Evolution vs. Creation

Hey Pal wrote:

<quoted text>Now I know your bats for sure...you say fight an animal with no weapon...are you for real?
Thats why humans have weapons and can dominate others living animals...that's why we are top of the chain and God made us this way!

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Name a single weapon made by god that is known man uses?\

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Yeah and besides all that ........
The name "Hey Pal" was made up too!

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
The name of Jesus was as common back then and in that region as the name John is in the US during the 1970s.
There is absolutely no evidence supporting the existence of Noah.
The others are just writers of it, they could have written about anything they wanted. Who knows, maybe there is a god and the bible was written by Satan worshipers. You are making an argument from a presupposition, therefore the argument itself is likely to be flawed, then you lack any supporting evidence for that argument.
Where is your evidence? Oh, and people saying "god healed me" is not evidence.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
You are placing the cart before the horse here. We did not have weapons from the start, we learned to make them. I belief it was the neanderthals who were the first humans to make weapons actually, may have been a few human species prior.
The tools were built out of necessity, due to the limitations of the physical form. Also again, there is no "top" to the food chain, it's more of a complex circular web that goes in on itself. You are placing arbitrary boundaries on things with no such boundaries.

Hey Pal wrote:

<quoted text>well it's better then "Aura Mytha"...what the hell kind of user name is that ya dunce!

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
The name of Jesus was as common back then and in that region as the name John is in the US during the 1970s.
There is absolutely no evidence supporting the existence of Noah.
The others are just writers of it, they could have written about anything they wanted. Who knows, maybe there is a god and the bible was written by Satan worshipers. You are making an argument from a presupposition, therefore the argument itself is likely to be flawed, then you lack any supporting evidence for that argument.
Where is your evidence? Oh, and people saying "god healed me" is not evidence.

Hey Pal wrote:

<quoted text>Heres your evidence of Noah Ok!
http://www.bing.com/images/search...
http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2009/...

Knightmare wrote:

http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/ index.php/main/about
In a peer-reviewed paper published in BIO-Complexity, Stephen C. Meyer and Paul Nelson take on DRT.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/05/biocompl...
BIO-Complexity: A New, Peer-Reviewed Science Journal, Open to the ID Debate
Jay W. Richards May 1, 2010 12:16 AM | PermalinkA new scientific journal, BIO-Complexity, is set to accelerate the pace and heighten the tone of the debate over intelligent design. The purpose of the journal, according to its self-description, is to combine the rigors and accountability of peer-review, at its best, with an editorial policy open to the debate over intelligent design. It is an open-access journal, which means everyone can download all articles for free.
{Some of you on here are quite...it takes awhile before you get it doesn't it?}

Hey Pal wrote:

<quoted text>Wrong again...what You saying that the name of Jesus Christ was made up?
Was the name of Adam and Eve made up?
Was the name of Noah made up?
Was the name of Luke,Mark Peter,Paul made up?
careful how you reply...your walking on a thin line already!
cookie the clown even knows your not funny anymore with your TOE science theory's !

Subduction Zone wrote:

Hey Pal, try again. Those are all easily debunked claims. Why don't you state clearly what you believe to be evidence of Noah's flood. I can assure you that you are wrong.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Bing, I won't enable scripts for, sorry, MS is untrustworthy.
The blog you post uses nothing but apologetic sources, of those none supply any actual evidence. I ask for evidence and you send a search link with images, and a blog. That is not evidence. Do you know how many "Noah's Ark" hoaxes the christian scientists have debunked, that's right, the christian scientists don't like looking like fools so they latch onto these claims hoping something will be true, but have always been disappointed, except the apologetics who ignore actual scientific research.
I am starting to believe that debating you is like taking candy from a baby, as someone else had asserted. You really do not even know what evidence is.

Knightmare wrote:

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesig n/od172/meyer172.htm
Take falsifiability. Ratzsch points out that, as a test of scientific status (again, we note the puzzling fixation on the adjective "scientific," a weak stand-in at best for the question of truth), falsifiability disqualifies evolution, creation -- and science generally. Scientists test their theories by conjoining them (explicitly or implicitly) to assumptions about nature, and even to aesthetic values, such as simplicity, elegance, or symmetry. When a prediction fails, the fault may lie with the theory in question, or in the vast space that includes scientists' other assumptions or presuppositions. A failed prediction entails that something is false, but what? Often the problem is not the theory "simpliciter," but an assumption that lies strictly outside the theory. As Ratzsch observes,
... removed for space ...
An astonishing number of theists argue that science ought to be methodologically "naturalistic" -- the demarcation criterion non pareil. "You can't put God in a test tube," Ratzsch quotes the philosophical naturalist Eugenie Scott as arguing, and therefore "science acts as if the supernatural did not exist. This methodological naturalism is the cornerstone of modern science." Scott is right, many theists affirm: God may be real but He is empirically inscrutable. It is thus best that we acted, as we reason about the workings of nature, as if God were away on other business.
But that cannot be correct, argues Ratzsch. Methodological naturalism prejudges the shape of reality in a way that any "truth-seeking" science can ill afford:
If nature is not a closed, naturalistic system -- that is, if reality does not respect the naturalists' edict -- then the science built around that edict cannot be credited a priori with getting at truth, being self-corrective or anything of the sort. Now if we had some rational reason for accepting naturalism as in fact true, then stipulating that science had to be naturalistic...would make perfect sense. But that would involve making a case for naturalism -- not simply decreeing that science was by definition or for convenience naturalistic, which is the path taken by various evolutionists.
(We note in passing that the usual arguments in support of naturalism trade on the supposed supremacy of Darwinian evolutionary theory, which, in turn, presupposes naturalism, thus closing the circle of justification to challenge.) Restricting science to naturalistic hypotheses is not an innocuous methodological stratagem which nevertheless leaves science free to pursue the truth. God, after all, may not have been away on other business when life originated, or humankind came to be.

Knightmare wrote:

<quoted text>
http://www.medissage.org/carver.htm
George Washington Carver, created/discovered over 300 uses for something as simple as the groundnut/peanut.
Many of these discoveries are responsible for advances in Medicine, Science, and Technology, that have laid the foundation for a higher quality of life today.
He did all this at a time when in America all the odds were against him. Needless to say, the peanut was not his only toy.
A child of slaves, he overcame racism and poverty to become one of the most creative Scientists and Educators of our time.
Fear of something is at the root of hate for others, and hate within will eventually destroy the hater.
George Washington Carver
I love to think of nature as an unlimited broadcasting station, through which God speaks to us every hour, if we will only tune in.
George Washington Carver
Our creator is the same and never changes despite the names given Him by people here and in all parts of the world. Even if we gave Him no name at all, He would still be there, within us, waiting to give us good on this earth.
George Washington Carver
As a world-renowned scientist, George Washington Carver would say, "When I was young, I asked God to tell me the mystery of the universe. But God told me that knowledge was reserved for Him alone. So I said,'Then tell me the mystery of the peanut.' And he told me."
{Hmmm...yeah...creation could NEVER have brought anything good...}

Hey Pal wrote:

<quoted text>as always the science folks just make it up as they move forward in time...if one theory doesn't pan out make up a new one...But the bible never changes and Jesus Christ never changes and that's why the Bible is correct and science fails over and over again on the topic of creation!

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> The kind that slices you to ribbons and leaves you no no other recourse than to attack my unique name. Game set point match.

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Do you have an anger issue my friend?? You seem to always throw a little zinger in with your dialogue.
Actually the Names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John on the NT Gospels is made up, as the named authors are really anonymous...we don't know for sure who wrote them.
Actually the Theory of Evolution is the FACT of evolution now.