Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[Caligastia]

Originally posted by Asher

I don't know for sure, but there's zero evidence in favor of it and plenty of evidence against it.

If there is no way of knowing, then how can there be evidence against it?

There's no proof of it, and if God really was all-powerful and he cared for me he would have done something to show me the way.

He did (Not Jesus death BTW) but you arent interested. Dont worry though, he wont hold that against you.

I already know if there is an afterlife I'm going to hell, so I'm hoping there's not and I'm living my life "in the now".

Hell (as in lake of fire) does not exist.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Asher i wasnt saying i wasnt a teenager i was saying its foolish to assume that i know nothing because im a teenager.

He's not assuming you know nothing because you're a teenager, he's assuming you know nothing because you've demonstrated you know nothing in this thread.

And your remark about my grammer is also foolish. I am not arguing with one person, i am probably now arguing with 6 or 7 people trying to respond as fast as i can.

IF you cant understand that much then how can you understand much of anything?

Oh, bullshit.
I constantly am outnumbered in debates but can still spell properly. Typos are fine, but fundamental spelling errors make me wonder.

Two words come to my mind when i think of evolutionists. Biased and denile

You're a regular George W., inventing a word like that.
And it's not evolutionists that are biased and in denial.

Please stop confusing my argument for an argument that religion is right. Im not here for that.

It doesn't matter, what you're saying hinges on religion being right, so it's a natural extension. Deal with it.

Im here to argue that Evolution is false. IF you were willing to be patient i could however put a rather long post together based on several books i have read.

By all means, go for it. No more posts until you have your big post.

I would like to add that Provest harrison said somewhere along the lines of that i have been brainwashed.

Well i am turning the tables, i am saying that EVOLUTIONISTS have been brainwashed.

That's like saying the Jews were the oppressors in world war 2.

[Kilroy_Alpha]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
fossle evidence

I love you. You are, far and away, one of the best and most disciplined trolls I have ever come across. The way you totally dis' evolution without screaming of creationism from the high heavens, while at the same time promoting creationism is just, well, amazing.

I'm being absolutely serious here. Obviously I don't "agree" with you, but I still admire your work. Even your choice of forum to troll is nothing short of admirable. Thank you sir, thank you for brightening my day.

[Provost Harrison]

Draco, you are now in the OT. Let's face it, there are a lot of kids in the Civ3 forums, that is why I left when the game came out because of it. Here reside the true brains of Apolyton. You'd better know your stuff, or you're toast. Looks like I'm too late, the only question is, should I put butter or margarine on you

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by danimal


What an idiotic statement...Copernicus theories are scientific facts!! Evolution remains a hypothesis...just like creation. However, I will place my wager with Pascal...I will bet on the watch maker.

I'm sure Odin will be amused. (But not as much as Eris.)

[mactbone]

Well, first there's Pascal's wager - in which case your belief is merely a Practical Belief and not a Spiritual, Divine, etc. Belief. I could equate this with telling you that if you went outside right now you would probably get $100 dollars - you would go out there to look, but in the back of your mind you'd be saying "Why am I doing this, there really isn't any money there." Your belief was merely practical and so if tested against an omnipotent God it would surely see through that and you would end up having wasted your short life.

Anyways, on to evolution. IIRC the big sticking point for the Creationists in the other thread was that there are flying squirrels which, given enough time will probably gain the true ability of flight. So, there is an example of an "inbetween" species - one of a very few I might add. At least one of a very few that Creationists might accept. Humans and all other species should be intermediate forms because no species is as of yet perfect. Until every species is perfectly suited to their environment they're not really a fully formed species. Did you know that Caucasians have been getting gradually taller? Back in antiquity they were on average much shorter, very interesting.

[WFHermans]

It's because of fluoride. No, seriously, I think it is because of more meat and milk.

[spicytimothy]

To this subject I always offer a compromise for MYSELF: World is created by a creator, but evolution occured after the world is CREATED.

Scientifically, Evolution CAN be proven. Otherwise, why would it survive this long? You r asking laypeople, common Civ3player who have no in-depth training in the Theory of Evolution, so of course we cannot offer u scientific prove. But if you try any University library, there are a lot of test and experiments etc. that can prove the existence of evolution.

Scientifically u cannot prove Creation. I am SURE you know that. But Sicentifically u can prove Evolution. Living things evolve. That's a fact. BUT REMEMBER: Theory of Evolution only covers the evolving part. THERE WAS NO MENTION OF how everything started in the first place in Darwin's original On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection. Darwin is a Christian himself.

In my AP Biology text book (although i hv to admit is overly sided with Evolution) offers some insights on the evidence for evolution:

1. fossil record
Fossil records and rock strata shows that different animals appear during different time periods. For example, u might find a butterfly fossil from the 3rd stratum up, but not below.
Another example: Whales evolved from four-legged land mammals that lived some 55 million years ago. Whales nowadays have forelegs in the form of flippers but lacked hind legs, altough they do have small, functionless hind-leg and foot bones that do not extend from the body. Just a few years ago, paleontologists digging in Egypt and Pakistan found fossils of extinct whales that actually had hind legs.

2. Biogeography
Biogepgrahy is the geographical distribution of species. Darwin nted that, although the environment of the Falapagos was moe like that of certain tropical islands in distant parts of the world than like the mainland environment of the nearby South America, animals there nonetheless resembled species of the mainland more than they resembled animals on similar but distant islands. The logical explanation was that the Galapagos species evolved from South American immigrants.

3. Comparative Anatomy
This is the comparison of body structure in different species. Anatomical similarities among many species give signs of common descent. A great example: same skeletal elemnts make up the forelimbs of humans, cats, whales, and bats, all of which are mammals. the functions of these forelimbs differ. A whale's flipper doesn't do the same hob as a bat's wing, so if these sturctures had been uniquely enigeered, we would expect that their basic designs would be very different. However, their structural similarity would be unsurprising if all mammals descented from a common ancestor with the same basic limb elements.

4. Comparative Embryology
This is the study of structures that appear during the development of diff. organisms. This is similar to Cpmparative Anatomy, only this concerns the embryo of living things. Similar evidence can be found.

5. Molecular Biology
This is the study of molecular basis of genes and gene expression. I DO hv some examples on this subject, but I'm running late for my English class... so... sorry...

I hope this helps. Again I believe in both Creation and Evolution. and I just thought that to completely reject a theory just because you do KNOW any information / evidence / support for it is kinda... well... childish. Yes, some scientists reject the theory of evolution and natural selection, but far more scientists reject the OTHER EXPLANATION OFFERED. In other words, Theory of Evolution is the most commonly accepted explanation not just in the scientific community, but the whole world.

There. Have a nice evening everyone!

Spicytimothy

[Dis]

evolution is dumb. 'nuff said

Which is cooler. A long drawn out process of ugly hairy, apes turning into men. Or an all powerful supreme being raining fire and water from above creating the earth in 6 days, and creating hot naked chicks.

Which do you think is cooler?

[Provost Harrison]

Ugly hairy apes can turn into hot naked chicks too!

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Lets look at the different stages that a new concept must go through to become a working law of nature. First the concept must be presented and asked. It becomes a hypothisis, it makes a good point and deserves some time to test. After it has been tested in a number of different situations and posibilities and it holds true, it becomes a Theory. After better evaluation and experiments it continues to be true in all situations it becomes law.

Close but not quite.

1) Hypothesis is an idea, possibly based on the apparent evidence, but not always. BTW, a perfect example of this is that God exists. See Theory as to why.

2) Theory is a Hypothesis that has repeatable (ie others can get the same result) empiric evidence that it is true. That isn't to say that it has been proven true, just that all the available repeatable empirical evidence supports it. Note that this means accepted evidence, and empirical evidence. Anyone can claim to have evidence to the contrary (ie creationists against evolution), but is not accepted because it is not believable or repeatable. Interestingly enough, God's existance has never made it to this stage due to a lack of repeatable empirical evidence, but at the same time can't make it to the next one either.

3) False Hypothesis or Theory. One that has repeatable empirical evidence that proves it is not true. One that note, I would point out that there is no repeatable empirical evidence that the Hypothesis of God's existance is false.

Now, given that you say:

{Evolution is} FALSE.

Evolution is the root of our social problems today.

I say, nice Hypothesis (ie that evolution does not occur). Now where is your empirical evidence to turn that into the Theory of Non-evolution?

Edit: Alternately, if you accept that evolution is a theory, please present your empirical evidence that disproves that.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

OK if we are going to get technical, obviously im not going to get anywhere with just my opinoin.

Ok i see we have some dissagreements between the Evolutionists. i think most of you would say that Evolution takes millions of years correct? but i heard one person say that the changes from one creature to another happened abruptly LOL
ok for the sake of argument lets say that it takes millions of years for evolution to be possable.

That would mean that the earth is very very old, some where along the lines of what? 4 billion years.

Ok then explain this. (note, this information is from various books. if you would like to know which books i can post that too)

Numerous methods have been used to determine the earths true age. Taken as a whole, they give a more reliable indication. Consider some of them:

Magnetic Feild Intensity
The earths magnetic field is rapidly decreasing in strength. Assessing the rate of decrease tells us about the planets age. Dr. Thomas Barnes, one of the most respected magnetic field physicists in the world , explains:

If we went back about ten thousand years, the earth;s magnetic field would have been as strong as the field in a magnetic star. A magnetic star is like our sun; it has a nuclear power sourse. Surely our earth never had a magnetic feild stronger than that of a star. That would limit the age of the earth to ten thousand years (taken from william JJ Glashouwer and taylor, "the earth, a young planet?" quoting Thomas Barnes)



Concentration of Ocean salt
The concentration of salt in the oceans is steadily growing. Yet the oceans are not nearly salty enoughh to have existed for billions of years. even with generous allowances, the salt concentration suggests they could be no more than 62 million years old at the most.




Preserved red blood cells
Preserved red blood cells and hemoglobin have been discoverd in unfossilized dinosaur bones. Evolutionists dated the dinosaur as living 65 million years ago. However, Research shows that such cells could not survive more than a few thousand years. The dinosaur must have.

Absent Supernova
Supernova is the name given for the tremendous explosion of a star. It creates a brief light far briger than any other object in a galaxy. Calculations show that the remains of supernovas continue shining for hundreds of thousands of years. yet oservations of our own milky way galaxy do not show any old supernova. This fact suggests the galaxy has not exixted long enough for these to have occurred.


Helium concentration
Helium concentration in our atmosphere is gradually increasing. Yet the current amount is only about 1/2000 of what we'd expect if the atmosphere were billions of years old. The helium concentration suggests a younger atmosphere.

World population growth
World population growth is esimated by many population experts to be an average of about 2 percent per year. To be very conservative, if the population only increased one half percent per year (allowing generously for plagues, wars, starvation, etc ), in one million years ( the evolutionists gereral estimate of the age of man on planet earth) there would have been 10 to the 2100 power people somehow stacked on earth. (that number of people would actually fill countless trillions of entire universes.) even if an almost zero growth rate of population were assumed, in a million years the earth would have housed 3000000000000 people up until the present age. There is no cultural or fossil evidence for numbers anywhere near that level.
At the one have percent growth rate. it would take about 4000 years to produce today's population from a single couple.



Topsoil depth
there is an average of seven or eight inches of topsoil that sustains all of life on earth, while the earth beneath the topsoil is as dead as rock. Scientists tell us that the combination of plants, bacterial decay and erosion will produce six inches of topsoil in 5000 to 20000 years. IF the earth had been here for 5 billion years, we should have much more topsoil than the seven or eight inches; more on the order of 56 miles thick!



Earth-moon distance
Measurements show that the moon is slowly withdrawing from the earth. Each year, the distance increases by about 1 and half inches, though the rate was likly greater in the past. Calculations show that even if the moon had been in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon, not the actual age. This maximum age is still far to young for evolution to have had time to occur, and much younger than the radiomentric "dates" assigned to moon rocks. Since the precise distance of the moon from the earth is critical for regulating ocean tides, the age must be a fraction of that amount of time.

Absent Meteorites
Where are the meeorites in the multi billion year old geological column? While most meteors burn up before they reach the earths surface, many (up to 60 tons each day) land on earth. If the supposed geological layers were laid down over millions of years, where are the meteorites in the layers? no such meteors ahve been found in the geological layers.


Short Period comets
Our solar system has an abundance of short period comets, that is, comets whose life span averages only 1 500 to 10000 years. yet if the universe is billions of years old, these comets would have disintegrated long ago. evolutions have had to scramble to try and explain their existance.


Our shrinking, self consuming sun
It just makes sense to suspect that as the sun burns its fuel, the sun gets smaller. This can give us clues about its true age. Dr. Join A. Eddy, an astrophysisct at the harvard smithsonian high altitud observatory in boulder, colorado, observes:




Dozons of independent studies from the Royal Greenwich Observatory and studies done independently at the US Naval Observatory suggest that the suns diameter is shrinking at the rate of six feet per hour, DR eddy's Studies suggest a solar diameter shrinkage of approximately ten miles per year.

Dennis Peterson applies this information to its logical conclusion:


How does one reconcile the earth being billions of years old, and yet the sun being in contact with the earth only 20 million years ago? whats more, over 99.8 percent of the earths supposed multi billion year history, the earth would have been exponentially to hot to support any hope for life.

[Dauphin]

I think it arrogant to believe any theory is right, be it evolution, creationism or whatever. Of course, some things are more misguided than others.

Assymptotic approach to the truth is the best we can get.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

Ok there is only part of the evidence that disproves evolution, there is plenty more.

[Lonestar]

[nato]

I was going to reply to the guy who replied to me ... but this thread jumped from 1 page to 4 in the time I ate dinner! Wow. Too much to keep up with for me.

Cool pic Lonestar!

[Dauphin]

Concentration of Ocean salt
The concentration of salt in the oceans is steadily growing. Yet the oceans are not nearly salty enoughh to have existed for billions of years. even with generous allowances, the salt concentration suggests they could be no more than 62 million years old at the most.

The sea is at saturation point, no more salt can be dissolved into it, therefore the first statement is a fallacy

Earth-moon distance
Measurements show that the moon is slowly withdrawing from the earth. Each year, the distance increases by about 1 and half inches, though the rate was likly greater in the past. Calculations show that even if the moon had been in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance. This gives a maximum possible age of the moon, not the actual age. This maximum age is still far to young for evolution to have had time to occur, and much younger than the radiomentric "dates" assigned to moon rocks. Since the precise distance of the moon from the earth is critical for regulating ocean tides, the age must be a fraction of that amount of time.

I can show you the equations for this, but I don't think you would follow them. Suffice it to say they show the Moon would end up in its current position after it was created about 3 billion years ago.

Magnetic Feild Intensity
The earths magnetic field is rapidly decreasing in strength

It fluctuates both up and down. Whats the problem.

Absent Supernova
Supernova is the name given for the tremendous explosion of a star. It creates a brief light far briger than any other object in a galaxy. Calculations show that the remains of supernovas continue shining for hundreds of thousands of years. yet oservations of our own milky way galaxy do not show any old supernova. This fact suggests the galaxy has not exixted long enough for these to have occurred.

I see plenty of white dwarves and neutron stars. Plus if there weren't any in our galaxy then we wouldn't be here. We are after all made of stardust.

The others have answers but I don't have the time to answer.

[FrustratedPoet]

Those are interesting arguments Draco.

I have no qualifications to comment on their accuracy, so I won't even try.

I don't like to blindly believe anything I read in books (or Internet forums for that matter) and I therefore maintain a reasonable scepticism about, well ... pretty much everything . However, I have not encountered any explanation for the development of species that sounds more plausible to me than Darwin's theories, and more more specifically the Mendelian experiments that both preceded and support Darwin.

If some, or all, of the information you presented is accurate then it certainly poses questions about the validity of a Theory of Evolution. There are Biology professors in many (all?) major universites that are inclined to disbelieve Darwin's theories, so support for Evolution is certainly not universal, although surely still the majority opinion.

However, progress can only be made towards a 'true' version of events if their is a free and informed debate.
The 'I'm right - You're wrong' attitude is wholly unproductive to either side of the debate.

Just my $0.02

[ranskaldan]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
World population growth
World population growth is esimated by many population experts to be an average of about 2 percent per year. To be very conservative, if the population only increased one half percent per year (allowing generously for plagues, wars, starvation, etc ), in one million years ( the evolutionists gereral estimate of the age of man on planet earth) there would have been 10 to the 2100 power people somehow stacked on earth. (that number of people would actually fill countless trillions of entire universes.) even if an almost zero growth rate of population were assumed, in a million years the earth would have housed 3000000000000 people up until the present age. There is no cultural or fossil evidence for numbers anywhere near that level.
At the one have percent growth rate. it would take about 4000 years to produce today's population from a single couple.

In a hunter-gatherer society (which is to say anything before 8000BC), it is impossible to have a growth rate of 2% a year. Such societies can barely support one person per square kilometer, and thus any sort of growth at all would result in starvation.

Topsoil depth
there is an average of seven or eight inches of topsoil that sustains all of life on earth, while the earth beneath the topsoil is as dead as rock. Scientists tell us that the combination of plants, bacterial decay and erosion will produce six inches of topsoil in 5000 to 20000 years. IF the earth had been here for 5 billion years, we should have much more topsoil than the seven or eight inches; more on the order of 56 miles thick!

As soil, mud, or sand accumulates, the stuff that's below experiences so much pressure that they eventually fuse into sedimentary rocks, like sandstone or conglomerate. That's why we can't have 56 miles of topsoil.

Absent Meteorites
Where are the meeorites in the multi billion year old geological column? While most meteors burn up before they reach the earths surface, many (up to 60 tons each day) land on earth. If the supposed geological layers were laid down over millions of years, where are the meteorites in the layers? no such meteors ahve been found in the geological layers.

The earth's erosional forces are very great. If there were no winds, rivers or seas, the earth would probably be as cratered as the moon. That's why there're very little craters or meteor remains.

Short Period comets
Our solar system has an abundance of short period comets, that is, comets whose life span averages only 1 500 to 10000 years. yet if the universe is billions of years old, these comets would have disintegrated long ago. evolutions have had to scramble to try and explain their existance.

They probably originated farther off and were hurled inwards by Jupiter's or Saturn's gravity.

Our shrinking, self consuming sun
It just makes sense to suspect that as the sun burns its fuel, the sun gets smaller.

The sun doesn't "burn its fuel". It transforms hydrogen into helium, and during the process, the sun gets larger.

[Andrew Cory]

As far as I can tell, having taken a few college level Science courses, as well as reading a few books on the subject, One can say definitivly that Evolution is _fact_, but there are _theories_ as to _how_.

I don't tend to belive that the gods had much to do with it, after all, they didn't come into existance until after we asked them to...

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
World population growth
World population growth is esimated by many population experts to be an average of about 2 percent per year. To be very conservative, if the population only increased one half percent per year (allowing generously for plagues, wars, starvation, etc ), in one million years ( the evolutionists gereral estimate of the age of man on planet earth) there would have been 10 to the 2100 power people somehow stacked on earth. (that number of people would actually fill countless trillions of entire universes.) even if an almost zero growth rate of population were assumed, in a million years the earth would have housed 3000000000000 people up until the present age. There is no cultural or fossil evidence for numbers anywhere near that level.
At the one have percent growth rate. it would take about 4000 years to produce today's population from a single couple.

World population growth: Who would assume a positive population growth on the average of 2%? There is no way to estimate this number. First of all, a dramatic plague in a low population of man concentrated in a small locale (ie early in mans history) could result in a -95% growth rate in a single year. Ditto war, ditto weather or crop variations. Even later on, the european plauges of recent history devastated huge populations. Since we are making up numbers, if I assume 50% loss over a 1 year period in europe, then a 5% growth rate after, it would take ~15 years to recover to the old point. That means a 0% gain over that 16 year period. Given the dangers to life and limb in ancient and medival times, I find it hard to believe that you can quote a stead 2% growth rate since the dawn of man.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

The sea is at saturation point, no more salt can be dissolved into it, therefore the first statement is a fallacy

Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the second internation conference on Creationism, "the Sea's Missing salt: a dilemma for the Evolutionists," By S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys (Pittsburgh, PA: the fellowship, 1990), Vol. 2, p. 17 33
J.D. Sarfati, "salty seas: Evidence for a young earth," Creation, 21 (1): 16-17 (December 1998 February 1999)

I can show you the equations for this, but I don't think you would follow them. Suffice it to say they show the Moon would end up in its current position after it was created about 3 billion years ago.

Tell that to Don DeYoung, Creation Ex Nihilo, 14 (4)43 (september november 1992)

I see plenty of white dwarves and neutron stars.

Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the second internation conference on Creationism, "Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the galaxy," By K davies (Pittsburgh, PA: The Fellowship 1994), p 175- 184
J.D. Sarfati, "exploding stars point to a young universe," Creation, 19(3): 46-49 (june-august 1998)

[mactbone]

During the period of the Black Death in Europe (the beginning of the Late Middle Ages) there was a population decrease of 33%. Meaning that 33% of Europe's population died. Not only that, but it did not start to increase *significantly* again for another ~100 years.

[mactbone]

Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the second internation conference on Creationism, "the Sea's Missing salt: a dilemma for the Evolutionists," By S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys (Pittsburgh, PA: the fellowship, 1990), Vol. 2, p. 17 33
J.D. Sarfati, "salty seas: Evidence for a young earth," Creation, 21 (1): 16-17 (December 1998 February 1999)

Tell that to astronomers who have observed these phenomenon (damn, for some reason I can't spell today, I know that's not how it's spelled.)

[Jack_www]

Like has been already stated, a thread on this topic is in the OT forum, and form last count I did there is 14 pages of posts in it.
Right now I am doing some research. I want to make sure I back up what I say, because many here think that many people who believe that the Universe was created are ignorant of the facts. This is what I get form all the post I have read form those who support theory of evolution.

Really the main support I would look for creation model would be the fossil record. The creation model says that when we look at fossil record that living things would appear suddenly in the fossil record with no links to previous forms of life. They would only reproduce according to their biological family and would not give rise to new forms of life, although limited changes could take place and great diversity is also possible.

Form the things I have read, that there are many explosions of life in the fossil record, although I have to do more research in this. This gives at least some support to creation model, since it predicted we would find these sorts of things with in the fossil record.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher

So this is acceptable, but it's not acceptable to say the world exists in THIS time and space as we know it, without a creator?

That is completely and utterly illogical.


Huh?
A perfect world would allow free will, but no one would kill by default and everyone would be tolerant of those around them.

What kind of masochist are you?


Is that why atheism is becoming more and more popular each day as people learn more about the world?

Asher you are talking out of your ass

you are not the only one but yours was the most idiotic on all levels (others keep their idiocy to sceince or the like)

Jon Miller

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN


Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the second internation conference on Creationism, "the Sea's Missing salt: a dilemma for the Evolutionists," By S.A. Austin and D.R. Humphreys (Pittsburgh, PA: the fellowship, 1990), Vol. 2, p. 17 33
J.D. Sarfati, "salty seas: Evidence for a young earth," Creation, 21 (1): 16-17 (December 1998 February 1999)



Tell that to Don DeYoung, Creation Ex Nihilo, 14 (4)43 (september november 1992)



Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, Proceedings of the second internation conference on Creationism, "Distribution of Supernova Remnants in the galaxy," By K davies (Pittsburgh, PA: The Fellowship 1994), p 175- 184
J.D. Sarfati, "exploding stars point to a young universe," Creation, 19(3): 46-49 (june-august 1998)

The vast majority of the scientific community probably already have, and that is why they will have been a bit of a laughing stock at the time for missing the obvious. Credentials don't mean that much, everyone gets it wrong or manipulates facts to their own personal agenda.

[mactbone]

Some of the stuff Asher is saying makes perfect sense to me, though I guess I'm a little biased, having the same philosophical/religious views as him on this particular issue.

[loinburger]

Tell that to R.E. Walsh...Tell that to Don DeYoung...Tell that to R.E. Walsh...

He's telling it to you. In their abence, you're responsible for defending their claims since you purport to believe in them. Name-dropping is insufficient, especially for nobodies. I've heard of Hawking, I've heard of Reynolds, but this Walsh fellow is new to me...

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Asher you are talking out of your ass

you are not the only one but yours was the most idiotic on all levels (others keep their idiocy to sceince or the like)

Jon Miller

How is it idiotic to discuss my philosphy of life?
I'm not debating the science part and never was, simply using logic and philosophy.

Of course it's "talking out of my ass" because there's no other way to debate philosophy.

It sounds like you're the one being idiotic here. At least others are trying to talk about the issue at hand while you're in here randomly saying stuff like "you're talking out of your ass" because you apparently disagree with my philosophy on life. **** you, and I will see you in hell.