Reply With Quote
If I can't teach your ignorant ass what chance do I have in public schools?
As I said, I'd like to know what you think.
Yeah, since i told you several time, it should be obvious.The answer is obvious.
You think I support the CNN article, and by extension the findings of the journal authors.I've inferred as much, though I never made any such assertion. I made quite the opposite, in fact (that you don't have enough knowledge on the subject to be more than indifferent)
You're wrong.
What side of the fence are you on?Begging? I'm simply throwing my questions out there to see what you guys on the other side of the fence have to say.
What do you actually believe?
I have been asking for you to make your argument for days now. Why are you afraid to make it?if you find them rhetorical, simply don't answer - but don't act like I have no argument to make, either.
You were trolling and begging for someone to answer.If you don't have a clue as to what presuppositions mean in a debate about these areas, then that is not my problem.
So why don't you say what you believe? Why should asking you what you believe get your panties in such a bunch?My beliefs and ideals are no better than anyone's. I freely admit I could be very wrong - hence why asking these supposedly harmless questions should not get your panties in such a bunch.
You mean you'll quit whining about me and get on with your agenda?Say what I mean about what? About the pterosaur? About the questions I asked concerning it? About the origin of life idea I possess you desperately seek? If you have a question that's pertinent to the evidence or the article or even what I have thus far stated, I'll gladly answer. , I'll even entertain more discussion on creationism in school.
OK. Finally
What is your opinion of the journal article's findings in particular and evolution in general?
If I can't teach your ignorant ass what chance do I have in public schools?
The existence of fossils is a fact.
Evolution is a scientific theory that tries to explain that fact.
Evolution is based on facts.
Darwin Was Wrong, Evolutionary Scientists Admit
“Darwin simply didn’t have access to the information we have,” explains William Parker, Ph.D., assistant professor of surgical sciences at Duke University Medical Center and the senior author of a new study on the appendix. “If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large ce , and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution.”
A few days ago the evolutionary website ScienceDaily ran a story led “Evolution of the Human Appendix: A Biological ‘Remnant’ No More.” According to the article, “Duke scientists and collaborators from the University of Arizona and Arizona State University conclude that Charles Darwin was wrong: The appendix is a whole lot more than an evolutionary remnant. Not only does it appear in nature much more frequently than previously acknowledged, but it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected.”
Parker added, “Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks. Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ.’”
Maybe, Dr. Parker? Maybe? We know how difficult it must be to finally come around to what creationists have been saying all along, but why should there be even the slightest hesitation about correcting a known mistake in biology textbooks? Creation Moments will even make it easy for textbook publishers by providing the new wording: “According to the latest scientific research, Darwin was wrong about the appendix being a vestigial organ. The appendix serves a critical function as part of the body’s immune system, as creation scientists have long asserted.”
But we won’t hold our breath. After all, Dr. Parker is still a loyal Darwinist. “We’re not saying that Darwin’s idea of evolution is wrong - that would be absurd, as we’re using his ideas on evolution to do this work,” Parker told LiveScience.com yesterday. “It’s just that Darwin simply didn’t have the information we have now.”
Our closing comment: Had Darwin known what we now know about fossils, DNA, geology, the fine-tuned universe and the complexity of what he thought were simple cells, we wonder if he would have proposed such a lame idea as the theory of evolution.
Those are our thoughts. What are yours?
Some people made up stuff out of whole cloth -- they are found out pretty quickly.
Is your theory of the origin of life based on facts?
My thoughts are lol.
"lame"
Then explain this.
Explain what?
Well if we are going to pull out the lame card let me start on page one when you started posting.
SCIENTISTS ADMIT “SPECTACULAR BLUNDER” IN PERCEPTION OF THE HUMAN BRAIN
The September issue of Discover Magazine includes an article contains a remarkable admission of error by the modern scientific community. It appears in an article en led “The Brain” by Carl Zimmer (see link below), and it admits that “Neuroscientists have a…mistake of their own, and it is a spectacular blunder.” The “spectacular blunder” involves how scientists have perceived the internal workings of the human brain.
Scientists have long thought that the numerous “glial cells” in the human brain were nothing more than a kind of organic “glue” which held the brain together. The article states the error and new discovery in three words: ”Even though the brain contains about a trillion glia–10 times as many as there are neurons–the assumption was that those cells were nothing more than a passive support system. Today we know the name [”glial” cell after a Greek word for “glue”] could not be more wrong. Glia, in fact, are busy mul askers, guiding the brain’s development and sustaining it throughout our lives.” The article adds concerning the glia cells that “…they speak in a chemical language of their own. Scientists do not yet understand that language(emphasis added).” The article further reveals that scientists now realize that there are three distinct kinds of glia cells, all of which are necessary to brain functioning. In a closing statement of unusual candor for a scientific article, it states “There is something marvelous in the fact that we barely understand what most of the cells in our brains are doing.” [Emphasis added.] This is quite a confession on the part of modern science. It is also another hammer blow to evolutionary theories, because this new development reveals the human brain is far more complex and intricately-designed than anyone previously realized. It also ends permanently any argument that glia cells in the brain were some kind of “vestigial” evolutionary tissue! For decades, modern scientists have been entirely wrong about glia cells in human brains. One can only hope they will someday realize that they have also been entirely wrong about the entire intellectual foolishness called the theory of evolution. When Darwin first proposed his anti-biblical theory, scientists lacked the technology to understand how infinitely-complex and marvelously-designed the human body (and the bodies of all other species as well) really are. As new technology revealed what Darwin never grasped, scientists should have discarded evolution as a joke.
Indescribable complexity comes from creative acts, not from random chance. Does anyone think that the most modern supercomputer (complete with all peripherals) along with the electrical power plant that supplies it energy to operate all just came into existence by random chance without any outside human intelligence acting upon these things to make them come into existence? Only a blithering fool would believe such a thing! However, the “evolution” of a supercomputer and and an electrical plant by random chance is infinitely easier to believe in than the evolution of humans or any other living species. Why? Because the “evolution” of a supercomputer and a power plant would still not involve any leap from non-living substances to living organisms. Modern science “strains at gnats and swallows camels.” It would mock anyone who was dumb enough to assert a supercomputer and an electrical power plant came into existence by random chance, but it blithely opines and teaches that human beings and living organisms (en ies far more complex than a supercomputer or the “bricks and mortar” of a power plant) “evolved” by random chance.
What do you see?
A picture with no context.
Hey, z0sa.
You said Evolution is based on facts. But yet this petrified tree that is lying through different layers of rock winch Scientist claim are millions of years apart blows that theory out the window.
As I said, no context.
I don't see why you guys feel you have to sneak all these things in and hope you can get away with them.
I appreciate your actually stating what you think is the origin of life, mouse, but you can't even admit you ed up on the tree thing. People tend to take you (even) less seriously then.
Is that your way of saying you have no comebacks and want to debate with easier posters? ok brah you get a pass but show me where I lied or ed up!
For the rest of you who want to "continue" the debate....Scientist claim coal takes 1000s to millions of years to form and yet.......
Iron Pot Imbedded Inside Coal Lump:
This small iron pot was imbedded inside a single lump of coal. Such finds are not unusual, but few are fully certified and do ented to be true. Here we have a notarized letter certifying the authenticity of the find. This pot is in the Creation Evidences Museum today, in Glen Rose, Texas.
You lied by omission. You just posted a picture from your photo site and said "Here's my proof!"
At least you gave us enough to google something this time.For the rest of you who want to "continue" the debate....Scientist claim coal takes 1000s to millions of years to form and yet.......
Iron Pot Imbedded Inside Coal Lump:
This small iron pot was imbedded inside a single lump of coal. Such finds are not unusual, but few are fully certified and do ented to be true. Here we have a notarized letter certifying the authenticity of the find. This pot is in the Creation Evidences Museum today, in Glen Rose, Texas.
Hey mouse, could you tell me who certified the authenticity of the coal pot find?
I can only tell you who found it I won't certify it's authenticity since your on your lier lier pants on fire crusade.
Nov. 27, 1948
While I was working in the Municipal Electric Plant in Thomas, Okla in 1912, I came upon a solid chunk of coal which was too large to use. I broke it with a sledge hammer. This iron pot fell from the center, leaving the impression, or mould of the pot in a piece of the coal. Jim Stull (an employee of the company) witnessed the breaking of the coal, and saw the pot fall out. I traced the source of the coal, and found that it came from the Wilburton, Oklahoma Mines.
signed: Frank J. Kennard
Sworn to before me, in Sulphru Springs, Arkansas, this 27th day of November, 1948.
Jullia L. Eldred N.P. My commission expires May 21, 1951 - Benton Co.
So it's entirely possible that pot ended up in between pieces of coal that were pressed together in the process of mining or shipping.
OK.
Why are you shifting all the burden of proof on me? where are all your banana eating pals with their proofs? Why can't you post some proof that your here because of some snails?
Seriously Chump your off your game today. maybe you should take a break and come back later after you re-charged your debunker batteries.
maybe you should stick to 9/11 topics since your getting your ass kicked all up and down this topic.
just friendly advise brah!
But if you want to move on here goes......
Salty seas
by Jonathan Sarfati
Our planet, Earth, is the only place in the universe known to have liquid water.1 In fact, astronauts looking at Earth’s surface from outer space see mainly water. The ocean covers 71% of the total area, and contains enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles) if the surface were completely flat.
Salinity
The ocean is essential for life on Earth, and also helps make the climate fairly moderate. However, although the ocean contains 1,370 million cubic kilometres (334 million cubic miles) of water, humans can’t survive by drinking from it—it is too salty.
To a chemist, ‘salt’ refers to a wide range of chemicals where a metal is combined with a non-metal. Ordinary common salt is a compound formed when the metal sodium combines with the non-metal chlorine—sodium chloride. This contains electrically charged atoms, called ions, that attract each other, resulting in a fairly hard crystal. When salt dissolves, these ions separate. Sodium and chloride ions are the main ions in seawater, but not the only ones. The salty seas benefit man, because the ocean provides many useful minerals for our industries.
The salinity of the oceans is a strong evidence that they, and the Earth itself, are far younger than the billions of years required for evolution, and is consistent with the age of about 6,000 years. It is also far younger than the evolutionists’ ‘dates’ for many marine creatures.
In short, the sea is not salty enough to suit the taste of evolutionists! Of course, all such calculations depend on assumptions about the past, like the starting conditions and constant rates of processes. They can never prove the age of something. For that, we need an eye-witness The point of such calculations is to demonstrate that even under the evolutionists’ own assumptions about the past, the Earth is far younger than is usually claimed.
If you say so, then I have no problem with that, In fact there are many more questions out there. Also what about Mount St. Helens the trees that were buried are coal already! How can that be in such little time?
Because you keep bringing these things up. If you can't do it just say so.What proof do I need?where is all your banana eating pals with there proof? Why can't you post some proof your here because of some snails?
I don't think the evolutionary theory is perfect -- but all you are doing is taking potshots at it that end up being DOA. Meanwhile, you present your theory with zero evidence to back it up. It's funny.
Actually, I can tell I'm doing well since you are changing subjects and starting in with rapidfire ad hominems.Seriously Chump your off your game today. maybe you should take a break and come back later after you re-charged your debunker batteries.
OK, what do you think really happened on 9/11?maybe you should stick to 9/11 topics since your getting your ass kicked all up and down this topic.
just friendly advise brah!
OK, what are their calculations compared to those of the supporters of evolution?But if you want to move on here goes......
Salty seas
by Jonathan Sarfati
Our planet, Earth, is the only place in the universe known to have liquid water.1 In fact, astronauts looking at Earth’s surface from outer space see mainly water. The ocean covers 71% of the total area, and contains enough water to cover the whole planet to a depth of 2.7 km (1.7 miles) if the surface were completely flat.
Salinity
The ocean is essential for life on Earth, and also helps make the climate fairly moderate. However, although the ocean contains 1,370 million cubic kilometres (334 million cubic miles) of water, humans can’t survive by drinking from it—it is too salty.
To a chemist, ‘salt’ refers to a wide range of chemicals where a metal is combined with a non-metal. Ordinary common salt is a compound formed when the metal sodium combines with the non-metal chlorine—sodium chloride. This contains electrically charged atoms, called ions, that attract each other, resulting in a fairly hard crystal. When salt dissolves, these ions separate. Sodium and chloride ions are the main ions in seawater, but not the only ones. The salty seas benefit man, because the ocean provides many useful minerals for our industries.
The salinity of the oceans is a strong evidence that they, and the Earth itself, are far younger than the billions of years required for evolution, and is consistent with the age of about 6,000 years. It is also far younger than the evolutionists’ ‘dates’ for many marine creatures.
In short, the sea is not salty enough to suit the taste of evolutionists! Of course, all such calculations depend on assumptions about the past, like the starting conditions and constant rates of processes. They can never prove the age of something. For that, we need an eye-witness The point of such calculations is to demonstrate that even under the evolutionists’ own assumptions about the past, the Earth is far younger than is usually claimed.
Great. That's settled.You mean the "peat"?Also what about Mount St. Helens the trees that were buried are coal already! How can that be in such little time?
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mtsthelens.html
Seems like a dubious claim at best.
You're using the same tactic you do in the 9/11 threads, post a crapload of links, pictures and videos hoping something something sticks -- but you never give any positive support to your own theory, if you even have one.
I knew this thread would end up full of win!
For those who think evolution is fake, or whatever:
Do you believe in so-called "micro-evolution"? If so, where do you draw the line on evolution? Like, can species change, but genus can't? Or maybe family? Where's the line?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
