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 3,847)

Showing posts 76,921 - 76,940 of111,954
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81495
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Wow, have you even graduated high-school yet? Of course I'm not claiming that at all. I'm claiming that there wasn't a word for sphere which you have yet to produce one in use at the time of the stories and that the people the stories were originally told did not need a word for sphere in order to understand what was being said. This entire flat earth thing is made up and doesn't exist and never has.
There was a word for sphere. As I also said it was too late to find the article I was talking about last night. I am not a lying creatard. I have no need to lie. And here is the article:
http://youngausskeptics.com/2008/12/what-you-...
<quoted text>And your point is completely incorrect. You cannot be intellectually honest and say lets compare something of science and something not of science then declare the not of science to be not true because the science is not there. Science is contrived to support itself all the time, it's a if it works, don't mess with it. Even science itself is limited to saying this is only one of many possible ways if it finds something could have happened. What science does with evolution is gives us a useful model that we can build other things from. It does not mean evolution was the only way possible or that it was in fact what happened. Saying so would continue your legacy of unscientific thought.
Also, you should learn what evidence actually is. There are several types and you would be fallacious in claiming there is absolutely no evidence. There might not be any scientific evidence, but that does not mean it is not true or that there is no evidence at all.
Actually you do have a small point here. It was very late when I wrote that and did forget the word "scientific". Of course since we are having a debate about science I meant "scientific evidence" and I usually do use that phrase.

Also since science describes the real world scientific evidence is usually the best kind. Since we seem to agree that you believe there is no scientific evidence for creation, and of course if you know the meaning of the term you know the ones at fault for this are the creationists, the question still stands. Why believe in creationism?
<quoted text>Actually you do not seem to know what a concordance is or at least you are not acting like it. Please tell me where any of them translate it into flat at all? Circular is the meaning given and flat is all you injecting whatever you want it to be into it. Of course you have to do that in order to maintain your lie otherwise the truth seems more appealing.
You may have edited it out, but I know more than once I stated that in context the verse describes a flat circular Earth and not a spherical one. We already know that you failed geometry but did you fail English too? Do you know of the meaning "in context"?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81496
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text> Not at all. Concordances are not attempts to confirm the bible, but to explain the language to aid in knowing what was originally written. They are made by scholars in the languages and often provide cross references to other languages too. It's like picking up a dictionary in 1920 and reading the definition of the word queer so you understand that it may not be the same as understood today.
<quoted text>Yes, I have dealt with it quite nicely
<quoted text>What is your point? the lacking of scientific evidence does not mean something is not true, it simply means there is no evidence of it being true or not. Quantum mechanics operated for quite a long time with no real scientific evidence, yet we know many aspects to be true.
<quoted text>You obviously have absolutely no clue what a concordance is. It does not validate the bible, it validates the language used in the bibles. This in and of itself is also peer reviewed.
<quoted text>They write peer reviewed articles all the time. This is the reason why there are over 3000 separate denominations within the Christian religion alone not to mention the several different sects of Islamic and Jewish religions. Now maybe what you mean is scientific peer reviewed articles and that would be true because religion is not science.
I am simply baffled by the problem people like you have insisting that something is not valid if it is not scientific, yet reality proves you wrong every day. I've already been over the entire discussion about someone approaching you and asking directions and you having no scientific way to prove it doesn't mean it never happened, yet you think that because something that is not science doesn't profess itself in science, it automatically is invalid. I seriously hope you are not involved directly with science as all future discoveries would cease to happen if real scientist ever adopted your methodology.
So, the deity couldn't make himself clear, and has to rely on a bunch of rank amateurs of dubious motive to translate? Over and over?

Perhaps that whole idea of the Tower of Babel wasn't so smart after all.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81497
Mar 18, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
funny how you label people when you are filled with shame of your own disease. Go see a psychiatrist. There's medication for psychopaths.
This whole discussion has pretty much gone down the tubes. If it's not the silly arguments that aren't worth refuting, it's the political trolling and harassment.

Perhaps the scientists ARE doing the right thing by denying access to current research to the riff-raff. But, yeah. I guess you can see why I deal with the obsessive-compulsives the way I do. It's not sporting nor is it even civil but I refuse to lend honest efforts to keep the topic interesting to a collective group that wants to choreograph it to the level of an old "Little Rascals" show.

Queue the exit music while the monkey in a suit screeches and the puppy in a tutu does flips. We's all just a zany bunch o' working guys.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81498
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

<quoted text>Once again, you are showing how limited your knowledge is and how ignorant you appear to anyone with the least bit of intelligence. Why would a scientific journal be accepting articles written about faith and religion? They already accept more scientific articles then they should with the problem or retracting quite a few of the articles. Your entire premise is flawed from the start.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/science/stu...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1189726835576...
That was a severe reading comprehension fail on your part.

I don't know how you got so far off the subject I was talking about. You must have seen some of the phony journal articles from Answers in Genesis and other creatard sites. They pretend that their articles on creation were peer reviewed. That is the sort of fake article I was talking about.

And the problem that you linked with scientific journals were articles in medical journals. Yes, they are scientific journals, but they are specialized scientific journals. It is not honest to apply that to all scientific journals.
<quoted text>You simply are talking out your ass now. You have absolutely no facts to back the claim of christian scientists up and are more likely speaking about anecdotal observations found through confirmation bias which in and of itself is entirely unscientific. Why do you hate science until it supports your views? Why do you insist on scientific evidence for everything you disagree with and ignore that with what you want to push as if it is true?
Actually I have plenty. There are many creationist scientists that were peer reviewed in their previous occupation. They avoid peer review for their creationist ideas. If I was wrong someone should be able to list hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed articles by these scientists. No one has to date. They can find regular science articles that these creationist scientists have done since they got in contact with creationist sites. They can find articles in fake creationist journals that try to look like peer reviewed articles.

No one to date has found a creationist science article in a peer reviewed journal.

I found my article that you challenged me on. Let's see you find one now.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81499
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Very simple...
the galactic center is 27,000 light years (ly)away from Earth.
the a star in Sag. is 170 ly from Earth.
the b star is 378 ly from Earth.
the b2 star is 137 ly from earth.
the gamma star is 125 ly from earth.
the delta star is 85 ly from earth.
the epsilon star is 125 ly from earth.
the lambda star is 70 ly from earth.
the galactic center of the milky way does not lie in teh constellation of saggitarius.
The correct statement would be, "The center of the galaxy lies in the direction of Saggitarius.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81500
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
wrong again..."everywhere" does not define a center.
There is no center of the universe, just as there is no center to the surface of a balloon.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81501
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"Sagittarius is a constellation of the zodiac, the one containing the galactic center."
So I said "the center of the milky way galaxy lies in the constellation of Sagittarius."
and you claim this to be a false statement????lol
It is false.

The galactic center lies in the DIRECTION of Saggitarius.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81502
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no center of the universe, just as there is no center to the surface of a balloon.
We really don't know enough about the universe to claim there is no center or left and right or top and bottom for that matter.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81503
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>So, the deity couldn't make himself clear, and has to rely on a bunch of rank amateurs of dubious motive to translate? Over and over?
Perhaps that whole idea of the Tower of Babel wasn't so smart after all.
If the Creator of the universe were to make himself known, we would immediately be judged for our misdeeds and even our wrong thoughts. We are living in the very short period of the age of grace and forgiveness which only comes through and by the work of Jesus Christ.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81504
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>If the Creator of the universe were to make himself known, we would immediately be judged for our misdeeds and even our wrong thoughts. We are living in the very short period of the age of grace and forgiveness which only comes through and by the work of Jesus Christ.
Says who?

You contradict yourself yet again. If we are nothing more than raw materials for His greater plan, why would he punish us for being what we are? Why can't he create his final result instead of us raw materials anyway? What need would a creator have to exist within His own creation? You have no idea! Nothing!

You judge others just as quickly as your enemies with whom you are in bed with. You keep your secrets well, as long as you're both throwing your excrement in all directions....but everyone knows who you are, or will soon anyway.
d pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81505
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If theories are currently used then they ARE valid. Theories are made up of facts. They use them to make scientific predictions about natural phenomena. Theories NEVER get "proven" to become "laws". This is what separates them from religious dogma.
valid yes, but ony as a theory and that's all. That's why its still a theory, the facts used to try to validate it don't prove it as law. Its either wrong or just missing a substantial peice of the evidence.
d pants

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81506
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The way I understand it a hypothesis is not yet valid.
A theory is something that has been shown (by multiple testing) to be well on the road to being valid....or in the case of evolution which has been tested for over 150 years and passed with flying colors, it borders on fact.
evolution? Yes iwould say its been proven as law. Human evolution/darwinism? No. In fact every peice of biollogical evidence that questions it is ignored. Even archeological finds that prove the existance of inteligent humans when we were only supposed to be making primitive tools is ignored, both by theists and darwinists.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81507
Mar 18, 2013
 
d pants wrote:
<quoted text> evolution? Yes iwould say its been proven as law. Human evolution/darwinism? No. In fact every peice of biollogical evidence that questions it is ignored. Even archeological finds that prove the existance of inteligent humans when we were only supposed to be making primitive tools is ignored, both by theists and darwinists.
Which "archeological finds" are you referring to?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81508
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>This whole discussion has pretty much gone down the tubes. If it's not the silly arguments that aren't worth refuting, it's the political trolling and harassment.

Perhaps the scientists ARE doing the right thing by denying access to current research to the riff-raff. But, yeah. I guess you can see why I deal with the obsessive-compulsives the way I do. It's not sporting nor is it even civil but I refuse to lend honest efforts to keep the topic interesting to a collective group that wants to choreograph it to the level of an old "Little Rascals" show.

Queue the exit music while the monkey in a suit screeches and the puppy in a tutu does flips. We's all just a zany bunch o' working guys.
lol
Why do you keep bringing up OCD? I suspect my mother to have undiagnosed OCD. She's a clean freak and has an obsession with knitting that anything that disrupts her routine ticks her off that could be really offensive to others. But maybe she's too old for change. But she has a social liberal and fiscally conservative mentality. And the only way for me to cope with what has become a dysfunctional relationship is to not be afraid of change and try not to assimilate something I don't find healthy. Ya I'm a rebel so what I'm looking out for myself.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81509
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
They know evolution is made up logic test for every ape mentality that's still around so they could evolve and get smarter.
There is no scientific theory for ID because we already have hard science stuff, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. That is enough evidence to explain the nature of our world. But they keep asking for evidence for a creator as if they really want a bearded old man who punishes every sinner on Earth. If that's the kind of evidence that will make them believe, well let's see it happen. lol.
Anyways, I like your example of a bird. I've observed a bird that can go in different directions so fast that it would violate the law of physics if it were an airplane. Although I'm impressed with pilots who could maneuver in the directions they want. I've seen some made a U-turn coming at my direction just above my head. I've always wondered how how pilots register aerial mapping in their minds during flight almost instantly. The only thing I could do is pretend to fly when driving through a fog. lol
What is this "hard science stuff" for ID? why is there no scientific theory of ID or even a scientific hypothesis?

science stuff...ahat a hoot!

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81510
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you realize that you are still inferring the existence of the phenomena by describing its assumed effects in the readily observable plane?
You have identified that something is happening; BUT you have not proven whether its "dark matter" or "Holy angels".
<quoted text>
So who is saying that?
I am certainly not saying that.
Why should I say scientific evidence can safely be ignored, when science itself can help me to understand HOW GODDIDIT?
Are you new here?
Furthermore, even if I was saying Goddidit, it would be justifiable according to my definition/understanding of The Nature of God.
<quoted text>
Clown, modern society is built on the bronze ages etc.
The modern is a development of the primitive. Notice that the only significant difference between the tools of modern man and those of ancient man is the level of efficiency. THE SAME THINGS THAT WERE VALID THEN ARE THE SAME THINGS THAT ARE VALID NOW.
Where do you think even your medical knowledge comes from?
Your most sophisticated sciences are steeped in the occult principles of nations long ago. Idiot.
Because you do not comprehend the rigours of science does not mean science goes away, all it means is that you don’t understand. Dark matter is detected and measured, it really does not matter if you deny fact and stamp your foot like a petulant child is not going to make any difference to fact.

Yes you are saying that. However your attempts to obfuscate based on a bronze age belief and your attempts to ridicule your opponent with nothing but good old christian guesswork are very telling of your intellect. Please show me any – ANY – A – N – Y science that proposes goddidit. Your personal understanding is irrelevant to fact.

The modern age developed from learning, and from (sometimes) avoiding past mistakes, not from ignorance and the repeated reciting of the “unquestionable” tenet that the babble is correct.

Tell me, in the bronze age do you really think you would have been able to post your views on topix using the modern technology of computing?

Well, medicine as we know it come originally from pre christian time, Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece etc., and later the Moslem influence with the concept of the scientific method. Now very little godddidt faith is allowed to interfere with medical advance. However if you are comfortable with faith healers than that’s entirely up to you.

The sciences are based of understandings that have been developed in the last couple of hundred years. The history of science during that time, particularly the physical and biological sciences is seen as true theories replacing false ones. The days of the alchemist have long been superseded.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81511
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
The correct statement would be, "The center of the galaxy lies in the direction of Saggitarius.
that was my first response...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81512
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

d pants wrote:
<quoted text> valid yes, but ony as a theory and that's all. That's why its still a theory, the facts used to try to validate it don't prove it as law. Its either wrong omissing a substantial peice of the evidence.
what are some scientific theories that have become laws? why do you think you are able to talk about an issue you clearly do not understand?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81513
Mar 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
so if your standing on the Earth...where is the center of the Universe?
Everywhere
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81514
Mar 18, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Says who?
You contradict yourself yet again. If we are nothing more than raw materials for His greater plan, why would he punish us for being what we are? Why can't he create his final result instead of us raw materials anyway? What need would a creator have to exist within His own creation? You have no idea! Nothing!
You judge others just as quickly as your enemies with whom you are in bed with. You keep your secrets well, as long as you're both throwing your excrement in all directions....but everyone knows who you are, or will soon anyway.
Why does your side always try to get personal and destroy people?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 76,921 - 76,940 of111,954
|
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
•••
•••