Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.

Comments (Page 2,783)

Showing posts 55,641 - 55,660 of111,841
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59528
Nov 17, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Boom-booz!!!
Tell me what you know?
OK never say you didn't you ask for it...

Charles is a nut!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59529
Nov 17, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what you are talking about. I tell it as I see it and you are the one twisting the truth around here as far as I can see, but I am supposed to pray for you and as hard as it is for me to obey that part of the lord's commands I will.

I realize that you do not know that you are under the influence of Satan.

Such is Satan's power of deception.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59530
Nov 17, 2012
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> OK never say you didn't you ask for it...
Charles is a nut!
Ok never say you didn't you ask for it...
Aura is a nut!

Level 2

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59531
Nov 17, 2012
 
Satan rules the earth....Rev. 12:9.....2 Corinthians 4:4.......1 John 5:19......easy to understand and most believable.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59532
Nov 17, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I realize that you do not know that you are under the influence of Satan.
Such is Satan's power of deception.
I know you are trying to be funny, lets quit for now. I did say a prayer for you though.

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59533
Nov 17, 2012
 
heh wrote:
<quoted text>
Well get ready for December 21st, 2012. According to Jack Van Impe, that is the day all the believers will float into the sky to receive their reward. I'll be very disappointed if they don't.
That'd make more sense if you didn't say 'they'. I think you want to say 'we'.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59534
Nov 17, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I know you are trying to be funny, lets quit for now. I did say a prayer for you though.

Joking, eh?

Lets examine the facts:

1. You claim to be on the side of God and trying to witness for him.
2. However....
3. You are obnoxious and ACTUALLY drive people further from God.
4. Driving people from God is the job of Satan and him minions.
5. Ergo,.....

Just connect the dots an you will see who your real master is.

ANYONE can claim to be on Gods side, but by their fruits ye shall know them.

Your fruits are thorns.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59535
Nov 17, 2012
 
That site doesn't say that Germans can understand Old English.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Then, you did not go down through the given information.
I read the site. Nothing in that site says that Germans can understand Old English.

If you believe otherwise, provide a quote from the site.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59536
Nov 17, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
Again, if old English is similar or closely related to German and Icelandic, that means, the Germans and the people of Iceland will definitely understand old English
That two languages are "similar" does not mean that speakers of one will understand the other language.

Nothing in the site you provided says that Old English is "closely" related either to German or to Icelandic.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59537
Nov 17, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
so you have no idea about the problems with big bang theory
You certainly didn't identify any in your previous posting. You simply claimed that they existed.
MazHere wrote:
http://metaresearch.org/cosmol ogy/top10BBproblems.asp
I didn't see any peer-reviewed scientific research papers listed on that page. All I say were claims made by a "Meta Research" publication. And that website and the publication itself appear to be the production of this individual:

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

The same guy who claimed that the Martian "face" was unnatural (later shown to be an artifact of angle and shadow).

You really need to produce some actual peer-reviewed research to identify problems with the Big Bang theory. Not just some particular crackpot's position on it.
MazHere wrote:
As for your last question "who says the first living thing was a cell?" all I have to say to you is asking a question to mask the fact that evolutionists really have no idea how to answer their questions they themselves pose is soooo typical!
I'll take your answer to mean "nobody", and you were merely engaged in a straw man argument.

Let us know when you have actual argument and not merely childish insults.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59539
Nov 17, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
That site doesn't say that Germans can understand Old English.
<quoted text>
I read the site. Nothing in that site says that Germans can understand Old English.
If you believe otherwise, provide a quote from the site.
Then you are wrong. What do we mean by closely related?
It means that the languages are similar to one another. Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, that means the people of Germany and Iceland can understand old English more than the modern English.
My stand is that, English(modern), though having roots in other European languages, started as a single independent language in England. That independent language called English or modern English, was first spoken in England.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59540
Nov 17, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
That two languages are "similar" does not mean that speakers of one will understand the other language.
Nothing in the site you provided says that Old English is "closely" related either to German or to Icelandic.
Similar?
The word, " similar", stands for the same.
So, if Old English is similar to German, etc, than modern English, it means that the Germans can understand more of old English than modern English.
Try to be honest with your answers and responses.
Old English from research, is closer to German and Icelandic, than modern English, all these are clearly stated on the website presented.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59541
Nov 17, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
That two languages are "similar" does not mean that speakers of one will understand the other language.
Nothing in the site you provided says that Old English is "closely" related either to German or to Icelandic.
Again, this is a dishonest answer from you.
Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, more than the modern English. This was clearly stated on the presented site, that you are disregarding.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59542
Nov 17, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You certainly didn't identify any in your previous posting. You simply claimed that they existed.
<quoted text>
I didn't see any peer-reviewed scientific research papers listed on that page. All I say were claims made by a "Meta Research" publication. And that website and the publication itself appear to be the production of this individual:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Van_Flandern
The same guy who claimed that the Martian "face" was unnatural (later shown to be an artifact of angle and shadow).
You really need to produce some actual peer-reviewed research to identify problems with the Big Bang theory. Not just some particular crackpot's position on it.
<quoted text>
I'll take your answer to mean "nobody", and you were merely engaged in a straw man argument.
Let us know when you have actual argument and not merely childish insults.
Denial is not a good look. Anyone that suggests that big bang theory has no concerns has already demonstrated the level of their true scientific base.

Look at you quacking about my straw men. Either these idiots know what they are saying or they do not.

This is what you are hiding your head i the sand over.

University Of Alabama In Huntsville (2006, September 5). Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test. ScienceDaily.

No shadows, no big bang. Is that too scientific for you? Perhaps you can quote Womans Day.

"The various theories that exist on the early universe are, therefore, experimental and have not been empirically verified. The direct measurement of gravitational waves would enable us to look back to the first billionth of the first second after the Big Bang and thereby obtain completely new insights into the universe."

http://www.mpg.de/4333311/background

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...

Words from man himself....... If you disagree you should go give Hawkins a mouth full.

And the big one that everyone should know is this, Hawkins knows his physics break down at the singularity. Of course that is not a problem for these scientific types with an assumption to sell off as science. A stuff up at the base is easily hand waved away, just as long as all the research chooks in the chook pen are happy.

Level 2

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59543
Nov 17, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Then you are wrong. What do we mean by closely related?
It means that the languages are similar to one another. Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, that means the people of Germany and Iceland can understand old English more than the modern English.
My stand is that, English(modern), though having roots in other European languages, started as a single independent language in England. That independent language called English or modern English, was first spoken in England.
You are a senseless FREAKSHOW....wanting to be heard.........your views are decisive and corrupt. You are a scummy person trying to be like all of us....you never will be, as you spew garbage...sadly...daily.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59544
Nov 17, 2012
 
I read the site. Nothing in that site says that Germans can understand Old English.
If you believe otherwise, provide a quote from the site.
Charles Idemi wrote:
Then you are wrong.
Until you provide an actual quote from the site that says that Germans can understand Old English, then I am correct, and you are still wrong.
Charles Idemi wrote:
What do we mean by closely related?
The article doesn't say that Old English is closely related to "German". It says that it is closely related to "Old Frisian and Low German". Low German is not what we mean when we say "German". Low German is an Ingvaeonic language. What we call "German" is actually *High* German, which is not an Ingvaeonic language. High German is a Erminonic language.
In any event, Old English, Old Frisian, and Low German (actually, its ancestor, which was Old Saxon) were closely related because they are all Ingvaeonic. But that doesn't tell us that modern speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English. Speakers of Old Saxon might have been able to understand Old English, but just as speakers of Modern English cannot understand Old English, there is no reason to believe that speakers of Low German can understand Old English.
Now, unless you can provide an actual source that tells us that speakers of Low German can *understand* Old English, you still have nothing.
It means that the languages are similar to one another. Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, that means the people of Germany and Iceland can understand old English more than the modern English.
My stand is that, English(modern), though having roots in other European languages, started as a single independent language in England. That independent language called English or modern English, was first spoken in England.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59545
Nov 17, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
Old English is closely related to German and Icelandic, more than the modern English. This was clearly stated on the presented site
No, that's not what the site said. It said nothing about Old English being "closely related to German and Icelandic". It said that the *grammar* of Old English was much closer to that of German and Icelandic.

It still does not say that modern speakers of either German or Icelandic would be able to understand Old English. The changes in both vocabulary and pronunciation would be the problem.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59546
Nov 17, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
Denial is not a good look.
You mean, like your denial of the fact that your only source was a crackpot who had to publish his own material because it didn't pass scientific muster?
MazHere wrote:
University Of Alabama In Huntsville (2006, September 5). Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test. ScienceDaily.
ScienceDaily is a popular website. Got any actual peer-reviewed scientific research articles? No, I didn't think so.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59547
Nov 17, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course the debate here is not whether your god exists or not, it is about how life got to its present form on the Earth.
It seems you believe the Genesis myths. You should know that Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, and the Tower of Babel are only bedtime stories. Their falseness does not mean that your god does not exist.
Do you mean like over 150 years of human knucklewalking ancestry was evidence that turned to myth on the back of one single fossil find? Or would you like to discuss the multitude of common ancestors that have never surfaced when you discuss myths? How about the myth of 1% difference between the chimp and human, or the revolving door of human ancestors? How about the myth of single celled LUCA, the story of a tree stumped by HGT?

Archaeologists have uncovered what appears to be the foundation of the Tower of Babel within the ancient city ruins of Babylon. The base is square, 91 metres along each side, with earthen embankments.

http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/gw_shaye...

As for Adam and Eve...

You would have to go back in time only 2,000 to 5,000 years and probably on the low side of that range to find somebody who could count every person alive today as a descendant.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201908,00...

We all know that one can find some research to support just about anything one wants. We can also find heaps of woffle to challenge any other. You can also likely find some research to support whatever you wish to support. Isn't theoretical science great????

Algorithmic population size, mutation rates and many other values are unknown insertion values tweaked to support any status quo. Indeed even biased evolutionary research points to a single male and female common ancestor. Indeed the dates for mteve and Yadam are based on assumptive algorithms with assumptive and unknown insertion values. Evolutionary researchers assume the above dates relate to extra cohorts and assume that advanced culture also coincidently appeared at around the same time.

Do you suppose Darwin proposed TOE as a process orchestrated by God?

Is it not so, that the majority of evolutionists need a naturalistic interpretation of any data that does not evoke the hand of any God?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59548
Nov 17, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean, like your denial of the fact that your only source was a crackpot who had to publish his own material because it didn't pass scientific muster?
<quoted text>
ScienceDaily is a popular website. Got any actual peer-reviewed scientific research articles? No, I didn't think so.
Quack quack, have you told Hawkins he is an idiot yet??????

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 55,641 - 55,660 of111,841
|
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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••