Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 02-06-2014, 12:44 AM
 
Location: South Bay
1,404 posts, read 1,032,350 times
Reputation: 525

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by AlabamaDem View Post
The only way you could even type this sarcastic comment is if you ignored the previous part of my comment which is about him showing that dating methods had been proven to be flawed in some cases,.

one of them being the lava flow from St. Helen's most previous eruption being dated back to 400,000 years ago even though it had just happened(at the time of the test). And the one about the tree some one had grown since they were a child being dated back 2 million years.

Both of those examples are obviously outlier but they are, to his point, truthful. There can be a flaw in dating methods.

but please, if you are going to respond to my comments, do it in the full context. For god's sake, you started quoting me half way through a sentence and at the end of that sentence, i said his own logic destroys his argument.
Are you kidding me? He/she didn't read beyond "the only way"



guaranteed

Words are like... gag me with a spoon

 
Old 02-06-2014, 05:00 AM
 
1,507 posts, read 1,975,705 times
Reputation: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Recent discoveries have rocked the scientific community, many are questioning the validity of Eviloution

Creationist Paleontologists Discover Dinosaur Saddle | Avant News
If you are not being sarcastic you should be embarrassed for posting such drivel. My god that is such a load of crap. You Christians will take the thinnest of not even evidence to support your ten ton ideas but reject the most comprehensive of evidence that refutes it. So you show yourself to be searching for a particular answer and will not stop till someone tells you what you want to hear. You don't want the truth, you want to hear what you want to hear. Idiots.
 
Old 02-06-2014, 05:46 AM
 
Location: "Chicago"
1,866 posts, read 2,851,160 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Draper View Post
Recent discoveries have rocked the scientific community, many are questioning the validity of Eviloution

Creationist Paleontologists Discover Dinosaur Saddle | Avant News
OOOOOoohhhh Good find! I guess that proves it!

Dig the disclaimer at the bottom:

"Copyright © 2005-2505 AvantNews.com. All rights reserved.
Avant News contains satire and other fictional material, provided for entertainment purposes only.
"
 
Old 02-06-2014, 05:47 AM
 
Location: "Chicago"
1,866 posts, read 2,851,160 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Only to people who are deluding themselves.
You are buying it hook line and sinker.
 
Old 02-06-2014, 06:20 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,971 posts, read 47,651,295 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceist View Post
You're right- it really isn't a debate. The main thing for me is that Bill Nye easily showed that Young Earth Creationism has nothing to do with science or reality.

If someone wants to believe in the nonsense of a 6000 year old earth, let them. But don't try to teach kids that it's science.

Bill Nye was quite respectful of religious beliefs - he even used it as an argument that billions of people have religious beliefs but don't believe in a 6000 year old earth.
Sure. Likewise Ken Ham said many scientists believe in creation.
 
Old 02-06-2014, 06:52 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,035 posts, read 44,853,831 times
Reputation: 13717
Quote:
Originally Posted by css9450 View Post
You are buying it hook line and sinker.
You're not getting it. GMO crops are clear, current evidence of Intelligent Design. They exist, and don't fit the Theory of Evolution.

ID doesn't disprove the Theory of Evolution, and ToE doesn't disprove ID.
 
Old 02-06-2014, 06:59 AM
 
1,214 posts, read 1,697,116 times
Reputation: 626
I think this whole debate is just silly and is missing the bigger picture.

I'm a Christian who believes in evolution, it doesn't conflict with my beliefs at all. God created the world, maybe he used evolution as one of his methods? Science and God are not enemies like people on here think.

Sure evolution is not proven, and there are some flaws in the theory, however there is a pretty decent amount of evidence that supports it. Maybe we will find another theory late? But right now it's the best we have.

One thing I will say though is that I find atheists to be humorous when it comes to evolution, and science in general. Many of them treat it like a religion, which is odd because they say they don't have one, but yet they sure are preachy when it comes to evolution, many believe in it blindly.

Here's the real kicker though ; atheists are not doing these studies, they are not researching these things themselves, they are taking what they hear about it on faith. The truth is that it takes a whole lot of faith to believe in no God. More faith in fact than it takes to believe in God. Atheism is not a lack of belief, it is a belief that there is nothing.
 
Old 02-06-2014, 07:03 AM
 
1,214 posts, read 1,697,116 times
Reputation: 626
What You Ought To Know : Darwin’s Intelligent Design

I think this sums up things pretty good. Makes you think a little more.
 
Old 02-06-2014, 07:26 AM
 
Location: "Chicago"
1,866 posts, read 2,851,160 times
Reputation: 870
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
You're not getting it. GMO crops are clear, current evidence of Intelligent Design. They exist, and don't fit the Theory of Evolution.
 
Old 02-06-2014, 07:34 AM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
89,035 posts, read 44,853,831 times
Reputation: 13717
Exactly that again, css9450. None of you can explain away the fact that GMO crops do not fit the Theory of Evolution, but do indeed fit the definition of ID.

And many of you get quite belligerent when trapped in that quandary. The more nasty the responses while still not being able to refute the fact I've presented about GMO crops NOT fitting the ToE, the more I know I've made my point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:36 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top