The Dude

London, UK

#142 Apr 15, 2008
"You don't know church history at all, do you? Catholocism is an idolatrous belief. If you can't see that then you are blind."

Then perhaps you could stop your hypocrisy and start worshipping God instead of a BOOK about God.
Wayne

United States

#143 Apr 15, 2008
The Dude wrote:
"You don't know church history at all, do you? Catholocism is an idolatrous belief. If you can't see that then you are blind."
Then perhaps you could stop your hypocrisy and start worshipping God instead of a BOOK about God.
C'mon Dude. The BOOK is wisdom of God, telling us how to worship and serve Him.
Wayne

United States

#144 Apr 15, 2008
SMRTR wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, I can see quite well, and have seen you for what you are: a liar.
And a bad one, at that.
I don't know where you got your interpretations of history, but whoever filled your head with all that BS is even dumber than you.
How would you know I am a liar? Can you prove it by the bible? Just how much do you KNOW about the bible? Not much I'm guessing.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#145 Apr 15, 2008
Wayne wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep talking out of your ass Bob, your mouth knows better. You think I am the ONLY Christian that does not agree with the catholic faith? Have you ever heard the word "Protestant?" Bob? Hellooo? "knock knock," Anybody home?? You dumb ass. lol
Well, at least you stopped with the "stupid".

ALL of the protestants that _I_ am willing to be friends with, consider Catholics to be a sister religion.

They do NOT cast the whole lot of them into HELL.

Unlike, say, YOU, for example.

Sad. You must hate EVERYBODY you know!

For WHO can agree with ALL of your rants at the same time?

Sad.
The Dude

London, UK

#146 Apr 16, 2008
"C'mon Dude. The BOOK is wisdom of God, telling us how to worship and serve Him."

If you say so. But that doesn't necessarily mean that everything in it should be taken literally. And as I keep pointing out, that as long as one keeps to the basic tenets of Christianity (you know, believe in Jesus, in God and try to be a good person) there's nothing wrong with treating the more fantastical stories in the Bible as allegorical, and accepting modern science.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#147 Apr 16, 2008
Wayne wrote:
Not much I'm guessing.
That's just IT.

All you EVER do is guess.....

You NEVER, EVER have any actual FACTS to back up your statements.

Sad.
Those Pesky Darwinists

Brampton, Canada

#148 Apr 18, 2008
Bob of Quantum faith, I know well enough what the ID debate is about, especially the honesty going on at uncommondescent, I have been participating in the debate for over 6 years now, so I am well informed of the tactics of the Darwinists especially PZ Meyers. Meyers was expelled for good reasons, he previously made threats on his blog and thus the producers took the necessary steps to ensure PZ doesn't terrorize the pre-screening.

Overall, your a newbie in regards to Intelligent Design, just another whacked out atheist who has lots of time on his hands to create noise on cyberdumb. Intelligent Design is just another way of saying "technology", in this case its biological technology. Its no wonder most ID proponents including me are Engineers and Mathematicians of the sort, mainly, we see through the random ejaculations that Darwinists propagate.
Anyone with elemental knowledge of Engineering isn't going to fall for Darwinian propaganda that quickly, if at all!

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#149 Apr 18, 2008
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:
Bob of Quantum faith, I know well enough what the ID debate is about, especially the honesty going on at uncommondescent, I have been participating in the debate for over 6 years now, so I am well informed of the tactics of the Darwinists especially PZ Meyers. Meyers was expelled for good reasons, he previously made threats on his blog and thus the producers took the necessary steps to ensure PZ doesn't terrorize the pre-screening.
Overall, your a newbie in regards to Intelligent Design, just another whacked out atheist who has lots of time on his hands to create noise on cyberdumb. Intelligent Design is just another way of saying "technology", in this case its biological technology. Its no wonder most ID proponents including me are Engineers and Mathematicians of the sort, mainly, we see through the random ejaculations that Darwinists propagate.
Anyone with elemental knowledge of Engineering isn't going to fall for Darwinian propaganda that quickly, if at all!
Threats??? Have you read Pharyngula, or are you just taking the word of those IDiots at UncommonDescent? You think you find honesty there. Wow, do they have you fooled.

BTW, I am a mathematician, and frankly, the arguments for ID are non-existent. They have no arguments FOR ID, just arguments against ToE. And those are all bad. I have gone through hordes of them, and every one is seriously flawed. Perhaps subtly, but flawed never the less.
The Dude

London, UK

#150 Apr 18, 2008
>>>"I know well enough what the ID debate is about, especially the honesty going on at uncommondescent"

Honesty?!? Like the 903 (so far) pages of it documented in exquisite detail right here?

http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboar...

>>>"Meyers was expelled for good reasons, he previously made threats on his blog and thus the producers took the necessary steps to ensure PZ doesn't terrorize the pre-screening."

Could you back this up? The producers sent an invite to PT's mailing list, where PZ is also a contributer. If they were worried about him "terrorizing" the screening, it seems they forgot about that little detail. And I CAN back that one up:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/pz-in...

>>>"Overall, your a newbie in regards to Intelligent Design"

Then feel free to present as much "evidence" as you like...

>>>"just another whacked out atheist"

But ID is about SCIENCE, it has nothing to do with religion. It's just them evil lying Darwinists who say it is. Right?

>>>"Its no wonder most ID proponents including me are Engineers and Mathematicians of the sort, mainly, we see through the random ejaculations that Darwinists propagate.Anyone with elemental knowledge of Engineering isn't going to fall for Darwinian propaganda that quickly, if at all!"

So you mean you're not qualified to critique biology then?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#151 Apr 18, 2008
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:
Bob of Quantum faith, I know well enough what the ID debate is about,
I do not believe you. See below.

You fail to prove this claim.
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:
especially the honesty going on at uncommondescent,
Honesty? DUMB-sky is one of the PREMIER liars for Jesus.

Dembsky is INCAPABLE of telling the truth, if it conflicts with his WISHFUL thinking.

Typical.

Apparently YOU define "honesty" as "that which agrees with ME"
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:

I have been participating in the debate for over 6 years now,
Again, I do not believe you.

Your claim that "ud" is HONEST is the chief reason why.

No, I think you've only been at this for a couple of weeks or so.

Else-- WHY have you not registered on Topix?
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:

so I am well informed of the tactics of the Darwinists especially PZ Meyers.
Really? Prove it.
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:

Meyers was expelled for good reasons, he previously made threats on his blog and thus the producers took the necessary steps to ensure PZ doesn't terrorize the pre-screening.
Ah-HA! You just proved the OPPOSITE of what you claim!

PZ has NEVER made threats!

Unlike you doctor-killing BIBLE-thumpers!
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:

Overall, your a newbie in regards to Intelligent Design,
It's spelled "YOU'RE" as in "YOU ARE" you ignorant ~ss.

Newbie? I started discussions about Creationism back in 1996 with my brother-in-law, who is a died-in-the-wool creationist.

This rather trumps your supposed "6 years"....
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:

just another whacked out atheist who has lots of time on his hands to create noise on cyberdumb.
This statement alone pretty much eliminates all credibility on your part....
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:

Intelligent Design is just another way of saying "technology", in this case its biological technology.
Bullsh~t. Technology DOES NOT SELF-REPLICATE.

End of story: you loose.
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:
Its no wonder most ID proponents including me are Engineers and Mathematicians of the sort, mainly, we see through the random ejaculations that Darwinists propagate.
Name ONE who is RESPECTED.
Those Pesky Darwinists wrote:

Anyone with elemental knowledge of Engineering isn't going to fall for Darwinian propaganda that quickly, if at all!
Bullsh!t. Name ONE. For every ONE I will name 1,000 who disagree with you.
Steve

Ottawa, Canada

#152 May 1, 2008
I can't wait to see this movie. I'veloved Ben Stein Ever since Win Ben Steins Money(A really cool show) The movie sounds so awesome especially to a christian like me. What Amazing timing for such a cool movie to come out. Dawinism is a LIE Bible Truth! Bring back intelligent design in schools, let the truth be known!
upbeat77

Katy, TX

#153 May 1, 2008
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't mind hearing or looking at a RATIONAL discussion of a RATIONAL alternative point of view.
Not by a long shot.
But that movie is anything but. It's purely a propaganda piece-- not the least that I already know about parts of it: it contains interviews of atheists and skeptics, OBTAINED UNDER FRAUDULENT PRETENSES.
That alone has tainted the entire movie for me-- and is the source of my distaste and refusal to pay these shills A SINGLE DIME.
If you've a RATIONAL source of some alternative view, I'd welcome it.
I'm NOT a zealot for the theory of evolution.
I'm NOT a "darwinist" either-- for that implies FAITH; I have no faith in science OR evolution. I have no belief.
I'm as skeptical towards evolution as I am towards ID/Creationism.
It's just that with evolution, there IS compelling and thought-provoking evidence, that ANYONE may study and make THEIR OWN conclusions about.
With ID/Creationism? Nothing resembling rational thought; nothing resembling evidence. Their SOLE "evidence" is: "goddidit". And even THAT is based on flawed reasoning!
The movie was brilliantly done, no matter where you stand and actually the objective of the movie is to show that freedom of thought and speech are being squelched in academia for those who even dare to have differing views.

Obtained under fraudulent pretenses? This is just one of the frantic damage control statements of the Church of Evolution, whose "bigbangdidit" evidence is a sham. Notable evolutionists are asked simple, non-leading questions and you get answers from the horse's mouth. Billions of dollars hoarded for research, grants are at stake here. Well, need I say more?

"Expelled" has EXPOSED and that's what all the uproar is about.
The Dude

London, UK

#154 May 1, 2008
Steve

>>>"I can't wait to see this movie. I'veloved Ben Stein Ever since Win Ben Steins Money(A really cool show) The movie sounds so awesome especially to a christian like me. What Amazing timing for such a cool movie to come out. Dawinism is a LIE Bible Truth! Bring back intelligent design in schools, let the truth be known!"

But Intelligent Design is about SCIENCE, it isn't about religion! Nope! Nosiree-bob! It's just them evil lying atheist Darwinists who say it is! Um... right?

upbeat77

www.expelledexposed.com

And by any chance does the movie give us the scientific evidence of ID which is supposedly being denied a fair hearing? What's that? No? I'm shocked. Shocked, I say.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#155 May 2, 2008
upbeat77 wrote:
<quoted text>
The movie was brilliantly done,....
Sure, sure

If you really believe this-- then, there's a nice bridge for sale, cheap.

I bet you'd be an excellent customer....

can you spell "gullible"?

No?

can you spell "brainwashed"?

Good.
legomania100

Grand Forks, Canada

#156 May 8, 2008
Something I would just like to note, is that, from reading your various posts is that you all seem to have differant definitions of the word "evolution." The theory of evolution states that all life came from none life without the help of an all-powerful God, and that this occurance of abiogenesis occured several billion years ago (about 3.6 if I remember correctly) These creatures then changed into other creatures through the adding of information by mutation, and eventually diversified into the many species we now see.
That's Evolution Theory.

All of the arguements that I've seen on this site for macroevolution (one kind of animal into another, fish to reptile, ape to human) have only operated in the realm of microevolution, or natural selection, which involves the loss of information to bring out less common traits. Example, Texan pig farmers breed big pigs, but after a certain size the pigs get no bigger because the genetic information is not there. A mutation may occur where the "stop-growing" gene is turned off, but that is still a loss of information, not a gain.

Also, something I've noticed from both sides,(primarily the evolutionary supporters) is the inferance of a lack of intelligance in anybody who believes anything else. Isaac Newton did not believe evolution, and was still a genius. Gregor Mendal, Louis Pascal, Einstien, all believed in a creater God, and were all briliant minds.

Again, I noticed earlier in the conversation some referances to faith. Both sides of this argument require faith. Christianity requires a God. Evolution requires that there isn't one.

Here are some great questions that evolutionists really have no answer for.

Where did the matter that makes up the universe come from?

Where did the space to put all that stuff in come from?

From what did the laws of the universe evolve?

Where did the energy that runs our universe come from?

When, Where, Why, and How did life learn to reproduce itself?

When a cell capable of sexual reprodution evolved, with what did it reproduce?

Why reproduce? Why create more mouths to feed, competion for mates, possible predators, and crowded living space?

Where did the drive to reproduce come from? Is it individual, or ingrained as a species?

When, Where, Why, and How did:
single celled plants become multi celled?
two and three cell intermediates evolve?
single celled animals evolve?
fish change to amphibians?
amphibians to reptiles?
reptiles to birds? The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locamotion, body covering, etc. are all very differant!
intermediate forms live?

From what did whales, seahorses, bats, eyes, ears, hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, etc., evolve?

Which evolved first? The digestive system, the food to be digested, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's ability to resist and nuetralize its own digestive jucies?

Which evolved first? DNA or RNA to replicate the DNA?

How does evolution explain the thousands of examples of symbiosis?

Where did feelings evolve?

legomania100

Grand Forks, Canada

#157 May 8, 2008
That takes a lot of faith to believe

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#158 May 8, 2008
legomania100 wrote:
Something I would just like to note, is that, from reading your various posts is that you all seem to have differant definitions of the word "evolution."
Nope. Only the RELIGIOUS types try to spin it into various different definitions.

The scientific types (like me) stick to the scientific defintion.

Which in a nutshell, states that creatures slowly over millions of generations, changed into different creatures from their distant ancestors.(this part is observed fact-- NOT THEORY)

The theory states the HOW these gradual changes took place, using mainly natural selection, but other forces as well, such as genetic drift, genetic mutation, viral-genetic modification and so on.

Both of these statements are GOD NEUTRAL.

That is god is neither required nor forcibly omitted.

The theory does not say one way or another with regards to god(s). For all we know, evolution MAY BE the method that god(s) utilized to bring life to the planet.

God is not forced out-- it takes religious people to do THAT.
legomania100 wrote:
The theory of evolution states that all life came from none life without the help of an all-powerful God, and that this occurance of abiogenesis occured several billion years ago (about 3.6 if I remember correctly)
You remember INCORRECTLY. You are NOT talking about EVOLUTION.

You are talking about a hypothesis, which is NOT EVOLUTION.

Go back to class.
legomania100 wrote:
These creatures then changed into other creatures through the adding of information by mutation, and eventually diversified into the many species we now see.
Incorrect again. You left out THE MOST IMPORTANT PART: natural selection and genetic mix-up with each generation.

Mutation IS NOT REQUIRED FOR EVOLUTION TO HAPPEN.

In fact, mutation is quite rare, really....
legomania100 wrote:
That's Evolution Theory.
No, it's not. What you describe is a straw-man version THAT WAS MADE UP BY CREATIONISTS.

(I omitted/ignored the rest of your comment, as they hinge on the above-- which is completely wrong anyway...)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#159 May 8, 2008
legomania100 wrote:
Isaac Newton did not believe evolution, and was still a genius.
He was a mathematician, not a biologist. So?
legomania100 wrote:
Gregor Mendal,
Did not know of evolution (too early), yet his work COMPLETELY SUPPORTS evolution.

Hmmm.
legomania100 wrote:
Louis Pascal,
Thought evolution was correct.
legomania100 wrote:
Einstien, all believed in a creater God, and were all briliant minds.
Einstein did NOT believe in the god that YOU worship-- that I can be certain of.

Einstein pretty much believed "god" was an impersonal, unintelligent force-- not aware of anything.

Go read a good biography, if you don't believe me.

Your quick assumption that he believed "more or less" as you do is false.
legomania100 wrote:
Again, I noticed earlier in the conversation some referances to faith. Both sides of this argument require faith.
Wrong-- only RELIGION requires faith, or the BLIND belief without ANY PROOF.
legomania100 wrote:
Christianity requires a God.
Wrong again-- I've know a few agnostic Christians. These people follow the teachings of Jesus, but do not believe Jesus was a god, no were they certain god even existed.

Yet they follow the teachings of Jesus, which makes them Christians--in the ORIGINAL meaning of that word: followers of the way of Jesus.
legomania100 wrote:
Evolution requires that there isn't one.
Incorrect: Google Theistic Evolution, for a NICE rebuttal of your silly statement.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#160 May 8, 2008
legomania100 wrote:
That takes a lot of faith to believe
In the supernatural, for which there is ZERO PROOF, certainly.

But you DO NOT require ANY faith of ANY sort to believe in evolution.

In fact-- it is NOT BELIEF.

To a scientist, it's NOT belief, but a guarded acceptance of THE MOST LIKELY explanation so far.

Evolution nicely explains the FACTS.

The facts themselves dictate what the theory of evolution is.

The theory is continuing to be changed, as new facts come to light.

No FAITH required, when you have FACTS to back up the theory.

No faith.

none.
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#161 May 9, 2008
legomania100 wrote:
Something I would just like to note, is that, from reading your various posts is that you all seem to have differant definitions of the word "evolution." The theory of evolution states that all life came from none life without the help of an all-powerful God, and that this occurance of abiogenesis occured several billion years ago (about 3.6 if I remember correctly) These creatures then changed into other creatures through the adding of information by mutation, and eventually diversified into the many species we now see.
That's Evolution Theory.
All of the arguements that I've seen on this site for macroevolution (one kind of animal into another, fish to reptile, ape to human) have only operated in the realm of microevolution, or natural selection, which involves the loss of information to bring out less common traits. Example, Texan pig farmers breed big pigs, but after a certain size the pigs get no bigger because the genetic information is not there. A mutation may occur where the "stop-growing" gene is turned off, but that is still a loss of information, not a gain.
Also, something I've noticed from both sides,(primarily the evolutionary supporters) is the inferance of a lack of intelligance in anybody who believes anything else. Isaac Newton did not believe evolution, and was still a genius. Gregor Mendal, Louis Pascal, Einstien, all believed in a creater God, and were all briliant minds.
Again, I noticed earlier in the conversation some referances to faith. Both sides of this argument require faith. Christianity requires a God. Evolution requires that there isn't one.
Here are some great questions that evolutionists really have no answer for....

When, Where, Why, and How did:
single celled plants become multi celled?
two and three cell intermediates evolve?
single celled animals evolve?
fish change to amphibians?
amphibians to reptiles?
reptiles to birds? The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locamotion, body covering, etc. are all very differant!
intermediate forms live?
From what did whales, seahorses, bats, eyes, ears, hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, etc., evolve?...

...Which evolved first? DNA or RNA to replicate the DNA?
How does evolution explain the thousands of examples of symbiosis?
Where did feelings evolve?
I'm afraid you're wrong across the board here...
Evolutionary biology says that life evolves...

Other biologists are studying the separate subject of how that first life started.

Geology provides the history of life evolving on Earth...

Astronomy\Physics provides the details about the formation of the Universe\Earth...

A lot of information from many different sources.

Many of the "questions" you "posed" (copied off of creationist sites? I've seen the same list before!) are understood, and have even been answered many times here on "Topix"...

As an example (despite what you MAY have been told):

...There are many fossils of transitional organisms "linking" Fish and Amphibians, Amphibians and Reptiles, Reptiles and Mammals, Dinosaurs and Birds...

Read up a bit more on the subject... "Talk Origins" is one good place to start if you insist on getting your information off of the web...

...Otherwise, there are many, many books on Astronomy, Geology, Evolutionary Biology available!

Check out Carl Zimmer's "Evolution: Triumph of an Idea" for a start... There are many others available.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min Chilli J 116,807
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 36 min nanoanomaly 173,958
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 52 min DanFromSmithville 137,108
New review critical of "Origins" 5 hr DanFromSmithville 35
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 8 hr susanblange 70
Need clarification on evolution 8 hr Dogen 15
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 10 hr Strel 11
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••