Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#621958 May 7, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Nah, I don't think there's a conspiracy to promote evolution. It is what is. Darwin, a very intelligent man, threw some well thought out theories out there and many, who choose not believe in God, Allah, whatever, just latched on to the concepts. They fit for some, not for others. Let me state my position here...I believe in God...but I get why many don't. I'm simply engaging in debate. For the record, I have a great deal of respect for science, although I am very skeptical about many of the theories.
well, I have zero respect for you cowardly self-serving lies, that you call faith

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#621959 May 7, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that simply isn't true. I actually have an education. I work in a highly uneducated, poverty stricken area of the world. I have to speak in a manner that puts myself on their level, in order to teach them how to properly care for themselves and their family members. I'll admit, my lack of use of a good vocabulary over time, because the uneducated don't understand the words, has changed the way I speak. But don't confuse my slang or inappropriate grammar as a lack of intelligence. I assure you, I'm no genius, but I'm far from uneducated. Your need to denigrate reflects your character, not my intelligence.
you are a creationist

one definition of uneducated

you employ ignorance as debating tactic, that is uneducated

your writing groans with hubris, that certainly marks you as undereducated, as does your lexicon.

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#621960 May 7, 2013
Al Garcia wrote:
<quoted text>
What about the "educated Guess" aka Hypothesis? are you absolutely 100 percent sure with those? Or kinda sure? Or somewhere around? Close to? Estimated?
Come on.... What's your guess?
yah-way is a war-monger

jesus is a homo

you are a Mexican-christian (lol)

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#621961 May 7, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
I've joked about it in the past, but seriously...what difference would it make if my ancestors were apes? It's not like I could be singled out as a lone ape...if it's true...we all are. My problem isn't a concern that I may come from a line of chimpanzees...it's simply that I don't personally believe we did. And if we did, then I want to know how the apes got here. That's pretty simple I think. I mean if you're gonna shove evolution done my kids throats, then at least tell them where the doggone apes came from. Don't confuse them into thinking you have it all figured out and the rest of world is idiots, when the is, you don't.
those answers are still being sought

we do know that christianity is historical mythology
and that christianity is a failed moral system

Since: Jul 09

Location hidden

#621962 May 7, 2013
Truth signed in wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, I suppose the major difference here is that while y'all spend countless hours in search of the hole that the hominid didn't jump out of, I'm teaching my kids biblical principles, to love, respect, forgive...things like that. When it's all said and done, whether I'm right or wrong, I see no harm in that. But to be honest, there really is much more to it. I debate on here, but honestly, I have no hard feelings toward any of you. I can sign off here and I think about all the posters in here who don't believe, and it saddens me, because although I'm sure many of you enjoy your life, you really don't know what you're missing.:)
I AM

a recovering christian

“let's do this thang!”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#621963 May 7, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
if someone is going after "undesireables"
I can understand your concern.
every antichrist/socialist/humanist/ communist regime goes after those it considers undesireable.

get yur head out yur ass, karl!
Lovely

Cincinnati, OH

#621964 May 7, 2013
This is sad. If you don't believe in God then whatever, stop causing trouble. I believe in God and i believe in the Bible. There is nothing anyone can say to make me think otherwise. I don't judge anyone on how they believe so stop judging others.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#621965 May 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't getta claim your own victory.
Carrion.
Hey RR.

I have a suggestion for you.

The next time you have a medical problem, don't go to a doctor.

Pray instead.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#621966 May 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You just described the majority of doctors.
Good job, your learning.
You're, RR.

Not your.

Since: Sep 10

San Francisco, CA

#621967 May 7, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You will not justify the "SUE! SUE! SUE!" mentality to me. Don't bother.
Your mentality: WHINE! WHINE! WHINE!
harpocrates

Williamsburg, KY

#621968 May 7, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
you are quite good a being ignorant
christianity is good practice.
rational skeptics evaluate
religitards believe
no science can function without a philosophical outlook.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#621969 May 7, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey RR.
I have a suggestion for you.
The next time you have a medical problem, don't go to a doctor.
Pray instead.
Been there, done that.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#621970 May 7, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:

You're RR.
Yes. And you're Catcher.

<claps>

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#621971 May 7, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Your mentality: WHINE! WHINE! WHINE!
You condone frivalent lawsuits, I understand.

You ARE a Californian left wing nutjob, you can't help it.

Buy an old dirty truck.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621972 May 7, 2013
Build me a protein – no guidance allowed!

The paper [by Dryden, Thomson and White] attempts to make two general points. First that evolution can succeed with a much smaller protein sequence space and second, that evolution can easily search the entire protein sequence space. Both conclusions are scientifically ridiculous and are inconsistent with what we do understand about proteins…

For the first claim, the evolutionists argue for a smaller protein sequence space because:

Continued;

A.“the actual identity of most of the amino acids in a protein is irrelevant” and so we can assume there were only a few amino acids in the evolution of proteins, rather than today’s 20.B. Only the surface residues of a protein are important.

C. Proteins need not be very long. Instead of hundreds of residues, evolution could have used about 50 for most proteins.

For Point A, the evolutionists use as support a series of simplistic studies that replaced the actual protein three-dimensional structure and amino acid chemistries with cartoon, two-dimensional lattice versions.…

Likewise Point B is at odds with science, and again is an unwarranted extrapolation on a simplistic lattice study.

For Point C, the evolutionists note that many proteins are modular and consist of self-contained domains “of as few as approximately 50 amino acids.” But the vast majority of protein domains are far longer than 50 residues. Single domain proteins, and domains in multiple-domain proteins are typically in the hundreds of residues…

To defend their second claim, that evolution can easily search the entire protein sequence space, the evolutionists present upper and lower bound estimates of the number of different sequences evolution can explore.

Their upper bound estimate of 10^43 (a one followed by 43 zeros) is ridiculous. It assumes a four billion year time frame with 10^30 bacteria constantly testing out new proteins… You can’t use bacteria to explain how proteins first evolved when the bacteria themselves require an army of proteins.

The lower bound of 10^21 is hardly any more realistic. The evolutionists … continue to rely on the pre-existence of an earth filled with a billion species of bacteria (with their many thousands of pre-existing proteins)…

The scientific fact is that the numbers are big. This isn’t a “game.”

For instance, consider an example protein of 300 residues (many proteins are much longer than this). With 20 different amino acids to choose from, there are a total of 10^390 different amino acid sequences possible. Now let’s simplify and assume only four different amino acids are needed. This reduces the problem to 10^180 different sequences.

Next let’s assume that only 50% of the residues are important. At the other 50%, any amino acid will do. That is, fully half of the amino acid sequence is inconsequential. These are extremely aggressive and unrealistic assumptions, yet nonetheless we are left with a total of 10^90 sequences. 90 may not appear to be a big number, but a one followed by 90 zeros is. It is completely impractical for evolution.

And if you don’t agree with my example, then we have the evolutionary experiments, described above, which concluded that 10^70 tries would be required. And even that was only for a fraction of the protein machine, and it assumed a pre-existing biological world with its many proteins already in place.

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621973 May 7, 2013
So let’s take the evolutionist’s own numbers at face value, giving them every advantage. The number of experiments required is 10^70 and the number of experiment possible is 10^43. Even here, giving the evolutionists every advantage, evolution falls short by 27 orders of magnitude.

The theory, even by the evolutionist’s own reckoning, is unworkable. Gradualistic evolution—the test that Darwin himself set forth—or non gradualistic evolution, it does not matter. Evolution fails by a degree that is incomparable in science.

The numbers, then, appear to rule out the scenario envisaged by Dryden, Thomson and White. Even using the wildly optimistic suppositions made by Darwinian evolutionists, there wouldn’t have been enough time for Nature to try out all possibilities and thereby hit upon a sequence of amino acids that could fold up properly, enabling it to perform a biologically useful task. Billions of years isn’t anywhere near enough time, when you need decillions of years to complete the task!

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-de...
LineDazzle

Buckley, UK

#621974 May 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Yeah like when to sacrifice your son and throw babies off the walls against the rocks and kill everyone in the city.
Eat the flesh and drink the blood of the zombie and praise the lawd and pass the ammunition!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =LJfJPxLntZUXX
God actually condemns child sacrifice. You are very ignorant of the Bible, many have read it, but you haven't.

And God only commanded the Israelites to throw off walls the evil babies.

Only you think the Bible saying the body of Christ is sexual. Do you get turned on by it? Is that why you go against God, because just in case he might exist, you are worried that he might reject you?

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#621976 May 7, 2013
harpocrates wrote:
<quoted text>no science can function without a philosophical outlook.
True, but they will never admit science has a biased outlook..

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#621977 May 7, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
when your mind is too open, anyone can pass by and toss in any old garbage they want.
...
Says the guy who wears a dress.
LineDazzle

Buckley, UK

#621978 May 7, 2013
OCB wrote:
<quoted text>Um.....actually, yes. One of my first posts to you today was in response to you talking about humans evolving from apes in reference to evolution.
I then had to point out to you that evolutionists do not believe humans evolved from apes, but that is a common misconception of those who think the bible is fact- erroneously thinking that human evolution MUST mean humans evolved from apes when of course, that is not the case.
The beauty of the bible....okay- whatever.
Okay- you admit you don't know how your god did it- is that the same conclusion you think scientists and evolutionists come to regarding how the earth and life started?
Ummm.....their explanation is a bit more complicated than yours and their explanation has actual evidence and fact to back it up.
So you think completely linear functioning single celled bacteria when genetically improving themselves would turn into humans, when it is only the effects the viruses have and such that alters, child?

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min Regina 582,869
New Hip Hop TV Channel 26 min coolnewmusic 1
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 56 min RiccardoFire 98,832
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 58 min Jac 442,479
What do u think of Jesus Christ?(God) (Oct '06) 1 hr RiccardoFire 70,127
Why Won't The Government Help Against Select Po... (Aug '12) 1 hr dbfact 242
News Sarah Palin to Contribute to Fox News (Jan '10) 1 hr stayinganonymous 9,083
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 2 hr Clearwater 176,372
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 4 hr Senecus 611,755
More from around the web