“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#620989 May 3, 2013
Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. Where are these fossils that appear "in between"
Whats up with all the Australians here on the Topix religious forums?

They're all creatards it seems.

Not that that's a bad thing of course.

All from Sydney or Adelaide?????

Baffling..:-)

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#620990 May 3, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Whats up with all the Australians here on the Topix religious forums?
They're all creatards it seems.
Not that that's a bad thing of course.
All from Sydney or Adelaide?????
Baffling..:-)
Hehehe.

Since: Mar 11

Melbourne, Australia

#620991 May 3, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
"You stare into your high definition plasma screen monitor, type into your cordless keyboard then hit enter which causes your computer to convert all that visual data into a binary signal that’s processed by millions of precise circuits, which is then converted to a frequency modulated signal to reach you wireless router where it is then converted to light waves and sent along a large fiber optics cable to be processed by a super computer on a mass server which then sends that bit you typed to a satellite orbiting the earth that was put there through the greatest feats of engineering and science, all so it could go back through a similar pathway to make it all the way here to my computer monitor 15,000 miles away from you just so you could say,“SCIENCE IS ALL A BUNCH OF MAN MADE HOGWASH!”- Anon.
I have know idea why you think what I wrote meant Science is a bunch of MM hogwash!
I think science is great.
Greens - tuf

Australia

#620992 May 3, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Whats up with all the Australians here on the Topix religious forums?
They're all creatards it seems.
Not that that's a bad thing of course.
All from Sydney or Adelaide?????
Baffling..:-)
Do you have a problem with us???

Since: Mar 11

Melbourne, Australia

#620997 May 3, 2013
Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it. Where are these fossils that appear "in between"
Aren't you on a computer? You can go to so many sights and see thousands of fossils. They explain it all, you can chat with other interested people and even ask questions of the many different scientists, fossil hunter's, etc.
These fossils haven't only been dug up and studied by one group of people, but by scientists from all over the world. All coming up with the same conclusions.
Type in evolution.

Since: Mar 11

Melbourne, Australia

#620998 May 3, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Whats up with all the Australians here on the Topix religious forums?
They're all creatards it seems.
Not that that's a bad thing of course.
All from Sydney or Adelaide?????
Baffling..:-)
I'm not.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621000 May 3, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>What? My post was about quantum physics so you must have had thoughts way in the gutter to pull that one out. You know what they say about interpreting images and hidden thoughts?
I would recnogize your uniquely bad style of butchering the english language anywhere. It's ok. Your secret is safe with me.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621001 May 3, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Which means that you are out of your element. Your rote accumulation of information only fits in small spaces. It falls apart when it has to be expanded upon.
Ugh. This is pointless. You didn't ask me to expand on anything. You said "the macro world does not follow the laws of quantum physics therefore quantum physics is 'false.'"

Am I really supposed to respond to that?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621002 May 3, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>Still nothing. It is a none debate adage, if you have to tell your opponent that you have won, it is clear that you do not think as much. Anyone can see that if you were to post your responses for another month, they would all look like this. Desperate.
The age of the world is not up for debate. Just like the shape of the world is not up for debate. I take you as seriously as I would take a flat earther.
Greens - tuf

Australia

#621006 May 3, 2013
saidI wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you on a computer? You can go to so many sights and see thousands of fossils. They explain it all, you can chat with other interested people and even ask questions of the many different scientists, fossil hunter's, etc.
These fossils haven't only been dug up and studied by one group of people, but by scientists from all over the world. All coming up with the same conclusions.
Type in evolution.
Gee, thanks for that.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621009 May 3, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>You wish that we take you serious, when your primary source of information is Wiki and that is where you direct people. You simply do not have any idea about ideas.
Would you like to ponder what an artist's rendering would be? For example, how do you think an artists rendering of a man from mars or a vampire would come out to be?
Yes, "transitional fossils" and no, you can not avoid the issue by side stepping and pretending that all fossils are transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are all the fossils that are missing at each stage of the theories of evolution. There absence is like a three story house without stairs.
No, the myth goes that there was this transitional species that evolved into both ape and man. Why was this theory developed? Because the evolution theory of apes evolving into man was laughed out of science, when scientists could not get around the idea of man and apes co-existing. They even theorized that humans had tails and the tails eventually fell off.
No, wiki is not the only source of my information, and yes, I direct people towards it because it usually provides a good introduction. From there, they can get into more technical stuff.

Artist's renderings are based on the bone structure of the fossils and what we know about their physical traits. It's not like they pull it out of their ass. I did not offer these depictions as absolute fact, only as a good way to see the progression from "ape like" to "human like," which they certainly are.

All fossils are transitional fossils. There is no point during evolution where there is an intentional intermediary stage between two extremes. Change happens gradually with certain traits appearing and disappearing over time.

So, you want our (man and the rest of the apes) common ancestor now? That wasn't what we were discussing. There are many possibilities, but no one species has been decided upon yet. So? Even if fossils didn't exist, the evidence for evolution would be overwhelming. Evidence for evolution. converges from *many* different scientific disciplines.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621010 May 3, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>You can't even repeat posted information, because you do not understand it. I said that the laws of physics do not operate at the quantum mechanism level.
The behaviour of matter and radiation on the atomic scale often seems peculiar, and the consequences of quantum theory are accordingly difficult to understand and to believe. Its concepts frequently conflict with common-sense notions derived from observations of the everyday world. There is no reason, however, why the behaviour of the atomic world should conform to that of the familiar, large-scale world. It is important to realize that quantum mechanics is a branch of physics and that the business of physics is to describe and account for the way the world—on both the large and the small scale—actually is and not how one imagines it or would like it to be.
There is an intriguing paradox. In spite of the overwhelming practical success of quantum mechanics, the foundations of the subject contain unresolved problems—in particular, problems concerning the nature of measurement. An essential feature of quantum mechanics is that it is generally impossible, even in principle, to measure a system without disturbing it; the detailed nature of this disturbance and the exact point at which it occurs are obscure and controversial. Thus, quantum mechanics attracted some of the ablest scientists of the 20th century, and they erected what is perhaps the finest intellectual edifice of the period.
First of all, stop plagarizing. Do you know why it's so easy to tell when you're plagarizing? It's because you're a terrible writer.

"The laws of physics do not operate at the quantum mechanism level."

WTF does that even mean? Do you mean to say that we cannot use classical relativistic physics to describe the quantum world? If so, what's your point? You would not be saying anything of substance.

Also, do you realize that the snippet you plagarized supports quantum physics? The measurement problem is a well known consequence of quantum physics. That doesn't mean it's "false."

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621011 May 3, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>I have no doubt that you are still clinging to the idea of a flat earth. You are right, the age of the earth is formulated to be around 6200 years. Your theory based on light years is juvenile, since time and space are not constants. Don't worry, your Wiki schooling is also obvious.
Yep. Earth is 6200 years old. Totally.

Also, let's assume I did get all my info from wiki, which I don't. Would that not still be infinitely better than getting it from apologist websites and pastor bob?

Starting to suspect you're a poe. Your level of stupidity is outrageous.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621012 May 3, 2013
TRUTHS BUSTER wrote:
<quoted text>"recnognize" . I think the uniqueness is yours and that is no secret.
Burnnnn. I put one letter where the other letter should have been! Woe is me! I shall break my keyboard so as to never shame myself with a typo again!

I'll take a typo any day over your jilted, stuttering, wholly nonsensical brand of writing.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621013 May 3, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Lying won't help in fact, It will do you no good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transiti...
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ... it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3

Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.

Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4

The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.

With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:

And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5

Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:

The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear.... investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_t...

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621015 May 3, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Really? You claim that all of science is involved in a massive conspiracy to deceive the public, and you aren't responsible for substantiating that claim? You're nuts.
The bias of evolutionary leaders

It is a fallacy to believe that facts speak for themselves—they are always interpreted according to a framework. The framework behind the evolutionists’ interpretation is naturalism—it is assumed that things made themselves, that no divine intervention has happened, and that God has not revealed to us knowledge about the past.

Evolution is a deduction from this assumption, and it is essentially the idea that things made themselves. It includes these unproven ideas: nothing gave rise to something at an alleged ‘big bang,’ non-living matter gave rise to life, single-celled organisms gave rise to many-celled organisms, invertebrates gave rise to vertebrates, ape-like creatures gave rise to man, non-intelligent and amoral matter gave rise to intelligence and morality, man’s yearnings gave rise to religions, etc.

Professor D.M.S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the atheistic bias behind much evolutionary thinking when he wrote:

Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because it's the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.1

So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data. As the anti-creationist science writer Boyce Rensberger admits:

At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.2


Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist — see documentation), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. He recently wrote this very revealing comment (the italics were in the original). It illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it:

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.3

http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-chapte...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#621016 May 3, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Given that evolution, according to Darwin, was in a continual state of motion ... it followed logically that the fossil record should be rife with examples of transitional forms leading from the less to the more evolved.3
Even those who believe in rapid evolution recognize that a considerable number of generations would be required for one distinct "kind" to evolve into another more complex kind. There ought, therefore, to be a considerable number of true transitional structures preserved in the fossils -- after all, there are billions of non-transitional structures there! But (with the exception of a few very doubtful creatures such as the controversial feathered dinosaurs and the alleged walking whales), they are not there.
Instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species.4
The entire history of evolution from the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape is strikingly devoid of intermediates: the links are all missing in the fossil record, just as they are in the present world.
With respect to the origin of life, a leading researcher in this field, Leslie Orgel, after noting that neither proteins nor nucleic acids could have arisen without the other, concludes:
And so, at first glance, one might have to conclude that life could never, in fact, have originated by chemical means.5
Being committed to total evolution as he is, Dr. Orgel cannot accept any such conclusion as that. Therefore, he speculates that RNA may have come first, but then he still has to admit that:
The precise events giving rise to the RNA world remain unclear.... investigators have proposed many hypotheses, but evidence in favor of each of them is fragmentary at best.6
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_t...
If you think icr carries has any credibility or tells you the truth, you are dumber than dirt. Can you not see with your own eyes that creatures like australopithecus, and Tiktaalik are exactly what you asked for, they were transitional creatures no doubt about it. ICR is a place the brainwashed lead the blind into a complete state of stupid.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#621017 May 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Um, ok.
Just remember that the US represented 80% of that war effort.
We did it without your help.
But not 100% right?

“Multi National” coalition force

So without or help? Really shows how much you really know – zilch You reliance on supermarket tabloids as you source of news is letting you down

US invasion forces in Iraq – 150,000

UK invasion forces in iraq 46,000

So that’s about 70% not including a small number from 30+ other countries so you are caught lying again.

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#621018 May 3, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you asking me if you're proud?? lol
You said, "I am personally not a nationalist, I see myself more as a European that a Brit"
That shows continental pride, not national pride.
I'm glad you're not American, you'd be a hateful, spiteful POS like OCB.
I quoted what YOU stated to prove that you are mentally confused how you back-pedal is not my problem

I’m glad I’m not American, I’d hate to live closer to you than I already do, I have a lot of water to be grateful for, it’s called the Atlantic ocean

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#621019 May 3, 2013
Ex-Christians are bigots wrote:
<quoted text>Extremely well said. Atheists have a big problem.
Yup, people like you

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 min Oxbow 543,102
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 8 min Eagle 12 227,869
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 19 min Classic 1,812
Paraplegics can walk EKSO world wide sales 25 min Stock Tip 1
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 44 min onemale 259,696
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 51 min EdmondWA 95,537
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 54 min bad bob 173,835
Sims 4 Key Generator (Oct '13) 17 hr gangsxofxroses_andii 157

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••