Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100436 Oct 3, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sez the loony who just proposed flattening out the surface of the earth to permit his imaginary flood.
I never stated there was a Biblical flood or when or how. You're the looney to continue to think I have said such things when I haven't.
I have stated the earth has it's own potential to do whatever it will, including flooding itself above the highest peaks or freezing nearly all water on it's surface in a nuclear glacial winter and covering nearly all land in deep, deep snow for a short period of time.
You on the other hand have continually stated what you believe never can happen or never would happen and that is your narrow, shallow restrictive opinion.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#100437 Oct 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a skeptic is good. So contemplate this than. Where is true sea level? We know thousands of feet deep in oceans and seas lay many, many numerous mountainous valleys and plains that have the appearance from recent undersea examinations of having been carved out by water erosion and or weather as happens on the surface. So where was true sea levels? At the bottom of the oceans and seas in these valleys or where we guage it today? Than consider the implications of where the sea level was when we had no ice and where it laid when the 'supposed' snowball earth theory took place.
And if the valleys of the oceans/seas were really carved out by water/weather erosion, what sank them and from what sea level?
Questions, questions, questions :)
In your opinion, how old is the earth and universe??

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100438 Oct 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a skeptic is good. So contemplate this than. Where is true sea level? We know thousands of feet deep in oceans and seas lay many, many numerous mountainous valleys and plains that have the appearance from recent undersea examinations of having been carved out by water erosion and or weather as happens on the surface. So where was true sea levels? At the bottom of the oceans and seas in these valleys or where we guage it today? Than consider the implications of where the sea level was when we had no ice and where it laid when the 'supposed' snowball earth theory took place.
And if the valleys of the oceans/seas were really carved out by water/weather erosion, what sank them and from what sea level?
Questions, questions, questions :)
Sea level has changed a bit over the years. During the ice age sea level was about 400 feet lower than it is now.

And "Snowball Earth" was so long ago that the coasts were totally different than they are now.

What underwater features do you think look like they were eroded by water? Please don't say the midocean ridges.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100439 Oct 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I never stated there was a Biblical flood or when or how. You're the looney to continue to think I have said such things when I haven't.
I have stated the earth has it's own potential to do whatever it will, including flooding itself above the highest peaks or freezing nearly all water on it's surface in a nuclear glacial winter and covering nearly all land in deep, deep snow for a short period of time.
You on the other hand have continually stated what you believe never can happen or never would happen and that is your narrow, shallow restrictive opinion.
Please, we all know you are a creatard pretending not to be one.

If you took some basic geology you would know that the entire Earth has not been covered with water in over one billion years and why. Looking at landforms and making feral donkey guesses based upon fantasy don't count as "science".

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#100440 Oct 3, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
"Aura Mytha wrote:- From the first two sentences you reveal yourself to be clueless . It is the defining line that is quite effective at eliminating all future correspondence, in the matter . It would suffice that your information that ,you to pronounce your intentions simply by saying , that YOU DO NOT KNOW.
I have all the power in this world over this this concept.
You do not know..... But I do."
You reveal yourself to be the clueless one as you even neglect to close the quotation marks.
You also reveal yourself to be the clueless one as in a question such as "How did life begin with creationism or the big bang theory?" a person can only believe. In order to state that they know they would have to be able to present evidence that proves beyond doubt that what they claim is true and at this moment in time nobody as within their possession such evidence. If they did then we would not be having this debate.
You either know something by the evidence at least to being somewhat confident in it because there is tangible, empirical or physical evidence showing the fact. Or you're a clueless believer in some story you like. The Big bang has considerable physical evidence showing it happened. Creationist have a story and a clueless belief based on faith. There is this physical evidence, and we are debating it because you are clueless believer who rejects the evidence to the fact.

So there really isn't a debate , there is your denial and our
telling you the truth.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100441 Oct 3, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW, theories NEVER become fact, doofus. Theories attempt to explain facts. DUH!
Doofus? lol...fricking to funny states the doofus who believes theories never become fact. Are you pathetically ignorant? It was a theory that disagreed with a more popular theory that proved and became a fact that the earth rotated around the sun and not viceversa. Theories were the basis of all established facts. Theories where probable/provable became/become an established fact in science.
If your logic is correct(which it isn't)that theories NEVER become fact, than it's still an unproven theory that the sun is the center of our solar system.
If your logic is correct(which it isn't)that theories NEVER become fact, than it's still an unproven theory that gravity holds us to this earth.
Should I continue with your logic? Hmm?

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#100442 Oct 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
You either know something by the evidence at least to being somewhat confident in it because there is tangible, empirical or physical evidence showing the fact. Or you're a clueless believer in some story you like. The Big bang has considerable physical evidence showing it happened. Creationist have a story and a clueless belief based on faith. There is this physical evidence, and we are debating it because you are clueless believer who rejects the evidence to the fact.
So there really isn't a debate , there is your denial and our
telling you the truth.
How many times has "the evidence" in any and everything been wrong?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100443 Oct 3, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. Then you can STFU about it.
That's your intelligent reply? Par for course for you isn't it :)

MikeF in conversations he doesn't like...lol

"Some say it's possible there was a global flood."
MikeF.."Good. Then you can STFU about it."

"There's elephant head reliefs on Mayan stone buildings."
MikeF..."Good. Then you can STFU about it."

"There's growing evidence for cocaine from South and or central America in Egyptian mummies and not just cross contamination."
MikeF.."Good. Then you can STFU about it."

You go dude :)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100444 Oct 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your intelligent reply? Par for course for you isn't it :)
MikeF in conversations he doesn't like...lol
"Some say it's possible there was a global flood."
MikeF.."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
"There's elephant head reliefs on Mayan stone buildings."
MikeF..."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
"There's growing evidence for cocaine from South and or central America in Egyptian mummies and not just cross contamination."
MikeF.."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
You go dude :)
No Surprise if you want to claim things and get respect you need to supply some evidence that backs you up. In an internet debate you do this with links.

So let's see some links supporting your beliefs, or else, STFU.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#100445 Oct 3, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
How many times has "the evidence" in any and everything been wrong?
Sure it has, but when you have multiple lines of evidence that point to the same thing.... then you are confident.

Chances are the theory could be altered but nothing will change the facts. For instance we could find this universe is inside another.
We could find the time since the beginning is wrong, or a number of other possibilities. What we are comfident about is that there was a point in the past that everything we see expanded from.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100446 Oct 3, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
I've got a clue for you, bub. I'm in Florida. I can show you lake after lake that was not caused by floods. Ever hear of sink holes?
That's nice. I can do the same for you :)
Do you know how many times Florida was covered by ancient oceans? You should have an idea as you pretend to understand all things science and you do live in Florida.
Do you know how many different ways Florida/parts of Florida was covered from sudden violent action to maybe a few inches to a foot a year by ocean water?
Do you know that most depressions on the earths surface that water resides in called 'lakes' were formed by ancient glacial flooding and from swirling currents disturbing the sea floor to earthquake activity and crustal movement to how ancient surface lava beds settled?
Floods are majorly responsible for reshaping the earth's general surface so that where there wasn't a lake there maybe one afterwards or a small lake might be reshaped to being a large lake. Glaciers have also played a large part.
By the way bub, I live/lived in two states where most lake beds were shaped by glaciers and glacier flooding where water would later fill and remain. Now what?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100447 Oct 3, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you have repeatedly disparaged geologists, arrogant one.
Just saying.
Absolutely not.
I have repeatedly disparaged your's and others remarks who claim to understand science and use words like 'never','impossible','never happened', etc. That is true.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100448 Oct 3, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice. I can do the same for you :)
Do you know how many times Florida was covered by ancient oceans? You should have an idea as you pretend to understand all things science and you do live in Florida.
Do you know how many different ways Florida/parts of Florida was covered from sudden violent action to maybe a few inches to a foot a year by ocean water?
Do you know that most depressions on the earths surface that water resides in called 'lakes' were formed by ancient glacial flooding and from swirling currents disturbing the sea floor to earthquake activity and crustal movement to how ancient surface lava beds settled?
Floods are majorly responsible for reshaping the earth's general surface so that where there wasn't a lake there maybe one afterwards or a small lake might be reshaped to being a large lake. Glaciers have also played a large part.
By the way bub, I live/lived in two states where most lake beds were shaped by glaciers and glacier flooding where water would later fill and remain. Now what?
Yes, Florida has been underwater more than once.

I don't know of any evidence that any of those events were violent or sudden. Where is your evidence that supports you claim.

And no, floods were not primarily responsible for shaping the Earth's surface. Again, where is your evidence?

Please use valid sources, if you can/

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100449 Oct 3, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Science doesn't make predictions, huh? I'll tell you what, genius. You need to shut up because every post you make exposes your massive ignorance even further.
No, you do not know how science works. You just think you do. Next you'll be telling us how your studies of astrology qualifies you.
As you state it no. Never happens. People of science do not use predictions to help formulate theories to show proof of something they wish to be recognized as fact.
People in science doing estimations may predict the outcome ahead of time, that is true. The following I took from the web for you :)

Prediction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
Informal prediction ...∑ Statistics ∑ Prediction in science ∑ Finance ∑ Sports
A prediction (Latin prś-, "before," and dicere, "to say") or forecast is a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on ...
..........
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Overview ∑ Scientific inquiry ∑ Elements of the ...∑ Models of scientific ...
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed ...
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#100450 Oct 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No Surprise if you want to claim things and get respect you need to supply some evidence that backs you up. In an internet debate you do this with links.
So let's see some links supporting your beliefs, or else, STFU.
People that rely on links are unable to present an argument and need to have someone else do the bidding for them.

For instance, here is how to school and expose SZ...
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If you took some basic geology you would know that the entire Earth has not been covered with water in over one billion years and why.
This is SZ's claim,(notice no evidence provided) so first we ask "what part of basic Geology would you look at to determine this claim is valid?"

Now of course we will NOT get an answer to this question, but follow what responses will be provided...

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100451 Oct 3, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You really would not know a fact if one sat on your face and farted. Facts are facts, and facts disprove the Noah flood myth
Nope not nothing, nothing that uses sunlight to nurture could exist, there is a difference here in what you think you understand and what little you do understand
There is DNA evidence that you are approximately 4% Neanderthal, is this the evidence you claim does not exist
Yes there are many facts that prove the global flood never happened. The geological column and of course the total impossibility of building a boat the size specified in the babble from wood, hey itís impossible even now, never mind 4000 years ago. And of course the logistics of gathering around 80 MILLION animals, some form continents that were unknown and supplying food for them for around a year.
However you are welcome to believe in your bronze age faith, Me, Iíll stick with the facts.
No. Facts don't exist to disprove a global flood. Opinions, opinions claim certain pieces of evidence prove there wasn't a global flood. Understand that difference?
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#100452 Oct 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>...floods were not primarily responsible for shaping the Earth's surface. Again, where is your evidence?
Since you are claiming that floods were not primarily responsible for shaping the Earth, what in your view was primarily responsible?

Again, where is your evidence?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100453 Oct 3, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
People that rely on links are unable to present an argument and need to have someone else do the bidding for them.
For instance, here is how to school and expose SZ...
<quoted text>This is SZ's claim,(notice no evidence provided) so first we ask "what part of basic Geology would you look at to determine this claim is valid?"
Now of course we will NOT get an answer to this question, but follow what responses will be provided...
What a moron. Of course links are needed for a debate.

If someone makes a claim he needs a way to substantiate them.

If you would like evidence of why we know that the Earth has not been submerged for the last billion years I would love to help you. Unfortunately you have taken an idiots approach and denied the evidence before it has even been presented.

The easiest evidence is to simply look at the continents in the past. You can find links that will show how the continents looked over the ages. Those images are based upon massive amounts of geological information. You won't find one paper explaining it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100454 Oct 3, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Since you are claiming that floods were not primarily responsible for shaping the Earth, what in your view was primarily responsible?
Again, where is your evidence?
Just regular every day erosion.

It is up to the idiot who claimed that floods were responsible for shaping the Earth first. Until he has had his shot I will wait. Then I will gladly post my evidence. It is late so I will not be posting any evidence tonight. You will need to be patient. Or if you have at least half of a brain you could try looking for it yourself.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#100455 Oct 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What a moron. Of course links are needed for a debate.
If someone makes a claim he needs a way to substantiate them.
If you would like evidence of why we know that the Earth has not been submerged for the last billion years I would love to help you. Unfortunately you have taken an idiots approach and denied the evidence before it has even been presented.
The easiest evidence is to simply look at the continents in the past. You can find links that will show how the continents looked over the ages. Those images are based upon massive amounts of geological information. You won't find one paper explaining it.
Thanks for validating my point!

No answer provided. Like I said.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 17 min SLY WEST 147,642
Things Not To Say In Bed (Oct '11) 32 min wichita-rick 2,660
(Non Computer) Mouse issues HELP!! 2 hr SLY WEST 42
Top Deal Breakers in Relationships (Feb '13) 2 hr SLY WEST 835
I Like..... (Mar '14) 2 hr SLY WEST 376
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 3 hr Crazy Jae 1,418
Offbeat Happy Thread (Aug '12) 3 hr CJ Rocker 161
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 hr -Lea- 21,356
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 4 hr Princess Hey 6,370
Woman Held in Jail for Weeks Over SpaghettiOs 5 hr NOM s Waffle House 9

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE