Creation or Evolution?

[excruciator]

Give me an example of how creation is possible. Give me even a slither of difinitive evidence. Are you going to make a point and then not back it up?

creation is possible because we exist, by definition, mangled.

evolution is possible because we exist, by definition, panzer.

[PANZERCATWAGON]

Give me an example of how creation is possible. Give me even a slither of difinitive evidence. Are you going to make a point and then not back it up?

creation is possible because we exist, by definition, mangled.

evolution is possible because we exist, by definition, panzer.

i never said it wasnt. try reading, motherf**ker

[excruciator]

Give me an example of how creation is possible. Give me even a slither of difinitive evidence. Are you going to make a point and then not back it up?

creation is possible because we exist, by definition, mangled.

evolution is possible because we exist, by definition, panzer.

i never said it wasnt. try reading, motherf**ker

If you agree that evolution exist..
How can the two be true at the sametime?

[PANZERCATWAGON]

Give me an example of how creation is possible. Give me even a slither of difinitive evidence. Are you going to make a point and then not back it up?

creation is possible because we exist, by definition, mangled.

evolution is possible because we exist, by definition, panzer.

i never said it wasnt. try reading, motherf**ker

If you agree that evolution exist..
How can the two be true at the sametime?

because they are not mutually exclusive, cocksucker

[Dairy]

I mean look at the proof, we still start out as single celled organisms, then grow to an average human baby size in 9 months.

That has to be the worst proof of anything I've ever laid eyes on.

Normally stupidity doesn't bother me this much, but someone out there might actually believe that thats actually anywhere near a decent proof.

Still, it's a evolution. Might not be a proof but he didn't write bollocks neither.

Give me an example of how creation is possible. Give me even a slither of difinitive evidence. Are you going to make a point and then not back it up?

creation is possible because we exist, by definition, mangled.

evolution is possible because we exist, by definition, panzer.

i never said it wasnt. try reading, motherf**ker

If you agree that evolution exist..
How can the two be true at the sametime?

because they are not mutually exclusive, cocksucker

Wondering why you ain't warned at least...

[kingkitty]

I believe in evolution since creationism doesn't have any hard evidence that supports the existence of a higher being.

[N. Escalona]

i never said it wasnt. try reading, motherf**ker

because they are not mutually exclusive, cocksucker

You need to calm down...

[Mangled*]

Give me an example of how creation is possible. Give me even a slither of difinitive evidence. Are you going to make a point and then not back it up?

creation is possible because we exist, by definition, mangled.

No, our existence is only proof that we exist. It does not prove that the universe was created by an intelligent being who transcends everything. So you clearly fail big time on that, I bet you really struggled too.

Like I said before, fundamentalists and hypocrites.

[N. Escalona]

Give me an example of how creation is possible. Give me even a slither of difinitive evidence. Are you going to make a point and then not back it up?

creation is possible because we exist, by definition, mangled.

No, our existence is only proof that we exist. It does not prove that the universe was created by an intelligent being who transcends everything. So you clearly fail big time on that, I bet you really struggled too.

Like I said before, fundamentalists and hypocrites.

Perhaps you didn't read what he actually said: that our existence proves or very strongly suggests the possibility of creation. Your rebuttal and insults are misdirected.

[kingkitty]

I think everyone on this forum believes in the facts that evolution gives. It's just that some people interpret it differently than others. No need for a heated argument.

[jettlarue]

This whole argument reminds me of the southpark with the Allied Atheist Alliance and the Unified Atheist League and they continue to have wars over it. I definately give no credibility to creationism, it has not even a theory behind it. Just a story. But in saying that I do not necessarily believe completely in Darwinian-Evolution. As I said in my previous post you can definately test out the effects of evolution of plants because they are extremely easy to mutate, animals are much more complex but look at the chickens, they have like doubled in size. Even humans in US have increased in size in the last 100 years. Whatever gives you a better chance to survive will eventually be what your species is, otherwise it will die out. The same with the monkeys, maybe a few mutant differences created a new species, that doesn't mean monkeys can't still be alive they will continue to reproduce. Their is just a new species in the ecosystem. And mangled, not to be a dick but you suck at getting an idea across, you make me want to be a hypocritical catholic right now.

[tehsnipah]

Is it possible to have a moss with simple combinations of dirt/rock, water, and shadow?

[Smegma]

No, our existence is only proof that we exist.

No it doesn't.

[N. Escalona]

No, our existence is only proof that we exist.

No it doesn't.

wut

As I said in my previous post you can definately test out the effects of evolution of plants because they are extremely easy to mutate, animals are much more complex but look at the chickens, they have like doubled in size. Even humans in US have increased in size in the last 100 years.

That's not evolution in it's entire form, though. Nearly everyone agrees that natural selection (or artificial selection, as you pointed out) acts on preexisting species and preexisting genes to change their frequencies to be more advantageous.
But a real discussion of evolution must include the theorized contribution of new mutations to long-term speciation.

[Smegma]

No, our existence is only proof that we exist.

No it doesn't.

wut

That's not a proof.

[N. Escalona]

No, our existence is only proof that we exist.

No it doesn't.

wut

That's not a proof.

Why do you say that? Because our existence has not been asserted/proven itself?

[Smegma]

The statement "Our existence proves are existence" is not a proof. I'm not saying we exist or not, I'm merely saying it is not a proof.

[N. Escalona]

What does it lack, to be a formal proof, though?

[Demonic]

To understand Smegma, you must sleep with the collected work of Descartes under your pillow. Or as your pillow. Or just watch the Matrix again and again and again and again.

The evil daemon argument, and things branching from that (or from the Pyrrhonist standpoint, from what it branched from) says that you cannot be sure of anything - to give you a profound example, even when it put and accepted as formal proof, it could still be just an illusion, a fragment of imagination, something fake, something to doubt or deny.

[Smegma]

What does it lack, to be a formal proof, though?

Its equivalent to me saying X is proof of X. This is in no way a proof. Existence cannot be proof of itself, lest it be an axiom, and then I wouldn't formally say it is a proof.

Or in other words, it assumes the claim is true to prove itself.