Oh. My. God.

[Taft2016]

The premise is that "all living things are related through common descent and have reached their present form through natural processes." You reject the entire premise.

I just Googled. The planet has 8.7 million species, and all except one I say could be the products of evolution.

But because of that one, you consider I reject the entire theory of evolution.

8,699,999 yes.
1 no.

And you fixate on the one.

Do you see how silly you sound?

Do you see how your adherence to evolution has become your own little fundamentalist religion/science yet?

Have you figured out how it could be that we have evolved farther and more quickly than any other species even though you claim it is not possible that we have evolved? I mean, it might be just me, but it seems those two points disagree with one another.

That's the question I asked you earlier. How could evolution have affected man so much more radically than any other species? And now you ask me that back?

And I never said "it is not possible that we have evolved." That said, I don't think we have. What has changed? Another finger or something?

 

[Timshel]

I just Googled. The planet has 8.7 million species, and all except one I say could be the products of evolution.

But because of that one, you consider I reject the entire theory of evolution.

8,699,999 yes.
1 no.

And you fixate on the one.

Do you see how silly you sound?

Do you see how you adherence to evolution has become your own little fundamentalist science yet?

I see that you are a blithering idiot. Are we the farthest and most quickly evolved or have we not evolved? We can't be both and clearly your claim of one is not proof of the other.


The theory of evolution does not state that "most living things are related..." The theory of evolution states that "ALL living things are related...." You don't have to agree on every minute point but this aint horseshoes either. You are rejecting the theory of evolution.

 

[domer76]

No, I don't. I accept the possibility of the evolution of every form of life on this planet except for one. And for that, you say I reject the entire premise.

Enough of your nonsense already.

"Except for one." Priceless!

 

[Taft2016]

I see that you are a blithering idiot. Are we the farthest and most quickly evolved or have we not evolved? We can't be both and clearly your claim of one is not proof of the other.


The theory of evolution does not state that "most living things are related..." The theory of evolution states that "ALL living things are related...." You don't have to agree on every minute point but this aint horseshoes either. You are rejecting the theory of evolution.

So you can't answer the question why one species, out of all of the millions of species that have existed on this planet, has been impacted by evolution so much more than the others.

Didn't think so. Playing "Stump the Idiot" is never really that challenging.

 

[Timshel]

It's not possible that man evolved.

What makes you say this?

No other species has evolved this quickly or as a far.

LOL.

 

[Taft2016]

What makes you say this?





LOL.

So you've come to total failure. Predictable.

 

[Timshel]

So you can't answer the question why one species, out of all of the millions of species that have existed on this planet, has been impacted by evolution so much more than the others.

Didn't think so. Playing "Stump the Idiot" is never really that challenging.

We have evolved more than any other species yet we did not evolve as have other species? Are you seriously so dumb that you don't see that your argument has contradicted your premise?

I don't agree with your claims, that we have been impacted more by evolution, that we are "farther" evolved than other species or that we evolved more quickly than any other species. But why bother with that when these points have so clearly contradicted the very premise you set out to prove.

 

[Timshel]

So you've come to total failure. Predictable.

You argued that man has evolved after asserting the opposite. You are the failure and now you are just proving what a liar you are by trying to pretend you said something else.

 

[Taft2016]

We have evolved more than any other species yet we did not evolve as have other species? Are you seriously so dumb that you don't see that your argument has contradicted your premise?

I don't agree with your claims, that we have been impacted more by evolution, that we are "farther" evolved than other species or that we evolved more quickly than any other species. But why bother with that when these points have so clearly contradicted the very premise you set out to prove.

No, again, you can't be this dumb.

I'm posing your position to you... if "man has evolved" then explain how evolution has impacted him so much more and faster than other species?

And if man has not "evolved" as you say more than other species, when can we expect beavers to be launching rockets to the Moon?

 

[Timshel]

No, again, you can't be this dumb.

I'm posing your position to you... if "man has evolved" then explain how evolution has impacted him so much more and faster than other species?

And if man has not "evolved" as you say more than other species, when can we expect beavers to be launching rockets to the Moon?

No, you are not posing my position to me. I did not argue that "evolution has impacted [man] so much more and faster than other species." You did and contradicted your assertion that man has not evolved.

You have reached the legendary ditzy level of failure. You are now one of three biggest dolts in board history (the others being, of course, ditzy and the PiMPle).

Again, I do not see any reason to agree that "evolution has impacted [man] so much more and faster than other species." What proof do you have of this? BTW, this means I am expecting you to offer support of your assertion, not for you to attack it, as you attacked your original assertion.

 

[Taft2016]

No, you are not posing my position to me. I did not argue that "evolution has impacted [man] so much more and faster than other species." You did and contradicted your assertion that man has not evolved.

You have reached the legendary ditzy level of failure. You are now one of three biggest dolts in board history (the others being, of course, ditzy and the PiMPle).

Again, I do not see any reason to agree that "evolution has impacted [man] so much more and faster than other species." What proof do you have of this? BTW, this means I am expecting you to offer support of your assertion, not for you to attack it, as you attacked your original assertion.

Again, I never asserted man has not evolved.

We're going in circles and keep landing back at your lies.

You're a fraud.

 

[Timshel]

Again, I never asserted man has not evolved.

We're going in circles and keep landing back at your lies.

You're a fraud.

You didn't? Man, I could swear that you said it was not even possible....

I accept the possibility of the evolution of every form of life on this planet except for one.

We don't need anymore proof that you are a liar. It's a well established fact now.

What I asked for was some proof of your claim that "evolution has impacted [man] so much more and faster than other species."

 

[domer76]

You didn't? Man, I could swear that you said it was not even possible....



We don't need anymore proof that you are a liar. It's a well established fact now.

What I asked for was some proof of your claim that "evolution has impacted [man] so much more and faster than other species."

I don't think he's a liar. He just has zero comprehension of what natural selection entails.

 

[Timshel]

I don't think he's a liar. He just has zero comprehension of what natural selection entails.

I know he is a liar.

He claims he accepts the theory of evolution in one breath then in the next he rejects it. He says the evolution of man is not possible then claims he has not argued that man has not evolved. Those are both lies, with no two ways about the last one.

He argues that the unsupported assertion that man has evolved faster and farther than any other species is proof that man has not evolved. This one indicates that his IQ must be very very very low. So maybe he is not lying. Maybe he is just so dumb that he could not intentionally lie. But his other posts don't really support that.

EDIT: Oh yeah, then there is his lie that Einstien was a creationist. This one I have heard from this group of morons (ditzy, PiMPle and Taft) for over a decade. I have shown several times now that Einstein rejected the idea of God as a being that is active in the world, but they continue to smear him and Spinoza.

 

[CFM]

I feel blessed and so lucky that I don't have anyone in my real life that is this fucking stupid. But If I did, i'd have no end of entertainment making them look that stupid.

You do. It's you. Your family laughs at you and you don't realize it.

 

[Taft2016]

I know he is a liar.

He claims he accepts the theory of evolution in one breath then in the next he rejects it. He says the evolution of man is not possible then claims he has not argued that man has not evolved. Those are both lies, with no two ways about the last one.

A lie.

I said I accept evolution as a possibility. As I pointed out there are 8.7 million species on the planet and acknowledge evolution probably applies to 8,699,999 of them.

You, however, are a Darwinian jihadist and demand complete submission to your religion. Even someone with a 8,699,999 compliance rate out of 8.7 million is a "non-believer."

He argues that the unsupported assertion that man has evolved faster and farther than any other species is proof that man has not evolved.

Another lie.

In responding to the evolutionary theory I asked "if man" has evolved, why has he evolved faster and further than any other species?

If that premise is wrong, I ask, then why don't near-sighted polar bears wear contact lenses?

Oh yeah, then there is his lie that Einstien was a creationist. This one I have heard from this group of morons (ditzy, PiMPle and Taft) for over a decade.

You "disproved" this by saying Einstein was an adherent of Spinoza's theory, and then failed to cite anything indicating Spinoza was not a Creationist. I posted a Spinoza quote where he mentions a Creator, and you ignored it. You posted quotes from Spinoza and Einstein that had nothing to do with Creationism and said "Aha! See?"

So, all in all, you're a proven liar who has to deliberately mischaracterize other peoples' positions and argue against straw men to carry on a conversation. A sad, sad, sad, little man.

 

[Timshel]

See, he's a liar.

A lie.

I said I accept evolution as a possibility.

Except for man...

I accept the possibility of the evolution of every form of life on this planet except for one.

Another lie.

In responding to the evolutionary theory I asked "if man" has evolved, why has he evolved faster and further than any other species?

There was no if in your argument.

No other species has evolved this quickly or as a far.

Nobody but you has claimed that man has evolved faster and farther than other species. You offered man's supposed extensive evolution as proof that man has not evolved. You are just that stupid.

If that premise is wrong, I ask, then why don't near-sighted polar bears wear contact lenses?

Fuck, you are stupid.

You "disproved" this by saying Einstein was an adherent of Spinoza's theory, and then failed to cite anything indicating Spinoza was not a Creationist. I posted a Spinoza quote where he mentions a Creator, and you ignored it. You posted quotes from Spinoza and Einstein that had nothing to do with Creationism and said "Aha! See?"

So, all in all, you're a proven liar who has to deliberately mischaracterize other peoples' positions and argue against straw men to carry on a conversation. A sad, sad, sad, little man.

Spinoza and Einstien were not creationists. Einstein made it quite clear in the quote I posted that there was no room for an active God that controlled the world in science or his personal views . Spinoza was clear, too, that God or Nature was not a being that created through free will.

 

[Taft2016]

See, he's a liar.

Half the time I think you're being willfully stupid, the other half of the time I wonder if you can't help yourself.

Either way, this conversation is waaaaaay over your head.

 

[Taft2016]

And I think I know what the problem is.

You, Bucktard, et al., think everyone having such a discussion with you is akin to the Dinosaur Theme Park guy. So you argue against the pre-conceived caricature you typically encounter.

You were totally thrown off running into a nuanced position that you've never encountered before, and began tripping over your own feet post after post.

So you had no other choice really, other than to lie, distort, mischaracterize, and create straw men.

Sad, but I've seen this happen to other faux intellectuals in the past.

 

[Timshel]

Half the time I think you're being willfully stupid, the other half of the time I wonder if you can't help yourself.

Either way, this conversation is waaaaaay over your head.

It's over my head because you don't understand that man's supposed extensive evolution cannot be proof that man has not evolved?

Again, why do we show all the signs of evolution that other species show. The proof of the common descent of other apes and man is far more compelling than the proof that an elephant has common descent with a field mouse much less a Sequoia. But you claim to accept that the elephant and Sequoia are related, but not chimps and humans? WTF?

The dna evidence for our evolution is just as compelling as it is for any other species. The biogeographic evidence for our evolution is just as compelling as it for any other species. The fossil evidence supporting our evolution is not significantly different than the fossil evidence for the evolution of other species.

These should be your points of attack but your dumbass is talking about eyeglasses, which offers no proof of the evolution of any species.

Your position is not taken based on any science. You have taken up this psoition based on what you think it says about you. That is, you don't want to go full retard as Ham does but you don't want to be a heretic or alienate the religious nutjobs that you associate with politically.