PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     God has been confirmed
       god and evolution

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Human DNA is proof that a Creator exists.. all scientists are now in agreement that a Creator must have designed us.  

Human DNA is just too complex.  Its more complex than anything Microsoft could engineer.  Bill Gates even said this.

How could Microsoft Windows accidentally engineer itself.  Evolution by definition menas an "accident of evolution"

Finally proof of God.  Human DNA has been completely mapped and finally eveyrone is in agreement.
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 2:40 PM on October 5, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Human DNA is proof that a Creator exists.. all scientists are now in agreement that a Creator must have designed us.  

Human DNA is just too complex.  Its more complex than anything Microsoft could engineer.  Bill Gates even said this.

How could Microsoft Windows accidentally engineer itself.  Evolution by definition menas an "accident of evolution"

Finally proof of God.  Human DNA has been completely mapped and finally eveyrone is in agreement.


....
....


....



..




...



..


Okay.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 10/5/2006 at 3:46 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:45 PM on October 5, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Human DNA was engineered.. it did not evolve.  Proof of a Creator.  How could a human baby have survived  all on its own to begin with?

If you believe in evolution, then there must have been the first human baby.  How could it have survived to continue the human race???  lol

We were CREATED!
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 5:27 PM on October 5, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Human DNA was engineered.. it did not evolve.  Proof of a Creator.  How could a human baby have survived  all on its own to begin with?

If you believe in evolution, then there must have been the first human baby.  How could it have survived to continue the human race???  lol

We were CREATED!


Go back to your middle school and ask your 7th-grade science teacher what evolution is and how it works. You'll be astonished how in the dark you are.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:38 PM on October 5, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Where is the missing link?  How could a human baby have survived all on its own?  No, rather an ADULT human was created.

Explain to me how Microsoft Windows could accidentally "just happen" ?

If Human DNA is much more complex than the most complex software Microsoft can engineer, then how could DNA have evolved?

DNA was Engineered!!! Dont you get it??? Engineered by a Creator!  lol.. its so simple, everyone knows this now yet YOU deny it..lol
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 7:50 PM on October 5, 2006 | IP
Foxtrot12

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I will try to explain in words you will be able to understand.

1. You don't know what evolution is. This is the most important concept that while reading the rest of my post you should keep in mind. You don't know what it is. You have never been taught what it is.

2. Scientists aren't in agreement about what you just said. In fact, even the Creation Scientists, who aren't real scientists, aren't in agreement with what you just said.

3. You don't know what DNA is. To you, it is simply a double-helix shaped object that is the building block of life. You dont' know how complex it is, and how simple it is. You simply don't know.

4. Microsoft Windows has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Just because both Microsoft Windows and human DNA are complex does not mean that they were both created by some high power.

5. A human baby never survived on its own. The world did not begin with a human baby, nor did DNA every directly form to create a human baby.

---

You do not know what DNA is. You do not know what Evolution is. You don't know what happened. You can't assume simply because you think everything is complex that it must have been created by a Creator.

You are immature, young, and generally uneducated. Return to your Christian fundamentalist education or your hopelessly basketcase parents. They will comfort you with lies.

(Edited by Foxtrot12 10/6/2006 at 12:37 AM).
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 12:37 AM on October 6, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You fail and have a problem with understanding that human DNA was engineered.

Explain to me how DNA could have evolved?  Impossible for DNA to evolve, lol.. no rather it was engineered by an intelligence.

You fail to understand what DNA is.  You desire to turn your back on the truth, this is your right.  Enjoy your ignorant life, or whats left of it.
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 12:53 AM on October 6, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You fail and have a problem with understanding that human DNA was engineered.

Explain to me how DNA could have evolved?  Impossible for DNA to evolve, lol.. no rather it was engineered by an intelligence.

You fail to understand what DNA is.  You desire to turn your back on the truth, this is your right.  Enjoy your ignorant life, or whats left of it.


DNA evolved from RNA, which is essentially DNA minus 50% of the code.

You fail to understand what DNA is.


It's so obvious that you haven't taken any kind of biology course that all we're going to do is laugh at you until you prove us wrong.

all scientists are now in agreement that a Creator must have designed us.


NO. If this is true, you'll have little trouble finding a source to back it up. Your posts are nothing but blind claims that even the most stubborn anti-evolutionists aren't foolish enough to make.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:33 AM on October 6, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again, we have foolish immature forum lurkers looking for "links".. lol

Links , in todays internet society are only for the "tabloid" readers, the ignorant who refuse to think for themselves.  How sad

If it's typed, it must be true, lol  If it's linked, it must be true, lol

If its in the newspaper, it must be true.  lol  If its in a school book, it must be true..lol

Open your mind and think for yourself, then you shall be truly free of ignorance
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 10:45 AM on October 6, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Again, we have foolish immature forum lurkers looking for "links".. lol

Links , in todays internet society are only for the "tabloid" readers, the ignorant who refuse to think for themselves.  How sad

If it's typed, it must be true, lol  If it's linked, it must be true, lol

If its in the newspaper, it must be true.  lol  If its in a school book, it must be true..lol

Open your mind and think for yourself, then you shall be truly free of ignorance


Science is based on evidence. It's great to see you admit to having none. Next.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 3:59 PM on October 6, 2006 | IP
Michigan

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JetSunn at 10:45 AM on October 6, 2006 :
Again, we have foolish immature forum lurkers looking for "links".. lol

Links , in todays internet society are only for the "tabloid" readers, the ignorant who refuse to think for themselves.  How sad

If it's typed, it must be true, lol  If it's linked, it must be true, lol

If its in the newspaper, it must be true.  lol  If its in a school book, it must be true..lol

Open your mind and think for yourself, then you shall be truly free of ignorance


Actually, it is accepted practice that in order to make an effective argument you need to have some sort of factual basis for your claim. In order to do this, it is most effectiveto be able to reference some form of autority. Be it case law, scientific journals, historical evidence, or even a good old dictonary.

Citation: noun (sI-'tA-sh&n) the pertinent information needed to find the full text of a publication. Citation of a book generally includes: author(s), title, publisher, date. Citation of an article in a periodical generally includes: author(s), article title, source journal title, volume, pages, and date.

See Also:

Cited Article: an article referenced in a scholarly publication; in a citation search, the article for which the user is searching for subsequent references.

Cited Author: an author whose publication has been referenced in a scholarly work; in a citation search, the author the user is searching for, as referenced in subsequent works.

(Source: Author's own course syllabus for his 8th Grade students.)
 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 11:24 PM on October 6, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another twisted mind deceived by the media....lol.. think for yourself.. ever hear of it?
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 2:13 PM on October 7, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Another twisted mind deceived by the media....lol.. think for yourself.. ever hear of it?


You're the last one here who's thinking for himself. What are you basing your conclusion on, after all? A single book.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:46 PM on October 7, 2006 | IP
Michigan

|     |       Report Post



Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from JetSunn at 2:13 PM on October 7, 2006 :
Another twisted mind deceived by the media....lol.. think for yourself.. ever hear of it?


Yes, clearly my reliance on academic and rhetorical standards that date back to the 12th century is a prime example of the warping effects of modern mass media.

You, sir, are a obtuse little troll, and virtually impossible to converse with...

When attempting to persuade someone, there are certain established ways to do it. By far the most effective is to appeal to reason, by offering a Logical argument, effective rhetorical techniques, using the scientific method, or by merely presenting proof.

Appeals to tradition, emotion, or conscience can also be effective; but they are much easier to dispute.

Ad hominum attacks (that is, insults) such as when I called you a troll, or you point out that some claim Jefferson was 'gay' are not effective at all.

"Think for yourself" is a valid ideal, but it does not - as they say in the Princess Bride "mean wha' you t'ink it means."

You are welcome to your opinions, I would even encourage you to cometo your own conclussion on any and all subjects. However, you must alsoaccept the simpletruth that ours is not an objective reality... certain things are the way they are, no matter how you feel about them.

In science, or any other academic discipline, one must back up their hypothosis (what they think) with evidence (what they can prove) and reasoned analysis (what they can conclude).

Esentially, your argument has been thus:

JetSunn: A human baby could not have survived if it appeared spontaneously.
EntwickelnCollin: They didn't... Please try to understand the concept before debating it.
JetSunn: Where is the Missing Link! DNA is tough to understand!
EntwickelnCollin: There is no such thing. DNA is actually well understood by scientists.
JetSunn: But I have proof!
Michigan: Okay, show us.
JetSunn: No. I don't have to prove it... it is what I think!


 


Posts: 21 | Posted: 07:35 AM on October 8, 2006 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Human DNA is proof that a Creator exists.. all scientists are now in agreement that a Creator must have designed us.  

Human DNA is just too complex.  Its more complex than anything Microsoft could engineer.  Bill Gates even said this.

How could Microsoft Windows accidentally engineer itself.  Evolution by definition menas an "accident of evolution"

Finally proof of God.  Human DNA has been completely mapped and finally eveyrone is in agreement.


Aside from the fact that you have not come close to proving that DNA was "created", you provide no evidence, let alone proof, that said "creator" was "God". In fact,  you provide no information at all  on  your supposed "creator".

The only  scientific evidence that you or anybody else has regarding the known designers of complex systems is that they all were (are) teams of imperfect (by many subjective standards), mortal, sexually reproducing humans.  


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 12:50 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DNA was engineered.. that is FACT.  Now then... what does engineered mean?  It means an INTELLIGENCE was behind it.

How could Windows 98 evolve into Windows XP all on its own by an accident of chance, evolution is "accident by chance'

My statements are irrefutable...you choose to reject the information we have uncovered about DNA and proof that DNA was engineered... .meaning an intelligence was behind it

Even Einstein said the Universe has a mathematical genius behind it
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 2:01 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
Foxtrot12

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Jetsunn no one takes you seriously, because you can't prove anything you claim. You simply state all of yours claims are "irrefutable."

To us, you are simply another basketcase design theorist who is incapable of supporting their claims with any evidence.

Foxtrot12

P.S. Windows 98 did not "evolve" into Windows XP. Don't be an idiot.

P.S.S. PROVE that DNA was engineered. PROVE it, biatch
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 2:15 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lol..where you been in a cave!!!!  The entire human genome has been mapped!!  We can all quite clearly see it was engineered!!!!

You fail to understand DNA and what we now know.

We are now at a point in history where thru our own intelligence have been able to uncover the truth about ourselves.

You reject that... its so obvious and clear to any sane human that you reject it for your own reasons for which it is unknown to us all.  You will probably take that rejection to your grave.

Many humans deny God out of anger and quite frankly because they just dont understand.  God i am sure is laughing at the rejectors even when the facts are all around us.
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 2:25 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Lol..where you been in a cave!!!!  The entire human genome has been mapped!!  We can all quite clearly see it was engineered!!!!


Mapping the genome out does not by any means show it was engineered. Try again.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:47 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ignorant reply.. try again
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 3:24 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Let's have this thread locked. Admin?


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:20 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DNA has instructions... where did those instructions come from?  DNA has blueprints.. who designed the blueprints?

DNA cannot happen by chance or accident.  DNA is a complex code... more complex than Windows software!!!

Who created that DNA software?  Code just doesn't happen by chance!!!!  DNA was designed.. engineered.. created...

Get it now?  lol  omg.. you can lead a horse to water but cant make it drink
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 9:14 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DNA has instructions... where did those instructions come from?

They arose naturally, why couldn't they?

DNA has blueprints.. who designed the blueprints?

"Blueprints" is a metaphor, we see how they evolved.  No designer needed.

DNA cannot happen by chance or
accident.


Chemical reactions don't happen by accident, so DNA arose naturally, no designer needed, but not by accident or chance....

DNA is a complex code... more complex than Windows software!!!

Once again, code is just a metaphor, it's not a code in the sense you're trying to use it.  There are no symbols, just sequences of adenine, guanine, cytosine and thymine.

Who created that DNA software?

It's not software...

Code just doesn't happen by chance!!!!

DNA isn't a code and it didn't happen by chance but it did arise naturally without a creator.

DNA was designed.. engineered..
created.. .


No. No. No.

You're uninformed opinions mean absolutely nothing here.  You can't back up your superstitious claim with evidence, you can't produce one biochemist who agrees with you, you've got nothing...


 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:57 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I disagree with everything you said... try again
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 11:56 PM on October 8, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I disagree with everything you said... try again

No, I won't try again.  The ball is in your court, falsify my claims with real evidence or you lose....
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:07 AM on October 9, 2006 | IP
Foxtrot12

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We should just start playing Jetsunn's little game:

You are wrong. I win.
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 01:30 AM on October 9, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

With every post he makes, my suspicion that he isn't serious and is just a troll grows.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:37 AM on October 9, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:07 AM on October 9, 2006 :
I disagree with everything you said... try again

No, I won't try again.  The ball is in your court, falsify my claims with real evidence or you lose....



Falsify your claims?....lol  Falsify my claims first... you failed.. but with your MASSIVE EGO you THINK you falsified my claims...lol
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 02:23 AM on October 10, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Falsify your claims?....lol  Falsify my claims first...

Modern science has already falsified your claims.  No biologist or biochemist supports your claim that DNA had to be designed.

As to your claims, from here: Orgel
"Whether RNA arose spontaneously or replaced some earlier genetic system, its development was probably the watershed event in the development of life. It very likely led to the synthesis of proteins, the formation of DNA and the emergence of a cell that became life's last common ancestor."

Leslie Orgel is a biochemist studying the origins of life, the article I took that quote from summerizes some of the research into abiogenesis.  Notice he talks about how DNA could have arisen by natural means, nowhere does he say it's designed.

And to repeat my previous posts, DNA isn't software, it doesn't contain a language, shows absolutely no evidence of being intelligently designed, just the opposite, it looks exactly as if it evolved by natural selection.  

So once again, falsify the evidence.  So far, you've got nothing. Put up or shut up.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 03:37 AM on October 10, 2006 | IP
JetSunn

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're just taking a position Demon.. you're a fraud, you been exposed.. in other words..TROLL
 


Posts: 42 | Posted: 10:44 PM on October 10, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You're just taking a position Demon.. you're a fraud, you been exposed.. in other words..TROLL


Just let the thread die, Demon. It's obvious that while he might be serious about his beliefs, JetSunn isn't trying to do anything here but cause trouble. Ignore the next response he makes.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 2:49 PM on October 10, 2006 | IP
DBettino

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I consider myself a part of the Right Wing, and it is disappointing, to say the least, to see that so many people that consider themselves Right Wingers are relying upon vacuous morality to make decisions about critical issues.  The issue here is the education of our youth.  I would not hesitate to pull my child out of any school that teaches Creationism because it is a lie.


-------
Wake up, West!
-Oriana Fallaci
 


Posts: 14 | Posted: 4:16 PM on October 12, 2006 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is only a lei if one is deliberately intending t deceive another.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 11:42 PM on January 13, 2007 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

It is only a lei if one is deliberately intending t deceive another.


And that is exactly the description of the people you keep getting your propoganda from. Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, AiG, Jim Comfort, Michael Behe, Phillip Johnson, TruthOrigins, William Dembski...


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 11:42 AM on January 14, 2007 | IP
SilverStar

|        |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I tend not to listen to propaganda. Many of the people that stage it I disagree with.


-------
Darkside Enterprises were the impossible meets possible.

Tread softy and carry a big stick, preferably an AT4
 


Posts: 681 | Posted: 12:28 PM on January 14, 2007 | IP
The_Wizard

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

DNA is not proof of Intellegent Design. The building block of life can be created in a lab by recreating early earth chemistry. Life is nitrogen and carbon based. By placing nitrogen, methane, carbon dioxide, hyrdrogen, sulfur dioxide in a chamber and apply UV and electricity, in several days a brown slime starts to emerge. The slime consists of water carbon and long chain proteins. Proteins that resemble RNA. Simple hydrocarbon chains produce primitive cell membranes and chemical reactions with the proteins produce the creation of function. Of coarse this all takes millions of years to acheive the whole process. If you have something better, I'd like to see it. Plus... why would an all powerful being create microsystems with in systems and not just animate matter? Creating a full flesh being would achieve all the same thing if God said it to be so. Why create a universe with millions of galaxies and stars if you can't see them all or use them.

(Edited by The_Wizard 3/18/2007 at 7:59 PM).


-------
Never Talkin', Just Keeps Walkin'
Spreadin' His Magic...

The Wizard
 


Posts: 40 | Posted: 7:57 PM on March 18, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Microsoft: Age is 32 years old
Life: Estimated to be about 4 billion years old.

Life is about 125 million times older than microsoft. No wonder it's so complicated!

And BTW saying all scientists believe in god is like saying Jerry Falwell just converted to Islam and changed his name to Yusuf Mahdoun Jabbar. Clearly, clearly not true. Proof that creationists have ended up in a corner.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 6:06 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And considering JetSunn to represent all Creationists is just as bad.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:40 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, it's just that I haven't heard a single good argument for creation so far.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:27 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I doubt you've listened.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:03 PM on April 22, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

List one.


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 4:23 PM on April 29, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Geological evidence supports creation account rather than naturalist account...


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:21 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Geological evidence supports creation account rather than naturalist account...


Not one single Geology department in any accredited university or college in North America agrees with you...Is there some sort of conspiracy going on or do you have another reason why all these distinguished Geology experts  from religious Universites like Baylor (Baptist) SMU (Methodist) and Notre Dame (Catholic) disagree with you?
 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 1:31 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Um, Loma Linda is accredited... by the same association that does Cal-State, Pepperdine, Loyala Marymount, San Diego State, John F Kennedy Univeristy, etc and so forth.  It is state, regionally, and nationally accredited.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 1:46 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
fredguff

|     |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Um, Loma Linda is accredited... by the same association that does Cal-State, Pepperdine, Loyala Marymount, San Diego State, John F Kennedy Univeristy, etc and so forth.  It is state, regionally, and nationally accredited.


I can't find any info Loma Linda's Geology curriculum. Nor can I find the name of the governing body that gave them their accreditation.  Do you have any links?


 


Posts: 162 | Posted: 2:06 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

WASCSR is the regional accreditation association for the Pacific (including most of the California schools like Cal State-Fullerton, etc.) area.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 2:09 PM on May 1, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 1:21 PM on May 1, 2007 :
Geological evidence supports creation account rather than naturalist account...


You cannot possibly be serious.



A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 9:56 PM on May 2, 2007 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What part of the information provided did you disagree with?  Saying "you can't be serious" and then cut and pasting another post your made does not help us to understand what part of the Loma Linda University findings you are objecting to.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 9:57 PM on May 3, 2007 | IP
Unriggable

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 1:21 PM on May 1, 2007 :
Geological evidence supports creation account rather than naturalist account...


ca·tas·tro·phism      /kəˈtæstrəˌfɪzəm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[kuh-tas-truh-fiz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun Geology.
the doctrine that certain vast geological changes in the earth's history were caused by catastrophes rather than gradual evolutionary processes.

Well then the fossils are all "fake", right?


-------
"Without Judgment"
 


Posts: 51 | Posted: 10:08 PM on May 3, 2007 | IP
Robert1981

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Are some of the creationists on drugs or something? That first post is absolute lunacy - standard creationist arguments just seem to involve either outright lies eg statements like 'there's no evidence for this' when a scout around pubmed says otherwise. either that or the argument 'I'm right because the bible says so', which is a strange thing to believe given the number of contradictions etc in it.

It annoys the hell out of me that these people will accept the science that they like (eg the science that allows them to drive a car, or fire a gun, or come up with life saving medicine), yet another theory such as evolution, or dating of the earth via various methods that has been tested using the same set of principles (ie the scientific method) they decide they don't like it so it must be wrong. You can't have it both ways - if you don't believe theories backed up by the scientific method, next time you get a disease of some description, don't take medicine as it's extremely hypocritical to do so.
 


Posts: 1 | Posted: 9:29 PM on July 31, 2007 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.