Creationism vs Evolution live debate tonight

[I. Hustle]

And this is exactly why zealous bible thumpers are ing hypocritical pieces of

Jeebo s still crying over their fairy tales being questioned

Blake is a s bag, we all know this. He needs God and is looking for God but doesn't want to admit at. He is a sad pathetic soul ever since his wife got rammed by the milk man.

Cuckholdry is an important part of Christianity, just ask Joseph

You're a hypocritical piece of jeebo anyway. got.

What a good Christian you are.

you're also re ed. We all know this.

"You need God. You're a ing got for not letting him come inside you"

All compelling arguments

[pgardn]

LOL

Maybe you don't understand Science as well as you think you do. There are tons of things that can be explained scientifically and are fact. They are not all theories. There are things we know as concrete and things that are full of holes.

So give some examples of WTF you are babbling about?
Again. Read below. You are allowed to say I don't know.

I just think that it's impossible to teach evolution as well since it has so many flaws, is constantly changing and is predicated on a belief system as well.




What in science is not predicated on a belief system? Are you familiar with logic?


What in science is NOT allowed to change? And you know exactly what I mean here. Take the idea of mass and inertia. Very solid ideas. Well guess what, those ideas have now changed fairly recently, as an example.


From your concerns NO science should be taught.

[Blake]

Are you familiar with logic?

Lol

[I. Hustle]

So give some examples of WTF you are babbling about?
Again. Read below. You are allowed to say I don't know.

I just think that it's impossible to teach evolution as well since it has so many flaws, is constantly changing and is predicated on a belief system as well.




What in science is not predicated on a belief system? Are you familiar with logic?


What in science is NOT allowed to change? And you know exactly what I mean here. Take the idea of mass and inertia. Very solid ideas. Well guess what, those ideas have now changed fairly recently, as an example.


From your concerns NO science should be taught.

Maybe we are talking about different things. Feel free to say that you are trying hard to sound smarter than you are. Nobody is arguing that there are some elements of science that are in constant change. What I am saying is that there are some elements that we know to be concrete.

"What in science is not predicated on a belief system" Uuummm that is what I am saying. In fact, that is pretty much EXACTLY what I said.

My point was that both faith and belief are used in science and religion. Blake continues to argue that it doesn't.

Science is made up of so many things. In this particular thread, the subject is evolution. My argument is that in this science cannot be concrete and cannot TRULY be tested. Wouldn't you agree that it would be confusing to teach evolution to children when the theories (and they can only be theories and not fact) are constantly changing? This is not an argument in favor of teaching creationism so no need to tell me about separation of church and state.

If evolution is to be taught I would rather they learn the evolution of science. Otherwise, if you are teaching about something that is not fully understood, can only be imagined and is based solely on belief... then waht is the difference?

[Expert]

its time people release the invisible friend

[pgardn]

Maybe we are talking about different things. Feel free to say that you are trying hard to sound smarter than you are. Nobody is arguing that there are some elements of science that are in constant change. What I am saying is that there are some elements that we know to be concrete.

"What in science is not predicated on a belief system" Uuummm that is what I am saying. In fact, that is pretty much EXACTLY what I said.

My point was that both faith and belief are used in science and religion. Blake continues to argue that it doesn't.

Science is made up of so many things. In this particular thread, the subject is evolution. My argument is that in this science cannot be concrete and cannot TRULY be tested. Wouldn't you agree that it would be confusing to teach evolution to children when the theories (and they can only be theories and not fact) are constantly changing? This is not an argument in favor of teaching creationism so no need to tell me about separation of church and state.

If evolution is to be taught I would rather they learn the evolution of science. Otherwise, if you are teaching about something that is not fully understood, can only be imagined and is based solely on belief... then waht is the difference?

The current state of evolutionary science is as follows. We believe that populations of organisms change through time. The evidence for this is massive. The real debate is not if change occurs, but how. Natural selection feeding upon changes in DNA is thought to be a significant mechanism, but there are other factors. Genetic drift, non random mating... Blah blah...

There is also speciation and it's major drivers. These are micro evolutionary steps. Take a look at dog breeds. Over just a few thousand years humans have in effect drastically changed the morphology of dogs merely thru selective breeding. Once organisms within a population undergo enough change that sectors no longer mate, massive changes can take place especially, given time and different environments. There are 85,000 species of beetles. 85,000... Do the factors I have stated above make this possible? yes. And it requires no magic supernatural poof.

So it's not if evolution has occurred, it's how, what drivers play the largest roles for science. The biggest problem that people have with evolution is its implications for humans. If humans did not use DNA as genetic material, and were completely diff. on fundamental biochemical levels, then everyone would relax. But we have so much in common with other living things...

A special creator could theoretically make every living thing work very differently biochemically.

Sorry, but there is huge unity, yet diversity, that evolution through natural selection and other means explains very well. Much better than the behavior of the most fundamental particles that everything in the universe is composed of, particle physics... People should really be upset about quantum mechanics, but because it does not say much about humans on a broad scale, they could give a . So we pick what we don't want to believe based on its implications for us. Fine, let's not argue about the Higgs field, something much more worthwhile.

And if one does not like the idea of populations changing through time, then give us something else.

I have never proclaimed to be smart, you did. I am very interested, and unafraid of rocking my world views when my common sense suggests it.

[pgardn]

And based on things we don't fully understand students should not be taught about electrons and radio active decay being so regular that we can assign half lives. We also should never mention the moon as we do not understand its origin.

I could go on and on with this...

[baseline bum]

And based on things we don't fully understand students should not be taught about electrons and radio active decay being so regular that we can assign half lives. We also should never mention the moon as we do not understand its origin.

I could go on and on with this...

LOL, we'd have to throw out the entire science of chemistry since no one has a clue about how to interpret quantum mechanics.

[Expert]

And based on things we don't fully understand students should not be taught about electrons and radio active decay being so regular that we can assign half lives. We also should never mention the moon as we do not understand its origin.

I could go on and on with this...

we cannot prove your age since we were not there. you could be 1200 years old

[baseline bum]

Then if no quantum mechanics, no astronomy.

[Expert]

LOL, we'd have to throw out the entire science of chemistry since no one has a clue about how to interpret quantum mechanics.

the Bible does. its the work of the devil. if we had some swine we could cast the satanized affliction of QED info them.

[Woo Bum-kon]

As usual, evolution believer twists words

I did not twist any words. This discussion was originally about evolution, but because you are butthurt about science contradicting your religious beliefs, you randomly switched between ing about evolution to ing about abiogenesis to ing about the big bang.

because he cannot answer simple presented arguments.

I already did reply to your arguments point by point. You never answered back.

Just the usual "lol mythical creature" or "Bible = Comic book". You're a joke.

I drew parallels between Spider-Man and the Bible because they are both stories whose fantastic elements have no evidence of ever occurring. You have yet to give a reason why what happened in the Bible is more reasonable than what happens in a Spider-Man comic book.

[Woo Bum-kon]

They don't believe they have to answer to any wrong they do so watch out, an atheist will stab you in the back first chance he gets if he believes he can get away with it.

A person attacks you one night while you're walking down a street. Who do you think is more likely to step in and help you: God or a good Samaritan?

If that person shoots you dead and gets away with it, according to your religion, he can pray for forgiveness and remain unpunished for his crimes. If he is caught and convicted of murder, he can be punished by being thrown in prison for the rest of his life. So, if your god actually existed, and if heaven and actually existed, he would let you be murdered and then forgive the murderer and reward that person with entrance into heaven. If a good Samaritan intervenes and stops the assailant, the assailant could wind up in jail.

Now who would you rather have on your side: god or a human being?

And yes, before anybody starts, I'm aware of where the expression, "Good Samaritan," comes from.

[I. Hustle]

And based on things we don't fully understand students should not be taught about electrons and radio active decay being so regular that we can assign half lives. We also should never mention the moon as we do not understand its origin.

I could go on and on with this...

LOL, we'd have to throw out the entire science of chemistry since no one has a clue about how to interpret quantum mechanics.

Finally. About damn time.

[pgardn]

we cannot prove your age since we were not there. you could be 1200 years old

So since you were not present when the Declaration of Independence was written, maybe it was not written. Since you don't see me, I'm not alive. Continue... Some of us evaluate the validity of our belief systems, some of us don't.

I dont believe China exists, never been there. Very convincing...

[pgardn]

Finally. About damn time.

So don't teach something because the background is not intimately known.

To with math. Zero and infinity are too strange to teach. Just lop them off.

Excellent... So it all, don't go to school. You will ruin you innate intuition. You are seriously in over your head...

[mouse]

The current state of evolutionary science is as follows. We believe

Sounds like a religion.

[I. Hustle]

So don't teach something because the background is not intimately known.

To with math. Zero and infinity are too strange to teach. Just lop them off.

Excellent... So it all, don't go to school. You will ruin you innate intuition. You are seriously in over your head...

Sounds like religion

[rascal]

If that person shoots you dead and gets away with it, according to your religion, he can pray for forgiveness and remain unpunished for his crimes. If he is caught and convicted of murder, he can be punished by being thrown in prison for the rest of his life. So, if your god actually existed, and if heaven and actually existed, he would let you be murdered and then forgive the murderer and reward that person with entrance into heaven. If a good Samaritan intervenes and stops the assailant, the assailant could wind up in jail.

Now who would you rather have on your side: god or a human being?

And yes, before anybody starts, I'm aware of where the expression, "Good Samaritan," comes from.

I would rather have God on my side. He will reward you with a far better life then you can ever experience on earth. That is something you cannot understand since you are not a believer.

[pgardn]

Sounds like a religion.

Good job editor mouse.

The current state of evolutionary science is as follows. We believe

We currently believe... Better mouse? And yes belief based upon methods used in science.
So get back to following those Chemtrails.

[mouse]

So don't teach something because the background is not intimately known.

To with math. Zero and infinity are too strange to teach. Just lop them off.

Excellent... So it all, don't go to school. You will ruin you innate intuition. You are seriously in over your head...

Typical meltdown/cop out reaction when the many flaws in Science and Evolution are exposed.

In desperate means they pull out the math card or mention gravity and chemistry.

They want to prove so badly how important Science is but what they fail to resilize is Scinence needs to not go into the "what if" world. Stick with mixing baking soda with viniger and stay out of the how and why man is here.

And another thing I find disturbing all you that say Svience is always learning and finding out more about man and life on earth need to reilize the text books in school already have it as "facts" man evolved from a fish so stop your bull lies and support evolution 100% or STFU.

Unless your not sure then that makes it a religion and it doesn't need to be in the text books.

[pgardn]

Sounds like religion

The quote is what you wanted. Don't teach anything unless it is entirely understood. And based on the huge wholes in evolution that YOU see, we must apply this to other courses. It's your idea.

Damn, History is going to be a to teach.

[baseline bum]

I would rather have God on my side. He will reward you with a far better life then you can ever experience on earth. That is something you cannot understand since you are not a believer.

If he rewards you with a better life than your Earth one that really isn't saying much though, correct son?

[mouse]

Good job editor mouse.

The current state of evolutionary science is as follows. We believe

We currently believe... Better mouse? And yes belief based upon methods used in science.
So get back to following those Chemtrails.

Typical immature response. That is why you will always be on the outside looking in on those who actually research and are qualified to have intelligent debates.

[I. Hustle]

The quote is what you wanted. Don't teach anything unless it is entirely understood. And based on the huge wholes in evolution that YOU see, we must apply this to other courses. It's your idea.

Damn, History is going to be a to teach.

So religion is based on a belief of higher power(s) and people claim to have experienced miracles and historically there is evidence that religious figures did exist but because you and others don't agree with it then it's ridiculous and those people are ignorant.

On the other hand "So don't teach something because the background is not intimately known.
To with math. Zero and infinity are too strange to teach. Just lop them off." is a quote in favor of evolution over creationism.


Both people arguing sound exactly the same. You are a prime example of it.