Creationist Lies 666 apologies
- Started
- Last post
- 173 Responses
- Kuz0
dobs, if you read our exchange you'll see clearly how pathetic and flimsy arguments were, and how evasive he is.
- Kuz0
I have to go home now.
*out
- Kuz0
oh and lataz dobs!
- TheTick0
Hey, Benny Hinn makes me laugh. Disiplrs really ot all that funny.
- Dr_Jay0
* applause
Good job Kuz & Tick... no matter how repetitive and circular these "discussions" are, I enjoy them every time.
Discipler... As deluded and predictable as you are, you are at least providing some fuel for the fire. keep cuttin' & pastin'.
For people who keep chanting "kill this thread"... c'mon... this is at least a discussion. Don't click on it, chumps.
- Mimio0
It's pointless to argue science with a person who thinks science can describe and support their supernatural fantasy.
- pavlovs_dog0
I.D. is some stright conspiracy theory bullshit.
Disciplers arguments sound exactly the same as the holocaust deniers/ JFK nuts/ the moon landing was fake-o's/ WTC was demolished/ bla, bla, bla
Ignore the overwhellming evidence in support of, and find a few ambigious points to nit pick over.
Why aren't there any stars in the moon landing pics Discipler? Why didn't they find any cynide in the gas chamber walls of Treblenka Discipler?
You dont get science. We dont claim absolute truth. Just the best possible explaination. Evolution is just that. You could fill rooms with peer review journals that support it.
Any then you blindly accept the jive ass flat earth mythology of christianity? HA! The Bible stright out states (and assumes) that the the fucking Earth is flat. FLAT !
FUCK YOU!
I'd all be ammusing if it wasn't so damn dangerous...
- pavlovs_dog0
Dad!
- discipler0
A bunch of people agreeing on a position in debate with one person who takes the other position must mean that the majority is correct. I don't think so. Now, for the objective truth seekers here, who do not have a philosphical bias that prevents them from accepting confirmed scientific truth, here are some articles for further and accurate study:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=…
http://www.trueorigin.org/steige…
http://www.ideacenter.org/conten…
http://www.ideacenter.org/conten…
http://www.answersingenesis.org/…
*now I'm out. ;)
- mrdobolina0
Pavlov, you ever watch that guy? pure comedy. not sure if he is on your broke ass basic cable, haha
- mrdobolina0
dude, prove god is real. you cant. so yours is the philosophical theory.
- pavlovs_dog0
" Pavlov, you ever watch that guy? pure comedy. not sure if he is on your broke ass basic cable, haha "
I get enought religious zelotry on NT ?
- discipler0
prove he isn't.
- Mimio0
Discipler,
The burden of proof lies with you. You're making the claim.Do you really need to be reminded of that?
- mrdobolina0
discipler, that's weak.
- TheTick0
prove he isn't.
discipler
(Jun 16 05, 09:11)And as Shakespeare would say "Aye..There's the rub..."
"All are lunatics, but he who can analyze his delusions is called a philosopher."
Ambrose Bierce
- discipler0
The burden of proof, lies with both the Evolutionist AND the I.D. proponent. One must look at what science observes and form a reasonable hypothesis. I have looked at the evidence and I conclude that there is design behind the universe... not random chance with mutation.
What science observes:
1. High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures.
2. Forms found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors.
3. Genes and functional parts re-used in different unrelated organisms.
4. Genetic code which does not contain much discarded genetic baggage code or functionless "junk DNA".
Now, couple that with the way in which a designer would logically design:
1. Takes many parts and arrange them in highly specified and complex patterns which perform a specific function.
2. Rapidly infuses any amounts of genetic information into the biosphere, including large amounts, such that at times rapid morphological or genetic changes could occur in populations.
3. 'Re-use parts' over-and-over in different types of organisms (design upon a common blueprint).
4. Be said to typically NOT create completely functionless objects or parts (although we may sometimes think something is functionless, but not realize its true function).
Ok, NOW i must go. :)