Dawkinswatch

Exposing Evolution As A Mess and Atheism As Hot-Air!

Dawkinswatch Beats Down Atheists With Mrs Woods Special Driver Straight From Sweden

with 76 comments

Atheist Versus Dawkinswatch Debate

This debate is by demands from an Atheist by the name of Nobody.

First round : I do not believe in Evolution simpey because it does not make sense and is bad science. Please can you provide me with any proof of Evolution?

All you cheap Atheist bloggers can help Nobody because I plan to turn the web red with his blood.

I am not going to have mercy.

Plus I have seen you Atheists , you are not scholars and are amateur scientist and kings of circular thought.

Atheism is for simpletons, your brains are not developed enoughtto deal with big questions, so you give up thinking and making it up with anger.

It is like telling a six month old baby to understand the pleasures of fine wine and jazz, it does not happen.

Anger will not let you get out of this whole I am about to dig for you.

He used to be normal until he got the beats, Nobody, prove to us you are not NoBrain. Answer the question. This is a debate is a little different from playing with you in blog posts, I am going to retire somebody hurt.

This will be a whopping of a lifetime, this is a verbal cannibalisition and it is live so enjoy.

Written by dawkinswatch

December 2, 2009 at 7:08 pm

76 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. “First round : I do not believe in Evolution simpey because it does not make sense and is bad science. Please can you provide me with any proof of Evolution?”

    You have been given many resources on, and examples of evolution by myself and others. Let me ask you this – what have you actually read? Here is a start; http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=46

    “I am not going to have mercy.”

    I’m all atremble

    “Plus I have seen you Atheists , you are not scholars and are amateur scientist and kings of circular thought.”

    What are your examples of the Atheistic circular reasoning?

    “Atheism is for simpletons, your brains are not developed enoughtto deal with big questions, so you give up thinking and making it up with anger.”

    What’s with all your angry attacks? I don’t recall being angry towards you, only amazement at your ignorance.

    “It is like telling a six month old baby to understand the pleasures of fine wine and jazz, it does not happen.”

    You must be talking about trying to explain evolution to a creationist with that one.

    “Anger will not let you get out of this whole I am about to dig for you.”

    The only anger is coming from you. By the way it’s “hole” and not “whole”.

    “He used to be normal until he got the beats, Nobody, prove to us you are not NoBrain. Answer the question. This is a debate is a little different from playing with you in blog posts, I am going to retire somebody hurt.”

    It’s your ramblings like this that show people what a moron you truly are.

    “This will be a whopping of a lifetime, this is a verbal cannibalisition and it is live so enjoy.”

    Yeah right. Now, if you don’t believe evolution happens, what is your alternative, and what evidence do you have to support you views?

    Nobody

    December 3, 2009 at 1:25 pm

  2. So you are going to depend on the corrupt universities for your evidence? Look everyone knows how this game works- who ever funds the study determines the outcome.

    Universities are not out there researching all things and every thing. Research needs funding. That is why, universities are not totally free to say what the truth is. If the foundations are funding studies on evolution, universities are scared to stop the inpoutring of resources. These are the economics of research funding.

    Evolution- Look even if Evolution was true- it cannot be the starting point.

    You have to go back to the starting point which is not evolution, and cannot be evolution.

    How did we get from life to none life? If evolution describes life forms. It has not solved the problem because the starting point is none life forms.

    It is like saying we have part 3 right, but we do not have ansewers to part 1 and part 2.

    That is ridiculous. You guys want to win by default.

    – This is my question why if Evolution and there is proof why do you give us hoaxes as evidence?

    Anyone who has to make up hoaxes surely does not have the evidence.

    You turn.

    I am going to alert people of this debate.

    dawkinswatch

    December 3, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    • “So you are going to depend on the corrupt universities for your evidence?”

      No DW, that was just a starting point for you. I was hoping you would read it to familiarize yourself with the subject you are so threatened by. Judging from your remarks you have only read creation propaganda. Judging from your reply, you didn’t read any (or much) of the link. What happened, did you stop reading because it was from a university? There are many more links and books I can recommend, but that wouldn’t do any good now would it?

      “Look even if Evolution was true- it cannot be the starting point.”

      Evolution does not claim to be a starting point. Once again read the link I provided for the definition.

      “This is my question why if Evolution and there is proof why do you give us hoaxes as evidence?”

      There have been hoaxes and there have been mistakes – and they get corrected.
      Why don’t you focus on the many known legitimate fossils? Here is a list of prominent hominid species of which there are numerous fossil examples;
      Sahelanthropus tchadensis
      Ardipithecus ramidus
      Australopithecus anamensis
      Australopithecus afarensis
      Kenyanthropus platyops
      Australopithecus africanus
      Australopithecus garhi
      Australopithecus aethiopicus
      Australopithecus robustus Australopithecus boisei
      Homo habilis
      Homo georgicus
      Homo erectus
      Homo ergaster
      Homo antecessor
      Homo heidelbergensis
      Homo neanderthalensis
      Homo floresiensis
      Homo sapiens

      “Anyone who has to make up hoaxes surely does not have the evidence.”

      Oh, you must be talking about things like the Paluxy River tracks?

      Now this brings me to my original point – which contrary to your whacked-out thinking was not a debate. Why do you leave so many questions unanswered? For instance some of the things I asked you, just above in my first post, were;
      What are your examples of the Atheistic circular reasoning?
      What’s with all your angry attacks?
      If you don’t believe evolution happens, what is your alternative, and what evidence do you have to support you views?

      “I am going to alert people of this debate.”

      Are these people living in the institution with you and already know you’re a moron?

      Nobody

      December 3, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    • “So you are going to depend on the corrupt universities for your evidence? Look everyone knows how this game works- who ever funds the study determines the outcome.”

      Oh yes, this is where the crazy mind-bendingly stupid conspiracy theory starts.

      Where to start… perhaps we should start with Galileo’s research at the Universities of Padua and Pisa which showed that the Earth was NOT the center of the Universe. I know it’ll be hard for you to believe, but that wasn’t “corrupt research”: we really aren’t at the center of the Universe.

      Next thing you’ll be trying to say is that Columbus’s funding to find out if the world was indeed circular was corrupt circular logic.

      Seriously, where should one start explaining evolution when you’re logic (if true) proves that Galileo was wrong?

      Dan

      December 7, 2009 at 11:28 am

  3. Where are these fossils? They are made up.

    dawkinswatch

    December 4, 2009 at 12:30 am

  4. so you have no missing links?

    dawkinswatch

    December 4, 2009 at 12:38 am

  5. Here is Rchard Dawkins saying science does not know how everything begun

    But you poistion is you know. – awell you guys need to make you mind up.

    You either know or do not know.

    dawkinswatch

    December 4, 2009 at 2:51 am

  6. “Where are these fossils? They are made up.”

    No you ignoramus, they are not made up. I gave you a link with plenty of information. You ignored it. I gave you a list from Sahelanthropus tchadensis to Homo sapiens to give you an example of hominid evolution through the fossil record. You ignored it.

    “so you have no missing links?”

    What the hell is a missing link?
    I gave you a link (and a list) with transitional fossils, yet you did not bother to read it. I can give you more examples but, honestly, that wouldn’t do any good now would it DW? You already have your mind made up.
    This again brings me to my original point – which contrary to your whacked-out thinking was not a debate. Why do you leave so many questions unanswered? For instance some of the things I asked you, just above in my first post, were;
    1. You claimed “Atheistic circular reasoning” What are your examples of the Atheistic circular reasoning?
    2. What’s with all your angry attacks?
    3. If you don’t believe evolution happens, what is your alternative, and what evidence do you have to support you views?

    “Here is Rchard Dawkins saying science does not know how everything begun…”

    Wow who ever said science knows how everything began? Certainly not me. I thought we were talking about the Theory of Evolution.

    “But you poistion is you know. – awell you guys need to make you mind up.”

    No DW, that is not my position, you are jumping to conclusions and putting words in my mouth – or just hearing things.
    Since you have yet to answer any question I have posed to you, how about you disprove the Theory of Evolution.

    “You either know or do not know.”

    Science does not claim to know everything. I do not claim to know everything. You on the other hand seem to think you know everything.

    Nobody

    December 4, 2009 at 12:40 pm

  7. so we agree that even if evolution was true, It would not explain life?

    Even if Evolution was true, it would still depend on other theories being true?

    so there are a battery of theories which need to still be formulated, to even tell how evolution can even make sense?

    But there is a law of bigenesis which tell us that life cannot come from Non life? So how did we get from non-life to life?

    You see how useful this theory of yours is? Evolution cannot explain that.

    dawkinswatch

    December 4, 2009 at 4:14 pm

  8. Your ramblings are meaningless.

    You still have not answered any questions I asked of you. But that, DW, is typical of you. And THAT is exactly what brought this whole thing up in the first place.

    Nobody

    December 4, 2009 at 5:00 pm

  9. is anyone counting?

    I said how will you get around Biogenesis, life does not come from non life.

    What about time? is time finite or infinite? Was there a beginning of time?

    dawkinswatch

    December 4, 2009 at 6:10 pm

  10. The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. The problem is – you do not understand the theory of evolution.

    Now I’ll ask you again:
    1. Please disprove evolution, if you can do so I will gladly change my mind.

    2. If not evolution, what is your alternative?

    3. Please provide evidence for your alternative.

    “is anyone counting?”

    counting what?

    Nobody

    December 4, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    • To Mr Nobody,

      My guess is that you believe in the theory of evolution because you’re positive that the established science is in the right. And that which drives you to hold to this alternative is not only what science tells you, but also your knowledge about what Christians and the Bible says about the Creator God, so therefore it’s preferable to cling to this belief of evolution.

      I guess that your picture of the God of the Bible is that of a tyrant, and that this is the reason why you, and so many others, rather cling to this alternative theory, than to believe in God.

      It is said about our God that He is almighty, righteous, full of grace and a God of love. But when you establish how this God is going to let His own creations burn in an everlasting hell, how He permits the suffering going on in this world, and other “not so advantageous things” written about Him in the Scriptures, one can understand that so many people choose to believe rather in the theory of evolution than in a God like that.

      But now I would like to say; this picture of God is not a correct one. And there is no everlasting hell awaiting the unrepentant sinners. To understand how God really is, we should take a close look at our Saviour Jesus Christ. This was included in His mission; to show how God really is. The story about an everlasting hell was created to scare the people into submission. What pleasure would God, or anyone of the angels and the inhabitants of the other worlds, including us humans, have in the witnessing of the torments of these poor souls for an eternity?!? This is a doctrine of blasphemy.

      Continues…

      Another Nobody

      January 6, 2010 at 1:13 pm

  11. 1) Evolution disproves itself, the fact that the apemen are just that apes and not men.

    If evolution was true and that we are from apes, why did the Nazis experiments fail? They tried to interbreed men and chimpanzees and that failed.

    Look we have to seen any animal jump species.

    For the past 5000 years we have not seen any evidence of evolution.

    You guys claim evolution started with Darwin but why did other dreamers like Erasmus Darwin and Sir Francis Bacon describe it as part of their religion?

    dawkinswatch

    December 4, 2009 at 9:03 pm

    • “Evolution disproves itself, the fact that the apemen are just that apes and not men.”

      Not sure what that means DW, are you off your meds? Evolution does not disprove itself. Try reading something other than creationist propaganda.

      “If evolution was true and that we are from apes, why did the Nazis experiments fail?”

      We are not from apes DW, this just proves you have no concept of evolution. Nazi experiments are not evolution. Try reading something other than creationist propaganda.

      “For the past 5000 years we have not seen any evidence of evolution.”

      Oh but we have! One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. If you are looking for some radical change like a dog changing into a cow you won’t find it. That would actually be evidence against evolution.
      Try reading something other than creationist propaganda.

      “You guys claim evolution started with Darwin but why did other dreamers like Erasmus Darwin and Sir Francis Bacon describe it as part of their religion?”

      Irrelevant, idiotic and (almost) indecipherable. Try reading something other than creationist propaganda.

      Now I’ll ask you again:
      1. Please disprove evolution, if you can do so I will gladly change my mind.
      2. If not evolution, what is your alternative?
      3. Please provide evidence for your alternative.

      Nobody

      December 5, 2009 at 1:23 am

  12. Sir you are not serious about debating,

    1) If Evolution was true and animals evolved from each other, would we not be able to interbreed species?

    but every attempt to breed different species has failed.

    2)Give me one in transitional form fossil.

    dawkinswatch

    December 6, 2009 at 10:33 pm

    • “Sir you are not serious about debating”

      No DW it is you who is not serious, well actually in your mind you probably are serious but in reality your not. I have answered all of your valid questions (and even some that weren‘t). You on the other hand have not answered the three main things I have asked of you.
      Remember these?
      1. Please disprove evolution, if you can do so I will gladly change my mind.
      2. If not evolution, what is your alternative?
      3. Please provide evidence for your alternative.

      I won’t even go into the other unanswered questions in this so-called debate and the hundreds you have left unanswered on other posts. Hey isn’t that what brought this “debate” up in the first place, you leaving unanswered questions?

      “If Evolution was true and animals evolved from each other, would we not be able to interbreed species?”

      Well to put it briefly – evolution (Darwin’s theory) is the process of NATURAL SELECTION.

      “but every attempt to breed different species has failed.”

      I’ve said it, and others have tried to tell you THAT IS NOT EVOLUTION. Try reading something other than creationist propaganda.

      “Give me one in transitional form fossil.”

      I have done that already but I forgot about your reading comprehension.
      Now I’ll do better than that, here is a link with hundreds of transitional fossils:
      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
      Take your time and read it with an open mind (I know that’s difficult for you), don’t be scared.

      Now, let me ask you again, just in case you have forgotten:
      1. Please disprove evolution.
      2. If not evolution, what is your alternative?
      3. Please provide evidence for your alternative.

      Nobody

      December 7, 2009 at 2:19 am

  13. Okay, I want to turn tables on you, because it seems you are the one who needs to tell us what you believe evolution is.

    You remember when Kent Hovind said he had to explain what evolution was to the advocates of Evolution.

    So Nobody it is your chance to shine- tell us what you believe evolution is.

    I do not want to disprove evolution, because the oneous is on the believers in the religion called Evolution, is a science.

    He then need to test the Evidence you produce. That is the scientific method.

    dawkinswatch

    December 7, 2009 at 7:57 pm

    • I do not want to disprove evolution, because the oneous is on the believers in the religion called Evolution, is a science.

      You idiot, he already has gone over this, as have I in the past, and several others. The fact that you are too stupid or too blinded (or both) to comprehend does not reflect our shortcomings but yours.

      Dan

      December 8, 2009 at 6:32 am

      • Thanks for the comment Dan, chip in anytime, sometimes I can’t decipher what he is trying to say so another set of eyes would be helpful.

        Nobody

        December 8, 2009 at 1:24 pm

      • No problem.

        Dawkinswatch does have one thing right though – the oneous IS on the “believers” (or advocates) of science to back up their/our claims. Or it would be, if it hadn’t been done in the published research literature thousands of times per year for over a hundred years. One merely needs to open a science textbook.

        But nooo, studying and learning something in a book OTHER than the Bible is asking for too much from this twit, not to mention anything based on empirical fact.

        Dan

        December 9, 2009 at 1:17 pm

      • Are you sure he’s READ the bible?
        I thought he just watched YouTube videos about it.

        Bipedal Tetrapod

        December 10, 2009 at 2:29 pm

  14. “Okay, I want to turn tables on you, because…”

    Because you can’t seem to answer any questions I’ve posed to you? You can’t find a decent argument against any of the answers I’ve given you?

    “You remember when Kent Hovind said he had to explain what evolution was to the advocates of Evolution.”

    No, but if he said that it was because he does everything he can to protect his precious bible. It’s called lying for Jesus.

    “So Nobody it is your chance to shine- tell us what you believe evolution is.”

    Basically DW evolution is the process by which organisms have descended, with modifications, from common ancestors.

    “I do not want to disprove evolution, because…”

    Basically DW it’s because you can’t.
    You finally answered my first question – you “don’t want to.” Thank you for that!
    Now how about question number two:
    If not evolution, what is your alternative?
    And let’s not forget question number three:
    Please provide evidence for your alternative.

    Nobody

    December 7, 2009 at 9:25 pm

  15. Please describe the start from the top.

    dawkinswatchwatch

    December 8, 2009 at 5:39 pm

  16. How can you have a theory without a beginning and ending?

    We might not know the ending, but at least tell us how we got where we got.

    dawkinswatch

    December 10, 2009 at 6:27 pm

  17. “How can you have a theory without a beginning and ending?”

    Let me answer that question by asking you a question, what is the beginning and ending of the theory of intelligence?

    “We might not know the ending, but at least tell us how we got where we got.”

    Evolution

    Now DW, let me ask you these again;
    1. If not evolution, what is your alternative?

    2. Please provide evidence for your alternative.

    The last time you semi-answered one of my questions it was “I do not want to”. Gonna use that again?

    Nobody

    December 11, 2009 at 12:53 am

  18. Dawkinswatch,
    It looks like Mrs Woods “Special Driver” is made of something easily broken or very poorly crafted. What I want to know is who is this Mrs Woods, and why she’s making golf clubs so badly.

    Dan

    December 11, 2009 at 9:33 am

  19. Okay since you are not telling us the beginning, let us do it for you.

    Are you sure you eant to continue to argue with me because I think you need to go to a libraby and get your skills up to date.

    Lt us ask you another question, you are human at the moment, what will you evolve into in the future.

    dawkinswatch

    December 11, 2009 at 2:50 pm

    • At least we know for certain that DW has no clue whatsoever about what evolution actually is, through his assertion that individuals evolve.
      Which of course means he has no idea what he is arguing against.

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      December 11, 2009 at 8:07 pm

  20. “Okay since you are not telling us the beginning, let us do it for you.”

    The reason I did not give you a beginning was because we were “debating” the theory of evolution. Are you finished with that topic? You never had much of a rebuttal to anything, you’ve just rambled.

    “Are you sure you eant to continue to argue with me because I think you need to go to a libraby and get your skills up to date.”

    You’re one delusional moron aren’t you? If there is anyone that needs a library (note spelling) it’s you.

    “Lt us ask you another question, you are human at the moment, what will you evolve into in the future.”

    That, DW, is a stupid question; but then again it did come from you.

    Now let me ask you again;
    1. If not evolution, what is your alternative?
    2. Please provide evidence for your alternative.

    If you can’t state your position so I know where you stand (other than anti-evolution), there is no point in debating. If you’re so anti-evolution you need to have an alternate belief – what is it? So far it’s just me answering and you throwing out asinine questions and statements. I believe there is overwhelming evidence to support evolution and have provided some links and examples to support my beliefs. You, so far anyway, have not put up any decent argument against.

    Nobody

    December 11, 2009 at 9:13 pm

  21. Bipedal Tetrapod, you can help your dear brother,

    I had to get Kent Hovind to come and explain the beginning of the Evolution theory.

    It has to start with an object less than a period, which explodes into the big bang.

    Then it has to rain for millions of years on the rock until algae is formed.

    Nobody needs to really read more, how can you believe in something that you need us to explain to you what it is?

    dawkinswatchwatch

    December 12, 2009 at 3:45 pm

    • 1. If not evolution, what is your alternative?
      2. Please provide evidence for your alternative.

      “I had to get Kent Hovind to come and explain the beginning of the Evolution theory.”

      How did you get him out of jail so he could “come and explain”?
      Hovind is a liar, he will do anything to protect the words within the Bible. Most of what he says has been debunked, even by other Christians. Using him as a science resource is not a smart move, but I expect that from you.

      “It has to start with an object less than a period, which explodes into the big bang.”

      Maybe so…have we stopped “debating” the Theory of Evolution? You need to be more specific on what this “debate” is about. Life from non-life is not a part of the Theory of Evolution.

      “Then it has to rain for millions of years on the rock until algae is formed.”

      Why?

      “Nobody needs to really read more, how can you believe in something that you need us to explain to you what it is?”

      Now DW, I asked you those questions at the beginning of this response thinking maybe they would be easier for you to see and retain if they were at the top. See how I’m taking into consideration your mental problems?
      BTW in my first response of this “debate”, December 3rd, I asked you the same questions – you have yet to respond.

      Nobody

      December 12, 2009 at 6:54 pm

  22. Sorry I meant to reply (not that it matters) to this – “Nobody needs to really read more, how can you believe in something that you need us to explain to you what it is?”

    You don’t have to explain it to me, especially since you don’t have a clue – despite numerous attempts (quite clearly I might add) by me and others.

    Nobody

    December 12, 2009 at 6:59 pm

  23. but yoiu have not come up with a working definition of evollution, you did not tell us where the process begun.

    So I had to get Kent Hovind for you.

    dawkinswatchwatch

    December 13, 2009 at 2:20 am

    • Definitions:
      1. (Life Sciences) A gradual change in the characteristics of a population of animals or plants over successive generations: accounts for the origin of existing species from ancestors unlike them.
      2. a gradual development, esp to a more complex form, eg the evolution of modern art
      3. (Chemistry) the act of throwing off, as heat, gas, vapour, etc.
      4. a pattern formed by a series of movements or something similar
      5. (Mathematics) an algebraic operation in which the root of a number, expression, etc., is extracted Compare involution [6]
      6. (Military) Military an exercise carried out in accordance with a set procedure or plan

      And there are probably others. The point is, only one of these is relevant to this discussion. Hovind confuses them all.

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      December 14, 2009 at 12:25 am

  24. Okay tell us then we are humans- what will we be in the next step of evolution?

    dawkinswatchwatch

    December 13, 2009 at 2:20 am

    • Right now the human species has few or no selective pressures, and is in a state where there are no reproductive isolation between ethnic groups. Ergo, humanity as a species is seeing a likelihood of phyletic change only for the short term (geologically speaking). Maybe at some point we might speciate, but given our capacity to travel great distances, including high levels of migration of economic/ environmental/ political refugees across oceans, it’s difficult to anticipate such a scenario occurring.

      So biologically, we’re going to remain one species. Some people take this conclusion and state the hyperbole that “We’re not evolving.” However given the low selection pressure that we face, we’re becoming more and more genetically diverse with every thousand years that pass. So we’re a living example of the equilibrium part of “Periodic Equilibrium.” At least as best as we can tell.

      This is basic evolutionary biology Dawkinswatch, and it’s sad that we actually have to answer such low-brow questions. Do you have any intelligent questions, such as questions about conjectures based on specific future scenarios?

      Dan

      December 13, 2009 at 2:49 pm

  25. I have people who are saying that we are evolving.

    Nitsche and Hitler said we are evolving.

    dawkinswatchwatch

    December 13, 2009 at 9:34 pm

    • A bad man and a philosopher you don’t understand (and can’t spell) said we are evolving.
      So?
      Is that supposed to make it not true?

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      December 14, 2009 at 12:18 am

    • Who cares. Were Neitzsche or Hitler biologists? No.

      Dan

      December 14, 2009 at 6:42 am

  26. Now DW, let me ask you these again;

    1. If not evolution, what is your alternative?

    2. Please provide evidence for your alternative.

    Nobody

    December 13, 2009 at 11:02 pm

  27. @ dan- evolution does not orliginate from biology simpley because it has not been observed in biology.

    It come from Theodsophy.

    dawkinswatchwatch

    December 14, 2009 at 6:22 pm

    • Once again: You idiot. Go read any book on evolution. You know what they talk about in such books? Plants, animals and microbes. As if someone should have to point that out, but once again, you display an astounding level of stupidity.

      Dan

      December 14, 2009 at 7:35 pm

  28. “…You are obsessed with my alternative but Evolution is what we are discussing”

    Yet you bring up “the begining”?

    So this “debate” is just you asking (mostly) stupid questions, you getting answers and ignoring them? There was never a formal topic DW – I would think it would be a valid point, me asking what your alternative is. Unless of course you’re afraid your alternative will make you look even more stupid.

    Nobody

    December 14, 2009 at 10:31 pm

  29. We will neeed to start a thread aabout alternative theories.

    dawkinswatchwatch

    December 15, 2009 at 10:40 pm

  30. “We will neeed to start a thread aabout alternative theories.”

    Won’t THAT be fun!

    Nobody

    December 16, 2009 at 12:15 am

    • Knowing dawkinswatch, by “alternative theories” he means whatever half-baked fantasies that he can find on YouTube, which are obviously false to anyone with a basic knowledge of biology. Which wouldn’t be surprising, because he’s been arguing against evolution all this time without knowing what evolution actually IS.

      Dan

      December 16, 2009 at 8:09 am

  31. Since biological evolution is just:

    All offspring are not identical
    AND
    All offspring do not have equal numbers of their own offspring

    Biological Evolution is proven…
    ‘alternative theories”, just theosobabblic flock fleecing..

    cloudsrider

    December 16, 2009 at 2:00 am

    • Are you drunk?

      theat is not evolution but genetics!

      dawkinswatch

      December 16, 2009 at 6:05 pm

      • Once again, you just proved that you don’t know a thing about evolution. Cloudsrider just described the basis for Natural Selection (not quite evolution, if you’re nit-picking, but close enough). I tried explaining it to you a while back, but you obviously weren’t reading one word that I wrote.

        So no, he’s not drunk, you’re just too ignorant to understand.

        Dan

        December 16, 2009 at 7:07 pm

  32. Since biological evolution is just:

    All offspring are not identical
    AND
    All offspring do not have equal numbers of their own offspring

    Biological Evolution is proven… There are no “alternative theories”, just theosobabblic flock fleecing..

    cloudsrider

    December 16, 2009 at 2:01 am

  33. here we go again.

    So the difference between your brother not looking like you is a proof of evolution?

    Thayt is lousy biology.

    Do you know anything about genetics?

    You see this is simple, your genes differ from your brothers, that is why you do not look alike.

    It is not that your brother is adapting and you are not.

    That is a massive error, you have just lost the debate.

    dawkinswatch

    December 16, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    • Although I’m doomed to failure on this, as you appear steadfastly opposed to ever learning anything at all about biology, I’ll give this a shot again.

      Here, the basis for Natural (and Artificial) Selection described more fully.

      Dan

      December 17, 2009 at 7:32 am

      • Nice link Dan, very well put, simple and to the point.
        Only a moron could possibly not understand that.

        Nobody

        December 17, 2009 at 8:02 am

      • Thanks. Last time I tried explaining this to him, he dismissed it by saying: “It is fairly easy to debunk Mr Malthus, just because the man although an econommist, did not seem to understand the price mechanism. If there is shortage of food, the prices will go up. then all the farmers wiill start to grow the crops, or even I wiill start growing croops in my bedroom just because the price is so high.”

        Which works well enough for humans – and indeed as stated in “Fact 1,” we have seen exponential population growth in the 20th Century as you’d expect.

        But Dawkinswatch fails to explain how evolving plants and animals care about prices. Will zebras start let themselves be eaten more by lions in Africa if they get paid better???

        So, is he going to go tell plants and animals that they can’t evolve because of price mechanisms again???

        Dan

        December 17, 2009 at 8:54 am

  34. So the difference between your brother not looking like you is a proof of evolution?

    Yes, sort of. It’s oversimplifying grossly, as that is merely the consequence that makes both natural and artificial selection possible, but yes. Because you and your brother would not be identical, and barring any inbreeding, not recombine their genes, and therefore deal with the consequences of differential reproductive success and divergence.

    Sure, you could call this Population Genetics as well as Natural Selection, and that would be fair. But denying that it is the foundation for Natural Selection just continues to demonstrate your complete and total ignorance on biology.

    Dan

    December 17, 2009 at 7:17 am

  35. Microevolution is not proof of evolution, it is just speciation.

    Breeding dogs can never be proof of Evolution.

    Awolf was once a dog, they are the same “kind”. But we have never seen species jumping.

    we have not seeen a pig turning into a cat.

    You need to show us how species can be a different kind.

    dawkinswatchwatch

    December 18, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    • Define “kind”.
      “I knows it when I sees it” is not a valid answer.
      There is no taxonomic level called “kind”. And baraminology is not a science.
      Next…

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      December 19, 2009 at 12:14 am

      • Ha… indeed, “kind” is a vague term that has no meaning, and is only used to describe biology by those who are too ignorant of biology to use the correct terminology – people like Dawkinswatch.

        The nail in the coffin of this “kind” stupidity is that no mechanism has ever been found that would limit variation. Without such a mechanism, we would expect to see kinds vary over time, becoming more and more different from what they were at a given time in the past (from Talk Origins).

        Actually though, I tend to think of Selection and Extinction as the mechanisms that limits (or reduces, rather) variation. In other words, whether you see Selection/Extinction, or Diversification/Divergence, you’re still seeing the Ying and Yang of Evolution at work. You can’t have one without the other.

        So where ever you look, there’s continuous evolution on one level or another.

        Dan

        December 19, 2009 at 7:54 am

    • Microevolution is not proof of evolution, it is just speciation.

      Um, no – that’s just butchering the terminology. Once you begin talking about speciation you’re no longer talking about phyletic change (aka microevolution), you’re talking about macroevolution, as the term is commonly used.

      we have not seeen a pig turning into a cat.

      I assume that you’re referring to the creationist strawman that evolution posits a pig would turn into a cat? Where did you ever hear that stupidity? Evolutionary biology describes nothing of the sort.

      If you want speciation, I have several posts detailing speciation in birds. Come and read, so that you might learn, and not be an uneducated imbecile.

      Dan

      December 19, 2009 at 6:40 am

  36. “Microevolution is not proof of evolution…”

    Microevolution is proof of the evolutionary process, it is just one piece of the evidence. Life has evolved over such a long period of time, the best way to observe the process is through the fossil record – and no, the fossil record is not made up. I’ve given a few examples already but you have ignored them.

    “we have not seeen a pig turning into a cat.”

    You are an idiot, a pig does not or will not turn into a cat. Where do you get these things from, Hovind? THAT (and I’ve said it before) would be evidence against evolution.

    Not like it will do any good, but here is a good link;
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html

    Nobody

    December 18, 2009 at 9:42 pm

  37. Still waiting to get “beat down” with your “special driver”.

    Still waiting for your evidence for your alternative to evolution.

    Nobody

    December 29, 2009 at 1:11 am

    • Indeed. It looks like Mrs Woods “Special Driver” is made of something easily broken or very poorly crafted. What I want to know is who is this Mrs Woods, and why she’s making golf clubs so badly.

      Dan

      December 29, 2009 at 8:50 am

  38. But nonetheless; Our God is a righteous God; He is not going to let the transgressor be granted with eternal life, and walk away from his deeds unpunished. His wages is in the lake of fire (this is the interpretation of the everlasting hell by so many Christians, and it’s a false interpretation), where he, or she, will receive punishment according to their transgressions. And the result of this will be DEATH, not everlasting life in torments (see “the second death” – Rev. 20:14). This is why us Christians are so concerned for your souls. The spreading of the Gospel is not only the good news about everlasting life in paradise, but also a warning that this can be lost, should we not heed the Gospel.

    With that little introduction I would like to start my argument. I will not try to disprove evolution for you, but will try to show you something else, namely that the history as we know it, proves that the predictions made in the Scriptures are so accurate, that there can be no doubt; the Bible is indeed telling the truth:

    If we go back to the predictions of Daniel, concerning the four empires that would reign over the world; Babylon, Medo-Persia, Greece and Rome: Already such predictions would be found amazing, should one not cast any doubt on the authenticity of this book (of Daniel). Many try to do just that in order to deny the Scriptures. But, when it comes to the prophecy of the 1260 days (the 1260 years prophecy), it should be found much harder to doubt, because this prophecy was fulfilled in 1798, when Napoleon arrested the Pope, and put an end to the reign of the Papacy. Concerning the earlier prophecies many says, without any real research, that they were “written after the events had taken place”, but they cannot dismiss this prophecy the same way, since its fulfillment is so recent. The prophecy of the 1260 days is so accurate one can do nothing but marvel. It reveals the Papacy as being the Anti-Christ, and shows, by History itself, that the Scriptures can indeed be taken seriously.

    Continues

    Another Nobody

    January 6, 2010 at 1:15 pm

    • You start by assuming that evolution = atheism. Incorrect. One is the change of living things over time, the other is a disbelief in a deity.
      You assume that atheists have simply turned their backs on God because they don’t like him, or misunderstand him.
      Incorrect. That stance would imply recognition of the existence of a god, but choosing to actively ignore him. Atheists, for the most part, see no evidence whatsoever for the existence of any supernatural being or force, and so act in accordance with the assumption that there is no god.
      As for the validity of biblical prophecy, you cite one example (the 1260 day/year prophecy). However, there are multiple examples of “proof” of this prophecy, three of the most popular being the periods ending in 1572, 1798, and 1870. There are others as well. So which is it? How do you know? You see, there is no definitive answer, and so no proof of prophetic truth.

      Bipedal Tetrapod

      January 7, 2010 at 1:45 am

  39. Nobody- okay let us accept your proof that microevolution is proof ( for arguments sake)

    What then is proof of macroevolution?

    dawkinswatch

    January 6, 2010 at 8:41 pm

    • Todays humans and todays primates (such as Chimpanzees) share a common ancestor, which is neither man nor chimpanzee. Proof of this is found in the fossil record – that DW is proof of Macro evolution.

      I have given you websites with definitions of macro-evolution, but you ignored them. Here, although it will be a wasted on you as you won‘t make any effort, is another;

      http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

      I have given you a list of hominid species from Sahelanthropus tchadensis to Homo sapiens, showing the gradual evolution of man, but again you ignored them. There are many more examples of transitional fossils – JUST READ THE LINK ABOVE.

      You ask for proof, but you don’t accept proof.

      Still waiting to get “beat down” with your “special driver”.

      Still waiting for your evidence for your alternative to evolution.

      Nobody

      January 6, 2010 at 10:52 pm

      • I actually think that it’s both evidence for common ancestry and biogeography that seal the deal proving macroevolution. It’s evidence from not just one but two independent sources of data, neither of which are compatible with Christian doctrine at all.

        Dan

        January 7, 2010 at 7:30 am

      • Careful Dan – you mean not compatible with *Young Earth Creationist* doctrine. These fit perfectly well with the Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian, United, and Quaker doctrines. You know, all the ones DW thinks are corrupt.

        Bipedal Tetrapod

        January 8, 2010 at 1:55 am

      • In what way does it fit perfectly well with those denominations? All of them posit a benevolent, interventionist Jehovah, don’t they?

        Well, to be fair you’re right about Quakerism. Some groups of The Society of Friends apparently don’t stick to a Christian creed (e.g. the Apostle’s Creed). I’m sure Allen MacNeill (himself a non-theist Quaker) of The EvolutionList blog could elaborate.

        But merely accepting that anything is compatible with your religion, as Anglican, Catholic, Presbyterian or United sometimes but not always do, just makes them compatible with everything. And being compatible with anything and everything is logically absurd.

        Dan

        January 8, 2010 at 7:57 am

      • But to be fair, I’ll concede that I’m injecting a lot of conclusions not derived from biology in that last comment. Your position is defendable to a limited extent, I’m not contesting that, but it takes a certain amount of rationalizing is what I was saying, and in the end of that rationalization it’s difficult not to conclude that whatever god is compatible with evolution is not benevolent but petty. Or non-interventionist and indifferent.

        Dan

        January 8, 2010 at 8:09 am

      • Granted, perhaps I should have said “not incompatible” rather than “compatible”. If the respective heads of the Angican and Catholic church say their churches are A-OK with evolution, that works for me.
        With the examples I gave, it is probably more a case of Gould’s non-overlapping magisteria. In other words, compatibility means they don’t interfere with each other, rather than they support each other.

        Bipedal Tetrapod

        January 8, 2010 at 2:17 pm

  40. To the Moderator Dawkinswatch,

    I’m trying to submit a comment, but I’m always getting the message “discarded”. Am I blocked or what’s the problem? I also can’t find comment rules, nor where to contact the moderator directly…

    Can you help me with this?

    Another Nobody

    January 7, 2010 at 8:33 am

  41. To Mr. Nobody,
    You wrote the following, and I would like to respond you;

    [“The theory of evolution applies as long as life exists. How that life came to exist is not relevant to evolution. The problem is – you do not understand the theory of evolution.
    Now I’ll ask you again:
    1. Please disprove evolution, if you can do so I will gladly change my mind.
    2. If not evolution, what is your alternative?
    3. Please provide evidence for your alternative.
    “is anyone counting?”
    counting what?”]

    Now, I tried to post my lengthy response but it appears that this site is somewhat delicate. For some reason it wont accept my posts, so I will have to post them in another forum, so you can partake of my argument in its entirety. Please go to Evolution Debate Forum; http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TFV3OKPIRHVEOM5I9

    Another Nobody

    January 7, 2010 at 7:18 pm

    • Went to that link, but your lengthy response looked more like a sermon and answered none of the questions I posed.
      Oh well.

      Nobody

      January 9, 2010 at 3:37 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: