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
96,801 - 96,820 of 114,528 Comments Last updated 11 min ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102337
Oct 21, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, you did give the answer. You just didn't read your own post very well.
The Bible says it was a talking serpent, not a snake. You own post of Genesis confirmed that.
You DO know that serpent doesn't always and only mean snake, right?
Who is being pedantic now?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102338
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

priest wrote:
Maybe there is a good reason to date christians after all!
http://youtu.be/zQ36S3d1C
Boy, atheists sure do spend a LOT of time on Jesus and Christianity...

lol
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102339
Oct 21, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
God cursed it to be a snake.
What sense would it make to curse a snake to be a snake?
Why do you assume the Serpent was a lizard?
Because before it was a snake it had legs, and was described as a 'serpent'. Ergo it is not unreasonable to assume it was a reptilian species with legs, of the order Squamata.

But of course it could have been a deep-voiced wind instrument.(shrug)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102340
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, you did give the answer. You just didn't read your own post very well.
The Bible says it was a talking serpent, not a snake. You own post of Genesis confirmed that.
You DO know that serpent doesn't always and only mean snake, right?
So, a talking SERPENT.

Yeah.

That's much more logical.
It all makes sense now.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102341
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
With zero evidence of that.....
Repeating an error does not make it true.

There is evidence for abiogenesis. There is not enough evidence to lift it up above the level of hypothesis yet. In fact there have been thousands of successful experiments giving evidence for abiogenesis since the Miller, Urey experiment. Back at that time creatards were claiming that the building blocks of life, amino acids, could not form naturally. The Miller Urey experiment showed that they were wrong.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102342
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I donít care what you asked or not, I can prove it so what you claim you know is irrelevant to fact, irrelevant to biology and irrelevant to physics. So basiclly nothing more that self delusion or lies
I know what you know, that air and ionizing radiation can be seen, which is why I said air and ionizing radiation can be seen.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102343
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is a scientific site??? Get a grip!
http://www.earthage.org/EarthOldorYoung/scien...
That is a reputable site.

I said nothing in reference to linking only to scientific sites.

I'm not biased like y'all are.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102344
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, you did give the answer. You just didn't read your own post very well.
The Bible says it was a talking serpent, not a snake. You own post of Genesis confirmed that.
You DO know that serpent doesn't always and only mean snake, right?
any talking serpents in the real world? nope...not one..

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102345
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually if you noticed a number of those posts weren't even attacking fundies. I just thought it would be fun to take over the last 24 hours worth of threads for a bit.(shrug)
Which forum are you guys on?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102346
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102347
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
If you call these opinions of yours "evidence against God", you're nuts.
Evidence against God is unnecessary. And impossible.

Just like the Cosmic Sheep.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102348
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a reputable site.
I said nothing in reference to linking only to scientific sites.
I'm not biased like y'all are.
Wrong, it is not a reputable site.

You lying fundamental moron. The very first claim was debunked over a hundred years ago. A reputable site does not use arguments that are over a hundred years dead.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102349
Oct 21, 2013
 
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya, you did give the answer. You just didn't read your own post very well.
The Bible says it was a talking serpent, not a snake. You own post of Genesis confirmed that.
You DO know that serpent doesn't always and only mean snake, right?
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.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102350
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
That is a reputable site.
I said nothing in reference to linking only to scientific sites.
I'm not biased like y'all are.

Ah good, then we both agree that your site is not scientific. Then it appears we have reached a fundamental impass. We are only interested in scientific evidence. You, along with your non-scientific site is only interested apologetics which you personally find to be 'reputable'. Further discussion appears non-constructive.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102351
Oct 21, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Which forum are you guys on?
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102352
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102353
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102354
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#102356
Oct 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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?

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••