Creation/Evolution Debate

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

Comments (Page 69)

Showing posts 1,361 - 1,380 of1,694
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1399
Nov 30, 2012
 
Hey Bat Foy!!

Where is your mathematical proof that prayer works?

Did you look at some of the actual studies involved that showed that not to be the case? The most rigorous, which means the most correct studies, show that prayer has no effect on sickness. I already posted a link that said so, if you like I can find more. There are some poorly run studies that indicate their might be a very slight effect. But you can get all sorts of results with poorly run studies.

That is why the gold standard for this type of research is the Double Blind Study. The people who are sick do not know what medications they are receiving, in this case prayer. There may be people praying for them there may not be people praying for them. And the observers do not know which ill people had people praying for them. If either the patients knew they were being prayed for or the observers knew which patients were being prayed for that can affect how you feel. Knowing someone cares for you is a nice feeling. It can make you "feel better" even if you are not getting any better.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1400
Nov 30, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Who just happens to be Biatch #1. He was getting a bit difficult last night so I challenged him to a debate. He promptly made countless excuses and ran away.
He does that all the time. Or says something doesn't matter anymore when he's on the losing end. Which is quite often.
Subduction Zone wrote:
These cretinists continually claim that "evolution" is wrong when they mean "science" is wrong. It makes it easier for them to denigrate one small part of science. But it shows the strength of evolution that for them to attack it they have to attack ALL of science.
And do.

Meanwhile, Urb is whining about Nature again on the other thread.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1401
Nov 30, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
So because some bad people said Jesus said kill you don't bother to read the bible for yourself? My 1st amendment rights get ignored so you can shove your junk theories down the throat of my children. Your atheist anti everything ideas take Christ out of Christmas for me even though I don't believe the way you do? What makes you better why should your unprovable ideas take the place of mine? You think you're better because you have no hope no faith. So your people stomp on the rights of Christians and spew your stupidity as fact expect us to eat it and complain because of some type of injustice you never lived through. Grow up!
You say:
"What makes you better why should your unprovable ideas take the place of mine?

The fact is his ideas ARE provable and yours are NOT.

You say:
"So your people stomp on the rights of Christians and spew your stupidity as fact expect us to eat it and complain because of some type of injustice you never lived through. Grow up!

You are wrong here too dude...It is Christians that have been spewing their evil, evil crap on mankind for 2000 years...they have killed and maimed their own and done pure evil things to promote the faith. NEVER trust a religious person.

I don't know what the hell you mean that we stomp on the rights of Christians, Christians control the whole damn USA and half of the rest of the world. Just because a few atheists speak up for their rights occasionally you would think we are committing genocide against your whole world and that's bullsh!t

Are you getting like the Muslim sh!t heads who think nobody can say ANYTHING bad about Islam??

Get real and try to understand a changing world where your kind do not control everything.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1402
Nov 30, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe God is always right. But the Bible is written by men. And as such it is wrong.
Who built St Paul’s Cathedral?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1403
Nov 30, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No it ain't.
<quoted text>
That's the point. Peer-review catches things eventually. Creo's however if they ever do decide to "correct" a mistake do their best to sweep it under the rug. Science on the other hand exposes lies and f-ups. Then you fundies try to take the credit for it.
AND
Subduction Zone wrote:
Russell, slapping a "peer reviewed" label on a journal does not mean that it is peer reviewed. And your paper is about as far from being peer reviewed as possible. It has an impact factor of zero. No one refers to it. It is the purest of junk science.
“It’s not peer reviewed”
Another evolutionary mantra, an excuse to reject design and creationist arguments.

Here is an example of materialistic bigotry that you are guilty of:

Stephen Meyer published in the peer reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, an ‘intelligent design’ paper, on the origin of basic types in the Cambrian explosion.

Evolutionist groups wrote to the journal railing that the article was sub-standard---before even reading it!

Then the Biological Society’s governing council capitulated, saying that had they known about it beforehand,“they would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the ‘Proceedings’.”

The editor Dr Richard Sternberg actually lost his job at the Smithsonian

So much for academic freedom and peer review

Meyer, S C, The methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent: Can there be a ‘Scientific Theory of Creation’? in J P Moreland ed, The Creation Hypothesis, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove IL, 1994
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1404
Nov 30, 2012
 
Further issues with peer review in the top tier journals:

“Lack of evidence that peer review works”
--as per Richard Smith, former editor of BMJ and now CEO of United Health Europe and board member of PLoS
He has also said,“Its very unscientific, really.”

“Indeed an abundance of data from a range of journals suggests peer review does little to improve papers”
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1405
Nov 30, 2012
 
An experiment in 1998 designed to test what peer review uncovers:

Researchers intentionally introduced eight errors into a research paper.
More than 200 researchers identified an average of only two errors.

That same year, a paper in the Annals of Emergency Medicine showed that reviewers couldn’t spot two thirds of the major errors in a fake manuscript.
In July 2005, an article in JAMA showed that among recent clinical research articles published in major journals

16% of the reports showing that a particular intervention was effective
Were contradicted by later findings
This suggested that reviewers had missed major flaws.

McCook A, Is peer review broken? The Scientist 20(2) 26 Feb 2006
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1406
Nov 30, 2012
 
Robert Higgs, a scientist with many years experience as a researcher, university professor and peer reviewer has called the peer review system a ”crap shoot”......... amongst other things...

Higgs R, Peer review, publication in top journal, scientific consensus, and so forth, George Mason University’s History News Network, 7 May 2007
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1408
Nov 30, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not based on the evidence, no. Otherwise Sol would be a binary..
There goes the “tilt” again...
I find it so awfully funny!
It makes me go off on all sorts of tangents.....

EVIDENCE FOR THE EVOLUTION OF EVERYTHING IN THE WHOLE WIDE WORLD, Including my Argyle Socks

By Don Quixote, The King Of The World

(Awaiting publishing since 1979)

ABSTRACT

I am fed up of creationists. I am going to shut them up once and for all. Damn you, Science, scourge of the ages, you slug, inept mongrel, maggot. I am going to whip you into submission, Science, you WILL do as I say, you WILL. Long gone are the days of freedom you have enjoyed to come and go as you please. NO MORE!$#@^&&&&( (##@@$$%^&&&^^^**^ ^%%%

METHOD

Excessive and unjustifiable investigator interference. Addition of 100 times more phosphate than contained in the oceans today. Artificial heating/ cooling in order to force desired outcomes. Addition of industrially obtained RNA strands, enzymes and chemicals. Background sporadic hideous manic laughter. And $$$%%##@@@&&&& **^^^^^)()

RESULTS

**(()))***&&&& &&&^^^%%%$$## I still don’t know JACK %%%$$$&&** But I am finding evidence that I am VERY RIGHT ^^^%%$$$$#&&&^^((( ))))&&^^^%%%% Yes, siree, VERY right indeed &&&^^%%$$$$ Don’t anyone DARE contradict me***&&&^^^^%%%%%% NEVER MIND that this is trash science &&&%%%$$##@@@And never mind it proves NUTHIN’&&$$3##I am still KING OF THE WORLD

DISCUSSION

Still don’t know JACK. Wish we knew more. More research is needed. Well, it must have happened, we’re here aren’t we?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I love you evo-god, love you, love you. I want to kiss your cheeks.......ARrrrggh yuck! Spit, spit, spit.....What did you do THAT for evo-god? Those were not the cheeks I was wanting to kiss.....oh well, never mind....cheeks are cheeks I suppose.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1409
Nov 30, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The difference is that evolution can be tested. It passes those tests.
Huh?
What tests has evolution passed?

That’s news indeed, Don...
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo. God didn't tell you about evolution but He sure used it.
Where has God used evolution?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1410
Nov 30, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot. Footprints in beds that were supposedly deposited during the flood and sand dunes are proof the flood did not happen.
Russell will believe his totally effed up source if it tells him critter walked with 20,000 feet of water over them and the wind was blowing down there while that happened. What a pinhead.
Your skim-read of the article I had linked has brought your further destruction...
But I will endeavour to be kind

Why so hasty?
So desperate to BE RIGHT........to not lose face

Well, you are wrong:

“These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood”

AND

“These additional studies confirmed the conclusions of his earlier researches. Thus, Dr Brand concluded that all his data suggest that the Coconino Sandstone fossil tracks should not be used as evidence for desert wind deposition of dry sand to form the Coconino Sandstone, but rather point to underwater deposition. These evidence from such careful experimental studies by a Flood geologist overturn the original interpretation by evolutionists of these Coconino Sandstone fossil footprints, and thus call into question their use by Young and others as an argument against the Flood”
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1411
Nov 30, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not just evolutionary timescales, it's chemical and physics timescales too.
But they aren't your only problem.
Of course everything fits creationism if you ignore evidence and just use Godmagic.
Physics and chemistry are not any support for evolutionary wishful thinking

Evolutionary time scales most certainly are....
They’re going down ....soon

First things first....
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1412
Nov 30, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Square wheels already failed. And you're still using 'em.
Another funny!

Ha ha ha

I am trying to be encouraging...
Keep going pal

I’ll soon be able to count all your funnys on one hand
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1413
Nov 30, 2012
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Moi? "Sweeping statements"?
I *DO* have considerable (general) knowledge about the evidence for an Old Earth, and for the Theory of Evolution.
As far as the "challenge".....go for it.
I dont think you have the testicular prerequisites for real science, however.
I understand, Kong

I know you have good general knowledge

I acknowledge that respectfully

But that’s still not good enough, Bud

Science is my passion!

I thought it was EVERYTHING
Then I met God
And you know what?
Science is now in the correct place in my list of priorities

It’s not a god
It’s a tool to study God’s creation
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1414
Nov 30, 2012
 
AND FURTHERMORE

I will no sooner cease linking to Creation.com than expect Rosa Parks to give up her seat.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1415
Nov 30, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Now Russell, I mean Biatch #2 is completely into fairy tales. The Bible is written very poetically in places and it can be reinterpreted after the fact to match reality. No one used those interpretations of the Bible before the facts were found out. Changing your interpretation after the fact is a form of lying. That of course is nothing new for Biatch #2. He thinks it is perfectly fine to lie for God.
Nope!

I don’t like fairy tales much

Just the truth

And I never lie
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1416
Nov 30, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, Biatch #2 is well named for his dropping of deuces all over the place.
Not only is he against evolution. He is opposed to all science. If any part of science shows that the Earth is not 10,000 years old or less he will find some crank at his creation site that disputes it. There are millions of scientists in the world, is it any wonder that there are a few thousand who still believe their childhood bedtime stories?
Worse yet he is a total hypocrite. If you are opposed to modern science then you should not use it in your daily life. That means no computers, no TV's, no modern agriculture products, and of course the biggest no product at all where oil is involved in any way. Of course if he did not play the role of a hypocrite he could not be here for our entertainment.
As I have said over and over again

I have no issues with science. None.

I have huge issues with materialistic bigotry AND the defiant DISREGARD of science

Yes, I do not believe that evolutionary paradigms explain our origins.

I have seen no evidence for this.

....Just wailings, ramblings, wishful thinking and such nonsense.

Why bend to convention for the sake of consensus?

Why not use your noodles and THINK?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1417
Nov 30, 2012
 
¬¬¬
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Who just happens to be Biatch #1. He was getting a bit difficult last night so I challenged him to a debate. He promptly made countless excuses and ran away.
These cretinists continually claim that "evolution" is wrong when they mean "science" is wrong. It makes it easier for them to denigrate one small part of science. But it shows the strength of evolution that for them to attack it they have to attack ALL of science.
Suggesting that 'evolution' is science is stretching things somewhat

The scientific process requires observation, testability, reproducibility...

When observations tainted by evolutionary thinking are proven, by SCIENCE, to be wrong

Adherents cling even more desperately to their belief that it is TRUE

Not only that, but dissenters are persecuted...
As evidenced in this forum...

That is why evolution and atheism, since they usually go hand in hand, are religious beliefs
http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion

AND as I’ve said before:
I will no sooner cease linking to Creation.com than expect Rosa Parks to give up her seat

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1418
Nov 30, 2012
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
AND
<quoted text>
“It’s not peer reviewed”
Another evolutionary mantra, an excuse to reject design and creationist arguments.
Here is an example of materialistic bigotry that you are guilty of:
Stephen Meyer published in the peer reviewed journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, an ‘intelligent design’ paper, on the origin of basic types in the Cambrian explosion.
Evolutionist groups wrote to the journal railing that the article was sub-standard---before even reading it!
Then the Biological Society’s governing council capitulated, saying that had they known about it beforehand,“they would have deemed this paper inappropriate for the pages of the ‘Proceedings’.”
The editor Dr Richard Sternberg actually lost his job at the Smithsonian
So much for academic freedom and peer review
Meyer, S C, The methodological Equivalence of Design and Descent: Can there be a ‘Scientific Theory of Creation’? in J P Moreland ed, The Creation Hypothesis, InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove IL, 1994
These are mere more Russell bedtime stories without substantiation. If I remember correctly the job loss was because the editor cheated on the peer review process.

So let's see if you have more info on this or is just another Russell lie.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1419
Nov 30, 2012
 
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope!
I don’t like fairy tales much
Just the truth
And I never lie
Creation is a fairy tale and you have been count in countless lies.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1,361 - 1,380 of1,694
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

•••
•••