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 3,869)

Showing posts 77,361 - 77,380 of112,024
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81952
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Goalpost moving, you are good at that.
So do you concede that the flood in the bible did not happen?
The only thing that I concede, is that is what you tell me. And at this point, your incredibility rating is way off the charts.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81953
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that I concede, is that is what you tell me. And at this point, your incredibility rating is way off the charts.
you even commenting about other peoples' credibility or "incredibility", whatever that is, is the best joke of the day.

nothing you way is worth listening to as you don[t even understand what it is you ar talking about.
most people like to have a basic understanding of the topic at hand..not you, just run your mouth at full throttle with no rudder...

what a joke..

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81954
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Your presumption that God doesn't exist demonstrates a lack of knowledge.
You have that backwards, the assumption that something does not exist until evidence is provided of it's existence is sanity, what you are doing is delusion. Again though, how did the water get turned into ice when launched into space? Answer that question, if you dare.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81955
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
The only thing that I concede, is that is what you tell me. And at this point, your incredibility rating is way off the charts.
"Incredibility rating?" I propose nothing that is incredible, only that which is credible.

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81956
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No-one is saying there was no cause.
you really should try to learn about the things you attempt to speak about. you are making an ass out of yourself in public.
really?...

Even scientists use the term an effect without a cause when talking about the Quantum theory...back to school for you.lol

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81957
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
really?...
Even scientists use the term an effect without a cause when talking about the Quantum theory...back to school for you.lol
We were talking about the big bang...back to making a fool of your self for you...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81958
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
really?...
Even scientists use the term an effect without a cause when talking about the Quantum theory...back to school for you.lol
You have already denounced quantum mechanics, you cannot use it as anything to support your arguments.

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81959
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have that backwards, the assumption that something does not exist until evidence is provided of it's existence is sanity, what you are doing is delusion. Again though, how did the water get turned into ice when launched into space? Answer that question, if you dare.
Your claim is that there is an effect without a cause.
You claim that things pop out of nothing...like pink elephants. Have you told this to your psychiatrist?
Mark

Corvallis, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81960
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you became deluded later in life. This is important ... why?
You cannot address anything scientific, any actual facts, so you resort to non-sequitors. Let me know when you have something that's actually, I don't know, factual maybe?
I worked over Evo pretty hard with my comments on cell structure, internal code, language convention, data size, lack of any write heads, parallelism (see Denton, where it was found that completely unrelated genes control unrelated appendages but they are perfectly identical!) and Cricks (DNA's co-discoverer) ultimate answer to it all; it was flown here in space ships!(See his book "Panasperma"), kindda makes it all Science-fiction to me.

Look into it from a design standpoint - Intelligence operating on chemicals. You are asking me to "believe" that chemicals self-organized, created a mechanism and language convention, plus kept hopping along creating species and evolving and adapting to water, air, sun, light and dark, and have sex mates in a mindless and random self-directed manner? Life is beautiful! People are beautiful creatures! Windows 3 did not become W7 by operating 50 mil years. This works if one is ignorant of how the cell works, and mindlessly accepted the teachers lectures and pretty pictures in the textbooks. Evo's say time will do all of this, that's an exceptional faith!

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81961
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already denounced quantum mechanics, you cannot use it as anything to support your arguments.
So you ask people to provide scientific evidence...and then reject it because it's scientific evidence?...quite interesting.
Mark

Corvallis, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81962
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Darwin's books were banned by Hitler & Co. Fact.
Found a pretty cool article on this subject -

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/0...

"In Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, Professor Kershaw (who has no axe to grind on this topic, so far as I know) repeatedly attributes a belief or world view which he terms 'Social Darwinism' to the National Socialist leader".

"I believe that this ban (mention of which, I now gather, is a stock-in-trade Darwinist response to the allegation that the Nazis were influenced and inspired by evolutionary theory) was not caused by any NSDAP objection to the theory of evolution, but may have more to do with Hitler's specific disagreement with Haeckel's supporters and disciples, the Monists, who were very far from being Nazis.

So far as I know, the Monist League, which was made up of Haeckel's disciples, was shut down in 1933 by the Nazis, so publications linked with it would have been banned at the same time. Richard Weikart, in his book exploring the links between Darwinism and National Socialist ideology ('From Darwin to Hitler' p.70) notes:’The Nazi suppression of the Monist League was not a function of a fundamental change in the Monist League's orientation during the Weimar period, as [Daniel] Gasman has argued, but rather reflected significant differences between Haeckel and Hitler. Haeckel and the Monist League promoted many social reforms that were anathema to Hitler, such as homosexual rights, feminism, and pacifism.’

So he was at odd's with Haeckel(the promoter of the false concept of fish to human evolution occuring during pregnancy)Not Darwin.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81963
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I worked over Evo pretty hard with my comments on cell structure, internal code, language convention, data size, lack of any write heads, parallelism (see Denton, where it was found that completely unrelated genes control unrelated appendages but they are perfectly identical!) and Cricks (DNA's co-discoverer) ultimate answer to it all; it was flown here in space ships!(See his book "Panasperma"), kindda makes it all Science-fiction to me.
Look into it from a design standpoint - Intelligence operating on chemicals. You are asking me to "believe" that chemicals self-organized, created a mechanism and language convention, plus kept hopping along creating species and evolving and adapting to water, air, sun, light and dark, and have sex mates in a mindless and random self-directed manner? Life is beautiful! People are beautiful creatures! Windows 3 did not become W7 by operating 50 mil years. This works if one is ignorant of how the cell works, and mindlessly accepted the teachers lectures and pretty pictures in the textbooks. Evo's say time will do all of this, that's an exceptional faith!
this is what the evidence points to.

if you had any evidence of any other theory, you would have produced it by now.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81964
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So you ask people to provide scientific evidence...and then reject it because it's scientific evidence?...quite interesting.
No, she's pointing out your hypocrisy...again.

is n't that, like, the 20th person that has pointed it out to you? have you taken the hint yet?
Mark

Corvallis, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81965
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes, your meaning was very clear. you stated this was apicture of the center of the universe. it is not.
You are right, that was what I was verbally told, when I asked for the doc, I saw that the story was wrong, my apologies. An honest error is not a lie however.

M

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81966
Mar 20, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Your claim is that there is an effect without a cause.
You claim that things pop out of nothing...like pink elephants. Have you told this to your psychiatrist?
Now you are dishonestly making assertions for people again.

Answer the question if you dare, how does water turn into ice when launched into space?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81967
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So you ask people to provide scientific evidence...and then reject it because it's scientific evidence?...quite interesting.
When you denounce the scientific evidence, you state that you disagree with it, thus it is lying to use that same evidence to support your assertions. if you would be honest, then you would not do that.

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81968
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No, she's pointing out your hypocrisy...again.
is n't that, like, the 20th person that has pointed it out to you? have you taken the hint yet?
There 's really no hinting about it...your obvious the hypocrites.lol

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81969
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
There 's really no hinting about it...your obvious the hypocrites.lol
in what way? You just tried to use a science you said is bunk to prove your point. that is being a hyupocrit, as well as stupid.

what have i said that is hypocritical at all?

now you add another lie to your list of transgressions. why are religious cult members so immoral?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81970
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right, that was what I was verbally told, when I asked for the doc, I saw that the story was wrong, my apologies. An honest error is not a lie however.
M
the fact that you believed it at all shows you are really not up for this level of discussion.

what other things have you posted that you were told but are obvious falsehoods? the grand canyon story for one...

why should anyone listen to anything you say at all?

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81971
Mar 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
When you denounce the scientific evidence, you state that you disagree with it, thus it is lying to use that same evidence to support your assertions. if you would be honest, then you would not do that.
I do not denounce scientific evidence...I question it...which is true science. You take it on authoritative faith, which is a bias to the very objectivity which you claim.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 77,361 - 77,380 of112,024
|
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.

104 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Add a Word remove a Word (Oct '13) 5 min Independent1 1,272
Word Association (Jun '10) 6 min Bezeer 25,875
¤ The ALPHABET Game ¤ (May '11) 8 min Independent1 10,692
Alphabetical Ways To Live (Oct '12) 8 min Dr_Dirty 1,511
'Double Letter S' (Dec '12) 10 min Independent1 477
A~Z of Your THOUGHTS! (May '13) 15 min Independent1 326
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 20 min curiouslu 140,630
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr eleanorigby 34,794
ask amy rose 2 hr Petal Power 31
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••