Comments
241 - 260 of 834 Comments Last updated Thursday Jul 24
Lincoln

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#247
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Two types of funny Atheists

1. The live and let live atheists who don't shove their opinions down any ones throat. These people have lives.

2. The arrogant, intolerant trolls who spend all day long bitching and trolling on the threads.

They always talk about reason and logic but lack the logic to realize that no one is being persuaded by their intolerance.

Evangelical atheists are postive that there is no afterlife yet they spend that only life on threads trolling people.

Most of them are 16 year olds who think that they are really cool even though they don't have any friends.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#248
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Lincoln wrote:
Two types of funny Atheists
1. The live and let live atheists who don't shove their opinions down any ones throat. These people have lives.
2. The arrogant, intolerant trolls who spend all day long bitching and trolling on the threads.
They always talk about reason and logic but lack the logic to realize that no one is being persuaded by their intolerance.
Evangelical atheists are postive that there is no afterlife yet they spend that only life on threads trolling people.
Most of them are 16 year olds who think that they are really cool even though they don't have any friends.
Two funny types of creationists:

1 - Creationists that have no concept of irony.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#249
Apr 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Lincoln wrote:
Two types of funny Atheists
1. The live and let live atheists who don't shove their opinions down any ones throat. These people have lives.
2. The arrogant, intolerant trolls who spend all day long bitching and trolling on the threads.
They always talk about reason and logic but lack the logic to realize that no one is being persuaded by their intolerance.
Evangelical atheists are postive that there is no afterlife yet they spend that only life on threads trolling people.
Most of them are 16 year olds who think that they are really cool even though they don't have any friends.
Evangelical atheists?
Thinking

Stockbridge, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#250
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Sources?
Lincoln wrote:
Most of them are 16 year olds who think that they are really cool even though they don't have any friends.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#251
Apr 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Evangelical atheists?
Anybody who disagrees with a creationist and wont put up with BS.

Oh! that's all of us.

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#252
Apr 26, 2013
 
Thinking wrote:
How many species of termite refrained from eating this mythical ark?
About 4000.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Termite
<quoted text>
I keep thinking of:-

http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Thinking

Stockbridge, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253
Apr 27, 2013
 
Little sod!
Richardfs wrote:
<quoted text>
I keep thinking of:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch...

Since: May 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#254
Apr 27, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually most fundies would claim that all species evolved from just one species of termite to save Noah space (and wood, presumably). You'll hear of similar stories if you mention any other animals with a wide variety of species. Of course this is particularly ironic, as this requires evolution at a rate which far outstrips actual evolution. Meaning every single animal species all died of irreversible cancers millenia ago, including the progeny of Noah and his crew. Therefore the flood is scientifically untenable. Or God used Godmagic to rescue the story and the flood is still scientifically untenable. Either way, the flood is scientifically untenable.
And that's only one of the many problems their global flood story has.
Noah's Ark refutation is interesting to you?

Dud, you can really hit those slow, underhanded softballs, huh?

You are forgetting the possibility that the Noah era was experiencing intense Global Warming.

I read that scientists are claiming global warming has sped up the rate of evolution.

They also claimed Global Warming caused that stingray or jellyfish or whatever the hell it was to kill Steve Erwyn, the crocodile hunter.

Science gives us lots of useful things. If a jellyfish jumps in your boat and tries to kill you, you are forewarned, thanks to science.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255
Apr 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
They also claimed Global Warming caused that stingray or jellyfish or whatever the hell it was to kill Steve Erwyn, the crocodile hunter.
Science gives us lots of useful things. If a jellyfish jumps in your boat and tries to kill you, you are forewarned, thanks to science.
lyimg does help your cause
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256
Apr 27, 2013
 
Buck Crick wrote:
<quoted text>
Noah's Ark refutation is interesting to you?
Dud, you can really hit those slow, underhanded softballs, huh?
You are forgetting the possibility that the Noah era was experiencing intense Global Warming.
I read that scientists are claiming global warming has sped up the rate of evolution.
That's nice Buckaroo. Now show the peer-reviewed study that it's been sped up to such a rate comparable with cancer but with a comparatively negligible effect on populations. I think medical researchers will be VERY interested in it. Oh, and don't forget to give us the "scientific theory" of ID while you're at it. You know, that thing that neither you nor the guys who invented it have been able to do since they made it up.

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257
May 2, 2013
 
Vestigial Organs

Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function, but to have once been useful in some evolutionary ancestor.a They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs.b For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix plays a role in antibody production, protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths,c and safely stores “good bacteria” that can replenish the intestines following bouts of diarrhea.d The absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.

a.“The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution.... An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” S. R. Scadding,“Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe,“Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).
c.“The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.” Gordon McHardy,“The Appendix,” Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.
“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system.” N. Roberts,“Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.
d.“... the human appendix is well suited as a ‘safe house’ for commensal bacteria, providing support for bacterial growth and potentially facilitating re-inoculation of the colon in the event that the contents of the intestinal track are purged following exposure to a pathogen.... the appendix ... is not a vestige.” R. Randal Bollinger et al.,“Biofilms in the Large Bowel Suggest an Apparent Function of the Human Vermiform Appendix,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 249, 2007, p. 826.

[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#258
May 2, 2013
 
Pahu wrote:
Vestigial Organs
Some structures in humans were once thought to have no function, but to have once been useful in some evolutionary ancestor.a They were called vestigial organs. As medical knowledge has increased, at least some function has been discovered for all alleged vestigial organs.b For example, the human appendix was once considered a useless remnant from our evolutionary past. The appendix plays a role in antibody production, protects part of the intestine from infections and tumor growths,c and safely stores “good bacteria” that can replenish the intestines following bouts of diarrhea.d The absence of true vestigial organs implies evolution never happened.
a.“The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution.... An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.” S. R. Scadding,“Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
b. Jerry Bergman and George Howe,“Vestigial Organs” Are Fully Functional (Terre Haute, Indiana: Creation Research Society Books, 1990).
c.“The appendix is not generally credited with substantial function. However, current evidence tends to involve it in the immunologic mechanism.” Gordon McHardy,“The Appendix,” Gastroenterology, Vol. 4, editor J. Edward Berk (Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co., 1985), p. 2609.
“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system.” N. Roberts,“Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.
d.“... the human appendix is well suited as a ‘safe house’ for commensal bacteria, providing support for bacterial growth and potentially facilitating re-inoculation of the colon in the event that the contents of the intestinal track are purged following exposure to a pathogen.... the appendix ... is not a vestige.” R. Randal Bollinger et al.,“Biofilms in the Large Bowel Suggest an Apparent Function of the Human Vermiform Appendix,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 249, 2007, p. 826.
[From "In the Beginning" by Walt Brown]
First of all, you've selected only a few vestigial features to discredit all of them.

Second, it's not that these things serve no function, it's that they no longer serve the function for which they evolved in the first place.

We have bones in our ears which are connected to nothing. They were once part of a muscle group used for rotating ears in other mammals. We have since lost that ability, yet pieces of it remain.

The Appendix was a more necessary organ when it originally evolved to help digest the excessive unprocessed plant matter which was a large part of the diet.

And those two examples don't cover things like whale legs for which there can be no explanation without evolution

Since: Dec 08

Palm Harbor, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#259
May 2, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And as we've already established that Walt Brown is a long-refuted non-scientist liar for Jesus your continued spamming of his apologetics is yet further evidence that your complete and utter total lack of honesty is not an issue for you whatsoever.[/quote]

Pahu: Walt Brown is a scientist who has never been refuted and his conclusions are confirmed by the scientists he quotes, such as:

Scott Tremaine, David Stevenson, William R. Ward, Robin M. Canup, Fred Hoyle, Michael J. Drake, Kevin Righter, George W. Wetherill, Richard A. Kerr, Luke Dones, B. Zuckerman, Renu Malhotra, David W. Hughes, M. Mitchell Waldrop, Larry W. Esposito, Shigeru Ida, Jack J. Lissauer, Charles Petit, P. Lamy, L. F. Miranda, Rob Rye, William R. Kuhn, Carl Sagan, Christopher Chyba, Stephen W. Hawking, Don N. Page, Huw Price, Peter Coles, Jayant V. Narlikar, Edward R. Harrison, Govert Schilling, Eric J. Lerner, Francesco Sylos Labini, Marcus Chown, Adam Riess, James Glanz, Mark Sincell, John Travis, Will Saunders, H. C. Arp, Gerard Gilmore, Geoffrey R. Burbidge, Ben Patrusky, Bernard Carr, Robert Irion, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Hellemans, Robert Matthews, M. Hattori, Lennox L. Cowie, Antoinette Songaila, Chandra Wickramasinghe, A. R. King, M. G. Watson, Charles J. Lada, Frank H. Shu, Martin Harwit, Michael Rowan-Robinson, P. J. E. Peebles, Joseph Silk, Margaret J. Geller, John P. Huchra, Larry Azar, J. E. O’Rourke, Peter Forey, J. L. B. Smith, Bryan Sykes, Edward M. Golenberg, Jeremy Cherfas, Scott R. Woodward, Virginia Morell, Hendrick N. Poinar, Rob DeSalle, Raúl J. Cano, Tomas Lindahl, George O. Poinar, Jr., Monica K. Borucki, Joshua Fischman, John Parkes, Russell H. Vreeland, Gerard Muyzer, Robert V. Gentry, Jeffrey S. Wicken, Henry R. Schoolcraft, Thomas H. Benton, Bland J. Finlay, Peter R. Sheldon, Roger Lewin, etc.

The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals:

American journal of science
Astronomical journal
Astrophysics and space science
Astrophysical journal
Bioscience
Geology
Icarus
Journal of Theoretical Biology
Nature
New scientist
Physics Today
Physical review
Physical review d
Physical review letters
Science
Space science reviews
The American Journal of Science and Arts

[quote]So I ask again, why continue to ignore the 9th Commandment when you know your claims can't ever be validated due to their reliance on magic, which you yourself have even admitted? This of course makes EVERY religious claim ever invented JUST as valid, rendering your religious myths no more valid than Islam, Hindi, or ancient Egyptian.[/quote]

Pahu: Nonsense! Evolution is magic without a magician. The miracles in the Bible can also be considered "magic" but are backed up by hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies proving the divine authorship:

Bible Accuracy

1. Archaeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of the Bible:

http://www.inplainsite.org/html/the_rocks_cry...
http://christiananswers.net/q-abr/abr-a008.ht...
http://www.campuslight.org/wvu/EvidencesCFait... http://www.christiananswers.net/archaeology/h...

2. The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/science...

3. The Bible is filled with hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies:

http://www.aboutbibleprophecy.com/
http://www.100prophecies.org/
http://www.allaboutthejourney.org/bible-proph...
http://www.reasons.org/fulfilled-prophecy-evi...
http://www.allabouttruth.org/Bible-Prophecy.h...

No other book, religious or secular, comes close to those requirements.

[quote]Science in the meantime continues to provide us with something useful.
Pahu: True, but evolution is anti-science.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#260
May 2, 2013
 
Pahu wrote:
<quoted text>
Pahu: True, but evolution is anti-science.
With the exception of every single example.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#261
May 2, 2013
 
Pahu wrote:
Walt Brown is a scientist who has never been refuted and his conclusions are confirmed by the scientists he quotes
Except they aren't. That's why he avoids scientific peer-review and appeals to fellow apologists or quote-mines real scientists.
Pahu wrote:
The above scientists were quoted from the following peer review science journals
All those journals accept evolution. None creationism. So you're lying again.
Pahu wrote:
Nonsense! Evolution is magic without a magician.


No, evolution has been demonstrated. Your incredulity and lack of education in the subject doesn't make it magic.
Pahu wrote:
The miracles in the Bible can also be considered "magic" but are backed up by hundreds of accurately fulfilled prophecies proving the divine authorship
Bible said the world is flat. Bible said global flood. Plain wrong. Therefore I dispute your baseless claims of divine authorship.
Pahu wrote:
The Bible is not a science book, yet is scientifically accurate
False, see above.
Pahu wrote:
True, but evolution is anti-science.
Which is why you've been unable to address it yet.(shrug) And we both know this because you're spamming cut & paste BS from a reality-denying liar for Jesus and non-scientist.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#262
May 2, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
All those journals accept evolution. None creationism. So you're lying again.
And to point out, Walt Brown is a YEC. As is the vast majority of Pahu's religious sources. May Jesus forgive him for he knows not what he does...
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#263
May 2, 2013
 
Pahu wrote:
The Law of Biogenesis
Spontaneous generation (the emergence of life from nonliving matter) has never been observed. All observations have shown that life comes only from life. This has been observed so consistently it is called the law of biogenesis. The theory of evolution conflicts with this scientific law when claiming that life came from nonliving matter through natural processes (a).
Evolutionary scientists reluctantly accept the law of biogenesis (b). However, some say that future studies may show how life could come from lifeless matter, despite the virtually impossible odds. Others say that their theory of evolution doesn’t begin until the first life somehow arose. Still others say the first life was created, then evolution occurred. All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific observations, life comes only from life.
[continue]
(All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific evidence , life comes only from life)

Well not ALL evolutionists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#264
May 2, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
(All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific evidence , life comes only from life)
Well not ALL evolutionists.
Gee Bo, you really think this dumb argument suddenly becomes not dumb by posting it on a different thread?

First of all, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. A fact you are already aware of and have been for many many months. Second, EVERYTHING in your entire body is made up of stuff that was once not alive. Therefore life comes from non-life. Abiogenesis, no matter how it occurred, is also life coming from non-life. The reason being that the Earth being finite and all, there is a period in the rocks where there was no life on Earth. This is followed by a period with life, which has been here ever since. Therefore life came from non-life.

At this point you claim God made life, and maybe it did. And that God is alive (although for any of us who get to heaven we have to be dead first). And since God made life then life is coming from life. Except that God, being infinite and eternal and stuff violates your own rules meaning that NOT all life has to come from life. Also God's methods were ARTIFICIAL (not to mention magic). God was not engaged in any natural act of procreation, he was modelling human beings out of clay then using his magic breath to form their muscles, skeletons and internal organs. Humanity was his Frankenstein project. And he suffered the same failure as the good doctor. Of course all this is ignored for the sake of creationist bastardisation of Pasteur's so-called "law", because fundies have no choice but to misrepresent reality to argue for their position.

Speaking of which, Pahu just got caught with his pants down lying his azz off for Jesus (well actually he's been doing that since page 1). Interestingly enough though you appear to have no problem with this due to him being a fellow brother in Christ.
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#265
May 2, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee Bo, you really think this dumb argument suddenly becomes not dumb by posting it on a different thread?
First of all, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. A fact you are already aware of and have been for many many months. Second, EVERYTHING in your entire body is made up of stuff that was once not alive. Therefore life comes from non-life. Abiogenesis, no matter how it occurred, is also life coming from non-life. The reason being that the Earth being finite and all, there is a period in the rocks where there was no life on Earth. This is followed by a period with life, which has been here ever since. Therefore life came from non-life.
At this point you claim God made life, and maybe it did. And that God is alive (although for any of us who get to heaven we have to be dead first). And since God made life then life is coming from life. Except that God, being infinite and eternal and stuff violates your own rules meaning that NOT all life has to come from life. Also God's methods were ARTIFICIAL (not to mention magic). God was not engaged in any natural act of procreation, he was modelling human beings out of clay then using his magic breath to form their muscles, skeletons and internal organs. Humanity was his Frankenstein project. And he suffered the same failure as the good doctor. Of course all this is ignored for the sake of creationist bastardisation of Pasteur's so-called "law", because fundies have no choice but to misrepresent reality to argue for their position.
Speaking of which, Pahu just got caught with his pants down lying his azz off for Jesus (well actually he's been doing that since page 1). Interestingly enough though you appear to have no problem with this due to him being a fellow brother in Christ.
Liar,liar,liar, you are just a damn liar for the primordial sludge cult, that you and your evotards have deluded faith in. If you weren't so uneducated you might have a glimmer of knowledge about life.Those who believe in a creator have more sense and intelligence than all you sludgers put together.

1. liar
2.evotard.
3. uneducated.
4. were smarter than you.

Hey ,your primordial sludge defense mechanisms work rather well, Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#266
May 2, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
(All evolutionists recognize that, based on scientific evidence , life comes only from life)
Well not ALL evolutionists.
So, you are using this statement to argue that God created life on Earth?

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.

•••
•••