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 3,785)

Showing posts 75,681 - 75,700 of105,857
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80155
Mar 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You idiot, I said the government is supposed to be indifferent to religion.
Why do all creatards have such low reading comprehension? They see a word that they don't like and their poor little overtaxed brains derail.
And no, laws cannot be based upon the Ten Commandments. They may say the same thing as some of the Commandments but if you base a law on the Commandments the odds are very high that it is unconstitutional.
I cannot believe that this idiot missed the point to my entire post.
I quoted exactly what you wrote, you said atheistic. If that is not what you meant to say, or you intended to say something else, then you should have used different words. It is not my fault that you have a problem communicating. Perhaps it is a matter of you learning to think before you speak.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80156
Mar 9, 2013
 
Cybele, what Matthew Maury and other have done is to find a way to cram science into the Bible by reinterpreting the Bible after the fact.

Muslims pull the same sort of nonsense with the Koran. I do not take them seriously and I don't take Christians seriously when they pull the same nonsense. The same thing is done with nonsense like the prophesies of Nostradamus. Of course the fun thing with historical events is that the same "prophecy" can come true several times. The same prophecy has been applied to the Twin Towers, Adolf Hitler, a Pope or two, and European royalty. Nostradamus really did not predict any of those events. Reinterpreting something after the fact does not impress me at all. I am more impressed with the terribly failed prophecies in the Bible.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80157
Mar 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There are two ways to be round. It could be round like a flat circle or round like a sphere.
The Jews had words for both a flat circle and a round sphere. Guess which one they always used. Also by context it describes a flat Earth. You cannot hang the "sky over the Earth as a tent" if the world is spherical, it can be done if the Earth is a flat round circle.
which bible verse are you referring to that points to a round flat earth?
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80158
Mar 9, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
If you read his statement he said
"Yet creationists tend not to believe that the Earth is flat" lol
Maybe a typo. But we all know it's a lie. There's not one creationist here that claims the Earth is flat or that is in a geocentric universe. He's digging into the past ape civilization and no one here is talking about a flat earth. In fact many creationists here talk about the laws of physics, scientific theories, quotes Einstein and other scientists, refutes evolution with real science, but they refuse to acknowledge that fact.
I don't know why he loves saying creationists think the Earth is flat. Mathematicians such as Eratosthene estimated the size of the Earth. The ancient Greeks tried to measure the circumference of the earth, then later determined the diameter. The Egyptians built the pyramids that coincided with the distances of Earth to the Sun and Orion, and measurements of the Earth. Many of the ancient civilizations learned astronomy and scientists today are still baffled about how they did it without the use of technology we have today.
So the only person saying the Earth is flat is the evolutionists using it as an ad hominem.
You are right.

They are using the fact that the languages are different enough- that we have more words to be more precise now that simply did not exist in the lexicon when the bible was written or translated in order to keep his claims alive.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80159
Mar 9, 2013
 
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I quoted exactly what you wrote, you said atheistic. If that is not what you meant to say, or you intended to say something else, then you should have used different words. It is not my fault that you have a problem communicating. Perhaps it is a matter of you learning to think before you speak.
I also put "atheist" in quotes to indicate it was not the traditional use of the word. Do I need to quote my own post to show how idiotically wrong you were?

I have no problem communicating. Creatards have a problem with reading. Not only of my posts, if that were so you might have a point. But of everybody's posts and scientific articles too.

Perhaps you should learn how to read before you respond.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80160
Mar 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
What is funny about the Ten Commandments is that the people who try to get the Ten Commandments into courtrooms normally get them wrong.
Now of course there are many laws in the Bible. When I talk about the Ten Commandments I am talking about the ones that were supposedly carved in stone by God. Not just any laws of God's of which there were hundreds.
So let's see how big of an idiot adif is when it comes to the Ten.
In modern day slang English, what would be the Tenth Commandment:
1. Goes to chruch
2. Don't boink the neighbors wife.
3. No Cheezebergerz!
4. Don't poop in the camp.
And yes, I know the wording is terrible, but of those 4 which one best represents the Tenth Commandment carved in stone?
Why do you act like you are a moron? I mean seriously, why? Posing a question that can easily be looked up as your question is being read along with the asinine possibilities you list sort of lowers everyone's IQ by 10 points just being on the same internet as you.

I know you really don't have anything productive to add so you find your self worth in attempting but failing to ridicule people as well as spouting the inaccuracies you are somehow convinced of. Doesn't it get old though? Or are you that special kind of person who can stare at a wall all day long?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80161
Mar 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
You are going downhill badly.
1. Darwin's theory has nothing to do whether there is a god or not.
I am sure that you are a Christian. Why do you think that it is okay for you to lie about the believers in evolution.
2. Hedonism and atheism are two totally separate ideas. You can be a hedonist if you are a Christian or an atheist. Again to imply a connection between atheism and hedonism to to perpetuate a lie.
3. Government is supposed to be "atheistic" in the U.S. in the sense that laws are not to be based upon religion. It is not supposed to be "atheistic" in the not believing in god sense. Just as physics is "atheistic" when it describes the gravity or the laws of thermodynamics. God does not belong in science unless there is evidence of god.
Lastly atheism is not a belief properly speaking.
It is a lack of belief.
Is not playing football a sport?
In the same sense atheism is not a religion. When it comes to beliefs the burden of proof is upon the person making the positive claim. In that sense I can defend a belief in the theory of evolution since there are literally mountains of evidence that support the theory. Most creationists do not even know what evidence is so they need to be educated in that matter first.
So when it comes to your belief in god if you want to use that as a claim you need to submit evidence for the existence of got first. We do not need to disprove the existence of god.
Here, adif. You can read it again here. Or go to page 3796 and read it for yourself.

You can see very clearly in my third point where I put the word atheistic in quotes and even defined how I was using the word.

How is that not crystal clear?

It seems that you have a problem whenever you see the word "atheism".
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80162
Mar 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The word was "incompatible" not "incomparable" moron. That means that they cannot breed with each other. Your dog example is incredibly bad since they can still breed. They are not ring species yet, whereas natural ring species have no "artificial" limits upon them.
lol.. Moron- what the hell are you talking about? Are you just grabbing posts and positing incoherent ramblings now thinking that you can somehow win by attrition or something? OF course the dogs can breed, that is what I said, why they are considered a ring species and claims of incompatibilities exist when that is only true if you limit the breed to club definitions and ignore all the genetically identical dogs that are of the same breed, is beyond me. Evidently, it is all lost on you too.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80163
Mar 9, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
which bible verse are you referring to that points to a round flat earth?
Here are a few: Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Luke 4:5, Isaiah 11:12, and Revelation 7:1.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80164
Mar 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Cybele, what Matthew Maury and other have done is to find a way to cram science into the Bible by reinterpreting the Bible after the fact.
Muslims pull the same sort of nonsense with the Koran. I do not take them seriously and I don't take Christians seriously when they pull the same nonsense. The same thing is done with nonsense like the prophesies of Nostradamus. Of course the fun thing with historical events is that the same "prophecy" can come true several times. The same prophecy has been applied to the Twin Towers, Adolf Hitler, a Pope or two, and European royalty. Nostradamus really did not predict any of those events. Reinterpreting something after the fact does not impress me at all. I am more impressed with the terribly failed prophecies in the Bible.
The same thing can be said with history books. If you could say that about the bible, then you would find bias in history content in many books as well. Do you believe everything about what they teach in history?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80165
Mar 9, 2013
 
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You are right.
They are using the fact that the languages are different enough- that we have more words to be more precise now that simply did not exist in the lexicon when the bible was written or translated in order to keep his claims alive.
Wrong, we are even more accurate now and we know that is not the case.

When the O.T. was translated into English for the King James Version they already knew that the Earth was spherical if anything they tried to squeeze the Bible into modern day, actually Middle Ages knowledge.

I love it how creationists always try to project their faults onto others.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80166
Mar 9, 2013
 
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>lol.. Moron- what the hell are you talking about? Are you just grabbing posts and positing incoherent ramblings now thinking that you can somehow win by attrition or something? OF course the dogs can breed, that is what I said, why they are considered a ring species and claims of incompatibilities exist when that is only true if you limit the breed to club definitions and ignore all the genetically identical dogs that are of the same breed, is beyond me. Evidently, it is all lost on you too.
Another reading fail by adif.

Once again, you were the idiot who said "incomparable" when the poster you were responding to used the word "incompatible". That meant the animals he was talking about could not breed. You were the idiot who brought up dogs and tried to claim they were ring species too. They aren't. Only a creatard would try to claim that they were.

How many times do you have to shoot yourself in the foot before you limp away?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80167
Mar 9, 2013
 
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you act like you are a moron? I mean seriously, why? Posing a question that can easily be looked up as your question is being read along with the asinine possibilities you list sort of lowers everyone's IQ by 10 points just being on the same internet as you.
I know you really don't have anything productive to add so you find your self worth in attempting but failing to ridicule people as well as spouting the inaccuracies you are somehow convinced of. Doesn't it get old though? Or are you that special kind of person who can stare at a wall all day long?
Afraid to answer the question moron?

Yes, you could go look it up. I bet you still get it wrong.

Go.

“official chess Grand master”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80168
Mar 9, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, but (a) God would not be bound by Einstein's equations, as it would exist in some sort of multiverse (heaven perhaps?) while making our universe, and perhaps others. Scientists already suspect that if other universes exist they could have different laws of physics at play in each. And as for evolution having no direction, well that's not a problem either. God could either be guiding it in a manner we're unaware of, or it could simply be playing dice.
Of course the nature of (a) God is still nothing more than philosophical speculation and can't be considered scientific until the fundies manage to come up with a falsifiable concept.
Don't come up with you're fancy scientific language, God is proven, scientists go with evolution more but God has been proven to exist.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80169
Mar 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I said for science that I do not link to atheist sites. And how is that site atheistic? It mere makes fun of a book written by a group of ignorant bronze age sheep humpers. It says nothing about the existence or non-existence of a god or gods.
The fact that your silly beliefs may have been debunked does not make a site atheistic. So that is another fail for you.
I love how believers in nonsense are more than happy to say what amounts to "magic" if their silly beliefs are shown to be wrong.
Okay fool, why did the Devil have to take Jesus anywhere? If he was going to use supernatural powers why didn't he show Jesus the world where they were? That seems a bit silly to claim they had to go somewhere high on the Earth for Devil magic to work.
lol.. You don't know who Schadewald is? Perhpas you are not stupid by choice and just hopelessly ignorant of relevant facts. Go look him up.

I bet you are sitting there stewing in your own juices thinking your goat humping comment will upset me or something. I love the tactics idiots employ when they have nothing useful to add. It reminds me of retarded children wanting more attention. Proof by all means that there is a god.

Why did the did the Devil have to take Jesus anywhere? Because that is what is claimed to have happened. You know, I purchased gasoline for my car at the gas station on the other side of town today. I didn't have to drive past the 3 or 4 other stations on the way, but I did because I wanted to. Are you now going to insist that I did so because I could only get gas across town or something? I mean your arbitrary assertions have no basis of necessity here. Things are done because they were done.

Now you are claiming that because two super natural beings did a supernatural act, that you have magically proved everything wrong and the fact that super natural beings doing super natural things is preposterous. You are a fool, a tool.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80170
Mar 9, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
The same thing can be said with history books. If you could say that about the bible, then you would find bias in history content in many books as well. Do you believe everything about what they teach in history?
Of course I don't believe everything that I read in history. My point is that retards like adif will try to claim that the Bible is perfect or some other such nonsense. He still believes the fairy tales in the Bible and probably misses the important parts of it.

My point is that if you are going to take certain idiotic parts of the Bible literally then you are a hypocrite if you don't take other idiotic parts of the Bible literally. I am not calling the whole Bible idiotic, only certain parts of it.

For example it is idiotic to believe that goats seeing striped sticks when they mate can make goats have striped kids. It is idiotic to believe that doves blood can cure leprosy. It is idiotic to believe that a flood covered the Earth with five miles of water and left no sign that it ever happened. It is idiotic to believe that a fish could swallow someone and that this person would not dye for three days, even if it was a whale and not a fish. It is idiotic to believe that a snake can talk. I could go on, but I think you get my gist.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80171
Mar 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Here are a few: Daniel 4:10-11, Matthew 4:8, Luke 4:5, Isaiah 11:12, and Revelation 7:1.
So you think that the ends of the Earth, quarters of the Earth, and four corners of the Earth assumes a flat Earth? That could've been translated into end of horizon or borders, and corners or quarters could mean North, South, East, West. Really the fault is in the translation or interpretation of the verse.
adif understanding

Lancaster, OH

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80172
Mar 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, we are even more accurate now and we know that is not the case.
When the O.T. was translated into English for the King James Version they already knew that the Earth was spherical if anything they tried to squeeze the Bible into modern day, actually Middle Ages knowledge.
I love it how creationists always try to project their faults onto others.
NO, there is no word for sphere in the language at the time of the bible's writing. This is simply a fact. You can look it up, the original word is &#1495;&#1493;&#14 68;&#1490; or transliterated as chuwg which according to strong's concordance carries a meaning of 1) circle, circuit, compass 2)(BDB) vault (of the heavens) and commonly expanded to sphere in modern times.

I'm not entirely sure why you love it when things you think happen simply do not. Perhpas if you would stop leading from ignorance and actually spend a bit of time understanding what you are talking about, you wouldn't look so foolish.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80173
Mar 9, 2013
 
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>lol.. You don't know who Schadewald is? Perhpas you are not stupid by choice and just hopelessly ignorant of relevant facts. Go look him up.
I bet you are sitting there stewing in your own juices thinking your goat humping comment will upset me or something. I love the tactics idiots employ when they have nothing useful to add. It reminds me of retarded children wanting more attention. Proof by all means that there is a god.
Why did the did the Devil have to take Jesus anywhere? Because that is what is claimed to have happened. You know, I purchased gasoline for my car at the gas station on the other side of town today. I didn't have to drive past the 3 or 4 other stations on the way, but I did because I wanted to. Are you now going to insist that I did so because I could only get gas across town or something? I mean your arbitrary assertions have no basis of necessity here. Things are done because they were done.
Now you are claiming that because two super natural beings did a supernatural act, that you have magically proved everything wrong and the fact that super natural beings doing super natural things is preposterous. You are a fool, a tool.
I really don't care who Schadewald was. He may or may not have been an atheist. That does not make that paper he wrote an "atheistic paper". In fact it clearly is not. All it does is to point out some errors in the Bible. You seem to not even understand what atheism is or what the word means. Just because somebody is against your idiotic beliefs does not make him an atheist or his work atheistic. For a work to be atheistic it needs to give reasons not to believe in God and that paper did not do that at all.

I do sometimes like to slap idiots like you with the fact that the Bible was not written by what we would call scholars.

And no, you do not get to use the lame excuse that the Devil took Jesus to a high place because the Bible said so. It said he took them to a high place specifically to show him the whole world. If you cannot see that is telling you that the world is flat then you are hopelessly dishonest.

Of course all creatards are either ignorant or dishonest and usually a combination of both. Not only are they ignorant about science they are very often ignorant about their own Bible and what it says.

You are a pathetic fool who cannot even defend your pathetic beliefs.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#80174
Mar 9, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think that the ends of the Earth, quarters of the Earth, and four corners of the Earth assumes a flat Earth? That could've been translated into end of horizon or borders, and corners or quarters could mean North, South, East, West. Really the fault is in the translation or interpretation of the verse.
Or like most uneducated people of that time they could have thought the world was flat.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 75,681 - 75,700 of105,857
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••