Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#62093 Nov 30, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Don't forget, we are in the human's world.
Dogs or other animals can never be compared to humans.
And dogs can never be compared to bacteria. Your point?

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Southampton, UK

#62094 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem with you is that you are too simple to refute me.
That, lovey, is the proof in the pudding.
Keep clinging on to your mantra, science refutes your view, not I. And the phrase is proof OF the pudding, not in, "lovey".

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#62095 Nov 30, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Find out. Most of the causes of deaths in both the young, the middle aged and the old, are caused by bitterness, betrayal and frustration, etc.
Really? Show me an autopsy report to confirm this.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#62096 Nov 30, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Ofcourse, i do. People do imagine things they thought over, before going to bed. But there are many things one could not have had in mind, but he will definitely see them while dreaming or in revelation.
Yup. Brain cells firing, transferring information through biological process. Not evidence of a soul.

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Southampton, UK

#62097 Nov 30, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Nope. You don't have a point.
The work of science is a work of faith. And we know that faith is something one is hoping for, but not yet seen. When that thing are finally seen, it becomes reality.
Inventions, technologies, etc, are some good examples.
Wrong. Faith is belief based, science is fact based. Inventions are based on experiment, trial and error, previous work. Faith is based on personal belief. If you cannot discriminate between the two, you have a problem.

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Southampton, UK

#62098 Nov 30, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I finally think you evos have realized that you cannot refute the above because it is irrefuteable. Now you are all in desperation mode.
The above post is based on factual data from your evolutionary reseachers and reflects the twoddle you have shoved at creos when in actual fact you were, and still are, peddling hubris.
How dare you delusionists suggest that we creos should accept any twoddle and flavour of the month these desperadoes come up with in blind faith, like you do?
You lot were simply parrotting your silly researchers and are still standing there with egg on your face with them. Congratulations!
More humour - do stop it, I've already a stitch from laughing so much. Btw, still waiting for an answer to why none of the reputable universities world-wide teach creationism. Is it too difficult a question for you?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62099 Nov 30, 2012
NikkiShae wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure the power he gained from unifying the Christian church was just a bonus with no political intent.
Nothing political there. After all, emperiors before him were doing the otherwise. They were killing the christians.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#62100 Dec 1, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Nope. You don't have a point.
The work of science is a work of faith. And we know that faith is something one is hoping for, but not yet seen. When that thing are finally seen, it becomes reality.
Inventions, technologies, etc, are some good examples.
Technology was not advanced by faith, it was advanced by science. Science is a method of learning, not at all requiring faith. You'd know this if you knew a lick about what you're attempting to discredit.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#62101 Dec 1, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I finally think you evos have realized that you cannot refute the above because it is irrefuteable. Now you are all in desperation mode.
The above post is based on factual data from your evolutionary reseachers and reflects the twoddle you have shoved at creos when in actual fact you were, and still are, peddling hubris.
How dare you delusionists suggest that we creos should accept any twoddle and flavour of the month these desperadoes come up with in blind faith, like you do?
You lot were simply parrotting your silly researchers and are still standing there with egg on your face with them. Congratulations!
Yes, an exceptionally well executed declaration of victory. Your work is done here. Time pee on the fire and call the dogs.

Adios, we barely knew yee.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62102 Dec 1, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
That's interesting. I never heard that dreams or trance states are evidence of having a soul. Personally I am rather more attached to my fully conscious state, and I would consider it a shame if my full consciousness was not included in my soul, if I could look forward to it being saved. I don't think I would care that much for the promise of salvation or even worry about it, if it was only meant for a kind of residual echo of me, the continuance of my trance or dream states.
Ofcourse it is. While dreaming, you will see your self moving from place to the other, while your body is busy resting. This is an evidence of spirit or soul.
It is like half death.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#62103 Dec 1, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Nope. You don't have a point.
The work of science is a work of faith. And we know that faith is something one is hoping for, but not yet seen. When that thing are finally seen, it becomes reality.
Inventions, technologies, etc, are some good examples.
Faith is the state of throwing caution to the wind and allowing fate to determine the outcome. Explain to me how science is a work of faith?

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Southampton, UK

#62104 Dec 1, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Nothing political there. After all, emperiors before him were doing the otherwise. They were killing the christians.
If you want to get into the history of this, you might find this short article useful:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/c...

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#62105 Dec 1, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing political there. After all, emperiors before him were doing the otherwise. They were killing the christians.
Of course not, if you only scan the surface.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62106 Dec 1, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
This comment is almost as unimpressive as the claim made by that idoit running for office that when rape occurs a woman's body shuts down and she doesn't get pregnant. That, like your assertion, has absolutely no evidence to substantiate it.
Go through your gibberish. It makes me laugh.
Next?

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Southampton, UK

#62107 Dec 1, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Go through your gibberish. It makes me laugh.
Next?
No, I leave the gibberish to you - why should I try to compete with an expert?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62108 Dec 1, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Dear ,dear, aren't we getting hot under the collar? Still spelling waffle wrongly I see - but you have proved the levels of your reading skills with your links. Notice that you do not address why no prestigious university, including Melbourne, Sydney and New South Wales teach creationism.
Top tip - calling DNA junk does not make it so - or is that too hard for you to comprehend?
So the vast majority of researchers don't agree with your view? Now there's a surprise - not! You have been given more than adequate evidence over these pages to refute the rubbish you post: indeed, you yourself have unwittingly provided it with several of the links you give (trouble is, you don't really understand them, do you?). Want to shut your eyes to it? Dig out - but don't expect us to try to educate you, two adages about horses (one concerning water, one concerning flogging) would seem applicable.
Dweebette? And you comment on anyone's maturity? Keep the laughs coming - you're a guinea a minute for the jokes. Btw, a tip on an argument: refuting a statement involves more than a "it's not me, it's you" approach - might work in a playground , but not very convincing for adults.
Oh, who are you? Got something to say?

I am glad I entertain you. I likewise am here for entertainment. I love watching evos on this thread pretend they are debating. Scarcely a link to be seen from any of them, just words that say nothing.

What are you talking about in "hot tip".

Evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats for over a decade saying that is evidence of the functionless left overs of TOE. They said creationists are idiots for not accepting this evidence let alone predicting its functionality. Your evo researchers have found 80% of non coding dna to be functional and are expecting 100% of it to be. We have done this to death.

Functional non coding dna validates a creationist prediction that has been around since its discovery. That is it pal. You can wriggle and squirm and stamp your feet and ignore ridicule or run and even make nonsense posts.

Now, after all the prattle, you have nothing to say about non coding dna, which was spoken to in the intial post. Evos will reject they had a prediction around the functionality of non coding dna that could be falsified. The best I've got is, "so what"? How typical.

Hence an example of evos handing creationist support over on a silver platter!

Your post makes no sense.

BTW. the older followers of this thread are sick of junk dna talk. They are gobsmacked and basically speechless and are still wiping that egg off their face hoping it will go away. So thanks for bringing it up again.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#62109 Dec 1, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh you mean how the majority of well credentialled researchers woffled on about about their junk dna, single celled LUCA, human knuckle walking ancestry, brain size to bipedalism, functionless vestigial organs etc and there were proven to be idiots.
The hot and obvious news for you dweebette is that you have woffled on with BS with not a shred of science to even challenge let alone refute me.
La la la is more applicable to idiots with big attitudes that cannot articulate an appropriate response. OH! That would be you!
You evos can't even mount an appropriate reply. It is like debating with year 9 students.
Offer a better theory to explain the observations, or stop being an idiot. "Goddidit" doesn't count.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#62110 Dec 1, 2012
MazHere wrote:
this post cleansed of incoherent bullshit.
Hello Matted Hair. I haven't read through your complete list yet, I try but then the laughter just gets in the way, but I did get to read part of point 3. Now having read Genesis, your statement is only supported by one of the two conflicting versions of the creation myth presented there. In one version man comes last and in the other man comes first. Now which is it? For that matter, how can God have created the Earth in seven days and one day at the same time? I gotta say, this little conundrum casts a pall upon the weight of your evidence. But then, I don't think you really care about validity, transparency, integrity, or honesty as long as you can propagandize your view, I suspect you are just fine with it.
By the way, I know there are fine, intelligent people in Australia, can you put some of them on.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62111 Dec 1, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
If you want to get into the history of this, you might find this short article useful:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/romans/c...
I am fully aware of the history. I even have the book.
What i said was true.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#62112 Dec 1, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Why don't you admit that you have a big atitude and so far have contributed nothing to this discussion at all and that includes your stupid backbone you tried to shove at me and failed miserably
The point is TOE has nothing to do with medicine and is not responsible for any medical advancements at all.
Toe is not a science. If surgery was based on TOE with all its instability and falsifications no one would survive.
Are you serious?

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

A small example - the TOE has helped us to understand why antibiotics are no longer as effective, and it is helping us to develop more effective drugs.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 18 min whatimeisit 7,861
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 1 hr mr goodwrench 138,434
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr CJ Rocker 152,928
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr -Lea- 26,057
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 1 hr Stormare 17,960
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 1 hr Stormare 77,712
Words That End With...E R (Jul '12) 1 hr Stormare 96
Is it possible to....... 4 hr Old Sam 620
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 hr TALLYHO 8541 37,800
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 5 hr dragoon70056 3,051
More from around the web