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
68,461 - 68,480 of 112,863 Comments Last updated 12 min ago

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72780
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a number of very essential personages who are not attested to anywhere outside of the Bible. Times...they are a' changin'
If most of the biblical stories have been archaeologically verified, then the bible is a book of reliable history outside or inside the bible.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72782
Jan 28, 2013
 
Tinka wrote:
<quoted text>
Isn't that what History stands for the Past? Historics?
Definition of HISTORIC
: historical: as
a : famous or important in history <historic battlefields>
b : having great and lasting importance <a historic occasion>
c : known or established in the past <historic interest rates>
d : dating from or preserved from a past time or culture <historic buildings> <historic artifacts>
See historic defined for English-language learners
See historic defined for kids
Examples of HISTORIC
It's wonderful to see so many people here on this historic occasion.
She returned safely from her historic flight into space.
The court made a historic decision last week.
They know of many historic volcanic eruptions in the area.
the historic importance of the river
First Known Use of HISTORIC
1594
Related to HISTORIC
Synonyms: big, consequential, earthshaking, earth-shattering, eventful, important, major, material, meaningful, momentous, monumental, much, significant, substantial, tectonic, weighty
Antonyms: inconsequential, inconsiderable, insignificant, little, minor, negligible, slight, small, trifling, trivial, unimportant
Educative.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72783
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> If most of the biblical stories have been archaeologically verified, then the bible is a book of reliable history outside or inside the bible.
Only people and places, it's easy to write about something after it happens and include it myths, most myths contain real places, people, and even events, they're still myths. By your logic, Spiderman exists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72784
Jan 28, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What makes you think a natural occurrence does not need any outside or external factors to bring about the natural processes?
Quantum physics. There is no *preceding* event prior to particle/anti-particle appearance in a vacuum, and under the axioms of quantum physics it's not necessary.

This is where the fundies use the god of the gap argument and say Goddidit, ignoring the hypocrisy of invoking such a cause which itself needs no cause.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72785
Jan 28, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Dodge.
You have not addressed or answered the question.
Like i said, science have no answer in Godly matters.
I did answer the question. You just didn't understand it.

Not that I'd expect you to understand quantum science when you can't even understand even basic scientific concepts.
Charles Idemi wrote:
How?
And who did it?
The specifics are not known yet. But you only assume a "who" is necessary. Since no "who" is necessary to make waves form in water it may be that the same applies to abiogenesis.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72786
Jan 28, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
It is if you do know.
You know diddly.
Langoliers wrote:
How about YEC?
Makes no diff.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72787
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Poor liar!
What brought about the natural occurrence?
There are no preceding events to quantum phenomena. Sorry.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72788
Jan 28, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Correction God created natural laws he doesn't use them. If it's done by nature then the credit goes to whom ever created nature or the laws of physics.
That would be God.
No, that would be the FSM.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72789
Jan 28, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
What many skeptics don't want to accept is that the mind can do so many things. If we all take out that skeptic radar we could be more advanced and be able to manipulate everything with our own minds and perhaps things or life on other planets. But no, they dismiss this stuff as pseudo-science. Whatever.
As soon as your telekinetic abilities pass the scientific method then the claims will be taken seriously.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72790
Jan 28, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Lastly, if not for archaeology some of the places people thought never existed, mentioned by the bible have been archaeologically verified.
London is a real place, just like Bethlehem, but the characters for Harry Porter are fictitious.
If mere archaeological evidence is all that's required, the ancient Egyptians got you beat. Big time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72791
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

socci wrote:
<quoted text>
You are either lazy or a liar, which is it?
All the historians of the time record Jesus
Oh, that must be why no-one even mentioned Jesus until over 4 decades after his alleged death at the earliest. That's why Josephus never claimed Jesus existed and was only writing about the emerging Christian cult at the time, and his writings were later changed (writing style indicates probably Eusegus) to be more pro-Christian. Chucky on this thread tried the Pliny route, claiming Pliny the Elder actually met him. This was despite the fact that Pliny didn't even mention it and it was actually Pliny the Younger, who didn't actually meet Jesus, wrote about his Elder and claimed he met Him. In the meantime Jesus was running all over the Middle East performing magic tricks for everyone, and no-one bothered to even write it down for eight decades or so. Not even the Romans who were quite meticulous for keeping manuscripts, and amazingly they did not become Christian until a couple of centuries later.

Jesus may or may not have existed. Jesus may or may not have been magic. So far I'm willing to accept that a preacher guy called Jesus went around saying "Peace, man!"
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72792
Jan 28, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, that must be why no-one even mentioned Jesus until over 4 decades after his alleged death at the earliest. That's why Josephus never claimed Jesus existed and was only writing about the emerging Christian cult at the time, and his writings were later changed (writing style indicates probably Eusegus) to be more pro-Christian. Chucky on this thread tried the Pliny route, claiming Pliny the Elder actually met him. This was despite the fact that Pliny didn't even mention it and it was actually Pliny the Younger, who didn't actually meet Jesus, wrote about his Elder and claimed he met Him. In the meantime Jesus was running all over the Middle East performing magic tricks for everyone, and no-one bothered to even write it down for eight decades or so. Not even the Romans who were quite meticulous for keeping manuscripts, and amazingly they did not become Christian until a couple of centuries later.
Jesus may or may not have existed. Jesus may or may not have been magic. So far I'm willing to accept that a preacher guy called Jesus went around saying "Peace, man!"
So If I go wandering around Ohio, passing my peeps in the street and saying "How's it hanging, dude?", what are my odds for being remembered for two thousand years and having people do awful things in my name?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72793
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You really don't have anything meaningful to say here, because you lack the understanding of a professional.
You are an amateur.
You're a professional fundie. Nothing more.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72794
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
So If I go wandering around Ohio, passing my peeps in the street and saying "How's it hanging, dude?", what are my odds for being remembered for two thousand years and having people do awful things in my name?
Zero, thank you for proving that your Jesus is a myth.

Level 1

Since: Jan 13

Torrington, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72795
Jan 28, 2013
 
Thank you for posting this! I was really beginning to think that everyone on here was insane when reading the first few posts from the same people back and forth.

CLEARLY Darwin himself was not a racist and a very compassionate and forward thinking man for his time. As you said, it is not his fault nor the fault of the well intentioned, and well informed scientist's if racists misconstrue evolution to fit their repulsive and foolish agenda.

I would like to hear the argument as to how Creationism is a fact. What do you people mean by junk science? There is so much factual evidence proving the existence of evolution!! Take the fossils for example that have been found approx 2 million to 1.8 million years ago in Africa. Scientist's have found many fossils which prove that humans slowly evolved over millions of years from an ape-like ancestor. Not to mention the similarity in DNA composition.

To the person who denounced the validity of evolution due to a single organism not changing over millions of years...I don't even know how you thought that was relevant. You cannot argue that because organisms exist seemingly unchanged for millions of years that therefore NOTHING else evolves. If you understood the reason for evolution than you wouldn't have even made that argument.

Species evolve to better adapt and survive in their environment.(I.E. A species of birds existed on an island. Some of the birds had longer beaks which allowed them to eat more bugs. These birds were healthier and more well fed, and well adapter due to this genetic difference. Therefore the other birds died out and the longer beaked birds continued to mate and produce more until the species as a whole all had long beaks). If an organism is already perfectly equipped for its environment than why would evolution take place? Perhaps it did on a smaller level? But that has absolutely nothing to do with human evolution. You cannot discount all of the evidence staring you in the face. It is not some conspiracy as you seem to think.

Last, I just want to say that there is no reason you have to forfeit your religious beliefs due to scientific proof of evolution. The Bible is a collection of stories, plain and simple. Some based in truth, others as descriptive and imaginative stories. This is purely my opinion, but throughout time many people have altered the bible and completely removed entire sections of it dealing with Jesus's wife ( Mary Magdalene) and his mother ( Mary) because it was assumed this would make Jesus look weak and too human like if it was known that he traveled and spread the word of God with them. Mary Magdalene was referred to as a PROSTITUTE until the 1960's or 70's! I mean come on, you can't take everything written there LITERALLY. You can still believe that there is a higher power, but also believe that organisms and life on earth evolved through scientific process.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72796
Jan 28, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Zero, thank you for proving that your Jesus is a myth.
Well, I've got mixed feelings there. My Jesus would like kittens and taunt the cops, but he wouldn't be very big on mixing with lepers and he might want to burn a draft card or two.

That would probably cause Charles Idemi's head to explode like Jeeb in Men in Black.
ha-derp

Hiawatha, KS

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72797
Jan 28, 2013
 
PROFESSOR X wrote:
<quoted text>
I know ... but someones got to help him get back to reality. It's not an accident that Darwin's theory is defended more by books and movies of science-FICTION than the scientific evidence. Too bad many of these scientist hide behind their degrees and unproven press releases in order to create the illusion of being authoritative, meanwhile they are busy behind the scenes censoring any and all scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's theory from reaching the public. They are also censoring professors in universities from exposing any information to the public that threatens their little monkey fairy-tale.
The roles have been reversed. The atheist and evolutionist is today - what the Catholic Church was in the past. They hate scientific advance and would rather shut down public discussion before confronting evidence that proves that all life did not arise from one common ancestor.
That doesn't mean that the earth has to be 6000 year old. But isn't it amazing how humans were suppose to have evolved from Apes 3 million years ago, but there are organisms that are in rock strata dated over 300 million years old that are still ALIVE TODAY and they are unchanged? What's so special about us that it's necessary for evolutionists invent pseudo-science stories only fit for the Sci-Fi Channel?
Darwinism Destroyed by Geological Evidence & Anomalies
http://cross.tv/64437
If you petty theists would actually lurk into it, we didn't evolve from apes or of the sorts. There may have been a common ancestor, but it branched off way before we got to where we are. Common Ancestor =/= Evolved from Apes.
Btw, can you explain how some magical being in the sky is able to grant wishes and create shit out of thin air? Seriously, that's more unbelievable than thinking we evolved from monkeys.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72798
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Dude wrote:
We don't have to falsify other possibilities that have either not been proposed...
Is it true that no other possibilities have been proposed?

As it relates to evidence, the idea that God existed originated from man's experience of nature; so I fail to see how you can conclude that there is no evidence for God when nature is in itself the evidence for God.
The Dude wrote:
So what's your alternative explanation for orthologous ERV's in great apes?
If you ask me HOW orthologous ERV evented, I would refer to scientific knowledge.

If you asked me WHAT made orthologous ERV possible, I would say Goddidit.

You cant do much better than that either.
The Dude wrote:
Evidence of God?
Abundant in the natural world.
The Dude wrote:
Your baseless religious opinions are irrelevant.
<quoted text>
Yours arent much better.
The Dude wrote:
...we can all pretty much AGREE on the colour "red"...
Thats all you will be able to do, essentially.
The Dude wrote:
"God" is irrelevant to science, period. Unless you have scientific evidence.
Not really.

Even in the presence of scientific evidence that an agent is responsible for an event; the agent is still superfluous to the study of the event.

The agent is superfluous, regardless of evidence of its existence.
The Dude wrote:
You mistake me for an atheist making a positive case for atheism. I don't care. Science doesn't care. I'm quite open to the possibility. I just have different ideas about such an entity as you do.
Fair enough.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72799
Jan 28, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
I also note your use of "religitard", as if that's my opinion of theists...
No.

I tend to do that sometimes.

If you noticed, I have even posted as "The Pencil Dick" every now and again.

I do those things for the sake of trolls, who for some reason think that calling religious people names should have some efficacy in refuting an argument.

I do that to show them that name calling is futile, I can do it to myself and feel no pain.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72800
Jan 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, my existence is not self evident. Evidence of my existence includes, but is not limited to:
1. I can be touched.
2. I can be seen.
3. I can be tasted.
4. I can be smelled.
5. I can post responses to people.
6. I can be heard.
You need to learn what evidence is.
Right. I agree.

Now tell me; where is the evidence for "dark matter" that meets the criteria you have provided here?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

140 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Which female is the biggest flirt? (Nov '12) 5 min cjt12 128
keep a word drop a word (Sep '12) 7 min cjt12 6,231
If you could create a new judgeit... 10 min cretin56 6
Think you know who everyone is? (Feb '13) 13 min Tehee 446
Joaquin Phoenix to play Doctor Strange? 14 min aliya 2
The Night Owl Saloon (Jun '11) 16 min Maverick 808 15,622
Why do you lIke Topix? (Mar '12) 26 min Tehee 26
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 37 min -Lea- 15,077
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 34,966
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 1 hr Old Sam 13,039
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr wichita-rick 141,349
•••
•••