I could care less what you believe. A degree in science means I know the scientific meanings of fact and theory. You do not.

Thalidomide is an argument to an unrelated issue to discredit the issue at hand which you know for a fact is illogical because a degree in philosophy requires at least an introductory course in logic. Meaning you are lying.

It is not a question of analyzing arguments. It is the fact you do not understand science and therefore you cannot understand what scientists say. That is impolite but not ad hominem as it is a fact. You cannot analyze the logic of what you do not understand.

He did not say origin of life. Again you are lying. Of course you could quote his words to show you are not lying.

As you would know if you knew anything about the subject the common ancestor is on the fossil record. if you understood the subject you would know the fossil is all that is required. You delusions about chromosomes are your own.

Remember either malevolent or incompetent by virtue of the evidence at hand.

Again your display your willful ignorance or deliberate lies. You creationists are all alike.

More ignorance and/or lies.

is being replaced? Dumb shit. It is just a term which was common at the time. It is not being replaced as that is what it was called at the time. Today we would call it a theory. You have no idea what you are talking about ... but you know that.

For someone who pretends to a degree in philosophy to drop in divine where it does not follow by analogy has to be a liar. Let me guess. You are a freshman, right?

There are no ad hominems only statements of facts. Your statements about science barely rise to the level of gibberish. Note, I retract my previous statement that they are gibberish. Upon reconsideration I find that too high a rating. It is your "points" that do not rise to the higher standard of authentic gibberish.

I did. it is in the fossil record but you are too dumb to recognize the answer. Only an ignoramous would claim more than fossils are required as you have done.

Of all hundreds of the possible examples of descent and common ancestor the creationists always jump to the human one.

Curious argument given that no one here has provided me with evidence of the common ancestor for chimp and man. If you believe in Evolution, you should be comfortable with "facts" that have no evidential basis.

To argue the Universe has no purpose is to presuppose what the purpose would be, then show how the Universe is not 'fit' for that purpose. Not a very good argument against purpose.

What is your purpose presupposition for you to be able to declare the Universe has no purpose?

How is the Universe self-destructive? How many Universes have you seen destructed? Where is everything "expanding" to? When a star explodes, does it get destroyed into nothingness, or is the collected compressed stardust just reformed? Where is all this destruction you claim for? Burning out?? Who sees the Universe burning out? Just because individuals stars burn out? How can you claim it is chaotic? Surely if someone claiming the universe is "designed" is in error, then the claim the universe is "chaotic" cannot hold?

What comic book do you get your cosmology from? I suggest you do a more serious study of science and not reveal your propensity to simplemindedly dive into a atheist religiosity.

We seem to have common ground here. My dog is a King Charles Cavalier and I talk to her quite a bit. I test out arguments on her and see how they sound through the air. She is a family member for us pure and simple.

I also do not believe in magic. I do not propose a solution "ad magic" to the great questions we face. What I failed to get across, it seems, is that the very reason I reject the fundamental premises of Evolution Creation Myth is just that very reason: I don't adopt ad magic as explanations for how we got here.

Just as there are folks pretending there is evidence for Jesus and Jesus as Son of God, so there are folks who pretend there is evidence for that first Adam and Eve species that gave birth to ALL species that descended from it. There are folks who believe that species do more than just adapt, but that they actually jump the tracks and their DNA reformulates (somehow??) and a species becomes another species. This has never been evidenced to have happened from any tests or observations ever done, but that doesn't stop people from pretending it has been evidenced. Folks believe a chromosome fused in a chimp and that is how Man was formed, even though this fusion process has never been tested or evidenced in Nature. An alternate hypothesis that Man has a chromosome that tried to split but didn't ergo what was a telomere in progress became halted, and became a telomere in mid chromosome. But no. For some unexplained reason that is rejected. The fusion thesis is current orthodoxy because that one allows us to posit ape as ancestor.

I am not presenting an alternate theory here, so I can't provide peer-reviewed "evidence" of something I don't present in the first place. Have you noticed all the calls I have made for evidence for our common ancestor and received nothing in return? Why? Because ET adherents can even describe the DNA profile of this thing they dreamed up. Not only does it not exist. But try to find an ET biologist to even describe the chromosome pairs - good luck. If this thing has 23 pairs, it's an ape; if it has 24 pairs, it's human. What is the DNA profile of this mythical common ancestor?

If it is you trying to tell me that my great great great grandad was an ape, I expect YOU to provide ME with evidence, especially given the "wild" nature of that speculation. I don't care if it is peer-reviewed or not: we all know peer-review is a process that serves to protect the religious orthodoxy, and ET is the current orthodoxy. Theology colleges release peer-reviewed papers reinforcing their respective religions too. Peer review. Big deal; evangelists supporting their own clans and own orthodoxies.

Moreover, "natural selection" is no explanation. Saying "nature selects" explains nothing at all. Saying "the ground selected the apple" is no substitute for the Law, or Theory, of Gravity. So when it comes to it really, I am not in a position to provide an alternate theory, since there is nothing in the first place to be an alternate to. Natural selection explains nothing. It is a description, not an explanation.

Me and my dog, Jazzy, aren't into religions, even the ones that wear science as a disguise.

Nice bluff. Try again with real evidence. "Pretend" evidence doesn't count.

 Saying you don't believe in magic but you do believe in god is like saying you don't fuck animals, just dogs...

LC >;-}>

Which is further evidence you are a liar as the evidence has been described to you. It is also evidence you lied about researching evolution because you could not have missed it.

Your constant lies are conclusive evidence you are another ignorant creationist who lies about having a degree of any kind. 

Some thread. humpf.

I guess some things you just assume in a debate. I expect SockraOfGod is smugly triumphant. He just threw up smoke and blew away. Tease is an appropriate name for him. Saw nothing else he had to offer.

Seems to me instead of providing evidence when debating a theist it is first important to get him to explain what things he considers evidence. Like is his evidence the bible? Well, that is just a claim, an assertion of a god. If that's the starting point then there will be little progress.

Is DNA evidence? like would he accept it in a court? Then maybe some progress could be made.

I hate the title of the thread. ID is a theory like Harry Potter flying on a broom explains lift.

result is no different with or without a universe?

When a star explodes, are not all its planets burned to a crisp? Yet nothing is destroyed? Our species and world would survive our star going nova? Nothing would be destroyed?

If you can pull your head out of your bible long enough to actually think for once, and learn something, it'll become a wonderful day.