Plexpedia - Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Online

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/18 - 16:13 GMT

So do you guys finally concede on the global warming issue?

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/19 - 2:23 GMT

This scientist wrote e-mails on how to, in his words, "trick" people into not knowing that the world is really getting cooler.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120104461.html

So that's what, your 4th or 5th random topic change? Looks like someone's ritalin prescription has run out...

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/19 - 2:41 GMT

So do you guys finally concede on the global warming issue?

Are you kidding? You've barely even presented an argument - and you certainly haven't defended your claims in any meaningful way. By your own reasoning, you've conceded the vast majority of the objections made to your posts in this thread, because you've failed to address them.

Anyway, why are you so eager to "CRAIM VICTOLLY"? Let me guess - you want to be able to say that you won at least ONE debate here, before you run away like bigdog (and pretty much every other creationist that's posted here). Amirite?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/19 - 3:12 GMT

Snowfall at climate warming summit in Copenhagen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmtklYMuXAM

Dude. How cold do you want it to get? Atleast the Chinese are not dumb to follow in this kool aid drinking. You guys are crazy to believe in this global warming bolagna. Stop pollution ya (carbon monoxide)! But Co2 feeds plants man. Save the trees man!

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/18 - 19:46 GMT

¨From; Ice Age now: According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, satellite data for June shows that global temperatures are falling. The Earth has cooled an astounding .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.¨

oh, and now look back 100 years?

quit bloody cherry picking graphs.

not only that:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

actually shows a rising mean.

or that that simple observation elude you?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/19 - 13:35 GMT

""Snowfall at climate warming summit in Copenhagen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmtklYMuXAM""

ooooh snowfall!

now lets look at the statistical data?

or, lets look at the temperatue and the amount of percipitation.

""Dude. How cold do you want it to get?""

you understand that snow is....well extremely prevelent in the sky, and that it falls quite easily when you HAVE WINTER WEATHER AT

55

40 N

12

34 E

""You guys are crazy to believe in this global warming bolagna.""

riiiight more "science conspiracy"" from ronnie.

""top pollution ya (carbon monoxide)!""

god you are so dumd. if you want to know why, as your local environmental protection agency.

or may ACID RAIN come to your house.

"" But Co2 feeds plants man. Save the trees man!""

LULZ.

do you have even the SLIGHTEST idea how plants work or how fotosynthesis is performed at different CO2 concentrations and temperatures?

not to forget the shift in vegetation belts that will occur with an increased global temperature.

just quit this ronnie, you're making an evne huger fool out of yourself.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/04 - 15:24 GMT

Hey, it looks like Ronnie got bored of making baseless accusations of pedophilia.

"Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word.

Wow, only creationists would take the fact that they almost always lose debates - and try to spin it as some sort of victory for their side. That could be a tactic straight out of trolling 101: "I made you pay attention to me, so I'M TEH WINNAR!"

You know why "evolutionists" usually get the last word in debates with creationists? Because the only people gullible enough to accept creationism are uneducated, semi-literate morons who couldn't win an honest intellectual debate if their lives depended on it.

the evolutionist person does not necessarily âï¿½ï¿½loveâï¿½ï¿½ that they waste your time, many are probably unaware of the demonic influence on them)."

Demonic influence? OH NOES! Better get your tinfoil hat on to block it out! In fact, your best bet is to remove your own head first and then completely wrap it in tinfoil - that way, you'll be creating a proper faraday cage (that will also stop the government/illuminati/aliens from stealing your brainwaves).

"Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them. They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability.

A worldview that removes accountability? Like, say, a worldview stating that a magical man in the sky is responsible for everything - and that any action, no matter how terrible, is okay as long as you ask for forgiveness from some guy who supposedly got nailed to a tree 2,000 years ago?

Sorry, but - last I time checked - it's only religious nutters who subscribe to that absurd worldview.

Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal.

Fallacy alert, fallacy alert! Argumentum ad hominem. With dash of Association fallacy for flavour.

you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced"

This is just another example of creationists trying to project their own faults onto others - it's the adult equivalent of saying "I know you are, but what am I?"

Thanks Ellman for posting. You have helped me see the light. Ronnie.

Sorry, Ronald, but you're beyond help.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/04 - 16:40 GMT

I knew i'd get you to respond Ben. Still trying to pretend your a "sci-borg, doctor of science" huh? You're just some old man online trying to brainwash kids into believing your godless views. Get over it. the overwhelming majority knows theres a powerful God creator.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/04 - 21:05 GMT

ronnie you forgot to read this one since you used it so clearly.
Argumentum_ad_populum

"the overwhelming majority knows theres a powerful God creator. "
- People don't know shit. if it where up to them lasers would be soundwaves!

According to this book (
http://books.google.com/books?id=tAeFipOVx4MC&pg=PA47&dq=%22cambridge+companion+to+atheism%22&psp=1&sig=xERpBqAy_zS2ZXsRyR0TaJOvDSk#v=onepage&q=&f=false
), 85 % of swedens population is atheistic. Now that is a very clear majority. It may be different in the states, but then again you can't get a job here without a colleage or university degree so we have a pretty high standard of intelligence.

"Thanks Ellman for posting. You have helped me see the light. Ronnie."
- You're welcome, but then again it was a post to show how not to describe evolutionists. It's extremely poor prejudice and poor arguments. In fact it may not even hold any valid points at all. Yet you take it as a good argument. Is it that you don't understand us or what? Or other people who don't share the same ideas and values as you?

"I read this post by Ellman and the quotes below are so true when it comes to Bible haters. "
- Hate is a bit strong for the bible. It's perfectly clear to dislike it, but all you have to do is just don't read it. That simple.

"Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! They will always, almost without exception, get the last word."
- Cuz you always go into denial mode AKA "LALALALA, WRONG, LIES!!!!" Or you just get pissed by us shoving study with evidence for evolution in your face over and over again. Also you get pissed because you try to save us and we discard the "truth" that is not really true, but in your world it is. I could make a new post about a number of encounters with creationists where this have happened.

"This is all part of getting you to waste your time"
- Since you say it's so true you should be able to answer this question. Why would we want to waste YOUR time? Why is it a tactic to begin with? It doesn't make sense.

"Evolutionists believe what they do despite any evidence presented to them."
- Kinda hard to believe in something without evidence presented to us. Oh wait it's called FAITH! There we have it! Yeah it doesn't exist in rational minds needed to utilize real science or practice it. We don't believe in god because we haven't been presented with any evidence for his existance. Now is that so hard to believe?

"They are firmly committed to a worldview that removes accountability."
- Do you honestly believe that the only thing stopping you from going out raping and killing is that it is written in the bible that god said you couldn't? If so then you need some proper therapy man. Therapy

"Without exception, I have found that the committed evolutionist activist is always, I mean always, socially liberal."
- Go ask you nearest universities biology professor and ask him what political views he has and you might be suprised that he probably isn't a social liberal.

"This ubiquitous connection overwhelmingly establishes the fact that you will likely never convince them, because it is not evidence but worldview that drives them; they simply do not want to be convinced""
- What? I would easily go over to creationism and christianity only if i where to be shown some proper evidence for them both.
This guy explains what you need to convert an atheist and i have the same thought about the majority of the points.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI
Start there and come back with some evidence specky!

On second thought, you're never gonna supply any evidence at all. I haven't seen a single link in any post you've made, ever! How can you whine about we don't wanting to face the evidence if you haven't shown anything at all?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/09/04 - 21:07 GMT

"the overwhelming majority knows theres a powerful God creator."

no, and im the one whos studying at university atm getting taught by respected and internationally know scientists.

"You're just some old man online trying to brainwash kids into believing your godless views."

no, he's a computer sciences major.

and old man wouldn't know how to use all the netspeak.

oh and if you really think that atheism is for old men.

SKYPE ME.

i have my number up in a previous thread. it's there for you to find and use.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/05 - 13:54 GMT

I knew i'd get you to respond

Ooooh, I see what did there. Your initial post was ripped to shreds and you're clearly incapable of offering any meaningful rebuttal, so you pull out the "I made you pay attention to me, so I'M TEH WINNAR!" card.

On usenet, we used to call that tactic the "backpedal-troll."

Ben. Still trying to pretend your a "sci-borg, doctor of science" huh?

I see you're continuing your tradition of parotting bigdog's inane, unsubstantiated accusations. Maybe you should just change your name to "lapdog," then you and he can post as a tag-team.

You're just some old man online trying to brainwash kids into believing your godless views.

Wait, I thought I was Ben? Can't you even keep your story straight for one post?

the overwhelming majority knows theres a powerful God creator.

BZZZT, wrong - they don't know, they just have a conviction which many try to pass off as knowledge.

Oh, and I would have thought that even YOU would know better than to use the appeal to the majority fallacy.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/05 - 17:28 GMT

According to this book (
http://books.google.com/books?id=tAeFipOVx4MC&pg=PA47&dq=%22cambridge+companion+to+atheism%22&psp=1&sig=xERpBqAy_zS2ZXsRyR0TaJOvDSk#v=onepage&q=&f=false
), 85 % of swedens population is atheistic. Now that is a very clear majority. It may be different in the states, but then again you can't get a job here without a colleage or university degree so we have a pretty high standard of intelligence.

There's a Ken Miller video where he shows an interesting stat: apparently the US is second only to Turkey in percentage of the population that believes in creationism.

Last time I read any Canadian census data, it was also significantly different from the US - with something like 20% of the population reporting no religious affiliation (but it doesn't record atheism specifically). We also don't have any equivalent to Southern Baptists here - most Christians in Canada are either Catholic or Protestant.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/07 - 4:12 GMT

"I see you're continuing your tradition of parotting bigdog's inane, unsubstantiated accusations. Maybe you should just change your name to "lapdog," then you and he can post as a tag-team."

Maybe you should change your name to "Ben - The Wanna Be Scientists" who still believes we're related to monkeys.

I actually learned a lot from bigdog. Thanks for the compliment.
Let me know where you're at bigdog if your still out there.

Dwayne (SeekerOfTheWay)

1 hour - 13v

Posted 2009/09/07 - 6:15 GMT

To whom it may concern

Evolution does not work! It is not a fact!

Truth be known it is nothing more then smoke and mirrors to drive people from faith.

There is no argument to debate. Either you have Faith or you don't.

It is really rhetorical in nature.

Either you are going to HELL or your not!

Think about if there was only one bullet in the gun you might be lucky, but there are over 400,000 facts that point to a young earth and a rare earth. Putting them all together makes evolution look stupid!

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/07 - 12:18 GMT

How do you know that it doesn't work? What if it is a fact?

"There is no argument to debate."
- You haven't supplied any arguments, just appeal to emotion (the bad hell threat that doesn't concern me at all) and arguments from ignorance. Your threat has equally as much value to us as we threatening you of not getting any presents by santa cuz you behave badly.

Faith is not an issue since the Vatican accepts evolution as a valid scientific theory and states that they are compatible (faith and evolution). Now it's a bit of an appeal to authority, but do you honestly think you know what god will do about me than the vatican? That is if he exists... "Creation science" is an oxymoron since you cannot test nor falsify god. It's a negative argument that you think if evolution is wrong then creation must be right, but this is not the case. Would be awesome if you could tell me the number of god so we can add that to the allele frequency statistics and get "real" math about evolution. ;)

Could you please explain some of the 400, 000 facts you speak of. I have asked numerous times for scientific peer-reviewed papers on creationism and nothing have came up. No vidos by Hovind or documents where you have no idea what is in them. If you cannot discuss it cuz you don't understand it, well don't use it as "evidence".

What evidence would you want for evolution to be considered a fact?

I invoke poe's law.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/09/07 - 13:22 GMT

¨ who still believes we're related to monkeys. ¨

we ARE PRIMATES, YOU BIOLOGY ILLITERATE!

¨ "Ben - The Wanna Be Scientists¨

the man has at least a bachelor in a science. what do you have?

¨Let me know where you're at bigdog if your still out there.¨

let me know too, that skype invitation is still open, and you have yet to clear up that entire deal with giving me a bogus number.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/07 - 22:41 GMT

Maybe you should change your name to "Ben - The Wanna Be Scientists"

"Wanna Be Scientists"? You're saying that Ben wants to be more than one scientist? Do you think that he has access to cloning technology, or are you just ignorant of the difference between singular and plural?

It's long been obvious that you're only interested in mud-slinging, as you're clearly incapable of honest debate. But now it's becoming obvious that you're not even any good at mudslinging.

who still believes we're related to monkeys.

Wow, you really are an idiot - even by creationist standards. Even clowns like Kent Hovind have more sense than to dispute the taxonomic classification of h. sapiens.

I actually learned a lot from bigdog.

That explains a lot. You've done an excellent job of learning from Bigdog - it's just too bad you didn't have enough sense to pick a better role model to emulate.

Now you just need to tuck your tail between your legs and run away - then you will have put all of Bigdog's teachings into practice.

Thanks for the compliment.

You think that it's a compliment to be compared to someone who knowingly makes false accusations of pedophilia? Wow! If you're lobbying for membership in the "Pathological Liars for Jesus" club, I'd say you're a shoe-in.

Let me know where you're at bigdog if your still out there.

Sorry, but you would first have to find whatever rock the little coward is hiding under.

Corey S. (cms13ca)

10 hours - 490v

Posted 2009/09/08 - 0:54 GMT

Dwayne,

Care to back that statement up with facts or are you a troll?

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/08 - 14:08 GMT

He's trolling. No way he can back that up.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/08 - 16:11 GMT

Evolution does not work!

And you know this because....? (waiting)

It is not a fact!

Uh, and? I hope you don't think that's any kind of insight - most people learn the difference between theory and fact before they finish junior high school.

Truth be known it is nothing more then smoke and mirrors to drive people from faith.

You know, when you (and other creationists/ID advocates) make wild claims like that & fail to substantiate them, it sends a clear message. Namely: your claims have absolutely no validity - otherwise, why don't you back them up?

It is really rhetorical in nature.

Either you are going to HELL or your not!

I can see how that sort of grand, sweeping over-simplification would appeal to the "intellect" of a creationist.

Think about if there was only one bullet in the gun you might be lucky, but there are over 400,000 facts that point to a young earth and a rare earth. Putting them all together makes evolution look stupid!

And you know what looks stupid to me? Writing two sentences of empty bombast about how there are all these facts which prove you right (400,000? OMG wow!) - and then failing to mention even a single one of them.

It also leads me to suspect that you can't back up your claims, and that's the reason you didn't even try.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/08 - 22:47 GMT

Have you thought of the fact that maybe he doesn't like to waste his time with LOSERS who won't accept the FACT that evolution has become a science fictional JOKE?

DrWorm

9 hours - 756v

Posted 2009/09/09 - 1:05 GMT

God doesn't exist, hon.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/09 - 5:46 GMT

LOOOOSSSSEEEERRRR!!!

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/09 - 12:09 GMT

actually dr.worms claim has equally as much validity as the "evolution is a lie"- claim. But then again making baseless claims from ignorance and prejudice is your hobby.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/09/09 - 15:30 GMT

¨LOOOOSSSSEEEERRRR!!!¨

ehm...

art you a 13 year old boy?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/09 - 21:09 GMT

ehm...
art you a 13 year old boy?

Just turned 19. how old arttt you?

bigdog

4 days - 5,601v

Posted 2009/09/10 - 7:16 GMT

Hey Ronnie. I see that you still drop by sometimes. Hey remember we talked about that show 'Ghost Adventures?' Well there's a new show called 'A Haunting.' It's on the discovery channel a lot.
http://dsc.discovery.com/tv/haunting/haunting.html

Just thought that you'd be interested. It's pretty tripin freaky. It shows documentaries about real possesions and spirits.

HEY SCI-BORG, or BEN, whatever you're calling yourself today. Your mamas a monkey-like-creature. LOLOLOL!!!

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/10 - 7:42 GMT

I'm beginning to suspect that bigdog and ronnie is retarded. Before i just thought they where stupid, but now it's an all time low. BIGDOG YOU ARE A PRIMATE! And that is by a creationist definition asshole. You strawmanning it will not change the fact that you act like primate.

Debating with you is like playing chess with a pigeon who knocks over all the pieces and takes a crap on the table and then fly back to his flock claiming victory.

Ronnie, grow up. All i have to say to your childish acts.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/09/10 - 13:04 GMT

¨Just turned 19. how old arttt you?¨

19 ey? and yet you still troll like a little child. sad.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/12 - 2:03 GMT

Have you thought of the fact that maybe he doesn't like to waste his time

Fact? More like possiblity, chum. And not even a very strong possiblity, considering that he posted here in the first place.

with LOSERS who won't accept the FACT that evolution has become a science fictional JOKE?

YOU HAVE certainly learned THE technique of USING random CAPITALIZATION.

But I know you just recently learned how to use your Shift key - you don't want to over-tax yourself by trying to use advanced techniques before you're ready for them.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/12 - 2:14 GMT

HEY SCI-BORG, or BEN, whatever you're calling yourself today. Your mamas a monkey-like-creature.

Hey petit chien, glad to see you still care.

Sooooo, how are things with you? Made any false accusations of pedophilia lately? And how about that local sports team?

LOLOLOL!!!

Yes, I agree. There's nothing quite as funny (in a pathetic way) as someone laughing at their own painfully-lame attempts at humour.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/12 - 6:22 GMT

I ALSO LEARNED HOW TO USE THE CAPS LOCK KEY. PRETTY COOL, HUH?

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/12 - 11:19 GMT

congrats you got the keyboard skill of a 7 yearold.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/12 - 14:25 GMT

Thanks Ellman Mr. Loser number 2 after sci-borg.

Hey Bigdog. I finally watched that show 'A Haunting.' That is pretty tripped out stuff. Thanks for telling me about it.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/12 - 14:28 GMT

Colour me impressed.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/12 - 14:40 GMT

ronnie
- Swing and miss... Better luck next time ;)

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/09/12 - 15:09 GMT

¨I finally watched that show 'A Haunting.' That is pretty tripped out stuff. Thanks for telling me about it.¨

say ronnie, ever tried lucid dreaming? it allows you to speak with god you know...well..god and satan.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/13 - 5:12 GMT

Ya, now you're catching on 365. Actually all life is, is just a dream. We're really not here. It's all an illusion like Hindus believe.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/13 - 10:43 GMT

this discussion has derailed...

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/09/13 - 12:38 GMT

¨Ya, now you're catching on 365.¨

i can see you have never had lucid dreams. well to bad.

¨Actually all life is, is just a dream¨

noooo, we aren´t in the matrix.

i see an apple, you see an apple, everyone sees and apple, our IR sensor sees an apple. thus it is reasonably safe to assume there actually IS an apple.

¨We're really not here.¨

example above.

¨It's all an illusion like Hindus believe.¨

evidence?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/13 - 14:07 GMT

number 2 after sci-borg.

...on the list of people who hurt your delicate widdle feewings, apparently. Someone get the baby his bottle!

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/13 - 14:10 GMT

Ya, now you're catching on 365.

So now you think I'm 325? And here I thought I was ben.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/09/13 - 18:12 GMT

¨So now you think I'm 325? And here I thought I was ben.¨

no sci he doesn´t. he was responding to my ¨lucid dreaming¨ remark.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/15 - 17:35 GMT

"So now you think I'm 325? And here I thought I was ben."

I missed that one 325. Shows you how smart sci-borg really is. Yes sci you are still ben. You are what's called a sock-pocket.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/15 - 22:29 GMT

no sci he doesn´t. he was responding to my ¨lucid dreaming¨ remark.

Oh I know - I was mocking the fact that he post a reply to me, and responded to you in it.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/15 - 22:51 GMT

Shows you how smart sci-borg really is.

Ooooh, burn!

Oh, by the way - let us know when you figure out how that "Reply to Comment" link works.

Yes sci you are still ben. You are what's called a sock-pocket.

Nope, sorry - I've met ben several times. I believe it was at the secret meetings held by our shadowy atheist cabal to discuss our plans for the global conspiracy to suppress creationism & promote our Dark Lord Satan.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/16 - 6:43 GMT

I had a feeling you were a satan worshipper.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/16 - 9:25 GMT

face ---> palm

Laura

12 hours - 25v

Posted 2009/09/16 - 18:28 GMT

Hey Ronnie. I saw that show 'A Haunting' too. I'll never watch it anymore. I couldn't sleep after watching it the other night. They are interesting documentaries though.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/16 - 19:39 GMT

I had a feeling you were a satan worshipper.

Funny, because I had a feeling you were dumb enough to think I was being serious.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/18 - 4:06 GMT

Hey sci the sock puppet. Your probably did think I was serious. And talk about dumb? You thought I was talking to you when I was writing to 325. Maybe you just acted out of a guilty conscience. Atleast I'm not pretending to be a "doctor of science." LOOOSSSEEERRR...

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/18 - 11:36 GMT

no you're pretending that you have the knowledge to discuss everything when you clearly don't.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/09/18 - 16:41 GMT

"I had a feeling you were a satan worshipper."

-> double facepalm

http://cdn0.knowyourmeme.com/i/6512/original/DoubleFacePalm.jpg

you obviously do NOT dream lucid.

and neither do you know what an atheist is.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/09/18 - 16:46 GMT

"Atleast I'm not pretending to be a "doctor of science."

at least sci does science.

what do you do?

"LOOOSSSEEERRR..."

....

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/19 - 0:11 GMT

Your probably did think I was serious.

Oh don't worry, ronnie - you can be assured that one here takes you seriously.

And talk about dumb? You thought I was talking to you when I was writing to 325.

Uh, no - that was actually sarcasm. I can't really same I'm surprised it was lost on you, though.

And the funny thing here is that the real display of stupidity was when you made a comment directed at 325, but posted in reply to one of my comments.

Maybe you just acted out of a guilty conscience. Atleast I'm not pretending to be a "doctor of science." LOOOSSSEEERRR...

And you're 19, you say? Really? That in dog years by any chance?

Laura

12 hours - 25v

Posted 2009/09/19 - 4:26 GMT

Hey Ronnie. Believe it or not I'm watching that show again, 'A Haunting.' It's pretty cool that the discovery channel is actually researching the spiritual side. It's kind of a scary addiction. LOL!

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/09/19 - 9:51 GMT

"' It's pretty cool that the discovery channel is actually researching the spiritual side. It's kind of a scary addiction. LOL!""

seeing the jezus camp documentary.

obeythecreator

4 minutes - 6v

Posted 2009/09/20 - 8:08 GMT

God tells us not to cast our pearls before swine and I have learned that it is almost always best to follow this wisdom. People who do not believe in God, will not because they do not want to be responsible for their actions or they are just ignorant of the hope that God gives us. I generally find that these unbelievers are angry, sad and completely taken over by their shame and lusts; encouraged by a world that is ruled by Satan. The bible says that in the last days things would be like this, but when the Lord returns all will see him and all will believe.

If you look at the things happening around the world you will see the accuracy of the bible. Jesus said the there would be wars and rumors of war; famine, pestilences and earthquakes in various places. All of this is happening, yet as the bible says, this is just the beginning of sorrow.

It saddens me that so many people will be resistent until it is too late, but in God's great wisdom he gave us free will because he wants those of us that do make it into Life with him to be his companions. We are as he created us; Gods.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/09/20 - 11:39 GMT

"People who do not believe in God, will not because they do not want to be responsible for their actions or they are just ignorant of the hope that God gives us.""

this is so clice it makes my head hurt.

let me ask you this

since when does god send me to prison?

"I generally find that these unbelievers are angry, sad and completely taken over by their shame and lusts;"

.....nah. i get angry at peopel posting such stupidity tho. ignorance is not an excuse in these matters.

"encouraged by a world that is ruled by Satan."

???

"The bible says that in the last days things would be like this, but when the Lord returns all will see him and all will believe."

ya, that's what revelationists have been saying for the last 1800 years now.

"If you look at the things happening around the world you will see the accuracy of the bible."

because random events corrolate to vague descriptions.

"|Jesus said the there would be wars and rumors of war; famine, pestilences and earthquakes in various places."

and these HAVEN''T been going on before 2000 C.E because?

"t saddens me that so many people will be resistent until it is too late, but in God's great wisdom he gave us free will"

ya, he gave us a "choice".

believe in me on pure faith, or burn forever in agony.

that's not free will. that's saying "pay me, or i break your legs"

" because he wants those of us that do make it into Life with him to be his companions."

why would a perfect beign need whorship or companionship?

doesn't god have angels for that?

"We are as he created us; Gods."

w8....isn't that a mormon belief?

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/20 - 15:09 GMT

"God tells us not to cast our pearls before swine and I have learned that it is almost always best to follow this wisdom"
- No god doesn't say shit, but the bible writes about him saying things. This does not by any means comfirm that he did or that he even exists.

"People who do not believe in God, will not because they do not want to be responsible for their actions or they are just ignorant of the hope that God gives us."
- Ehm hello? Where do you life? In the forrest in a cottage? Last time i checked we had laws that makes us responsible for our actions. Atleast in our society.

"I generally find that these unbelievers are angry, sad and completely taken over by their shame and lusts; encouraged by a world that is ruled by Satan."
- That is such a load of bs. I can do the same thing. "I generally find that belivers are stupid, irrational and illogical. They also project their own faults on others so that they can feel better". Now this would hold equally as much validity as your CLAIM.

"The bible says that in the last days things would be like this, but when the Lord returns all will see him and all will believe."
- It also says you should stone disobedient children. Do you do that?

"If you look at the things happening around the world you will see the accuracy of the bible."
- Only with bible glasses. YOU see what YOU want. The fallacious acts of blind faith that is religion.

"Jesus said the there would be wars and rumors of war; famine, pestilences and earthquakes in various places."
- Okey, so if i say there is gonna be rain and economic trouble ahead i will get the same divine status as Jesus? It's essentially the same thing.

"All of this is happening, yet as the bible says, this is just the beginning of sorrow. "
- Always funny with someone who thinks the world is going to hell and don't try to make the world a better place because of it.

"It saddens me that so many people will be resistent until it is too late, but in God's great wisdom he gave us free will because he wants those of us that do make it into Life with him to be his companions."
- Yeah believing in god is not free will. The bible telsl you EXACTLY how you should live your life and you have to do this and that instead of finding out for yourself what makes your life good. Or makes you happy for that matter. You are just one in the masses with no voice. I feel sad for you.

"We are as he created us; Gods."
- So that must be why we act on the same natural laws as animals and our instincts, emotions and functions are based in an animal life?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/20 - 19:35 GMT

God tells us not to cast our pearls before swine and I have learned that it is almost always best to follow this wisdom.

Ah yes, one of my favourite cop-outs.

People who do not believe in God, will not because they do not want to be responsible for their actions

Complete and utter bull. I'd contest that atheism, as a philosophical position (rather than a simple lack of religious belief), goes hand-in-hand with accepting the concept of personal responsibility - much more so than any of the salvationist religions. Atheists can't just take the cop-out of ascribing everything to will of some deity (who, naturally, "works in mysterious ways").

or they are just ignorant of the hope that God gives us.

I'll take a harsh reality over a false hope, thankyouverymuch.

a world that is ruled by Satan.

Damn, and I missed his inauguration?

The bible says that in the last days things would be like this, but when the Lord returns all will see him and all will believe.

Right. Real Soon Now (tm).

If you look at the things happening around the world you will see the accuracy of the bible. Jesus said the there would be wars and rumors of war; famine, pestilences and earthquakes in various places.

Wow ...because it's not like any of those things existed at any other point in history.

It saddens me that so many people will be resistent until it is too late, but in God's great wisdom he gave us free will because he wants those of us that do make it into Life with him to be his companions.

Uh huh.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/09/20 - 19:44 GMT

that's not free will. that's saying "pay me, or i break your legs

"That's a nice eternal soul ya got right there, it'd be a real shame if somethin' were to happen to it."

Peter

10 hours - 774v

Posted 2009/09/21 - 21:56 GMT

Hey, I saw that show "A Haunting" too. I'm taking it easy around the house today. So I sat down for lunch and saw it on the discovery channel and decided to check it out. It's a pretty cool show. Thanks guys.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/09/25 - 11:30 GMT

Come to think of it, it was a creationist who started this endless debate. How ironic!

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/09/27 - 5:09 GMT

Hey Peter. Did you see the "A Haunting" show in Tuscon Az. I have family over there, jus about an 4 hours away. There's been a few about tuscon Az.

MM

1 hour - 44v

Posted 2009/10/01 - 20:08 GMT

Really interesting to see how the sceptics are "ruling" in this forum.

Here some more "meat" for all you sceptics:

http://www.geocentricity.com/
http://www.fixedearth.com/

These sites go beyond Kent Hovind and even believe that the sun is going around the earth and the earth does not move just like the bible teaches it.

Just for the amateur-sceptics: The bible does not teach that the earth is flat.

Have fun with the two websites.

I hope I do not have to see anyone of you trying to hide behind some rocks when Jesus returns! (Revelation 6:15-16)

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/02 - 7:56 GMT

"http://www.geocentricity.com/
http://www.fixedearth.com/

These sites go beyond Kent Hovind and even believe that the sun is going around the earth and the earth does not move just like the bible teaches it.
"

rigth, but the level of stupidity is exactly the same.
if you will outright deny and lie about the scientific method and it's data. you are just as stupid as a geocentricist.

"Just for the amateur-sceptics: The bible does not teach that the earth is flat."

neither does it teach that it is a sphere with an atmosphere and a liquid mantle with a dense magnetic core
.
but if you had to go by the context of the book.
Isaiah 40:22 will suggest a flat, pillar supported disc with a dome as heaven.

that is....if you took what it said literal and didn't mold it to fit in with the cherry picked parts of reality you just cannot get around.

oh ya, and how about Genesis 30:37-39 ?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/02 - 16:34 GMT

Really interesting to see how the sceptics are "ruling" in this forum.

Can't say it's been terribly difficult.

Here some more "meat" for all you sceptics:

http://www.geocentricity.com/
http://www.fixedearth.com/

These sites go beyond Kent Hovind and even believe that the sun is going around the earth and the earth does not move just like the bible teaches it.

They "go beyond" Kent Hovind in the sense that modern geocentrists are one of the few groups more laughable than creationists.

I hope I do not have to see anyone of you trying to hide behind some rocks when Jesus returns! (Revelation 6:15-16)

And when is that return scheduled for? Is it still "real soon now," just like it has been for the past 2,000-odd years?

MM

1 hour - 44v

Posted 2009/10/03 - 12:47 GMT

"... but the level of stupidity is exactly the same."

Thank you very much for your profound statement.

Did you know the websites before?
Or are you really good in speed reading?
It seems like it took you only a few hours (or minutes) to "analyze" the statements on the websites.

It is easy to call people who are disagreeing with you or the mainstreem stupid. I find especially the site fixedearth.com very interesting but still have much questions. But I am sure God will lead me into all the truth I need to know.

"if you will outright deny and lie about the scientific method
and it's data. you are just as stupid as a geocentricist."

I think any good scientific method uses as its basis the word of the living God. You think this is stupid. I am very happy about that.

I would be very sad if someone who uses the username "thebiblewascompiledin325AD" would agree with me. Are you this much deceived by the devil and his agents?

"Isaiah 40:22 will suggest a flat, pillar supported disc
with a dome as heaven."

So you think that it is intelligent to pick one single verse of scripture which SEEMS to support your opinion about the bible?
I think it is intelligent to look at every verse about one topic and then you can tell what the bible suggests. Isaiah knew the whole word of God (as far it was written until then) and is therefore basing everything he says on everything which is written.

Of course you disagree with me on when the bible was written. But you suggested that

"if you took what it said literal and didn't mold it to
fit in with the cherry picked parts of reality..."

So just for one time do just that. Then you have to base every interpretation on everything which is written about that topic and not on one single verse. I am very interested to see if you think this is also stupid?

By the way: I do not have to mold anything. You molded this:

"It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in" (Isaiah 40:22)

into that:

"Isaiah 40:22 will suggest a flat, pillar supported disc
with a dome as heaven"

Genesis 30:37-39 does not have anything to do with this topic. I think God can easily influence the color of cattle if he wants to (read Genesis 31:7-9). Interesting is that God does not work completely on his own but wants his people to work together with him.

MM

1 hour - 44v

Posted 2009/10/03 - 13:05 GMT

"They "go beyond" Kent Hovind in the sense that modern geocentrists are one of the few groups more laughable than creationists."

Really great argument "Sci Borg (doctorofscience)"!
And so scientific too!

"And when is that return scheduled for? Is it still "real soon now," just like it has been for the past 2,000-odd years?"

Look this is really not so hard to understand. Paul knew that before the second coming of christ there had to be the man of sin revealed the anti-christ.

About the anti-christ we learn at first in the book of Daniel. He reigns the last world-wide kingdom on earth in Daniel chapter 2. He is also the little horn in Daniel chapter 7 and also the first beast of Revelation 13 and the hore of Revelation 17.

It is not too hart to see that the pope is the anti-christ. He should reign for 1,260 years (a day for a year according to Ezekiel) after destroying 3 Kings. So he reigned from 538 until 1798 a.D.

Christ went into the heavanly sanctuary after his ascension. In the year 1844 he entered into the most holy place in heaven. Since 1844 we are living in the end time.

In Chapter 17 of the Revelation we learn that there will be 8 last kings (or popes) before Jesus returns. Since 1928 the vatican has a kingdom again. So the next pope will be the last one. He will be a demon or devil impersonating John Paul II.

More on this topic you can read on this site:

http://www.worldslastchance.com/

So Gods people always clearly know where they are in time.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/03 - 16:03 GMT

Knowing a prophecy of the future makes it a lot easier to make it come true. If you believe in it and want it to happen there's not much stopping you MM is there ;)

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/03 - 20:05 GMT

"It seems like it took you only a few hours (or minutes) to "analyze" the statements on the websites."

actually i took a few seconds.

"

The Fair Education Foundation, Inc.

Exposing the False Science Idol of Evolutionism,
and Proving the Truthfulness of the Bible from Creation to Heaven...

- since 1973 -"

sais enough about what i will be finding there.

"It is easy to call people who are disagreeing with you or the mainstreem stupid."

no, it's RIDICULOUSLY easy to call people like bigdog, 9tails, kent and ronnie stupid.

their level of scientific illiteracy and lack of critical thinking makes it almost manditory to approach them as "special".

"But I am sure God will lead me into all the truth I need to know."

how about you skip god for a second and use your own minds and hands. like....lets say, a geologist.

"I think any good scientific method uses as its basis the word of the living God. You think this is stupid. I am very happy about that."

good that you're happy about that. because you'll sure as hell won't be curing and geneticly related diseases, cancer, or contributing to any other scientific research with that attitude.

"I would be very sad if someone who uses the username "thebiblewascompiledin325AD" would agree with me."

it would be really sad if we lost anothe rmind to the cesspool of willful ignorance and bigotry. oh well. better luck next generation....

"Are you this much deceived by the devil and his agents?"

no, i just got history that focused a lot on the roman and greek period, and i learned the latin.that and i follow the motto "think, then accept".

you're little devil accusations are so.....why are you even using them when you know there really isn't a guy with a pitchfork waiting for you in a fiery torture chaimber your sky daddy is so desperate to send everyone too.

"So you think that it is intelligent to pick one single verse of scripture which SEEMS to support your opinion about the bible?"

no i did a google search and this was the only verse in the bible that suggested the world was even round.

or do you want me to quote ALL the other passages from the biblethe give us this distorted view of earths true nature.

"I think it is intelligent to look at every verse about one topic and then you can tell what the bible suggests."

ah hell;. here i go:

Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH. (KJV)

Revelation 7:1
1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree. (KJV)

Job 38:13
13 That it might take hold of the ENDS OF THE EARTH, that the wicked might be shaken out of it? (KJV)

Jeremiah 16:19
19 O LORD, my strength, and my fortress, and my refuge in the day of affliction, the Gentiles shall come unto thee from the ENDS OF THE EARTH, and shall say, Surely our fathers have inherited lies, vanity, and things wherein there is no profit. (KJV)

Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: (KJV)

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

"The sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises. (From the NIV Bible, Ecclesiastes 1:5)"

"He shakes the earth from its place and makes its pillars tremble. (From the NIV Bible, Job 9:6)"

"Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand. (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:4)"

"that it might take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it? (From the NIV Bible, Job 38:13)"

"He unleashes his lightning beneath the whole heaven and sends it to the ends of the earth. (From the NIV Bible, Job 37:3)"

"for he views the ends of the earth and sees everything under the heavens. (From the NIV Bible, Job 28:24)"

"Their measure is longer than the earth and wider than the sea. (From the NIV Bible, Job 11:9)"

"He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in. (From the NIV Bible, Isaiah 40:22)"

2. Job 38:44 "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?Tell me, if you understand. Who marked off its dimensions? Surely you know! Who stretched a measuring line across it?

Job 38:13 That it might take hold of the ends of the earth, that the wicked might be shaken out of it?

"

ya... how about we read ALL the verses on the topic.

you have any more you want to share?

"Of course you disagree with me on when the bible was written. But you suggested that"

when exactly do you think the bible was written? i said it was compiled into a single work 325 AD. with the OT beign written over a large time period before christ and the NT (and subsequent UNINCORPORATED GOSPELS) years after jesuz his death. try a wiki will you

Book	Scholarly Opinions	Earliest preserved fragment
Gospel of Matthew	AD 70-100	𝔓104 (AD 150 – 200)
Gospel of Mark	AD 63-85	𝔓88 (AD 350)
Gospel of Luke	AD 70-100	𝔓4, 𝔓75 (AD 175 – 250)
Gospel of John	AD 90-110	𝔓52 (AD 125 – 160)
Acts	AD 80-100	𝔓29, 𝔓45, 𝔓48, 𝔓53, 𝔓91 (AD 250)
Romans	AD 57–58	𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century AD)
Corinthians	AD 57	𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century AD)
Galatians	AD 45-55	𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century AD)
Ephesians	AD 65	𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century AD)
Philippians	AD 57–62	𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century AD)
Colossians	AD 60+	𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century AD)
1 Thessalonians	AD 50	𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century AD)
2 Thessalonians	AD 50	𝔓92 (AD 300)
Timothy	AD 60-100	Codex Sinaiticus (AD 350)
Titus	AD 60-100	𝔓32 (AD 200)
Philemon	AD 56	𝔓87 (3rd century AD)
Hebrews	AD 80-90	𝔓46 (late 2nd century or 3rd century AD)
James	AD 50-200	𝔓20, 𝔓23 (early 3rd century AD)
First Peter	AD 60-96	𝔓72 (3rd / 4th century AD)
Second Peter	AD 60-130	𝔓72 (3rd / 4th century AD)
Epistles of John	AD 90-100	𝔓9, Uncial 0232, Codex Sinaiticus (3rd / 4th century AD)
Jude	AD 66-90	𝔓72 (3rd / 4th century AD)
Revelation	AD 68-100	𝔓98 (AD 150 – 200)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dating_the_Bible#The_New_Testament

"Then you have to base every interpretation on everything which is written about that topic and not on one single verse."

you're calling me a verse picker? HAHAHA. you're seriously mistaken. you probably didn't think i read the book did you? im an atheist. not a christian. i know what i'm critisizing.

"tretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in"

"with a dome as heaven"

ok, so the sky isn't a perfect dome, but it has the shape of a tent. good comeback.

"I think God can easily influence the color of cattle if he wants to"

does Den 30:37-39 say god manipulated the cattle? nooo, don't be addign stuff that isn't there.

"Interesting is that God does not work completely on his own but wants his people to work together with him."

by having em provide stripes near throths instead of havign em breed selectively...dam..you probably won't like the kind of research i do with E. coli......

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/03 - 20:17 GMT

"Really great argument "Sci Borg (doctorofscience)"!
And so scientific too!"

insult fail?

did his response to that even needed to be scientific?

"He reigns the last world-wide kingdom on earth in Daniel chapter 2."

the last? as far as i know all the other kingdoms (the othe rlayers of the statue) wheren't even worldwide kingdoms to beign with.

"He should reign for 1,260 years (a day for a year according to Ezekiel) after destroying 3 Kings. So he reigned from 538 until 1798 a.D."

which pope was that exactly? and which specific 3 kings did he destroy?

"So Gods people always clearly know where they are in time."

and god's peopel wouldn't include all those evil catholics now would they?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/03 - 23:04 GMT

"They "go beyond" Kent Hovind in the sense that modern geocentrists are one of the few groups more laughable than creationists."

Really great argument "Sci Borg (doctorofscience)"!
And so scientific too!

Oh, you wanted a scientific argument? My mistake - and here I had thought you were only interested in the cliched empty rhetoric typical of Christian apologists.

Okay then: to be a modern geocentrist, you not only have to ignore mountains of evidence (as creationists do), but you also have to ignore the practical applications of theories derived from that evidence. For example, if the beliefs of geocentrists were accurate, then it's most likely that all space missions in history would have failed. And that's due to the fact that all of the mathematical calculations necessary for spaceflight assume that Earth is not the fixed center of the universe.

"And when is that return scheduled for? Is it still "real soon now," just like it has been for the past 2,000-odd years?"

Look this is really not so hard to understand. Paul knew that before the second coming of christ...

So, in other words: Real Soon Now (tm).

It is not too hart to see that the pope is the anti-christ.

Riiiiiiiight, okay then. The funny thing is that most modern geocentrists are Catholics.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/03 - 23:13 GMT

I think any good scientific method uses as its basis the word of the living God. You think this is stupid. I am very happy about that.

So, in other words, you have no clue what science is. Noted.

I think God can easily influence the color of cattle if he wants to

Is that the divine equivalent of cow-tipping?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/04 - 4:54 GMT

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/04 - 10:34 GMT

10And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.

11And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

12That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

13But we are bound to give thanks alway to God for you, brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth:

14Whereunto he called you by our gospel, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.

15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

16Now our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God, even our Father, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolation and good hope through grace,

17Comfort your hearts, and stablish you in every good word and work.

...apparantly the calvinists had it right.

dam, god isn't really all that kind, selecting those few and knowingly setting the rest of us up to be decieved.

and if you hadn't noticed already. this is an "we VS them" part. this is the kind of stuff you find in abundance in those tiny extremist sekts

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/04 - 11:43 GMT

how convienient to justify and validate your belief...

MM

1 hour - 44v

Posted 2009/10/04 - 20:48 GMT

"... it's RIDICULOUSLY easy to call people like bigdog, 9tails, kent and ronnie stupid."

Can you do something else than calling other people (who do not agree with you) stupid? Oh I forgot you can also copy and paste wikipedia articles. Oh I forgot something else, you can judge accurately(???) by a few words on webpage how valid the information is. You are calling this thinking?

"how about you skip god for a second and use your own minds and hands. like....lets say, a geologist."

I am very interested to know how a geologist can tell if the earth is moving or not. Or how he can prove if the sun goes around the earth or the earth around the sun.

"...you'll sure as hell won't be curing and geneticly related diseases, cancer, or ..."

You think "science" (not based on the bible) did a great job in curing for example cancer? Do you know how much cancer there was 50 years ago? How much is there today?

I would call that a terrible job what "science" has done.

Now compare that with cancer patients who are eating and living like the bible teaches it. Or compare the average cancer rates with groups of people who are following the bible. You will discover something very interesting... My guess is, that you do not call this thinking? Just do what you tell me and use your own mind. I guarantee that it will not hurt.

Isaiah 11:12
"...FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH." (KJV)
Revelation 7:1
"...FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH, ..." (KJV)
Job 38:13
"... ENDS OF THE EARTH, ..." (KJV)
Jeremiah 16:19
"... ENDS OF THE EARTH, ..." (KJV)
Daniel 4:11
"... ENDS OF ALL THE EARTH: ..." (KJV)

It is not hard to see that "four corners of the earth" and "ends of the earth" are expressions (is this the right word in english?). In context you can clearly see that the whole earth is meant and not only the "corners" or the "end of the earth".

Matthew 4:8
8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them; (KJV)

By quoting this verse anyone can see how deceived you really are. You are assuming that "all the kingdoms of the world" could be seen from some high point so the bible teaches a flat earth. Of course the verse does NOT SAY that the devil took Jesus on the mountain BECAUSE ONLY FROM THERE one could see all the kingdoms. This you are assuming because it fits your opinion that the bible teaches a flat earth. Just use your mind! Have you ever been on a high mountain? Could you see the whole world? Of course not. I am sure you think the people who wrote the bible are so stupid (I am sure this is the word you would be using) that they did not realize that you cannot see the whole world from any mountain. The bible clearly teaches that the devil and his agents can work miracles (read for example the story of the snakes which appear by magic while moses is at the pharao). The devil can show anyone something which really is not there. Once again you are just quoting the verses which SEEM to support your opinion.

I do not comment the verses from the NIV bible because I do not consider every "translation" as Gods word.

Solomon said (inspired by God): "He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him."

You are judging without thinking. Just read something on the site fixedearth.com and THINK about it.

"you're calling me a verse picker? HAHAHA. you're seriously mistaken."

You are right. You are not only a verse picker but you are also interpreting things into verses which they do not say. Of course only what fits your own opinion (see comment on Matthew 4:8).

"does Den 30:37-39 say god manipulated the cattle? nooo, don't be addign stuff that isn't there."

If you do not want to understand something... Just consider the relationship between Jakob and his father in law and consider what Jakob says in chapter 31. But you have to think about it (and not pick a few verses and ignore all the others). I did not add anything. I just wrote that I think that God (who created everything) can influence for example recessive genes if he wants to. Obviously Jakob could not do this on his own. That is the whole point in seperating the cattle. And that is why he thanks God for His help. Not too difficult if you consider the context, the other verses and if you THINK about it.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/05 - 5:37 GMT

"Can you do something else than calling other people (who do not agree with you) stupid?"

you missed the part where i said it was because they where so scientifically illitarate and yet they feel like they can take on science, didn't you?

"Oh I forgot you can also copy and paste wikipedia articles."

ya, i LIKE BACKING UP MY CLAIMS.

NOVEL AY?

"I am very interested to know how a geologist can tell if the earth is moving or not. Or how he can prove if the sun goes around the earth or the earth around the sun."

then you should be askin an astronomer and a physisits.

but either way, the fact that you even think of asking a geologist such a trivial question is so funny.

do you have any idea how easy it is to test this?

HELL MAN! we figured this out 400 YEARS AGO.

even the fact that we have seasons indicates that we ove around the sun!

"You think "science" (not based on the bible) did a great job in curing for example cancer?"

GENE THERAPY. for one.

DON'T EVEN THINK ABOUT PICKING ON THE LEUKEMIA KIDS YOU PRICK!

i'm not even gonna go into chemo, radiation therapy or preventive medicine.

you have no bloody idea what you should be thanking that godless science for do you? for starters how about your computer?

"Do you know how much cancer there was 50 years ago?"

fortunately for all those doctors who have been keeping trac of it by repoting cases, we do.

"How much is there today?"

GOOGLE

"Now compare that with cancer patients who are eating and living like the bible teaches it. Or compare the average cancer rates with groups of people who are following the bible."

google, check the cancer rates of americans vs japanese.

" You will discover something very interesting... My guess is, that you do not call this thinking?"

why don't you google and find out how wrong you are?

"? Just do what you tell me and use your own mind."

heterochromatin.

"It is not hard to see that "four corners of the earth" and "ends of the earth" are expressions (is this the right word in english?). In context you can clearly see that the whole earth is meant and not only the "corners" or the "end of the earth"."

RIIIIGHT. this part has to be taken as a expression, and yet the rest is to be taken literal? how about genesis is "just an expression" ?

"Could you see the whole world? Of course not."

duh that's the dam point.

whatever these people where referrign to, THEY HAD NO IDEA OF THE SCALE. THIS verse point out the huge ignorance of these people about the world around them.

THIS is the reason why it's so stupid that any creationist can take any of his idea's seriously. if you don't take this literally, WHY THE HELL TAKE THE ENTIRE GENISIS LITERALLY?!

"I am sure you think the people who wrote the bible are so stupid"

nope, it was ignorance. these people couldn't help it. they didn't have the means. we do now. so we have no excuse to make up this kind of shit.

"The bible clearly teaches that the devil and his agents can work miracles (read for example the story of the snakes which appear by magic while moses is at the pharao). The devil can show anyone something which really is not there."

riiight, this was all the devils work. it was alll an illusion, no need to think critically of taking any claims literally in the bible.

"I do not comment the verses from the NIV bible because I do not consider every "translation" as Gods word."

and yet you think that KJV is...now WHY would you think that? perhaps because that's the only one you're used to?

"
You are judging without thinking. Just read something on the site fixedearth.com and THINK about it."

you think i DIDN't read that stuff? he, i'm NOT YOU. i actually READ the "other side's position". why did you think i find those positions so silly? WHY do you think i am an atheist.

been there. done that. not convinced.

"I did not add anything."

yes. you added "god could have done it" when it sais nothign of the sort.

"I just wrote that I think that God (who created everything) can influence for example recessive genes if he wants to."

and the evidence for this is? because iwhat it siad in the bible must be correct? can you not see the flaw here?

"Obviously Jakob could not do this on his own."

yes he could. but not in the way he tried to.

MM

1 hour - 44v

Posted 2009/10/05 - 13:21 GMT

"did his response to that even needed to be scientific?"

I am still hoping to here any scientific argument which refutes the bible. You do not have any arguments and that is why you can only call other people stupid.

"which pope was that exactly? and which specific 3 kings did he destroy?"

Every pope is the anti-christ. The 3 kings are But the popes power grew after having destroyed the heruli, vandals and ostrogoths.

In Daniel 7:24, the Bible says: “The ten horns are ten kings that shall arise.” Note the break up of the Roman empire into exactly ten parts. These divisions laid the foundation of the modern European nations.

“And as to the ten horns, out of this kingdom shall arise ten kings; and another shall arise after them; and he shall be diverse from the former, and he shall subdue three kings.” (Daniel 7: 24)

However this little horn is a new element. In verse 8, Daniel saw the next important development in Europe after the break up of the Roman Empire in 476 A.D. Another power arises which removes three of the original ten kings. Or rather, three were removed to allow it to rise up. The ten barbaric tribes that took over Rome were the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Vandals, Alemannians, Sueves, Anglo-Saxons, Heruls, Lombards, and Burgundians.

When the Romans abandoned their capital and moved it to Constantinople, the Barbaric tribes that threatened the region were conquered. The Heruli, Vandals and Ostrogoths were removed so that this power would rule in Rome. They were "plucked up by the roots" and they no longer exist. The power that then arose, the little horn, was the Papacy. Daniel 7:25 says, “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”

The manner in which the papacy spoke great words against the most High, the persecution it inflicted upon the saints of the most High, and the manner in which it changed times and laws is all explained in ‘The Article’ on the following link: http://www.worldslastchance.com/must-read-articles/new-world-order.html

"and god's peopel wouldn't include all those evil catholics now would they?"

God has his followers in every fallen church. That is why He is calling them out of the fallen churches (read Revelation 18:4).

MM

1 hour - 44v

Posted 2009/10/05 - 13:30 GMT

"For example, if the beliefs of geocentrists were accurate, then it's most likely that all space missions in history would have failed."

Just show me how the mathematics of any space mission was based on a heliocentric "solar-system". Please do that and I throw the bible aside and become an atheist. Pick any space mission you want to and show the mathematics.

"So, in other words: Real Soon Now (tm)."

Very interesting to see that you not even read my comment before answering it...

What does this tell us?

Perhaps you want to believe a lie?

"The funny thing is that most modern geocentrists are Catholics."

God has his followers in every fallen church. That is why He is calling them out of the fallen churches (read Revelation 18:4).

MM

1 hour - 44v

Posted 2009/10/05 - 14:04 GMT

"... because they where so scientifically illitarate..."

Would you please back this up?

"ya, i LIKE BACKING UP MY CLAIMS."

Oh, I forgot that wikipedia articles are a really very accurate and scientific way in backing up claims. Do you really believe wikipedia articles? And you call other people stupid for believing the bible. Very interesting. By the way: Does any one keep track on the false information in wikipedia articles?

"HELL MAN! we figured this out 400 YEARS AGO."

You do not even know where your "theory" comes from. It is much older than that. I thought you are interested in history. Did you not write this? If you would just spend some time researching where your "theory" comes from then you would also understand that many label this "theory" a religion.

"even the fact that we have seasons indicates that we ove around the sun!"

Okay, I will try this really slow: Just imagine the sun goes around the earth. You do not even have to imagine this, you can just look in the sky and see it. What you will also see is that the sun does not go up and down in the same place but the place where it goes up and down changes over a year. And that is exactly what is causing the seasons.

In your "theory" (or religion) you have to assume that the earth is tilted by 23 degrees. Of course you cannot validate, see or prove this. But you need this wrong assumption for your "theory" so that you can explain the seasons.

"i'm not even gonna go into chemo, radiation therapy or preventive medicine."

I know why you not go into this. Either you are ignorant or you are lying. Chemo therapy does not cure cancer. Many studies show that you have far more chances in surviving cancer if you do not use such dangerous and expensive "treatments". There is an interesting book called "Chemo therapy cures cancer and the earth is flat". On the cover is a picture of the earth. Very interesting reading.

"you have no bloody idea what you should be thanking that godless science for do you?"

I thank God every day for everything He has done for us.

"fortunately for all those doctors who have been keeping trac of it by repoting cases, we do."

In other words you do not know it. Noted.

""How much is there today?" GOOGLE"

You do not know either. Also noted.

"google, check the cancer rates of americans vs japanese."

Please compare the american cancer rates 50 years ago with the american cancer rates of today. And compare the japanese cancer rates 50 years ago with the japanese cancer rates of today.

"why don't you google and find out how wrong you are?"

That is exactly the question you should ask yourself. Just do what you are recommending to others, please. I know the statistics. You do not believe anything I write so there is no point in me posting them. Just find out for yourself.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/05 - 17:15 GMT

"Just show me how the mathematics of any space mission was based on a heliocentric "solar-system". Please do that and I throw the bible aside and become an atheist. Pick any space mission you want to and show the mathematics."
- The Mariner 10 probe was the first spacecraft to use the gravitational slingshot effect to reach another planet, passing by Venus on February 5, 1974, on its way to becoming the first spacecraft to explore Mercury.

and the math:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_slingshot

Exemple mission where this has been used:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MESSENGER

About 6 min into this video it is described in laymens terms with illustrations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-h9XntsSEro

"What does this tell us?

Perhaps you want to believe a lie?"
- He's merley showing he's not even remotely convinced of your idea.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/05 - 18:33 GMT

"I am still hoping to here any scientific argument which refutes the bible. You do not have any arguments and that is why you can only call other people stupid."

evolution happens. we share a comen ancestors. just read a dam collage book.

to bad god didn't create us all seperately.

"Note the break up of the Roman empire into exactly ten parts. These divisions laid the foundation of the modern European nations."

1) how did you get this idea of exactly 10 parts?

2) you're forgetting the parts not occupied by the romans. (they didn't controll all of europe and there where many tribes withing their borders)

3) will you please name these 10 parts?

oh and i can tell you that neither england nor germany had their national roots in the roman empire's time. england came at the qonquest of the normans and germany came around 1800s.

"The ten barbaric tribes that took over Rome were the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Franks, Vandals, Alemannians, Sueves, Anglo-Saxons, Heruls, Lombards, and Burgundians."

you mean the the entire empire right? you're forgettign the Jutes. and the angli and the saxons are 2 different tribes.

nice number 10 there.

i get the feeling i know you...are you by any chance an african american?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/05 - 19:13 GMT

10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; BECAUSE THEY RECIEVED NOT THE LOVE OF THE TRUTH, that they might be saved.

No Calvin was wrong. That represents thier own choice.

John 3:16 - For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that WHOSOEVER believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/05 - 19:30 GMT

"Would you please back this up?"

certainly.

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-4675

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-4256

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-3955

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-4261

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-4189

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-3556

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-3928

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2248

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-3582

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-3674

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-3022

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-3614
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-3607

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-2573

and the list goes on....just w8 till you find any posts on genetics or organic chemistry.

http://forum.freehovind.com/view-3830

i like this one alot because it shows how horridly dumb bigdog can be. i mean...to actually try to quotemine here....

"Oh, I forgot that wikipedia articles are a really very accurate and scientific way in backing up claims. Do you really believe wikipedia articles?"

do you really not think of checking where the info in wiki came from? it DOES list it's sources you know...

"oooh it's a wikispiricy"

"You do not even know where your "theory" comes from."

copernicus.

"It is much older than that. I thought you are interested in history."

and then how old is it? is this going to be one of those "evilution started in the garden of eden" tirades?

"If you would just spend some time researching where your "theory" comes from then you would also understand that many label this "theory" a religion."

w8...where we discussing heleocentrecism or evolution? you're confusing me....

heleocentricism=copernicus. ToE (with only natural selection)=darwin.

"Just imagine the sun goes around the earth. You do not even have to imagine this, you can just look in the sky and see it."

oh god.....are you trying to suggest...that "the sun's orbit shifts as a "year" progresses?"....au this ignorance hurts.

different observational points. if what you said where the case, we should be observing 2 very different things from a very northern location and a very southern location, then what we are observing now. not to mention we have to trow out all the gravitational mechanics.

"In your "theory" (or religion) you have to assume that the earth is tilted by 23 degrees."

MEASUREMENTS. we can actually MEASURE the wobbling.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandler_wobble

"Of course you cannot validate, see or prove this."

read above.

are you seriously this uneducated or did they really not hand you science textbooks in schools?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0X1isrPVtlo&feature=player_profilepage

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNTwNhzvPO4&feature=related

this might be an easier format for you. i also suggest you also watch the rest of the series.

"Chemo therapy does not cure cancer."

did i say it cures it? i said it in the context of cures, yes. but i was naming treatments we came up with using science. EG, like gene THERAPY.

"Many studies show that you have far more chances in surviving cancer if you do not use such dangerous and expensive "treatments"."

ooh? lets see these studies? because you must understand that you never just take chemeotherapy alone. you use it to supress the tumors growth while the drugs and radiation does the killing.

or don't you want those rampart cells to completely destroy your homeostasis.

oh and i can tell you one thing up front.

we cannot cure cancer 100%. ever. it's all in the nature of our cells replication repair mechanics. read "molecular biology of the cell vol5" that wil clear up a LOT of ignorance.

all we can do is prevent it as much as possible, fight the symptoms (like we do with gene therapy and leukemia) or destroy the tumors (new drugs, chemo and radiation).

"On the cover is a picture of the earth. Very interesting reading."

oooh my books has a picture of a cell on the cover...intersting...not.

the articles referenced, now THOSE are interesting.

"I thank God every day for everything He has done for us."

ask him to make you a microprocessor then. go on. ask him to make you a microprocessor. or at least give you the manual to make one in some divine vision.

"In other words you do not know it. Noted."

google is your friend

http://www-biology.ucsd.edu/classes/old.web.classes/bimm134.SP04

/ppt/lung%20cancer%20lec.pdf

http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/uscs/Table.aspx?Group=4fb&Year=2005&Display=n

http://statecancerprofiles.cancer.gov/historicaltrend/joinpoint.noimage.html

granted..these don't go that far back (digital databasing still needs a lot more data). but looking at the religious make up of the states you should be able to make somehting of it.

"Please compare the american cancer rates 50 years ago with the american cancer rates of today. And compare the japanese cancer rates 50 years ago with the japanese cancer rates of today."

of course you shouldn't just be looking at hiroshime an nagasaki should you? btw we can do the smae thing for most other countries. like the netherlands, or france for example.

but will you maybe give me some of your statistics to compare? since you seem so confident.

"I know the statistics. You do not believe anything I write so there is no point in me posting them. Just find out for yourself."

if you know. a little link would be nice.

something like.

http://www.pref.aichi.jp/cancer-center/english/s-report/00_01/010-epidemiology_and_prevention.html

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/05 - 19:30 GMT

"
No Calvin was wrong. That represents thier own choice."

and there you convieniently left out the parts where it said god had chosen from the beginning...

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/05 - 23:49 GMT

Tell us, Ronald: have you come across any biblical quotes about people (like you) who falsely accuse others of being pedophiles? There's a passage in there about removing "the mote from thine own eye," isn't there?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/06 - 2:28 GMT

Ben (sci-borg), I said that you are a sock puppet. Big dog said that your friends sound like pedophiles, probably because of those dirty priest jokes they were saying. I just said that they sound like pedophiles. People who talk that way sound that way to me. It's my opinion and i'm entitled to it. Go ahead and say whatever you want.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/06 - 16:19 GMT

"People who talk that way sound that way to me."

and how am i getting the idea that you have no idea about the difference between actually sounding like a pedophile and making some dark humor?

you want to know how pedophiles sound? not like people who make catholic priest jokes. but like people who are tormented with feelings that are not accepted in this society, and they sound like they either are ashamed of it, or like they want to defend it. they do not joke about it.

human psychology. it's so bloody simple sometimes.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/06 - 16:22 GMT

"

#1

and the math:

"

so i guess that coupled with the foto's....

win and a rap?

hanntonn

2 hours - 104v

Posted 2009/10/10 - 19:36 GMT

I don't understand why unrespectful atheists are allowed to post on this creationist forum. There are hundreds of atheists web sites were they can post their stupididies about evolution. They are like trash in a scrapyard, they are everywhere. At least, if they should argue with creationist, they could be respectful.

hanntonn

2 hours - 104v

Posted 2009/10/10 - 20:12 GMT

c'est vrai que ça ne sert à rien d'argumenter les évolutionnistes. Le seul Big Bang contredit la principale loi de la physique qui montre que rien ne se perd rien ne se crée tout se transforme. Il n'est donc pas utile d'argumenter avec de tels idéalistes.

It's true that it's useless to argue against evolutionnists. The only Big Bang theory contradict the most important law of physic that nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed. It is then impossible to argue against such idealists.

hanntonn

2 hours - 104v

Posted 2009/10/10 - 20:20 GMT

I've just read that someone would become an atheist if Heliocentrism were true. Please, become reasonable, The organisation of the universe is not something that changes anything to the belief in God. Would the earth be hollow that you would become an atheist because this is not written in the Bible.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/10 - 23:39 GMT

"The only Big Bang theory contradict the most important law of physic that nothing is lost, nothing is created,"

? are you suggestign the big bang theory disregards the first law of thermodynamics?

because it doesn't.

we don't know where the energy came from. al we know it was once held in a tiny region, and along with it all the forces of our universe.

"It's true that it's useless to argue against evolutionnists."

again, what the hell does the gib bang theory have to do with the evolution of life?

"It is then impossible to argue against such idealists."

what exactly do you mean by this?"

btw, i think

"Il n'est donc pas utile d'argumenter avec de tels idéalistes."

should read,

"it is thus of no use to argue agaisnt such idealists"

that would be abetter translation of what you wrote earlier.

since what you write in english means something slightly different from what you wrote in french.

and yes, i can read french.

btw, you don't need to manualy translate the words in the same order to english.

you gotto shuffle em around a bit for easy readable correct english.

EG:

"Le seul Big Bang"

might just aswell be translated with

"only the big bang theory"

which, if this where the correct meaning, would make your reply make a lot more sense.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/11 - 0:00 GMT

"I don't understand why unrespectful atheists are allowed to post on this creationist forum."

first opf all, don't lump all "evolutionists" on this forum under the catoagory "atheists", because not all "evolutionists" who respond here are atheists.

but back to the question.

several reasons (for me at least)

1) we hate to see an awefull lot of mids go to waste on the intelectual cespit that is creationists. any mind we can enlighten on science, is a possible extra mind that could work to further the knowledge of mankind.

2) i feel sorry for these people who have taken no time at all to understand even the basics of how this world works, or how critical thinking is done. since creationists ONLY look at one side of the arguement (which would be all those creationist forums and "answer" sites) this is the best medium to reach these people.

3) i just love to see what crazy responses these creationists come up with, show em to my friends for a good long pitying laugh over the bizarness of the mind of a creationis.

"There are hundreds of atheists web sites were they can post their stupididies about evolution."

what point is there in teaching the basics to people who already understand the concept? better to teach the ignorant, then to remind the people who know.

"At least, if they should argue with creationist, they could be respectful."

ehm...you "might" want to read all the forum threads.

it's kind of sad to see the amount of "respect" we "evolutionists" get when we ask about simple sourcing, backing up claims, pointing out fallacies and the creationist ignorance on subjects of science.

like when bigdog posted an entire article about how the flood could account for the chalk layers, only to have me eviscerate the articles integrity by exposing math fails, and basic ecology fails.

and when these where pointed out, bigdog cut and ran.

i even aksed him if he wanted to have a skype conversation where i could explain biology in more detail, only to have bigdog send em a spoof telephonenumber!

or the childish trolling most creationist do here.

like ronnie with his "LOOOSER" or bigdog with his "LOLOLOL".

if anything, even responding to such comments with an attitude of "dude, that's really not how you should discuss anything or how you can convince something" is giving these people to much respect.

but above all, when i prove you are lying or you have no idea what you are talkign about, i have every right to expect of you that you LEARN MORE ON THE SUBJECT YOU WISH TO DEBATE. rather then mindlessy repeating false and long debunked claims and fallacies.

but now i have a question for you:

what do you think the theory of evolution states?

keep in mind. i, and many others work with this theory on a daily basis. we KNOW when someone has no idea what he's talkign about.

so your answer will display your level of knowledge on the subject. which i would consider is...very important, seeing as you make such comments as

"their stupididies about evolution. They are like trash in a scrapyard, they are everywhere"

and please. PLEASE don't adopt the creationist tactic of "post, cut and run". i'm here to peer into your mind and clear up the beef you have with science. not here to (only) datatroll you .

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/11 - 3:11 GMT

Please quote it since i have no idea where you got that from. And you didn't answer anything 325 wrote...

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/11 - 11:04 GMT

"Please quote it since i have no idea where you got that from. And you didn't answer anything 325 wrote..."

it ws MM who said he'd "repent" if shown the math.

but i my posts came after this ellman, this was the only one of hansons posts i didn't respond too. it's that dam response system on this forum that fucked up again.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/09 - 1:32 GMT

Just show me how the mathematics of any space mission was based on a heliocentric "solar-system". Please do that and I throw the bible aside and become an atheist. Pick any space mission you want to and show the mathematics.

First of all, the sun is not the center of the solar system (as implied by "heliocentrism") - it's one focus of the elliptical orbit of the various planets. Heliocentrism is closer to reality than geocentrism, but it still isn't really an accurate model.

Secondly, it's not necessary to dig into the mathematics of spaceflight or even any specific missions in order to verify that the solar system is not geocentric - all it requires is a high school-level knowledge of physics and some basic common sense.

In a nutshell: with every spaceflight, the planners need to take into account the effects of any gravitional forces that will act on the spacecraft. Doing so requires knowledge of the positions of any sufficiently-massive objects in the solar system, as well as their positions relative to each other (because the interactions between gravity fields also need to be taken into account). Obviously those factors would all be vastly different if the universe/solar system were geocentric.

"So, in other words: Real Soon Now (tm)."

Very interesting to see that you not even read my comment before answering it...

That's a curious assumption for you to make, but an incorrect one. In case you haven't encountered the term "in other words" before, it's a colloquial phrase that people often use before re-stating the point they're replying to (typically when re-starting the points in a more simple or direct fashion).

Or, "in other words" (see what I did there?), the biblical quotes you posted were nothing more than a long-winded version of "Real Soon Now."

What does this tell us?

Perhaps you want to believe a lie?

Sorry, no - but it does tell us something about our respective reading comprehension skills, doesn't it?

"The funny thing is that most modern geocentrists are Catholics."

God has his followers in every fallen church. That is why He is calling them out of the fallen churches (read Revelation 18:4).

Or maybe they're all secretly members of the cult of Cthulu - that's just about as likely.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/09 - 2:09 GMT

Ben (sci-borg), I said that you are a sock puppet.

Ah yes, thanks for reminding me that you haven't backed up that claim either.

Big dog said that your friends sound like pedophiles ... I just said that they sound like pedophiles.

And the difference is...?

People who talk that way sound that way to me. It's my opinion and i'm entitled to it.

Fair enough. In that case, it's my opinion that your opinion reveals an astounding level of stupidity and immaturity, for which you should be mocked at every possible opportunity.

Hey, it's my opinion and I'm entitled to it, right?

Go ahead and say whatever you want.

Oh don't worry, we don't actually need your permission.

Laura

12 hours - 25v

Posted 2009/10/12 - 18:59 GMT

You're right Ronnie. I read the website that you put. Athiests are not interested in proof. They want to waste your time and are unaware but don't care about the demonic influences around them.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/12 - 19:40 GMT

"I read the website that you put. Athiests are not interested in proof. They want to waste your time and are unaware but don't care about the demonic influences around them."

RIIIGHT, blame it on satan....as always.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/12 - 21:23 GMT

Laura how can you honestly say that in a post where I have supplied with so much data and pictures and links while no creationist have absolutely nothing? I mean are you blind? Look at any other post. I have cried this out before, GIVE ME PROOF INSTEAD OF SAYING THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM!

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 0:42 GMT

We really don't need much science to prove but it does anyway. I like the way Big dog said it. "Now that science is evolving, we're finding out how rediculous the macro evolution theory is." Here's a pretty cool link I found that shows how complex life really is and how it requires a DESIGNER.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/a-stunningly-elegant-solution-to-storing-information/

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 6:39 GMT

I don't understand why unrespectful atheists are allowed to post on this creationist forum.

Maybe because (just a guess) the people running the forum are adults who don't believe in censorship?

Of course, by the same token, one could ask why you're bothering to post here - if you're just looking for a creationists-only echo chamber, it's not like there's a shortage of them.

stupididies

Face ---> palm.

At least, if they should argue with creationist, they could be respectful.

...he says, right after referring to atheists as "trash in a scrapyard." Good job practicing what you preach.

Oh, and as for being "unrespectful," you might want to look up the concept of "responding in kind."

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 6:45 GMT

It's true that it's useless to argue against evolutionnists.

When you're unable to offer arguments of any value, that's true.

The only Big Bang theory contradict the most important law of physic that nothing is lost, nothing is created, everything is transformed.

Riiiight. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that you're not an astronomer or a physicist.

It is then impossible to argue against such idealists.

Pot > Kettle > Black.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 6:55 GMT

Athiests are not interested in proof.

When have creationists ever provided proof of anything? Seriously - can you provide even ONE example?

They want to waste your time

Last I looked, no one's forcing you to read and post to this forum. If your time is being wasted, then the only one to blame is you.

are unaware but don't care about the demonic influences around them.

Yeah... you know that The Exorcist wasn't a documentary, right?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 7:09 GMT

We really don't need much science to prove

Well that's fortunate, given that the vast majority of creationists are scientific illiterates.

I like the way Big dog said it. "Now that science is evolving, we're finding out how rediculous the macro evolution theory is."

Yep, that sounds like something petit chien would post... over and over again, while repeatedly and utterly failing to back up his claims.

Here's a pretty cool link I found that shows how complex life really is and how it requires a DESIGNER.

Uh, no. That's nothing but a press release they've taken and tacked on a bunch of creationist spin to make it sound like it supports their position. And, as usual, their interpretation is completely different from the intepretation of the paper's actual authors - typical creationist dishonesty and misrepresentation.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 16:00 GMT

" Here's a pretty cool link I found that shows how complex life really is and how it requires a DESIGNER."

go study organic chemistry and molecular genetics for 5 year and THEN come back to that statment.

you have no freaking idea what caases these molecules to have the shapes that they have and why that give's them certain properties, nor fo the compelx regulatory systems that are in place due to these properties.

don't even begin to assert some sort of expertese when you haven't any to begin with.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 17:10 GMT

The article doesn't show anything. no pictures, no indication that it is a designer, just that it's very complex and generally awesome. Interesting reading tho, but does not shed new light on the complexity argument.

I'm gonna be completely honest about this as you required. It doesn't hold up much and why creationists would accept that part of the science they don't accept is something i just can't come to terms with. It's cherry picking on a major scale tbh.

Now this is how a scientific paper or study looks like:
http://www.primes.colostate.edu/Lande%201976.pdf

Look around, read it. ask if anything is unclear and give me some feedback on why this wouldn't hold up as evidence for my part ok?
If you don't need much science then it will be easy to find a contradicting study or data that would show the opposite etc.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 18:02 GMT

"http://www.primes.colostate.edu/Lande%201976.pdf"

that is SOOO out of the sphere of comprehension for nearly all creationists....lets see what ronnie, hanntonn, 9tails, kent or bigdog will say about this.

Vector13

1 hour - 38v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 18:59 GMT

Hi, i read this discussion all the way through. I have to agree with everyone posting in the name of the evolutionists (namely: Sci Borg, Molecular Biology Kicks creationist ass, and thebiblewascompiledin325AD.) The arguments are supported with background data and useful websites. The creationists (i.e. good little christians) claim that the evolutionists (i.e. devil worshippers), have no solid evidence while only about three times providing evidence from ramshackle and badly-put-together websites claiming that the planet Earth doesn't move. This entire post just gives me more and more grounds to dispute the ignorant and frankly stupid belief that a magical cloud man shook his head and the ENTIRE UNIVERSE magically appeared. I was raised Jewish, and every religious leader i know was tolerant and respectful of my belief, stating that scientific fact could not be argued with. I am now Agnostic and i see that creationists just shut out evidence and then claim that none was given (in one ear and out the other, i suppose.) When i'm burning in hell, i'll believe the creationists. However, when the creationists die and all that happens is they rot and get absorbed back into the earth, they'll wonder what happened. Or not, because they're dead. I now have to go back and worship the Dark Lord in the name of muddying the immortal souls of the innocent.

Thank you for your time.

Vector13.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 19:46 GMT

haha, welcome to the club vector13 ;)

You know some creationists might actually join us in hell since last time i checked lying was against gods rules. So when you go there tell Kent Hovind i said "hi!". =)

Vector13

1 hour - 38v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 20:02 GMT

Oh, Yeah!

Reasons I'm going to hell:

I ate half a bag of "Simply Naked Pita Chips" today (Gluttony)

I love my friend's High-Capacity Computer Harddrive. (Envy)

I am proud of the fact that I go to such a wonderful School. (Pride, Vainglory)

I slept until 12 today. (Sloth)

My Friend hit me one day, for no reason, and i got extremely angry with him. (a normal Human reaction, "fight or flight." A sense of hyperawareness built into us by evolution when it was necessary to run away from predators) - (Wrath)

and so on and so forth. Need I go on? I think not. Harmless acts such as sleeping late and showing affection for another person by means of physical contact will be puished via an eternity in flames? IMO, Any god that would subject his creations, his children, to eternal suffering for harmless acts is not in fact a God, but a demon.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/13 - 20:25 GMT

And that's why i find it highly irrational to follow the whole sin system/rules. We have to stop being human to follow rules that virtually no one can manage. Many reactions and actions by us humans can be derived and even be predicted in evolution. Namely there's a natural explanation for a large portion of how we work.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/14 - 2:34 GMT

Subject:

< BR> Atheist

In The Woods

Need I say more . . .

> An atheist was walking through the woods.

>

> 'What majestic trees!

> 'What powerful rivers!

> 'What beautiful animals!

> He said to himself.

> > As he was walking alongside the river,he heard a rustling in the

bushes behind

him.

>

> He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.

> > He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder

& saw that

the bear was closing in on him..

>

> He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer.

>

> He tripped & fell on the ground.

> > He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right

on top of

him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike

him.

>

> At that instant the Atheist cried out,

> 'Oh my God!'

>

> Time Stopped.

> The bear froze.

> The forest was silent.

>

> As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky.

>

> 'You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist

and

even credit creation to cosmic accident.'

> 'Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament?

>

> Am I to count you as a believer?

>

> The atheist looked directly into the light, 'It would be hypocritical of

me to

suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make

the

BEAR a Christian'?

>

> 'Very well,' said the voice.

>

> The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed. And the bear

dropped his

right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:

>

> 'Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty

through

Christ our Lord,

> Amen.

>

Vector13

1 hour - 38v

Posted 2009/10/14 - 5:34 GMT

Oh please. "Oh my God" is a general exlcamation. Besides, if I were to say that, i would be using the lord's name in vain. Since i'm agnostic, i can say it regularly, just like i say "crap" and "oh man." I say "Jesus" when i see something terrible on the news, just like i say "oh my gosh" when i see something beautiful. It's so like you, Ronnie, to resort to fairy tales when you have no evidence to back up your beliefs. The first post is right, Evolutionists are persistent, because Creationists are persistent in proving an in-proveable belief. I'm agnostic because it's not my job so say that there's no god (there's no evidence he's not there). but, i can't say that there is a god (there's no evidence he is there). However, there is a multitude of evidence backing up evolution and the fact that humans had a common ancestor with primates. so please give me just one legitimate piece of evidence proving once and for all that God exists and i will go back to my Jewish faith and go to temple every friday and every sunday. One piece backed up by anything worth believeing in.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/14 - 9:44 GMT

lol ronnie, way to take a general exclimation and pull a stroy out of your ass.

btw, NEVR RUN FROM BEARS. play dead or mace.

oh and since when did animals have sould to save?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/15 - 0:57 GMT

And that's why i find it highly irrational to follow the whole sin system/rules. We have to stop being human to follow rules that virtually no one can manage.

There's a quote in Atlas Shrugged along the same lines (it's been a long time since I've read it, so I paraphrase):

"Religions establish a set of rules that are impossible to follow - and when people inevitably break those rules, their sense of guilt is used to enslave them."

Many reactions and actions by us humans can be derived and even be predicted in evolution. Namely there's a natural explanation for a large portion of how we work.

I'm sure the standard creationist rebuttal will be something along the lines of "We already have a supernatural explanation - and even though it isn't supported by a single shred of evidence, it's good enough for us. So why should we bother looking for natural explanations?"

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/15 - 1:03 GMT

'You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist
and even credit creation to cosmic accident.'
'Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament?

Wow, so much for infinite forgiveness. That God of yours is a bit of a vindictive prick, isn't he?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/15 - 1:25 GMT

so please give me just one legitimate piece of evidence proving once and for all that God exists and i will go back to my Jewish faith and go to temple every friday and every sunday.

If ronnie's anything like most creationists (AKA, a fundamentalist Baptist of some sort), he would probably consider that even "worse" than atheism. If anything, they seem to hate competing religions (especially Catholicism) even more than agnostics and atheists.

There's also the fact that those same groups also have a LONNNNG history of anti-semitism - which has only (somewhat) changed because they realized that supporting the "return of the Jews to the holy land" also supports their own apocalyptic fantasies. Of course, those same apocalyptic fantasies also involve all Jews burning in hell for all eternity - but I guess they have enough PR savvy not to mention that little detail.

Vector13

1 hour - 38v

Posted 2009/10/15 - 1:36 GMT

If ronnie's anything like most creationists (AKA, a fundamentalist Baptist of some sort), he would probably consider that [judaism] even "worse" than atheism.

You have a point. I find religion to be hideously hypocritical in this way.

It seems like:

"Be kind to your fellow humans, but hate the ones i say to hate." - God.

There seems to be a huge tolerance gap where Ronnie comes in. His way or the highway. Highway as in Hell.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/15 - 2:23 GMT

It seems like:
"Be kind to your fellow humans, but hate the ones i say to hate." - God.

Yup. It's sadly-amusing they way Christian apologists can say "Here are some non-negotiable moral absolutes," then turn around and say "and here are some convenient exceptions to those absolutes" - when an absolute, by definition, has no exceptions.

There seems to be a huge tolerance gap where Ronnie comes in. His way or the highway. Highway as in Hell.

And ronnie, it seems, is a bit of a special case - even among creationists.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/15 - 9:41 GMT

How ironic. I've never read that.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/16 - 18:44 GMT

Ben (sci-borg). I told you already you I don't know how many times I'm Catholic you idiot not Baptist.

The evangelicals bringing the Jews to Israel also hope to convert them, not let them go to Hell. The idea is that when Jesus comes back they will look at him "whom they have peirced" and repent. So they will have another chance.

Zechariah 12:10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me WHOM THEY HAVE PIERCED, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

Now go ahead and go make more false accusations about them while ignoring these facts like you always do you lying ignoarant old man.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/16 - 18:55 GMT

¨I told you already you I don't know how many times I'm Catholic¨

you DO know that that makes you akin to the antichrist in the eyes of MM, right? then again SCi´s response wasn´t solely aimed at you.

¨The idea is that when Jesus comes back they will look at him "whom they have peirced" and repent. So they will have another chance.

and this would have NOTHING to do with the requirement of the great jewish temple that neaded to be rebuilt before the apocolypse can start, now would it?

¨Now go ahead and go make more false accusations about them while ignoring these facts like you always do you lying ignoarant old man.¨

you might want to consider how conservative protestants view all those jews who do not convert, or who agree with their religious idea´s.....

Vector13

1 hour - 38v

Posted 2009/10/17 - 3:04 GMT

The idea is that when Jesus comes back they will look at him "whom they have peirced" and repent.

See, this is what I hate about the bible and so on. It blames entire races and creeds of people for something that only a few people (who happened to have belonged to a race or religion) did. Okay, I did not kill Jesus. My distant ancestors did (which shouldn't seem so wrong to you, ronnie. They were punishing him for disobeying the rules of his religion). So, why should I have to repent in the name of Jesus Christ?

On an unrelated subject:

I have to accept jesus as my lord and savior to be accepted into heaven and wiped of my sins, correct?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/17 - 3:44 GMT

First, if you think about it, my relatives killed Jesus. My dad's Italian. So who did all the dirty work? The Romans. The Jews didn't lay a hand on him. So this shows who is really responsible. It's all of us. Jesus died for all of us. Read your old Torah. The Jewish Messiah has already come the first time. In the second coming he will fulfill the rest of the prophecies. He's already fulfilled 300 of them.

The Jewish prophet Daniel predicted the exact day of Jesus coming the first time ACCORDING TO THE OLD TORAH CALENDAR.

See here: http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=1892

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/17 - 5:27 GMT

Ben (sci-borg). I told you already you I don't know how many times I'm Catholic

No you haven't. And are actually dumb enough to seriously believe that Ben and I are the same person?

you idiot not Baptist.

You may have finally figured out how to use your Shift key, but I see the comma still too advanced for you. And I see you're still having trouble posting comments in response to the post you're actually replying to.

The evangelicals bringing the Jews to Israel also hope to convert them, not let them go to Hell. The idea is that when Jesus comes back they will look at him "whom they have peirced" and repent. So they will have another chance.

How fortunate for them. Here's an idea: head down to your local synagogue tomorrow, find a Jewish person, and explain that concept - then ask them how appreciative they are of that bit of "generosity." Do be sure to post the results.

Now go ahead and go make more false accusations them while ignoring these facts

You mean the way you did in the very first words of your post? Or the way you and bigdog falsely accused people of pedophilia?

like you always do you lying ignoarant old man.

BZZZZT, wrong - I haven't even hit the 3 decade mark yet, chuckles.

Being so thoroughly wrong so much of the time must get frustrating for you, ronnie; I amost feel sorry for you. Almost.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/17 - 5:40 GMT

How ironic. I've never read that.

It's worth a read. If nothing else, it provides an interesting counter-point to 9tails' claims about how all evolutionists are "liberal commie atheists" (Ayn Rand was strongly opposed to communism and a staunch advocate of laissez-faire capitalism - yet she was also an atheist and extremely critical of religion).

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/17 - 14:17 GMT

"he Jews didn't lay a hand on him."

that is NOT what the message in the bible is.

"let his blood be apon our hands.."

that is exactly what the early christians wanted people to think.

they wanted to distance themselves from the jews so they would have less problems with the roman authorities. that however didn't work out all that well.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/18 - 4:20 GMT

"BZZZZT, wrong - I haven't even hit the 3 decade mark yet, chuckles.

What do you mean? Your whole life is wrong. You're some old man at a computer pretending to be a doctor, scared to come out of your room, so you sit online trying to brainwash kids.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/18 - 8:06 GMT

Your whole life is wrong. You're some old man at a computer pretending to be a doctor, scared to come out of your room, so you sit online trying to brainwash kids.

Awww, is someone getting a bit cranky? Did widdle ronnie miss his afternoon nap today?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/18 - 9:19 GMT

"
What do you mean? Your whole life is wrong. You're some old man at a computer pretending to be a doctor, scared to come out of your room, so you sit online trying to brainwash kids."

seriously..what is wrong with you people?

why must you always demonize everyone who disagrees with you? don't you see you're just shutting yourself of from learning anything at all?

you're just reinforcing those walls od that prison you build in your mind. forced to trow ad hoc explinations fom ignorance to anyone who knows more about the world around you and tried to teach you something.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/18 - 12:08 GMT

good reason to not debate evolutionists online = You will get flamed to death.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/18 - 12:35 GMT

"good reason to not debate evolutionists online ="

because your ignorance of natural world will be exposed in such a way that you might never dare to leave your house again.....

:P

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/18 - 15:48 GMT

this thread has become a gigantic flame war.

Vector13

1 hour - 38v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 2:01 GMT

The Jewish prophet Daniel predicted the exact day of Jesus coming the first time ACCORDING TO THE OLD TORAH CALENDAR.

Then please explain to me why some morons decided to RESET the calendar to the Supposed day dan year that jesus was born? What's the date? (i remind you that this is the year 5770 in the hebrew calendar. this is the farthest back that humans have historical evidence of because The Library of Alexandria was burned for having "blasphemous" writings in it.)

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 5:19 GMT

I'll have to search my studies and find the name of the Rabbi that changed the calendar. But the prophecy is according to the old Torah calendar since it was written during that era.

It is interesting how records only go back 5770 years, because archeaologists still can't find hard evidence of anything older historically. A hopeful guess is what they use if they THINK it's older.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 10:54 GMT

"
It is interesting how records only go back 5770 years, because archeaologists still can't find hard evidence of anything older historically. A hopeful guess is what they use if they THINK it's older."

this is the kind of reaction i'd expect form someone who isn't a archeologist...

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 11:02 GMT

And from someone who thinks we invented written language a short time after we where "made".

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 13:39 GMT

It is interesting how records only go back 5770 years, because archeaologists still can't find hard evidence of anything older historically.

Eh, no - you're also off by almost a thousand years even just with written records. Archaeologists have discovered writing that has been dated to 6600 BCE (Jiahu Script).

And that took about 3 minutes to find.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 17:13 GMT

well sci borg, creationists don't know how to use google. Only search on creationwiki perhaps, but definitly not google.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 18:01 GMT

I think that you guys only read half of the paragraph. The rest says.

but some doubt that the markings represent systematic writing at all and believe that they were simply used as pictures or at best are a form of proto-writing that conveyed a message without encoding language. The earliest evidence for a corpus of writing in the oracle bone script dates much later to the Shang Dynasty (c. 1600 – 1046 BC).

Took me less than a minute.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 18:13 GMT

Also found this about the Pengtoushan culture.

This site is the earliest permanently settled village yet discovered in China.[2] Excavated in 1988, Pengtoushan has been difficult to date accurately, with a large variability in dates ranging from 9000 BCE to 5500 BCE.[2] Cord-marked pottery was discovered among the burial goods.

Analysis of Chinese rice residues which were C14 dated to 8200-7800 BCE show that rice had been domesticated by this time.[3] The size of the Pengtoushan rice was larger than the size of naturally-occurring wild rice; however, Pengtoushan lacked evidence of tools used in cultivating rice. Although not found at Pengtoushan, rice-cultivating tools were found in later sites associated with the Pengtoushan culture.

This shows that there is no solid evidence again. And this is the oldest that they "think" to their addmission. Please come back when where is solid evidence, not some estimated C-14 dates that can have wild errors with dates of a known age.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 18:13 GMT

"
but some doubt that the markings represent systematic writing at all and believe that they were simply used as pictures or at best are a form of proto-writing that conveyed a message without encoding language. The earliest evidence for a corpus of writing in the oracle bone script dates much later to the Shang Dynasty (c. 1600 – 1046 BC)."

somehow i think you stil missed the point that these depictions where older then 6000 years.....

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 20:16 GMT

and that's relevant to your cause how? It's just bouncing numbers that doesn't add up with yours.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 20:39 GMT

The problem is that the markings don't have evidence for a real date and they are similar to "corpus" writing" which is in the oracle bone script which is let's see......1600 Ã¢ï¿½ï¿½ 1046 BC + 2000... that's a maximum of 3,600 years ago.

Any time there is a claim that something or someone was alive before 6,000 years ago is always guessed on and or carbon dated.

quote again from above: "Excavated in 1988, Pengtoushan has been difficult to date accurately, with a large variability in dates ranging from 9000 BCE to 5500 BCE.[2] Cord-marked pottery was discovered among the burial goods."

This just shows them trying to make another lucky guess on, supposedly, the oldest archeaological findings.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 21:40 GMT

"he earliest evidence for a corpus of writing in the oracle bone script dates much later to the Shang Dynasty (c. 1600 – 1046 BC)."

ronnie, this was somehtign entirely different from the depictions which they found, and it's the age of THESE depictions that predates 6000bc

"
This just shows them trying to make another lucky guess on, supposedly, the oldest archeaological findings."

no, 9000 BC would NOT make em the oldest archeological findings.

stone tools found near ancient homonids would be the oldest archeological findings.

oh and don't you call keeping the uncertainty in the dating "guessing". i'ts just being intelectually honest.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 21:42 GMT

"
This shows that there is no solid evidence again. And this is the oldest that they "think" to their addmission. Please come back when where is solid evidence, not some estimated C-14 dates that can have wild errors with dates of a known age."

OOOOH! it's that EVIL C14 dating again...

slry, stop insulting licened archeologist and lab technicians.

and you might also note that this is ONE of the TWO sites.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/19 - 22:49 GMT

When they say between 5 thousand BC to 9 thousand, that is a big stretch. How do they know for sure? They don't. It's not for sure. They may be honest at heart, but it is based on a guess from what they have been taught. Where's the hard evidence? By the way that's a pretty amazing accurate prophecy from the original torah, no?

Vector13

1 hour - 38v

Posted 2009/10/20 - 4:03 GMT

Okay... so of the maximum date is only about 3,000 years ago, how come there is a site where evidence of proto-human existence dates back 16,000 years? The cave paintings at Lascaux is one of the oldest recorded human contact sites in the world. And there's almost no way to debate it. Carbon dating (which, since it is the most viable evidence against creationism, you do not believe in) states that the stone and paint in that cave is about 15-16,000 years old, discrediting your theory. And, even if you don't believe in the carbon dating, who do you think was there sixteen thousand years ago to paint those if humans appeared 3,000 years ago?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/20 - 4:59 GMT

I saved this site from Bigdog.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon%2014%20dating

Go to this site and click on "C-14 dating." Basically H2O easily contaminates the C-14. C-14 dating is only used for things that they "THINK" (key word) are younger than 40,000 years.

Read through the raiometric dating dates. Fity to two hundred year old lava flows dated at hundreds of thousands to millions to billions of years old. In Bigdogs words " If these dating methods make mistakes with fossils of a known age, then why should we trust the dates for fossils of an unknown age.

By the way. That's a pretty interesting accurate prediction from the Old Torah, right!

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/20 - 10:11 GMT

"When they say between 5,5 thousand BC to 9 thousand, that is a big stretch."

perhpas the settlement was inhabited for a longer period of time?

"How do they know for sure? They don't. It's not for sure."

which suddenly makes their estimation false how?

"They may be honest at heart, but it is based on a guess from what they have been taught."

no it's based on the accumulation of the data.

how the hell do you not understand how scientists work?

"Where's the hard evidence?"

RIGHT THERE IN THE CARBON14 RATIO!

right there in the comparative deptness of the layers and the artifacts found.

also you semed to have convienientyl glossed over the fact that the rice found at the site was dated with a much higher accuracy. 8200-7800 BCE and there is no doubt that this settlement was an agricultural commnity, so they HAD been cultivating rice at least 7800 BCE in that site.

"Pengtoushan lacked evidence of tools used in cultivating rice. Although not found at Pengtoushan, rice-cultivating tools were found in later sites associated with the Pengtoushan culture."

but of course the dig at Pengtoushan isn't closed yet, and neither must

disregard the possibility that the tools where made of decomposable materials, like bamboo.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/20 - 10:14 GMT

" Basically H2O easily contaminates the C-14."

LLLLLLAAAAAWLLLL.

physics failure.

the reservoir effect isn't caused by the water.

and simple dipole reacation will not increase decay rates.

and NEITHER wil they show up as false readign when testign for C14.

"C-14 dating is only used for things that they "THINK" (key word) are younger than 40,000 years."

ya, becaus eif we found it in any deeper layers the 50.000 years accuracy range is useless.

a tool has it's uses u know. you don't use a hammer to clip your nails.

"Fity to two hundred year old lava flows dated at hundreds of thousands to millions to billions of years old."

are we going to bring back that dead horse?

XENOLITHS=/= LAVA

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/20 - 10:17 GMT

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon%2014%20dating

ronnie, we've been THROUGH THIS already.

the person who wrote that article had no idea what he's writing about.

and bigdog seems to know that because he tried to quotemine Kevin on this and was exposed for it. come to think of it.....i've never seen a creationist shoot himself in the foot that hard...ever.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/20 - 22:21 GMT

but some doubt that the markings represent systematic writing at all and believe that they were simply used as pictures or at best are a form of proto-writing that conveyed a message without encoding language. The earliest evidence for a corpus of writing in the oracle bone script dates much later to the Shang Dynasty (c. 1600 – 1046 BC).

And where in your original post did you say anything about systematic vs. proto writing? Here, I'll save you some time: you didn't, you only claimed that "records only go back 5770 years" and "archeaologists still can't find hard evidence of anything older historically." In other words, you were still wrong regardless of what sort of writing it was.

So either you're too stupid to remember what your original claim was, or you're trying to revise it after the fact. Once again, ronnie, you FAIL.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/20 - 22:24 GMT

Any time there is a claim that something or someone was alive before 6,000 years ago is always guessed on and or carbon dated.

You really aren't that bright, are you ronnie?

Tell me: with objects dated younger than 6,000 ya, how exactly do you think they were dated? What, you think there was a copyright date on the Dead Sea Scrolls?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/21 - 0:04 GMT

Any time there is a claim that something or someone was alive before 6,000 years ago is always guessed on and or carbon dated.

You're really not that bright, are you?

Please, by all means, explain to us how you think that objects younger than 6,000 years are dated. Answer: the exact same methods are are used to date objects which are found to be older than 6,000 years.

What, do you think that the Dead Sea Scrolls included a copyright date?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/22 - 4:14 GMT

Everyone now knows that carbon dating makes mistakes. So it's not hard evidence. But I can now see that you are ticked off because you are doubting your beliefs. Don't be so ignorant little buddy. I know it hurts. Just let it go.

By the way yes that means years in the prophecy, as in, TO THE EXACT YEAR!!!

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/21 - 0:28 GMT

I saved this site from Bigdog.

http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon%2014%20dating

Unfortunately for you, that bullshit was already ripped to shreds when petitchien posted it. So if you're going to try to revive, then first you need to address those objections - of course, we both know that you lack the wits to do that.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/21 - 3:03 GMT

C-14 is easily contaminated by weather and humidity. The Dead Sea scrolls (the subject I brought up 8 months ago) were dated accurately because they were preserved from the weather in pots in dry caves.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/21 - 3:04 GMT

Hey how about that old Torah prophecy on the Messiah? Pretty amazing huh?! Dan.9:24-27

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/21 - 12:12 GMT

"C-14 is easily contaminated by weather and humidity. The Dead Sea scrolls (the subject I brought up 8 months ago) were dated accurately because they were preserved from the weather in pots in dry caves."

noo, you absolute little shithead.

the C14 wouldn't be affected, THE INTEGRITY OF THE DOCUMENTS WOULD BE AFFECTED.

they'd decay and fallapart.

THE C14 RATIO WOULD STILL BE THE SAME. you'd just have a bunch of little fragments to test instead of the complete scrolls.

SERIOUSLY.

where were you during science class?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/21 - 12:29 GMT

"26 After the sixty-two 'sevens,' the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing. [f] The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary. The end will come like a flood: War will continue until the end, and desolations have been decreed. 27"

the only thin i can imagine this is referring to (the destruction of the city and the sanctuary) is the roman pillaging of jeruzalem in 55AD.

that date i cannot find referred to in the text.

since that was...what? 15 years after christs execution?

oh and i got this from one of those bible sites

"Therefore "Seventy 'sevens' " must mean seventy sevens of years or 70 x 7 = 490 years. "Seventy sevens" could not mean days or weeks, that would be too short of a time for all of the events in the prophecy to happen as listed in verse 24. And history proves this out since 490 days, weeks and months have already transpired without the fulfillment of all of these prophesies within the respective timespans under consideration."

soooooooo, essentially it MUST be years because the prophecy didn't accured if he wouldn't have meant years?

and along further lines in that site....you can just see the wilfull filling in of data to account for the "coming true" of the prophecy.

it's so hard to read and see that this person knowingly committed all the cognative dissonance...

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/21 - 20:22 GMT

When they say between 5 thousand BC to 9 thousand, that is a big stretch.

I know creationists prefer would rather believe pure bullshit (as long as it's stated with certainty by whichever authority they follow) than accept an ambiguous reality, but try to understand: it's called a margin of error. Including that information with the data is what intellectually-honest people do (as opposed to creation "scientists").

Of course, your point misses the fact that numerous objects have been dated older than 9,000 years old - and, in fact, the margin of error is less and less of a "problem" with older objects, because that margin stays the same (+/- 4 years is not that big a deal for something that's 30-odd thousand years old).

By the way that's a pretty amazing accurate prophecy from the original torah, no?

Not really, considering that almost none of the details in it can be verified. First, you would need to establish that Jesus ever actually existed (no historical or archaelogical evidence of that). Then you have to establish when he died.

So calling that an "accurate prophecy" some huge, unfounded assumptions. Unless you happen to have a copy of Jesus' birth and death certificates?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/21 - 20:27 GMT

(edit: duplicate post)

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/22 - 10:06 GMT

"Everyone now knows that carbon dating makes mistakes. So it's not hard evidence. But I can now see that you are ticked off because you are doubting your beliefs."

no it's because you keep repeatign this dead horse "carbon dating doesn't work".

you aren't a physisict, you have no idea what you are talking about. so whut up with repeating this crap.

"By the way yes that means years in the prophecy, as in, TO THE EXACT YEAR!!!"

also noticed the part that you suddenly have to miss 2000 years to skip to the last seven years?

or that the raiding of jeruselem in 55 AD wasn't accuratly predicted?

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/10/24 - 18:44 GMT

Everyone now knows that carbon dating makes mistakes.

A creationist appealing to a vague, possibly non-existent authority? Oh, I wasn't expecting that!!!

"Everyone knows" == the weakest and least-convincing form of the "appeal to the majority fallacy."

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/25 - 2:28 GMT

ronnie, to make that statement you have to lack a lot of knowledge and faith in scientific methods and testing procedures. Clearly you have no idea of how science works and why we regard RMD as a good method of determening age in some cases. Every work and results made by any given scientist in any given field is tested, re-tested and blind tested by others who actually understands the mechanics behind the methods and such. Wouldn't you want to accurately show and correct a scientist who made an error in his calculations or conclusions? That's what peer-reviewing is and unless you can take any given scientific study that SUPPORTS RMD/evolution/etc. and accurately show why its wrong or is faulty in any way, you got no case.

So i dare you, correct me! Please.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/10/28 - 21:49 GMT

I think many Christians have stopped responding because of the original post.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/10/28 - 22:18 GMT

yeah they thought it was justified as running from the subject as a valid argument for not accepting facts.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/10/28 - 23:18 GMT

""I think many Christians have stopped responding because of the original post.""

i think most ""christians"" here lack the intellectual capacity to defend their faith, and lack the intellectual honesty to engage in any kind of discussion.

just loook at bigdogs silly attempt to quotemine.

really, you people do wonders deconveting all those people in the middle.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/11/05 - 4:06 GMT

Back to square one. You guys don't want truth. You just want to mislead people and waste thier time.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/11/05 - 10:10 GMT

"Back to square one. You guys don't want truth. You just want to mislead people and waste thier time."

hint: the bible isn't insta truth.

quit trying to act like you have a monopoly on truth when you lack even a solid understanding of the world around you.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/11/05 - 15:16 GMT

How are we suppose to get the truth if every time we ask a question about it or discuss it you run away from the discussion? Like your last post when u wrote:
"Writing long blabbering posts won't make you less WRONG."

I made it clear what i think, why i think it and deduct my conclusion on the matter based on the shown source and data. You just gave me the finger before i could tell you what i thought and then ran to avoid hearing my conclusions.

oh and if we just want to waste your time, then what are you doing?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/11/06 - 3:18 GMT

Like Big dog said, "I just like picking at your brains" to see what kind of nonsense you come up with.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/11/06 - 17:39 GMT

failing to say the least. You can hardly answer a question or even make a valid respons. All you do is say "its wrong" without even supporting it. It's like trying to learn a 7 year old how standard deviation works. You're not challenging the least. What you do is claiming that 2+2 does not equal 4 and talk to a person who has read math at a university level. If you are to ignorant to even understand simple math, how can you dismiss any mathmatical formula that you don't understand?

Ronnie, do us all a favor. Delete your account here on this forum. burn your modem/router/or whatever and go back to high school. Don't return til you got some college credits in biology. Then we can have an intellectually honest discussion.

bigdog

4 days - 5,601v

Posted 2009/11/08 - 3:25 GMT

Ronnie. I can't believe your still wasting your time. Read your own posts. Why do you think nobody talks to these guys? It's because they are willingly ignorant (dumb on purpose). They're wasting their life. Don't waste yours on them.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/11/08 - 18:40 GMT

I think many Christians have stopped responding because of the original post.

A pity you weren't one of them.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/11/08 - 18:50 GMT

Back to square one.

That's for sure - as usual, you're repeating claims that you've failed to substantiate many times in the past.

You just want to mislead people and waste thier time.

Once again, thank you for demonstrating why no one takes creationists seriously - you really have nothing to offer beyond ad-hominem attacks against anyone who disagrees with you.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/11/08 - 18:51 GMT

Like Big dog said, "I just like picking at your brains" to see what kind of nonsense you come up with.

So, in other words, you're trolling. And not doing a particularly good job at it, either.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/11/08 - 18:57 GMT

Ronnie. I can't believe your still wasting your time. Read your own posts. Why do you think nobody talks to these guys? It's because they are willingly ignorant (dumb on purpose). They're wasting their life. Don't waste yours on them.

Hey petit chien!

Maybe he should make some incredibly stupid false accusations, then run away like a coward after getting called on it, and pop back in every few months to make pissy comments that show he's unable to deal with constantly losing arguments on the internet.

In other words, follow your example.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/11/08 - 19:55 GMT

"Ronnie. I can't believe your still wasting your time."
- Yeah ronnie you're never gonna learn anything with that mind of yours.

"Read your own posts."
- Bigdog, he's famous for NOT reading them...

"Why do you think nobody talks to these guys?"
- Maybe because you can't win? Maybe because you don't get it? Maybe you can't answer anything and run away in despair.

"t's because they are willingly ignorant (dumb on purpose)."
- HAHAHAHAHAHAHA, tell that to the face of a professor in evolutionary biology! bigdog, that's the worst argument against writing to us ever!

"They're wasting their life."
- Actually we're learning and sharing knowledge. Having intellectual discussions about disintellectual arguments is actually fruitfull, atleast for one side of the writers. You can't and refuse to learn simple methodologies and theories so you don't gain anything, namely YOU are wasting time not us.

"Don't waste yours on them. "
- Go ahead punk, make my day!

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/11/16 - 23:46 GMT

sooo. censorship is not a valid argument, but when every christian stop responding as their main weapon of argumentation and not posting bs. Id say it's job completed.

Next step getting Hovind to think the same thing and stop preaching about dinosours in the garden of eden.

rationalist (ben)

3 days - 3,596v

Posted 2009/11/26 - 4:05 GMT

This is funny. I have been gone for months and suddenly it is because I am a sock puppet? Why exactly do you think I am a sock puppet of a different poster. I know that we have different posting styles and my PhD work is in finance not a hard science. Do you have any evidence to suggest we are the same person? I would welcome the administrator to report our IP addresses.

I have been posting more over on Ray Comfort's blog under the name "Templar Ben".

PeterO

0 second ago - 0v

Posted 2009/11/28 - 2:34 GMT

First: you will never convince evolutionist to believe in creation nor creationist to believe in evolution by debating, at least i never heard of such a thing.

Second: I never heard for a creationist who started to believe in evolution, but i have heard for milions of evolutionists who accepted creation ( I think that says something by itself )

Third: Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! ==> that is why i avoid debating with evolutionists (although i like debates with them, cause you can make them think XD ), i simply ask them: "Do you want to believe?"

Greetings from Croatia

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/11/28 - 19:22 GMT

""First: you will never convince evolutionist to believe in creation nor creationist to believe in evolution by debating, at least i never heard of such a thing.""

apparently you have no idea how scientific literates think.

please don't start this ridiculus appeal to authority and majority, it's just to pathetic to see it repeated over and over....

""Second: I never heard for a creationist who started to believe in evolution, but i have heard for milions of evolutionists who accepted creation ( I think that says something by itself )""

would you mind puttign forth the statistics to support that claim.

""that is why i avoid debating with evolutionists (although i like debates with them, cause you can make them think XD ), i simply ask them: "Do you want to believe?"""

your use of the word ""believe "" is misleading when you want to challange ToE. but hey, it's not like your the only one using this line...

but since you "like" debating us, then i will suggest you go and look at the "skype" thread on this forum. i've posted that months ago, and i have still to see a willing creationist.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/11/29 - 23:13 GMT

Maybe it's because no one wants to see your ugly face.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/11/30 - 13:35 GMT

ronnie seriously, how old are you? Is it true that all creationists are equally as immature and childish as you? Or is that just an anamoly that makes for good laughs?

I think it's awesome that we get to discuss evolution with someone who don't have the proper age to know how humans reproduce.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/04 - 0:24 GMT

This is funny. I have been gone for months and suddenly it is because I am a sock puppet?

Anything to avoid backing up their claims, I guess. Nothing but a tin of red herrings in heavy oil.

Do you have any evidence to suggest we are the same person?

As far as I can, their only evidence is that we both write in full sentences.

I would welcome the administrator to report our IP addresses.

Ditto.

Although, in the mind of a "true believer," no amount of evidence would convince them. I'm sure if the server admin were to post our IP addresses, geniuses like ronnie would just back-pedal and claim that the admin is in on the whole global atheist/illuminati/lizard men conspiracy.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/04 - 0:48 GMT

First: you will never convince evolutionist to believe in creation nor creationist to believe in evolution by debating, at least i never heard of such a thing.

I doubt that any of the "evolutionists" here seriously expect to convert any creationists (here or elsewhere). But bullshit claims in general (and the claims of creationists in particular) ought to be countered - if for other reason than to prevent others from being taken in by those claims.

Second: I never heard for a creationist who started to believe in evolution

Um, just off the top of my head, the obvious example would be Charles Darwin. Or how about Gregor Mendel?

but i have heard for milions of evolutionists who accepted creation ( I think that says something by itself )

And can you name a single one who accepted creationism on its own merit? Every indication I've seen is that people accept creationism not because it has any validity, but because it's something that their religion obligates them to accept (if they don't want to be seen as "traitors," that is).

Third: Evolutionists will try to lead you into endless debate, and they will more often than not succeed! ==> that is why i avoid debating with evolutionists

Right, that must be it. I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that most creationists couldn't debate their way out of a wet paper bag.

(although i like debates with them, cause you can make them think XD ), i simply ask them: "Do you want to believe?"

Unfortunately, speaking for myself, a pair of fairly-persistent Mormon missionaries beat you to that question a good 7 or 8 years ago. I'll give the same answer I gave them: people can convince themselves of just about ANYTHING if they want to believe it badly enough.

If a notion is only plausible to those who are already pre-disposed to believe it, then that's a good indication of an idea that has no validity on its own. I much prefer ideas that are supported by such overwhelming evidence that it would be unreasonable *not* to accept them (E.g. evolution) - regardless of whether or not you "want to believe."

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/04 - 11:16 GMT

"people can convince themselves of just about ANYTHING if they want to believe it badly enough."
- And that is the reason why ppl can believe that they are imortal or even god.

thedude

2 weeks - 32,767v

Posted 2009/12/04 - 13:53 GMT

Regarding the non-sense going on above this comment,

You only get a debate if both sides of the argument are putting up good, rational facts or statements.

So far, only one side is doing that, the Evolutionists.

Creationists, you've got to do better if you want people to believe what you're saying.

You can not run away and hide, or worse yet, create insults.

Accept defeat in this thread, and try again?

Also, Evolutionists do not want to waste your time at all,

We don't even try, it is yourself who wastes your own time :-)

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/05 - 4:25 GMT

You don't want truth. You want your biased beliefs to be true.

thedude

2 weeks - 32,767v

Posted 2009/12/05 - 4:56 GMT

Ronnie,

Is that not describing yourself in some way?

Think about it...

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/05 - 18:52 GMT

Dude. I'm Catholic. most Catholics believe in evolution, but not me. To me it doesn't matter if God created the world millions or thousands of years ago. Who cares? Obviously you do and of course athiests, because their theory of no God is totally destroyed if the world is only 6 to 10 thousand years old. Others want to believe the idea of a less powerful weak god that can't get it right for billions of years to avoid or prolong the idea of Jesus' second coming. Think about it!

thedude

2 weeks - 32,767v

Posted 2009/12/05 - 19:36 GMT

Ronnie,

If it doesn't matter, why are you still trying to prove your right?

I have thought about it, I still believe in God the father almighty,

but the world is not in my opinion, only 6,000 years old.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/06 - 4:22 GMT

"You don't want truth. You want your biased beliefs to be true."
- Why on earth are you always speaking of truth and that you KNOW everything like it's completely true? There's no truth. There's nothing even remotely supporting creationism and ronnie you got nothing.

You spew crap all over with nothing substantiate like you where trying to ser how many times you can get away with it.

God or no god. Doesn't matter. Totally irrelevant since there are no evidence or phenomenan that would even remotely point towards creationism.

Why ronnie, WHY?! Why are you so stubborn and fail to see any logic and just act like a 7 year old who's in the "I'm best in the whole world"-phase? Are you so close-minded that you cannot take in the information we give you for the sake of your pre-determinded thought?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/06 - 7:33 GMT

Atleast I know the Dude is smarter than you are. It doesn't take much to realize that the world is too complex to happen by some mindless dumb accident. The creator is smart and definately smarter than any of our little minds.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/06 - 20:33 GMT

ronnie what the fuck are you talking about?! the Dude thought he didn't had sufficient knowledge in the subject and asked for information. He may not have understood it fully before and acknowledged that to be able to learn something. You just say that It's to complex because you cannot understand it. You don't want to understand it. Anyone who uses a strawman have a mind of ignorance.

"It doesn't take much to realize that the world is too complex to happen by some mindless dumb accident."
- It doesn't take much to realize that it's too complex for your "mindless dumb accident"-brain to cope and fully understand.

"The creator is smart and definately smarter than any of our little minds. "
- Speak for yourself as some of us can actually use what we've learned in biology class and say for example, research a new medicine for an illness. Now tell me I'm wrong and enlighten me to what fine contributions creationism has given science.

thedude

2 weeks - 32,767v

Posted 2009/12/07 - 4:02 GMT

To Ellman,

No, I did not have much knowledge on Evolution at all,

Now I sorta have an understanding on what it is.

Towards Ronnie,

Just because somebody has different beliefs than you and I, doesn't make them stupid,

It just makes then an individual who has opinions just like you and I.

Whether or not we agree with them is another discussion, but that doesn't make them stupid.

Ronnie, I'm dissapointed in you, I thought Christians were supposed to love all of God's children if they have done nothing evil.

Where is that in you?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/07 - 7:00 GMT

I do love Ellman. But his stupid self is going to Hell and dragging others with him if he doesn't wake up from this fantasy that their is no God of the Bible. By the way I believe in micro evolution, but not macro-evolution. Meaning I don't believe monkey like animals turn into people over time. That's ridiculous. I've studied it. It doesn't add up anymore. It doesn't take much common sense if you look at it with half a brain. Don't be brain washed DUDE. I believe your going to Heaven if you trust in God's Son. But anyone who challenges macro evolution or the age of the earth is a threat and labeled a religious fanatic who does so. Just watch the documentary 'EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED' by Ben Stein.

I do care about these guys. They don't hold back in calling me what they want so I don't have any trouble telling them what I feel. Remember when Jesus took a whip and chased out all the money changers, because they turned his house of prayer into a house of deception? Well, Jesus still loved them. He was just using some hard love. Kind of like a father does to his kids. By the way there are debates a few times a week now on Christian T.V. about these subjects. Why don't the athiests promote more unedited video debates? Think about that.

They don't want you to know that they're hiding behind the name of science when it's reall not science. It's kind of like this latest scandal of global warming. The public now knows that scientists working for the U.N, and also our government, have attempted to "trick" the public into believing that the world is still warming. It's actually been cooling for the last eleven years.

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27635860/climate-gate.htm

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/07 - 12:15 GMT

"I do love Ellman."
- hmm, must be that kind of love you get from an abusive father then.

"But his stupid self is going to Hell and dragging others with him if he doesn't wake up from this fantasy that their is no God of the Bible."
- My religious thoughts have nothing to do with evolution and what i study and advocate on this forum. The reason for my disbelief is purely a failer from the christian community i was born into. My parents decided that i should choose on my own when im old enough wether to believe or not and i couldn't find a single logical conclusion that would justify faith.

common sense doesn't mean shit. It's just an appeal to majority as what is commonly thought of something is commonly known. I am a very sceptical person in general and i find things hard to believe until I've actually tested it or tried it in some way. I made a project in high school testing the mechanisms of evolution with the presumption that it was false and i was wrong. I can never test god or the faith or see in any way how it would gain me in some way so i just don't believe in it.

"Don't be brain washed DUDE."
- Another reason why i don't approve much of christianity in general. You want me to conform to ideas and thoughts that so many share and start l iving by rules that i didn't decide for my own. Living after the bible is just making me into a mindless body with no own identity. Instead of doing what i want (for the better and worse) i would have to "ask" the book if it was okey with my religion. And i would gullibly accept it as true.

"But anyone who challenges macro evolution or the age of the earth is a threat and labeled a religious fanatic who does so. "
- If that claim is correct you would be able to give me alteast 2 examples of people who are NOT religious and supports creationism or even made any studies that would support it. good luck searching ;)

"Just watch the documentary 'EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED' by Ben Stein. "
- Its about some guy who tried to sneak in a creationist paper that wasn't peer-reviewed into a scientific paper. He wasn't a researcher at the university/colleage and was fired for trying to put in pseudoscience into a real scientific magazine. Anyone knows how bad that magazine would look like if it would have been printed?

"Why don't the athiests promote more unedited video debates? Think about that. "
- Ever heard of the atheist experience? It's for mostly religious people who can ask questions and debate atheism with atheists. Oh and it's broadcast live so you can't really edit it.

Oh and here's a list of things that would convince any sane atheist that there was a god:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rqUsC2KsiI

"It's kind of like this latest scandal of global warming."
- Im no climateologist, but why are the ice caps melting then?

Source: NASA who made the illustration and took the picture.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/qthinice.asp

More illustrations:

ronnie, don't go there please.

ty for breaking your habit of writing borring one-liners =)

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/07 - 17:47 GMT

If America is leading the world to global warming then how come July of 1913 holds the hottest day in America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Highest_temperature_ever_recorded

Why haven't we broken that record? It's because global warming is a hoax like macro evolution.

Actually, last year the ice-caps grew.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517035,00.html

We were on a warming trend. But for the last 9 to 11 years we've been cooling. During the sixties people were warning that we were heading into an ice age because of human activity.
http://www.odu.edu/ao/instadv/quest/Greenhouse.html

The real problem is polution from CARBON MONOXIDE. But globals warming fanatics say CARBON DIOXIDE is the problem. People get those confused unless they really pay attention to the details. CARBON DIOXIDE is good for plants. It's what makes them thrive along with water. Plants have actually grown because of the increase of CO2 (carbon dioxide). Tequila farmers in Mexico have seen their agave plants growing faster and the Aspens are growing faster.
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/14923437/Rising-Carbon-Dioxide-Is-Great-for-Plants

It just snowed in Houston TX. It just snowed in El Paso TX. Hardly ever does. It's pretty cold in most of North America right now. And we have evidence that the scientists are tweaking the evidence. More is coming out. Many places have had the coldest winter in ten years. http://www.theage.com.au/national/coldest-winter-in-10-years-bureau-20080530-2k0o.html But I guess cooling trend means global warming right?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/08 - 11:46 GMT

"It doesn't take much to realize that the world is too complex to happen by some mindless dumb accident."

for the last time.
THE IS NOTHING RANDOM ABOUT PHYSICS (at atomic level).
you have 4 fundemental forces in nature, and everything happens because of them through cause and effect.

"The creator is smart and definately smarter than any of our little minds. "

well if he really is that smart, he's one huge sadist, knowingly leaving humanity to suffer while he predicted it would happen and had the power to stop it.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/08 - 12:55 GMT

"But his stupid self is going to Hell and dragging others with him if he doesn't wake up from this fantasy that their is no God of the Bible. "

aaah the classic "KILL IT WITH FIRE!" threat...

" By the way I believe in micro evolution, but not macro-evolution. "

weird...because if you acknolwedge micro evolution you MUST acknowledge macro evolution because the process by which both happen is EXACTLY THE SAME. if you'd have paye attention in biology you would have known that.

"Meaning I don't believe monkey like animals turn into people over time"

ehm. we ARE monkey like animals. do you have any idea how similar we look and act? the irony is that we were first classified as a primate BY A CREATIONIST, over 200 years ago.

your statement again brings out your ignorance on simple taxonomy and man's current and archeological place in the biosphere.

"That's ridiculous"

and a talking snake or eternal torture for a finite offense isn't?

" I've studied it."

no you have not, your comments tell me as such. but if you REALLY feel so confident, why don't you skype me and explain to me in fine detail how conjugation has made it harder for us to pin down what the common ancestor of all life was. that or you can explain to my why we think eucaryotes are a symbiotic form of early protist and ancient bacteria.

"But anyone who challenges macro evolution or the age of the earth is a threat and labeled a religious fanatic who does so"

and your main objectioin to evolution big bang theory and abiogenesis ISN'T religiously motivated? oh w8, you already answered that.

"Just watch the documentary 'EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED' by Ben Stein. "

lol, that "documentory" has been ripped to shred a looong time ago.
didn't you notice the "subtle" hints in the movie, where put in all the nazi symbols?
or the fact that Stein quotemined Dawkins.

really, it's one loong list of failure and dishonesty.
but if you don't believe me, do the research.

"Remember when Jesus took a whip and chased out all the money changers, because they turned his house of prayer into a house of deception?"

did jezus also incline that those "money changers" where pedophiles? and did jezus also preach about currency flucuation, despite the "money changers" correcting him on his mistakes?
i bet he did not.

"Kind of like a father does to his kids."

no, you're confusing the terms discipline, torture and child abuse with oneanother...

"Why don't the athiests promote more unedited video debates?"

you didn't check out thunderfoot's debate with ray did you?

"They don't want you to know that they're hiding behind the name of science when it's reall not science."

ya....really impressive insult form someone who doesn't actually do science.

"By the way there are debates a few times a week now on Christian T.V. '

mind going to some university debates and see what topic are debated there?

" It's kind of like this latest scandal of global warming."

oh yes, because icecaps "aren't" melting, and sea levels "aren't" rising, and we "aren't" addign new CO2 to the carbon cycle whilest we "aren't" cuttign down forest.

that's some neat scandal.

"The public now knows that scientists working for the U.N, and also our government, have attempted to "trick" the public into believing that the world is still warming. It's actually been cooling for the last eleven years. "

oh yes, you must have seen all those hacked emails.

how about you read the rest of them? instead of mindlessly repeating the word "trick" when you do not know the scientific usuage.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/08 - 20:55 GMT

Ya I've heard all of your nonsense before.

No rebuttal to the global warming huh?

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/08 - 21:49 GMT

as i said, I'm not having any knowledge in that area so I'm researching it now. I bet 325 is doing something similar

Oh and take a look at my graphs again. Some of them doesn't support your conclusions and the whole "it was so warm that day in texas etc." thingy is just anamolies. It doesn't matter if there is a change in temp in a local area if the global is swinging in the opposite direction.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/08 - 23:54 GMT

In the mean time examine this paper from NewsMax magazine. Pretty interesting:

1. Belief in Global Warming at All-Time Low BEFORE Climategate:

A new poll reveals that the percentage of Americans who believe carbon dioxide emissions will cause global warming has dropped dramatically in recent years.

And that poll by Harris Interactive was conducted between Nov. 2 and 11 before the so-called “climategate” controversy erupted, calling into question the validity of some of the science supporting manmade global warming.

The poll found that the percentage of American who believe in global warming has dropped from 75 percent in 2001 and 71 percent in 2007 to just 51 percent.

At the same time, the percentage of those who do not believe in global warming has risen from 19 percent in 2001 and 23 percent in 2007 to 29 percent today, and the percentage who are unsure has climbed from 6 percent to 21 percent since 2001.

“The 51 percent who believe emissions will cause climate change is by far the lowest number recorded in any Harris Poll since we started asking this question 12 years ago,” Harris Interactive disclosed.

Opinions differed sharply along party lines 73 percent of Democrats believe in manmade global warming, compared to 28 percent of Republicans and 49 percent of Independents.

As for the upcoming international conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, only 28 percent of those polled knew that the main topic to be discussed is global warming and climate change. Nearly 10 percent said the economic crisis would be the topic, while smaller numbers cited nuclear weapons, health and epidemics, terrorism, international trade, or drugs.

Six days after the poll closed, on Nov. 17, someone hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and disseminated more than a thousand e-mails and other documents.

Climate change skeptics charge that the e-mails show collusion by climate scientists to skew scientific information in favor of manmade global warming.

The leaked documents “show that prominent scientists were so wedded to theories of manmade global warming that they ridiculed dissenters who asked for copies of their data, plotted how to keep researchers who reached different conclusions from publishing, and concealed apparently buggy computer code from being disclosed under the Freedom of Information law,” CBS News reported.

One climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research was quoted as saying: “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t.”

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/13 - 5:29 GMT

Well it's been about a week. I guess I can see that you concede atleast in the argument in global warming.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/13 - 7:55 GMT

We don't have the knowledge to debate/argue it. Been bissy studying organic chemistry instead.

Oh and its totally off topic and has nothing to do with the subjects discussed on this site.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/13 - 20:11 GMT

I do care about these guys.

You have an odd way of showing it - do you accuse everyone you care about of being a pedophile? Oh, excuse me, a "chester."

It doesn't take much common sense if you look at it with half a brain.

Nice. You've just claimed that creationism is superior because it can be understood by people with no common sense or with only half a brain.

Every heard the phrase "damning with faint praise"?

Just watch the documentary 'EXPELLED: NO INTELLIGENCE ALLOWED' by Ben Stein.

I tried to, but made the mistake of coming up with an "EXPELLED" drinking game (take a drink every time Stein uses a logical fallacy or lazy rhetorical device). Needless to say, I passed out at about 15 minute mark.

They don't hold back in calling me what they want so I don't have any trouble telling them what I feel.

Wow, you're actually trying to play the victim now? I think I'll go dig out the link to that thread where you and bigdog were throwing around accusations of pedophilia so I can post it the next time you try to revise history.

Why don't the athiests promote more unedited video debates? Think about that.

Either you're flat out lying, or you just don't know what you're talking about.

It's almost always the other way around - creationists refusing to debate everyone else, or refusing unless they can set all the terms of the debate in their favour.

Oh, and do you apply the same "reasoning" to all of the creationists who are afraid of written debate or submitting articles for formal peer-review?

The public now knows that scientists working for the U.N, and also our government, have attempted to "trick" the public into believing that the world is still warming.

Which is only significant to scientific illiterates who assume that "climate change" means that the temperature will only rise without any deviations.

It's actually been cooling for the last eleven years.

So you think that 11 years worth of data is sufficient to draw useful conclusions about climate trends? Apparently we can add basic statistics to the list of topics that you're utterly ignorant of.

http://www.foxnews.com/search-results/m/27635860/climate-gate.htm

So the only source you can provide is Faux News, a source where anyone can easily guess the conclusion (and the accompanying spin) just by looking at the URL?

Well, at least you weren't dumb enough to post a ConservaPedia link...

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/13 - 20:28 GMT

Many places have had the coldest winter in ten years.

...which are still warmer than the mean (or even average) winter temperatures of 20 or 30 years ago. I still remember winters from the 80s when, from December until about March, the temperature rarely went above minus 30 or 40 celcius. But in the last 15 years, it's rarely gone below minus 20.

But I guess cooling trend means global warming right?

First of all, the term "global warming" was an oversimplification created primarily by journalists (not scientists) who wanted a soundbite that could be understood by the layman. Second of all, there has been a push in the last decaded to replace "global warming" with the more accurate term "climate change."

So it's no different from creationists focusing on (often-outdated) elementary school text books - it just looks like you're grasping for the low-hanging fruit. Not that I expect a creationist to be capable of passing up such a tempting, ready-made strawman argument, though.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/13 - 20:41 GMT

1. Belief in Global Warming at All-Time Low BEFORE Climategate:

[...]

The poll found that the percentage of American who believe in global warming has dropped from 75 percent in 2001 and 71 percent in 2007 to just 51 percent.

Let's put that in a little context. According to surveys:

46% of Americans do not know that the Earth takes 1 year to orbit the sun
55% of Americans believe that lasers work by focusing sound waves
the majority of Americans are unable to find their own home state on an un-labeled map

So if you're going to resort to the "appeal to the majority/popularity" fallacy, you might want to pick a majority that isn't largely composed of morons.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/13 - 20:55 GMT

Oh and its totally off topic and has nothing to do with the subjects discussed on this site.

It's not even relevant to the original topic of the thread - pretty funny when ronnie can't even keep his own thread on topic.

That's pretty much the standard creationist debate tactic: they can't win a debate honestly, so they just throw out random red herrings to muddy the waters.

AKA, the "baffle them with bullshit" approach.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/13 - 20:58 GMT

Well it's been about a week. I guess I can see that you concede atleast in the argument in global warming.

Oh, so you're saying that a lack of response is the same as conceding defeat in a debate? Do you realize that, by that standard, you (and bigdog and 9tails and brothertrucker) have lost just about every single debate you've engaged in here.

Sadly, you can't even win a debate by default/forfeit - it took about 20 minutes to read through the "arguments" you've posted and tear them to shreds.

I hope you enjoyed your brief victory while it lasted!

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/14 - 1:16 GMT

Ronnie by your logic or train of thought, this thread shows that there is no scientific papers that supports creation:
http://forum.freehovind.com/view-4471

Since no creationist even made a single post in this thread it must be irrefutable!

thedude

2 weeks - 32,767v

Posted 2009/12/14 - 11:18 GMT

Ronnie,

I'm humbly amused at your desperate attempts to gain some victory in a lost debate.

The facts are, Global Warming is real.

There are no scientists who back Creationism, many being Christian themselves.

Your arguments have no backbone, and are often insults tossed at Evolutionists.

Sincerely ~ The Dude

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/14 - 15:38 GMT

ronnie, i wanted to do this earleir but i was caught up in a hell of a lot of study.

about the "climategate"

QUOTEMINE. read all the emails yourself if you don't believe me.

about the CO2 and plants, we all knew that. we all had biology class you know. and on a side note, did you know that increasing CO2 leves will create different vegetation belt, and in the process elimate many native species of plants from certain regions, let alone disrupt foodchains.

on the poll.

i could care less on what the majority of the american public thinks.

it's about the scientific consensus, NOT the public opinion.

oph and about those ice sheets

1998-2002

and lots, lots more articles in the journals,

just go google scholar.

but now, i have to get back to my project.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/16 - 4:12 GMT

If global warming is real why is it getting colder?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/16 - 5:25 GMT

Breaking News! From EDMONTON Journal (Canada) â�� Edmonton's weather boasted two dubious distinctions Sunday: it was colder here than anywhere else in North America and it marked the coldest Dec. 13 in the city's history.The old record of minus 36.1 C was set last year.
http://www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/Edmonton+breaks+weather+record/2336460/story.html

Cmon Dude. You really want me to believe that stuff?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/16 - 9:58 GMT

"If global warming is real why is it getting colder? "

because it isn't.
you have yet to even provide evidence to substantiate your claim,
and nooooo, showing a mined 10 year plot isn't going to help you.
you then ignore all the other previous ecades of global temperature.

oh and on another note. How do you explain the decline in icecaps an glaciers all around the world, not to mention the shifting vegetatian belts and differences in percipitation?

btw, a more accurate description is climate change, as that temr really outlines the core of the problem.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/16 - 10:00 GMT

"Breaking News! From EDMONTON Journal (Canada) â�� Edmonton's weather boasted two dubious distinctions Sunday: it was colder here than anywhere else in North America and it marked the coldest Dec. 13 in the city's history.The old record of minus 36.1 C was set last year."

1 word:

MEAN

if you don't get it, you have no business in even trying to discuss climate.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/16 - 20:14 GMT

or the rising water levels that overflow numerous islands in the pacific?

Even if it gets colder in edmonton that doe not in any way show that the EARTHS temperature is lower. Fact is its really warm this time of year where i live. All my childhood we had slow for christmas and now the latest 2 years we've had the coldest all december at 41 farenheit (roughly 5 degree celsius). Doesn't prove anything tbh. Ronnie you don't understand the difference between local weather and global?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/17 - 3:42 GMT

This scientist wrote e-mails on how to, in his words, "trick" people into not knowing that the world is really getting cooler.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120104461.html

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/17 - 11:41 GMT

"This scientist wrote e-mails on how to, in his words, "trick" people into not knowing that the world is really getting cooler.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/01/AR2009120104461.html "

ronnie, you are a quotemining, dishonest, gullable moron.

to outline my point.

http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0305-4470/11/5/028/jav11i5p983.pdf?request-id=dd070cbd-f407-45c2-a3ae-a9c5c837448e

now, CTLR F for the word "trick" and learn the correct scientific usage.

and quit with the mental suicide of mindlessly repeatign fox news after quotemining 2 emails.

thedude

2 weeks - 32,767v

Posted 2009/12/17 - 13:26 GMT

Global Temperatures are rising overall,

Ronnie, why try to debate when you clearly don't understand the topics at hand?

As Ellman stated above, this thread is now a giant flame war by Ronnie.

Ronnie, please be more mature in your arguments?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/18 - 1:52 GMT

From; Ice Age now: According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, satellite data for June shows that global temperatures are falling. The Earth has cooled an astounding .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006.

6 Jul 09 - Not only are temperature falling in the United States, they're falling globally.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_temperatures_are_falling.htm

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/19 - 5:01 GMT

ronnie what's a greenhouse gas?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/19 - 5:57 GMT

"Green house gases" are made up of several components, but carbon dioxide SPECIFICALLY is not a problem no matter what Al Gore says.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/19 - 13:26 GMT

""
"Green house gases" are made up of several components, but carbon dioxide SPECIFICALLY is not a problem no matter what Al Gore says.""

infrared emission spectrums and output percentages say your wrong ronnie.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/19 - 13:27 GMT

""So do you guys finally concede on the global warming issue?""

why would we? you haven't even offered anything substantial to support your position.

or didn''t you read our responses?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/19 - 21:04 GMT

"not to forget the shift in vegetation belts that will occur with an increased global temperature."

Carbon dioxide has increased, and guess what? It's still getting colder. Mankind is not powerful enough to cool or heat the earth even if we wanted to. It's just natural cycles of the earth. Don't be an idiot following this dumb hoax.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/20 - 5:05 GMT

appeal to authority ronnie, i don't give a shit about what al gore said or did not say.

"Greenhouse gases are gases in an atmosphere that absorb and emit radiation within the thermal infrared range."

Any gas that have the similar effect on the sun rays is a problem if enough emission of those gases occurs. carbon dioxide is merly the one we put out the most of and have the posibility of alter that emission. Or do you want us to take all the water vapor or ozone away instead?

Out of the gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect:

water vapor, which contributes 36–72%
carbon dioxide, which contributes 9–26%
methane, which contributes 4–9%
ozone, which contributes 3–7%

So theoretically the gas with the biggest impact on the effect is carbon dioxide and the gas we can lower our output for.

Oh and ronnie, you didn't answer my question. Just did a red herring with an appeal to authority. I wasn't asking you about if carbon dioxide is a problem...

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/20 - 5:08 GMT

You really think that with our widespread mankind we aren't doing anything to our plantet? With so many natural processes we hafve intrefered with you still don't think we can change the environment?

WE're trying to cheat the natural cycle of life by going to the doctor so why can't we alter the natural environment cycle?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/20 - 5:54 GMT

Breaking New!: WASHINGTON — A blizzard-like storm rocked the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern U.S. states on Saturday, crippling travel across the region and leaving hundreds of thousands of people without power.

Five deaths appeared to have been caused by the storm system, which stretched from the Carolinas north to New England and also spread into some Midwestern states. The 16 inches of snow that fell at Reagan National Airport outside Washington was the most ever recorded for a single December day, and 16 inches had also fallen in Philadelphia.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580550,00.html

Somebody should have told them the globe wasn't really warming.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/20 - 14:22 GMT

""Carbon dioxide has increased, and guess what? It's still getting colder.""

no it's NOT.

quit cherry picking statistical data already.

""Mankind is not powerful enough to cool or heat the earth even if we wanted to.""

want to bet?

do you have ANY idea how much pollutants industry and farmign can pump into the atmosphere?

""It's just natural cycles of the earth.""

no it's not, and those natural cycles are the way we actually found out. you see when we draw up the natural cycle graphs for the lst tens tens of thousands of years, we see that this current warming trend, is an anomoly compared to the natural cycles. THATS why we concluded that this is an UNNATURAL warming trend. and when we started looking for stuff that deviated from the natural cycles, we came across human emissions, that combined wiht the knowledge of infraed absorbtion and emission spectra of gasses. we were left with CO2 from industry and methane from deforestation, husbandry and oildrilling.

"Don't be an idiot following this dumb hoax."

don't be an idiot and buy what your conservative newsnetworks feed you, do the research, do the science.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/20 - 14:25 GMT

""Breaking New!: WASHINGTON — A blizzard-like storm rocked the Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern U.S. states on Saturday, crippling travel across the region and leaving hundreds of thousands of people without power.

Five deaths appeared to have been caused by the storm system, which stretched from the Carolinas north to New England and also spread into some Midwestern states. The 16 inches of snow that fell at Reagan National Airport outside Washington was the most ever recorded for a single December day, and 16 inches had also fallen in Philadelphia.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,580550,00.html

Somebody should have told them the globe wasn't really warming.""

oh YES! severe winter weather one year is enough to conclude a long term cooling effect!....ehm w8....no it isn't.

1 datapoint doesn't make a graph.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/20 - 15:09 GMT

And somebody should tell all the scientists that the animals hasn't evolved because god made them and its been prove to be true.

YA RIGHT!

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/20 - 22:48 GMT

"Green house gases" are made up of several components, but carbon dioxide SPECIFICALLY is not a problem no matter what Al Gore says.

If you seriously believe that, then I have some property for sale on the slopes of Maxwell Montes...

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/20 - 23:11 GMT

Somebody should have told them the globe wasn't really warming.

Once again, you're just repeating claims that have already been countered. Since you conveniently ignored this the first time I posted, allow me to re-post so you can dodge the point one more:

First of all, the term "global warming" was an oversimplification created primarily by journalists (not scientists) who wanted a soundbite that could be understood by the layman. Second of all, there has been a push in the last decaded to replace "global warming" with the more accurate term "climate change."

So it's no different from creationists focusing on (often-outdated) elementary school text books - it just looks like you're grasping for the low-hanging fruit. Not that I expect a creationist to be capable of passing up such a tempting, ready-made strawman argument, though.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/20 - 23:24 GMT

NewsMax: Scientist Points to U.N. ‘Fraud’ on Climate Change:

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) should be dismissed as an authority on global warming, according to a scientist associated with the IPCC.

In an article that appeared on South Africa’s BusinessDay Web site, Dr. Philip Lloyd, who has been a coordinating lead author for the IPCC, writes about the “flaws behind the whole process” of the IPCC.

The IPCC “claims that it has thousands of scientists and almost as many reviewers of the scientists’ work to produce their reports,” noted Lloyd, an honorary research fellow at the Energy Research Center at the University of Cape Town in South Africa.

However, Lloyd says the reviewers of IPCC reports have been neither independent nor anonymous, as they should be. In Lloyd’s experience there has been no review “in the accepted sense of the word there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.”

Another problem cited by Lloyd is that the IPCC issues a Summary for Policy Makers four months or more before a scientific report is published.

Lloyd concludes: “It isn’t necessary to list all the changes I have identified between what the scientists actually said and what the policymakers who wrote the Summary for Policy Makers said they said. The process is so flawed that the result is tantamount to fraud. As an authority, the IPCC should be consigned to the scrapheap without delay.”

Lloyd’s article makes no mention of the so-called climategate scandal, which has called into question the validity of some of the IPCC’s science supporting man-made global warming.

In a related note, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, following the eruption of the climategate controversy, acknowledged that the science supporting man-made global warming may not be “as certain as its proponents allege.”

But The Telegraph in Britain reported that Blair believes the world should take action on climate change “even if the science is not correct.”

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/21 - 14:19 GMT

"But The Telegraph in Britain reported that Blair believes the world should take action on climate change “even if the science is not correct.” "

which is good, even if the entire climate change predictions are off.

because ronnie, there are more good reasons to get off fossilfuels.

"However, Lloyd says the reviewers of IPCC reports have been neither independent nor anonymous, as they should be. In Lloyd’s experience there has been no review “in the accepted sense of the word there was no independence of review, and the reviewers were anything but anonymous. The result is not scientific.”""

so Lloyd has a problem with the review process as the IPCC.

does he also have a problem with the review process in the science journals?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/21 - 17:30 GMT

According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, global warming is a hoax.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/21 - 23:14 GMT

""According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, global warming is a hoax.""

actually, you might want to learn about his actual, nuanced views. instead of misrepresenting them in a 1 liner.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/22 - 5:53 GMT

According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, it's actually been getting cooler for the last 9 to 10 years.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/22 - 12:25 GMT

"According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, it's actually been getting cooler for the last 9 to 10 years."

you mind actually giving the full nuance instead of just another oneliner?

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/22 - 15:17 GMT

and some peer-reviwed articles by this man would be helpeful

Kevin (pauliexcluded)

28 minutes - 32v

Posted 2009/12/22 - 18:10 GMT

Maybe in his home town...but no. He would be mistaken (or more likely you are mistaken regarding his assertion). The average global temp has certainly been increasing over the last ten years. There is no debate regarding our instrumentation.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/22 - 21:56 GMT

From; Ice Age now: According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, satellite data for June shows that global temperatures are falling. The Earth has cooled an astounding .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006. Dr. Spencer is also an "intelligent design" Bible believer.

6 Jul 09 - Not only are temperature falling in the United States, they're falling globally.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_temperatures_are_falling.htm

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/22 - 23:00 GMT

""From; Ice Age now: According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, satellite data for June shows that global temperatures are falling. The Earth has cooled an astounding .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006. Dr. Spencer is also an "intelligent design" Bible believer.

6 Jul 09 - Not only are temperature falling in the United States, they're falling globally.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_temperatures_are_falling.htm""

mmm apparently ronnie got stuck on the repeat button again....

or he knows he''s being dishonest by ignoring the commentary we made the first time to these claims.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/22 - 23:06 GMT

""http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/""

and i guess ronnie could use a little extra math aswell as intellectual honesty training.

ronnie, noticed how the overall trend is above the 1979-1998 average?

and also noticed that the graph only goes back towards 1979? and that it's only for the lower asmosphere?

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

oooh,look.

shiny statistics.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/23 - 3:11 GMT

Dude. People are not as dumb as you think. All they have to do is look at the graph. For the last 11 years it's been getting cooler globally, from 1998 to 2009.
http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_temperatures_are_falling.htm

Scientists in the U.K. have been found tweaking the evidence for this to, in their own words, "trick" people into believing that it's getting hotter. It's the biggest science scandal of our time. Just google climategate British news. Over 1,000 e-mails between these scientists were hacked and shows the out right fraud.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/23 - 3:16 GMT

"Dude. People are not as dumb as you think. All they have to do is look at the graph. For the last 11 years it's been getting cooler globally, from 1998 to 2009.""

what part of EL NINO WARMING, didn''t you understand?

are you really this visually and cognatively impaired?

look at the overal trend on the graph. and quit repeating this erronous assertion.

"Scientists in the U.K. have been found tweaking the evidence for this to, in their own words, "trick" people into believing that it's getting hotter.""

FOR THE LOVE OF CHRIST (maybe now you will listen).

QUiT WITH THE IGNORANT QUOTE MINING AND REPEATING THESE FALSE CLAIMS.

""Over 1,000 e-mails between these scientists were hacked and shows the out right fraud.""

noo, only the 3 that have been mass quotemined seem to support it superficially.

haven''t you read the entire emails yourself?

ronnie, get our hand of the repeat button and actually form and argument for once.

Kevin Lyon (physicist)

1 day - 1,818v

Posted 2009/12/23 - 4:08 GMT

Bullshit...plain and simple. The AVERAGE global temps have been increasing over the last 10 years. This is not up for debate. These are actual measurments. No, no one has been found to be manipulating data or tricking anyone. I know you saw this on fox news...and I know you think they are a legitimate news network...they are not. This is utter and complete bs and, as usual, they did not even bother to check up on their sources.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/23 - 4:27 GMT

According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, it's actually been getting cooler for the last 9 to 10 years.

When your description of the source's qualifications is longer than the actual argument/claim you're putting forth, that's a pretty bad sign. Congratulations, ronnie, you've taken the argumentum ad populum fallacy to whole new depths of intellectual-laziness.

Oh, and by the way: I notice that you didn't respond to my most recent post in this thread, meaning that you concede all of the contentions I made (by your own reasoning).

Maybe we should compile a list of all the points you've conceded in this thread - there are so many that it's getting difficult to keep track.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/24 - 3:22 GMT

Here are some of the e-mails right here. It's an embarassment to science.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/

And I am not Bigdog. I talked to him for a long time and he inspired me. I still disagree with him on things but I wont say what cause it doesn't matter.

Bigdogs probably freezing his butt off in Canada. I'm in L.A. and it only got to about 63 degrees here in L.A. today. And you want to keep it from getting warmer?

It is funny that Bigdog left after accusing those dudes of sounding like Chesters. Maybe that was his farewell address. But I don't care. I said they sounded like it to, and I'm still here. And I said it cause of those sick perverted jokes they were saying. You gotta have a sick mind to talk like them. Merry Christmas to all.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/24 - 4:25 GMT

Here are some of the e-mails right here. It's an embarassment to science.

What's embarrassing is the way that you and other politically/religiously-motivated zealots have tried to blow it out of proportion. Have you actually read any of the actual EMails?

I've read the majority of the messages - and my reaction was "that's it?" Only one or two of the quotes are unequivocally damning, and even those are questionable. But to hear you and all of the other ideologues ranting about it, you'd think there was some sort of vast Dan Brown-style conspiracy perpetrated by every climate change researcher everywhere.

For example, the link you posted:

climategate-the-final-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming

The stupidity is so pervasive that it's even evident in the permalink. "Final nail?" Only to mindless fundamentalists and others who were already predisposed to doubt "global warming" for partisan reasons.

Not that it's the least bit surprising - it's the exact same sort of lazy tactic that people like Kent Hovind have always relied on. No different than when he tries to argue that the Piltdown Man hoax somehow invalidates an entire branch of science.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted 2009/12/24 - 4:28 GMT

And I am not Bigdog. I talked to him for a long time and he inspired me. I still disagree with him on things but I wont say what cause it doesn't matter.

Nice choice of role model.

Bigdogs probably freezing his butt off in Canada.

We don't let people that dumb across the border in the really cold months, it's a safety precaution.

I'm in L.A. and it only got to about 63 degrees here in L.A. today. And you want to keep it from getting warmer?

You consider 63 Farenheit to be cold? I've swam in water colder than that.

It is funny that Bigdog left after accusing those dudes of sounding like Chesters. Maybe that was his farewell address.

Yes, leaving on that sort of note would be consistent with the lack of maturity and class that bigdog usually displayed.

But I don't care. I said they sounded like it to, and I'm still here.

Evidently because you don't even have enough sense to realize why it's such a reprehensible accusation to make idly.

And I said it cause of those sick perverted jokes they were saying. You gotta have a sick mind to talk like them. Merry Christmas to all.

There's no comment I could possibly make that would be funnier than those three sentence on their own.

Kevin Lyon (physicist)

1 day - 1,818v

Posted 2009/12/24 - 4:52 GMT

Chester hu....I will never see the cheetos comercials in the same light again....

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2009/12/25 - 1:09 GMT

Well, I have to say that you have a point on it being hypocritical in a way.

I do like the way you elaborated on it, ""Be kind to your fellow humans, but hate the ones i say to hate." - God."

I have noticed that most of the Creationist debates very violently, as if to 'hate' atheists and evolutionists. I think that they (we) do take the wrong approach, rather than be aggressive and antagonistic on the subject, they (we) should be more open-minded and listen to what you're saying.

Only after looking at all the facts, should they (we) make clear replies.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/25 - 1:24 GMT

""

I have noticed that most of the Creationist debates very violently, as if to 'hate' atheists and evolutionists. I think that they (we) do take the wrong approach, rather than be aggressive and antagonistic on the subject, they (we) should be more open-minded and listen to what you're saying.

Only after looking at all the facts, should they (we) make clear replies.""

THANK YOU!

your kind of people actually still give me hope for a bright future for mankind.

now we we could just drive the point home to ronnie and the rest....

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2009/12/25 - 1:47 GMT

***Ronnie***

I have noticed that most of the Creationist debates very violently, as if to 'hate' atheists and evolutionists. I think that they (we) do take the wrong approach, rather than be aggressive and antagonistic on the subject, they (we) should be more open-minded and listen to what they're saying.

Only after looking at all the facts, should they (we) make clear replies.

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2009/12/25 - 23:54 GMT

***DrWorm***

This is not my usual approach, but can you prove your statement?

Scientifically?

You only believe He doesn't exist, because your senses tells you He doesn't.

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2009/12/26 - 0:08 GMT

People who don't understand Theories and Beliefs will always want Physical Evidence that contradict that Theory/Belief.

There is a very clear difference between theists and atheists.

This is my own personal opinion, so I don't want anyone to Quote me on this:

Theists: Benefits from both Physical and Spiritual Logic

Atheists: Benefits from Physical Logic, but rejects Spiritual Logic

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2009/12/26 - 2:38 GMT

I completely agree with Ronnie. Ronnie, smart guys like us will never be swayed by this "evidence" they keep trying to show us. Thinkers like us will ignore the lies of evolution, plate techtonics, heliocentric system, radiometric dating, germ theory and all those other smartificated stuff "scientists" keep trying to force on us. You see, people like Ronnie and me have an understanding of the universe cause we got the Good Book backin us up. I am amazed everytime i read that good ole 2000 year old book i can feel the TRUTH in it.
Me and Ronnie don't believe in going to the doctor when we are sick. That's just sumthin some evil scientist thought up. When we get sick we just leave it to the Lord... Right Ronnie?
We believe in really smart guys like Kent Hovind who the government is trying to persecute for his genius. His insight into things like the canopy theory, the New World Order, eating a peach seed cures cancer and how the New World Order created arthritis, MS, diabetes, Gulf War Syndrom. True Genius.
Ronnie.. don't stop fighting for us smart guys.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2009/12/26 - 3:24 GMT

I completely agree with Ronnie. Ronnie, smart guys like us will never be swayed by this "evidence" they keep trying to show us. Thinkers like us will ignore the lies of evolution, plate techtonics, heliocentric system, radiometric dating, germ theory and all those other smartificated stuff "scientists" keep trying to force on us. You see, people like Ronnie and me have an understanding of the universe cause we got the Good Book backin us up. I am amazed everytime i read that good ole 2000 year old book i can feel the TRUTH in it.
Me and Ronnie don't believe in going to the doctor when we are sick. That's just sumthin some evil scientist thought up. When we get sick we just leave it to the Lord... Right Ronnie?
We believe in really smart guys like Kent Hovind who the government is trying to persecute for his genius. His insight into things like the canopy theory, the New World Order, eating a peach seed cures cancer and how the New World Order created arthritis, MS, diabetes, Gulf War Syndrom. True Genius.
Ronnie.. don't stop fighting for us smart guys.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/27 - 10:54 GMT

"Ronnie's evil twin huh?" That kind of freaks me out homie.

Hey sci borg. Straight up. Do you really beleive in this global warming junk?

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2009/12/27 - 11:00 GMT

ignorance me the natural world. Hey?

In the 'submit proof not B.S' at the end i have a post on creation science being proved by nature and naurual laws.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/27 - 15:34 GMT

"
In the 'submit proof not B.S' at the end i have a post on creation science being proved by nature and naurual laws.""

and if you had researched the arguments you provided, you'd notice you have only provided more BS.

really, research them. those arguments have already been debunked...numerous times...

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/27 - 15:36 GMT

"
You only believe He doesn't exist, because your senses tells you He doesn't."

actually, I as an atheist would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth.

the reasons i do not belive in the christian god are more noumerous hen my scientific understandign of the world.

for one the god the bible portrays is internally inconsistant.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/27 - 15:40 GMT

"This is my own personal opinion, so I don't want anyone to Quote me on this:"

then i will ask you instead to explain to me what this "spiritual logic" is.

because saying "People who don't understand Theories and Beliefs will always want Physical Evidence that contradict that Theory/Belief. "

is just ludicrus when you have any sort of scientific education.

"theists and atheists."

and what about deists, agnostics or pantheists?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/27 - 15:44 GMT

"Hey sci borg. Straight up. Do you really beleive in this global warming junk?"

ronnie...you do understand that he actual thing we call climate change, is not the sensatinalist hypothesis forwarded by Al Gore, do you?

reality is so much more nuanced.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/28 - 3:52 GMT

Climate change. Climate change is a natural process. I call it Summer, Winter and spring and Fall. Happens every year.

So do you atleast admit that the world has gotten cooler?

Kevin Lyon (physicist)

1 day - 1,818v

Posted 2009/12/28 - 4:18 GMT

Climate has nothing to do with the seasons....you should probably invest in a dictionary:) What do you mean the world has gotten cooler?...you mean in the since of nifty? Cause average global temperatures have been on the rise for quite some time. This is a readily varifiable fact and is not disputed by any climate scientist.

Kevin Lyon (physicist)

1 day - 1,818v

Posted 2009/12/28 - 4:19 GMT

Stop pretending you are not the same person!

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/28 - 5:53 GMT

"This is a readily varifiable fact and is not disputed by any climate scientist."

You mean climatologists like Dr. Roy Spencer, former NASA scientist? Obiously you missed one of my above posts. I repasted it below.

From; Ice Age now: According to Dr. Roy Spencer, climatologist and former NASA scientist, satellite data for June shows that global temperatures are falling. The Earth has cooled an astounding .74°F since former Vice President Al Gore released his propaganda piece "An Inconvenient Truth" in 2006. Dr. Spencer is also an "intelligent design" Bible believer.

6 Jul 09 - Not only are temperature falling in the United States, they have been falling globally for the past 11 years.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/

http://www.iceagenow.com/Global_temperatures_are_falling.htm

"Stop pretending you are not the same person."

Actually I admit that I realy am Ben "The Rationalist" and Sci Borg the "Doctor of Science." I just like to challenge myself. If you accuse me of being Bigdog thanks for the complement. That tells me I'm getting better at my debates. If you say that I'm my evil twin brother...Do you really believe I want to make Bible believers look that stupid? Think about it.

thedude

2 weeks - 32,767v

Posted 2009/12/28 - 7:07 GMT

I give up on this "debate"!

I can't debate against a person who simply isn't willing to submit any rational argument,

or even a good argument.

I will not debate against a solid liar,

which I believe is one of the Ten Commandment's

"Thou shall not lie"

I've had it with you Ronnie,

Your bombastic and obnoxious approach and treatment to the members of this forum

Hitting an all-time low with your accusations of pedophillia

are simply amazing and immature.

I am ending my headache here and refuse to debate you any longer.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/28 - 9:33 GMT

"Climate change. Climate change is a natural process. I call it Summer, Winter and spring and Fall. Happens every year."

those are seasons.

"So do you atleast admit that the world has gotten cooler?"

i will say that a short term cooling doesn't negate the DECENNIA LONG WARMING.

ronnie, quit cherrypicking the graphs already, and get of your repeat button.

you're not going to squeeze even the tinyiest win out of this.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/28 - 9:40 GMT

"
You mean climatologists like Dr. Roy Spencer, former NASA scientist? Obiously you missed one of my above posts. I repasted it below."

yay more repeat.

ACTUALLY if you bothered to READ Dr. spencers views, you'd notice that he actuall AGREES with the climate warming. but he contributes it to naturla phenoma, mainl increases in cloud cover.

FAIL.

AND STOP WITH THE REPEATING.

"I just like to challenge myself. If you accuse me of being Bigdog thanks for the complement. That tells me I'm getting better at my debates"

HAHAHAHA...oh this is to much fail....

"Actually I admit that I realy am Ben "The Rationalist" and Sci Borg the "Doctor of Science.""

no dice.

"If you say that I'm my evil twin brother...Do you really believe I want to make Bible believers look that stupid? Think about it."

you already have ronnie...you already have...

oh and for te record.

ronnies_evl_twin is POE. so don't bother attempting to rebut him.

Anthony

2 hours - 62v

Posted 2009/12/28 - 22:36 GMT

I'm not going to answer, because as i have stated its only my personal opinion, therefore I do not have to answer to any questioning.

Don't you think its obvious, atheist is the contrast to theist. therefor its best to use these two as examples.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/29 - 5:23 GMT

You don't fool me Dude. You're fooling yourself. Dr. Spencer has shown that the world has been getting cooler for the last 11 years. You probably don't even believe the Bible, except for the parts you like.

Vector13

1 hour - 38v

Posted 2009/12/29 - 9:18 GMT

Well, I've been gone quite a while. Can anyone get me up to speed?

Vector13

1 hour - 38v

Posted 2009/12/29 - 9:29 GMT

Okay, Global Climate Change isn't even what the thread is about. This has nothing to do with whether or not creationism holds a plausible stance in any venue of debate. Normally, I would vent my beliefs on the dangers of Global Climate Change and how Rising temperatures are not the only environmental fluctuations, but that's not what this discussion is for.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/29 - 16:20 GMT

First what does vector 13 mean? And also cms13? Here in California if you put that on your tag you basically relate yourself to SUR 13 or MS 13 gang members. Is that what that means?

Second scientists have been caught trying to skew science to fit thier world view agenda. So this proves that scientists can have biases and use their trust and authority to trick other people into believing false claims. That is what I'm trying to point out.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted 2009/12/29 - 17:53 GMT

Ronnie, another brilliant comment. Two moron scientist get caught covering up data that does not support thier ideas and you want to throw out all scienctific research. BRILLIANT. (and yes...climate change proponets...that is exactly what they were doing.) Scientists have attempted to disprove Evolution for 150 years. If just one could do it he would without a doubt win the Noble Prize for Science and go down in history as one of the greatest scientists of all time. Notice I said SCIENTISTS have attempted to disprove Evolution..NOT creationists...because despite thier attempts...creationists are NOT scientists.
Ronnie, the entire book you believe in has entire parts taken out and put in parts to further the idea of the Jesus you claim to know. Talk about a coverup. Before you start throwing stones at scientists.. you should worry about the coverups in your own gang.

Vector13

1 hour - 38v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 5:54 GMT

First of all, the meaning of my username has nothing to do with this forum. Secondly, a vector simply refers to an angle, or in aviation the direction an aircraft is traveling. I'm also not in California. I'm on the other side of the U.S.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 18:01 GMT

It sounds like you're getting your info from the book the Davinci Code. If you look at that book in the book setion it's in the fictional section.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted 2009/12/30 - 18:31 GMT

i hate to be a smartass, but every scientist prior to Darwin had to be a creationist. Even the swedish Carl Linneus who put homo sapiens in the primate family.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted 2009/12/31 - 16:36 GMT

"Second scientists have been caught trying to skew science to fit thier world view agenda. So this proves that scientists can have biases and use their trust and authority to trick other people into believing false claims. That is what I'm trying to point out."

and again we see the repeat button being spammed..

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 1st - 18:45 GMT

So you're saying every scientist that becomes a believer in the Bible is no longer a scientist? I'm not trying to be rude but that's kind of ignorant.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted Jan 1st - 21:18 GMT

no sane scientist belives that the bible is 100 % accurate or he's being intellectually dishonest. Just that prior to Darwin all you could believe was that god made the earth and man.

There's a distinct difference in believeing in the bible and in god. And what would u call a scientist who dont believe in evolution prior to Darwin? Or one who don't belive in creation?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 2nd - 3:24 GMT

Here's a scientist that beleives in the God of the Bible.
Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.,

This is a quote from him on CNN news.

"I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory. By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship."

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/03/collins.commentary/index.html

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted Jan 2nd - 4:57 GMT

ronnie it does not follow what i wrote. try again.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 2nd - 11:42 GMT

Ronnie,
Insert the word Zeus or Thor for God in your previous quote. Just as plausable.
I see Thor's design in all of creation. Ellman sees the the Mithra's design. Someone else sees Zeus's design. Do you see a pattern???

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 2nd - 12:06 GMT

Ronnie,
The Doctor you quoted above has specifically rejected Creationism as an explanation for our existance. Additionally he has rejected intellegent design. He actually wrote a book about it. He is a scientist who believes evolution correctly explains the diversity of life. He is what is called theistic evolutionist. In other words....he completely agrees with evolution...but thinks that evolution is the tool god used for the diversity we see in nature.
Ronnie, this took about 2 seconds to research.
I assume you completely agree with his views?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 3rd - 6:26 GMT

Even I believe in micro evolution. So you can say I'm a thiestic evolution designer who believes the world is only bout 6 to 10,000 years old.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 3rd - 14:01 GMT

Ronnie, so you completely disagree with the person you previously quoted.
Ronnie, you cannot "believe" in micro evolution but not macro evolution. If this was true there would have to be two KINDS of DNA. There is no such "limit" on dna.
Theists claim they belive in micro evolution but not macro evolution becase they were having problems with Noah fitting every breed/kind of animal on that stupid ark. They claim he brought ONE snake, ONE dog, ONE cat and the different breeds/kinds Micro Evolved from that.
This is laughable. There is NO way that all of these varieties of species could MICRO evolve NATURALLY in a mere 6000 years.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 3rd - 20:57 GMT

¨So you're saying every scientist that becomes a believer in the Bible is no longer a scientist? I'm not trying to be rude but that's kind of ignorant.¨

no.

but if they start to insert supernatural explinations when they should eb giving natural ones, they stopped doing science.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 4th - 4:00 GMT

Even Ken Ham believes in micro evolution. Kinds of animals change but dogs or canines have never been another kind of animal. That's whats funny. Show me an animal that is half another kind of animal if we all come from the same thing.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 4th - 4:25 GMT

Even Ken Ham huh. You mean the creator of the institute for creation research?????? yep.. he is a world famous scientist.
Ronnie, you do not even understand what you are arguing. Pointing out what other's believe is NOT evidence. You can point to the proof they have produced.
As for speciation.... Google "observed instances of speciation" and read. Hell. here.. i did if for you

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I am not sure you are comprehending the time scale it takes for natural evolution to occur. We as humans can comprehend things like hours, minutes, years, even decades well. However, when we start talking about milliniums we have a hard time comprehending it. The species we now refer to as homo split of from our great ape ancestors roughly 5-7 million years ago. That is 6 THOUSAND millinium.
Actually, i am providing a link that lits all the creationist claims and the scientic explanation for debunking the claim.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 4th - 4:30 GMT

Going back to the animal to man myth now? That's very sad. I had a feeling that Ben/sci-borg was "ronnie evil twin." What's up Ben? I was wondering where you went.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 4th - 4:35 GMT

Even Ken Ham huh. You mean the creator of the institute for creation research?????? yep.. he is a world famous scientist. The man who once said "has man always been there, No... god is the only being that has ever been there so who do you trust...God" Now that is sum big thinkin.
Ronnie, you do not even understand what you are arguing. Pointing out what other's believe is NOT evidence. You can point to the proof they have produced.
As for speciation.... Google "observed instances of speciation" and read. Hell. here.. i did if for you

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

I am not sure you are comprehending the time scale it takes for natural evolution to occur. We as humans can comprehend things like hours, minutes, years, even decades well. However, when we start talking about milliniums we have a hard time comprehending it. The species we now refer to as homo split of from our great ape ancestors roughly 5-7 million years ago. That is 6 THOUSAND millinium.
Actually, i am providing a link that lits all the creationist claims and the scientic explanation for debunking the claim.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

I think that creationists are doing hummanity a great disservice by spreading complet falshoods about science. However, I also believe that you are doing your religion a great disservice by trying to "prove" god exists. Every time creationists make a scientific claim is is proven by science to be false. (flat earth, earth center of universe, evolution) When this happens, i think it has a negative effect on religion.
However, you claim you believe in micro-evolution but not macro evolution. Please explain the specific gene sequence that limits adaptation to the species level. Hint: there is none.
Micro and Macro evoltion are the same thing on different time scales.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 4th - 4:41 GMT

You still havn't shown me an animal that is another half animal proving that we come from the same thing.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 4th - 5:03 GMT

Ronnie, did you even read the link i posted. It showed one species of fruit fly EVOLVING into another species of fruit fly. There were several other examples. That is the one i remember.
Now, I have a feeling that you don't even know what constitues a species.
Now, since you claim you believe in micro but not macro evolution could you explain what in DNA is preventing speciation but allowing for micro evolution. What DNA sequence limits such evolution. Again, there is none.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 4th - 5:45 GMT

It's still a FRUITFLY.

Man u really make me laugh first you say you're Ben the "rationis." Then you say that you're "Sci-borg a Doctor of "science". Then you say you're my evil twin brother and now you're a lawyer. I suppose you'r also Dr. Frankenstein?! Dude I'm really starting to feel sorry for you

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 4th - 10:03 GMT

1st. Your response "It's still a fruitfly" Well, it is a fruitfly because scientists called in a fruit fly. They could have just as easily "called" it something else.
2) you obviously do not understand what a species is. Diffeent species cannot reproduce. They can produce sterile offspring. For example a lion and a tiger are two different species of cat. They can produce what is called a liger but this liger is sterile. The fruitfly was in the same genis but a new species was produced. This NEW species could not reproduce with the original species of fly...but could reproduce with it's own species (or in your lingo.."kind" ) You obviously don't understand what a species is.
3) If you are looking for a dog, suddenly giving birth to something that LOOKS half cat half dog....you are asking for something that would completly disprove evolution. Evolution does not work that way. Again, you are showing a complete lack of knowledge concerning yet another scientific principle. Imagine that.
4) I am asking you for the third time now. Since you believe in micro but not macro evolution, can you please show me what in DNA prevents one species evolving into another species. You already agree that a species can evolve...just not turn into another species. What in DNA puts a limit on the amount of "change" that can occur?
5) you seem obsessed with the thought that I am also several other people posting here. I have no other screen names here. Ronnie, I have looked at older posts and those individuals were doing a fine job handing you your ass. I just jumped in for the hell of it. I think your misconception stems from your worldview. Some of your posts indicate that you do not interact with people outside your small group of creationists..bible study, church..etc. YOu appear to not understand that there is a very large number of people "out there" that do not agree with your creationis thoughts. YOu really do need to get out and meet people who do not think like you do.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 4th - 13:44 GMT

¨Even Ken Ham believes in micro evolution. Kinds of animals change but dogs or canines have never been another kind of animal.¨

yes, just like we are STILL EUCARYOTES, , ANIMALS, AMNIOTES, MAMMALS and PRIMATES.

we NEVER left those branches.

just like any new species a dog will evolve into will become a subset of the ¨canis¨clade.

PLEASE study the least bit of phylogeny, instead pof draggign up the moronic strawman.

¨That's whats funny. Show me an animal that is half another kind of animal if we all come from the same thing.¨

??you still don´t know what a transitional species is do you?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 4th - 13:48 GMT

¨It's still a FRUITFLY.¨

yes and it´s STILL a FLY, INSECT, ARTHEPOD, ANIMAL, EUCARYOTE, ect.

ronnie, you´d so get a F in biology.

¨Man u really make me laugh first you say you're Ben the "rationis." Then you say that you're "Sci-borg a Doctor of "science". Then you say you're my evil twin brother and now you're a lawyer. I suppose you'r also Dr. Frankenstein?! Dude I'm really starting to feel sorry for you¨

that´s not a DNA sequence....

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted Jan 4th - 16:45 GMT

"It's still a FRUITFLY. "
- By that logic there's just one species of frogs and one species of fruitflys etc.
Even if this "kind" happened from the ark the mutation rate would be super high to give so many species and sub-species of the same "kind".

Also please tell me, since you excell so greatly in explaining biological systems, what is there to stop 1 species from diverging into 2 species if they are sexually isolated?

Oh and wolfs-dogs evolution is a good example of how easy large morphological changes can occur duing a rather small timescale. Even without sexual isolation. I recon with sexual isolation it would evolve even more.

Oh i forgot! We're still primates.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 5th - 5:11 GMT

Been through this before ignorant dude.

Dogs, wolves, covotes ect. = Canines. One kind but different species. why can't you understand the difference between kinds and species? It's obvious. There are species within kinds.

Oh and Ben/sci-borg/lawyer/ronnies evil brother or whatever your name is. It's very like you to make ignorant comments like conservatives and Christians don't like blacks. You just hate Christians and the truth. Abraham Lincoln the father of the republican party freed the blacks and a republican congress voted to make it so woman and blacks could vote. I've been doing my homework Homie!

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 5th - 9:44 GMT

"Dogs, wolves, covotes ect. = Canines."

and foxes?
and bears, raccons? and all those other caniformia?

" why can't you understand the difference between kinds and species?"

because you just now put the distinction at genus level, while with other animals you put the distinction at family level.

oh , and you igniored al the extinct caniae.

" It's very like you to make ignorant comments like conservatives and Christians don't like blacks. "

RUSH, LIMBAUGH.

"Abraham Lincoln the father of the republican party freed the blacks and a republican congress voted to make it so woman and blacks could vote. I've been doing my homework Homie! "

and the democrats had nothing to do with this because?

btw,
(HINT, who was it who kept the slaves in the first place?)

but more nuanced.
NO, it was not said that ALL conservative christians are racist.
but lets face it. a large portion of the conservative party consist of white, rural, christian folks. folk who hold everythign "unamerican" in disdain. inseentally, it''s also them who spread most of the polorization between black, and everything else. not only that, they ALSO seem to pick on white folks, as long as they don't share their religious views.
i need only point at fox news's ridiculus position regarding atheists (which they seem to hold synonemous with nonbelievers, ignorign all the deists and pantheists out there).

"Oh and Ben/sci-borg/lawyer/ronnies evil brother or whatever your name is.""

perpetuating this delusion isn't going to amkke you any more credible.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 5th - 14:43 GMT

Lincoln???? You mean the great civil rights leader that said
"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

You mean THAT Lincoln??? Yep..he sure was a reformer.
As far as the republican's being great great civil right's leaders. Check your facts. Republicans OVERWHELMINGLY voted against the equal rights amendment. They vote consistantly to unfund welfare programs which disproprotionaly help blacks.
In fact, the entire "small government" strategy is in an effort to unfund social welfare programs. They don't seem want small government when they are talking about military spending (nearely HALF of the WORLD's military spending is done by the US.)
The rupublican party used to be fairly moderate. Linconln was indeed one of those moderates. (Although a HUGE racist) However, the Republican party has long since kicked out any such moderates.
When Johnson (a democrat) pushed hard for the Civil Rights Act and eventurally prevailed..he said. "there goes the south". He was right, after passage of this act the south became amost entirely republican.
The Republican party fought tooth and nail against blacks in the military, now gays in the military. They fought agaist
The Republican party is the party that came up with the entire "Southern Strategy" which exploited segregation, voting rights, etc. in an effort to win white southern support. Guess what..it worked. The republican party is dominate in the southern states.
The phrase "state's rights" is a BIG republican catch phrase. "State's Rights" was a phrase used to allow southern segregation to continue. Basically the idea was that states should be able to decide for themselves if they want to segregate.
As stated previously, the republican party was once fairly "liberal" regarding civil rights. Those republicans have been basically kicked out of the party. The party is now a party of no progress on any issue. They have become the party of "no"
50 years ago Southern Democrates "Dixiecrats" were extremely racist and fought social change tooth and nail. However, these "dixiecrats" felt that the President Johnson and thus thier entire party had turned agaist them. So what do these racist Democrats do when they feel their party has betrayed them... They become Republican Racists. Much of the republican platform of low taxes, small government etc. is done to unfund social welfare which disproportionately helps black voters.
Ronnie, I have never seen anyone less informed on such a wide variety of subjects as you.
As stated previously, the Republican Party has a history of social justice. However, that history ended when Johnson pushed for civil right's. Johnson won and the south was lost to the republicans until this day....
Congratulations.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 5th - 14:46 GMT

Ronnie,

Here is the problem. WHAT THE FUCK IS A KIND???? You are trying to speak about science yet you do not even know the terminolgy? Are you talking about a species, genus, family????
Again, I THINK you are talking about changes at the species level, however that is just a guess.

Please for the love of your god. GET AN EDUCATION, LEARN THE TERMINOLGY AND COME BACK AND ARGUE.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted Jan 5th - 14:52 GMT

ronnie you just admitted that you think speciation occurs. And if im not mistaken that's precisely what macro evolution is.

"Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3]"

Since there was only one "kind" on the ark there have to have been macro evolution to explain the divergance of all the speices that are related. If one kind consistst of several species then one "kind" had to evolve. eg. macro evolution. You can't get away from it ronnie. Either you try to make the storys of the bible fit the world or you twist the world enough so it will fit in the bible.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 5th - 15:51 GMT

F for, YOU FAIL.

Speciation is microevolution not macro evolution. Nice try liar.

By the way we're getting record breaking cold temperatures all over the country. Does this mean it's really warming LOL?

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 5th - 16:52 GMT

Ronnie,

I find it difficult to even speak with someone as uneducated as you. You specifically deny that speciation can occur in one post, then admit it, then say that is not macro-evolution...then you confuse a species a family and a genus.
This is what happens when people listen to Kent Hovind and his ilk. He talks about "kinds".
What is a "kind"

Macro evolution is evolution at or above the species level
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html#what
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml (Creationist web site i may add)

Ronnie, again, you are NOT sticking to one story. Just admit you like the bible story..it makes sence to you and you don't understand
I have stated this before. You are asking for an observed event.....1 KIND of animal turning into another KIND of animal. (Squirrel into a Dog for example)
AGAIN, that is NOT how evolution works. If that were to be observed I would never belive in evolution. That would be proof of some sort of miracle...God.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 5th - 19:21 GMT

Lincoln???? You mean the great civil rights leader that said:

"I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything."

You mean THAT Lincoln??? Yep..he sure was a reformer.
As far as the republican's being great great civil right's leaders. Check your facts. Republicans OVERWHELMINGLY voted against the equal rights amendment. They vote consistantly to unfund welfare programs which disproprotionaly help blacks.
In fact, the entire "small government" strategy is in an effort to unfund social welfare programs. They don't seem want small government when they are talking about military spending (nearely HALF of the WORLD's military spending is done by the US.)
The rupublican party used to be fairly moderate. Linconln was indeed one of those moderates. (Although a HUGE racist) However, the Republican party has long since kicked out any such moderates.
When Johnson (a democrat) pushed hard for the Civil Rights Act and eventurally prevailed..he said. "there goes the south". He was right, after passage of this act the south became amost entirely republican.
The Republican party fought tooth and nail against blacks in the military, now gays in the military. They fought agaist
The Republican party is the party that came up with the entire "Southern Strategy" which exploited segregation, voting rights, etc. in an effort to win white southern support. Guess what..it worked. The republican party is dominate in the southern states.
The phrase "state's rights" is a BIG republican catch phrase. "State's Rights" was a phrase used to allow southern segregation to continue. Basically the idea was that states should be able to decide for themselves if they want to segregate.
As stated previously, the republican party was once fairly "liberal" regarding civil rights. Those republicans have been basically kicked out of the party. The party is now a party of no progress on any issue. They have become the party of "no"
50 years ago Southern Democrates "Dixiecrats" were extremely racist and fought social change tooth and nail. However, these "dixiecrats" felt that the President Johnson and thus thier entire party had turned agaist them. So what do these racist Democrats do when they feel their party has betrayed them... They become Republican Racists. Much of the republican platform of low taxes, small government etc. is done to unfund social welfare which disproportionately helps black voters.
Ronnie, I have never seen anyone less informed on such a wide variety of subjects as you.
As stated previously, the Republican Party has a history of social justice. However, that history ended when Johnson pushed for civil right's. Johnson won and the south was lost to the republicans until this day....
Congratulations.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted Jan 5th - 20:53 GMT

"F for, YOU FAIL.

Speciation is microevolution not macro evolution. Nice try liar."
- Oh i was under the impression that you didn't have any university credits in biology and have the sufficient study to make that call. You are in no position to tell a scientist that he is wrong in his field of work. We set the definitions and if you dislike them go get a fucking degree and debate it you dumbass.

Now i'm gonna go play ronnie for a bit to illustrate your idiocy.
The definition of christian is a stupid fuck who is gullible enough to accept a completely evidence missing idea and thinks creationism is the only true science. Anyone else even trying to disprove this with links and statements from scientific associations is a liar no matter what.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 5th - 23:47 GMT

Actually I just watched one of Hovind's youtube presentation about Macroevolution. He is actually a really smart guy. He never really gives a definition of Macroevolution. He does not give the normal defintion of evolution at or above the species level. He merely talks about "kinds" Not scientific at all but smart because HE get's to control what is a "kind" not scientific terminology. Actually quite smart.
I think the next move in the creationists ever changing "theory" is that they will stick with the "we believe in micro-evolution but not macro" mantra for a while. However, I think they will try to redefine what macro evolution is. Like they will say that macro is evolution from between classes..species to genus and above. When that does not work they will say that macro-evolution is anything above the genus level...then anything above the family level. Now, I think Hovind realized this and he can keep using his generic "kind" the whole time. Actually brilliant. Gotta give the devil his due.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 6th - 3:18 GMT

You didn't even put a cite on that quote about Lincoln.

You You're just wastng my time again. And I still don't believe that you're a lawyer only a liar.

Repulicans like to give people jobs and opportunity. Democrats keep people down and make people feel helpless. A government powerful enough to give you everything is strong enough to take away everything you have.

Teach a man how to fish and he will not go hungry for one day, but teach a man how to fish and he will never go hungry.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 6th - 3:29 GMT

Ronnie,
About the Lincoln quote. It was said during the Fourth of the great debates with Steven A. Douglas. Here is the site you requested.
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Abraham.Lincoln.Quote.C318

Again, this took about 2 seconds of google "research" to find this out.

I gave a fairly detailed description basically stating that the republican party has a serious race problem with back people specifically. YOu come back with basically, that crap. "Republicans good...Democrats bad." Nice thought procees Ronnie. You reason as a child reasons. You speak as a child speaks. You hear something from one of your buddies and just post it. You may possibly check it out on a creationist website...but nothing more than that. However, i do have to give you an A for effort. Keep up the work soldier.
The quote you fucked up is "GIVE a man a fish and you have fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life" It is a chineese proverb. Are you supporing Communist China now? When did you start hating America Ronnie????

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 6th - 4:32 GMT

To answer your other question about 9 tails. "To die is gain."

So am i a racist since I'm half Italian and a republican. I just registered as one anyway. And I am not a racist. Martin Luther King registered as a republican according to the National BLack Republicans Association."

http://www.nbra.info/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.blackgop#martinlutherkingjr

Oh and just because you admit that you're a jack ass still doesn't prove that we come from animals. Sucka!!!.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 6th - 13:29 GMT

Ronnie,
I never said YOU were a racist. I said the current republican party has very serious racist overtones since the Civil Rights Act was passed into law. Do you not bother reading my posts...just scanning them.

You have NEVER answered any of my many questions posed to you. As far as MLK being a a republican. So???? As I stated previously, prior to the Passage of the Civil Rights Act (passed by Democratic Congress and Democratic President), southern democrates were extremely racists. After the Civil Right's Act, these racist Southern Democrates became racist Southern Republicans. The Republican Party has since abandoned any platform of social justice and helping the poor. They call the poor lazy, tell them to pull themselves up by their boot straps and become rich. Huh...now who else, allegely, in history talked about helping the poor. Jesus???? I don't remember Jesus telling poor people they were just lazy and needed to work harder.

I am not saying every republican is a racist. However, if you are a racist...chances are....your're a republican.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 6th - 16:21 GMT

""Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.[3]""

"
Speciation is microevolution not macro evolution. Nice try liar."

nooo, will F you on this.

for speciation to occur, you MUST sperate the gene pool.

why? because otherewise you can never build up the genetic divergence.

"By the way we're getting record breaking cold temperatures all over the country. Does this mean it's really warming LOL?"

because looking at one cooling episode in an entire warmign trend suddnly means it's getting colder.

...riiight.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 6th - 16:24 GMT

' Democrats keep people down and make people feel helpless"

yaaa, that's why the "socialist goverment" here in NL is helping pay for my education in a university...

"A government powerful enough to give you everything is strong enough to take away everything you have."

can is not will.

"Teach a man how to fish and he will not go hungry for one day, but teach a man how to fish and he will never go hungry."

hoe about if you''re not willing to teahc that man to fish, but want him to figure it out for himself? seeing him go hungrey the entire way.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 7th - 3:30 GMT

More republicans voted for the civil rights act than Democrats.

The House of Representatives passed the bill by 289 to 124, a vote in which 80% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats
voted “yes”.
The Senate vote was 73 to 27, with 21 Democrats and only 6 Republicans voting “no”.
http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/hr7152/Freep.pdf

And who started the KKK? The answer is Democrats. The KKK hung republicans for trying to free the slaves. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44171

Are there any KKK memebers in the senate today? Of course! Good old racist Robert Byrd A DEMOCRAT! Now which partys racist?

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 7th - 4:08 GMT

Ronnie,
First, you are wrong. More democrats voted for the bill than Republicans. On a side note...more democrats voted against the bill than republican. At the time democrats practically owned Congress.
Secondly, did you even read my post. I said that at the time the Civil Rights act was voted on the southern democrats were EXTREMLY racist. When the democratic party took on equal rights as part of their party platform they lost those southern democrats. Those racist southern democrats became racist southern republicans. Since that time, the republican platform has become increasingly hostile towards blacks, mexicans....basically anyone not white.
As far as Robert Byrd....HE IS FROM WEST VIRGINIA. Trust me..i used to live there. The entire state is racist. Now, to be fair. Robert byrd has come quite a way since his racist roots. He has actually been very progressive regarding the parties platform on racial issues.
Again ronnie, please stick to subjects you know something about...Like praising god and counting your allowance.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 7th - 5:02 GMT

80% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats
voted "YES" for civil rights. Thats what says a lot right there. http://www.mdcbowen.org/p2/hr7152/Freep.pdf

Ben. by the way your the one whos obsesesd with your sock puppet problem. I only accused you once of being Ben, wich is who you are, and you got all defensive. Why don't you stick to counting money old man and stop trying to trick kids with your poison candy LOL.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 7th - 14:21 GMT

FreeRepublic.com "A Conservative News Forum"

WOW. do you ever look OUTSIDE the bubble?

¨by the way your the one whos obsesesd with your sock puppet problem.¨

because your paranioa is highly irritating, and some people would fidn it unacceptable given to your....posting history

¨I only accused you once of being Ben¨

ooooh, no. you actually do it a bit more then that.

would you want us to scroll up?

¨and you got all defensive.¨

just like when you accused us of being pedophiles?

¨Why don't you stick to counting money old man and stop trying to trick kids with your poison candy LOL.¨

you understand you are....well accusing ben of being somehtign he isn´t, again..

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 7th - 14:31 GMT

¨http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton_(author)¨

THIS David Barton?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 7th - 16:20 GMT

What i mean is i only called him Ben since he has left being Ben the "rationist" and "sci-borg." Now he is "ronnies evil twin brother."

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 7th - 17:28 GMT

Ronnie,
Do you not understand the difference between actual number counts and percentages?

For example...oh..forget it. The acutal numbers who voted for the Civil Rights act are

The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Ronnie...that means that in the house and senate: 199 democrats voted FOR civil right's act. 163 Repbulican's voted for the act. 199 > 163. Your previous statement of "more republican's voted for the act than democrats" is factually not true. Imagine that.
Additonally, as i stated previously, more democrats ALSO voted against the act. Now, a smart guy like you should be able to comprehend this. THERE WERE A LOT MORE DEMOCRATS IN CONGRESS THAT YEAR.
Honestly, do you not understand the difference between sums of numbers and percentages of numbers?
I have conceded that the democratic party had race problems before the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the domocratic congress that passed the Act lost the south because they passed it. Those racist southern democrats became racist southern republicans. I appologize if my facts in any way distort your beliefs.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 8th - 4:25 GMT

A higher percentage of republicans voted for the civil rights act over the percentage of democrats. That still says a lot.

and believe me. I have democrats in my own family on my mom's side Mexican Americans that are out right racists against blacks for some stupid reason. Yes they are older late fifties. But they are stuanch liberal democrats that didn't even vote in the election because the democratic candidatate was black.

By the way do you believe in global warming?

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 8th - 5:17 GMT

Ronnie, it took you THREE times before you understood i was talking about the TOTAL number even though i said TOTAL number every time.
Honestly Ronnie...you need to learn how to make an argument.
First..and not be be rude..get an education. You are clearly not well educated. You do not reason well. However, that is compounded by your lack of knowledge regarding the subjects you argue about. You like to argue but you are not very good at it. You pick out ONE fact that suports your thought and think that proves you right. Arguments don't work that way.
Additionally, I don't think you actually think about what your opponent is saying. It took you THREE times to realize that i was talking about a total rather than a percentage. You are not that dumb. But you don't think about what the other person is saying.
The entire sum vs. percentage thing regarding civil right's legislation is symptomatic of your problems. Instead of reading what someone says, and analyzing it...you post ANYTHING that you THINK supports your argument.
The fact that you know a racist democrat proves nothing. I could come back with..i know 2 racist republicans....you come back with you know 4...etc. You don't think your argument through. You get mad and post the first thing that pops in your head. You post something that I am assuming one of your creationist friends told you was a fact.
You obviously feel VERY strongly about several issues; god, politics etc. That is fantastic. However, you need to really learn both sides of an argument

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 8th - 5:21 GMT

Ronnie, it took you THREE times before you understood i was talking about the TOTAL number even though i said TOTAL number every time.
Honestly Ronnie...you need to learn how to make an argument.
First..and not be be rude..get an education. You are clearly not well educated. You do not reason well. However, that is compounded by your lack of knowledge regarding the subjects you argue about. You like to argue but you are not very good at it. You pick out ONE fact that suports your thought and think that proves you right. Arguments don't work that way.
Additionally, I don't think you actually think about what your opponent is saying. It took you THREE times to realize that i was talking about a total rather than a percentage. You are not that dumb. But you don't think about what the other person is saying.
The entire sum vs. percentage thing regarding civil right's legislation is symptomatic of your problems. Instead of reading what someone says, and analyzing it...you post ANYTHING that you THINK supports your argument.
The fact that you know a racist democrat proves nothing. I could come back with..i know 2 racist republicans....you come back with you know 4...etc. You don't think your argument through. You get mad and post the first thing that pops in your head. You post something that I am assuming one of your creationist friends told you was a fact.
You obviously feel VERY strongly about several issues; god, politics etc. That is fantastic. However, you need to really learn both sides of an argument. You need to be educated regarding your subject matter. (that does not mean small "facts" you have heard from your friends) Please ronnie...this is becoming cruel to you..
Global Warming???? don't know...but i do know your recent "proof" that it was not happening because there was record cold in the U.S. is rediculous. (I say the same thing to people who claim record high temps in the summer of proof there IS global warming)
Again Ronnie..please learn how to form an argument.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 8th - 5:24 GMT

I have. Democrats give handouts. That's nice. I believe in generosity and helping the poor. But Id rather be given an opportunity.

By the way do you believe in global warming?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 8th - 13:44 GMT

So do you believe George Bush was a racist?

The original targets of the Ku Klux Klan were Republicans, both black and white, according to a new television program and book, which describe how the Democrats started the KKK and for decades harassed the GOP with lynchings and threats.

An estimated 3,446 blacks and 1,297 whites died at the end of KKK ropes from 1882 to 1964.

The documentation has been assembled by David Barton of Wallbuilders and published in his book "Setting the Record Straight: American History in Black & White," which reveals that not only did the Democrats work hand-in-glove with the Ku Klux Klan for generations, they started the KKK and endorsed its mayhem.

"Of all forms of violent intimidation, lynchings were by far the most effective," Barton said in his book. "Republicans often led the efforts to pass federal anti-lynching laws and their platforms consistently called for a ban on lynching. Democrats successfully blocked those bills and their platforms never did condemn lynchings."

Further, the first grand wizard of the KKK was honored at the 1868 Democratic National Convention, no Democrats voted for the 14th Amendment to grant citizenship to former slaves and, to this day, the party website ignores those decades of racism, he said.

"Although it is relatively unreported today, historical documents are unequivocal that the Klan was established by Democrats and that the Klan played a prominent role in the Democratic Party," Barton writes in his book. "In fact, a 13-volume set of congressional investigations from 1872 conclusively and irrefutably documents that fact.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=44171

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 8th - 13:58 GMT

Ronnie, SEVENTH TIME I HAVE POSTED THIS. You do realize that some things have changed in the last 60 years. From now on when you try to make points about democrats and racism FROM MORE THAN 60 YEARS AGO...i am just going to cut and past my previous post that you don't understand.

As far as the republican's being great great civil right's leaders. Check your facts. Republicans OVERWHELMINGLY voted against the equal rights amendment. They vote consistantly to unfund welfare programs which disproprotionaly help blacks.
In fact, the entire "small government" strategy is in an effort to unfund social welfare programs. They don't seem want small government when they are talking about military spending (nearely HALF of the WORLD's military spending is done by the US.)
The rupublican party used to be fairly moderate. Linconln was indeed one of those moderates. (Although a HUGE racist) However, the Republican party has long since kicked out any such moderates.
When Johnson (a democrat) pushed hard for the Civil Rights Act and eventurally prevailed..he said. "there goes the south". He was right, after passage of this act the south became amost entirely republican.
The Republican party fought tooth and nail against blacks in the military, now gays in the military. They fought agaist
The Republican party is the party that came up with the entire "Southern Strategy" which exploited segregation, voting rights, etc. in an effort to win white southern support. Guess what..it worked. The republican party is dominate in the southern states.
The phrase "state's rights" is a BIG republican catch phrase. "State's Rights" was a phrase used to allow southern segregation to continue. Basically the idea was that states should be able to decide for themselves if they want to segregate.
As stated previously, the republican party was once fairly "liberal" regarding civil rights. Those republicans have been basically kicked out of the party. The party is now a party of no progress on any issue. They have become the party of "no"
50 years ago Southern Democrates "Dixiecrats" were extremely racist and fought social change tooth and nail. However, these "dixiecrats" felt that the President Johnson and thus thier entire party had turned agaist them. So what do these racist Democrats do when they feel their party has betrayed them... They become Republican Racists. Much of the republican platform of low taxes, small government etc. is done to unfund social welfare which disproportionately helps black voters.
Ronnie, I have never seen anyone less informed on such a wide variety of subjects as you.
As stated previously, the Republican Party has a history of social justice. However, that history ended when Johnson pushed for civil right's. Johnson won and the south was lost to the republicans until this day....
Congratulations.

» Reply to Comment» EditRe: Good Reason To Not Debate Evolutionists Onlineronnies_evil_twin
1 minute - 0v
Posted 2 days ago
(Jan 5th - 14:46 GMT)Ronnie,

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 8th - 15:58 GMT

Im registered as a republican. But I believe in helping the poor. But the democrats create poverty. They kill jobs. We should only help the people that can't help themselves like the handicapped and elderly. But to the poor and healthy we should give them good honest work and very low taxes.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 8th - 16:52 GMT

Ronnie, do you realize that the VAST majority of aid goes to help children? Food Stamps, WIC programs, health care for poor children. Now, you may claim that these parents are lazy and you are probably right in some cases. That is not the point. Nobody...NOBODY likes helping people who just refuse to work. However, that is not the point. The "welfare" you are talking about is not a check that is sent to parents who never work. They recieve aid for their children, WIC, foodstamps, HUD housing discounts. Are you aware that the only people who are elligable for HUD housing have kids?. That is why you see SOME people having a lot of children. More kids equals more food stamps...bigger housing aid. The government is just not giving them money. They are giving them aid to care for their children.

Now, you tell me the solution here? Now, I am not talking about giving republican talking points like...."republican's would create jobs and that would stop this."

Now Ronnie..stay on point please. Answer my question. How do you solve this problem.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 8th - 17:12 GMT

Tell Obama and the democrats to stop spending money like drunken sailors. Like sending billions of dollars to zip codes that don't exist. This would help stop inflation and then only the poorest of the poor would need aid.

Then we could just use money to help the poor, fix roads, and defend our country

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 8th - 18:18 GMT

Ronnie,

I asked you a question and asked you to actually answer it. Please do not use republican talking points. Read the question and answer it.?
You claim that democrats just want to give money to the poor. I pointed out that the vast majority of aid is for children. Many of these parents just refuse to work. What is your answer ronnie. Cut off the aid for the children??? Take the children away from the parents???? What is your answer? You need to realize that sometimes there is no great answer. You said Obama stop wasting money? Which part of the federal government do you want to cut?? Our entire annual budget is basically used up for three things. Medicare, Social Security and the Military. Any remaining spending is VERY minor. So, which of the big 3 do you want to do away with? The pork barrel projects you hear about all the time make up less than one percent of our federal budget. You claim that democrats are the ones who spend like mad. Well, republicans also spend like mad. The differnece is that at least democrats increase taxes so the national debt won't go through the roof. Take a look at this. Seriously look at it. Now, you tell me which party is more responsible? http://www.lafn.org/gvdc/Natl_Debt_Chart.html

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 8th - 22:11 GMT

SOME liberal democrats want to kill kids in abortion to stop them from breathing out CO 2, because they believe too many people cause global warming. Don't tell me that they care about kids. Give parents low taxes so that they can support and spend more time with their kids. Don't kill them.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 8th - 22:45 GMT

no this one

http://www.conservapedia.com/David_Barton

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 8th - 23:12 GMT

Ronnnie,
Ronnie, point to ONE liberal suggesting that babies be aborted to stop global climate change? Ronnie, you apparently believe EVERYTHING you hear that is bad about liberals, democrats, evolutionists. Did you ever consider the idea that maybe you are being lied to?

However, since you brought up abortion... I am guessing that abortion doctors perform abortions because they want to kill children just like God did in the Bible.
Abortion: Hosea 9:11-16, Numbers 5:11-21, Numbers 31:17, Hosea 13:16, 2 Kings 15:16

Infanticide: 1 Samuel 15:3, Psalms 135:8 & 136:10, Psalms 137:9

Murder of Children: Leviticus 20:9, Judges 11:30-40, Psalms 137:8-9, 2 Kings 6:28-29, Deuteronomy 21:18-21, Judges 19:24-29, Exodus 12:29, Exodus 20:9-10, 2 Kings 2:23-24,Leviticus 26:30, 1 Samuel 15:11-18, I Kings 16:34, Isaiah 13:15-18, Jeremiah 11:22-23, Jeremiah 19:7-9, Lamentations 2:20-22.

Now Ronnie, if you believe in the literal word of the Bible, you must agree that God is the biggest abortionist, committed infanticide on a grand scale and murdered young children by the thousands. Your god is a violent baby killer Ronnie.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 9th - 0:12 GMT

"Im registered as a republican. But I believe in helping the poor. But the democrats create poverty. They kill jobs. We should only help the people that can't help themselves like the handicapped and elderly. But to the poor and healthy we should give them good honest work and very low taxes."

Ronnie, you claim that Republicans create jobs. Well, this took about 2 seconds to google.
In two terms Bush 2 created 5 million jobs
In two terms Clinton created 23.1 millilon jobs
In one term Bush #1 created 2.5 million jobs.
In two terms Reagan created 16 million jobs

Millions of Jobs Added (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Truman 1949 -1952 5.2
Eisenhower 1953 – 1956 2.7
Eisenhower 1957 – 1960 0.8
Kennedy/Johnson 1961 – 1964 5.7
Johnson 1965 – 1968 9.8
Nixon 1969 – 1972 6.1
Nixon/Ford 1972 – 1976 5.2
Carter 1977 – 1980 10.4
Reagan 1981 – 1984 5.2
Reagan 1985 – 1988 10.8
Bush 1989 – 1992 2.5
Clinton 1993 – 1996 11.6
Clinton 1997 – 2000 11.5
Bush 2001 – 2004 (0.1)
Bush 2005 – 2008 5.1

These are Department of Labor statistics.
Basically it took the Republicans 5 terms to create as many jobs as Clinton did in 2 terms. EDUCATE YOURSELF RONNIE.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted Jan 9th - 3:53 GMT

I made some searches for info on this "global warming conspiracy"-thingy ronnies been talking about. Obviously he does not know shit!

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#g/c/A4F0994AFB057BB8

Here's a playlist with well sourced claims and good explanations even someone as intelligence-free as ronnie could grasp.

Ronnie, you douche, there's no conspiracy. Watch the god damn videos and come to the god damn insight that Faux news is not a reliable source for news about the word. You are just so gullible it's un-fucking believable...

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 9th - 5:29 GMT

Molecular Biology,

Honstly, how far do you think ronnie made it though the video before he stopped listening and started looking up bible versues. My guess is 15 seconds.

On second thought, I doubt he even watched/listened to one second of the video.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 9th - 16:11 GMT

Bush 2 inherited a recession from Clinton. Then shortly after Bin Laden took down the twin towers and we lost 2 million jobs in 1 day. Then in 2006 the congress got taken over by the democrats. The republicans tried to warn congress of the crisis coming from the housing problem but they said "FANNIE AND FREDDIE MAC" are fine. Who started FANNIE AND FREDDIE Ben? Your favorite democrat Jimmy Carter who started this FANNIE FREDDIE program with good intentions but in the end it didn't work and here we are.

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted Jan 9th - 16:30 GMT

nah, he read what i wrote and can't refute it so he goes on with a red herring instead. Just listening to rush limbaugh blaming liberals for the conspiracy to trashtalk them even more is just mind crushing. My forehead is all read and irritated from all the facepalms...

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 9th - 16:32 GMT

Clinton..... you mean the guy who created as many jobs as the last THREE republican president's combined??? That Clinton????
Ronnie, you want to blame democrats for everything and say the republicans do everything right. You think like a child. Everything is black and white with you. I think, when you grow up you will realize that things aren't always so black and white. Almost everything is grey.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 9th - 16:48 GMT

¨A higher percentage of republicans voted for the civil rights act over the percentage of democrats. That still says a lot.¨

no it DOESN´T!

did you even take math class at school? did you even research the political situation at the time?

¨But they are stuanch liberal democrats that didn't even vote in the election because the democratic candidatate was black.¨

oh and that sure doesn´t happen in the republican party because?

pot. kettle. black.

¨
By the way do you believe in global warming?¨

STICK. TO. ONE. TOPIC.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 9th - 16:57 GMT

¨no this one

http://www.conservapedia.com/David_Barton¨

he´s the same guy...

did you even read the wiki page?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 9th - 17:00 GMT

¨ Almost everything is grey.¨

yup

reality is so much more nuanced.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 9th - 19:09 GMT

clinton just had the befeficial residuals from Reagan and Bush.
They had to clean up Carters mess. But in all fairness Clinton ruled properly from the center with a REPUBLICAN CONGRESS.

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 9th - 19:28 GMT

Reagan....???? You mean the guy that nearly TRIPLED our national debt in 8 years...THAT reagan???? You mean the Reagan who cut taxes his first year in office and exploded the national debt????? YOu mean Reagan.....they guy who then raised taxes 2 times to unsucsesfully get the national debt under control.????

http://www.skymachines.com/US-National-Debt-Per-Capita-Percent-of-GDP-and-by-Presidental-Term.htm

Ronnie, during war time, jobs are normally created. Someone has to make the products, guns, bullets, food..etc... that our military uses while at war. The war should have HELPED the economy. Under the Bush 2 administration we entered into two seperate wars. Our economy should have exploded..instead...it ended up imploding. Now, I am not claiming that our current situation is all Bush's fault. Banks played their part, wallstreet greed played a part, republican de-regulation of the banking industry and wall street helped, and yes Fanny and Freddie Mac played a part. EVERYBODY screwed up. Again, everything is not always black and white. No one party or "thing" is to blame.
However, the entire concept of giving tax cuts to corporations or "rich" people will create jobs is simply a myth. Reagan tried it and exploded the national debt....bush tried it and didn't create many jobs AND doubled the national debt from 5 trillion to 10 trillion in 8 years. Think about that for a minute. It took our country nearly 230 years to get us 5 trillion dollars in debt. Took Bush 8 years to double it.
Ronnie, if i could show you statistically that Democrats were better at creating jobs, growing the economy, reducing the national debt and maintining lower tax rates for everyone making less than $300,000 per year, would you support democrats? Somehow I don't think you would.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 10th - 3:20 GMT

What president has the lowest unemployment rate on his watch?

BUSH 2. HOMIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEE!

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Jan 10th - 3:55 GMT

Since 1928 there have been 13 president, 7 Republicans (Hoover, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bush Jr) and 6 Democrats (FDR, Truman, JFK, Johnson, Carter and Clinton).

Six of the seven Republican Presidents had unemployment increase while in office. Ronald Reagan is the only Republican President since 1928 to leave office with a lower unemployment rate.

All six Democratic Presidents had unemployment decrease or stay the same while in office. The worst Democratic performance was Jimmy Carter, who had the same unemployment rate when he left office as when he entered.

Viewing the President's 4 year term gives an even more pronounced effect.

Of the Repubilican President's 9 terms, unemployment has increased in 7 of the 9 terms.

Of the Democratic President's 10 terms, the unemployment rate never increased.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/9/27/155243/895

Next up for you ronnie is the fact that when Bush 2 took office, unemployment was 5.2 percent. When he left office it was 7.6. The bureau of labor statistics is killling your arguments ronnie. Damn facts

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/feb/wk2/art02.htm

Ronnie, these statistics are available to everyone. It took me about 3 minutes of work to get the data that proves you are full of shit. Please learn to educate yourself concerning a subject before you debate about it.

Ronnie, THIRD time i have asked this now. If i could show you statistically that Democrats were better at creating jobs, growing the economy, reducing the national debt and maintining lower tax rates for everyone making less than $300,000 per year, would you???? Be honest and if you wouldn't tell me why.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 12th - 13:59 GMT

F.

Wrong question: Try again.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 12th - 14:00 GMT

F.

Wrong question: Try again.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 12th - 14:01 GMT

F.

Wrong question: Try again.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 12th - 14:02 GMT

F.

Wrong question: Try again.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 12th - 19:54 GMT

¨F.

Wrong question: Try again.¨

....seriously....4 times...

this fail is so thick it´s actually suffocating me.

ronnie, grow some intellectual honesty.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 24th - 1:15 GMT

do you realize how dumb you sound? "Coellege" degrees.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 27th - 17:25 GMT

365 says, "no, and im the one whos studying at university atm getting taught by respected and internationally know scientists."

Good example of arrogance: Like there are no university professors that believe in God and intelligent design.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 27th - 18:46 GMT

¨Good example of arrogance: Like there are no university professors that believe in God and intelligent design.¨

1) a god, does not mean YOUR GOD.

2) i NEVER said there weren´t any professors that didn´t believe in ID (and btw your are lumping together ALL the fields then, not just the biology ones).

3) how is it arrogant if I were? how does beign taught by well known scientists give you any credibility? it just goes to show that you know how some of em teach, that´s all.

4) don´t you even try to think that it doesn´t mean somethign when you reach university level. to have you call me arrogant is like having a illiterate person claim he knows more about literature then someone who reads ulyssis or shakespear.

i can actually demonstrate your ignorance on the topics you try to discuss, all you can do is repeat your propogated falsehoods and run away.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 27th - 23:05 GMT

what like there's no christian professors? PLZ

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 28th - 10:54 GMT

"what like there's no christian professors? PLZ"

did i say that?
NO.

but if a professor is christian, that DOESN'T MEAN HE's A CREATIONIST.

only in your biased definition of the word.

btw, ronnie, do you persieve getting a good education as being something arrogant?

thedude

2 weeks - 32,767v

Posted Jan 28th - 11:15 GMT

Ronnie,

He's correct, and that data is legit and good.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Jan 29th - 16:23 GMT

Dude. It's been snowing all over the southwest. It's common sense. It's not getting hotter.

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Jan 30th - 14:36 GMT

"Dude. It's been snowing all over the southwest. It's common sense. It's not getting hotter."

i give up, therer is no reasoning with you.

all you do is keep repeatign this dam fallacy, which we've explained to you so many times now.

ronnie. you would so get an F in statistics.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Feb 4th - 17:40 GMT

you defend a guy that tells perverted jokes about Christ? what kind of chritian are you dude?

ronnies_evil_twin

1 minute - 1v

Posted Feb 6th - 14:37 GMT

And Ronnie returns to Global Climate change for the 15th time. Ronnie, seriously, are you not getting tired of just randomly changing subjects when you start to lose an argument?????

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Feb 6th - 16:20 GMT

i was replying to a recent comment. thank you very much.

Sci Borg (doctorofscience)

3 days - 3,793v

Posted Feb 7th - 1:40 GMT

you defend a guy that tells perverted jokes about Christ? what kind of chritian are you dude?

A better one than you, seeing as he hasn't accused anyone here of being a pedophile.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Feb 28th - 4:48 GMT

Sci-Ben-Borg says, "And you know what looks stupid to me?"

how about a guy that pretends to be a scientist and believes that we come from monkey like animals?

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Mar 19th - 16:49 GMT

we have similarities because we come from a common creator. many scientists are accepting now that life is too complex to have come from an unintelligent source.

ronnie(l.a.)

23 hours - 1,586v

Posted Mar 19th - 4:25 GMT

i'm still here and you have yet to prove that we come from animals. We're still waiting for real proof...

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Mar 19th - 7:41 GMT

"i'm still here and you have yet to prove that we come from animals. We're still waiting for real proof..."

ronnie, you ARE AN ANIMAL.

or aren't your cells eucaryote with no cell wall?

thebiblewascompiledin325AD

5 days - 7,615v

Posted Mar 19th - 23:48 GMT

"we have similarities because we come from a common creator.'

no, you have these characteristics, therefore you are calssified under this group.

just like how you are a mammal and a primate. there is no choice in the matter, you just are.

"many scientists are accepting now that life is too complex to have come from an unintelligent source."

source?

becasue i haven't heard my cell biology professor shout that yet. and neither my molecular genetics professor....

Molecular Biology kicks creationists ass (Ellman)

2 days - 2,402v

Posted Mar 20th - 2:30 GMT

Yeah ronnie-boy go ahead and show us how many biologists that rejects evolution cuz life is to complex!