Evolution vs. Creation

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

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#63088 Dec 4, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So you are saying that the sharpening of a pencil is an act of faith. It is the same faith that is required for the belief in a god.
You don't find this idea strange or somehow devaluing faith in the Christian God for instance?
I don't think sharpening a pencil requires faith. There may be an expectation, but I don't see faith as necessary to the process.
Let me help...and evolutionists have..."faith" that vampires, werewolves and zombies exist and now dragons...

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63089 Dec 4, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they are from England.
It has nothing to do with the language they speak.
Guess what you call a person who can't speak English but who was born in England and who uses British Sign Language?
You call them "English".
Your first paragraph has already answered the question, English( not the outdated old English) is native to England.
The people who are either from India, Burma, Parkistan, Africa, etc, are known as immigrants or generally British immigrants.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63090 Dec 4, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The theory of evolution is a scientific theory supported by 150 years of carefully reviewed, research. Every attempt to refute it has been met with failure. It is the basis of modern biology.
You can think anything you want. It is clear you don't mind being completely wrong about a subject.
You are using a tried and tired technique of taking the newest, least understood scientific findings and without review, understanding or care, calling them the club that will bring the whole theory down. On top of that you don't even understand that, that is what you are doing. Or worse, you don't care.
This is the generalis sort of crap that is not weorth responding to.

Either you wnat to discuss this intermeidarte crap of your or you don't and can't.

WHAT ARE THESE SO CALLED INTERMEDIATE TRAITS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN ARCH?

A couple of you have blathered on and on. I have posted LINKS to suggest that indeed arch's so called bird traits are actually theropod traits and the wish bone connection is a fraudulent misrepresentation. You lot have run away gobsmacked as usual.

You have over 150 years of falsifications and change that you call science and Darwin had been shown to be a simplistic idiot on more than one occcasion.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#63091 Dec 4, 2012
http://manwithdinosaurs.blogspot.com/

Year: 1640
Scientist/artist: Ulisse Aldrovandi
Originally published in: Liber Serpentium et Draconum
Now appears in: Amazing Rare Things by Attenborough, Owens, Clayton and Alexandratos
Aldrovandi did more than collect alleged dragon carcasses, he also published descriptions of them, complete with illustrations. Europeans of Aldrovandi's time believed in several different kinds of dragons, some without legs, some with two legs, some with four legs, even some with eight legs. No one less than Leonardo da Vinci gave serious consideration to how and where a dragon's wings would attach.
Larger image available

http://www.strangescience.net/stdino2.htm

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63092 Dec 4, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>So you are saying that the sharpening of a pencil is an act of faith. It is the same faith that is required for the belief in a god.
You don't find this idea strange or somehow devaluing faith in the Christian God for instance?
I don't think sharpening a pencil requires faith. There may be an expectation, but I don't see faith as necessary to the process.
The person or individual, that came up with that pencil, applied faith during the production of the pencil(s).

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#63093 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
Creos need the patience of a saint to deal with them.
It must be tough putting up horseshit contentions, having them shredded, putting them up again, having them torn down, putting them up again...

Your delusion must be very difficult to maintain. You have my sympathy.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#63094 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Dan, I think TOE should be excluded from science streams and put in with philosophies. TOE is a philosophy of faith that is suppported by misrepresentation and hubris.
Maz, we KNOW you think that the ToE is a philosophy.

Fortunately much more rational people make decisions for school boards.

BTW, I see you're still posting the lie about 290mya whale fossils in Michigan. You DO realize that we've shot that down quite a few times now, right?

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

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63095 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not refuted anything I have said ever. Indeed these replies re birds are the very first time in the entire time I have spoken to you that you have even come anywhere near forming a reply worth responding to.
I actually think you did not quote my post because it demonstrates what folley your homology is based on. What's up Subby?
Your 'bird' features are not bird features at all.
" Archaeopteryx was a bird because it had feathers and nothing else had them. But then other animals started being found that had wishbones, three-fingered hands and feathers. Heck, even T. rex had a wishbone. So one by one we've learned Archaeopteryx 's uniquely avian traits weren't so unique. The writing was really on the wall," says Lawrence Witmer, a palaeontologist at Ohio University in Athens.
Whether this change will be permanent depends on what other animals are discovered in the future, says Thomas Holtz, a palaeontologist at the University of Maryland in College Park. "I don't think this is going to be the last word on this subject. You take this new Chinese species out of the mix and the argument falls apart, so the new placement is precarious at best until further evidence is dug up."
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110727/full/n...
This above really sounds like scientists that have no idea what they are talking about past they have to make it all fit, no matter how ridiculous and vague the story has to be.
Further to the misquided attemptes of evoutionists to straw grab at delusionary assumptions, the 'wish bone' in a theropod does not even look like a birds furcula.
Wiki has pictures of them. Theropods furcula look like a boomerang and not a U shape.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furcula
I have already stated that if one is going to only look at similarities then one is bound to find some organism closer to one than another. Hence you are applying homolgy to the inevitable, which means nothing at all.
Of course the fact evos only straw grab at similarites, the differences, the hard part, are hand waved away.
Ruben looked to the differences and concluded that birds and dinosaurs had a common ancestor that bwas neither a bird or a dinosaur and was a glider.
This is one example of how consideration of differences can change the outcome.
So basically all your mix of bird features that arch supposedly had are not bird features at all. Instead, why don't you evos fess up to the fact that TOE is one huge misrepresentation of bias?
How did a dinosaur turn from a cold blood into a warm blood?
Come on all you big mouth evos. You can gobble on and quack and are good at ridicule and evasion, but your foot remains firmly in your mouth.

WHAT TRAITS DOES ARCH HAVE THAT ARE ACTUALLY INTERMEDIATE?

Can we get to the base of this before you evos get running all over the place looking to score some trivial point to justify your existence on a debating thread.
Makes sense

Dearborn, MI

#63097 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on all you big mouth evos. You can gobble on and quack and are good at ridicule and evasion, but your foot remains firmly in your mouth.
WHAT TRAITS DOES ARCH HAVE THAT ARE ACTUALLY INTERMEDIATE?
Can we get to the base of this before you evos get running all over the place looking to score some trivial point to justify your existence on a debating thread.
Why are viruses still evolving? Is God making new ones????

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#63098 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I know what you mean.
Evolutionists are so clever they can't distinguish between data and hubris. Creos need the patience of a saint to deal with them.
You like to deal in conclusory statements, don't you? I've posted quite a few things to you and you don't even acknowledge anything that contradicts what you are saying. You just ignore it and kept spewing your ignorance.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63099 Dec 4, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Maz, we KNOW you think that the ToE is a philosophy.
Fortunately much more rational people make decisions for school boards.
BTW, I see you're still posting the lie about 290mya whale fossils in Michigan. You DO realize that we've shot that down quite a few times now, right?
http://paleodb.org/cgi-bin/bridge.pl...
Your link says nothing. And you posted a link that I addressed and then you disappeared.

Evos have found modern whale bones in strata dated to 290mya. Fact.

Your evo researchers came up with inconclusive dates that were blamed on contamination and therefore hold no validity at all. Fact.

Evo reseachers canot explain how the whale bones got there. Fact.
There are no dinosaur fossils in Michagan. Researchers suggest dino fossils were taken away during an ice age. Fact.

Logic. If dino fossils were taken away by ice sheets during an ice age, then the remaining fossils must be older that the dino fossils.

So not only can I present whale bones found in strata dated to 212 myo, I can also present a plausible explanation of why they are there and dino fossils aren't, on the back of inconclusive contaminated dating of the bones themselves.

For your whale ancestry you have a bunch of fossils that were cohabitating around 49mya, a basilosaurus that is older than Indohyus, morphology that contradicts DNA in whale/hippo/pig.

Again I maintain that the data supports a creationist paradigm. Evolutionists have contradictory hubris to present to explain the data and suggest why whales could not possibly have 'evolved' 212mya.

So you have not finalized anything at all. Do you think making a comment then scurrying off is a debate, do you?

My supports and interpretations of data could not posibly be worse than what you have to present. That is a fact that evos would rather hang themselves over than admit.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#63100 Dec 4, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
You like to deal in conclusory statements, don't you? I've posted quite a few things to you and you don't even acknowledge anything that contradicts what you are saying. You just ignore it and kept spewing your ignorance.
Another big mouth that talks about these amazing posts but can never repost them.

Will you freaken idiots with huge mouths please speak to arch's intermediate traits, or are you going to continue to look like a gaggle of geese for the rest of this thread.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63101 Dec 4, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
In the history of football or soccer, the old football is never taken seriously, except the modern one.
In the history of football or soccer, all parts of the history are taken seriously.
Charles Idemi wrote:
it is the modern English we are speaking today and not any old English.
If we are discussing the origin of "English", then we must discuss the origin of *Old English*, because *Old English* is the earliest form of English.

You suddenly realized that *Old English* was already spoken by the Angles and Saxons on their boats on the way to England.

No wonder you want to move the goalposts.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#63102 Dec 4, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
English( not the outdated old English) is native to England.
Thank you for admitting that Old English, which is a form of English, is not native to England.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#63103 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You have gone our of your way to evade me. Your piss poor understanding of science is demonstrated by your inability to research and post supportive data. "MazHere is wrong" is about the calibre of your scientific base.
These idiots of yours have been wrong in consolidation. Consolidation of opinion in the evolutionary world only means they have all been proven to be biased idiots many times over. You are the blind fools that follow them.
You can be seen flopping around because I can supply links to the data that supports my view that also speak to the hubris used to hand wave it away.
You can provide 'quack quack'. Eg a bif flurryover whales and then birds and now you evos can't even identify these so called intermediate traits you gobble on about because arch's traits are all theropod including the wish bone that looks just like a theropods and nothing like a birds. You idiots! Evade that!
I have had challenges re bird and whales recently and that is all. It has taken weeks for even one of you silly evos to even mount a response worth replying to.
One goose posted an irrelevant link to research that does not even identify a reversed hallux but some theropod displaying digits with you and Subby still chasing your tail over birds. Also some goose that posted a link that I use that shows inconclusive whale bone dating.
So basically you have gone no where. I have evidence that is plain to see. Evolutionists need to present convoluted hubris to hand wave their own data away.
Nothing I present could be worse than over 150 years of change and falsifications.eg human knuckle walking ancestry, single celled LUCA, junk dan, the gradual size increase within horse ancestry, hippos morphologically closer to pigs contradicted by dna, functionless organs etc etc etc.
Stop lying and answer my questions.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63104 Dec 4, 2012
Mav, you did not read, or understand Kong's post.

It was about those whale bones, not whale fossils, supposedly found in Michigan. First off if you find bones, not fossils, that is a very strong indicator that the artifacts were planted.

Second they dated the whale bones and found them to be "720 +- 70 years B.P." using the C14 dating method. Now I have already explained why you do not C14 date sea life. You get anomalously high ages if you do so. The "date" for that whale is what would be expected for a recently killed whale. The bones probably came from some whaling expedition and were probably planted in the quarry by a creationist. It would not be the first time that creationists planted false information.

Read the paper it said bones not fossils, in fact they also said that the source was man. It was a very short concise sentence:

"Preservation: original phosphate, anthropogenic"

"Original phosphate" means original bone, not fossil. "anthropogenic" is a nice way of saying people put them there.

It is a busted fraud. The paper said so in very polite, short, scientific terms. I know. You like to waffle (bluely) on for hours. So that must be a bit alien to you.

Level 8

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#63105 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Another big mouth that talks about these amazing posts but can never repost them.
Will you freaken idiots with huge mouths please speak to arch's intermediate traits, or are you going to continue to look like a gaggle of geese for the rest of this thread.
I'm not going back through hundreds of posts to find my posts to you.

I can tell you think a lot of yourself and are impressed thereby. That tells me two things ... first you are easily impressed ... second, surely someone like you, if you could have rebutted what I had said, would have.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#63106 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Mav, you did not read, or understand Kong's post.
It was about those whale bones, not whale fossils, supposedly found in Michigan. First off if you find bones, not fossils, that is a very strong indicator that the artifacts were planted.
Second they dated the whale bones and found them to be "720 +- 70 years B.P." using the C14 dating method. Now I have already explained why you do not C14 date sea life. You get anomalously high ages if you do so. The "date" for that whale is what would be expected for a recently killed whale. The bones probably came from some whaling expedition and were probably planted in the quarry by a creationist. It would not be the first time that creationists planted false information.
Read the paper it said bones not fossils, in fact they also said that the source was man. It was a very short concise sentence:
"Preservation: original phosphate, anthropogenic"
"Original phosphate" means original bone, not fossil. "anthropogenic" is a nice way of saying people put them there.
It is a busted fraud. The paper said so in very polite, short, scientific terms. I know. You like to waffle (bluely) on for hours. So that must be a bit alien to you.
Yet another of Maz's "facts" that turns out to be nothing. Not that it will stop her from using it over and over as proof that she is insane, er that the theory of evolution is wrong I mean.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63107 Dec 4, 2012
I am still marveling at that one short sentence in Kong's link:
Preservation: original phosphate, anthropogenic
Four words and it busts Mav's claim of whale fossils found in 290 million year old rock.

I am not really gloating since it was Kong's find.
<gloat><gloat>< gloat>

Please ignore those.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#63108 Dec 4, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
This is the generalis sort of crap that is not weorth responding to.
Either you wnat to discuss this intermeidarte crap of your or you don't and can't.
WHAT ARE THESE SO CALLED INTERMEDIATE TRAITS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IN ARCH?
A couple of you have blathered on and on. I have posted LINKS to suggest that indeed arch's so called bird traits are actually theropod traits and the wish bone connection is a fraudulent misrepresentation. You lot have run away gobsmacked as usual.
You have over 150 years of falsifications and change that you call science and Darwin had been shown to be a simplistic idiot on more than one occcasion.
I love the lie that starts your post. "This is the generalis sort of crap that is not weorth responding to." This is great. Its classic.

And then more response follows that line.

Clearly, we are dealing with a sophisticated and highly intelligent person. Clearly.

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 30 min TALLYHO 8541 36,462
Fake book titles game (Feb '10) 39 min Parden Pard 4,115
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 49 min ---Word Woman--- 20,375
Police: Lonely man made repeated 911 calls 52 min Spotted Girl 5
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 52 min Parden Pard 3,313
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr wichita-rick 147,130
A six word game (Dec '08) 1 hr Trouser Cough 17,560
What's your tip for the day? 2 hr ms_Sweeter 1,051
I Like..... (Mar '14) 4 hr ms_Sweeter 317
What Could Be Sweet,...? 4 hr ms_Sweeter 33
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••