Evolution vs. Creation

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

Birkenhead, UK

#104879 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Same can be said about life just poofing from a magic muddy soup.
2. The you admit life just poofed from nonlife.
3. You claimed God sis political tool, not me.
4. So then you agree no one can claim any are more right than the other.
5. Exactly. Science does not want God to exist. So science does not look for God but they will look for anything else.
1 - That's nice. I've never mentioned it.

2 - I admit life came from non-life no matter what way you cut it.

3 - And I am correct. I suppose I shouldn't have left out psychological tool too.

4 - Actually I can, since fundies claim previous life was necessary. I have pointed out that science does not support their claims.

5 - Science has no wants. Science is a tool. A hammer does not "want" to hit someone on the head or build a house. It is merely used for whatever it is used. If you HAVE a testable scientific hypothesis for magic Jew wizards then present it. Science is perfectly open to the possibility. Don't blame scientists for not looking into YOUR baseless claims for which you haven't even BOTHERED to back up for millenia.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104880 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Life came from nonlife
or
2. Life always existed.
Science says no God no creator. So the only two way are 1 and 2 above.
Science says no such thing. Science is perfectly open to the possibility of (a) God. Maybe it exists, maybe it doesn't. So far there is no way to tell. The fact we can't is YOUR problem, not ours.

Number 2 is contradicted by the fact the Earth and the universe appear to be finite. Even the fundies agree the Earth and universe are finite. Ergo they have a problem.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#104881 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What natural laws of physics and chemistry cause chemicals, enzymes ,proteins etc. to self assemble in the proper order, and proper amounts before the alleged burst to life started?
The mysteriousness of life cannot be answered by a single man or animal, but the will of life itself to carry on and thrive.

Is a force to recon with. Did you ever consider that life was created by the sheer will of this universe to understand everything that it is? The universe created us so that it could see and have understanding. Now that is truly something that escapes you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104882 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. An assumption is NOT fact. It is guesses and we thinks or could be's or I suggest. Thanks for proving my point.
You didn't have a point. Since abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis, NOT a theory and NOT a fact, and we have NOT claimed otherwise, you and your buddies have been engaged with a straw-man. As usual.

What WE have is a hypothesis. You guys don't even have that. Hence why you pretend it's a battle of beliefs. Quite clearly it isn't.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104883 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Sub what does "proposed" mean?
WTF??? Are we playing 20 Questions now?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104884 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The adjective hypothetical, meaning "having the nature of a hypothesis", or "being assumed to exist as an immediate consequence of a hypothesis", can refer to any of these meanings of the term "hypothesis".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis
You may have noticed that the article discussed both the use of the term in science and in logic. Not quite the same.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104885 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Same can be said about life just poofing from a magic muddy soup.
2. The you admit life just poofed from nonlife.
3. You claimed God sis political tool, not me.
4. So then you agree no one can claim any are more right than the other.
5. Exactly. Science does not want God to exist. So science does not look for God but they will look for anything else.
You're going off the rails. While it's probably true that there are a few scientists who personally does not want god to exist, science as a discipline, doesn't give a crap.

There is evidence in science. There is none in religion. I'm surprised you overlook that obvious fact.

“The Grim Reaper Is Fictional ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

But We Will All Meet Him

#104886 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
It does get a bit annoying when you make shit up about another's position.
Pretty much they way it is always played here. One can either learn to play the same way or not play at all.

“The Grim Reaper Is Fictional ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

But We Will All Meet Him

#104887 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF??? Are we playing 20 Questions now?
A proposed hypothesis is a guess, we think, maybey, a suggestion, could be, etc etc no matter if you like it or not.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104888 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF??? Are we playing 20 Questions now?
ooh, ooh, ooh....me first!

question one: Is Replaytime a vegetable?

“The Grim Reaper Is Fictional ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

But We Will All Meet Him

#104889 Nov 5, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You're going off the rails. While it's probably true that there are a few scientists who personally does not want god to exist, science as a discipline, doesn't give a crap.
There is evidence in science. There is none in religion. I'm surprised you overlook that obvious fact.
Does science look for any evidence of "God"?

Of course they don't. If it is never looked for there won't be any acceptable evidence.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104890 Nov 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. But it's not evidence that life's creation was due to the necessary intervention of intelligence.
<quoted text>
I don't have to provide that since that's not our claim.
You know this as I've explained this several times over now.
And that's just today.
<quoted text>
So you claim, however you have not been able to address it with a single rational argument. The fact is that intelligence is not the primary factor. And in fact that intelligence is not detected in any way shape or form for this to occur (though you still have the opportunity to present evidence otherwise). And when you inevitably and helpfully point out the birds and the bees to me, I will then point out that there are other forms of life for which intelligence isn't even needed in order to reproduce. Ergo what we have is naturally occurring chemical processes producing other naturally occurring chemical processes, which we have arbitrarily decided to term "life".
Gawd you are so dumb! you don't even know what abiogenesis means and like the sucking bone berate others as to it's meaning!

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104891 Nov 5, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The mysteriousness of life cannot be answered by a single man or animal, but the will of life itself to carry on and thrive.
Is a force to recon with. Did you ever consider that life was created by the sheer will of this universe to understand everything that it is? The universe created us so that it could see and have understanding. Now that is truly something that escapes you.
Were going off the rails in a crazy train!
What the hell is that? the Frank Zappa theory of the universe?
The universe created us? ha,ha,ha,ha. Chesterton was right ,youy people will believe in anything

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104892 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter if you like it or not a hypothesis is a suggestion, an assumption, a guess based off of what they think they know.
Let me ask a serious question for a moment...

SO F**KING WHAT???

Do you actually think quibbling over terminology changes anything? You're starting to sound like KAB the Word Weasel.

If you want to reduce all that science has accomplished to guesses, have at it. It changes nothing. But remember that the next time you get on an airplane that someone guessed it will fly. Or the next medication that someone guessed it would cure you.

I *guess* that's when you'll change you tune.

Modern science has accomplished amazing thing in the last few hundred year while the religious has made no progress in 5,000.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104893 Nov 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You didn't have a point. Since abiogenesis is a scientific hypothesis, NOT a theory and NOT a fact, and we have NOT claimed otherwise, you and your buddies have been engaged with a straw-man. As usual.
What WE have is a hypothesis. You guys don't even have that. Hence why you pretend it's a battle of beliefs. Quite clearly it isn't.
Props!

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104894 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretty much they way it is always played here. One can either learn to play the same way or not play at all.
You can try being straightforward and honest. Just a suggestion.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104895 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
A proposed hypothesis is a guess, we think, maybey, a suggestion, could be, etc etc no matter if you like it or not.
Blah, blah, blah.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104896 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Does science look for any evidence of "God"?
Of course they don't. If it is never looked for there won't be any acceptable evidence.
Go look for it then.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#104897 Nov 5, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Gawd you are so dumb! you don't even know what abiogenesis means and like the sucking bone berate others as to it's meaning!
Your ad-homs are inadequate responses to my posts.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#104898 Nov 5, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Does science look for any evidence of "God"?
Of course they don't. If it is never looked for there won't be any acceptable evidence.
Your stupid is showing. Any number of scientists throughout history have searched for evidence of a god. No luck.

Do you need a list of them or can you Google for yourself.

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
Why? 11 min Weird 0ne 2 28
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 14 min Jennifer Renee 6,687
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 15 min Fah Q 37,464
Names, A to Z, ... (Aug '12) 15 min 5th Row Centre 1,575
Bill Cosby 19 min Parden Pard 146
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 20 min Silly 7,334
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 21 min 5th Row Centre 46,970
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 1 hr -Lea- 7,947
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr Help Desk 23,927
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr dandylioness 150,957
Topix Talk 1 hr Hoosier Hillbilly 71

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE