Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59930 Nov 21, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No one who had lived or still living, can be like Jesus.
He is meek, humble and gentle.
And angry. Like he was with the moneychangers in the temple.

And condescending at the point of contempt according to John when talking about Apostle Thomas. This speak more about John's relationship with Thomas than Jesus.

After all, the Gospel of Thomas was actively destroyed by the early Christian church as it didn't fit with what the early Christian leaders could use in their quest for power. And yet, they couldn't destroy every trace of that gospel.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59931 Nov 21, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is another example of a great woffler with a hide as thick as a cow.
This creature above appears to think that many words are better that providing support for ones opinion and not a sniff of current research in refute behind it.
Evos are great at calling for peer reviewed and published research. Too bad they can't find any of it too support their big words.
Then of course we get the fruit loops here with dinosaur quals that have no clue about recent research and then ask me to prove every word I say, like as if they were morons hiding in some cave the past 10 years and remain clueless to the theory they hope to support.
Would you like me to 'prove' again that your famous single celled LUCA is dead and a failed prediction swept under the carpet with many others.
Would you like me to demonstrate again how evos shoved junk DNA down creos throats ad nauseum only to now find out that at least 80% of the genome is now known to be functional.
http://www.biotechniques.com/news/biotechniqu...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...
I as a creationist I do not change my predictions in knee jerk fashion as evos do.
Would you evos like to make another prediction around non coding dna? Let's see what predictive ability TOE actually has. Do you lot of evos predict some junk or no junk in the genome, or are you unable to make a prediction unless it is in hindsight.
I'll make a creo prediction: Over time and with credible long term research all dna will be found to have some function. This is because if we were created there would be no need for junk.
Come on...!! You lot bombed out on vestigial organs, having to change the definition of vestigial from "no" function at all to "different" function because that prediction also failed and these bright sparks did not want to loose face.
Now let's see if I get more than a humble opinion back in response. Let's hope it is not from last century.
Meh.

A lot of words but you say very little of substance.

On the plus side, the ad hominem fallacy no longer applies to you. I gave you a chance, but all you did was spew garbage. I can now just look to see MazHere and dismiss anything you have to say.

You dug the hole yourself. Keep digging. Once you break ground level, I might even consider what you have to say.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59932 Nov 21, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You can generalise that, and see how foolish you may sound and look.
Christians are well educated in all disciplines.
Umm, yeah. no.

Many Christians don't even know the history of the bible. And you certainly haven't demonstrated education in any discipline other than being Parsons in Orwell's 1984.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#59933 Nov 21, 2012
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, yeah. no.
Many Christians don't even know the history of the bible. And you certainly haven't demonstrated education in any discipline other than being Parsons in Orwell's 1984.
You are a FREAKSHOW in this forum. I am the most educated man here. You know nothing of nothing....you fill space on a screen.........FREAKSHOW

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Atlanta Georgia

#59934 Nov 21, 2012
TJ Monk wrote:
<quoted text>
Freakshow...science supports scriptures. If there is doubt...then faith must preside.
Science supports SOME scripture, but not much. Mostly today's science is disproving the Bible...you don't know it yet, but your Christian foundations are being removed as we speak.

Science rules my man, not religion, especially religion that is dead wrong. You're not keeping up...

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59935 Nov 21, 2012
Tissue dspenser wrote:
<quoted text>
Christian/republican... either way... yes
Being pendantic here...

Christian Taliban/Republican. AKA, Joel's Army, Dominionists, The Family, and so on.

There are a lot of Christians who don't get into the whole strict fundamentalism thing just like there are a lot of Muslims who don't support the Islamic fundamentalists.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59936 Nov 21, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
It appears all that anyone wants to talk about here is languages.
I have said many times here that TOE is a philosophy, as you are more or less suggesting.
TOE is based on the philosophical assumption that all life arose without the hand of God. From here theist evolutionists throw in their slant.
Hence, it does not matter if we are 99% the same as a chimp or 99% different, it does not matter if all our dna is functional or 98% is junk. It does not matter if one single finding can over turn the current thinking of the day, because evolutionists come from the standpoint that evolution must be true and they will interpret any data from an evolutionary base.
Evolutionists have made many claims that have been refuted.
I, personally don't really care how God created. What I believe is that to conclude that if a deity exists their ability is determined by what mankind understands at present is the height of arrogance. After all, we are refering to a life form we know nothing about.
Evolutionists made huge claims in relation to junk DNA being evidence that God could not have created. Their claim was that 98% of the genome had no function in non coding dna. Now it appears that evolutionary scientists have found 80% of DNA to be functional.
A long standing creationist prediction is that all dna will be found to be functional. DNA does not have to be vital, it simply needs to be functional in some way.
The same goes for vestigial organs. This was another great evolutionary claim. Having organs that were left over from 'evolutionary change' that had absolutely no function was great evidence for TOE. However, with further research this is not what scientists have found. What they have found is that many organs proposed as being vestigial do in fact have function. The appendix is an example. The so called legs on whales have become not only a part but a vital part of the reproductive system etc.
Again, creationists can predict that if mankind was created there would be no organ that was simply left over from evolution that had no function. Evolutionist claims are being slowly erroded so much so that the definition of vestigial was redefined to suggest an organ that had changed its function.
The claims around junk dna and vestegial organs are an example of evolutionists continually making claims and predictions that are from a philosophical base. When their claims or predictions do not materialize they simply change them with the wave of a hand.
What has stood the test of time, unlike the changing face of evolutionary theory, is that these two creationist predictions have remained stable. Not only have they remained stable, they also are being supported more by research as time goes by.
Lots of words, lots of claims. little of substance.

Congrats. You just dug another foot deeper into your hole.

Oh. it's MazHere. No need to read.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59937 Nov 21, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible has not been shown to be wrong many times at all. It is only cretins that want to mine quote and think they know it all that just such a thing.
In fact the majority of the claims against the bible have been shown to be outdated.
People laughed at the bibles suggestion that the moon was created after the earth. That was up until these bright ones found evidence that indeed the moon was created after the earth.
Then there was all the woffle about how can plants live without sunlight. Of course it has been found that plants do not need sunlight and any source of energy can support life, including the light and energy produced at the creation.
The bible spoke to a universal beginning before modern science. Genesis was the first to speak of what may be found in the fossil record beginning with earth, plants, animals then mankind. In fact the only two kinds that are out of order are birds and whales and the nested hierarchoes of these are a mess.
I can present research, from evo researchers BTW, that have found bird footprints dated to 212mya and more than halfway back to the devonian
I can present research, from evo researchers, that date a recent basilosaurus to 49mya and predates Indohyus.
Many biblical structures not accepted have been found. Parts of the NT have been found dated to the 1st century AD refuting a heck of a lot of the woffle the intelligencia and all their ramblings previously put forth.
Homology is not more than pick a box of triats that suit. For over 150 years the bones in human wrists 'proved' mankind evolved from a knuckle walker. This was refuted on the back of one single fossil find in Ardi.
The same goes for dna comparisons.
Some organism had to be closer to man than another. Terms like deletions of huge chunks of genomic material, insertions, recombinations, multiplications, gentic and morphological homoplasy, convergent evolution etc etc, are all terms that speak to the vast differences between human and chimp dna. More recently it has been found that the expression differs by a whopping 80%.
The simple fact that bothers creationists is that evos are evotards when they suggest that TOE is supported by more than hand waving.
Mazhere;dr.

Think I'll save some typing and shorten that to Mh;dr.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59938 Nov 21, 2012
TJ Monk wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a FREAKSHOW in this forum. I am the most educated man here. You know nothing of nothing....you fill space on a screen.........FREAKSHOW
If you need to go to the bathroom, raise your hand and you'll be excused.

Stop soiling yourself and stinking up the thread.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59939 Nov 21, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>\
John 8:44
There is no correlation what so ever.
This is just a false accusation, from the scriptures.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59940 Nov 21, 2012
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
So God, in Its omnibenevolence, allowed evil to flourish.
All evil is now good because god can only be good. And all of creation is from god and, therefore, is good. Even Lucifer in all his evil.
Therefore, all sinners are good in their sins as god already knows their sins and is good in his divine plan.
It's only your judgement, as if you were representative of god, that you can declare evil as not evil.
So who is more deserving of hell? You, who claims to speak for god, or a mass murderer who was created to do evil with god's knowledge?
You really don't want to understand anything, do you?
When God created living beings, he gave them that freewill or thoughts to do whatever they like under his guidiance.
That was the reason why Lucifer rebelled and Adam and Eve both sinned.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59941 Nov 21, 2012
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet, god allows that to happen.
In order to be all good, these things that you point out as anti-god, has to be good according to the divine plan of god.
You need to resolve the "Problem with Evil" with your interpretation of the Bible.
This should give you a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil
From my understanding, God gave us that freedom of thoughts and desires.
He also wanted us to seek and desire him. So, those that holds on to him, he empowers and strengthens them.
While those that seek him, they also hear from him.
So, those that do not involve in the above, is really on their own.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59942 Nov 21, 2012
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
And angry. Like he was with the moneychangers in the temple.
And condescending at the point of contempt according to John when talking about Apostle Thomas. This speak more about John's relationship with Thomas than Jesus.
After all, the Gospel of Thomas was actively destroyed by the early Christian church as it didn't fit with what the early Christian leaders could use in their quest for power. And yet, they couldn't destroy every trace of that gospel.
This is a judgement from the wrong angle.
Jesus did that because they were turning the synagogue into a market place of gambling, etc.
For Thomas, no one is perfect, even you.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#59943 Nov 21, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
This is wrong. Hebrew is not the oldest language. Egyptian is 2,000 years older than Hebrew and even it is not the oldest language.
You love to spread lies that you make up with the help of your master.
For "written", I think Sumerian has it - but for spoken? I doubt anyone knows. Certainly not Hebrew, though.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59944 Nov 21, 2012
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, the argument from uncertainty. You weren't there to see it, so how can you know the truth?
Do you apply the same standard to your Biblical accounts?
You assume the Bible is pure because it's the word of god because it says so.
I'm guessing that the caretakers of the bible had a vested monetary/power interest means nothing to you.
Just like the tobacco industry "scientific" findings that smoking is good for you would be completely acceptable.
You are not there either so, you are not in that position or capacity to judge on what happened before your time.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#59945 Nov 21, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong Maz, the Christians believe that they have refuted the claims, but they do so by changing the translation. The Hebrews had a word for a sphere or a ball, they even used it in the Bible. Whenever the Earth was described they used the word for a flat circle. That indicates they thought the world was flat, not round. There are countless other errors too. For example there are failed prophecies, prophecies that were "fulfilled" after the fact (Christ's virgin birth for example, and that was due to a mistake in translation by the Greek writers of the New Testament), self contradiction. If the Bible was a "perfect" book it would have so many errors in it, whether they seem to be errors or if they are real.
The Bible is just a bunch of fairy tales told by goat herders. There are no great lessons there, the morality is horrendous, and it is rife with errors.
And wasn't the Messiah's name supposed to be Manny, and not Jesús?

Or something like that?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#59946 Nov 21, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Science supports SOME scripture, but not much. Mostly today's science is disproving the Bible...you don't know it yet, but your Christian foundations are being removed as we speak.
Science rules my man, not religion, especially religion that is dead wrong. You're not keeping up...
Science wins.

Because it works.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59947 Nov 21, 2012
greymouser wrote:
You originally said: "One thing we must learn from the bible, is that, we should not attach much importance one particular person."
And I replied "Like Jesus?"
<quoted text>
I did not ask if Jesus rebelled.
My question was whether "we should not attach too much importance to one particular person" in the bible like Jesus.
Much importance is attached to his deeds, humility, faith, sacrifice, holiness and what have you. No one has ever achieved this feat, except Jesus Christ.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59948 Nov 21, 2012
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Umm, yeah. no.
Many Christians don't even know the history of the bible. And you certainly haven't demonstrated education in any discipline other than being Parsons in Orwell's 1984.
Before and after the death or demise of Sir Isaac Newton, the inventor and scientist, was he a christian, yes or no?

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#59949 Nov 21, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Science supports SOME scripture, but not much. Mostly today's science is disproving the Bible...you don't know it yet, but your Christian foundations are being removed as we speak.
Science rules my man, not religion, especially religion that is dead wrong. You're not keeping up...
That is your view or position. To your reality, you are wrong and wrong.

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.

Bobby Jindal Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Landrieu revisits Hurricane Katrina in Senate race Nov 23 serfs up 8
N.C. governor open to immigration lawsuit again... Nov 20 wild child 1
GettyThe Republican Rainbow Coalition Is RealNo... Nov 18 Elise Gingerich 1
Blaze owner disputes illegal drug activity conn... Nov 12 june 57 1
4 things Christie said the morning after the mi... Nov 12 TeaBagging for Am... 2
Christie 'tired' of minimum wage debate Nov 9 Swedenforever 17
Scott, Crist make final pitch before Tuesday Nov 4 Lawrence 1

Bobby Jindal People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE