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 3,233)

Showing posts 64,641 - 64,660 of111,924
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68804
Dec 29, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
More projection.
your right...projection on the side of science.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68805
Dec 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

BraveCon wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do so many of these NDEs involve going to Heaven? Why don't more people report having hallucinations that they traveled to say Egypt or China or to the Moon?
I believe all souls automatically go to Heaven after the moment of death. If/when their bodies are medically revived then their soul is sent back to their body.
You say NDEs, but I say NDEs are really brief experiences of the afterlife.
For the exact same reason that lots of drunks see pink elephants and junkies see, and feel, bugs inside their skin. Same reason people think little green men sexually molest them. It's cultural iconography, what you see, or want to see, most often is what you are more likely to see when hallucinating.

A better question is, if there was more to NDEs, why is it that every single religious belief produces vastly different NDEs?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68806
Dec 29, 2012
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you survived because medical science has advanced to a point in which we can prevent many untimely deaths. Or you were dreaming.
I got into a car accident twice and it was almost fatal

But I know how one can survive it. The first one was some kind of mind over matter thing and the second involves human connection

But then again to you personal experience is not enough evidence, right?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68807
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What were the neanderthals doing in what is now called Belgium? How did they get there if all great apes originated in Africa? Can you fill in the gaps in your theory?
The Neanderthal was not a Great Ape, and its origins were in Africa along with the rest of the hominids. Relative isolation during the Ice Age and the general desire to distinctly separate them from Heidelbergensis is how they came to be designated a separate branch off of the human tree.

People should break away from the idea that new species came into existence like a new model sports car. Just think of the idea that one particular change is a fundamental change in strategy, and other adaptations that exploit that strategy evolve quickly afterwards. The Neanderthals were a unique adaptation that seems to have come and gone with the Ice Ages.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68808
Dec 29, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
When one bases all reality on just scientific theory-like doctrines, one then takes a chance on becoming less humane, and more roboTic like.
If in 2000 years, if the Whitehouse was no longer in existence, and hardly a trace could be found of it, save for vaulted digital material stored in climate controlled evironments, but slightly damaqed, would you discredit the existance of the Whitehouse (and the people thereof) just because you chose NOT to believe the shards of remaining digital data suggesting such had existed?
Red herring. We have no idea what the future evidence for the white house will be, however, it is safe to say that there will be more than "digital shards." Newspapers, books, historians, internet comments like this, etc will all have mentioned it, so barring some world ending cataclysm, even if there remains no physical evidence for the white house, there will be enough evidence for any reasonable person to believe it existed. I assume you are making this appeal to enhance the credibility of the bible, but you failed. If, somehow, there existed in the future no physical evidence and only a couple mentions of the white house (and several mystical traits were attributed to it, just for good measure), then your analogy would be reasonable, and in that case it would be reasonable to be skeptical of it's existence. Just like it's reasonable to be skeptical of the claims made in the bible.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68809
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
That sounds valid or is it the power of persuasion?
Well, I'm not a geneticist but I have no reason to suspect a conspiracy.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68810
Dec 29, 2012
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
interesting...can you tell of the image?(disregard if you would rather not)
the image was a large hand from the sky that touched my car to make it stop from spinning.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68811
Dec 29, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Whitehouse-6000 years?
Loosen the lid on your closed box a little-let some light particles in. You might feel better about it all :-)
If, in the future, there existed no physical evidence for the whitehouse , one book with a vested interest in proving it's existence (which also claims the whitehouse could levitate and heal the sick), and a few offhand mentions of it by after the fact historians, I wouldn't believe it existed. It wouldn't be reasonable to. You are making an appeal that doesn't make any sense. Just because we know something to exist now does not mean that it will be reasonable believe it used to exist in the future. Jesus may well have existed, and maybe he was a god, but based on the available evidence, it is totally unreasonable to believe those claims.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68812
Dec 29, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> That does not rule out the existence and possibility of a first man and woman.
Good lord you are stupid. I rarely insult people on here, but you are just too much.
Stupid is thinking Apes fell from the sky...or just "poofed into extistance".
So the fact that we know that mitochondrial eve and y chromosome adam lived thousands of years apart does not preclude that, somehow, there is another set of "first people" that also lived? Explain how that would be possible. Did god start the world, allow it to play out for a while, the "reset" mitochondrial eve and y chromosome adam thousands of years apart from each other to trick us?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68814
Dec 29, 2012
 
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Please do not research the Dome of the Rock.
The archeological evidence might be too overwhelming for you.
What about it? I have no particular predilection for or against your bible stories, if you think you have compelling proof for them, show it. The bible mentioning a historical site that has survived until present day means nothing, however.

“Pancakes and eggs...”

Level 4

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68815
Dec 29, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Who created "God"?
the same thing or 'who' created you...right...

“Pancakes and eggs...”

Level 4

Since: Jan 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68816
Dec 29, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Who created "God"?
Correction....

The same thing or 'who' that created you...

I'm 'Time and Space'...be careful...

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68817
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know that languages are related to one another. I'm bilingual and I can see the evidence of it. But no scientist can explain how it all started and how humans acquired the capability for language. That is one area where we can't use science to explain it.
600 years ago, we couldn't explain how maggots formed on rotting meat.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68818
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
"Materialism"
theory of physical: the philosophical theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions.
This is where skeptics limit the scope of their logic
Do you have a better alternative?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68819
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I got into a car accident twice and it was almost fatal
But I know how one can survive it. The first one was some kind of mind over matter thing and the second involves human connection
But then again to you personal experience is not enough evidence, right?
*yawn* More anthropomorphizing and nothing else. It's all anecdotal, correct.

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68820
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
the image was a large hand from the sky that touched my car to make it stop from spinning.
wow... that just reminded me of an experience I had when I was about 16....it didn't recede back into the sky with the sound of thunder did it?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68821
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Methodical Naturalism:
"theory of physical: the philosophical theory that physical matter is the only reality and that psychological states such as emotions, reason, thought, and desire will eventually be explained as physical functions"
Is everything within the boundaries of natural laws?
As far as we know. Do you have evidence of any being/phenomenon that exists outside of the natural laws? Do you have evidence of any psychological state that can only be explained by the supernatural?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68822
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
The origin of language is a mystery. Glad to hear that it's currently a focus of scientific research. Because there has to be something in our consciousness that made us use language as means for communication and made us distinct from other animals.
I don't take the literal sense of stories such as the tower of babel. But if all languages are related to one another, there must be one common language in the beginning. Just like how evolutionists say there is a common ancestor.
No, there absolutely does not. It's possible, but not necessary. Language could have started after we had already migrated to geographically distinct areas, and therefore different groups developed different languages.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68823
Dec 29, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you a nihilist?
Do you have to be a nihilist to deny the existence of a soul? That makes no sense. One does not have to believe in unfounded superstition to get meaning out of life.
Rose

Los Angeles, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#68824
Dec 29, 2012
 
People who believe the creation myth just need to grow up. The buy-bull has plants growing before there is a sun. How can anybody over 5 years old believe that's true?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 64,641 - 64,660 of111,924
|
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
•••
•••