Evolution vs. Creation

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

Birkenhead, UK

#64516 Dec 11, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
MazHere, whatcho lyin' fer agin
Irony meter go boom.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64517 Dec 11, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And the science of God is still lacking since you have no science to show it even exists.
wouldn't it be cool (in one way--in another way-maybe not) if someone could complete Einstiens equation concerning black holes....

Keep trying--mere mortal humans LOL.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64518 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> God is a God of science and wonders. You will never understand that. Evolution of non human to human, is baseless.
Not baseless but demonstrated fact. Once you're capable of formulating a rational rebuttal then maybe you'll be taken seriously. As it is all you can do is preach.(shrug)
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64519 Dec 11, 2012
Russell wrote:
Humphreys model also predicts rapid reversals of the magnetic field.
This is in defiance of the evolutionary models predictions of reversals taking thousands of years 'proving' the earth is millions of years old.
This is the usual wishful thinking exhibited by evolutionists
But please see:
Coe, R S and Prevot M, Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal, Earth and Planetary Science, 92(3/4) 292 to 298, Apr 1989
AND
Coe, RS Prevot M and Camps P, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374 (6564) 687-692, 1995
Such theories could be applicable in the cases of "sliding rocks" though...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64520 Dec 11, 2012
Russell wrote:
So it is obviously not the panacea for every ill in science publishing
But it means a heck of a lot to the layperson...
Nobody ever claimed it was perfect but it does work. You guys are just bitter that you can't even pass scientific peer-review. The one time you did scientists started complaining about the peer-review process.

:-p
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64521 Dec 11, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
This was not peer reviewed:
Watson, J.D. and Crick, F.H.C., A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid, Nature 171:737–738, 25 April 1953
Probably a load of rubbish
By your standards
Hey by your standards the Earth is flat and lizards and donkeys can talk.(shrug)
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64522 Dec 11, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
I have said that Subdud squirms like a stuck pig
But he will never admit he's wrong
Its EVOLUTION or BUST for this guy
Just more proof that there's NO SUCH thing--as "perfection".
Otherwise, "God" wouldn't have had to make the initial second, new and (sometimes--but not always--especially THESE days)improved prototype LOL.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#64523 Dec 11, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Chucky is unwittingly not wrong in this particular case. Creationism can never be completely ruled out of science. All they need to is present a scientific case for it.
3,000 years later they have none.
And they will continue to supply none, the longer they wait to supply none the less they have to supply and when they started with none then less is not much at all

Actually some people at the parameter institute and others now thinks differently, certainly about this universe. I believe it was Neil Turok who says something along the lines “we are not certain how this universe was born but one thing is sure, no god did it”
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64524 Dec 11, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Chucky is unwittingly not wrong in this particular case. Creationism can never be completely ruled out of science. All they need to is present a scientific case for it.
3,000 years later they have none.
Hey
Shrugosaurus!

You're back!
How about a shrug...

What's wrong with a shrug between old buds?

C'mon

Shrug, shrug, shrug....

I notice you are still going on about nested hierarchies

You old sandbag

How about joining us here in the 21st century

Take the Gene: TAAR1 ENSG00000146399

http://asia.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Com...

Now, of course it could be argued that the primates are all together, more similar to each other. But it should be noticed that Because this gene in Humans is less similar to Gorilla than it is to Monkeys then the Nested Hierarchy is violated between the Great Ape Gorilla which should be more similar to Humans than Humans are to Marmosets, Gibbons and Macuaques.


Not written by me, of course
Mine would be funnier:

three little monkeys sitting in a tree,

one fell out and bumped his knee,

took him to the doctor and the doctor said,

"You drive evolutionists crazy dontcha?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64525 Dec 11, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not baseless but demonstrated fact. Once you're capable of formulating a rational rebuttal then maybe you'll be taken seriously. As it is all you can do is preach.(shrug)
Hey, that <shrug> really is a good answer...it emits some actual realistic, logical, rational, down to earth SENSE!!!
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64526 Dec 11, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody ever claimed it was perfect but it does work. You guys are just bitter that you can't even pass scientific peer-review. The one time you did scientists started complaining about the peer-review process.
:-p
Prolly cuz they were "junking" up the walls inside the boxes and stuff lol
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64527 Dec 11, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Aristotle first suggested an earth-centric universe 384–322 BC
Ptolemy (AD 2nd century) expanded these ideas into what became known as the Ptolemaic system
A Christian, 16th century, Copernicus (1473–1543) postulated as a better explanation that the earth and planets revolved around the sun
Another Christian, 17th century, Galileo (1564–1642), with his telescope, was able to carry out repeated and repeatable observations which refuted Aristotle and Ptolemy, and supported Copernicus.
The heliocentric or Copernican system opposed the views of the astronomer-philosophers of the day, who earned their livelihood by teaching Aristotle and Ptolemy, and so were biased against change.
They therefore either ignored, ridiculed, destroyed, or hostilely opposed Galileo’’s writings.
Many Catholic Church leaders allowed themselves to be persuaded by the Aristotelians at the universities that the geocentric system was taught in Scripture and that Galileo was contradicting the Bible.
This was because:
1.
The Church leaders had accepted as dogma the belief system of the pagan (i.e. non-Christian) philosophers, Aristotle and Ptolemy, which had become the worldview of the then scientific establishment. The result was that Church leaders were using the knowledge of the day to interpret Scripture, instead of using the Bible to evaluate the knowledge of the day.
2.
They clung to the ‘majority opinion’ about the universe and rejected the ‘minority view’ of Copernicus and Galileo, even after Galileo had presented indisputable evidence based on repeatable scientific observations that the majority was wrong.
3.
They picked out a few verses from the Bible which they thought said that the sun moved around the earth, but they failed to realize that Bible texts must be understood in terms of what the author intended to convey. Thus, when Moses wrote of the ‘risen’ sun (Genesis 19:23) and sun ‘set’(Genesis 28:11), his purpose was not to formulate an astronomical dictum. Rather he, by God’s spirit, was using the language of appearance so that his readers would easily understand what time of day he was talking about. And it is perfectly valid in physics to describe motion relative to the most convenient reference frame, which in this case is the earth
They therefore bitterly opposed Galileo to the extent of forcing him on pain of death to repudiate his findings.
A lesson to the Church today
Do not compromise...
And you, timn17
Need to read more..
Exactly. So the Bible is literally true except when it's not. Therefore the Church got it wrong because they stuck to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore the Bible is wrong. Yeah we already knew that. Thanks.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64528 Dec 11, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey
Shrugosaurus!
You're back!
How about a shrug...
What's wrong with a shrug between old buds?
C'mon
Shrug, shrug, shrug....
I notice you are still going on about nested hierarchies
You old sandbag
How about joining us here in the 21st century
Take the Gene: TAAR1 ENSG00000146399
http://asia.ensembl.org/Homo_sapiens/Gene/Com...
Now, of course it could be argued that the primates are all together, more similar to each other. But it should be noticed that Because this gene in Humans is less similar to Gorilla than it is to Monkeys then the Nested Hierarchy is violated between the Great Ape Gorilla which should be more similar to Humans than Humans are to Marmosets, Gibbons and Macuaques.
Not written by me, of course
Mine would be funnier:
three little monkeys sitting in a tree,
one fell out and bumped his knee,
took him to the doctor and the doctor said,
"You drive evolutionists crazy dontcha?
Sniff...sniff...ah smell <shrug> ...no shrugging inside the boxes LOL
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64529 Dec 11, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, yes
They do...
From the paraellel, now defunct since every evo-god worshipper has been utterly thrashed, Creation/Evolution debate:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...
Post number 1354
Creationist Dr Russell Humphrey's model out-guns the evolutionary model
Whoops, you just contradicted yourself Russ. Ergo creationism is as useless as it's always been. But thanks for a great demonstration of that.

Better luck next time.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64530 Dec 11, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
And they will continue to supply none, the longer they wait to supply none the less they have to supply and when they started with none then less is not much at all
Actually some people at the parameter institute and others now thinks differently, certainly about this universe. I believe it was Neil Turok who says something along the lines “we are not certain how this universe was born but one thing is sure, no god did it”
One of the biggest, reoccuring perpetual "flaw" in SOME of humanity--the ones that are so "sure" they "know everything", when OBVIOUSLY, they don't....so they deny instead, what they have yet to comprehend.

:-)
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64531 Dec 11, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey by your standards the Earth is flat and lizards and donkeys can talk.(shrug)
Know where ah can get any francincence? It goes goood with shrug lol.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64532 Dec 11, 2012
Russell wrote:
Humphreys model also predicts rapid reversals of the magnetic field.
This is in defiance of the evolutionary models predictions of reversals taking thousands of years 'proving' the earth is millions of years old.
This is the usual wishful thinking exhibited by evolutionists
Right. So you claim evolutionists destroy the Earth with extra heat therefore the Earth is young thereby accelerating radioactive decay and creating more heat thereby destroying the Earth therefore Goddidit with magic.

BRILLIANT!

And who knew that evolutionists existed before the theory of evolution? It's now a time travelling conspiracy!!!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#64533 Dec 11, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
"Religious factions are man made."
Along with the bible and all the rituals.
Now some religious factions are so washed out they don't even seem to recognize a God, but mainly, yes, the God believers of some sort certainly don't rule him out -- by definition. You might be surprised, but nor do I, even if there are some atheist fundies who do.
I never knew God wanted us to seek him out. I wouldn't mind his wanting us to, but I have always been fascinated to follow up any leads even without knowing or considering his wants.
Your opinion.
God exist and the bible is the written words of God.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64534 Dec 11, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
Does genetics support a single couple (Adam and Eve)?
NO...
http://biologos.org/blog/does-genetics-point-...
Wrong answer

Try YES.....

Mitochondrial Eve and Y chromosome Adam
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64535 Dec 11, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. So the Bible is literally true except when it's not. Therefore the Church got it wrong because they stuck to a literal interpretation of the Bible. Therefore the Bible is wrong. Yeah we already knew that. Thanks.
Shrugosaurus

You disappoint....

As usual...

The chruch took the Aristotelian view and NOT the Bible...

Don't skim read, you old sandbag

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
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 40 min -Lea- 7,012
Favorite Oldies Songs (Jun '10) 42 min johnny belinda 18,639
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 54 min wichita-rick 149,525
Google Wants to Search Your ... Bloodstream? 57 min Spotted Girl 5
Dave's bar and grill,is now open. (May '13) 1 hr Katie 5,307
Police: Teletubby break-in suspect faces charges 1 hr Spotted Girl 1
2 New York City Houses Go All Out With 'Party R... 1 hr Xstain Mullah Aroma 1
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 hr -CatCiao- 22,505
Goats Milk with Princess (Jan '10) 4 hr Paisley_Posey 46,048
True or False Game 4 hr Old Sam 610

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE