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
99,441 - 99,460 of 113,016 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104982
Nov 5, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This is fun. You won't respond to me, because you believe it bothers me. It doesn't, but don't let the truth interfere with your delusions. You keep right on thinking it along with how you don't pay attention to me.
It is fun, because I can say anything I want and everyone sees it as you being afraid to respond.
ROFL!!!
he does have a tendency to run from what he is scared of, doesn't he?

betcha he runs like a girl, too...

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104983
Nov 5, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
What I find really amusing is that ole Chester has made 7 or 8 comments in the last hour and all were either to me or about me but I am not on his mind. He can't help himself. LMMFAO
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
You just can't get me out of your head can you.

What about the posts I made on threads you don't even go to.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104985
Nov 5, 2013
 
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>he does have a tendency to run from what he is scared of, doesn't he?
betcha he runs like a girl, too...
What exactly is he arguing for or against? It is hard to tell. He seems to be against everybody.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104986
Nov 5, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible is not evidence. That has been made clear many many times. Oh wait!! You all mean the creationists can't use it as evidence but you all can. I see. Carry od idiot.
yet everything you know about your god came from this book that cannot be evidence...so no god then...

ts funny, because it is you that keeps proving that the god you worship is false...

very funny.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104987
Nov 5, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
In my comment I said "I see". Your reading comprehension hasn't got any better.
yes, your comment was pointless, thank you for making that clear.

you seem to have two kinds of posts, the pointless ones and the ones where you prove yourself wrong...

3

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104988
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
A planetary gear system? Hm.
You uh, managed to solve your little flagella problem yet?
Look at it this way, it may save you an operation.
Two teams are standing in front of a group of 5th graders. One presents the proton motor piece by piece using analogies from actual mechanisms known to even a 5th grader equipped with a Radio Shack electronics kit and chem set. Then the presenter displays MO-1 version and its 100 fold advancements recently discovered, including its 7 motors and 24 flagella working perfectly in its synchronous planetary gear set in all its marvels.

You and SZ stand up and tell them we have a paper that's 12 years old and and it controverts everything SBT claims, even explains MO-1 and all its added complexity without it ever being studied. I would show them the latest aircraft and helicopter geared systems to operate very close to MO-1, be even less complicated.

You tell them absolutely No intelligence was involved in this added complexity, that chance and time did it because this decade older paper says so and you know that anything can be made with enough time like this apparatus.

I stand up and ask them does anyone here believe Scotty from Star Trek with his Phasers, Shields and Warp Drive wouldn't think you so foolish to believe a mindless, non-existent Time God made all his stuff, and that some of these parts are just as complicated or even more than his, because we don't understand how these parts work and Scotty does his, and yet these two gentlemen expect you to believe in their Time God who is non-existent is so brilliant to create such tiny marvels. Then I would ask them who has faith in your mindless nothingness Time God?, raise your hands. Then I would ask who believes these motors require intelligence acting on matter to work, with the video of the planetary geared system turning in the background?, that's when the snickering would begin. And by the way, I posted the explanation challenge to you both. Poor tactic, only makes me more motivated to educate our audience here further on this.

http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/11/22/...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104989
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Two teams are standing in front of a group of 5th graders. One presents the proton motor piece by piece using analogies from actual mechanisms known to even a 5th grader equipped with a Radio Shack electronics kit and chem set. Then the presenter displays MO-1 version and its 100 fold advancements recently discovered, including its 7 motors and 24 flagella working perfectly in its synchronous planetary gear set in all its marvels.
You and SZ stand up and tell them we have a paper that's 12 years old and and it controverts everything SBT claims, even explains MO-1 and all its added complexity without it ever being studied. I would show them the latest aircraft and helicopter geared systems to operate very close to MO-1, be even less complicated.
You tell them absolutely No intelligence was involved in this added complexity, that chance and time did it because this decade older paper says so and you know that anything can be made with enough time like this apparatus.
I stand up and ask them does anyone here believe Scotty from Star Trek with his Phasers, Shields and Warp Drive wouldn't think you so foolish to believe a mindless, non-existent Time God made all his stuff, and that some of these parts are just as complicated or even more than his, because we don't understand how these parts work and Scotty does his, and yet these two gentlemen expect you to believe in their Time God who is non-existent is so brilliant to create such tiny marvels. Then I would ask them who has faith in your mindless nothingness Time God?, raise your hands. Then I would ask who believes these motors require intelligence acting on matter to work, with the video of the planetary geared system turning in the background?, that's when the snickering would begin. And by the way, I posted the explanation challenge to you both. Poor tactic, only makes me more motivated to educate our audience here further on this.
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/11/22/...
SBT, what sort of point are you trying to make here?

Your links have only shown that they are working on the details of how the flagellum works. How it evolved is another problem. That was solved years ago, as you pointed out.

We don't need to know how something works necessarily to know how it evolved. Do you understand this?

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104990
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Two teams are standing in front of a group of 5th graders. One presents the proton motor piece by piece using analogies from actual mechanisms known to even a 5th grader equipped with a Radio Shack electronics kit and chem set. Then the presenter displays MO-1 version and its 100 fold advancements recently discovered, including its 7 motors and 24 flagella working perfectly in its synchronous planetary gear set in all its marvels.
You and SZ stand up and tell them we have a paper that's 12 years old and and it controverts everything SBT claims, even explains MO-1 and all its added complexity without it ever being studied. I would show them the latest aircraft and helicopter geared systems to operate very close to MO-1, be even less complicated.
You tell them absolutely No intelligence was involved in this added complexity, that chance and time did it because this decade older paper says so and you know that anything can be made with enough time like this apparatus.
I stand up and ask them does anyone here believe Scotty from Star Trek with his Phasers, Shields and Warp Drive wouldn't think you so foolish to believe a mindless, non-existent Time God made all his stuff, and that some of these parts are just as complicated or even more than his, because we don't understand how these parts work and Scotty does his, and yet these two gentlemen expect you to believe in their Time God who is non-existent is so brilliant to create such tiny marvels. Then I would ask them who has faith in your mindless nothingness Time God?, raise your hands. Then I would ask who believes these motors require intelligence acting on matter to work, with the video of the planetary geared system turning in the background?, that's when the snickering would begin. And by the way, I posted the explanation challenge to you both. Poor tactic, only makes me more motivated to educate our audience here further on this.
http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/11/22/...
This is why you always fail. You come up with these ridiculous stories instead of presenting evidence. The 5th graders would probably think either of those stories were boring and run off to recess.

You live in a fantasy world. I can't imagine you are much older than a 5th grader. Don't you have any self respect?

Now how about some evidence to support your wild ass claim instead of some poor and pointless what if story about you and your classmates.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104991
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>so you are saying a god, if there were one, would be life?
no corporeal body, no substance. wouldn't that just be some kind of energy?
Damn Tick! have you been infected by the evo lying bug too?

where did I say that?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104992
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad that Webster agrees with us. His definition does not rule out abiogenesis by God:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abi...
" the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter"
They do sound a bit skeptical, which means some creatards may have written this and incorrectly let their bias through.
The same people probably also wrote the dictionary definition for their medical dictionary, here their bias led them to an error equating abiogenesis with spontaneous generation:
" the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matterócalled also spontaneous generation; compare biogenesis"
If you want to discuss why abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation I would be happy to discuss that.
I see you read some of the pessimistic articles that I spoke of,.....ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,. Thanks, you are not intelligent enough for debate, only ridicule,..go away. Talking to you is like trying to play golf with someone who shoots 150 and claims he's a scratch golfer

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104993
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless of course the creator.... created life by abiogenesis.
Hey Fool, your stupid button is still on. I guess the denial program won't let it turn off.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104994
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Really? Where are these supposedly pessimistic articles?
And of course it is reasonable to assume that chemicals can make life on their own. All other foolish claims of "God did it" have been busted to date, why do you think that this last one won't be?
So what evidence do you have that support your beliefs except for your lack of faith in the abilities of scientists?
Play golf today? what did you shoot 65 or 66
mike hock

Lansdale, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104995
Nov 5, 2013
 
The god argument is based on fear and fear alone. fear of the unknown. fear of mortality . the rest are just arguments to justify that fear. you are jealous of the birds and the bees because without intelligence they are free of these horrors. but be careful, scientists, with your perspective. don't be arrogant. evolution is a zero sum game. we traded our youth for intelligence, leaving us vulnerable to all sort of indoctrinations and dependancies, what with our big heads and all..always consider that whatever it is, we could be looking at it all wrong. that said, never, ever cop out and resort to make believe. the continuum in which we exist is too wonderous and awe inspiring to turn our back on in such ways

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104996
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad that Webster agrees with us. His definition does not rule out abiogenesis by God:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abi...
" the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter"
They do sound a bit skeptical, which means some creatards may have written this and incorrectly let their bias through.
The same people probably also wrote the dictionary definition for their medical dictionary, here their bias led them to an error equating abiogenesis with spontaneous generation:
" the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matterócalled also spontaneous generation; compare biogenesis"
If you want to discuss why abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation I would be happy to discuss that.
Wow! you shot 59! PGA record

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104997
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! you shot 59! PGA record
Poor bohart. Even his comic relief suck of late.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104998
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
SBT, what sort of point are you trying to make here?
Your links have only shown that they are working on the details of how the flagellum works. How it evolved is another problem. That was solved years ago, as you pointed out.
We don't need to know how something works necessarily to know how it evolved. Do you understand this?
He made his point beautifully,...that you are an idiot to believe that crap, you are also to much of an idiot to even know it.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#104999
Nov 5, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I see you read some of the pessimistic articles that I spoke of,.....ha,ha,ha,ha,ha,. Thanks, you are not intelligent enough for debate, only ridicule,..go away. Talking to you is like trying to play golf with someone who shoots 150 and claims he's a scratch golfer
There are no pessimistic articles. Thanks for confirming this fact by not providing any evidence.

Now I don't gold, I am not that old yet.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105000
Nov 5, 2013
 
Sorry "gold" should be "golf".

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105001
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This is why you always fail. You come up with these ridiculous stories instead of presenting evidence. The 5th graders would probably think either of those stories were boring and run off to recess.
You live in a fantasy world. I can't imagine you are much older than a 5th grader. Don't you have any self respect?
Now how about some evidence to support your wild ass claim instead of some poor and pointless what if story about you and your classmates.
Hey don't worry that the 5th graders won't understand the goo mechanism, degreed biologists don't either. L.O.L

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#105002
Nov 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Too bad that Webster agrees with us. His definition does not rule out abiogenesis by God:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abi...
" the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matter"
They do sound a bit skeptical, which means some creatards may have written this and incorrectly let their bias through.
The same people probably also wrote the dictionary definition for their medical dictionary, here their bias led them to an error equating abiogenesis with spontaneous generation:
" the supposed spontaneous origination of living organisms directly from lifeless matterócalled also spontaneous generation; compare biogenesis"
If you want to discuss why abiogenesis is not spontaneous generation I would be happy to discuss that.
Here is some more sucking bone idiocy:

He comments on his own post saying they are skeptical, must have been written by creatards.

And the writers of the dictionary let their bias lead them to error!

And this is what he posts to support himself!

He is really a idiot on a megaton scale.
It's really not even fun to mock him anymore,
he's doing so great on his own.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••