*OFFICIAL Bamabake - blackumbrella SMACKDOWN THREAD*

[formersoldier71]

There are the guppies in South America that changed color and size (dramtically) depending on what predators were presentin their pools.

Humans can change size dramatically depending on diet, medical care, predators, etc.

There are the moths in England that went from majority light-colored to majority dark when pollution darkened their natural habitat.

I can do that too; its called melanin.

and the small fish are just so fast that they swim in between a large male and a female about to mate and do their business.

Another human example: Jody.

 

[Crimson_Star]

And I'm sorry to JNo, it is because there is NO evidence of ANY evolution. Your examples fall short. See the former thread. 25 to 30 pages back.

I went back and read the thread entitled "Evolution vs. Creation" and the thread it linked to which started as a sheriff calling out homosexuality (I can't remember the name)... all 24 pages of it (although I did skip a lot of the debate between blackumbrella and Bamalaw because it was very long-winded and not relevant to the evolution/creationism topic)... I apparently have a lot of free time. I will admit that I never saw a thread with kilvols in it (or maybe I just missed his name), who apprently "totally embarrassed you [blackumbrella] and diminished your silly faith in evolution", and also provided real counter-evidence to some of the evidence in favor of evolution (which you have never done).

Anyway, on those threads, after blackumbrella, Tide and True, and COBamafan provided ample amount of evidence for evolution (and by ample I mean overwhelmingly huge), not once did you ever provide evidence for creationism or evidence to suggest that evolution is not true. You just asked questions like that whole deal with "anthropomorphic proof" which you obviously didn't know what that meant (and admitted to later), and when presented with answers to those questions, you fell back on the "where did the universe come from?" "where did life originate?" rhetoric, which, as I have pointed out, has nothing to do with evolution. You repeated the line "it takes more faith to belive in evolution", without providing a real alternative that takes less faith. You would find a single line in another's post and turn it into a non-sequeter attack that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. And alas, your favorite tactic was to demand "proof" from the "new theory" without ever putting out any "proof" of your own.

Frankly, I've never seen internet ownage on a grander scale.

 

[blackumbrella]

Humans can change size dramatically depending on diet, medical care, predators, etc.
.

check out the earlier threads called something like: ala sheriff anti-gay, evolution v. creationism, and questions for creationists.

the guppies are a now classic experiment that proves natural selection. your brethren in denial argue that just bc natural selection is a demonstratable fact, it doesn't follow that it accounts for species to species evolution, a claim i squashed using a the example of certain species of wheat, and which crimstar's link refutes even more thoroughly.

 

[blackumbrella]

I went back and read the thread entitled "Evolution vs. Creation" and the thread it linked to which started as a sheriff calling out homosexuality (I can't remember the name)... all 24 pages of it (although I did skip a lot of the debate between blackumbrella and Bamalaw because it was very long-winded and not relevant to the evolution/creationism topic)... I apparently have a lot of free time. I will admit that I never saw a thread with kilvols in it (or maybe I just missed his name), who apprently "totally embarrassed you [blackumbrella] and diminished your silly faith in evolution", and also provided real counter-evidence to some of the evidence in favor of evolution (which you have never done).

Anyway, on those threads, after blackumbrella, Tide and True, and COBamafan provided ample amount of evidence for evolution (and by ample I mean overwhelmingly huge), not once did you ever provide evidence for creationism or evidence to suggest that evolution is not true. You just asked questions like that whole deal with "anthropomorphic proof" which you obviously didn't know what that meant (and admitted to later), and when presented with answers to those questions, you fell back on the "where did the universe come from?" "where did life originate?" rhetoric, which, as I have pointed out, has nothing to do with evolution. You repeated the line "it takes more faith to belive in evolution", without providing a real alternative that takes less faith. You would find a single line in another's post and turn it into a non-sequeter attack that had nothing to do with the issue at hand. And alas, your favorite tactic was to demand "proof" from the "new theory" without ever putting out any "proof" of your own.

Frankly, I've never seen internet ownage on a grander scale.

those threads transformed me into the hideous monster i am. before them i wrote children's books. i wish i could take credit for the ownage, but it's not hard when you're right. the sad thing is that beccabama would be convincing to people who don't know any better, and i'm sure she's influenced a few who didn't have the time or energy to look into the issues themselves.

 

[bamabake]

I'm sorry, but that's completely wrong. I was talking about the lack of understanding with regards to the origins of the universe. That has nothing to do with evolution. They're not even in the same field of science (Physics vs. Biology, which is about as far apart on the scientific spectrum as you can get). Let's put this notion to rest right now, evolution does NOT try to answer the following questions; how did life originate? where did the universe come from? how was the universe formed? Using any of those questions to debunk evolution is flat out wrong. The question that the theory of evolution answers is; where did life, as we observe it today, come from? Through mountains of evidence, the theory of evolution has worked back from life today all the way back to early single cell organisms. It doesn't go further back than that. It starts with the single cell and works up to... well, us. It doesn't try to answer where that first cell came from. Any scientist or proponent of science that claims that it does is wrong.

If you want to say it takes faith to say that God didn't create the universe when we have no evidence to suggest otherwise, then I'll agree. If you want to say that it takes faith to believe in evolution when there is ample evidence supporting it, then I won't agree.

EDIT: And thanks for the welcome, by the way.

Through mountains of evidence, the theory of evolution has worked back from life today all the way back to early single cell organisms. It doesn't go further back than that. It starts with the single cell and works up to... well, us.

prove it. Show me mountains of evidence.

 

[bamabake]

those threads transformed me into the hideous monster i am. before them i wrote children's books. i wish i could take credit for the ownage, but it's not hard when you're right. the sad thing is that beccabama would be convincing to people who don't know any better, and i'm sure she's influenced a few who didn't have the time or energy to look into the issues themselves.

No your ugly demeanor and condecending attitude gave you your reputation. Becca wont even post here anymore for one reason. The tone of the debate. YOu and CoBF poisioned a heathly debate to the point where one got locked and the other was just no fun anymore. That is the real sad thing.

 

[blackumbrella]

No your ugly demeanor and condecending attitude gave you your reputation. Becca wont even post here anymore for one reason. The tone of the debate. YOu and CoBF poisioned a heathly debate to the point where one got locked and the other was just no fun anymore. That is the real sad thing.

the tone of the debate was indeed quite ugly. i regret that. not bc of your feelings, bc i don't respect you, but bc it gives you such a facile excuse for retreat. you and your ringers live your lives in willful ignornance/denial, and you actively seek to spread that ignorance through the miseducation of the next generation. what can i say--i don't care for cancer.

 

[Crimson_Star]

In my last post I said this, "And alas, your favorite tactic was to demand "proof" from the "new theory" without ever putting out any "proof" of your own."

In your next reply to any of my points you said:

prove it. Show me mountains of evidence.

Moving on, I found that thread with killvols on it ("Questions for creationists"). I'm of the opinion we should bring him back. It was refreshing to see a creationist that actually argued with facts and legitimate scientific questions (for the most part). To be objective, if you just take the dialogue between killvols and blackumbrella, I think the victory in that thread goes to the creationist. It was a lot closer than you claim, but I think, in the end, killvols made the more convincing argument. Now, others threw in evidence (Bigbamafan and Rainbow Trout, yes I know he was hostile and sophomoric, but when he made good points they were often never addressed) that I think tipped the overall scales in favor of evolution, but that can obviously be accounted for by personal bias on my part. Frankly, that thread was at least a draw, and possibly a win for the creationists here (unlike the other two threads I read, where you carried the weight for the creationists, and were obvious losses).

Also, throughout that 30 page thread, you still never did anything but the observations I have already made (you did sucker blackumbrella into a "first cause" argument though, which a scientist can't win because we don't know).

Anyway, to get back to your last post, I could go dig up more evidence for evolution, but you would arbitrarily reject it so let us say, for the sake of argument, that all evidence in favor of evolution has been presented. Obviously, you will say that such evidence doesn't prove the new theory, on which the burden of proof lies. You will either state or imply that because we have failed to prove evolution you do not need to defend creation. To each his own, but despite your belief, please educate the masses and give us your scientific proof/evidence either for creation or against evolution. Having read these previous threads, I now feel entitled to say, we are still waiting.

 

[bamabake]

In my last post I said this, "And alas, your favorite tactic was to demand "proof" from the "new theory" without ever putting out any "proof" of your own."

In your next reply to any of my points you said:



Moving on, I found that thread with killvols on it ("Questions for creationists"). I'm of the opinion we should bring him back. It was refreshing to see a creationist that actually argued with facts and legitimate scientific questions (for the most part). To be objective, if you just take the dialogue between killvols and blackumbrella, I think the victory in that thread goes to the creationist. It was a lot closer than you claim, but I think, in the end, killvols made the more convincing argument. Now, others threw in evidence (Bigbamafan and Rainbow Trout, yes I know he was hostile and sophomoric, but when he made good points they were often never addressed) that I think tipped the overall scales in favor of evolution, but that can obviously be accounted for by personal bias on my part. Frankly, that thread was at least a draw, and possibly a win for the creationists here (unlike the other two threads I read, where you carried the weight for the creationists, and were obvious losses).

Also, throughout that 30 page thread, you still never did anything but the observations I have already made (you did sucker blackumbrella into a "first cause" argument though, which a scientist can't win because we don't know).

Anyway, to get back to your last post, I could go dig up more evidence for evolution, but you would arbitrarily reject it so let us say, for the sake of argument, that all evidence in favor of evolution has been presented. Obviously, you will say that such evidence doesn't prove the new theory, on which the burden of proof lies. You will either state or imply that because we have failed to prove evolution you do not need to defend creation. To each his own, but despite your belief, please educate the masses and give us your scientific proof/evidence either for creation or against evolution. Having read these previous threads, I now feel entitled to say, we are still waiting.

but you would arbitrarily reject it so let us say, for the sake of argument, that all evidence in favor of evolution has been presented. Obviously, you will say that such evidence doesn't prove the new theory, on which the burden of proof lies. You will either state or imply that because we have failed to prove evolution you do not need to defend creation.

this is a dodge. NO evidence has been presented either here, or in the former threads. The burden of proof does lie with the ev crowd. You stated that there were mountains of evidence. I am hoping that you actually can show us something that is intellectually challenging. KillVols and Becca are family members of mine. I know what they know.
I do appreciate the fact that you attempted to read the former posts. It shows respect for the topic.

cheers

 

[Crimson_Star]

BAM! And I just found that surfing the web for a few minutes.

Point is, there are plenty of species that have evolved into another, there are numerous studies about many of them. There are the guppies in South America that changed color and size (dramtically) depending on what predators were presentin their pools. There are the moths in England that went from majority light-colored to majority dark when pollution darkened their natural habitat. There's a species of fish that has two COMPLETELY different types of males, some are large and bulky and move very slowly, the others are very small and extremely quick. The large fish court a mate in a more traditional manner, and the small fish are just so fast that they swim in between a large male and a female about to mate and do their business (sort of a fish rape I suppose). That's an evolutionary battle right there. Plain and simple there are species that we have observed that have evolved into something else or are in the state of evolving.

This is all evidence for evolution, so when you say:

NO evidence has been presented either here, or in the former threads.

You are wrong. I'm perfectly willing to listen to arguments as to why this evidence may be wrong or evidence that suggests otherwise, but that has never been posted by anyone. Keep in mind, evidence does not mean irrefutable proof. If you want to say that no one has provided irrefutable proof that evolution is true, then I agree completely (and believe that no one ever will be able to provide such a proof). If you claim that no one has provided mere evidence to suggest that evolution is true, then you are off your rocker.

I am hoping that you actually can show us something that is intellectually challenging.

This is impossible if you will not allow your beliefs to be challenged. Otherwise, you will ignore every fact that does not agree with your position. I will admit, we all do this from time to time, but when it is your only strategy (as it is in your case) and you never present facts in favor of your belief or contradicting the facts others present for their beliefs, you're not making a solid argument... at all.

this is a dodge.

To be frank, again, your constant moaning about dodging and staying on topic are off topic so please STFU.

 

[blackumbrella]

To be frank, again, your constant moaning about dodging and staying on topic are off topic so please STFU.

lol. and just when you were doing so well at being 'good cop.'

 

[ValuJet]

...

 

[bayoutider]

*** - Way too funny.

 

[bamabake]

This is all evidence for evolution, so when you say:



You are wrong. I'm perfectly willing to listen to arguments as to why this evidence may be wrong or evidence that suggests otherwise, but that has never been posted by anyone. Keep in mind, evidence does not mean irrefutable proof. If you want to say that no one has provided irrefutable proof that evolution is true, then I agree completely (and believe that no one ever will be able to provide such a proof). If you claim that no one has provided mere evidence to suggest that evolution is true, then you are off your rocker.



This is impossible if you will not allow your beliefs to be challenged. Otherwise, you will ignore every fact that does not agree with your position. I will admit, we all do this from time to time, but when it is your only strategy (as it is in your case) and you never present facts in favor of your belief or contradicting the facts others present for their beliefs, you're not making a solid argument... at all.



To be frank, again, your constant moaning about dodging and staying on topic are off topic so please STFU.

Laugh all you want. My opinions have been challenged ad nauseum. Creation has been the established concept since the beginning of time. You are a proponent of evolution. Prove to me. You claimed there are mountains of evidence. I asked you to give one. If you cant then fine. This debate is a waste of time.

 

[Crimson_Star]

Laugh all you want. My opinions have been challenged ad nauseum. Creation has been the established concept since the beginning of time.

I hope this isn't the Christian creation you are speaking of, because if Christianity has not even come close to being around since the beginning of time, how could it be the "established concept since the beginning of time"? If you are speaking about creation myths in general, then yes, those have been around since humans first started asking why they were there, but I can hardly believe that creation in general could be considered an "established concept" when the predominant myths have differed so greatly over the course of human history.

You are a proponent of evolution. Prove to me. You claimed there are mountains of evidence. I asked you to give one. If you cant then fine. This debate is a waste of time.

I can't prove to you that evolution is true. No one can. I doubt anyone ever will. I have given evidence. You have yet to refute it in anyway. Just for kicks, here is another website that outlines the basic premise for what is considered evidence in favor of evolution: Link

The logical conclusion that one draws from those facts presented in that article are... evolution. Anyway, often, when I present evidence you often respond along the lines:

No, it is because there is NO evidence of ANY evolution. Your examples fall short. See the former thread. 25 to 30 pages back.

Please, tell me why my "examples" fell short. I read those threads 25-30 pages back. The only time I've ever seen a creationist attempt to refute evidence for evolution was KillVolls attacking the dating methods for the fossil record, which, as I have stated, I thought were very good posts (I even said I thought he got the better of those arguments). But, if you notice, the evidence I've used in posts in favor of evolution has nothing to do with the fossil record. I've largely argued from the natural selection as a driving force evolution (natural selection being widely observable in today's world) standpoint. No one has sufficiently challenged that evidence, yet you say my "examples" fall short. Why?

 

[It's On A Slab]

STFU - stash the flooded umbrella?

I dunno...I got nuthin.'

IHTBTW.

It had to be that way.

 

[IH8Orange]

You seem to be committing the all-or-nothing fallacy. Because science is .0000001% "faith", you suggest, it is no more scientifically sound than a belief system (i.e. religion) that relies on, say, 50% faith.

I said no such thing. There is nothing scientifically sound about diety-based belief systems. The scientific method is extraneous to such a belief system because a faith-based system that requires the belief in extraordinary and unimaginable beings and actions invalidates any method that constrains itself to the knowledge of man and the limits of observation and quantification. If religion was limited to what we know and what we can see(that which can be proven to exist by the scientific method), it would be called science and not religion.

How does any religion rely on 50% faith? If religion primarily relies on belief of a God and you've no proof of a God, then that seems to require 100% faith.

That doesn't wash with me. Let me ask you this: when you design a circuit, do you design one that will work 99.9999999% of the time? Or do you say, "Heck, it's all a matter of faith anyhow," and design one that works 50% of the time? I trust the former.

I have faith in the specifications that I am provided by National Semiconductor, Intel, Texas Instruments, or whomever. If their specifications are valid, the circuit will work 99.9999999% of the time. If their specifications are invalid, the circuit might or might not work 99.9999999% of the time. I'm not going to test every semiconductor device that arrives to ensure that it meets specifications. I'll just go on faith.