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 4,721)

Showing posts 94,401 - 94,420 of112,792
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99830
Sep 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

6

5

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam and Eve are a story. You cannot prove an unverified story happened or didn't happen. There is no evidence to show a person named Moses didn't exist. There is no evidence to show a person named Jesus didn't exist. There is no evidence to prove an exodus of Israelites from Egypt didn't happen.
The fact is that for more than 2000 years people did write about a person named Moses. And that's more circumstantial evidence for his existence than you'll ever have for his non-existence.
There is no such thing as having 'solid evidence' to prove the 'nonexistence' of something/someone as you claim it.
The fact that you believe there was no Adam or Eve as the Bible writer describes them is your opinion. The fact is that several ancient cultures predating 2000 years ago all had similar stories of the first two parents of the human family. That doesn't make the story true any more then it makes it a lie. It's an unproved story.
You write:
“Adam and Eve are a story. You cannot prove an unverified story happened or didn't happen. There is no evidence to show a person named Moses didn't exist. There is no evidence to show a person named Jesus didn't exist. There is no evidence to prove an exodus of Israelites from Egypt didn't happen.”

Of course the story is unverified. It is just a Biblical myth. We know mankind (Homo-sapiens) has been around at least 200,000 years…the bone and DNA evidence prove this. We know that there were other hominids (Homo-neanderthalensis and probably 2 other ones) roaming the earth when we humans were. We know that we came from a population, not a single set of parents. We have gene and blood evidence for our early earthly beginnings and there is no room for a God creating us like the Bible says.

The Bible doesn't even closely resemble what we know happened.

We and the Neanderthals share genes/blood….that alone disproves the Adam and Eve story. Proves we had a common ancestor way back in time.

There IS evidence that a man named Moses did NOT write the Pentateuch. There is also evidence of time anachronisms in the text....a sure sign it was written much latter then advertised.

There is a total lack of evidence that the Exodus happened. Archaeologists have been scouring the Sinai desert for over a hundred years looking for some/any evidence of over a million people crisscrossing the area for 40 years, and have found ZERO evidence.

You write:
“The fact that you believe there was no Adam or Eve as the Bible writer describes them is your opinion. The fact is that several ancient cultures predating 2000 years ago all had similar stories of the first two parents of the human family. That doesn't make the story true any more then it makes it a lie. It's an unproved story.”

The fact that I believe the Adam and Eve story is myth is predicated on real evidence, not some brainwashing I suffered in Sunday school, or at home. Your Genesis theory is no more real than the Rig Veda. The Adam and Eve story is pure myth, as is the Exodus and other things in there.

You need to learn ABOUT the Bible, not whats IN the Bible. Whole new world out there my friend.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99831
Sep 20, 2013
 

Judged:

6

5

5

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the view of science and it's advancements, not a tough reach at all. People of science are showing more and more evidence that there's more water in the earth than there is upon it. New discoveries of where drop stones lay push ice sheets out to longer and wider areas of coverage than thought possible before. Science minded persons have long maintained there is more water on the surface than that in the earth. So once again, we have old science and new science battling it out as to which theory should be maintained/changed.
And my point of a Genesis description of Pangea wasn't about the time period of when the supercontinent Pangea happened. It was about the writer guessing/insinuating/describin g a supercontinent. The writer of Genesis never once used a plural form to describe the earth's landmasses. And the fact the writer would have known bodies of water partially or totally separated land masses making large and small islands of land makes no sense that they wouldn't have used plural tones to describe the earth in it's beginning stage.
Thus it's my opinion the writer purposefully described a supercontinent.
You write:
"Thus it's my opinion the writer purposefully described a supercontinent."

Why would he be describing a super-continent when it had been 200 million years since there was one.

If in fact whoever wrote the story actually knew something like this it would have been a perfect opportunity for God to inject a little something that would prove His existence to modern day mankind.

Your speculation is just that....speculation.

There was no Noachian flood....proven.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99832
Sep 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>"He didn't"

Aha, that's what I thought....there never was a God, he's just a myth.
No that's the same thing.
God was never created he is the creator!
Because God was not created does not mean there is no God.

It's blind statements like this that will cost you a price I wish on few to ever have to go through.

http://youtu.be/l5Qn7mFU4EA

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99833
Sep 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Who feeds you all this wrong information about science??

It (Big Bang) is an attempt to interpret the facts available in a natural light. Science DOES NOT deal with magical stuff....which the Bible uses to explain a natural world.
But it does.

Steven Hawkins:

At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down.

" all the laws of physics would have broken down. "

Magic not science. No laws of physics then its magic.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99834
Sep 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>I don't, I am not a physicist. Left overs maybe?.:-)
It takes about a billion years for the universe to reach the point where it could start creating so now a 14.8 year old star hast to fit in a 12.7 billion year old star creating universe.

It doesn't fit does it?

More proof that the BB is a myth.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99835
Sep 20, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Steven HAWKING has been wrong before.

Again, who is feeding you this wrong science.
On feed me how time started
And how a 14.8 billion year old star fits into our universe that could only start creating stars 12.7 billion years ago.

Oh and what are the odds that this star is the oldest star?

Science claims to know about 2% of the universe and that 2% is more then enough for you. Rather sad.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99836
Sep 20, 2013
 

Judged:

5

5

5

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
On feed me how time started
And how a 14.8 billion year old star fits into our universe that could only start creating stars 12.7 billion years ago.
Oh and what are the odds that this star is the oldest star?
Science claims to know about 2% of the universe and that 2% is more then enough for you. Rather sad.
Where can I go to verify this star story??

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99837
Sep 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
On feed me how time started
And how a 14.8 billion year old star fits into our universe that could only start creating stars 12.7 billion years ago.
Oh and what are the odds that this star is the oldest star?
Science claims to know about 2% of the universe and that 2% is more then enough for you. Rather sad.
Will you stop fixating?

I know I've explained the Rapid Expansion Phase to you before.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99838
Sep 20, 2013
 
It's made up nonsense.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99839
Sep 20, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
On feed me how time started
And how a 14.8 billion year old star fits into our universe that could only start creating stars 12.7 billion years ago.
Oh and what are the odds that this star is the oldest star?
Science claims to know about 2% of the universe and that 2% is more then enough for you. Rather sad.
Asking again; where can I find a link or more data on this star story??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99840
Sep 20, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
On feed me how time started
And how a 14.8 billion year old star fits into our universe that could only start creating stars 12.7 billion years ago.
Oh and what are the odds that this star is the oldest star?
Science claims to know about 2% of the universe and that 2% is more then enough for you. Rather sad.
So, should I start the procedure to nominate you for a Nobel prize.

And when do you plan to announce this information to the whole world and thereby prove Christianity to all the world??

You know about the group of Christians that go around and lie for Jesus don't you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99841
Sep 20, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Where can I go to verify this star story??
http://www.space.com/20112-oldest-known-star-...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99842
Sep 20, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Please note, the error bar still puts the star within the age of the universe so it really is not that big of a problem.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99843
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
No that's the same thing.
God was never created he is the creator!
Because God was not created does not mean there is no God.
It's blind statements like this that will cost you a price I wish on few to ever have to go through.
http://youtu.be/l5Qn7mFU4EA
Once again you present us with a 'god' that cannot be verified in any way whatsoever. You have zero proof of your invisible friend and zero proof that anything is going to happen, and you get pissed if no one believes you.

What's up with fundamentalist Christians. They seem to get crazier every year. The end times' has been predicted for 2,000 years now and every one has been wrong....even Jesus was wrong when he predicted the end. That's a SURE sign that your Messiah is a fake.

Can you even imagine how stupid your story of God is....ooooh, he was always there floating around in space, no beginning, no end. He creates the whole universe and everything in it. He creates us and our world and then sticks around to eventually tell the Hebrews how to treat their menstruating women and how far away from camp to shit.

And where the hell was he when mankind was evolving for 200,000+- years on the African veldt, and finally the rest of the world? The Hebrews din't acknowledge a monotheist god until about 600 BC.

Your stories and Bible are full of inane myths that CANNOT be reconciled with modern science and should be really dissected and reasoned on by sane people.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99844
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
But it does.
Steven Hawkins:
At this time, the Big Bang, all the matter in the universe, would have been on top of itself. The density would have been infinite. It would have been what is called, a singularity. At a singularity, all the laws of physics would have broken down.
" all the laws of physics would have broken down. "
Magic not science. No laws of physics then its magic.
The mans last name is HAWKING!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99845
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
It takes about a billion years for the universe to reach the point where it could start creating so now a 14.8 year old star hast to fit in a 12.7 billion year old star creating universe.
It doesn't fit does it?
More proof that the BB is a myth.
You really don't understand science at all.
spOko

Oakland, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99846
Sep 21, 2013
 
You don’t like the Big Bang? Here is an alternative.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-universe...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99847
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

spOko wrote:
You don’t like the Big Bang? Here is an alternative.
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-universe...
Understanding is not a question of like.

It is a question of truth.

Answer the question with the truth.

Do you know the truthful answer?

More questions will be raised , than those that can be answered.
Are you ready for this realization centurion?

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99848
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Who feeds you all this wrong information about science??

It (Big Bang) is an attempt to interpret the facts available in a natural light. Science DOES NOT deal with magical stuff....which the Bible uses to explain a natural world.
As your super hero Steven Hawkins states:

For time to exist all the laws of physics are broken.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#99849
Sep 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Steven HAWKING has been wrong before.

Again, who is feeding you this wrong science.
And Science is wrong on 3 myths right off the too if my head that I can think of.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 94,401 - 94,420 of112,792
|
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.

•••
•••