The Evolution Computer Simulator

[Balloon guy 158]

possibly incomplete, not largely unknown.

Possible incomplete?So you were misleading me when you said they are not sure if mutations are the only way changes are introduced into cells and DNA?Or you have now discovered that it is a self sustaining process caused by itself?

even if an intelligence is found underlying evolution it would not in any way be evidence that the bible is historical, or that christianity is true. unrelated subjects.

Yea, but it would make you guys wrong, big time.And once you guys have been shown to be SOOOO wrong, why would anyone believe the rest of your poorly thought out arguments against Christianity?

[Balloon guy 158]

only when referring to polls. otherwise that's a lie.

So when you told me my post in the "changes to the Bible" thread was in reference to the posts I made in the 'evolution simulation' thread, when it wasn't...and then you told me I was lying about that too, wouldn't that make this point clear enough for even you to follow?

you mean you like to mischaracterize what most atheists think to create straw men and i won't let you get away with it.

We haven't even decided which definition of atheist we are ever going to use, so spare me the status of protector of truth that you have granted yourself.Besides, most atheist would disagree with you so it's not like you could speak for them even if you wanted.

[speedz99 145]

Also, how come you never seem to answer points I make in your reply posts?

BG is so brainwashed that he is unable to process questions that he can't answer. It's not his fault, he really can't help it. Trust me, the stronger your point, the less likely he is to understand or respond to it. Once you accept this, you'll have more fun around here. Go back and look at the conversation...like always, we answer his challenges point by point, and he largely ignores everything. He likes to say that it's because it's not worth responding to, but deep down he probably knows that he just skims past anything he doesn't understand or can't refute.

How hard is it to understand evolution? It was invented by a couple guys who thought that the cell was the smallest building block of all life, that washing your hands wouldn't stop the spread of disease...

As always, pointing out the fact that primitive science had plenty of things wrong is incredibly dumb and just proves our point. Unlike you, scientists are willing and able to fix their mistakes. But keep pretending that we're the ones without open minds. That's always good for a laugh.

[Balloon guy 158]

BG is so brainwashed that he is unable to process questions that he can't answer. It's not his fault, he really can't help it. Trust me, the stronger your point, the less likely he is to understand or respond to it. Once you accept this, you'll have more fun around here. Go back and look at the conversation...like always, we answer his challenges point by point, and he largely ignores everything. He likes to say that it's because it's not worth responding to, but deep down he probably knows that he just skims past anything he doesn't understand or can't refute.

This is largely true, except the words and their meanings

As always, pointing out the fact that primitive science had plenty of things wrong is incredibly dumb and just proves our point. Unlike you, scientists are willing and able to fix their mistakes. But keep pretending that we're the ones without open minds. That's always good for a laugh.

It's cool, you guys have been changing your theory for a hundred years trying to make good on your investment of darwin fish for your cars, I understand.

[crowTrobot 2]

So when you told me my post in the "changes to the Bible" thread was in reference to the posts I made in the 'evolution simulation' thread, when it wasn't...and then you told me I was lying about that too, wouldn't that make this point clear enough for even you to follow?

your "point" was that i consistently make broad claims to know what most christians think. why would it?i happen to know the way YOU think from reading your posts for 4 years, and from being the subject of near-continuous unprovoked manipulative attacks for months. insisting you were referencing something broader in this thread when it wasn't even relevant was just another manipulative attempt to misdirect from the real issue - which was your bogus implication that the evolutionists here dismiss your questions/challenges outright by appealing to authority.

We haven't even decided which definition of atheist we are ever going to use

irrelevant. people don't base what they think on semantics.

Besides, most atheist would disagree with you

your primary recurring straw man is the boring old "atheists claim to be certain no god of any kind exists, so atheism is a religion, atheists share the burden of proof etc"it doesn't take much research to determine that the vast majority of people who consider themselves atheists don't claim that.

[crowTrobot 2]

So you were misleading me when you said they are not sure if mutations are the only way changes are introduced into cells and DNA?

i didn't say that. i said what is expressed in the phenotype is partially the result of interaction between multiple genes rather than expression of individual genes, and changes in those interactions not necessarily resulting from mutations may be partial responsible for selection. epigenetics.

Yea, but it would make you guys wrong, big time.

us guys don't claim to be certain evolution isn't designed, so no it wouldn't.

[crowTrobot 2]

I actually have a pretty decent understanding of evolution, just because I challenge it doesn't mean I don't know what you think.How hard is it to understand evolution? It was invented by a couple guys who thought that the cell was the smallest building block of all life, that washing your hands wouldn't stop the spread of disease, and that the processes of inner species changes could be applied to cross species change.At one time something happened ( what we do not know ) and whammy tons of stuff like energy etc floating around the vastness of space.Then one day after the energy cooled whammy, gas clouds collapsed and became planets that luckily found orbits around stars.Then on one planet, vast amounts of the 44 thingies needed for life to begin were mixed together and whammy, they made life out of non-life.Then this life changed, ( we are not sure how ) slowly, ( and luckily in step with it's food sources ) and the changes that were beneficial were 'allowed' to continue by a hostile environment.Luckily some of these changes in life forms coincided with the need for multiple parasitic reliance on other life forms, all while being grown inside life forms that had complex systems of lungs hearts and livers that also are unable alone to survive.Then after observing 1/1,0000,000000,0000000,00000th of this action, we decided that we understood it and could finally throw off the shackles of religion teaching us to love one another.Nazis, Eugenics, Communism and Jerry Springer later...we have you telling us that you know there is no God, without the simple knowledge of the planet you live on, let alone of the existence of all life forms in the universe.

quite the comedian.

[Balloon guy 158]

your "point" was that i consistently make broad claims to know what most christians think. why would it?i happen to know the way YOU think from reading your posts for 4 years, and from being the subject of near-continuous unprovoked manipulative attacks for months. insisting you were referencing something broader in this thread when it wasn't even relevant was just another manipulative attempt to misdirect from the real issue - which was your bogus implication that the evolutionists here dismiss your questions/challenges outright by appealing to authority.irrelevant. people don't base what they think on semantics. your primary recurring straw man is the boring old "atheists claim to be certain no god of any kind exists, so atheism is a religion, atheists share the burden of proof etc"it doesn't take much research to determine that the vast majority of people who consider themselves atheists don't claim that.

You completely amaze me that you never seem to see what you say in the same posts and how bad you come off when you say it.You claim I use straw man arguments, then use one to prove it.You pretend that semantics isn't relevant to what people believe, while being the most anal person with regards to semantics on the board.And you claim to know what I think in the same thread where you call me a liar for claiming that you claim to know what I think.I think it is the massive overload of Christmas and your difficulty in allowing yourself to celebrate the birth of your Savior while you do everything you can to silence the voice in your heart telling you that you are wrong.

[Balloon guy 158]

i didn't say that. i said what is expressed in the phenotype is partially the result of interaction between multiple genes rather than expression of individual genes, and changes in those interactions not necessarily resulting from mutations may be partial responsible for selection. epigenetics.

Semantics...

us guys don't claim to be certain evolution isn't designed, so no it wouldn't.

Running behind the whole "We are just seekers following the path truth leads us" dodge is cute.I bet you'll try that on Judgment Day too, it also won't work there.

[crowTrobot 2]

You claim I use straw man arguments, then use one to prove it.

we have you telling us that you know there is no God, without the simple knowledge of the planet you live on, let alone of the existence of all life forms in the universe.

denying doing something you just did 4 posts ago is lol.

You pretend that semantics isn't relevant to what people believe, while being the most anal person with regards to semantics on the board.

good luck with that one. the only time the subject of semantics even comes up is when you insist on sticking to irrelevant definitions to support straw men.

And you claim to know what I think in the same thread where you call me a liar for claiming that you claim to know what I think.

you're confused. i didn't bother to respond to the allegation of claiming to know what you think because what/how you think is obvious to everyone.

[crowTrobot 2]

Semantics...

not semantics. it's an important difference that could potentially solve any qualms scientists have with mutation rate.

I bet you'll try that on Judgment Day too, it also won't work there.

i'll be hiding behind john conner.

[Balloon guy 158]

denying doing something you just did 4 posts ago is lol.

Claiming that a post I made to a different poster than you is the same thing as posting it about you is lol

good luck with that one. the only time the subject of semantics even comes up is when you insist on sticking to irrelevant definitions to support straw men.

The only time? really?you want to stick with that or would you like to tap dance out of this position now?

you're confused. i didn't bother to respond to the allegation of claiming to know what you think because what/how you think is obvious to everyone.

Oh..so it's not a big deal that you claim to know what I think better than myself, because everyone knows what I think better than me?I am laughing out loud at your inability to think rationally when you get caught being wrong.But you already knew this...didn't you?

[Balloon guy 158]

not semantics. it's an important difference that could potentially solve any qualms scientists have with mutation rate.

how dare they harbor any doubt...this stuff is proven theory...well, speculatively proven anyway.

i'll be hiding behind john conner.

There will be no hiding.

[crowTrobot 2]

Claiming that a post I made to a different poster than you is the same thing as posting it about you is lol

it obviously WAS the same thing. nobody here has said they "know" there is no god. straw man.

The only time? really?you want to stick with that or would you like to tap dance out of this position now?

yawn.

Oh..so it's not a big deal that you claim to know what I think better than myself, because everyone knows what I think better than me?

i don't know about the better than you part. everyone here is aware when you're making intellectually dishonest statements, but i'm not certain how much or on what level you yourself are consciously aware of it. as speed noted you've been doing it so long it might just be an automated response when you don't have an honest counter.

[Randy Reed 0]

BG, what part of evolution don't you agree with? You have been mentioning that you don't believe it's possible for everything to have evolved from a single cell but how far does this go? How do you think the planet was formed? How did life get here? How long has it been here? You critisize the scientific explanation as being ridiculous but I'd like to hear your obviously more logical expalnation.

[Balloon guy 158]

BG, what part of evolution don't you agree with? You have been mentioning that you don't believe it's possible for everything to have evolved from a single cell but how far does this go? How do you think the planet was formed? How did life get here? How long has it been here? You critisize the scientific explanation as being ridiculous but I'd like to hear your obviously more logical expalnation.

I believe that God created the universe, upholds it in His power and created the laws that hold it together.The Bible confirms that He did these things and as such I can base my beliefs on it.They also allow me to trust that the laws of nature that uphold the universe are consistent, and that all non-tangible laws such as laws of logic and laws of non-contradictions will remain constant in the universe.

[Balloon guy 158]

it obviously WAS the same thing. nobody here has said they "know" there is no god. straw man.

So all I need to do is find ONE person who wrote that they know there is no God and you would admit that you are wrong here?

i don't know about the better than you part. everyone here is aware when you're making intellectually dishonest statements, but i'm not certain how much or on what level you yourself are consciously aware of it. as speed noted you've been doing it so long it might just be an automated response when you don't have an honest counter.

Backtracking already?

[crowTrobot 2]

So all I need to do is find ONE person who wrote that they know there is no God and you would admit that you are wrong here?

no thanks. not interested in more of you trying to equivocate statements about traditional human gods into generic certainty of no god. you do that enough on your own.

Backtracking already?

obviously not.

[Mills 0]

I actually have a pretty decent understanding of evolution, just because I challenge it doesn't mean I don't know what you think.And the root of your problem comes out. you have a circular reasoning problem with your logic that makes you unable to debate. While you hold that your side is the only side, you will never be able to convince me that you have thought at all about the subject.

Well, you disregard evolution without fully understanding it, and you think the earth is 6,000 years old? If that's not a creationist, what's a creationist?Also.... you said ONE thing in that entire post that had to do with evolution... the rest of it was you haphazardly confusing cosmology with biology and basic misunderstandings of the theory itself..

[Balloon guy 158]

Well, you disregard evolution without fully understanding it, and you think the earth is 6,000 years old? If that's not a creationist, what's a creationist?Also.... you said ONE thing in that entire post that had to do with evolution... the rest of it was you haphazardly confusing cosmology with biology and basic misunderstandings of the theory itself..

Semantics...

[Balloon guy 158]

no thanks. not interested in being shown to be completely confused as to how wrong I am about most things and haev too fragile an ego to accept that I might be wrong about something.

fyp

obviously not.

Obviously so to the rest of the world

[Mills 0]

Semantics...

dishonesty

[Balloon guy 158]

dishonesty

You should relook at cow's last dozen or so posts and see how much trouble you get into when you place sweeping generalities on a person then try to defend your generalities.Unless of course you want to look to be as poor a thinker as crow, in which case you are right on track.

[crowTrobot 2]

Obviously so to the rest of the world

everyone arguing against you here will agree that you are intellectually dishonest and manipulative in your approach to debate, including in your characterization of your opponents positions and statements. if you doubt that feel free to ask. the only mystery is how much of your BS is intentional deceit and how much you have deluded yourself into actually believing.

[Mills 0]

it's not a sweeping generalization... when you exhibit dishonesty in a post... I call you on it. You aren't dishonest in every post, when you are I say it... case by case basis