Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621561 May 6, 2013

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621562 May 6, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
What a crock o shit that school is.
Even I think that's a little over the top. I mean, maybe if he was obnoxious about it, screaming "praise the lord" over and over, but pointing at the sky isn't that serious.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621563 May 6, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> http://www.pnas.org/content/88/20/9051.full.p...
More where that came from.
Also, that was pretty funny. I asked you if you were getting your info from apologist sites, you responded in the negative, and then posted a link to "evolutionfactormyth. " And they used the word "darwinists." You know you're dealing with an unbiased source when they say "darwinists."
Let me explain a simple reason why chromosome 2 is so compelling. Telomeres are found on the end of chromosomes, and centromeres are found in the middle. In chromosome 2, there are "ancestral" telomeres in the middle of the chromosome, and an "ancestral" centromere on one side, in addition to a working centromere on the other side. These remnants have no reason to be there, save for being the result of an end to end fusion.\
Okay,first, let's address this whole "apologist site" issue you have. It's rather ludicrous that you expect I retrieve information that refutes Darwinism from a Darwinist site. That's not gonna happen. It's also quite shallow of anyone to close their mind to scientific data just because it's posted on a creationist site. Scientific facts are facts...regardless if Mr. Magoo writes it, so long as it's backed by proof. I also find it hilarious that the wonderful world of science will accept the scientific discoveries of men such as Mendel, Pascal, Bacon, Newton, Faraday....I could go on and on...but they are scientists who believed in God. Anyway, science will use the discoveries of these great scientists as building blocks for their work. Science accepts their data as true, because they cannot refute it. Yet, you, a mere topix poster, think any information from a site that may contain data from a scientist who believes in God, to be irrelavent. If you aren't willing to accept scientific facts, simply because of the site they are posted on, then basically...what you're telling me, is your opinion is biased. If you lack the ability to be objective, then you limit your ability to learn, This conversation is quite useless as you cannot debate an issue if you refuse to accept factual data.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621564 May 6, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You moron, "Westboro Baptists" is a single church, not a denomination of Christianity.
They might as well be a denomination. If I was a christian, I would insist they were a splinter group.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621565 May 6, 2013
Greens - tuf wrote:
<quoted text>
You did that well, done well, well done.
:) I do try! thanks!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#621566 May 6, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You moron, "Westboro Baptists" is a single church, not a denomination of Christianity.
I'm aware, thank you/ Now, are they Christians?

You certainly consider Catholics to be Christians.

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621567 May 6, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah, an extremely tiny minority, and I bet all of them are religious. Ever heard of project steve? It makes the "some scientists aren't 'darwinists'" claim sound kind of silly.
"Project Steve" lol...of course...that's how evolutionist roll. Because it's much easier to be rude and attack people on a personal level than to present significant proof to back up claims when pushed against a wall. Honestly, I don't put a great deal of thought into the percentage of scientists who believe in God versus evolution, although, again, I do find it amazing that many great discoveries were made by men who did actually believe in God. I do try to be objective though. The truth is, most great discoveries weren't made by multitudes of men, but rather by a single man/woman or team, thus a very small percentage...hence, project Steve is just a way to poke fun...it really holds no weight or substance.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621568 May 6, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay,first, let's address this whole "apologist site" issue you have. It's rather ludicrous that you expect I retrieve information that refutes Darwinism from a Darwinist site. That's not gonna happen. It's also quite shallow of anyone to close their mind to scientific data just because it's posted on a creationist site. Scientific facts are facts...regardless if Mr. Magoo writes it, so long as it's backed by proof. I also find it hilarious that the wonderful world of science will accept the scientific discoveries of men such as Mendel, Pascal, Bacon, Newton, Faraday....I could go on and on...but they are scientists who believed in God. Anyway, science will use the discoveries of these great scientists as building blocks for their work. Science accepts their data as true, because they cannot refute it. Yet, you, a mere topix poster, think any information from a site that may contain data from a scientist who believes in God, to be irrelavent. If you aren't willing to accept scientific facts, simply because of the site they are posted on, then basically...what you're telling me, is your opinion is biased. If you lack the ability to be objective, then you limit your ability to learn, This conversation is quite useless as you cannot debate an issue if you refuse to accept factual data.
Well said,,,(Hand claps)..

And by georgy, i think ya got her figured out.

Ohh, but just wait she will have a detailed scientific come back as to why she is'nt biased, and why you should ignore the apologist sites..

Good luck..

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621569 May 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I'm aware, thank you/ Now, are they Christians?
You certainly consider Catholics to be Christians.
Well if you had any knowledge at all about a Christian( a follower of Jesus), you wouldnt have to ask that question....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621570 May 6, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay,first, let's address this whole "apologist site" issue you have. It's rather ludicrous that you expect I retrieve information that refutes Darwinism from a Darwinist site. That's not gonna happen. It's also quite shallow of anyone to close their mind to scientific data just because it's posted on a creationist site. Scientific facts are facts...regardless if Mr. Magoo writes it, so long as it's backed by proof. I also find it hilarious that the wonderful world of science will accept the scientific discoveries of men such as Mendel, Pascal, Bacon, Newton, Faraday....I could go on and on...but they are scientists who believed in God. Anyway, science will use the discoveries of these great scientists as building blocks for their work. Science accepts their data as true, because they cannot refute it. Yet, you, a mere topix poster, think any information from a site that may contain data from a scientist who believes in God, to be irrelavent. If you aren't willing to accept scientific facts, simply because of the site they are posted on, then basically...what you're telling me, is your opinion is biased. If you lack the ability to be objective, then you limit your ability to learn, This conversation is quite useless as you cannot debate an issue if you refuse to accept factual data.
Nice diatribe. I'm sorry, but yes, creationist sites are irrelevant, by definition. Apologists have a need to believe in god, and this need informs their opinion on the science. If you can find me work by actual scientists, those working without a preconceived agenda, then that's another story. Their religious belief is irrelevant until they allow it to interfere with their ability to be objective. Would you, for example, be interested in the opinion of a devout muslim on the divinity of jesus? You shouldn't be, because no matter what, his opinion is set in stone from the beginning. Same with christian apologists - most are unable to reconcile the massive evidence for evolution with their religious conditioning, and cognitive dissonance does the rest - resulting in this manufactured controversy. Seriously, we are at the point where we can say that either evolution happened, or some god like creature really wanted us to think that it happened, but you wouldn't know it for all the "teach the controversy" wackos out there.

Pascal, Bacon, etc. are irrelevant. Science does not simply "accept their work because they cannot refute it," they accept it because it is good work and because these men did not allow their personal beliefs to slant their scientific work.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621571 May 6, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
"Project Steve" lol...of course...that's how evolutionist roll. Because it's much easier to be rude and attack people on a personal level than to present significant proof to back up claims when pushed against a wall. Honestly, I don't put a great deal of thought into the percentage of scientists who believe in God versus evolution, although, again, I do find it amazing that many great discoveries were made by men who did actually believe in God. I do try to be objective though. The truth is, most great discoveries weren't made by multitudes of men, but rather by a single man/woman or team, thus a very small percentage...hence, project Steve is just a way to poke fun...it really holds no weight or substance.
Yes, it is a way to poke fun, but it also makes a point. Christians always like to point out that "not all scientists are darwinists," and while this is technically true, it is meaningless, which is what "project steve" is meant to highlight.

How in the world is "project steve" an attack? You made a fallacious claim about not all scientists "believing" in evolution, and I used project steve to point out the flaw in your logic. Not an attack. "That's how 'evolutionist' roll?" Lol. I'm not attacking you. Goodness. And I did provide proof for my claim about chromosome two, which is only a tiny, tiny portion of the overall evidence for evolution. If you can't find evidence for evolution, you aren't looking.

Yes, religious men have made scientific discoveries. So?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#621572 May 6, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if you had any knowledge at all about a Christian( a follower of Jesus), you wouldnt have to ask that question....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist...
Read it.

"Primitive Baptist/Calvinist".

Christian.

Now, about the Catholics, Mormons, JWs, Christian Scientists...

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621573 May 6, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay,first, let's address this whole "apologist site" issue you have. It's rather ludicrous that you expect I retrieve information that refutes Darwinism from a Darwinist site. That's not gonna happen.
Do you know why it's not gonna happen? Because there is no good evidence against evolution. It does not exist. There is no such thing as a "darwinist" site, that's like saying that a site explaining the theory of relativity is a "gravitologist" site. There are scientific sites, sources, etc, and there are non scientific sources. If there was any good evidence against evolution, or an equally rigorous competing theory, it would be on.... scientific sites! Imagine that.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#621574 May 6, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Nice diatribe. I'm sorry, but yes, creationist sites are irrelevant, by definition. Apologists have a need to believe in god, and this need informs their opinion on the science. If you can find me work by actual scientists, those working without a preconceived agenda, then that's another story. Their religious belief is irrelevant until they allow it to interfere with their ability to be objective. Would you, for example, be interested in the opinion of a devout muslim on the divinity of jesus? You shouldn't be, because no matter what, his opinion is set in stone from the beginning. Same with christian apologists - most are unable to reconcile the massive evidence for evolution with their religious conditioning, and cognitive dissonance does the rest - resulting in this manufactured controversy. Seriously, we are at the point where we can say that either evolution happened, or some god like creature really wanted us to think that it happened, but you wouldn't know it for all the "teach the controversy" wackos out there.
Pascal, Bacon, etc. are irrelevant. Science does not simply "accept their work because they cannot refute it," they accept it because it is good work and because these men did not allow their personal beliefs to slant their scientific work.
Plus he errs in another major point.

Had anyone, anywhere, ever come up with a disproof of evolution, that's be all over the SCIENTIFIC publications.

Pre-Cambrian rabbit, anyone?

“I speak my mind”

Since: Sep 10

It hurts to bite my tongue

#621575 May 6, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Nice diatribe. I'm sorry, but yes, creationist sites are irrelevant, by definition. Apologists have a need to believe in god, and this need informs their opinion on the science. If you can find me work by actual scientists, those working without a preconceived agenda, then that's another story. Their religious belief is irrelevant until they allow it to interfere with their ability to be objective. Would you, for example, be interested in the opinion of a devout muslim on the divinity of jesus? You shouldn't be, because no matter what, his opinion is set in stone from the beginning. Same with christian apologists - most are unable to reconcile the massive evidence for evolution with their religious conditioning, and cognitive dissonance does the rest - resulting in this manufactured controversy. Seriously, we are at the point where we can say that either evolution happened, or some god like creature really wanted us to think that it happened, but you wouldn't know it for all the "teach the controversy" wackos out there.
Pascal, Bacon, etc. are irrelevant. Science does not simply "accept their work because they cannot refute it," they accept it because it is good work and because these men did not allow their personal beliefs to slant their scientific work.
Ahh...that's a two edged sword my friend. Are you seriously going stand behind the idea that only Christians have a biased opinion? Evolutionist have a need to believe in evolution and this need informs their opinion on science as well. Surely you aren't going to say that all data collected and researched by evolutionists is objective.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621576 May 6, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Plus he errs in another major point.
Had anyone, anywhere, ever come up with a disproof of evolution, that's be all over the SCIENTIFIC publications.
Pre-Cambrian rabbit, anyone?
Seriously. "Deniers" act as if there is some concerted effort going on to pull the wool over their eyes. It's not sciences fault that the evidence points toward common descent and therefore conflicts with many creation myths, that's just how it is. If there was a disproof, it would be met with resistance, obviously, with evolution being pretty firmly entrenched across many scientific disciplines (because of it's robustness as a theory, not because of some "conspiracy"). However, it would still be huge news, and eventually the TOE would have no choice but to fall.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#621577 May 6, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh...that's a two edged sword my friend. Are you seriously going stand behind the idea that only Christians have a biased opinion? Evolutionist have a need to believe in evolution and this need informs their opinion on science as well. Surely you aren't going to say that all data collected and researched by evolutionists is objective.
Humans have biases. The purpose of the scientific method is to reduce or remove them. Evolution research is guided by the scientific method, apologetics is not.

And I seriously doubt you'd have much luck defending the assertion that "evolutionists need to believe in evolution." We do not believe our salvation depends on the hallowed archaeopteryx. I "believe" in evolution because it would be perverse not to; the evidence is overwhelming to the point that it would be absurd for me to deny it. If a better explanation were to come along, I would have no problem changing my views.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#621578 May 6, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Seriously. "Deniers" act as if there is some concerted effort going on to pull the wool over their eyes. It's not sciences fault that the evidence points toward common descent and therefore conflicts with many creation myths, that's just how it is. If there was a disproof, it would be met with resistance, obviously, with evolution being pretty firmly entrenched across many scientific disciplines (because of it's robustness as a theory, not because of some "conspiracy"). However, it would still be huge news, and eventually the TOE would have no choice but to fall.
Yah. That's how science works.

If the theory doesn't match the data, you change the theory.

Faith warps the data, or ignores it, to fit the theory.

To put it another way:

Believer: "God".
Everyone else: "Really? Kewl! Show me."
Believer: "BLASPHEMER!"

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#621579 May 6, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
...it'll make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.:)
are you the standard?

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#621580 May 6, 2013
Clementia wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Karl!!!:-)
Hey Clem,

I see your studies have left you cranky.

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
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 min Seraphima 602,135
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 11 min USA Born 548,410
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 34 min RADEKT 261,614
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 35 min ChristineM 229,905
Fischbach army depot-NATO site 67 (Mar '07) 50 min ISG Rottweiler 405
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 1 hr Aura Mytha 5,443
short term relationship or date 1 hr jude Joseph 2
Have any girls on here had sex with a dog??? (Feb '12) 4 hr girls united states 125

Top Stories People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE