Evidence for evolution

[Darkasassin96]

Ok I am by no means viewing this from a religous standpoint and from a purely scientific standpoint. So lets see what happens.

Bullshit. Please continue, though.

The Finches on the Galopigos islands is a good example. [...] Today that is known as Microevolution, or natural selecton, and is a scientific law as it can be observed at a measureable rate. Now Macroevolution or just evolution as it is commonly known has less evidence.

You know not of what you speak. Macroevolution IS microevolution. It's the same bloody thing, just over a larger time scale. It always amazes me that people can accept microevolution (because hey, they're not clones of their parents), but absolutely refuse "macroevolution" because that means we have a common ancestor with chimpanzees. *facepalm*

Please, do go on... though I will skip a lot of the just utter nonsense, mind you.

As was expected, scientists did not want to beeive it so they changed the theory so many times it barely resembles Darwins original assumption. Now the most widely accepted theory is mutation though judging by what Ive been seeing from this post not so much.

Genetics verifies gradual changes over time. We can track evolution through our DNA. Aside from that, the various hypotheses posited over time get modified with the evidence discovered. However, the core idea (descent with modification over time) remains relatively THE SAME.

Now that thats out of the way lets look at other less long arguments. Most scientists believe it, most scientists believed the Earth was flat,

Name two. It has been known that the world is more or less round for THOUSANDS of years. People have known the world was round since the times of ancient Egypt.

You try to bring a new idea into a science classroom itscompletely stopped by legal battles against scientists.

...and right there. That's where you outed yourself as a creationist... and you weren't hiding it that well to begin with. Your weak understanding of science, history, and basic knowledge gave that away long ago. But the main reason I bring this point up is because the classroom IS NOT A LABORATORY. The high school classroom is not the place for scientific debates. High schoolers aren't scientists. They don't know the difference between black holes or ass holes. Notwithstanding that creationism ISN'T SCIENCE and therefore does not belong in a science classroom...

there is no significant fossil evidence and most "missing links" are nothing more than a few broken up peices of a skeleton.

Yes, please... keep demonstrating your ignorance.

Start here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY

Most notably the Nebraska man is one of my favorites.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

Note that most scientists were skeptical that it even belonged to a hominid and Osborn himself (the paleontologist who wrote the paper hypothesizing that it might be a new species) declined to make the conclusion that it was a hominid.

Where exactly is the entertaining part? That some members of the public got over-excited and over-blew the discovery? That some scientists were proven wrong? It happens, you know. You're often wrong innumerable times before you're right. That's science. Claiming that being wrong in their attempts to understand things makes scientists laughable is ridiculous.

By skipping some of my comment you proved that some of this is valid and you dont even want to quote it. Lets strt with yur first point microevolution has been proved and macroevolution is barely an idea, they are not the same thing, and even most scientists accept that.

Second point, genetics disproves macroevolution to the point that Mutation has become the new norm for the theory. With 'gradual change' as you say there would be missing links. There have been none found and confirmed because of this mutation has been adopted so that great changes occured over short period of time by radiation or something smilar.

Third you completely skipped the rest of my post after that where is said HAHA i can do better than that and i did.

Fourth you instantly labeled me as a Creationist even having made no mention of God. And who says that the Highschoolers have to be the ones who bring it up. Plenty of teachers bring i tup and then instantly get fired or are the butt of legal battles because there theories cant stand up. Even though they claim they do, there isnt even a debate about it they just say your wrong im right fire his ass. Ive even heard of teachers that comare the two and theyre fired as well fro even considering a widely held belief, and comparing the evidence to show the children which is right or wrong. Which is a perfectly finr idea with me as long as yoru theory can hold up. If not I might also not want it to be compared by something backed by thousands of years of mostly firsthand reports. Now you may call me a creationist if you wish.

Fifth. The video was very informative and contradictory with itself. I especially like the part with the Popes just seconds after claiming that anything that comes out of the mouths of christians is false since they are all uneducated. Yet he readily accepts the opinions of Popes with probably nothign mor ethan a highschool education in the sciences surrounding evolution. most of which he listed were only vaguely connected. Evolution on its most basic level is a gentetic science. And any video with so many cartoon references is hardly to be taken seriously.

Sixth yes teh Media did get blown out of proportion over a tooth yet someone had to tell the media. And if they can get so blown out o fproportion based on no evidence adn speculation wouldnt actual evidence with a complete skelton that was irrefutably a missing link be so blown out of proportion it would rival the findings of the Holy Grail, or as is most likely people giving up the search for that stupid thing.

Seventh There isnt a seventh point you made but i would like to harken back to my original comment when i said that most likely people would yell at me callign me superstitpus an dan idiot and that summs up what you did quite nicely so not only have my own psychic powers been proved you didnt even acknowledge it, great job dude top notch

 

[zehydra]

The most convincing evidence against creationism is the existence of genes and genetics.

However intelligent design is not mere creationism. That is, those who support ID do not deny genetics or survival of the fittest. Those who support ID deny that survival of the best suited for the environment can produce irreducibly complex parts.

I've seen arguments that refute this (theoretical), although I've never seen actual hard evidence used for such refutations.

Myself? I believe that a God exists and that the theory of evolution is most likely correct (We obviously can't be 100% sure, since we can't reproduce the process of evolution as it happened).

Ultimately, I wouldn't be surprised if life DIDN'T originate on this planet, but that very early life forms, like Archaea (or however you spell it) arrived via meteor or asteroid, since they can take extreme temperatures. Recall that article a while back of when they discovered that meteor that was ripe with genetic material? That's what I'm thinking.

I'm no biologist, and I don't claim to know the truth on the matter, and it's not like your a bad person either way for believing any of the explanations that exist, but if you are a young-earth creationist, then I have no choice than to lose some respect for your judgment on such matters.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

You are not going to convince him to change his mind. That's how arguing works. It's a battle of attrition, not wits.
How God and evolution are mutually exclusive is beyond me. There is no point in The Bible stating in what manner he created the creatures of the Earth ('cept the whole thing about Eve being from Adam's rib, that's a little odd...), so as far as I'm concerned, evolution is totally viable.

 

[Darkasassin96]

I like that you didnt say the law of evolution, i also like how you called what i said ramblings despite being valid observations. Id like to point out the, with modification, comment you slipped in. Organisms cannot modify or change there DNA. I said in my commetn with a basic grasp of genetics youd see that. Id like you to give an example of an organism modifying there DNA. The DNA to have a long beak is already present in the birds its just not a very common trait. And im sorry for saying law though it isnt its just on eof those phrases you throw out lke theory and hypothesis, damned nuisances if you ask me.

And here is where I stop wondering if you have even the most minute understanding of genetics. Mutation is the process through which DNA modifies itself. It happens usually during meiosis, where the genetic sequence will twist, bend, split and knit back together in a new shape or sequence. This causes anything from birth defects to a new environmental advantage.

This is basic biology, stop arguing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutation

Edit: Oh dear, the person above me said the same thing. Still, at least he isn't as sexy as me.

Wikipedia very refutable source. adn you know that the moment anything even resembling Something different it will be immediatly deleted rather than debated about it. and also its a lot easier to debate in person rather than through chat. And Mutation has rarely caused a 'new enviromental advantage' and cant even think of an example because most of the time it destroys DNA and to be able to support evolution they have to twist it, the only reason it was considered as evidence or a reason evolution can be possible is because of a lack of evidenc ein the form of the missing links which are still missing.

By the way sorry for the typos im using a crappy keyboard.

 

[chadachada123]

So I got into an argument with my dad today. He says that there is way more evidence for intelligent design than for evolution, and that evolution is "just a theory" and has "minimal evidence"
I tried explaining to him, about fossils and genetics but he wouldn't listen

So escapees, most convincing evidence for evolution?

PS: I also tried "Every noteworthy scientist believes in evolution" he just said, no.

For one, gravity is "just a theory," but it certainly exists. A scientific theory is just a model used to explain phenomena. The existence of gravity, evolution, germs, electrons, etc are not in doubt whatsoever. They exist, period, but gravitational theory, evolutionary theory, germ theory, and electron theory are all our explanations, backed up by MOUNTAINS of scientific evidence, to explain how/why these things exist and work.

Next, ask him to point out JUST ONE piece of "evidence" for "intelligent design," and we will summarily destroy it. There is no evidence for intelligent design.

Anyway, to answer your question, appendixes, tailbones, and other vestigial organs/etc, are all evidence for evolution, since plenty of other animals have them as still-functional organs/etc.

Helpful link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigial

Actually, shit, I just searched for "evidence for evolution" expecting the Wiki article but ended up with this next link, which practically mirrors my first paragraph, hah. This is pretty useful, as well as the link afterward:

http://anthro.palomar.edu/evolve/evolve_3.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_for_evolution

*EDIT EDIT* This channel has some of the best evidence, explained in very layman's terms, that I have ever seen, and argued in a very well-formulated way:

http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007

 

[brainslurper]

So I got into an argument with my dad today. He says that there is way more evidence for intelligent design than for evolution, and that evolution is "just a theory" and has "minimal evidence"
I tried explaining to him, about fossils and genetics but he wouldn't listen

So escapees, most convincing evidence for evolution?

PS: I also tried "Every noteworthy scientist believes in evolution" he just said, no.

Ask him why men have nipples.

 

[xvbones]

By skipping some of my comment you proved that some of this is valid and you dont even want to quote it.

No, he's saying that some of what you stated was either irrelevant, nonsense or irrelevant nonsense.

None of what you have stated is valid.

Let me repeat that, none of your statements have any real, true or valid basis in reality and only demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of biology.

Lets strt with yur first point microevolution has been proved and macroevolution is barely an idea, they are not the same thing, and even most scientists accept that.

[Citation Needed]

Second point, genetics disproves macroevolution to the point that Mutation has become the new norm for the theory. With 'gradual change' as you say there would be missing links. There have been none found and confirmed because of this mutation has been adopted so that great changes occured over short period of time by radiation or something smilar.

[CITATION NEEDED.]

Here is an amazing thing about reality: it is real. You cannot just say whatever bollocks comes to mind and have it actually be real, because there really is a real, it is really reality, and what you are saying and what is real?

They are two different things.

Third you completely skipped the rest of my post after that where is said HAHA i can do better than that and i did.

Not really, no. The rest of your post was pretty badly spelled and utterly unresearched, speaking from a position composed of misunderstandings, disproved hypotheses and utter fabrications.

I don't really see why he'd need to quote any of it.

Do you want people to reply to your every single line?


...okay...

Fourth you instantly labeled me as a Creationist even having made no mention of God.

You're a creationist.

And who says that the Highschoolers have to be the ones who bring it up. Plenty of teachers bring i tup and then instantly get fired or are the butt of legal battles because there theories cant stand up. Even though they claim they do, there isnt even a debate about it they just say your wrong im right fire his ass. Ive even heard of teachers that comare the two and theyre fired as well fro even considering a widely held belief, and comparing the evidence to show the children which is right or wrong. Which is a perfectly finr idea with me as long as yoru theory can hold up. If not I might also not want it to be compared by something backed by thousands of years of mostly firsthand reports.

This. This right here? This is a ramble. This is a series of brain farts with no guiding line. There is no truth in this, there is no evidence or proof or 'done better', this is null speech, here, it is meaningless and really, really difficult to read.

Is this what you want people to reply to?

Because the only possible reply to this is "read more books and less internet".

Now you may call me a creationist if you wish.

You're a creationist.

Fifth. The video was very informative and contradictory with itself. I especially like the part with the Popes just seconds after claiming that anything that comes out of the mouths of christians is false since they are all uneducated. Yet he readily accepts the opinions of Popes with probably nothign mor ethan a highschool education in the sciences surrounding evolution. most of which he listed were only vaguely connected. Evolution on its most basic level is a gentetic science.

YOUR GRASP OF SPELLING, GRAMMAR AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE IS AS SHAKY AS YOUR GRASP OF BIOLOGY.

And before you say "I don't need to spell right to be understood" YES YOU DO

In order to be taken seriously, you must know how to communicate in your own fucking language!

SPEAKING OF:

And any video with so many cartoon references is hardly to be taken seriously.

Jesus, dude.

Sixth yes teh Media did get blown out of proportion over a tooth yet someone had to tell the media. And if they can get so blown out o fproportion based on no evidence adn speculation wouldnt actual evidence with a complete skelton that was irrefutably a missing link be so blown out of proportion it would rival the findings of the Holy Grail, or as is most likely people giving up the search for that stupid thing.

You are just puking up the same horribly malformed gluts of misinformation and uninformation over and over and over.

There is no missing link. There's never been a missing link. The chain is completely formed. We have fossil evidence of every step of mankind.

But no, you want a complete skeleton. Partial skeletons aren't enough. because you don't understand biology.

Why do you want people to respond to this?

Seventh There isnt a seventh point you made but i would like to harken back to my original comment when i said that most likely people would yell at me callign me superstitpus an dan idiot and that summs up what you did quite nicely so not only have my own psychic powers been proved you didnt even acknowledge it, great job dude top notch

WHAT

... you know what fuck this.

Troll or retard, don't know and don't care.

 

[Handbag1992]

Second point, genetics disproves macroevolution to the point that Mutation has become the new norm for the theory. With 'gradual change' as you say there would be missing links. There have been none found and confirmed because of this mutation has been adopted so that great changes occured over short period of time by radiation or something smilar.

Mutation is a confirmed fact that can be observed with a good microscope and a pot of coffee.

Third you completely skipped the rest of my post after that where is said HAHA i can do better than that and i did.

The scientific community actually has a lot more integrity than that, you just need to have evidence to back up your claim.

Fourth you instantly labeled me as a Creationist even having made no mention of God. And who says that the Highschoolers have to be the ones who bring it up. Plenty of teachers bring i tup and then instantly get fired or are the butt of legal battles because there theories cant stand up. Even though they claim they do, there isnt even a debate about it they just say your wrong im right fire his ass. Ive even heard of teachers that comare the two and theyre fired as well fro even considering a widely held belief, and comparing the evidence to show the children which is right or wrong. Which is a perfectly finr idea with me as long as yoru theory can hold up. If not I might also not want it to be compared by something backed by thousands of years of mostly firsthand reports. Now you may call me a creationist if you wish.

The prevalent theory is taught in schools, if we were to teach every creation myth theory in the world we'd have to extend school time. If you want your theory to become the prevalent one, please bring some evidence to the table.

Fifth

Didn't watch, may edit.

Sixth yes teh Media did get blown out of proportion over a tooth yet someone had to tell the media. And if they can get so blown out o fproportion based on no evidence adn speculation wouldnt actual evidence with a complete skelton that was irrefutably a missing link be so blown out of proportion it would rival the findings of the Holy Grail, or as is most likely people giving up the search for that stupid thing.

Nonsensical and irrelevant, much like the rest of your post.

Seventh There isnt a seventh point you made but i would like to harken back to my original comment when i said that most likely people would yell at me callign me superstitpus an dan idiot and that summs up what you did quite nicely so not only have my own psychic powers been proved you didnt even acknowledge it, great job dude top notch

Superstitious and an idiot? Well yes, you are. You're biggest problem however... is your terrible spelling. You're second biggest problem is that you aren't as smart as you think you are. It's fairly obvious that you have little to know education in even the most basic of biology and you shouldn't be making claims that you can't back up.

 

[zakkro]

Wikipedia very refutable source. adn you know that the moment anything even resembling Something different it will be immediatly deleted rather than debated about it. and also its a lot easier to debate in person rather than through chat. And Mutation has rarely caused a 'new enviromental advantage' and cant even think of an example because most of the time it destroys DNA and to be able to support evolution they have to twist it, the only reason it was considered as evidence or a reason evolution can be possible is because of a lack of evidenc ein the form of the missing links which are still missing.

By the way sorry for the typos im using a crappy keyboard.

I'm glad someone linked to Talk Origins, because it has a bevy of evidence. In regards to mutations never being beneficial, read part 2 [http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.html]. Actually, read all points. Also, wait, mutation was used to explain away missing links? Where? Where are you getting this information? Also, missing links is a common fallacy perpetrated by many anti-evolutionists these days. For over a century, our idea of "missing links" has become moot, especially since the fossil record is richer than even Darwin predicted it'd be.

 

[MaxwellEdison]

So I got into an argument with my dad today. He says that there is way more evidence for intelligent design than for evolution, and that evolution is "just a theory" and has "minimal evidence"
I tried explaining to him, about fossils and genetics but he wouldn't listen

So escapees, most convincing evidence for evolution?

PS: I also tried "Every noteworthy scientist believes in evolution" he just said, no.

Check out the fossil record, comparative bone structure, DNA relationships.
It's also just common sense if he accepts genetics are passed down. If he's against the "what sperm is" theory, he's too far gone.

What evidence is there for intelligent design?

 

[MaxwellEdison]

I think that wolves being moulded into the many breeds of dogs should be proof of concept.

Also, this. We've been using evolutionary biology since before we knew it existed.

 

[Torrasque]

Seems like a lost cause if you ask me. He seems like the kind of guy you find in the youtube comments section; they shout "YOU ARE ALL WRONG, I AM RIGHT" then cover their ears and yell "LALALALALALALALALALA" loudly until you go away.

1. The many kinds of finches that Darwin found.
2. The similarities between many kinds of bird skeleton structure and dinosaur skeleton structure and/or the similarities between bat wings, whale fins (their "arms"), human hands, monkey hands, and at least a dozen other species.
3. The many many different fossiles of hominid ancestors that look a lot like we do and like gorillas do.

Then there are plants, bacteria, and insects which are hilariously easy to present as positive evidence: insects adapting to DDT making it useless, selective breeding of plants to make bigger yields or hardier plants, how bananas were selectively bred to be awesome fruit for humans, and the list goes on and on and on.
These are only the ones that I remember at the moment. You could find thousands more with a basic google check.

Also this:

It has to be labelled a theory because science knows it's almost never right. We thought We had cracked it with Relativity. Then FTL neutrinos come along.

Science will never ever ever say something is 100% right. They might say something is 99.99...% right, but will stay say "You know what? Even though we are pretty damn sure of this, we might be wrong. We doubt that we are wrong, but you never know"
The problem with Science saying that, is that people will go "OMG I KNEW IT. THERE IS A 0.01% CHANCE YOU ARE WRONG! YOUR THEORY IS SO FLAWED ZOMG" which pisses me off >.>

 

[xvbones]

What evidence is there for intelligent design?

There isn't any, but the leading argument deals entirely with 'irreducible complexity' - basically, something so complex it is would be impossible to reach in steps.

The eyeball and the bombardier beetle are at the forefront of this argument, I don't know about the eyeball, but i do know that the concept that the chemicals that mix to create the bombardier's defensive spray could not have adapted naturally without killing the beetle has been disproven.

 

[Necator15]

As many stoned philosophy majors

Sir, I feel you're being redundant. (I kid, I kid)

Anyway, as for the original topic, if he's ignoring your presentation of evidence then he probably isn't going to be swayed by anything you say.

If you try, you can take to approach of explaining the difference of definitions between the word "theory" in the colloquial sense and "theory" in the scientific community. Where in the former, it tends to mean wild guess and in the latter a rigorously defended idea that has held up under massive scrutiny.

You could bring the burden of proof into this, probably. Meaning the idea of evolution is so widely accepted among the scientific community that it now falls to the skeptics to prove it needing revision. Granted, this probably should be last resort as it can seem like a pretty weak argument.

If you wanted, you could bring up the ideas of convergent and divergent evolution. An example of the latter is hemoglobin, myoglobin, and leghemoglobin. Three proteins that have a similar structure and in function, but they differ in which species and in which capacities they belong in. Just something to consider.

 

[Dango]

To be honest, you aren't going to win the argument, because he's your dad, so he can do and believe what he wants.

Spoiler: Basically this

I've been waiting for a good time to use that gif.

 

[Weentastic]

Oh, sweet, someone I was opposing listened to what I had to say. Respect, Weentastic.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not very onboard with the softer sciences. The impact of a discovery gets less and less powerful the farther it gets away from a controlled and well understood environment (at least for me). AMMO boy made a good point about evidence being able to be explained to support multiple hypotheses. Since you can't really rigorously disprove cosmic phenomena because our labs aren't big enough, you probably aren't going to finally "get through" to all those in my boat. Whatever you seem to think counts as science, and I like my science hard, I mainly get annoyed at people who use the word in a sentence like, "I've got COD sniping down to a science". I would hope we can both agree that making a good potato soup is a really really soft science.

 

[Handbag1992]

most of the time it destroys DNA

You still haven't actually looked it up have you? Genetic mutation almost never destroys DNA. Almost every meiosis process has some form of genetic resequencing occur. (Meiosis, for those who have not studied biology, is the process by which sperm and egg cells are created) most of it is incredibly minor, sometimes it's major. Sometimes it results in horrible deformities, other times in a mere change of hair colour. As for environmental advantages (and I want to make this perfectly clear) Genetic mutation is the cause of each and every advantage any organism has ever had.

 

[Dangit2019]

...but I just hate the assumption by both Christians and atheists alike that

Religion=Denier of science
and
Atheism=Destroyer of happiness and faith.

It irks me beyond reason.

Atheists aren't against happiness.

Faith does strike us as silly, but the vast majority of atheists don't really mind faith either (after all, everyone's silly in some way or another), as long as it's kept private and doesn't interfere with science or society.

I didn't say that, I implied that the more ignorant religious zealots believe that because they suck.

 

[Darkasassin96]

By skipping some of my comment you proved that some of this is valid and you dont even want to quote it.

No, he's saying that some of what you stated was either irrelevant, nonsense or irrelevant nonsense.

None of what you have stated is valid.

Let me repeat that, none of your statements have any real, true or valid basis in reality and only demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of biology.

Lets strt with yur first point microevolution has been proved and macroevolution is barely an idea, they are not the same thing, and even most scientists accept that.

[Citation Needed]

Second point, genetics disproves macroevolution to the point that Mutation has become the new norm for the theory. With 'gradual change' as you say there would be missing links. There have been none found and confirmed because of this mutation has been adopted so that great changes occured over short period of time by radiation or something smilar.

[CITATION NEEDED.]

Here is an amazing thing about reality: it is real. You cannot just say whatever bollocks comes to mind and have it actually be real, because there really is a real, it is really reality, and what you are saying and what is real?

They are two different things.

Third you completely skipped the rest of my post after that where is said HAHA i can do better than that and i did.

Not really, no. The rest of your post was pretty badly spelled and utterly unresearched, speaking from a position composed of misunderstandings, disproved hypotheses and utter fabrications.

I don't really see why he'd need to quote any of it.

Do you want people to reply to your every single line?


...okay...

Fourth you instantly labeled me as a Creationist even having made no mention of God.

You're a creationist.

And who says that the Highschoolers have to be the ones who bring it up. Plenty of teachers bring i tup and then instantly get fired or are the butt of legal battles because there theories cant stand up. Even though they claim they do, there isnt even a debate about it they just say your wrong im right fire his ass. Ive even heard of teachers that comare the two and theyre fired as well fro even considering a widely held belief, and comparing the evidence to show the children which is right or wrong. Which is a perfectly finr idea with me as long as yoru theory can hold up. If not I might also not want it to be compared by something backed by thousands of years of mostly firsthand reports.

This. This right here? This is a ramble. This is a series of brain farts with no guiding line. There is no truth in this, there is no evidence or proof or 'done better', this is null speech, here, it is meaningless and really, really difficult to read.

Is this what you want people to reply to?

Because the only possible reply to this is "read more books and less internet".

Now you may call me a creationist if you wish.

You're a creationist.

Fifth. The video was very informative and contradictory with itself. I especially like the part with the Popes just seconds after claiming that anything that comes out of the mouths of christians is false since they are all uneducated. Yet he readily accepts the opinions of Popes with probably nothign mor ethan a highschool education in the sciences surrounding evolution. most of which he listed were only vaguely connected. Evolution on its most basic level is a gentetic science.

YOUR GRASP OF SPELLING, GRAMMAR AND SENTENCE STRUCTURE IS AS SHAKY AS YOUR GRASP OF BIOLOGY.

And before you say "I don't need to spell right to be understood" YES YOU DO

In order to be taken seriously, you must know how to communicate in your own fucking language!

SPEAKING OF:

And any video with so many cartoon references is hardly to be taken seriously.

Jesus, dude.

Sixth yes teh Media did get blown out of proportion over a tooth yet someone had to tell the media. And if they can get so blown out o fproportion based on no evidence adn speculation wouldnt actual evidence with a complete skelton that was irrefutably a missing link be so blown out of proportion it would rival the findings of the Holy Grail, or as is most likely people giving up the search for that stupid thing.

You are just saying the same misinformed, disproven things over and over and over.

Why do you want people to respond to this?

This is hell.

I am right now in hell.

Seventh There isnt a seventh point you made but i would like to harken back to my original comment when i said that most likely people would yell at me callign me superstitpus an dan idiot and that summs up what you did quite nicely so not only have my own psychic powers been proved you didnt even acknowledge it, great job dude top notch

WHAT

... you know what fuck this.

Troll or retard, don't know and don't care.

First of all my spelling is excellen im just using a crappy keyboard. Second you mostly proved my last point in that YOU NEVER GAVE ANY EVIDENCE AND CALLED ME A RETARD RIGHT AFTER I SAID YOU WOULD. You sir make me want to go crawl in a hole and never have contact with any of humanity. And no i dont want him to quote my every word but when he makes a comment on a joke sentence and then skips the next sentence when i call it a joke sentence adn correct it thast where I have a little chuckle.

Now im going to look at evidence for creation and im going to use the teh world is flat thing as an example until I think of a better one. Wait ive got one im going to use galileo instead. WHy did the sun is at the center of the solar system get so popular. Well at first it wasnt a very popular Idea at the church becasuse it went against there beliefs or something to do with the earth being the most important thing and it wasnt readily accepted. But afte ra while evidence for it was presented and it was eventually accepted. Why isnt evolution accepted becasue no evidence has been proposed that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that it is real and...ahhh let me quit kidding myself. I knew i wouldnt convince a single one of you. WHy because you belive in odds greater than drawing a royal flushmore than fifty times in a row with just the amino acids forming a protien. And first the amino acids have to be created. Your Faith is truly stronger than any christian i have ever met.

 

[aguywhoknowsaguy]

You can always try the nuclear option and show him the Penn and Teller Bullshit episode about this argument. They make the point.