Expelled: a Movie that Exposes the Startling Bias against Intelligent Design

[haole mahu kane]

charlieb1950 wrote:

<quoted text>Your FANTASY is THAT EVOLUTION IS A FACT.LMAO!If people like you were not so gullible to believe in a guess,or conjecture.I have to admit we could not debate the issue.lmao!

Here you go, learn something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_the...

Before you whine about it being on wikipedia, it's simply a convenient location for the information. You can get the same details elsewhere.

[haole mahu kane]

haole mahu kane wrote:

<quoted text>
Here you go, learn something:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_the...
Before you whine about it being on wikipedia, it's simply a convenient location for the information. You can get the same details elsewhere.

Perhaps you'd like to follow up with some education as to what it is you are actually claiming to disbelieve.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

[TedHOhio]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
lol Just like I said, science can be proven to be false by other scientific methods. Creationism CANNOT be proven to be false by any scientific method,,,,,, THEREFORE, because of this most scientists mistakenly think creation is FALSE.
And now you are more intelligent than the Merriam Webster Dictionary?? Talk about arrogance. lol Or,, is it science has it's own little language?

Yes, you illiterate moron, science has it's own terminology, as do religions, lawyers, finance, medicine. All areas of human endeavor develop their own terminology. That is why the dictionary definition of falsifiability doesn't fit the bill. Take a course in logic and you will learn even more uses for the word falsifiable -- and they don't meet the dictionary definition either. But if you actually understood science you would realize that. Luckily no one will ever accuse you of understanding.

You said it yourself "Creationism CANNOT be proven to be false by any scientific method" -- which means it is not falsifiable; therefore it is not science. Thank you for stumbling your way into a correct answer. I know you didn't do it on purpose.

[TedHOhio]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok,, I'll start. Here is what I believe to be mankinds abiogenesis.. right there in Genesis.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
Now here is an explanation that closely parallels my understanding from God and Science.org ...What? You think I'm getting information from an evolution site?
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-...
The last creation of God was mankind, who was also created at the end of the sixth day. What about humans and three million year old fossil remains of bipedal primates? I believe in a literal Adam and Eve, although I do not believe they lived millions of years ago. The Bible indicates that Adam and Eve had a relationship with God (Genesis 2-3) and the text says that unique among all the animals, humans are endowed with a spirit (Hebrew, ruach, Greek, pneuma), by which they are able to communicate with and love God. Scientists have found no evidence of religious artifacts before about 25,000 to 50,000 years ago (15), which is the point at which I propose God created Adam and Eve. The Bible states that the covenant and laws of God have been proclaimed to a "thousand generations" (16). A biblical generation, described as being 40 years, would represent at least 40,000 years of human existence. However, since the first dozen or more generations were nearly 1,000 years, this would make humans nearly 50,000 years old, which agrees very well with dates from paleontology and molecular biology (see Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology). Therefore, I believe that bipedal primates that existed before Adam and Eve, were just part of the animal kingdom, and were not endowed with the characteristics that make humans distinct from animals.
Now, your turn.

So now you are claiming God spoke in English? Or is this one of those only partially literal bible parts?

So if he didn't speak English, those were not his exact words? Right? Hmmm so how do you know that was what he said? You weren't there .. oh I am so sorry, that is one of your creationist arguments about abiogenesis -- no one was there to see it, so it couldn't have possibly happened in any way imaginable by Man.

I know Wayne won't see the illogic, but the whole "English" debate didn't come from me, you can thank a Catholic upbringing and St. Fortunata's in NYC for it.

[Roku Roku Roku]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
You don't consider godandscience.org science? Why not?

Simply, a lot of conjecture without supporting evidence. I thought it interesting the way they define the people and evidence that they disagree without providing supporting evidence. They just make unsupported assertions that the people or evidence is wrong.

[Roku Roku Roku]

Wayne wrote:

To TheGavin
All the science you will ever need.
Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

And the evidence is........? I'm not saying that is incorrect, just not scientific evidence.

[Wayne]

Vincent VanSlyke wrote:

<quoted text>
Ok, why don't you put those words to action and go live as a hermit with just that verse and see how long you live.

Your ignorance shines like a beacon on the hill! lol

[Wayne]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, you illiterate moron, science has it's own terminology, as do religions, lawyers, finance, medicine. All areas of human endeavor develop their own terminology. That is why the dictionary definition of falsifiability doesn't fit the bill. Take a course in logic and you will learn even more uses for the word falsifiable -- and they don't meet the dictionary definition either. But if you actually understood science you would realize that. Luckily no one will ever accuse you of understanding.
You said it yourself "Creationism CANNOT be proven to be false by any scientific method" -- which means it is not falsifiable; therefore it is not science. Thank you for stumbling your way into a correct answer. I know you didn't do it on purpose.

I'll type this real slow since you are slow in catching on. Just because science can't prove God created mankind doesn't mean He didn't. lol Did the light come on?

[Wayne]

TedHOhio wrote:

<quoted text>
So now you are claiming God spoke in English? Or is this one of those only partially literal bible parts?
So if he didn't speak English, those were not his exact words? Right? Hmmm so how do you know that was what he said? You weren't there .. oh I am so sorry, that is one of your creationist arguments about abiogenesis -- no one was there to see it, so it couldn't have possibly happened in any way imaginable by Man.
I know Wayne won't see the illogic, but the whole "English" debate didn't come from me, you can thank a Catholic upbringing and St. Fortunata's in NYC for it.

Catholic upbringing??? That explains VOLUMES!!! lol

[Wayne]

Roku Roku Roku wrote:

<quoted text>And the evidence is........? I'm not saying that is incorrect, just not scientific evidence.

As I have said many times. You look at man and see evolution. I see Gods Creation. THAT is the evidence.

[Wayne]

Yawwwwwwn,, I'm actually getting bored with this thread. I win!!

[Real]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
I am SO glad you admitted science is falsifiable. Thank you!! And you even say creationism ISN'T falsifiable. REMARKABLE!! And SCIENCE is proud to say it knows NOTHING!! Talk about DUHHH! lol
YOU said "science is falsifiable, unlike creationism."
Falsifiable=1: to prove or declare false : disprove2: to make false: as a: to make false by mutilation or addition <the accounts were falsified to conceal a theft> b: to represent falsely : misrepresent

It seems that better people have already replied to your literal atrocities, but let me supplement their replies with the following: It's creationists like you who make people with the future of the species at heart despair. Honestly Wayne, why continue the discussion? Shouldn't you be in a college setting such as Brown, Harvard, etc., arguing your pseudo creationism with doctoral biologists?

[Vincent VanSlyke]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Your ignorance shines like a beacon on the hill! lol

That's true only in your fantasy world Wayne, where dragons and unicorns frolic in the fields and humans aren't mammals.

[Real]

Wayne wrote:

Yawwwwwwn,, I'm actually getting bored with this thread. I win!!

What flavor grass do you want as a reward? Or do you prefer grain?

All you won is humility, tool.

[Roku Roku Roku]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
As I have said many times. You look at man and see evolution. I see Gods Creation. THAT is the evidence.

That is not scientific evidence. It is just a faith based belief. It is no more evidence than any other of the thousands of creation stories around the world.

[Roku Roku Roku]

Wayne wrote:

Yawwwwwwn,, I'm actually getting bored with this thread. I win!!

Translation: I have no evidence.

[FREAKS]

Wayne wrote:

<quoted text>
You're nothing but a stupid jackass.

The DEAD GUY is CRYING.
JESUS is CRYING
JESUS is CRYING
JESUS is CRYING, cuz WAYNE is turning people AWAY from Jesus
JESUS is CRYING, cuz WAYNE is turning people AWAY from Jesus, by WAYNE displaying his "LOVE" towards others.
What Would Jesus DO DO???
JESUS IS WEEPING!! REPENT YOUR WAYS and ASK for GUIDANCE from the HOLY GHOST!! JESUS IS WEEPING

[humor me here]

I've stood by while you guys have had your fun with Wayne, because he's such an easy target. As a former agnostic, I think I understand some of your feelings in this matter. But still, it is a truth that at some time, almost every one of us will ask the following questions:

Why am I here?
Where did I come from?
What happens when I die?

You may deny it now. I did. But human nature being what it is, whether to yourself or others, you will ask. Have your fun poking at hypocrites. I like to, even today. Just understand that there are answers to your questions. And no, real Christians don't automatically assign people to Hell if they don't believe what THEY do.

In fact, it's the ones that DO are the ones that need repentance.

As far as the forum topic goes, if Creationists have scientific evidence that meets the standards, then their data and conclusions should be admitted into the body of work. If it does not meet the rigor of peer review and the other barriers to entry, then it shouldn't.

Have a great day.

[TedHOhio]

Wayne wrote:

Yawwwwwwn,, I'm actually getting bored with this thread. I win!!

WHat Wayne appears to mean is "I have run out of nonsense to cut and paste, time to go to another thread and start on my list of Biblical posts all over again."

[Vincent VanSlyke]

humor me here wrote:

But still, it is a truth that at some time, almost every one of us will ask the following questions:
Why am I here?
Where did I come from?
What happens when I die?

What's wrong with being honest and saying "I don't know"? Nobody knows, that's the big mystery. Automatically defaulting to the predominant religion in my culture doesn't make sense to me because all organized religions are man-made. There's nonsense in every organized religion's dogma, why assume that you have to choose any of them?