Evolution vs. Creation

Jan 6, 2011 Read more: Best of New Orleans 160,116
High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108523 Jan 31, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Troll.
Troll.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108524 Jan 31, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your idiocy is to continue making an irrelevant argument about an irrelevant subject.
Unless you can actually state how ownership of the English language matters to this debate, you are just wasting people's time.
And that does not change the truth.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108525 Jan 31, 2014
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>It's still you, Chucky... but it is what you shine at, and that will always be amusing... in a pathetic sort of way
That is why truth is bitter.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108526 Jan 31, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
I just laid out an argument on why you are wrong. Rebut or retract.
Don't applaud your self yet, D. Because England are solely called the English. So, i am still right on that stand.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108527 Jan 31, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Then if you don't mean ownership, stop saying ownership.
As long as there are still people called the English i am justified by my statement.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108528 Jan 31, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I accept the fact life had a beginning,
Okay then.
bohart wrote:
what I and any reasoning sentient being
You are not a reasoning sentient being, and neither is anyone who shares your position. Your argument stems from incredulity. This is a logical fallacy.
bohart wrote:
cannot accept is that
What you can personally accept is irrelevant. You are simply not that important.
bohart wrote:
dead lifeless matter self assembled into an organized fashion and sprang to life
This contradicts your first sentence. If life had a beginning (as the evidence indicates) then at some point lifeless matter was assembled and became life. If not then life must stretch infinitely into the past, but there is zero evidence of this. In fact evidence points against it due to life having a beginning around 3.5 billion years ago, and the universe having a beginning around 13.71 billion years ago.

The other part you ignore is that everything that makes up our bodies was once non-living matter. This shows your argument that lifeless matter cannot become alive is irrational to the core.
bohart wrote:
If you do please, using the scientific method show the observable ,repeatable , and testable experiment that proves it,
No problem. Examine any living organism and you will find it's comprised of elements which were at one time in the past not alive. Iron is not alive, yet it flows through your body. Carbon is not alive, yet you are a carbon based lifeform. We eat dead things, and this non-living fuel is converted into living matter via chemical processes, which go to make up part of the chemical bag around it or used to make another one, which we call a baby. You can even examine the geological record which indicates that life began around 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago.
bohart wrote:
or you can just keep on squawking.
I'll leave that to you. I continue to point out the facts while you merely repeat fallacies I've debunked time and time again. Since you've never been able to modify your argument and present counter-rebuttals this explains your two or three year losing streak. You know this, I know this, the rest of this thread know this.

And this is why you don't even have the slightest clue how complexity is measured in the context you're using it. Otherwise you'd have been able to tell me how to measure the difference between a paper plane and space shuttle by now. You said you were gonna go slow in explaining it to me Bo, but turns out you went so slow you stopped.

And that's why your argument is a lie. Because you can't claim your complexity argument is valid if you don't even know how to validate it.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108529 Jan 31, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Good luck with that. We've been telling him that for 2 years now.
You are ignorant.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108530 Jan 31, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously Discord, it's a circular argument. You waste 2 months arguing with him just to end up back on square 1, and then someone else steps in and goes through the whole cycle again...
And again...
And so on.
It's becoming pretty obvious that he's just trolling the same bait, trying to get new bites. We've all bitten, several times. Troll me once...
Why do you hate the truth?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108531 Jan 31, 2014
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Some romans would state picts and britons and more exotic names were used. 449 CE
It took till about 550 CE until the Angels, Saxons and Jute had some real foothold.
Using the name Brits would be going back to a former idea of unity, since that in fact never really happened. But this kind of souvereignity is a source of pride.
The lingo used now was as far as i know invented by BBC radio.
And that does not change the fact that English originated in England.
EXPERT

Redding, CA

#108532 Jan 31, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>And that does not change the fact that English originated in England.
Is that like Chinese originated in China?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108533 Jan 31, 2014
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Sounds like you are a little confused here.
First you go with the assumption that life has an origin. Not sure why you accept this, universal laws in science or other reasons.
It's not an assumption, it's observed.

Of course it's always possible that either life had an earlier origin further back in time, for which there's no evidence, or stretches infinitely into the past, which contradicts evidence. Occam's Razor therefore would suggest that life's origin occurred about 3.5 billion years ago here on Earth.
EXPERT wrote:
Then you suggest an organization of matter (chemical) theory. Uniformity in Nature? You willing to accept that?
Problem? Also one must be careful that they don't use terms like "organisation" in a loaded way, such as implying that "organisation" requires intelligence. This doesn't apply to chemistry, because particular chemicals act and react with each other in particular ways, leading to predictable consequences. Which is why we know H2O makes water, and never platinum.
EXPERT wrote:
Lastly you've stated that it need only happen once. That claim seems to mean that those searching for life outside of our planet are waisting their time.
Not really. Life starting here has no bearing on whether or not life started anywhere else.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108534 Jan 31, 2014
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
BS!!! I have learned from experience in the last 4 years, especially in the last 6-8 months that if there is a god he doesn't care. Waiting on god to help is nothing but a dead end and you will die before it happens.
Even the Bible tells you that.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#108535 Jan 31, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are ignorant.
BONG!!!

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#108536 Jan 31, 2014
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Some romans would state picts and britons and more exotic names were used. 449 CE
It took till about 550 CE until the Angels, Saxons and Jute had some real foothold.
Using the name Brits would be going back to a former idea of unity, since that in fact never really happened. But this kind of souvereignity is a source of pride.
The lingo used now was as far as i know invented by BBC radio.
And named Britannia by the Romans centuries before the Angles arrived on these shores

I have heard that the only people who actually speak the queenís English now hail from a small village in eastern Scotland

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#108537 Jan 31, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Why then do we have Scottish, Welsh, English and Irish in that UK?
Because all of them speaks a different language.
Nope they donít speak a different (first) language, they have different dialects on one language, in fact they have different dialects amongst the dialects,

And they are known as British because they are British you dumbo.

The Scottish are not English, but they are British (at the moment)

The Welsh are not English but they are British

The Northern Irish are not English but they are British

Britain in the for of Britannia was named long before part of it was named the land of the Angles, later shortened to England

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#108538 Jan 31, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> If you don't know, " all British are not English ". This is a fact.
All English are British, live with it and admit your are a pig ignorant pedantic moron

Stop trying to diminish my nationality with your pig ignorant silly bugger stupidity.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#108539 Jan 31, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Likewise. Your opinion as well.
Fool, factual knowledge is not opinion

And still you can provide no evidence to support your claim that goddunit wiv magic

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108540 Jan 31, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
All English are British, live with it and admit your are a pig ignorant pedantic moron
Stop trying to diminish my nationality with your pig ignorant silly bugger stupidity.
Yes they British politically and English culturally.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#108541 Jan 31, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> But even though, politically they hated the US, they all recognised that fact that, it started in the US?
What did basketball? Rubbish. It was played in various forms for almost 2000 years before America was even discovered.

And what has this got to do with your claim that the US are in control of the game globally?

The US is in control of the game in the US, nothing more. FYI, the US is not a global country, it stops at that bloody huge wall you call a border. So your god given US patriotism and complete ignorance of geography are doing you no good whatsoever

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#108542 Jan 31, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Politically, you are right to avoid England's dominance. But culturally you are WRONG.
There is no avoidance involved, England both politically, physically and culturally is a part of Britain

Why do you insist on trying to diminish my nationality and culture?

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
Word Association (Jun '10) 3 min KNIGHT DeVINE 27,280
News NC man's obituary urges readers to reject Hilla... 4 min dragoon70056 17
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 7 min DILF 5,440
Word goes to the Movies (Nov '08) 7 min KNIGHT DeVINE 14,263
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 7 min DILF 3,106
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 8 min DILF 28,418
Make up your wildest Headline. (Aug '08) 8 min dragoon70056 272
motorcycle traveling stories 33 min Sublime1 499
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 43 min TALLYHO 8541 40,174
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr wichita-rick 161,128
News Snubbed Girl, 10, Gets Party of a Lifetime 5 hr Spotted Girl 6
News Watch the bizarre moment when Scott Disick SHAV... 7 hr Christian Taliban 9
More from around the web