming.

Quote:
Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function but to have been derived from functioning organs in claimed evolutionary ancestors (a). They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs (b). For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix plays a role in antibody production, protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths (c), and safely stores “good bacteria” that can replenish the intestines following bouts of diarrhea, for example (d). Indeed, the absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.
No, this merely proves two points the first that Medical Science was wrong when they thought the organs served no purpose, and two that this proves nothing in relation to Evolution. The organs are there, they function, yay for them. Not having them or having them proves simply that they are or were there.

Quote:
“The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution....An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.”
That would apply in both directions, it proves nothing either for or against.
Its an interesting point that most people seem to think their brain is a Vestigal Organ, the way they treat it.
__________________
Desire to Control is for the scared and weak.

May Chaos Be Visited Upon You.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-11   #836
Lenina
Mad Kangaroo sex
Moderator
 
Lenina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: McFuck
Posts: 13,334
Lenina will become famous soon enough
Credits: 375,174
Necropolis, I love you, lets have sex.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You'll never understand it
Try to buy and brand it
I win, you lose, cause it's my job
To keep punk rock elite
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-05-11   #837
Lenina
Mad Kangaroo sex
Moderator
 
Lenina's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: McFuck
Posts: 13,334
Lenina will become famous soon enough
Credits: 375,174
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyshade View Post
I think multiple penises would confuse poor Len
It would be such a clumsy perverse sexual act that I don't think my fragile little mind could take it.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


You'll never understand it
Try to buy and brand it
I win, you lose, cause it's my job
To keep punk rock elite
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-06-11   #838
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 744
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 174,536

Two-Celled Life?

Many single-celled forms of life exist, but no known forms of animal life have 2, 3, 4, or 5 cells (a). Known forms of life with 6–20 cells are parasites, so they must have a complex animal as a host to provide such functions as respiration and digestion. If macroevolution happened, one should find many transitional forms of life with 2–20 cells—filling the gap between one-celled and many-celled organisms.

a. E. Lendell Cockrum and William J. McCauley, Zoology (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1965), p. 163.

Lynn Margulis and Karlene V. Schwartz, Five Kingdoms: An Illustrated Guide to the Phyla of Life on Earth (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1982), pp. 178–179.

Perhaps the simplest forms of multicellular life are the Myxozoans, which have 6–12 cells. While they are quite distinct from other multicellular life, they are even more distinct from single-celled life (kingdom Protista). [See James F. Smothers et al., “Molecular Evidence That the Myxozoan Protists are Metazoans,” Science, Vol. 265, 16 September 1994, pp. 1719–1721.] So, if they evolved from anywhere, it would most likely have been from higher, not lower, forms of life. Such a feat should be called devolution, not evolution.

Colonial forms of life are an unlikely bridge between single-celled life and multicelled life. The degree of cellular differentiation between colonial forms of life and the simplest multicellular forms of life is vast. For a further discussion, see Libbie Henrietta Hyman, The Invertebrates: Protozoa through Ctenophora, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1940), pp. 248–255.

Nor do Diplomonads (which have two nuclei and four flagella) bridge the gap. Diplomonads are usually parasites.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11   #839
Pahu
Feared by the Devil
 
Pahu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 744
Pahu is on a distinguished road
Credits: 174,536

Embryology 1


Evolutionists have taught for over a century that as an embryo develops, it passes through stages that mimic an evolutionary sequence. In other words, in a few weeks an unborn human repeats stages that supposedly took millions of years for mankind. A well-known example of this ridiculous teaching is that embryos of mammals have “gill slits,” because mammals supposedly evolved from fish. (Yes, that’s faulty logic.) Embryonic tissues that resemble “gill slits” have nothing to do with breathing; they are neither gills nor slits. Instead, those embryonic tissues develop into parts of the face, bones of the middle ear, and endocrine glands.

Embryologists no longer consider the superficial similarities between a few embryos and the adult forms of simpler animals as evidence for evolution (a).

a. “This generalization was originally called the biogenetic law by Haeckel and is often stated as ‘ontogeny [the development of an embryo] recapitulates [repeats] phylogeny [evolution].’ This crude interpretation of embryological sequences will not stand close examination, however. Its shortcomings have been almost universally pointed out by modern authors, but the idea still has a prominent place in biological mythology.” Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm, The Process of Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963), p. 66.

“It is now firmly established that ontogeny does not repeat phylogeny.” George Gaylord Simpson and William S. Beck, Life: An Introduction to Biology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1965), p. 241.

Hitching, pp. 202–205.

“The enthusiasm of the German zoologist, Ernst Haeckel, however, led to an erroneous and unfortunate exaggeration of the information which embryology could provide. This was known as the ‘biogenetic law’ and claimed that embryology was a recapitulation of evolution, or that during its embryonic development an animal recapitulated the evolutionary history of its species.” Gavin R. deBeer, An Atlas of Evolution (New York: Nelson, 1964), p. 38.

“...the theory of recapitulation has had a great and, while it lasted, regrettable influence on the progress of embryology.” Gavin R. deBeer, Embryos and Ancestors, revised edition (London: Oxford University Press, 1951), p. 10.

“Moreover, the biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars.” Walter J. Bock, “Evolution by Orderly Law,” Science, Vol. 164, 9 May 1969, pp. 684–685.

“...we no longer believe we can simply read in the embryonic development of a species its exact evolutionary history.” Hubert Frings and Marie Frings, Concepts of Zoology (Toronto: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1970), p. 267.

“The type of analogical thinking which leads to theories that development is based on the recapitulation of ancestral stages or the like no longer seems at all convincing or even interesting to biologists.” Conrad Hal Waddington, Principles of Embryology (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1956), p. 10.

“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.” Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.

“The biogenetic law—embryologic recapitulation—I think, was debunked back in the 1920s by embryologists.” David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979. [See also Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (San Diego: Master Book Publishers, 1984), p. 119.]

“The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel.” Ashley Montagu, as quoted by Sunderland, p. 119.

[From “In the Beginning” by Walt Brown]
__________________
Truth Frees! Evolution is evidence free speculation masquerading as science.
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-12-11   #840
sid1789
Face in the Mist
 
sid1789's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 12
sid1789 is on a distinguished road
Credits: 1,371
Ooh how interesting.... (the ..... are suppose to imply sarcasm) I've just joined this forum and unfortunately came upon this thread. It being 42 pages long and started back in the dark ages I only read page 1 (I will read the rest - promise). Based on the 1st page I can't help myself but state that any twat can quote from a book, if aforementioned twat has enough time on his hands to both masturbate and read from extensive library to come up with previously regurgitated quotes with little thought process. As a first post this probably is not the best of introductions, but DM wins it (on page 1 anyway) for a long diatribe which I am pretty sure is not quoted from any books. Sorry Prof Pahu, but we can all read (errmmm I think anyway) and quoting from books to try and back your arguments show a distinct lack of..... Well, do you actually have your own thoughts?

Like I said, all based on page 1, So I could be completely and entirely wrong but It really does my f*****g head in when people use quotes to back their arguments because they do not have the intellect to come up with their own theories.

As a first post and a noob please feel free to offer advice and/or 9insult me :-)
is Offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The last person to post on this thread is the WINNER!!! pt2 gArGOyLe^^ Topic Discussions 4130 07-22-17 11:06
Interesting Science News articles. Panthera66 Topic Discussions 3 05-28-10 07:10
the evolution debate ShotDownStar Topic Discussions 66 12-08-06 19:14
The warped minds of the wholesome christians. Lenina Topic Discussions 122 09-21-05 01:18
Science 101! SilentShade Topic Discussions 39 07-07-04 20:37

Recent Threads
Much love
19 Hours Ago 15:08
Last post by Sic Simon
18 Hours Ago 15:39
what surprised you today?
04-11-13 17:55
Last post by Sic Simon
20 Hours Ago 13:53
What Are you Listening...
03-21-05 06:40
By Cucking Funt
Last post by Sic Simon
21 Hours Ago 12:55
I'm not 15.
08-13-18 12:39
Last post by Sic Simon
21 Hours Ago 12:27
MiaOw and Lenina
07-19-18 03:05
by Kendra
Last post by Crypt
1 Week Ago 16:11
fucking mutant children
11-14-07 22:55
by ArSiNiK
Last post by DarkWind
1 Week Ago 22:28
Rainy days
2 Weeks Ago 16:27
Last post by Sic Simon
2 Weeks Ago 17:57
I'm gonna be the one...
2 Weeks Ago 16:14
Last post by Sic Simon
2 Weeks Ago 16:14
Online Users: 26
0 members and 26 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 1928, 06-09-15 at 18:20.
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0 RC2


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBulletin Skin developed by: vBStyles.com

© 2006 - 2016 Dark Forum | About Dark Forum | Advertisers | Investors | Legal | A member of the Crowdgather Forum Community