Nocturne

[Glitch]

idk why people upload stuff to YouTube filmed off of their TV

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Glitch [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

idk why people upload stuff to YouTube filmed off of their TV

Youtube is much less likely to remove it due to breach of copyright policy because it's a "home video".

[Hasbinbad]

No, I'm looking for a basic summation of the mechanism of evolution.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

There isn't any. How can I summarize something that doesn't exist. It's a trick question and I have disproved the very question itself.

You haven't, you haven't even formulated your basis as to why you need a counter-argument. You've just stated several well known logical fallacies and have been proven wrong.

NAME A SOURCE WHEN YOU POST SOMETHING

[Rellapse10]

i am gonna pee on all of you one day from heaven... i will be yelling you mad bro at you for eternity.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What is a source going to do? Why do I need a source? The source is the entire scientific community and everything science has ever learned.

You can't be serious. The entire scientific community and everything that science has taught us supports evolution on one condition, that the evidence points to it. Guess what, all of the evidence points to it, there is no evidence pointing otherwise.

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Everything we currently know thanks to science, says that evolution is not possible. It is a direct contradiction to various scientific laws and theories.

Which ones?

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The law of biogenesis states that all life forms can only produce more of their own kind. Cell theory states that all cells come from pre-existing cells.

I've already debunked this, twice, why are you bringing it up again?

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Evolution says that life forms can eventually produce life forms not consistent of its original form.

That is not what evolution says at all.

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

One of these things cannot be true but one is already known to be true ALWAYS which is why it was made into a law. You cannot have a theory that contradicts a law, less that law be disproved. The law has never been disproved therefor the theory by definition, is unscientific and baseless. Until abiogenesis can be proven, the theory of evolution will remain at best, a hypothesis. I'm sorry that I understand how science works better than you but this is the reality of the situation.

This is your last chance. I'm explaining you a very basic principle here. Abiogenesis and Evolution are two completely different forms of life science. Stop comparing the two, stop trying to assert that the two are related to one another.
You can theoretically have Evolution without Abiogenesis (God creates life that can adapt to it's envronment), you can theoretically have Abiogenesis without evolution (artificial life would be the simplest example). Don't mention it again.

Originally Posted by Nocturne [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

P.s. there are no threats of eternal damnation, only promises.

Evidence please. A shred of evidence. I beg you.

[Rellapse10]

WHO GIVES A FUCK

[OMGWTF420]

Originally Posted by Rellapse10 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

WHO GIVES A FUCK

pity reply

[Hasbinbad]

Still haven't had a decent definition of what evolution is supposed to be by anyone who denies its accuracy. I wonder why that could be.

[Kagatob]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Still haven't had a decent definition of what evolution is supposed to be by anyone who denies its accuracy. I wonder why that could be.

He hasn't posted a single source of anything ever. The closest he's come in this entire thread was two mentions of the bible, and he's proven that he didn't even read that text correctly. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]