Evolution Debunked! See how:

[YeshuaMarine]

Hey yall Evolutionies....I have some exciting news that was just published on this site:

http://jesusjustforyou.blogspot.com/2006/08/darwin-code.html

Check it out and give plenty of feedback. Darwinism has finally been destroyed once and for all! We finally have proof that he did not even exist to create the Science, nor did he go to the Galapogos Islands. He is in fact a fraud created out of Nazi Germany.

[FreezBee]

Hey yall Evolutionies....I have some exciting news that was just published on this site:

[bedited by moderater[/b]

Check it out and give plenty of feedback. Darwinism has finally been destroyed once and for all!

I haven't read your article yet; but I noticed the beginning:

In recent light of the Da Vinci Code...I have come up with an even greater idea that bears just as much truth as the Da Vinci Code itself......if you don't believe me, check it out for yourself:

As far as I have understood, the Da Vinci Code itself doesn't bear much truth, so neither should the Darwin Code.

But if it is funny, it may not be a complete waste of time. I'll return tomorrow, when I - hopefully - have had time to read it all.


- FreezBee

[YeshuaMarine]

I personally do believe Charles Darwin did go crazy on the Galapogos Islands, so I don't buy Evolution (no comment encouraged to this). However, this is supposed to be a cute little parody of the Da Vinci Code. Its quite humorous. I'm an advocate of ID and Creationism personally. (No comments allowed about my position in this thread). But this is just to humor the day. Feedback is encouraged.

[FreezBee]

I personally do believe Charles Darwin did go crazy on the Galapogos Islands, so I don't buy Evolution (no comment encouraged to this).

Ok, so we won't comment on this.



However, this is supposed to be a cute little parody of the Da Vinci Code.

Ooh, does it require that you have read the book/seen the movie? Since I have done neither, I may not be able tp appreciate your article.



Its quite humorous. I'm an advocate of ID and Creationism personally.

Well, we are all entitled to have our little flaws :smile:



But this is just to humor the day. Feedback is encouraged.

But we'll have to the read the article first, won't we?


- FreezBee

[YeshuaMarine]

Sounds like a personal opinion...won't go there. No more comments about my Creationistic/Intelligent Design stance. I want this to be solely about "The Darwin Code." But I hope you all enjoy it. Read as you freely will.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Hey yall Evolutionies....I have some exciting news that was just published on this site:

http://jesusjustforyou.blogspot.com/2006/08/darwin-code.html

Check it out and give plenty of feedback. Darwinism has finally been destroyed once and for all! We finally have proof that he did not even exist to create the Science, nor did he go to the Galapogos Islands. He is in fact a fraud created out of Nazi Germany.

Darwin's existance may have been a Nazi farce, but what of Anaximander?

[YeshuaMarine]

Darwin's existance may have been a Nazi farce, but what of Anaximander?

Even more incredulity than Darwin...gives me something to look at, thanks!

Anaximander: the urban myth

Coming to a store near you. :lol:

Again, back to the Darwin Code.

[YeshuaMarine]

Ok, so we won't comment on this.




Ooh, does it require that you have read the book/seen the movie? Since I have done neither, I may not be able tp appreciate your article.




Well, we are all entitled to have our little flaws :smile:




But we'll have to the read the article first, won't we?


- FreezBee

It does not require that you have read or seen the book/movie.

[Sirius]

This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. It starts with....
In recent light of the Da Vinci Code and it just goes down hill from there. :lol: Hitler, Timothy Leary?! The only thing I see missing from this garbage is "crop circles", "the shooter on the grassy knoll", "The CIA", "Castro" "One world govt." and the big oil companies have a carburator that runs on water but won't let you have it! :lol:
As I was reading this tripe I kept thinking...When do UFO's come into all this. Leave your brain on this side of the looking glass and it all makes sence!

[TheAnalogman]

Somehow I figured this thread would get some panties in a bunch.
Hmmmm.

[YeshuaMarine]

What do we think, best seller? How about Mel Gibson as the part of Timothy Leary?

[YeshuaMarine]

Basically, thats how we feel about the arguments against Christ...the dumbest thing man can think about! If we really used the logic presented against Christ, this is the kind of garbage we create....think about it a minute......

[FreezBee]

Basically, thats how we feel about the arguments against Christ...the dumbest thing man can think about! If we really used the logic presented against Christ, this is the kind of garbage we create....think about it a minute......

Ok, I have read your article, and I think I see your point - and the above quote works as a confirmation.

However, from what I have read about The Da Vinci Code, it does not promote evolution, so you are hitting the wrong guys, aren't you? As I understand, The Da Vinci Code promotes feminism, so your article should rather have been something about feminism invented by an insatiable sex-maniac like Ken Ham and possibly with William Dembski as a mad scientist trying to design the ultimate sex-bunny with a "bidirectional motor-driven rotary propeller" on her behind, or something along those lines. That might even have been funny, if you did it well :smile:


- FreezBee

[YeshuaMarine]

Haha, yeah I should write a book on Feminism too, lol. Good idea freebeez :).

Casey Powell

[YeshuaMarine]

Ok, I have read your article, and I think I see your point - and the above quote works as a confirmation.

However, from what I have read about The Da Vinci Code, it does not promote evolution, so you are hitting the wrong guys, aren't you? As I understand, The Da Vinci Code promotes feminism, so your article should rather have been something about feminism invented by an insatiable sex-maniac like Ken Ham and possibly with William Dembski as a mad scientist trying to design the ultimate sex-bunny with a "bidirectional motor-driven rotary propeller" on her behind, or something along those lines. That might even have been funny, if you did it well :smile:


- FreezBee

Actually FreezBee, I seriously don't believe that gunk. It was meant to be humorous, but it did also have a hidden point to it concerning textual criticism. I could incorporate that though, perhaps the female sex bunny's butt is, Irreducibly Complex. That would attract a lot of playboy fanatics (it might even get Evolutionists to reconsider their beliefs about Irreducible Complexity too).


Actually FreezBee, I seriously don't believe that gunk. It was meant to be humorous, but it did also have a hidden point to it concerning textual criticism. I could incorporate that though, perhaps the female sex bunny's butt is, Irreducibly Complex. That would attract a lot of playboy fanatics (it might even get Evolutionists to reconsider their beliefs about Irreducible Complexity too).

So next question, is that what it would take for Evolutionists to observe Irreducible Complexity? Playboy model butts?

[Tickle Me Goody]

This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. It starts with.... and it just goes down hill from there. :lol: Hitler, Timothy Leary?! The only thing I see missing from this garbage is "crop circles", "the shooter on the grassy knoll", "The CIA", "Castro" "One world govt." and the big oil companies have a carburator that runs on water but won't let you have it! :lol:
As I was reading this tripe I kept thinking...When do UFO's come into all this. Leave your brain on this side of the looking glass and it all makes sence!

I think that yeshua was "making a funny". You are too serious, sirius. :lmbo:

[Tiggy]

So next question, is that what it would take for Evolutionists to observe Irreducible Complexity? Playboy model butts?

'IC' systems are observed everywhere we look in biology. And every one examined to date has a plausible, natural explanation. What would it take for for YECs to stop spouting the false dichotomy that 'if science can't explain the details of every last individual teeny step in a billion year old process, then it must be designed'?.


But this is just to humor the day. Feedback is encouraged.

Don't quit your day job. :lol: :lol: :lol:

- Tiggy

[YeshuaMarine]

'IC' systems are observed everywhere we look in biology. And every one examined to date has a plausible, natural explanation. What would it take for for YECs to stop spouting the false dichotomy that 'if science can't explain the details of every last individual teeny step in a billion year old process, then it must be designed'?.



Don't quit your day job. :lol: :lol: :lol:

- Tiggy

EVERYONE OF THEM!!!!!

Thats going to take a lot of evidence there. Wow, so you know everything? I'm impressed (blah). I think your epistemology is a little off there.


EVERYONE OF THEM!!!!!

Thats going to take a lot of evidence there. Wow, so you know everything? I'm impressed (blah). I think your epistemology is a little off there.

Besides this, a lot of the "observations" made by Evolutionists do not work when put to the test. Irreducible complexity is often argued against as a concept for design by PHD Scientists (only Evolutionists I might add) that I have talked to because they don't want to face up to the fact that there are certain things that are irreducibly complex that do NOT have a natural explanation within the world! Go figure <rolls eyes>.


Besides this, a lot of the "observations" made by Evolutionists do not work when put to the test. Irreducible complexity is often argued against as a concept for design by PHD Scientists (only Evolutionists I might add) that I have talked to because they don't want to face up to the fact that there are certain things that are irreducibly complex that do NOT have a natural explanation within the world! Go figure <rolls eyes>.

So instead of being all goofified and braindead, lets go to something else here......BACK TO THE DARWIN CODE AND ONLY THE DARWIN CODE. I do not want to turn this into the typical (Evolution vs. Creationism) debate. I am totally over that.

THE DARWIN CODE. And next post that replies to something other than the Darwin Code gets reported.

What I'm looking for are, "How did you like the story? What did you think of the plotline? Does Charles Darwin's existence require Scientific testing? Do we have eyewitness accounts of him on the Galapogos Islands?" You know, important questions like that that never get addressed!

[Jme]

So instead of being all goofified and braindead, lets go to something else here......BACK TO THE DARWIN CODE AND ONLY THE DARWIN CODE. I do not want to turn this into the typical (Evolution vs. Creationism) debate. I am totally over that.

THE DARWIN CODE. And next post that replies to something other than the Darwin Code gets reported.


If you didn't want to talk about evolution and rather wanted to discuss it as a counter to chirstmythers then you really should have posted this thread in apologetics.



What I'm looking for are, "How did you like the story?

I thought it was drivel and a waste of my life reading it (the only reason I finished reading it was that it only took 10 minutes). I rate this along side A.I. for being a waste of time - and I wanted to sue the people that made the terrible, terrible film.

I know I'm being harsh but you wanted opinions so I gave mine.



What did you think of the plotline?

Somewhat stupid and not really analogous/comparable to the christ is a myth crowd - and the use of hitler and the nazis... bad idea as it makes it look like you are trying to pool the well so to speak.

Another problem with it is the idea that Darwin was the sole originator of evolution - he was not and while he was the one credited with bringing it to themainstream it would have made it there in a short while anyway as that's where the evidence leads. The same can not to said for the christ is a myth idea.



Does Charles Darwin's existence require Scientific testing?


Not really - there are living family members today, letters etc - these can be tested using certain methods to acertain there validity but other than that what sort of scientific testing did you have in mind? We could also dig him up of course.... where was he buried again?


Do we have eyewitness accounts of him on the Galapogos Islands?" You know, important questions like that that never get addressed!


Yes I think we do.

Oh and I doubt that anyone other than AIG/Ham/Hovid types would be willing to publish this tripe.

I'm sorry if I offend but it was just so crap!

[YeshuaMarine]

If you didn't want to talk about evolution and rather wanted to discuss it as a counter to chirstmythers then you really should have posted this thread in apologetics.




I thought it was drivel and a waste of my life reading it (the only reason I finished reading it was that it only took 10 minutes). I rate this along side A.I. for being a waste of time - and I wanted to sue the people that made the terrible, terrible film.

I know I'm being harsh but you wanted opinions so I gave mine.




Somewhat stupid and not really analogous/comparable to the christ is a myth crowd - and the use of hitler and the nazis... bad idea as it makes it look like you are trying to pool the well so to speak.

Another problem with it is the idea that Darwin was the sole originator of evolution - he was not and while he was the one credited with bringing it to themainstream it would have made it there in a short while anyway as that's where the evidence leads. The same can not to said for the christ is a myth idea.





Not really - there are living family members today, letters etc - these can be tested using certain methods to acertain there validity but other than that what sort of scientific testing did you have in mind? We could also dig him up of course.... where was he buried again?




Yes I think we do.

Oh and I doubt that anyone other than AIG/Ham/Hovid types would be willing to publish this tripe.

I'm sorry if I offend but it was just so crap!

Honesty works...I'm looking at more how we look at textual criticism though. Thats a basic assumption though that without Darwin Evolution would've hit mainstream. We need more evidence for that. We also need actual names of eyewitnesses....assumptions won't cut it here.

[YeshuaMarine]

If you didn't want to talk about evolution and rather wanted to discuss it as a counter to chirstmythers then you really should have posted this thread in apologetics.




I thought it was drivel and a waste of my life reading it (the only reason I finished reading it was that it only took 10 minutes). I rate this along side A.I. for being a waste of time - and I wanted to sue the people that made the terrible, terrible film.

I know I'm being harsh but you wanted opinions so I gave mine.




Somewhat stupid and not really analogous/comparable to the christ is a myth crowd - and the use of hitler and the nazis... bad idea as it makes it look like you are trying to pool the well so to speak.

an opinion...why...when, where what who???????????? many questions left unanswered.

Another problem with it is the idea that Darwin was the sole originator of evolution - he was not and while he was the one credited with bringing it to themainstream it would have made it there in a short while anyway as that's where the evidence leads. The same can not to said for the christ is a myth idea.

I'm aware that this was more ancient Greek time period with Anaximander. What if the Origin of Species had never been written though? What if it was written by Hitler? What if all of this evidence is true enough to believe?



Not really - there are living family members today, letters etc - these can be tested using certain methods to acertain there validity but other than that what sort of scientific testing did you have in mind? We could also dig him up of course.... where was he buried again?




Yes I think we do.

Oh and I doubt that anyone other than AIG/Ham/Hovid types would be willing to publish this tripe.

I'm sorry if I offend but it was just so crap!

Somehow I don't see AIG willing to publish this. There was a lady who was intrigued by the idea by the name of Nancy Sheheen though....a local person involved with editing and publishing. Its meant to be tripe though. Thats the whole point.

[Roy]

Irreducible complexity is often argued against as a concept for design by PHD Scientists (only Evolutionists I might add) that I have talked to because they don't want to face up to the fact that there are certain things that are irreducibly complex that do NOT have a natural explanation within the world! (emphasis mine)

Name three.

Roy

[bandecoot]

Hey yall Evolutionies....I have some exciting news that was just published on this site:

http://jesusjustforyou.blogspot.com/2006/08/darwin-code.html

Check it out and give plenty of feedback. Darwinism has finally been destroyed once and for all! We finally have proof that he did not even exist to create the Science, nor did he go to the Galapogos Islands. He is in fact a fraud created out of Nazi Germany.



Bwhahahahahahahahahahah,,,, thanks for that. Ive been sick for the last few days and the real laugh I got from your credulity, helped me get a big chunk of mucus out of my lungs.

[YeshuaMarine]

(emphasis mine)

Name three.

Roy

Morality, The origin of the Mind, The origin of DNA, the human eye, the ability to perceive, feelings, beliefs, thoughts, emotions, truth, metaphysics, God, Jesus's resurrection (need I go further)

[YeshuaMarine]

Morality, The origin of the Mind, The origin of DNA, the human eye, the ability to perceive, feelings, beliefs, thoughts, emotions, truth, metaphysics, God, Jesus's resurrection (need I go further)

Blood clotting systems

A diddle a diddle thats all folks....

Back to the Darwin Code.

[YeshuaMarine]

Bwhahahahahahahahahahah,,,, thanks for that. Ive been sick for the last few days and the real laugh I got from your credulity, helped me get a big chunk of mucus out of my lungs.

Good tahts the purpose!

[wattsr1]

Morality, The origin of the Mind, The origin of DNA, the human eye, the ability to perceive, feelings, beliefs, thoughts, emotions, truth, metaphysics, God, Jesus's resurrection (need I go further)


Gidday YeshuaMarine,


In what sense is the human eye irreducibly complex?


Regards, Roland

[YeshuaMarine]

Alright....I have renamed this thread...the Darwin Code...nothing else to respond to.

[YeshuaMarine]

This has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever read. It starts with.... and it just goes down hill from there. :lol: Hitler, Timothy Leary?! The only thing I see missing from this garbage is "crop circles", "the shooter on the grassy knoll", "The CIA", "Castro" "One world govt." and the big oil companies have a carburator that runs on water but won't let you have it! :lol:
As I was reading this tripe I kept thinking...When do UFO's come into all this. Leave your brain on this side of the looking glass and it all makes sence!

Lets learn from this dude!

[Roy]

Morality, The origin of the Mind, The origin of DNA, the human eye, the ability to perceive, feelings, beliefs, thoughts, emotions, truth, metaphysics, God, Jesus's resurrection (need I go further)

Since none of the above are irreducibly complex, you need to start again.

Alternatively, you could list their components, and show how removal of any one makes them unworkable. Suggest starting with 'truth' or 'morality'.

Roy

[YeshuaMarine]

Since none of the above are irreducibly complex, you need to start again.

Alternatively, you could list their components, and show how removal of any one makes them unworkable. Suggest starting with 'truth' or 'morality'.

Roy

Tell that to an eye doctor Roy. You define the items to be not irreducible, then back that up with what irreducible complexity is Roy <shaking head> violation of the 2nd law of logic.

Now back to the Darwin Code <brother>

[YeshuaMarine]

One more comment regarding anything involving anything other than the Darwin Code, and the thread gets closed. There are plenty of other threads regarding those issues if you wish to participate in them. This thread is solely for the Darwin Code. The thread itself is designed to be that of satire. Its simply a joke. I figured if anyone had the least bit of a shred of sense of humor they might be able to grasp that concept. Apparently there are some people too dense, and quite frankly lets not avoid the word stupid to grasp the ability to distinguish the difference of that between satire and seriousness. Might I add, your post, Roy, has been reported.

We can add comments regarding the playboy model butts being irreducible complex. Nothing more on IC though.

[MR SQUIGGLE]

One more comment regarding anything involving anything other than the Darwin Code, and the thread gets closed. There are plenty of other threads regarding those issues if you wish to participate in them. This thread is solely for the Darwin Code. The thread itself is designed to be that of satire. Its simply a joke. I figured if anyone had the least bit of a shred of sense of humor they might be able to grasp that concept. Apparently there are some people too dense, and quite frankly lets not avoid the word stupid to grasp the ability to distinguish the difference of that between satire and seriousness. Might I add, your post, Roy, has been reported.

We can add comments regarding the playboy model butts being irreducible complex. Nothing more on IC though.
If any of the rock apes out there who believe Darwins theory of evolution is correct...PLEASE...submit your family geneology, and indicate which of your ancestors fornicated with an ape!!!.....

[Barry Desborough]

If any of the rock apes out there who believe Darwins theory of evolution is correct...PLEASE...submit your family geneology, and indicate which of your ancestors fornicated with an ape!!!.....

Wilberforce's speech on June 30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_30), 1860 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860), was good-humoured and witty, but was an unfair attack on Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism), ending in the now infamous question to Huxley of whether "it was through his grandfather or grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey." Some commentators suggested that this question was written by Owen, and others suggested that the Bishop was taught by Owen. Huxley is purported to have turned to his neighbour, chemist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry) Professor Brodie and exclaiming, "The Lord has delivered him into mine hands." When Huxley spoke, he responded that he had heard nothing from Wilberforce to prejudice Darwin's arguments, which still provided the best explanation of the origin of species yet advanced. He ended with the equally infamous response to Wilberforce's question, that he had "no need to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather, but that he would be ashamed of having for an ancestor a man of restless and versatile interest who distracts the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digression and skilled appeals to religious prejudice." source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Museum_of_Natural_History)

[MR SQUIGGLE]

Wilberforce's speech on June 30 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_30), 1860 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860), was good-humoured and witty, but was an unfair attack on Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism), ending in the now infamous question to Huxley of whether "it was through his grandfather or grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey." Some commentators suggested that this question was written by Owen, and others suggested that the Bishop was taught by Owen. Huxley is purported to have turned to his neighbour, chemist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry) Professor Brodie and exclaiming, "The Lord has delivered him into mine hands." When Huxley spoke, he responded that he had heard nothing from Wilberforce to prejudice Darwin's arguments, which still provided the best explanation of the origin of species yet advanced. He ended with the equally infamous response to Wilberforce's question, that he had "no need to be ashamed of having an ape for his grandfather, but that he would be ashamed of having for an ancestor a man of restless and versatile interest who distracts the attention of his hearers from the real point at issue by eloquent digression and skilled appeals to religious prejudice." source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_University_Museum_of_Natural_History)



EXCELLENT REBUTTAL MY GOOD MAN!http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1799292#http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1799292# :grin: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/misc.php?http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/misc.php?do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=0&forumid=12#do=getsmilies&wysiwyg=0&forumid=12#

[MR SQUIGGLE]

I've got a problem with how you're treating the argument here. I believe the point is that you have less evidence that Darwin existed than Jesus existed, yet no one has a problem with Darwin existing, or with what Darwin did insofar as it concerns Evolutionists, only that when evidence for Jesus is pulled up, it is quickly dismissed. So, why not quickly dismiss Darwin's existence and his works, as quickly as we dismiss Jesus's existence and his works (the Bible).


HEllooo!......as much as I dismiss the theories of C.Darwin....there is certainly PLENTY of evidence of darwins existance(as a monkey!)

To even suggest that the man is a myth is just sheer stupidity in the extreme!.....It is that kind of lack of cognative process that gives creedence to one of your ancestors having had a prehensile tail!

But here....have a banana for learning to type!

[lao tzu]

Children love playing with puppies.
Forum newbs love playing with zombies.

FYI:
The OP of this thread has been matrixed.
Don't expect any swift replies.

[Natural Skeptic]

Hey yall Evolutionies....I have some exciting news that was just published on this site:

* edited by a moderator *

Check it out and give plenty of feedback. Darwinism has finally been destroyed once and for all! We finally have proof that he did not even exist to create the Science, nor did he go to the Galapogos Islands. He is in fact a fraud created out of Nazi Germany.

If this thread was meant to be satire, more forewarning may have been needed.

The Davinci Code is not even related to Christ as a non-existent character or a fabrication. The book's ending is a confirmation of the bloodline of Christ, the opposite notion of Jesus being a non-existent figure. So this element of the story is rather poorly executed.

The rest of the drivel in the blog entry doesn't need to be addressed.

[MR SQUIGGLE]

Children love playing with puppies.
Forum newbs love playing with zombies.

FYI:
The OP of this thread has been matrixed.
Don't expect any swift replies.


puppies...zombies....all fun to disect! :lol:

[Tatanka_Maza]

Sounds like a personal opinion...won't go there. No more comments about my Creationistic/Intelligent Design stance. I want this to be solely about "The Darwin Code." But I hope you all enjoy it. Read as you freely will.


Does anyone really care what you want?