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 2,913)

Showing posts 58,241 - 58,260 of111,958
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62288
Dec 1, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a perfect example of a cyber bully.
You evade any scientific discussion, demonstrate a pure lack of understanding of recent data and then pick an a theist that admits to not being very eductated around TOE. Then insult him on a biased philosophical basis.
Then you evoke an extremist element of a peaceful faith to justify your existence on this thread. Hence you are also a religious bigot.
At least my sky daddy has the power to create a larger creation of scale than you evos suggest dead elements can do for themselves. That is much more plausibile than what you can come up with including hubris that supports TOE and handwaves away the data.
Evos like to chase their tails and theist tails in philosophical discussions because there they can hide away from the fact that they have no more than hubris to support themselves with.
Your sky-daddy has no power whatsoever...it is non-existent clap-trap.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62289
Dec 1, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>No, of course you don't have to prove your beliefs. They're your beliefs.

I'm not going to accept your beliefs for me, though. Your personal experience just isn't enough to convince me that you're correct about the universe. Honestly.

And I hope you'll forgive me, but I'm not about to accept someone's opinion on evolution when they quite clearly don't know the first thing about biological science. That would be like asking a farmer to build a skyscraper - you're welcome to set up your apartment in that building, sir, but I'm content waiting for the engineer to come along.
I can understand and respect that. I welcome you to ask about my faith if ever you wish to know why Christians believe what they do. I know I am always curious about science and evolution. I again thank you for answering my question with respect. It is possible for two opposing sides to talk and debate with out being rude and insulting. Thank you again.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62290
Dec 1, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
You don't date fossils by C14 and there is not much point in dating sea life by C14. Those dates reflect a very recently killed whale by C14 dating. Even a freshly killed whale would ate at those actual ages. C14 dating for atmospheric C14 measures when it was made in the atmosphere. Carbon in the ocean can be much much older than present day ages.
If the so called fossils are actually bones, which would be "date-able" then the hoax is busted without a second thought.
That is your assumtion based on what you would like to believe.

"Carbon 14 dating of samples taken from the Michigan whale bones by Harington produced enigmatic results;" Hence the dating is not evidence of anthing other than evos trying to put square pegs into round holes.

Whale and even walrus fossils have been found in Michigan, proving that the state was once under water. A finback whale (Balaenoptera) bone was found in 1928; its fossilised remains date from approximately 290 million years ago.

http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_7182299_fossils-fo...

So again I say that it is great that you lot have a go but an enigmatic date. Enigmatic refers to not being CLEAR to the understanding. Who knows how ground water or anything could have affected it? Hence, given the dates are enigmatic another reliable way to date the fossils is to assume they were buried there pre 290mya and rose with the land mass.

This also explains why there are no dinosaur fossils in Michagan. Scientists suggest they were takes away in the last glaciation which was heaps longer ago than 900 years. Meaning anything left behind was underneath again supporting a scenario that indeed does not leave any mysteries at all. Rather you have enigmas and mysteries and have no idea how they got there.

The claim that creos have no evidence for creation is falsified by my 6 points.

You lot need to go find your own supports because so far you are all doing very sadly. It seems TOE is supported by ridiculing creos. Nice science guys and gals!

Only one of you have given it a fair shot and presented some challenge and unfortunately that was not you.

Now you are jumping on the band wagon some some dribbling desperado.

It will do you know good. You must have faith in enigmatic dates and no understanding how the bones got there. You also have nothing else that remotely resembles evidence for cetacian ancestry, whilst I have a very parsimonious scenario.

Indeed you lot have supported the creationist account in gereral and there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the two evos have out of alignment, birds and whales, are in actual fact seen close to where they need to be.

You have only got misrepresentations of fossil evidence to offer as an alternative.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62291
Dec 1, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for for taking time to answer. If I understand what you're saying correctly even if all of the evidence were to indicate intelligent design science could never acknowledge it. Because science at its core never looks to the supernatural. So rather than say "God dun it with God magic" they make up some other theory to explain what they do not know.
You've presented an ahistorical interpretation of science. Yeah, it's accurate, science cannot analyze the non-measurable. If DNA looked as if it were designed, we could figure that out, but we wouldn't be able to say "ah, it was divinely designed." As it stands, DNA really, really, really looks like it evolved in a very messy, unpredictable fashion.

If we take a historical understanding of science you can more clearly see that science disproved the supernatural argument. The beginnings of the study of life were creationist accounts in Western countries. These were dismissed by science because they utterly fail to explain our observations.

Since these kinds of "guesses" about life were disproved and non-explanatory, they've already been dismissed.

Let's say you want to put them back in, though, yeah? You'd have to show that by adding a deity or the supernatural that you were adding explanatory power to our existing theories. If you cannot do that, you're just adding meaningless noise to the theory.

For example, take Tuberculosis. We can explain very well using the theory of evolution why TB now has Total Drug Resistance where we could treat it 40 years ago with antibiotics. How would you go about putting a designer into that equation? God wanted TB to be impervious to our drugs? How does that help you understand TB, drug resistance and treatment?

Conversely, the ToE informs us of why TB changed, what caused this change and offers avenues of dealing with this problem.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62292
Dec 1, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>So you are hedging bets on a one billionth of a chance? The question you are responding to is best used to illustrate the fallacy of Pascal's Wager, though it does illustrate the point that your god, like thousands of others, was invented by human minds, guess work at best, but mostly snake oil charms. To better word the question to suite your position:

Why did you choose that one specific god out of the hundreds of thousands of others humans have proposed? Each has the same exact amount of evidence, each asserting that they're "the one," and most not even caring if you worship them. At what specific moment did you wake up and go "that's the god I'm going to worship and give my life to?"
To be totally honest here kitten I chose that God because he was the best dressed his shoes matched his robe.(Kidding)

I was drinking pretty heavy one night and I was standing on a bridge about to jump into the river and in my super smart drunken stuper I said "God if my life is ment to be anything more than a big pile of shiz you won't let me drown" than I stepped up on the side of the rail and as I went to jump a cop grabbed my belt and I went to jail. That was the first of many answers to prayer. After that night I never drank again and I haven't felt the need to try to test God or kill myself.

“I won, I won, I won!!!”

Level 5

Since: Mar 11

Who? Me, me, me!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62293
Dec 1, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I can understand and respect that. I welcome you to ask about my faith if ever you wish to know why Christians believe what they do. I know I am always curious about science and evolution. I again thank you for answering my question with respect. It is possible for two opposing sides to talk and debate with out being rude and insulting. Thank you again.
Cool. Ok. What is faith? I've heard the answer from lots of atheists, but not from Christians. I've asked lots of Christians, but they don't like answering, for reasons I cannot understand.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62294
Dec 1, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
I just picked your last one - it doesn't back up the claims you made.
It's an update on the state of affairs in discussion mutation rates. It doesn't talk about hoaxes, falsifications or anything that you falsely claim above.
Here's a quote from the middle of it:
"Geneticists have previously estimated mutation rates by comparing the human genome with the sequences of other primates. On the basis of species-divergence dates gleaned — ironically — from fossil evidence, they concluded that in human DNA, each letter mutates once every billion years.“It’s a suspiciously round number,” says Linda Vigilant, a molecular anthropologist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany. The suspicion turned out to be justified."
In other words, you made false, unsupported claims. Since you're a creationist, and given that creationists lie constantly, it's pretty tempting to conclude you did this on purpose. I'm not sure why you would, though, so I'll assume you just misread the article. Now that you know it doesn't back up your claim, we can reject your conclusion.
Oh you poor sod. Do you even know what you are going on about. I am seriously bored by idiots.

My claim in reference to this research is that these evoutionists are nothing but crack pots that can invent insertion values such as mutation rates and population size to suit, AND I HAVE NOT MISREPRESENTED ANYTHING, including you are a bit of a goose.

The more research one can present that speaks to a different mutation rate, and their are heaps, the more the entire lot of them look like idiots scratching in the dark. You are so inculcated to your hubris that you can't even tell when something is rot or progression.

The research suggests that the current mutation rates need to be halved to accomodate certain fossils, after claiming they were out, then throws out others. That is what this says about mutation rates, you dill.

For instance, the slowest proposed mutation rate puts the common ancestor of humans and orang-utans at 40 million years ago, he says: more than 20 million years before dates derived from abundant fossil evidence. This very slow clock has the common ancestor of monkeys and humans co-existing with the last dinosaurs.“It gets very complicated,” deadpans Reich.

http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h...

So I am not sure what you are blathering on about and I am fairly sure you don't have any idea either.

Bring it on you desperados. You can't support TOE with all its hubris so you may as well clutch at staws in being jelous that I can actually present something.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62295
Dec 1, 2012
 
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>Does it bother you that the Bible tells of a significant Israelite presence in Egypt which was completely unnoticed and unrecorded by the Egyptians.

The Israelites had no history so they invented one.
Yes because if my nation were terrorized with death and plages because I wanted to hold on to some slaves than when I said they could leave I chased them down and ended up killing not only the king but my entire army too I would tell every body. That would be dumb what country is going to tell people it's army got blown away by slaves. Than what are they going tell people the sea ate them.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62296
Dec 1, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
All of this has been refuted by myself and others. Your continuing to repeated long refuted notions is a symptom of either intellectual dishonesty or stupidity.
Yur wishing you were good enough to refute anything is what amazes me. You have refuted nothing you blithering creotard. If yiou have you would repost. You never do.

1. Creationist predictions are continuing to be validated with the expectation that 100% of the genome likely to be functional. This validation comes after evolutionists shoved junk dna down creos throats as proof TOE was true, there was no designer and creos were idiots. Now they scurry off in shame, suggest TOE never could make a prediction around non coding dna but creos can clearly see just whom the idiots really are!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc ...
2. Creationists predictions are vestigial organs are continuing to be validated by evolutionists finding that these left over functionless organs do indeed have function. This validation comes after evolutionists found function in these organs and had to toddle off and redefine the definition of vestigial to reflect ‘a different’ function.
http://www.naturalnews.com/022914_appendix_gu ...
3. Fossil evidence that is more in line with creationism then TOE. The Genesis account was the oldest account published that suggests the alignment of the fossil record from plant s to creatures of the sea, then land animals and lastly mankind. Evos were not the first to come up with this line up. Whales and birds are the only ones that evos have out of biblical alignment . Surprise, surprise they have been having trouble with these two ever since. Evos are still confused over whale bones found in strata dated to 290mya and have had to invent mythical theropods to wear a reversed hallux although not one single theropod ever found has modern avian feet, and now you may have a monster based on whim. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun ...
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68 ...
4. Beneficial mutations have an overwhelmingly negative effect due to epistasis. All the recent data supports this. Clearly this is evidence in support of creationism and an organisms inability to limitlessly adapt for billions of years. Evos have come up with many theoretical assumptions to explain this in evolutionary terms and why TOE is not falsified. Hence the data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffley excuses hypothesised supports TOE.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11 ...
5. All data suggests the genome is deteriorating. Again this is creationist support demonstrating that adaptation is limited. Again evos have to toddle off and come up with some story and convoluted hypothesis as to why a deteriorating genome does not falsify TOE. The data supports creationism and the woffle supports TOE.
http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/1 ...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/ ...
http://www.naturalnews.com/021220_genetic_mod ...
6. Evolutionary supports are derived from arbitrary and pick a box morphological and genomic homology that changes like the wind and biased algorithmic magic that is no better than any algorithmic magic a creationists can provide. This is supported by an evolutionary history of falsifications, instability and change.
http://www.nature.com/news/studies-slow-the-h ...
None of the above links are to creationist sites, Some speak to published data. Many of the above links are to the actual peer reviewed work. The headlines are not a misrepresentation of the data found before story telling is applied.
Conclusion: Creationist views are supported by research data. Evolutionary views are supported by excuses, woffle, rhetoric and pure speculation.

Not a word of the above has been successfully refuted.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62297
Dec 1, 2012
 
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>Cool. Ok. What is faith? I've heard the answer from lots of atheists, but not from Christians. I've asked lots of Christians, but they don't like answering, for reasons I cannot understand.
I can't speak for everyone but for me faith is knowing with out seeing. When I do something wrong God lets me know not by burning my house down or killing my first born but its like an itch I can't scratch until I make it right. The more God moves by answered prayer the stronger my faith gets. I think to some degree everyone has faith in something. I also think that everyone has a drive to understand it. I guess you don't read the bible but this desire to understand faith is in there. The dictionary can define it but until you live it faith is hard to understand fully.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62298
Dec 1, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
That is your assumtion based on what you would like to believe.
"Carbon 14 dating of samples taken from the Michigan whale bones by Harington produced enigmatic results;" Hence the dating is not evidence of anthing other than evos trying to put square pegs into round holes.
Whale and even walrus fossils have been found in Michigan, proving that the state was once under water. A finback whale (Balaenoptera) bone was found in 1928; its fossilised remains date from approximately 290 million years ago.
http://www.ehow.co.uk/list_7182299_fossils-fo...
So again I say that it is great that you lot have a go but an enigmatic date. Enigmatic refers to not being CLEAR to the understanding. Who knows how ground water or anything could have affected it? Hence, given the dates are enigmatic another reliable way to date the fossils is to assume they were buried there pre 290mya and rose with the land mass.
This also explains why there are no dinosaur fossils in Michagan. Scientists suggest they were takes away in the last glaciation which was heaps longer ago than 900 years. Meaning anything left behind was underneath again supporting a scenario that indeed does not leave any mysteries at all. Rather you have enigmas and mysteries and have no idea how they got there.
The claim that creos have no evidence for creation is falsified by my 6 points.
You lot need to go find your own supports because so far you are all doing very sadly. It seems TOE is supported by ridiculing creos. Nice science guys and gals!
Only one of you have given it a fair shot and presented some challenge and unfortunately that was not you.
Now you are jumping on the band wagon some some dribbling desperado.
It will do you know good. You must have faith in enigmatic dates and no understanding how the bones got there. You also have nothing else that remotely resembles evidence for cetacian ancestry, whilst I have a very parsimonious scenario.
Indeed you lot have supported the creationist account in gereral and there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the two evos have out of alignment, birds and whales, are in actual fact seen close to where they need to be.
You have only got misrepresentations of fossil evidence to offer as an alternative.
No, that is not from wishful thinking. See, I actually understand how C14 dating works and what you have to be aware of.

You do not date C14 in sea life. The information is not "problematic" it is of very limited usability since C14 in the ocean does not come directly from the atmosphere.

Check the professional papers if you don't believe me. You won't see anyone except for a creatard try to date sea life with C14.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62299
Dec 1, 2012
 
So Maz, is Archaeopteryx a bird or not? Is it a transitional form from dinosaur to bird?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62300
Dec 1, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The ancient whale bones don't have to count against TOE. You're own fossil evidence does that with basilosaurus now predating Indohyus and evos selling decendants as the ancestral line of whale evolution, which is an obvious misrepresentation in glossy magazines.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44867222/ns/techn...
If your msnbc link proves accurate, it increases our knowledge about the evolution of whales. See? We learn something new, and incorporate that new knowledge into the overall theory. Does it provide a "problem"?

Not in the least. It's called "being honest". I'm sure one day you will learn of this concept.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>You missed the best bit that "the results may reflect some sort of contamination". That is exactly what I said. I said they were buried in strata 290mya, and the carbon dating was inconclusive. You have confirmed researchers do not know how they got there, which is what I said. So you have confirmed all that I said. Thanks!~.
"Missed it"?!?! Darlin, you better re-read my post. I quoted those exact same words. And yes, there does seem to be the unknown as to how relatively RECENT whale bones arrived in Michigan. But that is all.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>So what are you so desperately trying to say? That inconclusive carbon dating has more merit than the bones being found in strata that had been always dated to 290myo.
Or does it sound like evo desperation?
Oooooh. Sorry. Wrong again. YOUR sources just stated flatly: "A finback whale (Balaenoptera) bone was found in 1928; its fossilized remains date from approximately 290 million years ago." http://www.ehow.com/list_7182299_fossils-foun...

Note that your source says nothing about "strata", whereas MY source says that it was found in Holocene strata (0.0 - 0.0 Ma)

http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl

"Inconclusive" carbon dating results represents.....wait for it....."INCONCLUSIVE DATING RESULTS". So there was a problem with the collection &/or testing procedures that gave questionable data. Would it be better science, in your opinion to GUESS at the age instead?

<<Contd>>

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62301
Dec 1, 2012
 
<<Contd>>
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, thanks for trying at least. However the link you posted is one of the ones I use so I am well acqainted with it and is no refute.
I disagree. YOU would rather accept a single-sentance blurb in an " e-how.com " site (whatever THAT is), written by Charong Chow*,*"Charong Chow has been writing professionally since 1995. Her work has appeared in magazines such as "Zing" and "Ocean Drive." Chow graduated from the University of Miami with a Bachelor of Arts in philosophy. She also received a Bachelor of Fine Arts from the California Institute of the Arts."

...than the data gleened from a professional paleobiology website. "The Paleobiology Database is a non-governmental, non-profit public resource. It has been organized and operated by a multi-disciplinary, multi-institutional, international group of paleobiological researchers. Its purpose is to provide global, collection-based occurrence and taxonomic data for marine and terrestrial animals and plants of any geological age, as well as web-based software for statistical analysis of the data. The project's wider, long-term goal is to encourage collaborative efforts to answer large-scale paleobiological questions by developing a useful database infrastructure and bringing together large data sets."
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Hence bones found in strata dated to 290mya remains evidence of modern whales being around just after the devonian and that is evidence for creation. You have a mess of a fossil record with morphology placing hippo closer to pig and dna placing hippos closer to a whale.
So still you can't refute me and still you can't supply any of this repeatablee research or any substantive supports of you own. That's great! Keep going and try again. Third time lucky!.
Except that the whale bones were NOT found in 290mya strata. Ms Chow never wrote that in her article. Perhaps she would have better luck writing in her area of expertice....Philosophy, maybe? And you are saying MY sources are not substantive?

YOU'RE sounding quite desperate, Mazzy.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62302
Dec 1, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't speak for everyone but for me faith is knowing with out seeing. When I do something wrong God lets me know not by burning my house down or killing my first born but its like an itch I can't scratch until I make it right. The more God moves by answered prayer the stronger my faith gets. I think to some degree everyone has faith in something. I also think that everyone has a drive to understand it. I guess you don't read the bible but this desire to understand faith is in there. The dictionary can define it but until you live it faith is hard to understand fully.
No, what you are describing is gullibility, which is a synonym for faith. And no, God does not punish people directly, that is not even close to being a Biblical belief. If you think that God answered your prayer that is more probably confirmation bias than anything else.

I know that you may doubt this, but on average atheists know far more about the Bible than average Christians. In fact atheists very often tell Christians to read their Bible, they know by experience that that is the fastest route to atheism.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62303
Dec 1, 2012
 
And Maz, that report from Argentina sounds reasonable. It is definitely not a peer reviewed article so I would not swear by it, but for an ancestor of today's whales that date is within the range we expect.

Do you have any objections to that report or is it simply a Red Herring to send us off the track?

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62304
Dec 1, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>No, what you are describing is gullibility, which is a synonym for faith. And no, God does not punish people directly, that is not even close to being a Biblical belief. If you think that God answered your prayer that is more probably confirmation bias than anything else.

I know that you may doubt this, but on average atheists know far more about the Bible than average Christians. In fact atheists very often tell Christians to read their Bible, they know by experience that that is the fastest route to atheism.
ROFL wow pay attention everyone that is the way to be arrogant.

"And no, God does not punish people directly, that is not even close to being a Biblical belief. "
Tell that to Adam and Eve , Cain , the people died in the flood, Jonah, king Saul , Moses, king David would you care for some New Testament people God punished directly?

"I know that you may doubt this, but on average atheists know far more about the Bible than average Christians."

Wrong again you really should stick to your evo theories bud. A true Christian craves the word of God lives by it studies it trying to get as close to God as they can a true Christian doesn't read it they live it. Where you see myth a Christian sees a how to manual. For atheists it's a story book at best the Ten Commandments have some ok ideas. For a Christian this is the measure by which we will be judged.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62305
Dec 1, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
ROFL wow pay attention everyone that is the way to be arrogant.
"And no, God does not punish people directly, that is not even close to being a Biblical belief. "
Tell that to Adam and Eve , Cain , the people died in the flood, Jonah, king Saul , Moses, king David would you care for some New Testament people God punished directly?
"I know that you may doubt this, but on average atheists know far more about the Bible than average Christians."
Wrong again you really should stick to your evo theories bud. A true Christian craves the word of God lives by it studies it trying to get as close to God as they can a true Christian doesn't read it they live it. Where you see myth a Christian sees a how to manual. For atheists it's a story book at best the Ten Commandments have some ok ideas. For a Christian this is the measure by which we will be judged.
Those are all myths. Bedtime stories. You know, make believe.

I would not trust any of the history of the Old Testament. Yes, some of the characters are probably real, but that is about it.

Since: Sep 12

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62306
Dec 1, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Those are all myths. Bedtime stories. You know, make believe.

I would not trust any of the history of the Old Testament. Yes, some of the characters are probably real, but that is about it.
That's great the bible is real enough when you think you have a good point. When your point is shown to be wrong now it's a myth.

“Steaming hunk”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62307
Dec 1, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh look! Someone disagrees with you and they're a bully. Yeah.
What do you think chemical reactions are? They are atoms acting on their own through natural causes and methods. That's what you are, just a serious of chemical reactions.
If we are "just" a series pf chemical reactions, then please explain your own sentience, self awareness, ability to think, and your own identity as a person.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 58,241 - 58,260 of111,958
|
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.

100 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
ask amy rose 14 min Independent1 8
Why Weird Al is still the king of spoof 34 min UnHAPPY 1
Word Association (Jun '10) 44 min Bezeer 25,858
Word Association (Mar '10) 45 min Bezeer 15,603
The letter E (Jun '13) 48 min Bezeer 812
The Letter T (Dec '11) 49 min Bezeer 2,368
The Letter "O" (May '09) 50 min Bezeer 3,197
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr curiouslu 140,565
tell me one word to describe yourself (Jun '09) 2 hr wichita-rick 15,411
How to become Unbannable 3 hr its me daisy 87
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••