Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

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

Comments (Page 1,773)

Showing posts 35,441 - 35,460 of112,792
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36819
Aug 7, 2012
 
Rogue Angel wrote:
<quoted text>Sure baby ;)
:(
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36820
Aug 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Atlas12a wrote:
<quoted text>well u really dont know with out a doubt they both very well could be correct
Yes a God other then then one in the bible could have created through evolution. But we would really need to see something changing from one kind to another.

Nature simply does not build it destroys
Using nature as a builder to take one speck of life that either a God created or self started life that speck grew into all life that ever existed? Nature can't do that. An F16 is very simple next to a human yet nature never built one or anything close to it in billions and billions of years not one jet aircraft.
(Ridicules? Yes maybe but it makes the point)

Nature erodes, burns, hurricanes, tornados, earth quacks, meteor impacts,
Rain, winds, hail, snow, freezing and thawing, ice ages and on and on.

And volcanos don't build they move lava and spew out clouds of dust. Land may form from the lava but some ocean was lost.

Building from one speck of frail life to all that we see today is beyond nature.
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36821
Aug 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Your theories of your god and his history are full of falsehoods. you still cling to them like a moonie to his flowers ina an airport of old...
Keep drinking the Koolaid.

The universe had come about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’ and the theory started to be so called. It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression used for descriptive purposes. Science can define the concept of ‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’. In truth,‘a point with no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from nothingness. In other words, it was created.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36822
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes a God other then then one in the bible could have created through evolution. But we would really need to see something changing from one kind to another.
Nature simply does not build it destroys
Using nature as a builder to take one speck of life that either a God created or self started life that speck grew into all life that ever existed? Nature can't do that. An F16 is very simple next to a human yet nature never built one or anything close to it in billions and billions of years not one jet aircraft.
(Ridicules? Yes maybe but it makes the point)
Nature erodes, burns, hurricanes, tornados, earth quacks, meteor impacts,
Rain, winds, hail, snow, freezing and thawing, ice ages and on and on.
And volcanos don't build they move lava and spew out clouds of dust. Land may form from the lava but some ocean was lost.
Building from one speck of frail life to all that we see today is beyond nature.
nature builds all the time. Seeds into giant redwoods.
nature can't make the composite materials man can that are needed for an F-16.

Actually, all we see today from one speck of life IS nature.

Your cult blocking your attainment of knowledge makes you look foolish.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36823
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>:(
You choose to frown.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36824
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Babbling fool - try both theory's on a black hole. Regardless of the source facts are facts. Those two theory's both fail along with string theory "FACT"
We aren't perfect yet that's tomorrow...HOWEVER Today ......we are good enough in our calculations to land a one ton piece of American Hardware on Mars using a autonomous rocket powered skycrane :).

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36825
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I could guess as to why but that's not what you want is it?
No I can't read Gods mind so I can't tell you why he did something if he didn't tell us.
I want to know why we should discount scientific evidence for no reason. The evidence shows an old universe. An old universe does not disprove or leave out the possibility of God, so why not accept the evidence as we discover it?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36826
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep drinking the Koolaid.
The universe had come about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’ and the theory started to be so called. It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression used for descriptive purposes. Science can define the concept of ‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’. In truth,‘a point with no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from nothingness. In other words, it was created.
You just cant get past the idea that there's no skydaddy to tuck your covers in for you. The problem is you're a big baby that needs his mommy and him skydaddy or he gonna cry ,,,,Waaaaaaaaah.

Here drink your milk and take a nap. LOL

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36827
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly!
So why is it being taught in schools as a scientific theory?
We teach what we know at the moment. We can't not teach current theories in astronomy or biology just because they might be overturned by new evidence. All of science works that way.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36828
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep drinking the Koolaid.
The universe had come about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’ and the theory started to be so called. It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression used for descriptive purposes. Science can define the concept of ‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’. In truth,‘a point with no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from nothingness. In other words, it was created.
Once again you show you do not understand thevery basics of a theory you are attempting to debunk...

What does any of your proving how silly you are have to do with the fact that your theory of your cult god has major flaws and proven lies in it yet you still cling to it like a Jonestown fatality to their Kool-aid glass?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36829
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep drinking the Koolaid.
The universe had come about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’ and the theory started to be so called. It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression used for descriptive purposes. Science can define the concept of ‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’. In truth,‘a point with no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from nothingness. In other words, it was created.

Actually it is surmised to have been a infinite infinitesimal , theres a big difference between that and a zero point.
JBH

Richmond, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36832
Aug 7, 2012
 

Judged:

2

As of August August 7, 2012, medals results for London Olympics are as follows:

Gold Silver, Bronze Total
1
People's Republic of China
34 21 18 73
2
United States of America
30 19 21 70
3
Great Britain
22 13 13 48
4
Russian Federation
10 18 20 48
5
Japan
2 13 14 29
6
France
8 9 11 28
7
Germany
6 14 7 27
8
Australia
4 12 9 25
9
South Korea
12 5 6 23
10
Italy
7 6 4 17
11
Netherlands
5 3 6 14
12
Canada
1 3 7 11
13
Hungary
4 2 3 9
14
New Zealand
3 1 5 9
15
Ukraine
3 0 6 9
16
Romania
2 5 2 9
17
Islamic Republic of Iran
4 3 1 8
18
Belarus
3 2 3 8
19
Denmark
2 4 2 8
20
Poland
2 1 5 8

USA is facing challenge not just in sports, but in economics and social living as well (like standard of living and efficiency of a society).

Britain seems to do fine , hanging out there at this time in Olympics, however it will be economic devastating after, as some part of London looks really like a ghost town. While USA and Australia usually get over 25%, 40% respectively in their total medals in swimming, they will be facing risks once they fall in medals in swimming in future Olympics. However, Australia seems to have a breakthrough in track and field while Sally Pearson broke the record in 100M hurdle. Therefore Australia is still a viable competitor than USA in future challenge.

By rating performance per GDP and per population, Canada, as a G8 nation, really does poorly in London Olympics, compared to countries like Netherlands, Hungary, New Zealand,Ukraine, Romania, Islamic Republic of Iran,Belarus, Denmark, Poland.

As Austalian PM said that USA is declining, and many parts of the world see USA going downhill Including the British), both Bush and Obama have done flourishing--not just by outsourcing to polish the building of China's economics, to make the upclimbing of China. However, China is being challenged by others, as it has reached its plateau-surge to this time. The world sees others upclimbing while USA falls and China can no longer go much further.

Amazingly, Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland , Netherlands and other Scandanavian countries do well in the best stand in the standard of living as most G7 countries having their people in big debts, cannot hang in there.

The so much destruction and harms done by Bush and Obama, have also hampered the mentality and mind-set of the American people. It does look that US people are facing much trouble ahead, not just in economics. This demonstrates USA people lack the social awareness , intelligence and fact findings about this new changing world.

It is a new age planet, while there can be a lot of different things happening around the world, that people do not know.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36833
Aug 7, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Keep drinking the Koolaid.
The universe had come about by the explosion of this single point with zero volume. This great explosion that marked the beginning of the universe was named the ‘Big Bang’ and the theory started to be so called. It has to be stated that ‘zero volume’ is a theoretical expression used for descriptive purposes. Science can define the concept of ‘nothingness’, which is beyond the limits of human comprehension, only by expressing it as ‘a point with zero volume’. In truth,‘a point with no volume’ means ‘nothingness’. The universe has come into being from nothingness. In other words, it was created.
OK, we now have to scenarios on the table:

1) The universe popped into existence 13.7 billion years ago as an infinitely small and infinitely dense point.

2) The universe was created 6000 years ago by a brutally savage dimwitted baby raper.

I should point out that both scenarios are yours.
wolverine

Greeley, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36834
Aug 7, 2012
 
Waste Of Time KJV.....You Wallow In The Seeds OF Corruption.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36835
Aug 8, 2012
 
wolverine wrote:
Waste Of Time KJV.....You Wallow In The Seeds OF Corruption.
Well he IS a creationist.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36836
Aug 8, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
I have seen many posting claiming evolution is a fact. Let's see the proof.
Facts have proof.
2+2=4. Is a fact and easily proven.
Done and done. All you need to do is go back and address it. But since you openly admitted evidence doesn't matter to you because Godmagic all you can do is blow hot air.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36837
Aug 8, 2012
 
Portal wrote:
<quoted text>Its amazing how humans will spend untold billions on religion, politics and space exploration.....while the earth slowly dies around them.....intelligent life? Where? Not on this rock!SETI lost its funding...based on the fact that ETs would have contacted humans long ago
No they wouldn't.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36838
Aug 8, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
You attacked assuming the posting said scientific theory when only the word theory was used. I was simply pointing out the correct meaning of the word Theory that was used correctly in that post. Your response was that of an idiot.
Well since *we were* takling about *scientific* theories and you're using incorrect terminology your response here is that of someone who is incapable of dealing with reality and resorting to ad-hom instead.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36839
Aug 8, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
As stated many times scientific theory's are tested and tested they may work in thousands of test. But once a scientific theory fails a test it must then be adjusted or scraped. left unchanged after a failure Relativity is nothing more then a equation. And yes that equation is currently the best equation science has. But it does not have a Scientific theory of Relativity and teaching it as a theory in science is wrong.
I just demonstrated it works. You claiming it's "wrong" is a convenient lie so you can portray science is flawed without even having to back up your claims like we do. Relativity works and is fairly accurate, but not as accurate as quantum mechanics. But it's not "wrong".

Note how you have to lie and misrepresent others to make your case, all the while avoiding evidence, either presenting it or addressing it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36840
Aug 8, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
It's funny that you have evolution proof and science doesn't. Hmmm
Science doesn't deal in "proof", it deal with evidence. I have evidence because science has evidence. It has been presented. It has gone unaddressed by a single creationist here. The only alternative options you've provided is Godmagic and that evidence doesn't matter. Hmmm.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 35,441 - 35,460 of112,792
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••