Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121949 Sep 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
A source would have been nice. But even if you found one evolutionary change is not demanded by the theory of evolution. That is not evidence against the theory of evolution.
Try again.
<quoted text>
Faith, by definition, is not evidence. It is belief in spite of a lack of evidence.
Try again.
And you are the one that is claiming there might be some validity for gods. That puts the burden of proof upon you.
<quoted text>
I never ignored it moron. I pointed out that it was a stupid question from the start. Why would science want to test for god?
And telling you that you asked an idiotic question and showing how it is idiotic, which I have done multiple times, is not ducking your question.
<quoted text>
No I didn't you idiot. Now you are lying. I said if you want to claim something exists it is up to you to provide evidence. You are probably too dense to understand the difference.
<quoted text>
Wrong again. Time to pull your head out of your ass. It is not a trick. It simply shows how foolish your unsupported beliefs are. You want us to believe in your god that is not supported by evidence and yet you cannot explain how your god is different in any way from Russell's Magic Teapot.
what does all your name calling do for you besides make you look foolish. make you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside? all tingly? LOL

when debating one must remember "it is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.” name calling only shows weakness: General Henry M. Robert, U.S. Army- Roberts Rules of Order 1876.

there are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic
all other debate tactics(ridicule, names, etc) are intellectually dishonest: General Henry M. Robert, U.S. Army- Roberts Rules of Order 1876.

your favorite which you use all the time is argumentum ad hominem because you resort to name calling and attacking the person just as much if not more than the topic. pat yourself on the back. lol
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121950 Sep 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
A source would have been nice. But even if you found one evolutionary change is not demanded by the theory of evolution. That is not evidence against the theory of evolution.
again I ask you where have I ever said evolution is wrong or posted anything and said it is evidence against evolution? that is just your made up bs because I don't 100% agree with you.

a source. it is called "google" look it up yourself.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121951 Sep 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that science cannot disprove God. I also think that this is not the core of the arguments on topix or anywhere else.
The argument is whether one should take seriously a bronze age account of God versus the evidence and theories of modern science. "God" is a possibility. "God" as represented in the Bible or Koran is an absurdity.
i agree the bible is full of stretched truths and ad elaborated on's to the stories. man still does those same things in this day and age. heII even science does that some.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121952 Sep 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that science cannot disprove God. I also think that this is not the core of the arguments on topix or anywhere else.
The argument is whether one should take seriously a bronze age account of God versus the evidence and theories of modern science. "God" is a possibility. "God" as represented in the Bible or Koran is an absurdity.
les try this again. with the right words.

i agree the bible is full of stretched truths and exaggerated add on's to the stories. man still does those same things in this day and age. heII even science does that some.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121953 Sep 7, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah the planet kolob is where he is...lol.
isn't it time for you to go do your nails. why your are at it get a pedicure and a foot detox. you will feel better after that. lol

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121954 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
what does all your name calling do for you besides make you look foolish. make you feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside? all tingly? LOL
when debating one must remember "it is not the man, but the measure, that is the subject of debate.” name calling only shows weakness: General Henry M. Robert, U.S. Army- Roberts Rules of Order 1876.
there are two intellectually-honest debate tactics:
1) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s facts
2) pointing out errors or omissions in your opponent’s logic
all other debate tactics(ridicule, names, etc) are intellectually dishonest: General Henry M. Robert, U.S. Army- Roberts Rules of Order 1876.
your favorite which you use all the time is argumentum ad hominem because you resort to name calling and attacking the person just as much if not more than the topic. pat yourself on the back. lol
What name calling? Calling an idiot an idiot is not name calling.

When you are losing terribly you always try to play the politeness card. When you think you are winning you like to call people "jackwagons". Now obviously we are not jackwagons. You cannot make the same claim about you being an idiot.

I started out very politely to you, but you decided to get stuck on stupid early on in the debate so I treated you that way.

Go back and look at the history of this most recent of debates.

If you don't like being called an idiot, don't be an idiot. When someone answers your questions don't lie and say that they did not. Especially when you have asked such stupid questions.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#121955 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
again I ask you where have I ever said evolution is wrong or posted anything and said it is evidence against evolution? that is just your made up bs because I don't 100% agree with you.
a source. it is called "google" look it up yourself.
You are still stuck on stupid I see.

This is why I need to keep reminding you that you are being an idiot. You made a claim, it is up to you to defend it with a valid source. And don't pretend that you are not a creationist at heart. You have a creationist's approach in almost every post of yours here. Dishonesty is your only forte here.

Why not try to argue honestly for once? You will still lose but people will not treat you like an idiot.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121956 Sep 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What name calling? Calling an idiot an idiot is not name calling.
When you are losing terribly you always try to play the politeness card. When you think you are winning you like to call people "jackwagons". Now obviously we are not jackwagons. You cannot make the same claim about you being an idiot.
I started out very politely to you, but you decided to get stuck on stupid early on in the debate so I treated you that way.
Go back and look at the history of this most recent of debates.
If you don't like being called an idiot, don't be an idiot. When someone answers your questions don't lie and say that they did not. Especially when you have asked such stupid questions.
then lets make this short. calling you an arrogant asss would be fitting to you and not name calling then right? lol
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121957 Sep 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What name calling? Calling an idiot an idiot is not name calling.
When you are losing terribly you always try to play the politeness card. When you think you are winning you like to call people "jackwagons". Now obviously we are not jackwagons. You cannot make the same claim about you being an idiot.
I started out very politely to you, but you decided to get stuck on stupid early on in the debate so I treated you that way.
Go back and look at the history of this most recent of debates.
If you don't like being called an idiot, don't be an idiot. When someone answers your questions don't lie and say that they did not. Especially when you have asked such stupid questions.
does science look for a god?
does science know how to test for a god?
does science know where to test for agod?
does science have tests for a god.

you only call them stupid because you are to much of a coward(it fits so it is not name calling) to answer them honestly because it will show your question of "show scientific evidence for a god" a moronic question.

“Move into the light.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#121958 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
does science look for a god?
does science know how to test for a god?
does science know where to test for agod?
does science have tests for a god.
you only call them stupid because you are to much of a coward(it fits so it is not name calling) to answer them honestly because it will show your question of "show scientific evidence for a god" a moronic question.
It's all in your head.

http://vimeo.com/22669312
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121959 Sep 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are still stuck on stupid I see.
This is why I need to keep reminding you that you are being an idiot. You made a claim, it is up to you to defend it with a valid source. And don't pretend that you are not a creationist at heart. You have a creationist's approach in almost every post of yours here. Dishonesty is your only forte here.
Why not try to argue honestly for once? You will still lose but people will not treat you like an idiot.
what claim did I make? the only claim I made is that we do not know if there is a god or not. you are the one that claims there isn't and you only claim that by what you believe and the argument from silence fallacy because your conclusion is based on the absence of evidence, rather than the existence of evidence. you are a fallacy fool and don't even know it.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121960 Sep 7, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
It's all in your head.
http://vimeo.com/22669312
does science look for a god?
does science know how to test for a god?
does science know where to test for agod?
does science have tests for a god.

i find it hilarious that you all duck, dodge and avoid these questions on the mere fact if you answered them it would make you look like fools when asking the creationists for scientific evidence for god. lmao.

Since: Jul 14

Location hidden

#121961 Sep 7, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is? Heavens to Betsy!
Dear Diary. Today my good friend Adolph told me that German is the coolest language on earth, even though it sounds like vomiting and explosive diarrhea. He should know though. He is 100% Douche.
So this sounds like vomiting?


You also see beautiful German women in this video.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121962 Sep 7, 2014
deutscher Nationalstolz wrote:
<quoted text>
So this sounds like vomiting?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =eRzbWPJHFqYXX
You also see beautiful German women in this video.
just teach your women to shave their legs and under arms. I hated that when I was over there. lol

“Peter hole is a pink twatt”

Since: Aug 14

Los Angeles, CA

#121963 Sep 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree that science cannot disprove God. I also think that this is not the core of the arguments on topix or anywhere else.
The argument is whether one should take seriously a bronze age account of God versus the evidence and theories of modern science. "God" is a possibility. "God" as represented in the Bible or Koran is an absurdity.
When are we going to superhuman. when religion of athiesm will dominate the world

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121964 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
does science look for a god?
does science know how to test for a god?
does science know where to test for agod?
does science have tests for a god.
i find it hilarious that you all duck, dodge and avoid these questions on the mere fact if you answered them it would make you look like fools when asking the creationists for scientific evidence for god. lmao.
Actually pretty much everyone here has openly answered your questions squarely as follows:

does science look for a god? NO
does science know how to test for a god? NO
does science know where to test for a god? NO
does science have tests for a god. NO

That does not alter the fact that humans in general HAVE looked for some evidence or proof or test of God for 4000 years and have nothing useful to offer for their efforts.

Science on the other hand has made enormous progress with the questions it is equipped to ask, and answer. Including the development and diversification of life.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121965 Sep 7, 2014
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually pretty much everyone here has openly answered your questions squarely as follows:
does science look for a god? NO
does science know how to test for a god? NO
does science know where to test for a god? NO
does science have tests for a god. NO
That does not alter the fact that humans in general HAVE looked for some evidence or proof or test of God for 4000 years and have nothing useful to offer for their efforts.
Science on the other hand has made enormous progress with the questions it is equipped to ask, and answer. Including the development and diversification of life.
actually you are the only one that has answered them and answered them honestly. if you can find a yes or no answer from anyone else, please post them because I never saw them.

humans could have looked for god for 100,000 years but without knowledge of how and what to look for it would be a waste of time. which is why evolution was not found out until roughly 250 years ago.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#121966 Sep 7, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
i think I have it figured out. you are still pissed because i actually am a rich educated guy from branson,(now staying at my small ranch in texas for a bit but will be back to missouri soon) and not a loser like you who's life evolves around topix. lmmfao.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121967 Sep 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
actually you are the only one that has answered them and answered them honestly. if you can find a yes or no answer from anyone else, please post them because I never saw them.
humans could have looked for god for 100,000 years but without knowledge of how and what to look for it would be a waste of time. which is why evolution was not found out until roughly 250 years ago.
So, the conclusion for now must be:

1. So far we have no reliable way of knowing if God exists or not.
2. We have developed reliable ways of learning other things through the scientific method.

Where an evidence based theory based on (2) is in conflict with a mere conjecture such as "six day creation" based on (1), then choose (2).

Should be that easy.

In fact its worse for Biblical creationists because even if God does exist, "the Bible is True" is not a statement that would automatically follow from that.

And its even better for evolutionists, because the statement "God exists" would be perfectly compatible with evolution, too.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#121968 Sep 7, 2014
Manbrahmos wrote:
<quoted text>
When are we going to superhuman. when religion of athiesm will dominate the world
Lack of belief in something is not a religion.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min wichita-rick 159,909
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 18 min Tonk 101 5,677
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 27 min Wolftracks 39,995
Let's Play Songs Titled with Two Words ... 28 min wichita-rick 611
Word Association (Jun '10) 38 min wichita-rick 26,982
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 43 min andet1987 408
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) 46 min andet1987 566
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 2 hr Beautiful Black M... 200
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 3 hr honeymylove 139,790
More from around the web