15 questions evolutionists cannot adequately answer

[rasheedfan2005]

Who does that? Please, cite me one scientist who says evolution is "infallible". Fact, yes. Infallible? Nothing is infallible.
It's just that in the past 150 or so years no evidence falsifying evolution (which is a FACT, natural selection is the THEORY that explains the FACT) has been found.
And no, bible quotes don't count.

What I want to know is how a thread that started with an absolute absurdity, that I thought had mercifully fallen into the wastebin of the internet, got bumped.

Another thing I love about these debates is I dont need to defend god. The creator of life doesnt need my help. Ill go back to laughing at your shitty theory now

 

[Eastoff]

Another thing I love about these debates is I dont need to defend god. The creator of life doesnt need my help. Ill go back to laughing at your shitty theory now

You sound defensive.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

You sound defensive.

Not at all. Who needs defense with an incredible offense. /stotts.

 

[barfo]

Another thing I love about these debates is I dont need to defend god. The creator of life doesnt need my help.

He certainly doesn't. I guess you believe that he doesn't want your help, either. You are probably correct.

barfo

 

[rasheedfan2005]

He certainly doesn't. I guess you believe that he doesn't want your help, either. You are probably correct.

barfo

Im always correct.

 

[Eastoff]

Im always correct.

 

[crandc]

Anyone who talks about "your shitty theory" is not open to ideas. I don't talk to them because it's not worth my typing finger. But I know there are always people with genuine questions reading these boards so they are worth my time.

Scientists and the vast majority of the world's literate population accept (not "believe in") evolution by natural selection because it is the best explanation we currently have for observed facts. It may be that someone will develop a better explanation for observed facts. It may be that someone will discover a fact that totally falsifies evolution by natural selection. No scientist rules either scenario out. This is a difference between science and religion; science accepts that new things may be discovered, religion, as Ken Hamm said in the evolution debate, declares a book written 2000 years ago has all the answers, nothing new to see.

If another explanation comes along to replace evolution by natural selection, or facts are discovered that invalidate evolution by natural selection, the new data will come from scientists with a thorough knowledge of biology and related fields. Not from people copying/pasting creationist web sites on a sports chat room.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

I accept your surrender.

 

[Eastoff]

I accept your surrender.

LOL. LOLOLOLOL The problem with half of society, is they are so goddamn stubborn, they are willing to ruin the world to be right.

 

[BlazerCaravan]

LOL. LOLOLOLOL The problem with half of society, is they are so goddamn stubborn, they are willing to ruin the world to make sure they can think they're right, and nobody else can.

FTFY... no matter how stubborn a person is when they're wrong, they're still wrong.

 

[MarAzul]

FTFY... no matter how stubborn a person is when they're wrong, they're still wrong.

But! How do you know? You do know that wrong is often used where left would be more correct, heh?

 

[magnifier661]

wtf is this thing still going on?!

 

[SlyPokerDog]

wtf is this thing still going on?!

We still can't answer them.

 

[Further]

We still can't answer them.

Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Sometimes
Yes
No
No
Yes





These are my answers, but I forget the questions.