Evolution vs. Creation

Posted in the US House of Representatives Forum

Read

85,807 Comments

Add to my Tracker

More US House of Representatives Discussions »

Comments (Page 1,187)

Showing posts 23,721 - 23,740 of85,807

< prev page

next page >

Go to last page| Jump to page:

KittenKoder “I Am No One Else” Since: Apr 12 19,252 Seattle	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24528 May 3, 2012 Langoliers wrote: <quoted text> Nope hadn't heard that one. Erm, what have you not heard? About the "torch residue" fallacy or the fact that it's a fallacy?
Drew Smith Since: Feb 08 18,302 Tampa, FL	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24529 May 3, 2012 Judged: 1 1 1 Langoliers wrote: Evolutionists get really, really, really mad when you point out that their belief in evolution is actually a religion, since they believe in something that isn't testable or repeatable. First, I don't "believe" in evolution. I accept that the theory of evolution is the best available scientific theory capable of explaining what is observed. And yes, the evidence for evolution is not only testable but also repeatable. You can test the DNA of living things, repeatedly. You can test the age of geologic periods, repeatedly. You can test the fossils found in those periods, repeatedly. And the repeatable tests keep coming up in support of evolution. Now, if you dispute that testable, repeatable evidence, I suggest you get to work refuting it. Here is a list: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ Have at it.
CTEd Since: Mar 09 6,431 Hidden	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24530 May 3, 2012 THE REAL HABESHA wrote: <quoted text> I was clear from the beginning what I meant by god, and what this god is not. The real problem that when someone starts such discussions, there are people like you who ignores completely what the poster says, even though he repeated it thousand times, and then you have the guts to tell me you thought I was speaking about another typology of god. Hilarious. When is about god a knowledgeable person would ask what do you mean by god, but since you lack of knowledge about it, and the only thing yourself can conceive is the biblical god, then don’t take it with me but with yourself and your limited knowledge on this matter. For instance, even Einstein believed in god. For him god was the entire sum of all the physical laws. So keep an open mind and learn something, instead to pretend the other posters to have your limited idea of god, in a globalized world. The definition of god found in dictionaries are very limited, in the other hand you can google the word god, you can’t even image how different this concept is from religion to religion, from philosophy to philosophy, and from physicist to physicist. Uh huh.... Sure. So like I said you have no real position on the issue your god coudl be anything, and is nothing by your own admission. Something without attributes can not exist, yet you admit it has no attributes you are willing to assign it (even though you made it up). It's not even worth bringing it up for debate in this case. There is no god, even if you define it as a first cause, if that first cause is indistinguishable from a naturally occurring big bang.
CTEd Since: Mar 09 6,431 Hidden	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24531 May 3, 2012 THE REAL HABESHA wrote: <quoted text> But when did I said dictionary is faulty? You are putting words in my mouth and then you talk abput intellectual dishonesty? You have misunderstood anything I said. He said that the definition on dictionaries about god is different from what I said. Keep in mind a couple of things, before to write me: 1) I've always defined what I meant by using the word god 2) He lied when said that dictionaries give other definitions since many of them keep define god in very general manner which is acceptable. I've taken for true what he said and I SUGGESTED to him to look out for other definitions or conceptions of the word god, if his view is so limited to the biblical god. But your god isn't even divine, or even supernatural by your definition that doesn't fit any definition of any god anyone ever talks about really, so you should have just clarified from the beginning and saved everyone the trouble of the non debate.
thewordofme “Douglas Adams was right” Since: Jun 11 4,451 Israel	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24532 May 3, 2012 Judged: 1 1 1 Langoliers wrote: CENSOR THE FACTS in Science and History. Don't deal with opposing facts at all, treat them with silence. Ancient man left us technology we can't duplicate today, such as the Great Pyramid? Don't tell anyone about the advanced technology it took to do what they did. Or maybe blame it on the aliens. That's what scientists Watson and Crick did. They won the Nobel Prize in 1962 for their studies on the complex information transfers that take place in our DNA. At the 50 year anniversary of their discovery, they revealed to the world that the complexity of the information transferred in our DNA is not explainable by evolutionary processes, so therefore they have concluded that the ALIENS DID IT. It would appear ANYTHING BUT GOD is an acceptable theory. Well sir, the reason for that is we know that God does not exist...so we look for plausible explanations. With all the new planets being found nowadays it look more and more likely that there will be life out there, and the earth COULD have been seeded from outside
thewordofme “Douglas Adams was right” Since: Jun 11 4,451 Israel	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24533 May 3, 2012 Judged: 2 1 1 Langoliers wrote: Tell people they must choose between SCIENCE VS. RELIGION. Tell them they can believe without evidence, which would be religion, or they can believe the evidence, which would be scientific. And the way they say it implies that smart people would believe the evidence, only really stupid people would believe something in spite of the evidence against it. Evolutionists get really, really, really mad when you point out that their belief in evolution is actually a religion, since they believe in something that isn't testable or repeatable. Wow do they get mad. Yes sir, I think most people who believe in science and evolution think that creationist/evangelical/fundam entalist believers are stupid...I believe one would have to be to accept the outlandish story the ministers, priests, etc. try to pawn off on the unsuspecting persons of this world. It's all about money and power...like everything else in this world.
LEX Lexington, VA	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24534 May 4, 2012 Illustrated Man wrote: King James Version (KJV) 20And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: 21Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you. Faith in the word of God is in us. The hope that we will go to Heaven is in us. Jesus said Heaven is a real kingdom and it has streets and many dwelling places.
The Dude Birkenhead, UK	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24535 May 4, 2012 woodtick57 wrote: <quoted text>hardly, you took that definition as the true definition, yet for god, you sy the dictionsary is faulty in its definition. that would be intellectual dishonesty on your part. you can't have it both ways. But you're spoiling his irrelevant tangental philosophical word-game w*nking! :-(

The Dude Birkenhead, UK	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24536 May 4, 2012 Langoliers wrote: CENSOR THE FACTS in Science and History. Don't deal with opposing facts at all, treat them with silence. Since they're unable to get their work peer-reviewed (because they aren't submitting it) silence (and mockery) is all they'll get.(shrug) Langoliers wrote: Ancient man left us technology we can't duplicate today, such as the Great Pyramid? Of course we can. But what would be the point? The issue now is not capability but of economics. Langoliers wrote: Don't tell anyone about the advanced technology it took to do what they did. Like what? Solar powered cranes? Please provide evidence. Langoliers wrote: Or maybe blame it on the aliens. Nah, just the thousands of Egyptians who did it. Langoliers wrote: That's what scientists Watson and Crick did. They won the Nobel Prize in 1962 for their studies on the complex information transfers that take place in our DNA. Which solidified evolution in the process. Langoliers wrote: At the 50 year anniversary of their discovery, they revealed to the world that the complexity of the information transferred in our DNA is not explainable by evolutionary processes, so therefore they have concluded that the ALIENS DID IT. It would appear ANYTHING BUT GOD is an acceptable theory. Whoever "they" were they had nothing to do with the scientific community, and therefore evolution is still the only scientific theory there is that explains the diversity of life on Earth. Invoking "God" is just as bad as invoking "aliens". Both give us a WHO, not a HOW, and both do so based on zero evidence.
The Dude Birkenhead, UK	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24537 May 4, 2012 Langoliers wrote: Tell people they must choose between SCIENCE VS. RELIGION. Tell them they can believe without evidence, which would be religion, or they can believe the evidence, which would be scientific. And the way they say it implies that smart people would believe the evidence, only really stupid people would believe something in spite of the evidence against it. Evolutionists get really, really, really mad when you point out that their belief in evolution is actually a religion, since they believe in something that isn't testable or repeatable. Wow do they get mad. They may get mad at liars.(shrug) However evolution IS scientifically testable, and has been tested repeatedly for 150 years or so. So far it has not been falsified. Creationists keep claiming it's been falsified, despite the fact they aren't even doing any scientific research themselves to even attempt this. Instead they focus on propaganda, PR campaigns and political pressuring, doing anything BUT science, then they get mad that no-one accepts their apologetics AS science. Therefore it's obviously all because of the evil world-wide scientist evolutionist Darwinist atheist liberal socialist communist Nazi UN courts Government religious gayhomo anti-Christian God-hating Satan-worshiping conspiracy. And then you bozos take them seriously.
The Dude Birkenhead, UK	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24538 May 4, 2012 CTEd wrote: <quoted text> Uh huh.... Sure. So like I said you have no real position on the issue your god coudl be anything, and is nothing by your own admission. Something without attributes can not exist, yet you admit it has no attributes you are willing to assign it (even though you made it up). It's not even worth bringing it up for debate in this case. There is no god, even if you define it as a first cause, if that first cause is indistinguishable from a naturally occurring big bang. But how do you KNOW?!? :-O
THE REAL HABESHA Since: Jan 09 3,587 Ta netjer - D.L.	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24539 May 4, 2012 woodtick57 wrote: <quoted text>i was going by this statement; "The definition of god found in dictionaries are very limited, in the other hand you can google the word god, you can’t even image how different this concept is from religion to religion.." yet that limited definition of athiest seemed just fine for you. But the definitions I brought were shared by anyone. No one has criticized them.
THE REAL HABESHA Since: Jan 09 3,587 Ta netjer - D.L.	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24540 May 4, 2012 Judged: 1 1 1 CTEd wrote: <quoted text> But your god isn't even divine, or even supernatural by your definition that doesn't fit any definition of any god anyone ever talks about really, so you should have just clarified from the beginning and saved everyone the trouble of the non debate. You are making things up. By my definition? Where did I say it's not supernatural? Supernatural means thing(s) that cannot be explained by science. So yes it fits well. And yes it fits with other definition of any god anyone ever talks about, but then you came cross as person who define god as the biblical one, and as such as you publically admitted your ignorance. So don't complain myself, open books, or google, trip all over the world.
The Dude Birkenhead, UK	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24541 May 4, 2012 THE REAL HABESHA wrote: <quoted text> You are making things up. By my definition? Where did I say it's not supernatural? Supernatural means thing(s) that cannot be explained by science. Thanks. That was all we needed. Congratulations on pointing out the concept is irrevant to reality, save perhaps to alleviate some people's philosophical worries. It's got diddly squat to do with science.
woodtick57 Since: Mar 11 27,731 St. Croix valley	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24542 May 4, 2012 Langoliers wrote: <quoted text> No, the statement is that we can't figure out how they did it. How did they build them in the time they had. How did they paint the inside rooms in the lower bowels of the pyramids with no torch residue on the ceiling. Using what they had back then. There are many theories of how it could have been done. Just because we don't know the exact way they did it doean't mean we can't figure it out or that it is beyond our understanding in any way. couldn't they have painted them when they were open? wow, that was hard.
woodtick57 Since: Mar 11 27,731 St. Croix valley	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24543 May 4, 2012 THE REAL HABESHA wrote: <quoted text> But the definitions I brought were shared by anyone. No one has criticized them. the atheism definition? most people here seemed to criticize them. are you serious?
LowellGuy “What, me worry?” Since: Mar 09 25,040 I'm a racist caricature!	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24545 May 4, 2012 FREE SERVANT wrote: <quoted text>God created the universe, Oh, I see. You start with an assumption with zero evidence to support it, and then you base everything off of that assumption. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach. One problem: the flying spaghetti monster ate your God before it ever had a chance to create the universe. That's why the flying spaghetti monster had to create the universe. So, your story fails from the get-go. Sorry about that.
KittenKoder “I Am No One Else” Since: Apr 12 19,252 Seattle	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24546 May 4, 2012 LowellGuy wrote: <quoted text> Oh, I see. You start with an assumption with zero evidence to support it, and then you base everything off of that assumption. That sounds like a perfectly reasonable approach. One problem: the flying spaghetti monster ate your God before it ever had a chance to create the universe. That's why the flying spaghetti monster had to create the universe. So, your story fails from the get-go. Sorry about that. Religion is the backwards version of science. That is why it never improves, unlike science which expands and grows all the time. I am still seeing support for my hypothesis that the religious zealots simply do not want to learn anything at all, that's why the cling to the three words, it's easy to remember.
FREE SERVANT Bellevue, WA	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24547 May 4, 2012 Judged: 1 Creation is a work. The work of the Creator. The lamb of God (Jesus) was given in sacrifice for the atonement of man and for all the work of God. Now, I have good evidence that the crucifixion was a real event, and it is pictured in a stone. These are true words whether anyone here will believe them or not. The evidence may have only been sent to help build my faith, and others may not see it as I do, I don't really know. All I can say is that I am truly humbled and honoured to have been given it.
KittenKoder “I Am No One Else” Since: Apr 12 19,252 Seattle	Reply » \| Report Abuse \| Judge it! \| #24548 May 4, 2012 FREE SERVANT wrote: Creation is a work. The work of the Creator. The lamb of God (Jesus) was given in sacrifice for the atonement of man and for all the work of God. Now, I have good evidence that the crucifixion was a real event, and it is pictured in a stone. These are true words whether anyone here will believe them or not. The evidence may have only been sent to help build my faith, and others may not see it as I do, I don't really know. All I can say is that I am truly humbled and honoured to have been given it. Blah blah blah, yakkity schmakkity. All evidence destroys your "faith" ... all of it. Is that why you fear science so much? Don't answer, we know the real answer already.
Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required) Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 23,721 - 23,740 of85,807

< prev page

next page >

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.

Other Recent US House of Representatives Discussions

Search the US House of Representatives Forum:

Topic	Updated	Last By	Comments
Revenge Voting? Hell Yea (Nov '12)	6 min	Truth is might	9,257
Gay marriage	11 min	Quest	3,273
House GOP leaders pledge action on immigration	14 min	Reality Check	14
Immigration bill heads to full Senate	18 min	TLCLeebo	22
Evasive Answers?Irs Official Facing More Scruti...	19 min	Pappa	92
IRS Apologizes for Scrutiny of Conservative Groups	26 min	Beachlady	730
Anthony Weiner: Voters shouldn't forget scandal	30 min	Barry Sotero	26