Evolution vs. Creation

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

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#101489 Oct 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
But the whole of Numbers 22 IS batshite crazy - even without the talking donkey.
And yeah, I expect to get clueless and nuts judgits from religies who won't even read it - but that's just the normal run of the mill batshite crazy.
LOL! Good point

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#101490 Oct 18, 2013
This is absolutely hilarious.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#101491 Oct 18, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
This is absolutely hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =VrqgcoC--IUXX
Holy crap!{pun intended} They were serious!

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#101492 Oct 18, 2013
Croco_Duck wrote:
This is absolutely hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =VrqgcoC--IUXX
Damn. Somebody actually tithes money to Willie George Ministries? And they know what they do with it? Damn...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#101493 Oct 18, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible doesn't say serpent in the first place, the English translation does. What difference to the POINT does it make if the Bible references a talking nachash, a talking serpent or a talking snake, anyway? It's just that tired old ploy from the apologist playbook. Distract, divert, ignore.
Indeed. Ironically as a non-creationist I'm one of the few who defends the original intentions of the intellectual works of the authors themselves, who've had their work taken out of context for millenia by the "faithful". The fundies only fight for the fundies but who's gonna fight for the fundies?

:-(
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#101494 Oct 18, 2013
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Come on, Igor... you can't take it literally. You need to "interpret" it in a way that doesn't sound batshit crazy!
Yeah, because obviously the invisible magic Jewish wizard used ventriloquism on that serpent, bush and donkey, but Noah really did squeeze all those animals onto the boat when he was 800 years old!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#101495 Oct 18, 2013
endtimes wrote:
.
SEPT 2014 :---SIGNS of Tribulation "start"
http://youtu.be/xO_Sk9CzFkY
.
Looks more like signs of dementia.(shrug)

“A Idiot Thinks Im Savoir Faire”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Paranoid That I Am Everywhere

#101496 Oct 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to be quite a but of disagreement over this and I have strong reservations. For example from:
http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/1...
"The site was a busy watering hole that human ancestors shared with giant extinct cheetahs, sabre-toothed cats and other beasts. The remains of the individuals were found in collapsed dens where carnivores had apparently dragged the carcasses to eat."
If it was a "busy watering hole" would it not be a possibility that any number of different species of early human ancestors frequented the site?
"They are thought to have died within a few hundred years of one another."
Given that the fossils were dated to 1.8m years ago and given the accuracy of dating methods, I find to hard to accept that they could claim the individuals died within a few hundred years of each other. I seriously doubt this.
I'll await further research.
Yeah it would suck to have to re-write all that they have said is the way it was. lol

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#101497 Oct 18, 2013
Why didn't minnows ever evolve to not be lunch for all other fish?

Did they never mutate?

Minnows around for billions of years and still the same, just minnows.

Why? What is wrong here?

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#101498 Oct 18, 2013
Why didn't plants ever evolve to use all light waves to produce food?

This mutation never happened in billions of years?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101499 Oct 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Why didn't minnows ever evolve to not be lunch for all other fish?
Did they never mutate?
Minnows around for billions of years and still the same, just minnows.
Why? What is wrong here?
Nothing. If minnows can still survive that long, and in actuality it has been much shorter for any species of minnows, then they have successfully filled their niche.

Too bad that you have no clue what the theory of evolution is about. You have no chance of debunking the theory if you don't understand it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101500 Oct 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Why didn't plants ever evolve to use all light waves to produce food?
This mutation never happened in billions of years?
Because it is a physical impossibility.

It seems that you, like Urb, need some to learn what the Laws of Thermodynamics have to say about this.

Now you have shown yourself not only to be clueless about evolution, but about physics as well.

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#101501 Oct 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Why didn't minnows ever evolve to not be lunch for all other fish?
Did they never mutate?
Minnows around for billions of years and still the same, just minnows.
Why? What is wrong here?
What is wrong is that you don't have a very broad knowledge of animal diversity, mutations or evolution.

Colorado pikeminnow (Ptychocheilus lucius). This little minnow grows up to 6 feet long.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#101502 Oct 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Why didn't plants ever evolve to use all light waves to produce food?

This mutation never happened in billions of years?
Both plants and minnows are ENORMOUSLY successful in reproduction, and maintaining species viability.

The very fact that plants and minnows HAVE been here for billions of years attests to that!

“River of tears flowing out of ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#101503 Oct 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Why didn't plants ever evolve to use all light waves to produce food?
This mutation never happened in billions of years?
What light waves do plants use in photosynthesis? Are you referring to wavelengths? Tell us what you know.

Why do you seem to think that just because something might be possible (and I don't believe that your example is) that it is compelled to happen. Evolution doesn't work that way. You might as well ask a stupid question like "Why don't deer have bear-proof armor?".

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101504 Oct 18, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Both plants and minnows are ENORMOUSLY successful in reproduction, and maintaining species viability.
The very fact that plants and minnows HAVE been here for billions of years attests to that!
Hundreds of millions, not billions, but otherwise correct.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#101505 Oct 18, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Why didn't minnows ever evolve to not be lunch for all other fish?
Did they never mutate?
Minnows around for billions of years and still the same, just minnows.
Why? What is wrong here?
why haven't humans evolve to not be lunch for other mammals?

did they never mutate?

why wouldn't your god have made it so humans are not eaten by other animals?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#101506 Oct 18, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>why haven't humans evolve to not be lunch for other mammals?
did they never mutate?
why wouldn't your god have made it so humans are not eaten by other animals?
My question would be why would a god make a bio-system that forced animals to prey on each other , killing and eating them. While giving the ultimate apex predator a conscious that makes them feel guilty for doing so.
But having a carnal lust for eating the flesh of other creatures, it being a necessary function to survive. It does not fit the premise of being created by a loving god, in fact if there is one ...
It's a cruel and twisted monster for forcing the biosphere and it's inhabitants to a never ending chain of kill or be killed.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#101507 Oct 18, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It's logic that say's it is more likely that something that was never alive, may become living, more so than something that is dead will become living.
Consider these things ... What do animals do in reproduction?
They convert nonliving matter into a living entity.
Once something is truly dead , it starts decomposing and there is
no recovery from this condition. Take frostbite for instance, the cells that have died start decomposing, the only solution to stop this condition from encompassing the entire organism. Is to remove the dead parts or die.
The fact we cant make a pile of ingredients become alive artificially, doesn't mean it is impossible. Just beyond our ability at the moment.
But the fact something is dead, means it's coming back to life is impossible. If some appears to have died and comes back to life, it means it was never truly dead, but was in appearance alone
mistakenly believed to be so.
It's just that simple.
Logic! you are not in the same country with logic! Both are dead! dumbass,it would be no greater feat for a dead animal to come back to life than a bunch of disorganized puddles to spring to life! You are clothed in such a suit of denial you will grasp at anything no matter how unscientific , illogical , and unproven to prop up your religious beliefs. Then in a final desperate spasm of idiocy you bring up the fact of reproduction to stupidly support a fools argument. Hey Idiot! that argument supports CREATION! life has been shown only to reproduce through existing life! That's NEVER been disproven!, yet you try to use that as evidence for abiogenesis! What a brainwashed fool

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#101508 Oct 18, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Try writing your questions in English. What you claim has nothing to do with evolution. Or even abiogenesis. All you have done is to show how ignorant you are about the science that you are disputing.
And blowfart all you have is hit and run. Your methods are as malodorous as your user name.
Answer the question dumbass, I haven't claimed anything .. its your own words I'm using! How can something that was alive then dead not be able to come back to life, yet something that was never alive can? These are your words! You are not ignorant ,no,...you are just taking comically stupid positions to defend your beliefs. Then when your stupidity is exposed you accuse others of ignorance! Pitiful

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
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 2 min beatlesinthebog 24,581
Ferreting Out The Ferrets 2 min JV Team 2
topix.com describe in one word (Apr '13) 4 min Princess Hey 149
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 5 min beatlesinthebog 40,425
Truck containing 36,000 pounds of Crisco stolen 5 min JV Team 44
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 min CJ Rocker 149,045
HOPE and CHANGE 9 min beatlesinthebog 2
True or False Game 54 min -CatCiao- 410
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 55 min ms_Sweeter 22,238
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 5 hr Crazy Beautiful 6,836
During Obama's Speech at Democratic Campaign Ra... 5 hr Go Blue Forever 41

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE