I read the following in a major magazine I subscribe to:

"In a Michigan State University study that ranked 34 major countries by their citizens' acceptance of the theory of evolution, the United States ranked second to last (thank you, Turkey), 39% of our adult population rejects the concept."

Considering that Creationism is the only alternative the fucktards have at this point...

Jewbook vs. Fossil Record? Words vs. Objective reality? 39%?

That's kind of shocking -- although not out of line with their ability to believe that niggers and the White race are one and the same -- or that diversity is our strength, and so on. I guess, in order to believe the jew crap, you have to set aside your ability to reason. Setting aside one's ability to reason is what jew universities most and best teach.

#4: Are the races separate species or are they varieties within the same species? Are the White race the negro race separate varieties of the same species or different species? How about the White race and the mongoloid race?

I'm ok with whatever distinction. Tis but semantics, no?

No. This is a biological hierarchy: individual - variety/race - species - genus - family - order - class - phylum - kingdom.

Anyway, your answer is that you don't have an opinion on this question.

Originally Posted by Devere
Answer the questions, Joseph.

OK, but I am not a chrisling.

I gather you are now saying you are not a creationist. Okay. But you seem to change your tune about this from post to post. (Your "intelligent design" IS creationism, Joseph.)

1. Do you believe in the scientific method? Do you believe in science -- that there is such a thing as science -- or is everything just religion?

I believe that there is a difference between real science, defined as the logical search for understanding of the natural world. I believe there are legitimate social sciences that differ from natural sciences. And I believe there is pseudo-science, like creationism and your bullshit theory of evolution. I believe the these pseudo-sciences are detrimental to real scientific endeavor.

You believe there is such a thing as science. That's good. You think evolution -- which nearly all SCIENTISTS consider a scientific pillar of the SCIENCE of biology -- to not be science. Who is in a better position to make this judgment? Joseph or actual scientists? Given that the scientists who developed and still study this field of biology (evolution) use/used the scientific method to study it, show me why the study of evolution is not science, but pseudo-science or religion (as you have said a number of times). You are taking a position contrary to the experts in this field, so the burden is on you to prove the merit of your position. Just continually SAYING that the study of evolution is not science -- doesn't cut it.

Quote:

2. Do you believe that biology is a field of objective science -- or do you think it is a religion?

As I recall from school, biology is the study of life. Religion is not related.

Good. Glad to hear this. Now, since evolution is one of the major pillars of biology, according to scientists, you are contradicting yourself. Biology is science / biology is bullshit. If biology is science, how can evolution be a religion, since evolution is at the heart of biology? Please explain. Be specific and prove your point.

Quote:

3. Do you believe there are separate and distinct races?

No I believe we are all exactly the same, that's why I am a racist. /sarcasm

Just checking.

Quote:

3. Do you believe there is a White race?

Not for long.

LOL (but sadly).

Quote:

4. Are the races separate species or are they races (varieties of the same species)?

Races are races. ???wtf

You answered this question below. You have no opinion as to whether the races should be called races/varieties or species. However, if you are going to promote creationism (which you do in some of your posts and then retract in others), this is a crucial question. Here's why.

Creationists say God created the species and that the species are immutable (do not and cannot change). They must say they are immutable, because otherwise the species will, over time, inevitably change into other species (evolution). Here are the weaknesses of this position. Since there are also varieties WITHIN each species -- different races of humans, different varieties of leopards, and so on -- does God also create varieties? And since there is undeniable variation in each individual within each variety, did God CREATE each individual? Obviously, even creationists don't get this dumb -- and yet the logic of the clear evidence would require it, if their position is to hold water.

The other problem for creationists is that there is very clearly, observable, on-going VARIATION in individuals and therefore in varieties and therefore in species. The genetic traits change over the generations. We can SEE this happen. Each individual is a little different from his parents. And his offspring are a little different from him. And so on. In other words, there is GENETIC DRIFT within species. Genetic drift is one of the mechanisms of evolution of species, one of the mechanisms by which species change genetically over time, one of the mechanisms of evolution. In other words, under the simplest analysis, creationism completely breaks down. The species are NOT immutable. If they're NOT immutable, why is it necessary to say that God created species? Why not just say that species evolve into other species over time?

Do you still deny that evolution happens in species, Joseph?

5. Did God create each race?

The origin of all living things is unknown - despite your fascination with the (G)od.

Remember, Devere, I am an evolutionist.

"The ORIGIN of all living things is unknown." But that really isn't what you've been saying. You've been saying that EVOLUTION is bullshit. I've just proven you wrong via simple analysis and reasoning in this post. Evolution is clearly a fact of life.

The origin of all living things -- in other words, the development of the FIRST species -- is one small aspect of the theory of evolution. Leaving this question aside for a moment, I think you agree that evolution of species happens, and is a fact, right, Joseph?

Regarding the evolution of the very first living species -- this does become much more speculative. There actually is quite a bit of evidence that living/organic compounds can form from non-living/inorganic compounds under the right conditions. It's rare, but it does happen every now and then. It only needed to happen and take -- once. Apparently, it did about 3.5 BILLION years ago. Since it happened once -- a long long time ago -- we obviously can't currently see evidence of its continuing to happen. But we can, in test tubes, observe it happen. So we know it CAN happen. That's probably as close as we'll get to proving that one. And that's close enough.

Regarding the evolution of the very first living species -- this does become much more speculative. There actually is quite a bit of evidence that living/organic compounds can form from non-living/inorganic compounds under the right conditions. It's rare, but it does happen every now and then. It only needed to happen and take -- once. Apparently, it did about 3.5 BILLION years ago. Since it happened once -- a long long time ago -- we obviously can't currently see evidence of its continuing to happen. But we can, in test tubes, observe it happen. So we know it CAN happen. That's probably as close as we'll get to proving that one. And that's close enough.

Devere, you ought to stick to with discussing the concepts and not delve so much into the details. You obviously don't know much about the topics at hand. There is not and cannot ever be an example of life created from inorganic compounds. Not in test tubes or laboratories or anywhere else. As you are an evolutionist, I can see how you might be misled to believe such nonsense.

The holohoax didn't happen. It doesn't matter how many historians and grade school social studies teachers say it did. It doesn't matter if the whole world agrees that it happened. They are each wrong and I am right. In order for them to be right and PROVE me wrong, they must provide EVIDENCE. That is something you and the scientists have been unable to do.

Devere wrote:

Regarding the evolution of the very first living species -- this does become much more speculative. There actually is quite a bit of evidence that living/organic compounds can form from non-living/inorganic compounds under the right conditions. It's rare, but it does happen every now and then. It only needed to happen and take -- once. Apparently, it did about 3.5 BILLION years ago. Since it happened once -- a long long time ago -- we obviously can't currently see evidence of its continuing to happen. But we can, in test tubes, observe it happen. So we know it CAN happen. That's probably as close as we'll get to proving that one. And that's close enough.

Joseph responded:

Devere, you ought to stick to with discussing the concepts and not delve so much into the details. You obviously don't know much about the topics at hand. There is not and cannot ever be an example of life created from inorganic compounds. Not in test tubes or laboratories or anywhere else. As you are an evolutionist, I can see how you might be misled to believe such nonsense.

The holohoax didn't happen. It doesn't matter how many historians and grade school social studies teachers say it did. It doesn't matter if the whole world agrees that it happened. They are each wrong and I am right. In order for them to be right and PROVE me wrong, they must provide EVIDENCE. That is something you and the scientists have been unable to do.

I notice you have entirely sidestepped the major thrust of my prior post -- that, since the appearance of the the first species, the evolution of that species into all the species that have ever existed on earth is an undeniable FACT. Your silence implies your agreement with the on-going process of evolution, Joseph. Of course, a contrary stance would be utterly irrational.

But as for that first species -- it's analagous to the Big Bang. Science has pushed valid, verifiable scientific explanations of reality back to the very beginning. That last step for the Big Bang is, as I've said a number of times, impossible to explain via the natural laws of the universe. The first appearance of life, though, is more easily explained and was certainly possible without God's intervention. There has been, since the start of the universe, an evolutionary increase in the size and complexity of everything. First, the sub-atomic particles. Then, the simplest element -- hydrogen. Then, from there, increasingly complex compounds of elements. This natural evolutionary build-up of molecular complexity was a continuum, certainly leading to the evolution of complex organic carbon-based molecules. It's not originally necessary for DNA or species to suddenly be formed. A gradual process from inorganic to organic to semi-living creatures (viruses) to single celled living creatures, and so on. No miraculous creation of life needed -- even for the very first species -- just a continual evolutionary build-up of simple to complex.

Sorry, Devere, but I can hardly stand to read this thread anymore. You keep posting the same baseless commentary, and it has become clear that you really don't know what you are talking about. Even worse, if science could prove the existence of an intelligent designer, you'd likely ignore it in favor of your evolution religion.

Watch the video: http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=153
and let us know what you think of it.

You win.

Sorry, Devere, but I can hardly stand to read this thread anymore. You keep posting the same baseless commentary, and it has become clear that you really don't know what you are talking about. Even worse, if science could prove the existence of an intelligent designer, you'd likely ignore it in favor of your evolution religion.

Watch the video: http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=153
and let us know what you think of it.

You win.

Sidestep - sidestep - quit. You've rarely taken on the content of my points directly, Joseph. All you've done from the start is "You don't know what you're talking about." And, if SCIENCE ever proved the existence of an intelligent designer, I would accept it. In fact, I already do. I said right at the outset I believed in an intelligent design and designer. All I've said is that that intelligent designer, designed the universe, started the universe going, and then let it evolve on its own -- and hasn't intervened since -- and hasn't had to. Evolution appears to be part of the design of the universe -- since EVERYTHING, whether organic or inorganic, evolved and evolves in it.

Your own position remains murky. Before you go on your merry way, do you agree with my position as stated in the above paragraph. If not, where exactly do you disagree with me?

Answer: No

The idea that 'irreducibly complex' organisms can form spontaneously has been thoroughly debunked. It is only anti-creationists, like you, who cannot get past the fantasy of your religion and accept reality as it sits.

Let's use an example. How the fuck did any animal first "evolve" an eye? The complexity the thing is beyond human knowledge. Only a fool would believe that the first critter with an eye grew it by chance. A chance mutation? A mutation that interfaced with the brain by chance? Pure luck?

All these parts of the eye genetically drifted into existence at once in multiple breeding pairs of animals across the entire spectrum of animal life? All these critters "evolved" exactly two (2) eyes. No more. The eyes of almost every living thing evolved at the top of the head in every case. No critter ever evolved an eye at the end of its limbs? Why not? Evolution cannot explain the origin of the diversity of life, and in fact, suggests that the diversity should be MUCH greater. So answer that one - how did the first critter with an eye, evolve it?

p.s. What did you think of the videos?

Answer: No

The idea that 'irreducibly complex' organisms can form spontaneously has been thoroughly debunked. It is only anti-creationists, like you, who cannot get past the fantasy of your religion and accept reality as it sits.

Let's use an example. How the fuck did any animal first "evolve" an eye? The complexity the thing is beyond human knowledge. Only a fool would believe that the first critter with an eye grew it by chance. A chance mutation? A mutation that interfaced with the brain by chance? Pure luck?

All these parts of the eye genetically drifted into existence at once in multiple breeding pairs of animals across the entire spectrum of animal life? All these critters "evolved" exactly two (2) eyes. No more. The eyes of almost every living thing evolved at the top of the head in every case. No critter ever evolved an eye at the end of its limbs? Why not? Evolution cannot explain the origin of the diversity of life, and in fact, suggests that the diversity should be MUCH greater. So answer that one - how did the first critter with an eye, evolve it?

p.s. What did you think of the videos?

Your ignorance of evolution is showing. It happened in tiny steps over a 3.5 BILLION year period. The mechanism was survival of the best adapted. A number of different shots at vision were taken -- as is evidenced by fish eyes, insect eyes, reptilian eyes, mammalian eyes. Some animals have reversed this evolutionary process and are losing their eyesight: moles, for example.

You didn't answer my question. Where specifically do you differ from me in my one paragraph description given in my last post? Spell it out.

How about the evolution of the ability to fly? That looks like "intelligent design." But we have the fossils that show its evolution over millions of years. Eyes, unfortunately, don't fossilize. Wings do.

I still intend to watch the videos -- when I have a couple of hours of extra time.

There is no fossil evidence of evolution. Saying there is proves that you are simply uninformed on the subject. It seems every theory proposed is proof to you.

The only reason you believe in evolution is because you have been told your whole life that it is a fact. This whole debate proves that even the racially conscious can be lemmings.

Nice link, Joseph.

http://opposingdigits.com/vlog/?p=153

Excellent video, professionally produced and only addresses factual information.

No hocus pocus whatsoever.

Devere, you really should watch it.

It is well worth an hour of your time.

The video link was originally posted by madthumbs. I believe he/she is the operator of the opposingdigits site.