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 (Page 3,449)

Showing posts 68,961 - 68,980 of106,037
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73233
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you reference science web sites?
If necessary. Not that it matters to fundies. They ask for the science, they get the science, then they say the science is still wrong.

They just can't say why.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73234
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"The galaxy MACS0647-JD (inset) appears very young and is only a fraction of the size of our own Milky Way. The galaxy is about 13.3 billion light-years from Earth, the farthest galaxy yet known, and formed 420 million years after the Big Bang. Image taken by Hubble Space Telescope on Nov. 29, 2011, and released Nov. 15, 2012.
CREDIT: NASA, ESA, and M. Postman and D. Coe (STScI) and CLASH Team "
This alone is proof that science has the age of this stuff all wrong.
Science claims the universe 13.7 billion years old. This galaxy is 13.3 billion "LIGHT YEARS" away from earth.
The expansion of the universe is speeding up. Yet it is nowhere near the speed of light. This proves that the years and distances just don't add up.
Either that Galaxy is not 13.3 billion "LIGHT YEARS" away or the universe is much older.
WTF? Are you serious?

The galaxy appears young because the light started towards us 13.3 billion years ago when it WAS young.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73235
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>Weak. Very weak.
"It ranks first among the works of God"

The largest land animal every to live.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73236
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I finally realized who you mean when you are talking about KK. I thought it was a klan reference. It just seemed like a natural connection.
My apologies to Kitten for any comments made based on that error.
Originally that's what I thought he was referring to also, since he mentioned the Klan at the time.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73237
Jan 30, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"TOTAL lack of evidence when hundreds of professional archaeologists have been looking for over a hundred years is a sure sign that the event NEVER happened."
So by this then macroevolution never happened.
Of course it happened. Due to a preponderance of evidence, hardly a total lack of it.

Ya know, that hard sciencey stuff where you don't even know (or care) what we're talking about anyway?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73238
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny that many places have human foot prints been found crossing Dragon foot prints in the same stone.
And in front of news crews and cameras more rock was lifted off exposing more human tracks under other rock so there was noway they could have been faked.
Aw geez, Paluxy FAIL!

Even other fundies know not to use that one. What's next, the SLoT?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73239
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, your book made a claim with zero evidence therefore any water left "must" be from the flood.

Just ignore the fact there's zero evidence for and plenty of evidence against. But none of that matters when Godmagic fixes everything.
Only because you bury your head in the sand. Evidence of a world wide flood is world wide. From the claims on top of Everest to the Grand Canyon where the Colorado river would have had to flow up hill to create it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73240
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
intelligent does not mean the ability to talk. Steven Hawking can't talk on his own.
Hawking thinks creationism is BS and accepts evolution. In fact I'm pretty sure he's a signatory of Project Steve.

Since: Mar 09

Statesville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73241
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
intelligent does not mean the ability to talk. Steven Hawking can't talk on his own.
He did for yars...and to make light of his disease thagt YOUR GOD CANNOT DESTROY seems a bit short-sighted...of course he says more in silence than your bible says...go figure...are you really this childish to compare a CONFIRMED genius with ALS(who was supposed to be dead 25 years ago) with ANYTHING...you have no excuse for being an idiot...MR HAwking, despite his limitations on self-verbalized communication is unquestionably one of the great minds of our generation...yet your god is helpless tocure a little disease...hmmm...I;ll have to kick a nun in the teeth today, I guess...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73242
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
I heard it was only 50,000 years.
"Carbon dating is used to determine the age of biological artifacts up to 50,000 years old. This technique is widely used on recent artifacts, but teachers should note that this technique will not work on older fossils (like those of the dinosaurs which are over 65 million years old). This technique is not restricted to bones; it can also be used on cloth, wood and plant fibers. Carbon-14 dating has been used successfully on the Dead Sea Scrolls, Minoan ruins and tombs of the pharohs among other things."
50,000 is usual, very occasionally up to 100,000 maybe at a push. But certainly no more than that. This is why it's rarely used as evidence for evolution. That's still not stopped some creo's from saying "evolution is wrong cuz carbon dating is inaccurate!" though.

Since: Mar 09

Statesville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73243
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Only because you bury your head in the sand. Evidence of a world wide flood is world wide. From the claims on top of Everest to the Grand Canyon where the Colorado river would have had to flow up hill to create it.
Aren't you the idiot who thinks nuclear reactors(Fission) operate the same as the Sun(Fusion)?

'Nuff said...

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73244
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

MikeF wrote:
Where do you come up with 'bytes'? That's a binary term. I see no correlation to DNA.
You can ask Ray, the author.

http://edge.org/memberbio/ray_kurzweil

Only less than 1 gig of info can be stored encoded in human genome. But because of redundancies in DNA, actual information content is less.

But accdg to Ray, the brain can store more info than that! trillions...compared to 6 billion bits.

"I come up with thousands of trillions of bytes of information to characterize what's in a brain, which is millions of times greater than what is in the genome."
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73245
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I like the scientific dating method used that the bones found with pottery is dated by the pottery and the pottery is dated by the bones found with it.
Bones aren't dated by the pottery. The pottery MAY be dated by the bones only IF there are intervening factors that prevent normal scientific dating methods to be used on the bones. However if the bones can be dated they are also able to be confirmed via multiple methods.

You guys then complain about science not taking YEC views into consideration, but then that's because you don't even understand the ramifications of your arguments.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73246
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Only because you bury your head in the sand. Evidence of a world wide flood is world wide. From the claims on top of Everest to the Grand Canyon where the Colorado river would have had to flow up hill to create it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/443...

Not to mention the civilizations that cruised right through it without skipping a beat.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73247
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
They never said it was. It was the force behind it that could've possessed intelligence.
Could. Or it might not.
Cybele wrote:
Universal Intelligence - wiki
Ray Kurzweil. Good with computers, science, not so good.

Since: Mar 09

Statesville, NC

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73248
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Only because you bury your head in the sand. Evidence of a world wide flood is world wide. From the claims on top of Everest to the Grand Canyon where the Colorado river would have had to flow up hill to create it.
Even some fundiots say you're wrong...

http://www.oldearth.org/grandcanyon.htm

Neeeeeeeeeeeeeeexxxxxxxxxxxxxx ttttttt, please...

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73249
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

GatorBUILT wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you the idiot who thinks nuclear reactors(Fission) operate the same as the Sun(Fusion)?
'Nuff said...
I don't think they're specifically talking about fission of uranium.

How Nuclear Fusion Reactors Work

Fusion reactors have been getting a lot of press recently because they offer some major advantages over other power sources. They will use abundant sources of fuel, they will not leak radiation above normal background levels and they will produce less radioactive waste than current fission reactors.

Fusion reactors are now in experimental stages at several laboratories in the United States and around the world.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/fusion-react...

So technically, nuclear fusion is possible.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73250
Jan 30, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
"The galaxy MACS0647-JD (inset) appears very young and is only a fraction of the size of our own Milky Way. The galaxy is about 13.3 billion light-years from Earth, the farthest galaxy yet known, and formed 420 million years after the Big Bang. Image taken by Hubble Space Telescope on Nov. 29, 2011, and released Nov. 15, 2012.
CREDIT: NASA, ESA, and M. Postman and D. Coe (STScI) and CLASH Team "
This alone is proof that science has the age of this stuff all wrong.
Science claims the universe 13.7 billion years old. This galaxy is 13.3 billion "LIGHT YEARS" away from earth.
The expansion of the universe is speeding up. Yet it is nowhere near the speed of light.
False. In fact the expansion of the universe can exceed the speed of light. And carry bodies along in the process.
Langoliers wrote:
This proves that the years and distances just don't add up.
Either that Galaxy is not 13.3 billion "LIGHT YEARS" away or the universe is much older.
You're failing to take factors into account. For if we say for the sake of argument that the universe expanded from a central point 13.7 billion years ago then that means it's at minimum 27.4 billion light years across. So we have no problem with seeing galaxies 13.3 light years away if they developed that fast. Especially if they ever travelled towards our direction at any point in time.

Although that's looking at things at a 3 dimensional point of view, in reality it would be even more complicated. Either way though I seriously doubt that some random netgeek just so happened to have found a fatal flaw that all the rest of the cosmologists in the world had failed to consider, do you?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73251
Jan 30, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You can ask Ray, the author.
http://edge.org/memberbio/ray_kurzweil
Only less than 1 gig of info can be stored encoded in human genome. But because of redundancies in DNA, actual information content is less.
But accdg to Ray, the brain can store more info than that! trillions...compared to 6 billion bits.
"I come up with thousands of trillions of bytes of information to characterize what's in a brain, which is millions of times greater than what is in the genome."
Well, if I bump in to Ray, I'll have to ask. Ray's a bright guy but not always correct. I'd like to know how the 'less than 1 gig' figure came from in a genome with about 3.2 billion base pairs. Especially when DNA would seem to be comparable to a quaternary number system rather than binary.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73252
Jan 30, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You really are clueless.
You're a creationist.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 68,961 - 68,980 of106,037
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••