Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102352 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Neato.
Look at the "phylogenetic tree of life" chart.
Where's it lead to at the bottom?
Nowhere.....
Thanks for your help in demonstrating that there is no evidence for the common ancestor.
What a Maroon!!

Need I say any more? Another lying idiot for Jesus who has no idea what evidence is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102353 Oct 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You are amazingly irrational, you buy into a theory with absolutely no evidence , then berate others for what you say is the same thing!
You are operating from a philosophically religious viewpoint, so please you and your ilk should stop hiding behind science. It doesn't support your beliefs with evidence
Oh hey Bo. Which theory are you referring to?

Remember there is no argument you have used that I have not refuted. Do you have something different to add or you still playing the Nelson Muntz routine and showing everyone how ignorant you are?

Since: Jul 10

Alpharetta, GA

#102354 Oct 21, 2013
I have not waded through the 97000 posts to make sure, but, I don't see many references to actual Creationist Research.

Sure there are lots of opinion pieces on the ToE, but sadly nothing on Creationist research.

Is that because they do none?

Also, the ToE could be falsified tomorrow, but that would not make any flavor of creationism a viable alternate.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102355 Oct 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He was referring to the other day (my brief take over had disappeared now), but I post from the evolution forum. Threads are often cross-referenced across different forums, for instance this thread could be in the atheism forum.
And in the Offbeat Forum.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#102356 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a reputable site.
Sure it is, bucko. Have you ever read any of the articles beside the one you mentioned? Ever examine any of the links on the site?

That you think this reputable speaks volumes about you.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I said nothing in reference to linking only to scientific sites.
I'm not biased like y'all are.
Of course! Why would you want to use science to support your position. Much better to use your so-called 'reputable sites', huh?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102357 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. Neat.
The theory [common ancestor] specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, universal common ancestry entails the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, macroevolutionary history and processes involving the origin of higher taxa.
A theory postulating is not a fact.
Try again.
Where's your evidence of the, THE, common ancestor. You know, the first life where all other life came from.
It's not necessary. DNA alone demonstrates common ancestry (although there's plenty of other evidence besides). In order to argue against this your position requires you to claim that DNA works exactly how it's observed but at some undefined point in the past it stopped doing so due to the interference of a magic Jew. Given this fact it is highly disingenuous of you to be asking for evidence considering that evidence simply does not matter to your position one way in the slightest.

But then considering you've been dancing for 30+ pages over the definition of "serpent" your disingenuousness would certainly justify putting you under that same label.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#102358 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Neato.
Look at the "phylogenetic tree of life" chart.
Where's it lead to at the bottom?
Nowhere.....
Thanks for your help in demonstrating that there is no evidence for the common ancestor.
I demonstrated nothing other than you inability to understand a very simple concept. Do you have to have everything explained to you like a 3rd grader? The bottom of the tree represent the emergence of life. Which is a scientifically unsettled question. Duh!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102359 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I believe in creation through evolution.
All the evidence we have today suggests that life cannot create itself, therefore a creator is necessary.
Actually that's not the case. Go look at plants.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102360 Oct 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
You members of the Liars R us club will believe in anything no matter how stupid.
Can you leave the irony meters alone please Bo?
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#102361 Oct 21, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy, atheists sure do spend a LOT of time on Jesus and Christianity...
lol
Check the title of the thread, christian. Do you expect atheists to discuss home improvement here? It gets a little derailed, but....

I won't presume to speak for all atheists, but I find christianity interesting . How intelligent, educated adults can believe in god is mind boggling. 2013 and people are still being fleeced by preachers who are no smarter, and in some cases not as smart, as they are. Generation after generation of parents have embedded this crap into the minds of their children and it goes on and on.

It's time to pull your head out of the sand and put this fairy tale where it belongs, with Santa, Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy. Grow the fcuk up. There is no god. Preachers should be ashamed of themselves, they know the truth. Otherwise they would be too afraid of hell to pass on this shit.

1000 foot jesus my ass.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#102362 Oct 21, 2013
NDaBoonies wrote:
I have not waded through the 97000 posts to make sure, but, I don't see many references to actual Creationist Research.
Sure there are lots of opinion pieces on the ToE, but sadly nothing on Creationist research.
Is that because they do none?
Also, the ToE could be falsified tomorrow, but that would not make any flavor of creationism a viable alternate.
Hey!!

No fair using logic!

There is no true peer reviewed creation research. Creationists have invented their own "peer review". Stick around, sooner or later some creatard will link one of those hilarious articles.
buckwheat

Tulsa, OK

#102363 Oct 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then what does it mean exactly? Apparently you are unable to narrow down the precise definition as it is supposed to apply to the Bible.
Its' the bible, dude. It could mean naked neighbor wife. It works, nothing else makes any sense either.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#102364 Oct 21, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He was referring to the other day (my brief take over had disappeared now), but I post from the evolution forum. Threads are often cross-referenced across different forums, for instance this thread could be in the atheism forum.
yes, i pretty much stick to the US politics forum...political junkie..i'm seeking help for that...

i just wondered which forum you were talking about...

Since: Jul 10

Alpharetta, GA

#102365 Oct 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey!!
No fair using logic!
There is no true peer reviewed creation research. Creationists have invented their own "peer review". Stick around, sooner or later some creatard will link one of those hilarious articles.
Bad habit of mine. But you can bet the link will neither make sense nor will it avoid the topic of Evolution. If it weren't for the topic of Evolution most cretinists would be struck dumb(er)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102366 Oct 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
Here we go again with the magnificently stupid Dud!
Give me one example science has of life coming from a source other than existing life? We'll wait..........
Abiogenesis.

It's right there recorded in the rocks. 3.5-3.8 billion years ago we have the earliest forms of life. Preceding that we have none. Nothing. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Zero.

No evidence at all whatsoever of life existing before this time. NO evidence at all whatsoever that your magic Jew even exists.

And remember you ALREADY violate your own rules by invoking your God in the first place -

1 - God is a living being. But we all have to be DEAD to get to be spirits like Him.

2 - God did NOT produce life via a natural process, but an ARTIFICIAL experiment which had NOTHING to do with life developing as it always does naturally from a pre-existing lifeform "after its kind". Same goes for every single species God ever created.

3 - God is eternal and immortal and therefore did NOT come from a previous lifeform. Therefore life does NOT ALWAYS require a previous lifeform.

You violate your OWN rules THREE TIMES.(or billions if you want to address each and every species individually)

WE violate your rules ONCE.

But uh, frankly we couldn't give a flying f ck about your rules. Neither does reality.(shrug)
bohart wrote:
and you still spout the same old lies about non living compounds being converted into life...Hey Fool! what is converting those compounds?.....that's right,..living beings. Not goo magic!
And what are living beings? That's right, a collection of chemical reactions. NOT magic. Magic is not my claim. I've never invoked it. You claim chemical reactions can create life all the time every day but 3.5 billion years ago Jewish magic was necessary for the first one. YOU claim Godmagic made life, the universe and everything. All I do is point out that there is no reason to presume that your magic wizard was even necessary, and if it is, the same premise breaks your own rules. Multiple times over.
bohart wrote:
Keep up the lying, it's all you have.
But unlike you I haven't had to lie here, have I?

Just because I broke "BOHART'S COMMANDMENT" doesn't mean I have lied. It means YOU have because you broke it three times. AND you never address my posts directly and deal with the problems of your own arguments.

Your willful ignorance is not our problem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102367 Oct 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Again with the lies, isn't abiogenesis man's theory of how life self assembled on it's own? uh yeah it is.
So your either lying, or you just don't know what the hell your talking about,..Oh! it's both. Go lay down
I'm not lying. Go back again and look at the post you responded to. Not only does it NOT address what I said, it STILL misrepresents abiogenesis AND is a continuation of YOU placing your own limits on the Almighty.

So show me evidence that God gives a f ck what you think.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102368 Oct 21, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. An existing 'fact' can be included among other pieces of unproven facts linked together when one is trying to prove a case based on circumstantial evidence because not enough actual facts exist. Like with the big bang theory. Like with the theory of dark matter etc.
I see you still have no idea what a scientific theory is. If you have a better one then please present a viable alternative theory that does a better job of predicting cosmic background radiation than the Big Bang. If you have a better one then please present a viable alternative theory that does a better job of predicting the positions and gravitational effects of astronomical phenomena better than Dark Matter.

Meh, who am I kidding, you're a Von-Daniken fan.

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102369 Oct 21, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I did say the earth has the potential to globally flood itself. I never specified the when.
I did. That's the difference.

Global flood is pretty pointless if it happens billions of years before Noah allegedly existed, right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102370 Oct 21, 2013
bohart wrote:
Total lie! " we know that chemicals and compounds can assemble into living organisms?" life is testament to that! you are a nut! there's ZERO evidence for that! You are bathed in denial, and will tell any lie to defend your faith.
In that case then you must not be alive.

Since you ARE essentially just a walking talking bag of chemical reactions, how do you explain this?

You don't. You rant and call OTHER people liars because YOU are ignorant.
bohart wrote:
You have surpassed the idiot sucking bone for lies and stupidity,...so the key to building life has been discovered eh? What a fool! perhaps you should let the rest of the world in on your secret , you are the only one who knows it.
you worshiper you are?
in your frenzy to defend the faith you are losing coherence
You lost coherence years ago.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102371 Oct 21, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Letís do a little comparison.
The bible says God created life.
Science says life created itself.
Actually science says life developed about three and a half billion years ago. It suspects that chemical forces gave rise to life, however it's still open to the possibility of aliens, invisible magic Jew wizards, or another currently unknown fourth option.

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 liam cul8r 24,113
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 min Tom2Tone 147,043
What Could Roll,...? 4 min Mister_ E 10
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 11 min ms_Sweeter 3,374
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 21 min eleanorigby 36,449
I Like..... (Mar '14) 22 min AmyFaith 301
It Takes 7 Police Agencies to Break Up Wedding ... 22 min GUMP finder 4
What's your tip for the day? 23 min AmyFaith 1,034
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 53 min Mike Meyers 20,098
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 4 hr Sublime1 5,606
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••