The Bee Police (Selective Pressure at Work LOL)

[killerboyfoolz]

I like this one, I never knew bees do that. I'm going to research on this

[JAMRAND]

Is there adequate amounts of top soils in between the layers of rock to correspond with the dating methods . If not where did it go .

[JAMRAND]

I sourced them and you say they are not there .

I like Dr. Tour have no problem beleiving in evolution "Grand scheme"

But after reveiwing all the evidences for its argument I am not convinced .

It seems to me that those who easily believe have motives for doing so .

The gay community atheist and academia seem to be its largest proponents .

Academia also seem to be those with an axe to grind with society . They are not very stable . I have been surronded by educators my entire life

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND No, I said there are no articles there which contradict evolution, and there aren't.

And now you go into an ad hominem laced NWO conspiracy rant, perfect cap to such a discussion.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

there is nothing that can contradict evolution as I have explained earlier .

PLZ give an alternative naturalistic explanation for the bio diversity we see . Cute little trick isnt it .

Sort of like climate change . Fools the masses and begins with the limited gifts of academia .

I mean look ,the climates changing .

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND Of course there is, if you found a rabbit in the cambrian evolution would be in trouble

Don't confuse unfalsified with unfalsifiable.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

especially when the rabbit fossil is discovered we all know not to label it the cambrian .

and when we see cambrian animals alongside modern mammals we know that a catastrpohe must have happened .

let me explain something to you . The human imagination can justify and make up any story to back his beliefs . I included .I can make up a story that ancient Rome never had religions and you coud no way beat my argument . Dont leave your common sense at the door

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND 'especially when the rabbit fossil is discovered we all know not to label it the cambrian .'

Do you have an example of this or are you just speculating out of nothing?

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

The strata is Identified by what is in it . A rabbit would quickly rule out the possibility of it being the cambrian .

Again making it impossible to falsify .

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND Again I ask

Do you have an example of this or are you just speculating out of nothing?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND I agree, if you're a creationist spouting that strawman, you *are* imbecilic

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

The strata is identified by its organized fossils . Are you saying this is incorrect ?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND There are index fossils but there is also dating when igneous rock is present.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

Please tell me what type of fossils are found in Igneous rock that supposedly help your argument .

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND No, not fossils found in igneous rock, igneous rock found in the layers.

[thechessstick]

If the Genesis account is true we would expect to see evidence that man and "dinosaurs" have lived together. And what do we find? MUCH evidence that man and "dinosaurs" have lived together. Now, watch this everyone.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@thechessstick 'MUCH evidence that man and "dinosaurs" have lived together'

Such as?

[thechessstick]

If the Genesis account of Noah's Flood is true then what evidence would we expect to find? Answer.... Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth. And what do we find? Answer... Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the Earth. Now, what this everyone.

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@thechessstick

Its plain to see that TSF knows the truth but refuses to admit it to himself . We know this because he has to resort to telling lies . He now admites finding the peer reviewed articles that state that macro evolution is not proven to be true . Even though he swore that he had previously read the article by james M Tour which sourced them It has taken 3 weeks for him to admit what was evident .

He is a liar who believes in God but cant stand God .

[thechessstick]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU TSF has made the foolish decision to reject his heavenly Father and has chosen instead the father of all lies to be his father. What a dolt he is.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Yes it's plain to see that I'm the only one in this conversation that does know the truth, I mean I had to point out that the strata are not sorted according to the layers properties in water at all, that's pretty rudimentary.

No, what I said was he cited no articles that are evidence against evolution, which is true.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@thechessstick We would expect to find them sorted according to their respective properties in water. What do we find? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers, neither of which are even remotely sorted according to their properties in water.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@thechessstick We actually like for the religious whack jobs to keep claiming that, because it gives us the chance to exemplify the fact that you have no actual evidence supporting it. See watch;

What is one piece of empirical data supporting the biblical account of creation?

You're not going to answer it because you can't, instead you're either going to ignore it altogether or dodge with a personal attack.

[JAMRAND]

"There is no need for them to exist"

was your post ,

Is the rock in my hand essential .

Your reasoning lacks logic .

[JAMRAND]

I have told you that you lacked comprehension abilities .

I am not using Tour as an authority I am merely pointing out that once one reaches a certain level in any position he cannot have time for all those wishing to communicate with them . While they have time for their peers someone shouting from the crowd will be dismissed .

You not understanding such an elemenatary life lesson is telling .

Qualifications for reaching Dr. Tour ??????

[TheScienceFoundation]

It's not intelligence, it's pheromones.

Either way you still literally *never* give anything at all in the way of a hypothesis or mechanism as to how god did it.

[Vlaxerman343]

@TheScienceFoundation uh, by creating them?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Vlaxerman343 uh, that's not a mechanism, that's the assertion that creationists need to evidence.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

You really are doing nothing more than trolling . What could you possibly say against this video that I cant make you look foolish for saying it. You guys were once ruling you tube . Now you simply make fools of yourselves.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND That coming from the guy whose ringer and great professional wouldn't even have an email conversation about something he claimed was chemically askew about evolution.

Any word from Tour yet on exactly what he thinks is troublesome chemistry for evolution?

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

Quit being a turd . If you dont know how to present yourself in a professional manner dont crap on our chess board and then fly away claiming victory .

I am sick of your word salads and pretention that you are something that is clear that you are not . Comprehension ability is maybe a 73 .

Qualifications for speaking to tour PLZ. (nothing else)

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND I asked your ringer what he thought the chemical problem for evolution was, he specifically did not want to have the conversation. Not only did he not want to have the conversation, but nothing on his actual website says anything about any claimed problems regarding chemistry and evolution. In fact just the opposite, the only thing he said about his field is that he can't use it to support creationism or ID

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

Qualifications for speaking to Tour without paying the Tuition ?

Qualifications PLZ.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND Argumentation other than fallacy attacking the man instead of argument/evidence?

Valid non-fallacious argumentation please.

[Vlaxerman343]

@TheScienceFoundation yeah right

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Vlaxerman343 Exactly.

[Vlaxerman343]

@TheScienceFoundation creationism isn't another form of your phony balogna evolution you don't need evidence to clarify that an intellegent being did it, but with evolution you'd need 500 skeletons for each evolutionary change in the process and even if you did most of them would look too similar to each other and most wouldn't represent the next animal they were supposed to be, remember the bird raptor?

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Vlaxerman343 Kind of telling you'd say 'creationism isn't like evolution' then say 'you don't need evidence'. It's like you realize real science does require evidence but then turn that part of your brain off when focusing on creationism.

'you don't need evidence to clarify that an intellegent being did it'

You do actually, otherwise all you have is the claim.

'remember the bird raptor?'

Yep, I also remember the sequence of bird-like dinosaurs to dinosaur-like birds

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Vlaxerman343 I swear, I've been talking to you for a month and you haven't learned a single thing.

[Vlaxerman343]

@TheScienceFoundation because I choose not to learn what you're teaching, you communist

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Vlaxerman343 Yes, you've made it obvious you care nothing about learning real science.

[Vlaxerman343]

@TheScienceFoundation pffft so you're saying just because evolution is taken in by most scientists it makes it real science? hahahaha you're the biggest idiot I've heard yet do you even know the meaning of science? it is an observation of the universe to better man's self, if you think evolution is real science then you are sorely mistaken

[TheScienceFoundation]

@Vlaxerman343 No, the fact that it's supported by all evidence and contradicted by none makes it real science.

Don't feel too bad, personal attacks are the last resort of those without an actual argument, a lot of creationists have to resort to that.

Science is the accrual of knowledge, the empirical explanation for biodiversity is the sole purview of evolution, so yes, evolution is science.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

supported by all evidence Liar

contradicted by none Liar

Educations do not need help . Put the facts on the table and let the people decide .

You believing you need to dress the argument shows you lack confidence in your own argument . There is no evidence that specific complexity can be achieved through evolution . If you present the nylon eating bacteria I will believe that academia has become posessed because they couldnt be that dumb

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND What evidence in or related to biology doesn't support evolutionary theory?

I keep answering your questions, you keep dodging mine

So do you have Tour's chemical objection to evolution yet?

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

hahhahah The only question I have asked was for your qualifications .

Plz copy and paste where you have answered . if you dont we know that you have resorted to telling lies again . O my spongebob we do have a problem dont we.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND I've asked you for weeks for Tours chemical objections to evolution, he wouldn't give them, you seem to be completely unable to as well.

So are you going to admit there are none or are you just going to keep babbling? Because I don't mind continuously making you look like a trolling simpleton.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

I have quoted Dr tours website that means in quotes moron . Your response " IT aint there" I have sourced the peer reviewed articles Your response "It aint there"

I have asked for your qualifications and quess what IT AINT THERE .

You are a littel dweeb with an itty bitty IQ parroting what you thought was a good argument . It isnt and has been abandoned by those who are gifted .

You may be able to retain what you are told . (The bottom of the barrel)

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND You've done neither, you've only kept asserting there is an objection without substantiating it in any way. That's two more fallacies, argumentum ad nauseum and bare assertion.

Of course you could try to prove me wrong right now by citing your claimed sources instead of just continually claiming they exist with no backing whatsoever.

[thechessstick]

@JAMRAND TSF is an Emperor's-New-Clothes commoner. He just wants to be part of the group that calls itself wise. Its his way of feeling important. Men will typically get this feeling of importance through having a family and lovingly caring for it. Or perhaps dedicating their life to God. Others dedicate their life to their work or perhaps scholarship. He has done none of these because they all require sacrifice and work. Evolution and sin are the abode of the bum. He is wasting his life

[JAMRAND]

@thechessstick

He lies alot doesnt he

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND You project a lot don't you.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@thechessstick So maybe then you can present actual evidence against evolutionary theory or for creationism, instead of just asserting it exists.

[thechessstick]

@TheScienceFoundation I wish I knew that I wouldn't be wasting my time. Then I would do it. But since I don't I will recommend to you A.E. Wilder-Smith's book "The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution". You can probably find it on ebay or on bookfinder dot co m. Do yourself a favor and read this book.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@thechessstick Yes, trolling generally is a huge waste of time.

Instead of me having to buy a book and wait days for it to be delivered to refute it, how about you try to present at least one argument in favor of your position?

Can you do that, or can you just repeat ad nauseum that they exist with no substantiation whatsoever?

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

you think just because your imagination can create a story that stands as a refutation . You are an idiot

[WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU]

@JAMRAND

He is a moron and a liar . Berean should block him . He is not interested in discourse

[TheScienceFoundation]

@WHOwasTALKINGtoYOU Aww that's so cute, you have your sockpuppets out to play.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND Again you project

[JAMRAND]

@JAMRAND

James M Tour Group evolution / creation article

4th paragraph list 2 peer reviewed articles questioning macroevolution

5th paragraph Dr. Tour plainly states that he does not understand how macroevolution could have chemically happened and has offered a dinner for someone to sit down with him and explain it . He also states that all those who he has asked all sheepishly admit that they do not know either .

Untill someone explains it to him he maintains that nobody knows

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND 4th: No he doesn't a quick cursory glance of the first article reveals that it's not saying anything about whether the mutations which are an engine for 'macro' evolution occur, but only what type of mutations they are. The conclusion of the second paper 'The Continuity of Microevolution and Macroevolution' is that macroevolutionary trends *are* governed by the same principles as microevolution

5th: I tried over email, he specifically did not want to have the conversation.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND It's not that people aren't willing to explain it to him, it's that he is unwilling to learn, and willful ignorance is not an argument against the collective knowledge in the fields of biology and organic chemistry.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND No wonder you were apprehensive about posting the supposed articles against evolution, they're obviously nothing of the sort to anyone who even bothers to read them. I think Tour is counting on creationists unwillingness to do so.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

You are such a liar . You first stated the articles did not exist now you say you have read them .

You're a liar . I am compiling your post to use you as the poster boy for atheist idiocy . hahahahahah.

Nylonaise ,tiktallik, fossils, retro virus, monkey, which means that the third ant out of the mound bites other species and that makes them change. Your argument is that stupid and can only be beleived bu someone who is desperate to believe it .

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND I read them after you pointed them out.  Now you're just resorting to personal attacks to try to distract from the fact they've been refuted as evidence against evolution.

Now you're just rambling, it's gotten rather pitiful.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

"I read them after you pointed them out . " You were adament thsat you had previously read it and that there were no articles cited and that James Tour had no quesrtions regarding the chemical details of macroevolution .

But you didnt read rthe article you are a liar .

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND No I said that he cited no articles that were in any way evidence against evolution, and he didn't.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

"No I said that he cited no articles that were in any way evidence against evolution "

Playing games with words are we . I dont blame you since you have no case .

There was none against evolution (Change over time ) But questioned the ability for evolution to be responsible for all the biodiversity we observe .( Macroevolution ) You take the data and put spin on it to arrive at your preconceived conclusions . Then unashamedly pretend it is others who do that . LIAR

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND 'But questioned the ability for evolution to be responsible for all the biodiversity we observe'

No there weren't, not articles anyway. The articles he cited said nothing even remotely similar to what he claimed they did.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

he quoted the article That would be in quotes . " DUMMY"

you spent 6 weeks stating that he didnt ask for an explantion of the chemical details along with that he did not source two articles as well as quote from the article that openly state that macro evolution is in question .

So now that you pretend he didnt quote the articles which attest to his position doesnt suprise me .

You have continued to be dishonest throughout our dicourse. nananaboo king you are

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND I said he never quoted or cited articles which were evidence against evolution, and he didn't.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

he quoted 2 articles which openly claim that macro evolution is in question .

Your continual play on words tells me your not doing very well in this discussion. Dishonest and the nananan boo boo kingt of you tube convinced that he has all the information to derive a conclusion when it is plain you have none of it .

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND 'he quoted 2 articles which openly claim that macro evolution is in question'

Really? Which ones? Because the two on his page do nothing of the sort.

'Your continual play on words tells me your not doing very well in this discussion. '

See: Psychological projection.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

Ok einstein then you post the 2 quotes that Dr. Tour post in his article .

I will be waiting

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND You mean the articles?

“Perspective: Evolutionary Developmental Biology and the Problem of Variation,”

“The Continuity of Microevolution and Macroevolution,”

Neither of which are evidence against evolution and this fact is made clear simply by reading them

The first is a paper discussing which mutations cause which phenotypic change and the second concludes that macroevolution *is* governed by the same principles as microevolution.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

I asked you tio post the quotes you do not have to post the sources . and plz I dont need you to explain anything to me . You are so indoctrinated that you have forgotten how to think for yourself .

Just the quotes from the articles PLZ

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND What's the point? I've already shown how the articles are not in any way evidence against evolution.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

Just post the quotes nananana boo boo is not enough

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND If you want them posted, post them yourself.

[thechessstick]

@TheScienceFoundation The structure and function of the single cell does not at all align with evolution. Evolution also does not align with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. There is not one shred of evidence that evolution has occurred. Any evidence for evolution is merely conjecture or imagination. You even see there examples of transitional forms of life are only artists renditions. Why even their fossil evidence are pieces of artwork. See "the story "The Emperor's New Clothes"

[TheScienceFoundation]

@thechessstick 'Evolution also does not align with the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics'

Really? How so?

I tell you over and over your trolling is becoming more painfully obvious by the day but you just keep getting worse.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

I care a great deal about science . Care to explain anything to me.

Care to give me the data that formed your materialist conclusion .

Science is the only way but I have no data to back that statement . LOL And you want to be taken seriously????

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND You obviously have no understanding of what science even is, let alone do you care for it. Well, that and you're trolling.

So do you have Tour's chemical objection to evolution yet?

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

nananana boo boo is not a thoughtfull reply .

Qualifications that lift you from the crowd . I presume you have none and therefore could not understand Dr. Tour if the tried to explain it to you .

In anticipation of a thoughtfull reply

JAMRAND

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND Neither is attacking the character of the person you're having a discussion with, in fact it's a fallacy.

[TheScienceFoundation]

@JAMRAND Here I'll save us both some time

You make a bunch of unsubstantiated claims

I ask you to support them

You fail to do so and instead resort to personal attacks to distract from the fact that you need formal training to debate at a third grade level tuck tail and run.

[JAMRAND]

@TheScienceFoundation

Why would Dr. tour respond to you

Qualifications plz ???

Yes thats really third grade stuff . hahahahah

[YourBrainOnReligion]

@TheScienceFoundation Interesting.. so they were wrong there too? lol. Further evidence of why no one should ever trust what creationists say.

[JAMRAND]

@YourBrainOnReligion

Are you saying God didnt create an order for his creation ? Are you saying there is no God ?

What exactly are you saying ?

[YourBrainOnReligion]

@JAMRAND You know my position Jam. At least, you should by now :) I do not believe any Spinoza-type god(s) exist because there is no need for them to exist. Furthermore, I know for a fact (and can prove) that any religion promising an afterlife is simply wrong. Worse, it's my belief that belief in any religion is detrimental to ones growth as a person in general. That should pretty much sum it up.

[JAMRAND]

@YourBrainOnReligion

Great

Was there no lucy (the extinct ape) because there was no need for her to exist either . Plz clarify your position .

You dont have to disprove any other religion but the christian proposal clearly states that God judges the heart and the heart of those who pass his judgement believe in Jesus Christ . (Prove it wrong)

[YourBrainOnReligion]

@JAMRAND "Was there no lucy (the extinct ape) because there was no need for her to exist either . Plz clarify your position ." That had absolutely nothing to do with anything I stated. Did you forget your meds today?

[YourBrainOnReligion]

How do you not realize that the very argument you make shoots creationism in the foot?

They claim bee's are so intelligent they're able to assemble a complex society. Yet, somehow, this is while insisting that man is the only intelligent being on the planet because we're the only ones special to "god". If that isn't absolutely retarded, I don't know what is.

[crxpunkb16]

@YourBrainOnReligion you need deliverance.

[YourBrainOnReligion]

@crxpunkb16 Hmm... okay???

deliverance - to rescue; recovery or preservation from loss or danger

What do I need to be rescued from?? Common sense? That's an awfully strange statement. Are you okay?