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 4,464)

Showing posts 89,261 - 89,280 of111,539
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94267
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's really very simple...Atheists refuse to take an accountability. The concept of a supreme being is threatening to their fragile egos. Their lack of accountability extends into every aspect of their lives...hence their grossly corrupted scientific practices. They want to be descendants from apes so that they are free to practice their perverted amoral lifestyles without guilt.
Darwinism is a religion, pure and simple. It bears no resemblance to actual science. It is worthless debunked dogma.
You are so ignorant, you may be beyond help. It is science and accepted by practitioners of all religions and by some atheists as well.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94268
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Which theory?
Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.
Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.
Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.
Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.
Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock).
Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.
Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.
The last two are part of the same theory of evolution.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94269
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Which theory?
Cosmic Evolution. The development of space, time, matter and energy from nothing.
Stellar Evolution. The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements.
Chemical Evolution. The development of all chemical elements from an original two.
Planetary Evolution. The development of planetary systems from swirling elements.
Organic Evolution. The development of organic life from inorganic matter (a rock).
Macro-Evolution. The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life.
Micro-Evolution. The development of variations within the same kind of life.
Now you know what he meant. He meant that we evolved from nothing up to an ape and then from a ape up to us. You should have know that was what he was talking about. For you see when he gets confused and doesn't know or say things clearly then he blames us for we should know what he meant. LMAO

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94270
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That is because you don't know enough to know any better. With your attitude, I predict that you never will know any better. Bring back GLXGT. At least that personality had some personality.
Read the link yourself. Here it is again.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94271
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The last two are part of the same theory of evolution.
Now wait I have seen many times when you evoturds say microevolution is BS.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94272
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm lets see. I posted - Gravity is a fact; a law. What is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity.
You brilliantly asked "why does it fall"
I replied with - What is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity(the why's so to speak).
And now you again come up with this brilliant reply which has already been covered in the very first post.
Mr. brilliance tell why things fall since you won't accept that what is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity(the why's so to speak).
Actually you're wrong, the universal law of gravitation is a statement. The calculations that determine what the statement means exactly , in measure are separate.

Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.

Free fall, mass, newtons are all separate calculations. Then there are the three laws of motion. That help explain mass, acceleration, momentum, and force.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94273
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I am beginning to think this SucTheBigBone is just a drunk or a druggy. He evidently does not have a job for he is on here all the time, all hours throughout the day and night, 7 days a week. He gets going on something then just disappears for an hour or two like he has to get a fix or passes out for a little while, then pops right back on and starts going on again. He already has admitted to posting on here and then setting around waiting for replies. He acts to childish to be an elderly person and does not have the temperament and knowledge an elderly person would have so that rules that out. Makes one wonder. LOL

Oh and before you go there. I had shoulder and elbow surgery, still in PT so this free time I am on is just rented. It will be gone soon.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94274
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
We all supposedly came from "one" something that somehow learned to self replicate. See that is the problem. "self replicate" means a copy of itself not a change of species or a copy of something different (how ever you want to see it).
There you go, yet again, demonstrating you know nothing scientific.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94275
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Now wait I have seen many times when you evoturds say microevolution is BS.
"Micro" and "macro" is because there has never been a boundary demonstrated to segregate the two notions. The notions are the same as saying a rainbow only has three colors.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94276
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A scientific laws explain things, not describe them. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'. Example: We can use Newton's LoG to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but we couldn't explain why it happened.
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. If evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
A scientific hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.
All quoted from Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D.. Need I say more?
Laws only cover simple observations that never change.
They describe an event, they don't explain them.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94277
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, yet again, demonstrating you know nothing scientific.
Sure, like you know something. LMAO

COWARD!!!

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94278
Jun 27, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Hmmm lets see. I posted - Gravity is a fact; a law. What is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity.
You brilliantly asked "why does it fall"
I replied with - What is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity(the why's so to speak).
And now you again come up with this brilliant reply which has already been covered in the very first post.
Mr. brilliance tell why things fall since you won't accept that what is theoretical are the mathematical models that are used to predict the force of gravity(the why's so to speak).
OK I take it back, this is right, above you had it worded backwards though when you said laws explain things.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94279
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Laws only cover simple observations that never change.
They describe an event, they don't explain them.
Can you provide an example of one of those laws?

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94280
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Actually you're wrong, the universal law of gravitation is a statement. The calculations that determine what the statement means exactly , in measure are separate.
Newton's law of universal gravitation states that every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.
Free fall, mass, newtons are all separate calculations. Then there are the three laws of motion. That help explain mass, acceleration, momentum, and force.
And to you also. read it yourself.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...

I guess I need to remember there are so many qualified scientists on topix that know more than real scientists. LOL

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94281
Jun 27, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Micro" and "macro" is because there has never been a boundary demonstrated to segregate the two notions. The notions are the same as saying a rainbow only has three colors.
Uhm actually macro is over longer periods of time while micro is over shorter periods of time.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94282
Jun 27, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, yet again, demonstrating you know nothing scientific.
Do you always just assert a reply with no supporting evidence? Oh wait, you are Kitty so yes, yes you do always assert things and ramble on meaninglessly with no evidence. LOL

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94283
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you provide an example of one of those laws?
Sure Newtons 1st law of motion.

An object in motion will tend to stay in constant velocity, with respect to an inertial reference frame, until acted on by force.

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94284
Jun 27, 2013
 
BREAKTIME...Chisels Down ..

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94285
Jun 27, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
There you go, yet again, demonstrating you know nothing scientific.
You do know what Self-replicate means don't you?

Self-replication is any behavior of a dynamical system that yields construction of an "identical copy of itself". Key words are 'yields construction of an "identical copy of itself'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-replication

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94286
Jun 27, 2013
 

Judged:

1

replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Uhm actually macro is over longer periods of time while micro is over shorter periods of time.
Still no demonstrable boundary? Thank you for providing evidence of my assertion being accurate.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 89,261 - 89,280 of111,539
|
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.

113 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Chain Link Game! (Apr '12) 2 min Nfreebird 6,158
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 3 min Nfreebird 76,569
Word Association (Jun '10) 4 min Nfreebird 25,764
Word Association. (Nov '10) 6 min Nfreebird 16,513
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 6 min Crazy Beautiful 140,262
What's for dinner? (Feb '12) 9 min wichita-rick 6,921
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 15 min whatimeisit 28,550
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 20 min SimplyLoveYou 14,104
•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••