Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Gossip & Opinions => Topic started by: The True Adonis on February 04, 2014, 03:28:41 PM
-
http://debatelive.org/
(http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTYF8Kq-yXF22vzfgt4u2l82xxhZmLxQr3THKErtLI4atDGhrgw)
-
Ahhhh, so that's what everyone is clamoring about in the office today.
This should be awesome. Thanks for the link, Adam! Everyone enjoys watching a nice ass kicking every now and again. 8)
-
(http://static.someecards.com/someecards/usercards/1323917363419_7768211.png)
-
these discussions were interesting in 2005. old news. what needs to be said was said already.
-
Those Christians are going to end up lynching Bill Nye... Hope some athiest police are present.
-
these discussions were interesting in 2005. old news. what needs to be said was said already.
X2
Pretty much the same arguments get recycled over and over again. I don't think many leave with a change of their original opinion no matter what is said.
-
X2
Pretty much the same arguments get recycled over and over again. I don't think many leave with a change of their original opinion no matter what is said.
It's stupid, MANY more people use to be religious and the world was a much better place to live.
Religion is necessary to keep lots of people in line and acting right. I don't know why it frustrates some people so much.
Welcome to human nature, we won't evolve past this in the foreseeable future.
-
It's stupid, MANY more people use to be religious and the world was a much better place to live.
Religion is necessary to keep lots of people in line and acting right. I don't know why it frustrates some people so much.
Welcome to human nature, we won't evolve past this in the foreseeable future.
::)
Yes, Islam really keeps people in line and is peaceful and necessary.
-
::)
Yes, Islam really keeps people in line and is peaceful and necessary.
lol
Good point
-
i'm watching this.. Ken Ham believes the earth is 6000 years old?
-
i'm watching this.. Ken Ham believes the earth is 6000 years old?
Yes! ROFLMAO.
-
::)
Yes, Islam really keeps people in line and is peaceful and necessary.
It's not a real religion.
-
It's not a real religion.
Of course it is. Its as real as any other. Of course no religions are valid, but they are real and we have to suffer because of them.
-
Of course it is. Its as real as any other. Of course no religions are valid, but they are real and we have to suffer because of them.
While I may not practice any religion, and am what I would consider agnostic, I see the benefit of Christianity/Judaism to the European/western way of life. The Middle East folks are a different breed.
-
these discussions were interesting in 2005. old news. what needs to be said was said already.
I think you underestimate just how ignorant the human race truly is.
I wish I could see through the same rose tinted glasses. I think people are shit. ;D
-
While I may not practice any religion, and am what I would consider agnostic, I see the benefit of Christianity/Judaism to the European/western way of life. The Middle East folks are a different breed.
x2
-
While I may not practice any religion, and am what I would consider agnostic, I see the benefit of Christianity/Judaism to the European/western way of life. The Middle East folks are a different breed.
Everything that you perceive as a benefit from Christianity can be accomplished without it.
-
Did any of you watch this shit? I don't understand the point of it anyway except for shits and giggles. It's not like this ken ham dude represents mainstream christian attitudes about science. You might as well put up wiggs talking about "Yoshua" being black or whatever fucking nonsense he's on about these days, and claim it as a christian view of hebrews.
-
Debate will be shorter than a Bill Nye marriage.
-
Was this already on?
-
Problem with these 'debates' is that it lends a 'legitimacy' to religious nutters and their faith-based 'science.' :-X
-
Problem with these 'debates' is that it lends a 'legitimacy' to religious nutters and their faith-based 'science.' :-X
Did I miss it, Doc?
-
Problem with these 'debates' is that it lends a 'legitimacy' to religious nutters and their faith-based 'science.' :-X
This!
-
Damn you, fuckers. Is it over?
-
evolution theroy also has plenty of holes in it.
but i can see how poorly educated will believe creationism.
i call bs on both.
holla at me when the bigbang is explianed in layman terms.
-
evolution theroy also has plenty of holes in it.
but i can see how poorly educated will believe creationism.
i call bs on both.
holla at me when the bigbang is explianed in layman terms.
Evolution has none you moron. None.
Seriously, you are a fool if you think this is a fact.
-
Fuck you all.
-
Evolution has none you moron. None.
Seriously, you are a fool if you think this is a fact.
evolution has plenty unexplained things based on pure assumption.
plenty.
if ymou want a dcent read on that from kinda neutral perspective i can llook up a good thread for you.
evolution is not fully explained at all, hell, theres many many new lifeforms found every year and i dont think darwin has made his kooky explaination on those yet ;D
-
also evoution is a vague term, not a clear cut definition.
its like a monopoly to claim everything mutates and changes to adapt.wihtout explaining how and why it happens.
also, doesnt explain how the species who died out, did they adapt wrong?
also what happened to the homo sapiens come from monkeys or neanderthals?
if creationist say humas eveolved from 2 homo sapiens, they arent wrong, even by evolution standards :D
-
evolution has plenty unexplained things based on pure assumption.
plenty.
if ymou want a dcent read on that from kinda neutral perspective i can llook up a good thread for you.
evolution is not fully explained at all, hell, theres many many new lifeforms found every year and i dont think darwin has made his kooky explaination on those yet ;D
No it doesn`t at all.
There hasn`t been one single scientific paper to this day, that has refuted any aspect of Evolution.
-
also evoution is a vague term, not a clear cut definition.
its like a monopoly to claim everything mutates and changes to adapt.wihtout explaining how and why it happens.
also, doesnt explain how the species who died out, did they adapt wrong?
also what happened to the homo sapiens come from monkeys or neanderthals?
if creationist say humas eveolved from 2 homo sapiens, they arent wrong, even by evolution standards :D
1. It depends on the species. The reasons why are clear and explainable and observable. No mysteries.
2. Depends on the Species. The Dodo bird died because humans hunted them into extinction. The Dinosaurs died out because of an asteroid.
3. Homo Sapiens did not come from Monkeys.
Here you go brainbox, hope this helps.
-
as a science guy with born again christian parents..
this is how i feel about this debate
(http://i.imgur.com/DrXpLu5.gif)
CANT WAIT!
-
also evoution is a vague term, not a clear cut definition.
its like a monopoly to claim everything mutates and changes to adapt.wihtout explaining how and why it happens.
also, doesnt explain how the species who died out, did they adapt wrong?
also what happened to the homo sapiens come from monkeys or neanderthals?
if creationist say humas eveolved from 2 homo sapiens, they arent wrong, even by evolution standards :D
please be trolling
-
please be trolling
Everyone here thinks they know everything, including you
-
please be trolling
Sadly, he isn`t.
-
how does evolution explain the big bang? ;D
was that intelligent design too?
:D
oh wait, it doesnt explain fuck all about the big bang, and its safe to say that was one big mutation.
why did it happen?
what was there before?
evolution is just a term saying everything adapted.
wow, revolutionary finding.
-
True Adonis, I would say I felt sorry for you but the truth of it is this: You have brought this upon yourself. You have become the poster boy for whiners. Pitiable? Not hardly.
Self pity is nothing less than your own two arms strangling the respect out of you. As I once said to booty, there is a fine line between sympathetic and pathetic. You have long since crossed that line. Pathetic? Most definitely.
My faith in the Christ causes you no harm while your anger against it makes you a bigger fool than those that "think" the world 6,000 years old. I have no idea how old the world really is and to be honest I could care less. You on the other hand behave as though a whiny child of 8. The diaper of your mind is full.
-
btw am not trolling at all.
where is the missing link to how homo sapiens came into being?
its one thing to laugh at creationists, they fully deserve that, but its other thing to claim to know it all.
we know fuck all.
no shit things have adapted.wow.
why and how did they.
evolution=pointing out the obvious since darwin.
yah surival of the fittest, permanent dynamic movement,i get it.
its just semantics.
-
Why does a real scientist "debate" with a creatard?
-
also evoution is a vague term, not a clear cut definition.
its like a monopoly to claim everything mutates and changes to adapt.wihtout explaining how and why it happens.
also, doesnt explain how the species who died out, did they adapt wrong?
also what happened to the homo sapiens come from monkeys or neanderthals?
if creationist say humas eveolved from 2 homo sapiens, they arent wrong, even by evolution standards :D
evolution can be a vague term. its more of survival of the fittest. like for examples, white moths vs black months in dark wooded area. black months would have better chance of survival so that moth will 'evolve' more into darker moth in that area.
species who died out is due to many different reasons. such as other predator species moving into a new area and killing off certain species. or change in climate/dietary change or like i explained before. different body color in certain environment.
scientifically there is no saying that humans evolved from monkeys. monkeys are CLOSE living relatives to human. and again lot of different causes of extinction such as lack of food, climate change, etc etc.
they recently found new human related species i forget the name but currently its not 100% complete. there are new species getting discovered and the ocean isnt still fully explored. many things are still in mystery.
-
While I may not practice any religion, and am what I would consider agnostic, I see the benefit of Christianity/Judaism to the European/western way of life. The Middle East folks are a different breed.
oh brother. I bet you believe Jesus was white too. It seems you're totally unaware of the origins of the Abrahamic religions... being in the middle east.
-
evolution theroy also has plenty of holes in it.
but i can see how poorly educated will believe creationism.
i call bs on both.
holla at me when the bigbang is explianed in layman terms.
No.
Yes.
Already explained.
-
btw am not trolling at all.
where is the missing link to how homo sapiens came into being?
its one thing to laugh at creationists, they fully deserve that, but its other thing to claim to know it all.
we know fuck all.
no shit things have adapted.wow.
why and how did they.
evolution=pointing out the obvious since darwin.
yah surival of the fittest, permanent dynamic movement,i get it.
its just semantics.
Uh, what are you talking about Missing Link?
Are you aware of how many transitional forms there are?
-
fun fact. white skin/blue eyes are genetic mutation.
fun fact 2. if your eyes are brown and if you peel off a layer in your eye, your eyes will be blue. (removal of melanin in iris)
-
btw am not trolling at all.
where is the missing link to how homo sapiens came into being?
its one thing to laugh at creationists, they fully deserve that, but its other thing to claim to know it all.
we know fuck all.
no shit things have adapted.wow.
why and how did they.
evolution=pointing out the obvious since darwin.
yah surival of the fittest, permanent dynamic movement,i get it.
its just semantics.
Here you go Moron.
-
True Adonis, why do you brag about a "debate" between a scientist and a delusional creatard? Would you be proud if you won a debate against Genova or coach is back?
-
True Adonis, why do you brag about a "debate" between a scientist and a delusional creatard? Would you be proud if you won a debate against Genova or coach is back?
:D
I don`t think Creationists or Galeniko really deserve any entertaining on this topic. But, since the cat is out of the bag, may as well have fun with it and hope they learn something.
-
It's stupid, MANY more people use to be religious and the world was a much better place to live.
Religion is necessary to keep lots of people in line and acting right. I don't know why it frustrates some people so much.
Welcome to human nature, we won't evolve past this in the foreseeable future.
lol @ Religion keeps people in line and acting right, it does the exact opposite. It makes them act like dullards, arseholes and terrorists.
-
uhm no the bigbang is not explained, not how it starteted and what trigered it.
and the missing link is still missing.
hope this helps :D
-
uhm no the bigbang is not explained, not how it starteted and what trigered it.
and the missing link is still missing.
hope this helps :D
we found the missing link...
(http://i48.tinypic.com/2z57uo9.jpg)
-
we found the missing link...
(http://i48.tinypic.com/2z57uo9.jpg)
this makes me think of something...
haha maybe adonis is the missing link :D
evolution is serious business,it explains everything, just not the bigbang
oh btw how does evolution explain cancer?thats def a mutation, but whats the purpose? ???
-
uhm no the bigbang is not explained, not how it starteted and what trigered it.
and the missing link is still missing.
hope this helps :D
The only gap is the few inches between your ears. The Big Bang Theory has been explained and the laws of nature triggered it. Hope this helps.
-
The only gap is the few inches between your ears. The Big Bang Theory has been explained and the laws of nature triggered it. Hope this helps.
nah the very beginning of bigbang are not explained.
and what was before, thats what im talking about.
out of what did it happen.
this is not explained by anyone.
-
uhm no the bigbang is not explained, not how it starteted and what trigered it.
and the missing link is still missing.
hope this helps :D
The big bang theory is explained in great detail. However the theory doesn't deal with what or how it 'started'. It simple explains the conditions and expansion of our universe a long time ago.
Just curious, are you are practicing Muslim?
-
nah the very beginning of bigbang are not explained.
and what was before, thats what im talking about.
out of what did it happen.
this is not explained by anyone.
What are you talking about 'BEFORE'? Simply asking such a question divulges your naivety and misunderstanding of the whole theory. Time STARTED at the BIG BANG, there was no BEFORE !!!
Like Hawkins said "It’s like asking directions to the edge of the earth; The Earth is a sphere; it doesn't have an edge; so looking for it is a futile exercise."
-
What are you talking about 'BEFORE'? Simply asking such a question divulges your naivety and misunderstanding of the whole theory. Time STARTED at the BIG BANG, there was no BEFORE !!!
ima ware of that.
still doesnt explain what triggered time to come to being.
and the very first milliseconds post big bang arent explained either.
you know what i mean by "before", i account the factor that time as we know it only became to be with the bigbang,im not that daft,dont worry.
but what triggered this?
you know full well that this has not been explained.
and what about black holes, they arent exaclty explained either.whats evolutions stance on that. ::)
The big bang theory is explained in great detail. However the theory doesn't deal with what or how it 'started'. It simple explains the conditions and expansion of our universe a long time ago.
Just curious, are you are practicing Muslim?
hell no im not religious at all.
-
ima ware of that.
still doesnt explain what triggered time to come to being.
and the very first milliseconds post big bang arent explained either.
you know what i mean by "before", i account the factor that time as we know it only became to be with the bigbang,im not that daft,dont worry.
but what triggered this?
you know full well that this has not been explained.
and what about black holes, they arent exaclty explained either.whats evolutions stance on that. ::)
hell no im not religious at all.
The trigger was the Laws of Nature, possibly Gravity. The question you should be asking is who created the laws of Nature responsible for such an occurrence. The initial conditions have been compared to that of a black hole, where strange things happen, like time slowing and even stopping and light being unable to escape.
-
Hawking recently suggested black holes probably don't exist afterall.
-
The trigger was the Laws of Nature, possibly Gravity. The question you should be asking is who created the laws of Nature responsible for such an occurrence. The initial conditions have been compared to that of a black hole, where strange things happen, like time slowing and even stopping and light being unable to escape.
now you said something stupid.
how you know gravity existed before time?haha
think about this question for a while
-
Hawking recently suggested black holes probably don't exist afterall.
No he didn't, he suggested the notion that black holes have an event horizon, which prevents anything from escaping ever, is wrong.
-
No he didn't, he suggested the notion that black holes have an event horizon, which prevents anything from escaping ever, is wrong.
True, my mistake.
-
No he didn't, he suggested the notion that black holes have an event horizon, which prevents anything from escaping ever, is wrong.
well that has been proven worng inded.i keep up with this stuff, finding it interesting.
btw haha@you "explanation" law of nature.
whats the defintion of law of nature? ;D
and uuuhm, the gravity before time was good too.
is that all you got? ;D
-
well that has been proven worng inded.i keep up with this stuff, finding it interesting.
btw haha@you "explanation" law of nature.
whats the defintion of law of nature? ;D
and uuuhm, the gravity before time was good too.
is that all you got? ;D
A law of nature is a fixed law, like the speed of light, of the effect of gravity. Something that can be verified consistently over and over again. The infinitely dense singularity that preceded the big bang has been compared to conditions of a blackhole, meaning TIME has STOPPED or NO TIME and immense GRAVITATIONAL FORCES. Gravity and time are independent of one another under such conditions. Such immense gravity is the property of an infinitely dense mass and not due to time.
-
If you had one redeeming quality about you it would somewhat validate atheism. You are so far from being enlightened that with or without religion you are a lost and insignificant soul.
-
If you had one redeeming quality about you it would somewhat validate atheism. You are so far from being enlightened that with or without religion you are a lost and insignificant soul.
I'll take any number of getbig's Christians over psychotic E-kul.
I hope he isn't a good representation of Atheism as a whole.
-
I love it that evolutionists and atheists are so threatened they need to start threads and protest out the blue. Haha. True nut jobs at best. lol.
-
I'll take any number of getbig's Christians over psychotic E-kul.
I hope he isn't a good representation of Atheism as a whole.
I actually consider myself an agnostic. I don't believe humanities puny brains are capable of unlocking the mysteries of the universe.
All I know is Religion and Fairy Tales about Creators are bogus and not intellectually satisfying. They are simply psychological creations to appease the moronic anxious masses.
-
It's stupid, MANY more people use to be religious and the world was a much better place to live.
Religion is necessary to keep lots of people in line and acting right. I don't know why it frustrates some people so much.
Welcome to human nature, we won't evolve past this in the foreseeable future.
We won't evolve past our Sky Gods and magic.
I know, to my great regret, I know. People are just too stupid and unable to let go the grip on their magic book.
-
I love it that evolutionists and atheists are so threatened they need to start threads and protest out the blue. Haha. True nut jobs at best. lol.
Theory of evolution is A LOT more credible than creationism. Evolution destroys creationism in every sense of the word.
By the way, evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. Not too sure why you would bring them up in the same sentence.
-
this makes me think of something...
haha maybe adonis is the missing link :D
evolution is serious business,it explains everything, just not the bigbang
oh btw how does evolution explain cancer?thats def a mutation, but whats the purpose? ???
Cancer is irrelevant as it usually strikes at an advanced age or well past sexual maturity and by then there was enough time for genes to be spread (successful procreation) among organisms, so its not really a pressure as far as survival of a species is concerned. Remember, evolution is really concerned with the spreading and propagation of DNA, the selfish gene. Genes don`t care if you have AIDS or Cancer or Bad Galeniko inferior kidneys. There isn`t a "purpose" for it, its a cause an effect thing, in this case an error in cell replication due to many factors- genetics/environment/behavior.
-
I love it that evolutionists and atheists are so threatened they need to start threads and protest out the blue. Haha. True nut jobs at best. lol.
A magical invisible spirit said, 'let there be light and earth' and everything appeared, as if by magic?
-
If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents - the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else's. But if their thoughts - i.e., Materialism and Astronomy - are mere accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It's like expecting the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk-jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.
-C.S. Lewis
-
ima ware of that.
still doesnt explain what triggered time to come to being.
and the very first milliseconds post big bang arent explained either.
you know what i mean by "before", i account the factor that time as we know it only became to be with the bigbang,im not that daft,dont worry.
but what triggered this?
you know full well that this has not been explained.
and what about black holes, they arent exaclty explained either.whats evolutions stance on that. ::)
The difference is, evolutionists doesn't claim to know EVERYTHING nor should it be taken as an enditement if the answer isn't clear yet. That's what science is for and you're asking questions that's not yet known but being worked on.
Do think a 'big bang' occurred? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. But what I do know is that it's not an invisible magic being from a young religion that whispered a few words and everything instantaneously appeared. What a ridiculous cop out for a simple unthinking people. An easy answer they cling on to as it takes little effort to understand.
And excuse me, I find it hard pressed to believe what any religious organization claims when they try and cover up blatant pedophilia and the rape of young children.
-
We won't evolve past our Sky Gods and magic.
I know, to my great regret, I know. People are just too stupid and unable to let go the grip on their magic book.
Lol
-
Theory of evolution is A LOT more credible than creationism. Evolution destroys creationism in every sense of the word.
By the way, evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive. Not too sure why you would bring them up in the same sentence.
Ok
-
The difference is, evolutionists doesn't claim to know EVERYTHING nor should it be taken as an enditement if the answer isn't clear yet. That's what science is for and you're asking questions that's not yet known but being worked on.
Do think a 'big bang' occurred? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. But what I do know is that it's not an invisible magic being from a young religion that whispered a few words and everything instantaneously appeared. What a ridiculous cop out for a simple unthinking people. An easy answer they cling on to as it takes little effort to understand.
And excuse me, I find it hard pressed to believe what any religious organization claims when they try and cover up blatant pedophilia and the rape of young children.
They don't claim to know everything? Are you shitting me? You people are the very definition of smug while getting your asses handed to you at the same time. How's that "global warming" thing working out for you?
-
The difference is, evolutionists doesn't claim to know EVERYTHING nor should it be taken as an enditement if the answer isn't clear yet. That's what science is for and you're asking questions that's not yet known but being worked on.
Do think a 'big bang' occurred? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. But what I do know is that it's not an invisible magic being from a young religion that whispered a few words and everything instantaneously appeared. What a ridiculous cop out for a simple unthinking people. An easy answer they cling on to as it takes little effort to understand.
And excuse me, I find it hard pressed to believe what any religious organization claims when they try and cover up blatant pedophilia and the rape of young children.
You hit the nail on the head. The arrogance of Religion to claim to KNOW the deepest mysteries of the Universe without even taking a cursory examination is the most obnoxious and detestable state of affairs. People of reason and intellect only lay claim to what they think they know and welcome any and all challenges to their theories and gladly update their theories once proven false. For me, it is the arrogance of religious people and their disdain for thinking, rational and reasonable people that puts me off any and all Religious pursuits.
-
They don't claim to know everything? Are you shitting me? You people are the very definition of smug while getting your asses handed to you at the same time. How's that "global warming" thing working out for you?
They do claim to know everything from the origins of the Universe to how every human being should behave. Religions and their followers are a disgusting and contemptible people.
-
History is littered with a whole lotta "people thought they knew it all".
None of us know shit. In 1000 years, they'll look at our understanding of things in 2014 and they'll laugh. The same way people used to "know" a whole bunch of things...
I think the biggest problem facing us today is that shitty sports schedule gap we're about to face. NFL is over. NBA is gonna suck til playoffs, and even they're average. Really, July is the word TV time.
-
History is littered with a whole lotta "people thought they knew it all".
None of us know shit. In 1000 years, they'll look at our understanding of things in 2014 and they'll laugh. The same way people used to "know" a whole bunch of things...
I think the biggest problem facing us today is that shitty sports schedule gap we're about to face. NFL is over. NBA is gonna suck til playoffs, and even they're average. Really, July is the word TV time.
I'm pretty sure between Galeniko, and True Adonis we've got it all figured out.
-
They don't claim to know everything? Are you shitting me? You people are the very definition of smug while getting your asses handed to you at the same time. How's that "global warming" thing working out for you?
See Joe, this why you're daily classed as the biggest moron on the board, despite me actually coming up for you a few times. You live in this weird world where people are neatly divided into 'liberals' and 'the right'. Because I'm not a Christian nut job I must be a 'liberal' Yet a casual reading of my posts would reveal that I class global warming as a lie, are against the obvious liberal agenda, despise uncontrolled immigration and hate obvious social engineering. And HATE welfare.
But please, carry on 'handing The Right' their asses, all the while you want to be taken serious with unquestionable believe in your sky god. You're fast becoming another Goodrum but are blind to seeing it.
-
See Joe, this why you're daily classed as the biggest moron on the board, despite me actually coming up for you a few times. You live in this weird world where people are neatly divided into 'liberals' and 'the right'. Because I'm not a Christian nut job I must be a 'liberal' Yet a casual reading of my posts would reveal that I class global warming as a lie, are against the obvious liberal agenda, despise uncontrolled immigration and hate obvious social engineering. And HATE welfare.
But please, carry on 'handing The Right' their asses, all the while you want to be taken serious with unquestionable believe in your sky god. You're fast becoming another Goodrum but are blind to seeing it.
Yes, Coach annoys the shit out of me with that.
-
Yes, Coach annoys the shit out of me with that.
Despite being short, he's not a bad guy.
Oh, and that tattoo on his forehead that reads; 'this mind is closed for business'
-
The entire Debate.
-
These threads always bring out the dimwits.
-
BBC Breaking news right now
The UN denounce the Vatican for allowing the systematic rape of 1000s of children.
What a disgusting, unspeakably vile institution. Child rape, in the name of their sky god.
Maybe it's true what Sev says, maybe they do murder and eat children. I swear I wouldn't put it past these 'men of God' ::)
-
It really humours me that they even bother having these so-called,'debates'. You know the creationists are fighting a losing battle when they have to keep plugging the fact that they know of, 'scientists' amongst their circles. You never hear it the other way round.
-
The difference is, evolutionists doesn't claim to know EVERYTHING nor should it be taken as an enditement if the answer isn't clear yet. That's what science is for and you're asking questions that's not yet known but being worked on.
Yes it's being worked on, and will continue to be worked on for a long time with no definite answer. This is the direct limit of science, it's work in progress trap that will never give a person a clear focus.
Do think a 'big bang' occurred? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. But what I do know is that it's not an invisible magic being from a young religion that whispered a few words and everything instantaneously appeared. What a ridiculous cop out for a simple unthinking people. An easy answer they cling on to as it takes little effort to understand.
Yes the idea that a creative force said let there be light and there was light is absurd, I'd much rather hear carl sagon say out of nothing came everything the big bang. d excuse me, I find it hard pressed to believe what any religious organization claims when they try and cover up blatant pedophilia and the rape of young children.
Creationists are typically not catholics fuck nuts and if they are there at the bottom of the catholic hierarchy.
-
Fuck you all.
;D ;D ;D
flat batteries on on your scooter ? or you a just drunk ?
-
Hawking recently suggested black holes probably don't exist afterall.
bullshit, machine is talking not him , for fuck sake guy was married twice ::) ::) ::)
-
Scientist: Hmm... we haven't seen how xyz happened, let's hypothesize and test our hypothesis best we can.
Creationist "scientist": Hmm... we haven't seen how xyz happened, god must have done it.
Absolutely no curiosity, no intellectualism. Creationists stole concepts that science developed over hundreds of years and try to match those findings with their fictional book. A good example is when scientists discovered that bacteria can get into flesh wounds when someone touches that wound, doctors were told to wash their hands thoroughly in running water to avoid bacterial contraction. Bible thumpers took that idea and said "the bible told us to do this thousands of years ago! that must mean the bible is true and we should all follow it", I believe the passage is Mark 7:3 if you want to look it up. There are more examples but I can't spend all day looking up bible passages.
-
Geekologie put it best:
Who will win? SPOILER: Nye for anybody who already believes in evolution, Ham for anybody who believes in creationism. One person might be swayed but will be back to their original belief before bed.
-
Everyone here thinks they know everything, including you
I don't know everything, I do know how to use google though
it just sucks when you see someone whos posts you follow saying some ignorant shit
really, shits all for the birds though, we'll all be dead in like 60 years
-
It's stupid, MANY more people use to be religious and the world was a much better place to live.
Welcome to human nature, we won't evolve past this in the foreseeable future.
What? Look at this stupid. Look at it. It is full of stupid.
You go back in time 80 years, or more, and tell me how much better it is. Toodles.
-
What? Look at this stupid. Look at it. It is full of stupid.
You go back in time 80 years, or more, and tell me how much better it is. Toodles.
When people were letting fascism run amok, allowing Nazi's Goose step over the World and turning a blind eye to the Japanese slaughter people in the Pacific Rim.
Lots of great times there I'm sure.
-
When people were letting fascism run amok, allowing Nazi's Goose step over the World and turning a blind eye to the Japanese slaughter people in the Pacific Rim.
Lots of great times there I'm sure.
And how many of those racist ideals spurred on by religion? This is a dumb subject with dumb people defending a potentially wonderful thing full of stupid people.
-
And how many of those racist ideals spurred on by religion? This is a dumb subject with dumb people defending a potentially wonderful thing full of stupid people.
Well, considering the fact that the Vatican turned a blind eye and that Hitler considered himself a Christian, we may never know.
-
I listen to debates all the time (hours and hours of them while I work) and I enjoy those based in the theology the most; regardless, as "theist v atheist" debates go this was one of the most civil I've seen in a while LOL.
Bill was engaging, funny, charming, polite and presented himself well. Yes, he detoured off topic here and there (as atheists often do when debating theists....it comes out naturally as I've witnessed), but ultimately he presented himself very well. I can tell he has no real theological knowledge and he kept asking Ken the ole question about "those that have never heard the gospel", but instead of the "gospel" he replaced it with "creation model" or "creationism". Ken addressed this point before it was asked within his opening remarks....Bill must have missed it.
Ken was a little flat, but attempted humor. From my chair nothing he presented was new information, but neither was Bill’s. Neither of these men are seasoned debaters and that’s ok. I thought Ken devoted too much time to political commentary and less about the subject at hand. He wasted a good 10 minutes talking from a political standpoint about unrelated information. I thought presented himself well though when he was on topic, but he could’ve provided more examples as his website does and gotten more technical as his website does. The 10 minutes he spent on the political perspective could’ve covered more ground at a detail level.
The “uglier” parts of debates are the 2 to 10 minute back and forth exchanges that occur after the opening remarks and primary presentations. Whomever speaks second (or gives the "final reply") always has the advantage of leaving the audience with questions (typically off topic) that the other won't be able to publically address within the debate forum. Many atheists debate a lot like Muslims in this regard….hey, it’s strategy (only seasoned debaters know how to work in answers to these questions later on because they've done it time and again). They pepper their replies with off topic questions that the other presenter has no time to answer (and they know this) and then condemn them for not providing an answer to all the one-offs LOL. Ken responded to Bill’s snow ice question during the back and forth with the example of the airplane buried 250 ft and how the accumulation of ice occurs at much faster rate than Bill presented, but again I suppose Bill missed it.
To be fair, neither presenter can address everything the other says….can’t expect that of them. Last debate I watched yesterday the presenter asked 40 off topic questions.....the other presenter asked 3 out of frustration LOL. Theists often resort to these tactics too out of frustration LOL….they aren’t without blame.
The Q&As always make me laugh because the audience will then ask random, off topic questions. For example, theist presenters may have been debating the subject of “Islam” or “the universe” or “the trinity” and someone in the audience will ask them to resolve the “problem of evil” in 2 minutes LOL…..give me a break. Do what I do and save the question and go read a book or two or five or seek out a lecture on that particular subject.
In the end, the vast majority of theists will side with Ken and the vast majority of atheists with Bill. Yes, there are people that change sides after debates, but I don’t think I’ll be seeing conversions either way after this…..it was an ok debate at best for me.
-
The trigger was the Laws of Nature, possibly Gravity. .
HEHEHHEH!!
Yet you retards act like you know everything.
First, scientists stated without a doubt that matter couldn't be created from a vacuum.
NOW, that is all changed.
Modify the big bang theory to fit the narrative. The same thing goes for evolution.
-
As others have already stated, there will never be a winner unless Jesus shows himself.
-
Theory of evolution is A LOT more credible than creationism. Evolution destroys creationism in every sense of the word.
You need more faith to believe in evolution than you need to believe that there is a God.
Evolution=the myth of something happening by chance
The COMPLEXITY of everything around us points to a design. A design that couldn't have just appeared by mere chance aka evolution or the other myth known as the "big whacked out explosion" theory.
-
-
You need more faith to believe in evolution than you need to believe that there is a God.
Evolution=the myth of something happening by chance
The COMPLEXITY of everything around us points to a design. A design that couldn't have just appeared by mere chance aka evolution or the other myth known as the "big whacked out explosion" theory.
So your answer is ....... an invisible 'god' done it?
-
It really humours me that they even bother having these so-called,'debates'. You know the creationists are fighting a losing battle when they have to keep plugging the fact that they know of, 'scientists' amongst their circles. You never hear it the other way round.
They're really no better than this towelhead Ahmed that posts here, doing endless link-a-thons of western people that converted to Islam, trying to pass it off as representative of a whole group of people instead of it being such an extraordinary event that it actually had to be filmed :-\
-
So your answer is ....... an invisible 'god' done it?
You never seen a single act of evolution, yet you believe it.
Were you there when the universe farted and created all the worlds? You didn't see that, yet you believe.
Boy, you have a great faith!
-
You never seen a single act of evolution, yet you believe it.
Were you there when the universe farted and created all the worlds? You didn't see that, yet you believe.
Boy, you have a great faith!
You've never seen God yet you follow this thing like slave?
-
This man was an atheist. Much more intelligent than any of you, yet he realized that God must exist.
-
You've never seen 'god' yet you believe :-X
-
Haha, like I said. No better than Towelhead Ahmed that posts endless videos nobody watch of the odd nobody on YouTube, trying to pass it off as representative.
-
Haha, I actually watched the video.
The first 30 seconds tell me this guy has no qualified opinion and just mumbles a load of shit about 'these biology discoveries'
What discoveries?
I wonder how much they paid him :-\
-
Ten bucks says Coach joins this debate and proceed with his famous cop out line; 'You just don't understand'
-
Ten bucks says Coach joins this debate and proceed with his famous cop out line; 'You just don't understand'
Haven't read this thread thoroughly. So what's the debate topic of "this debate"?
-
You never seen a single act of evolution, yet you believe it.
Were you there when the universe farted and created all the worlds? You didn't see that, yet you believe.
Boy, you have a great faith!
Flu Virus anyone? Evolution right before your ignorant, small brained eyes.
-
Haven't read this thread thoroughly. So what's the debate topic of "this debate"?
I guess the thread title should be a clue?
-
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-aMr2drt2doM/UTXAaP4uhgI/AAAAAAAAAlU/OH1pMDXtQaU/s1600/Religious+Discoveries+2012.JPG)
-
You need more faith to believe in evolution than you need to believe that there is a God.
Evolution=the myth of something happening by chance
The COMPLEXITY of everything around us points to a design. A design that couldn't have just appeared by mere chance aka evolution or the other myth known as the "big whacked out explosion" theory.
Sure, let us concede to your argument that evolution is a lie. What is harder to reconcile is: why are you such an asshole if you are a committed believer in God?
-
I guess the thread title should be a clue?
You know how many threads I've had discussions in that have nothing to do with the title of the thread?
Together we don't have enough fingers and toes to count them.
So you're debating about whether or not Bill Nye destroyed creationist Ken Ham?
If that's the case I would say no Bill did not destroy Ken, but I do think that Bill presented himself better this time around.
I do know that Ken could've presented much more than he did. As I said in my summary of the debate, I don't believe this debate changed any minds.
-
(http://i.imgur.com/B7WALZA.png)
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DqLt-IQ5Ods/UpKve83U1jI/AAAAAAAAAQo/kFWtTyGJH1o/s1600/Old+Tjikko.jpg)
-
You know how many threads I've had discussions in that have nothing to do with the title of the thread?
Together we don't have enough fingers and toes to count them.
So you're debating about whether or not Bill Nye destroyed creationist Ken Ham?
No, at this moment on page 5 of this particular thread, we're musing why Dario73 could go ahead and claim that 'we've never seen evolution with our own eyes', yet he hasn't seen this god fella he follows , unquestioning, like a slave either.
Then he posted a video of a mumbling geriatric as 'proof' of something.
You up to speed now?
-
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/57/ef/c3/57efc333b240692badecb71c20640ef3.jpg)
-
Holy fuuuuuck,. Don't tell me these guys in the thread believe the Earth is 6000 years old?????/ :-\ :-\ :-\
-
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/6a/99/ae/6a99ae84673490161f69fe2a80870090.jpg)
-
No, at this moment on page 5 of this particular thread, we're musing why Dario73 could go ahead and claim that 'we've never seen evolution with our own eyes', yet he hasn't seen this god fella he follows , unquestioning, like a slave either.
Then he posted a video of a mumbling geriatric as 'proof' of something.
You up to speed now?
Ok, so your debate is barely related to the thread title. Why did you refer me to it?
Regardless, I'm not interested in whatever back and forth you're having.
-
(http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/91/db/95/91db95be5e8ae8bb8187bc14185eb00f.jpg)
-
(http://www.pinterest.com/offsite/?token=573-938&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2F14%2F5c%2F47%2F145c47403f024fdb5cfb8e94e7d204fd.jpg&pin=230668812135894045)
-
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-DqLt-IQ5Ods/UpKve83U1jI/AAAAAAAAAQo/kFWtTyGJH1o/s1600/Old+Tjikko.jpg)
A talking tree!? Now, that's some Biblical miracle shit, right there.
-
Ok, so your debate is barely related to the thread title. Why did you refer me to it?
Regardless, I'm not interested in whatever back and forth you're having.
No, I don't imagine that you would
Hey MOS, a thread is like evolution, Page 5 looks different than Page 1. The thread title was about Creationist Crazies, and then by association evolution and religion. You're not very perceptive are you?
-
::)
Yes, Islam really keeps people in line and is peaceful and necessary.
There is a growing secular retreat and ongoing Sunni Shite atrocities…. And, if they did not have teenie tiny Israel to blame for their mostly impoverished and squallor conditions (yes there are noted exceptions) they would have to invent an Israel.
-
It's ok my man, I knew from your first word that you were trying to score a hit for the other side. :'(
-
Lawd, all we need is Muslims to enter the thread, squealing 'Allah Allah Allah' ::)
Then maybe some strippers and a beer bong to ease the headache
-
No, I don't imagine that you would
Hey MOS, a thread is like evolution, Page 5 looks different than Page 1. The thread title was about Creationist Crazies, and then by association evolution and religion. You're not very perceptive are you?
Your unprovoked ad hominem attack from the outset pretty much invalidates your position. I said nothing negative to you whatsoever....just asked a simple question.
Now if you'd like to have a discussion sometime I'm happy to oblige, but cliche meme-slinging and unprovoked insults LOL......I'll have to leave that alone.
-
Lawd, all we need is Muslims to enter the thread, squealing 'Allah Allah Allah' ::)
Then maybe some strippers and a beer bong to ease the headache
what's up asshole, ask and ye shall receive.
-
Your unprovoked ad hominem attack from the outset pretty much invalidates your position. I said nothing negative to you whatsoever....just asked a simple question.
Now if you'd like to have a discussion sometime I'm happy to oblige, but cliche meme-slinging and unprovoked insults LOL......I'll have to leave that alone.
Ok, the Earth is 6000 years old. go.
-
I ended up watching the whole thing purely because of the creationist guy. what a fool he is.
I was under the impression the debate was to help viewers decide on the school program in a few states, am I right?
if this was so, the science guy was, to me, a bit stupid.
he probably didn't pass half of his science facts or thoughts to the audience.
for someone who has a scientific culture and an appreciation for knowledge, hearing him say a couple of words should be enough to get the meaning of his idea. however, it seemed he was being watched by a bunch of rednecks that didn't understood shit.
The creationist connected much more, when he told those lame remarks "we got a book that explains all that" etc the audience was with him. pretty sad for the scientist.
I would have liked to ask the creationist where is all the water from the flood? he prob would have bypassed as usual
-
::)
-
They could have at least picked someone with a halfway intelligent argument to present. I'd rather listen to intelligent speakers talk about the limits of scientific inquiry (which somewhat comes in the picture in this debate) rather than watch this guy basically try to defend a 6000 year old earth.
-
:o
-
A talking tree!? Now, that's some Biblical miracle shit, right there.
Now all we need is a Burning Bush and we have a group.
New song entitled, "Can't See The Bush For The Trees". Off of the album "Bush Told Me to Burn".
-
They don't claim to know everything? Are you shitting me? You people are the very definition of smug while getting your asses handed to you at the same time. How's that "global warming" thing working out for you?
Shut the fuck up you stupid midget. This is exactly why you are considered the stupidest poster on here.
You have claimed that there is scientific evidence that prayer works. Yet every time you are challenged you have never posted a link to this so called evidence or the studies that support you stupid claim.
-
;D
-
(http://legacy-cdn-assets.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/media/cartoons/after-eden/20010312.gif)
-
E-Kul, What if god owns a pitbull? That is a relevant question in this thread.
-
Ok, the Earth is 6000 years old. go.
I don't beleive the earth is 6000 years old but I also scoff at it being 500 million years old. That is a shit long time. Somehow the earths been around that long and in 100 years human managed to destroy the fuck out of it.
-
Everything that you perceive as a benefit from Christianity can be accomplished without it.
You give people too much credit.
-
I don't beleive the earth is 6000 years old but I also scoff at it being 500 million years old. That is a shit long time. Somehow the earths been around that long and in 100 years human managed to destroy the fuck out of it.
Humans, the single most destructive force in this galaxy...that we know of...aside from Reptilians...and Greys...and Dinosaur-hybrids...and Giants, yeah Giants.
-
Everything that you perceive as a benefit from Christianity can be accomplished without it.
lol @ Christianity offering any benefit. It is obviously a force for EVIL.
-
I don't beleive the earth is 6000 years old but I also scoff at it being 500 million years old. That is a shit long time. Somehow the earths been around that long and in 100 years human managed to destroy the fuck out of it.
What are you basing this silly claim upon? ???
You are aware that the earth is 4.54 Billion years old. This isn`t a mystery you know.
-
You give people too much credit.
You give religion too much credit.
-
Do you ever get tired of arguing TA?
-
Do you ever get tired of arguing TA?
I think I can answer for TA with resounding "NO" ;D
-
I think I can answer for TA with resounding "NO" ;D
lol
I'm exhausted just reading it all
-
lol
I'm exhausted just reading it all
I am about to take a break and do a late night Leg Session with Squats and Front Squats. :D Can`t miss a workout.
-
I am about to take a break and do a late night Leg Session with Squats and Front Squats. :D Can`t miss a workout.
You remind me of Bill Brasky.. lol
-
What a disappointing debate. Science is more solid than presented. Neither debater was a philosopher. The creationist position as presented by Mr Ham is preposterous. No scientist or philosopher should waste his time debating that nonsense.
The creationist position is not as explanation at all. Evolution is a natural process and not some random occurrence. It explains why we have mice, rats, spiders, bugs, fleas, lice, ticks and all manner of bacteria, viruses and diseases. Menstration is a consequence of evolution...not design! Did a god create all those nasty things?
If Adam and Eve were created then that means incest had to occur to get a population.
-
Menstration is a consequence of evolution...not design!
ellaborate
-
ellaborate
God is supposed to be all powerful and wise. Man was created in the image of God. Would such a being create a woman who menstruates monthly? This surely is a design flaw. Since God is infallible he didn't create humans. If he did create women then it was to punish us men!
-
(http://www.pinterest.com/offsite/?token=567-9&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2Foriginals%2Fa4%2F2e%2Fb5%2Fa42eb5edf75d68065bf7939ffe237a81.jpg&pin=576320083537133068)
-
You remind me of Bill Brasky.. lol
ROFLMAO!!! Brasky.
That was a brutal leg workout I finished.
-
Why would Nye bother with Ham? I would never debate someone about their religion whether they think the earth is 6000 years old or justify killing innocents in order to get a large room full of 72 virgins to have sex with. Religion was created to keep the masses in check, and manipulate people. Whether it is Jimmy Swaggert with his mansion, Benz' and hookers, or Oral Roberts claiming that he needed 8 million dollars by a specific date or else God would take his life.
In Ham's case he does not believe in creationism at all. He is mocking it in True Adonis style. Ham has a science degree in Biology. He is no fool when it comes to evolution. His true talent is fund raising for himself. and his buddies using the vehicle of religion. How else could he get people to hand him tens of millions of dollars for doing absolutely nothing. Ham has millions. So do his executive buddies. The debate was a mockery of religion. Even guys like Pat Robertson were begging Ham to shut up.
-
Just read Nye got his ass handed to him. Haha
-
Just read Nye got his ass handed to him. Haha
???
-
Just read Nye got his ass handed to him. Haha
Coach... You know full well that he didn't.
The only people who would say that are complete whack jobs.
Do you HONESTLY believe the earth is only 6000 years old?
HONESTLY?
-
Don't know how to post links from phone. See The Daily beast just for starters.
-
(http://thisiswhatiwoulddo.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/sci.gif)
-
Don't know how to post links from phone. See The Daily beast just for starters.
Joe, I like you bro, but literally 70% of the people watching that, including those who WANTED Ken Ham to win, said that he didn't.
Sorry man... I get you wanted your boy to go out there and own Bill Nye... And to be fair, he probably should have because Bill Nye is a Mechanical Engineer... Not a Biologist or an Archaeologist or really anything related to historical science and he STILL beat your boy.
Sorry dude... He just didn't.
He didn't crush him or anything, but he didn't beat him.
-
Joe... Do you believe the earth is truly 6000 years old, or as Ken claimed... only 4000?
-
Joe, I like you bro, but literally 70% of the people watching that, including those who WANTED Ken Ham to win, said that he didn't.
Sorry man... I get you wanted your boy to go out there and own Bill Nye... And to be fair, he probably should have because Bill Nye is a Mechanical Engineer... Not a Biologist or an Archaeologist or really anything related to historical science and he STILL beat your boy.
Sorry dude... He just didn't.
He didn't crush him or anything, but he didn't beat him.
Post that link of 70%.
-
Post that link of 70%.
Hell dude, I'll do you one better... I'll post a link that says 92% on from the Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0205/Bill-Nye-versus-Ken-Ham-Who-won-video
-
(http://atheistatlarge.org/articles/uploads/2012/01/creationists-fossil-fuels.jpg)
-
There was no debate.
It was simply facts and Science versus fiction. Science and Facts win.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_cnk7YYDG9Vc/TSFkZNHakfI/AAAAAAAAADk/B-dX8E-Eeeg/s1600/6a00d83451df0c69e200e54f39c3578834-800wi.jpg)
-
Hell dude, I'll do you one better... I'll post a link that says 92% on from the Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/0205/Bill-Nye-versus-Ken-Ham-Who-won-video
I'm not sure why you said "I'll do you one better" CSM isn't religious. We seem to have a stand off. One site reports one thing while another reports the opposite. Adam. Stay out of this. You tend to embarrass yourself quiet frequently.
-
I'm not sure why you said "I'll do you one better" CSM isn't religious. We seem to have a stand off. One site reports one thing while another reports the opposite. Adam. Stay out of this. You tend to embarrass yourself quiet frequently.
Do YOU personally believe that the earth is no older than 6000 years old?
-
I'm not sure why you said "I'll do you one better" CSM isn't religious. We seem to have a stand off. One site reports one thing while another reports the opposite. Adam. Stay out of this. You tend to embarrass yourself quiet frequently.
even Pat robertson called Ken hams perfomance "a joke" ::)
HAve you watched the "debate"?
-
Nye was respectful to religion. The main debate was "is the earth only 6000 years old and Noah' s ark is ridiculous fairy tale"
Those 2 points are very easy to win.
-
Do YOU personally believe that the earth is no older than 6000 years old?
You kidding me? Joe would rather execute his own child before embarrassing himself by answering that question. Deep inside he knows it can't be, but his indoctrination from childhood still have the better of him.
So to answer for him, yes, Joe thinks that planet Earth is around 6000 years old and a ghost guides his life.
-
Coach believes his car got him to his gym because God was pushing on the rear bumper. When coach gets sick he temporarily believes in science at the hospital though. Why not head over to the local church and let God handle it? ;D
-
This is the "Adam" in the Ken Ham Creationist Museum. Can anyone explain to me why he has a belly button? ??? ??? ???
(http://i61.tinypic.com/mpizt.jpg)
-
This is the "Adam" in the Ken Ham Creationist Museum. Can anyone explain to me why he has a belly button? ??? ??? ???
(http://i61.tinypic.com/mpizt.jpg)
He needed someplace to stick his gum.
-
This is the "Adam" in the Ken Ham Creationist Museum. Can anyone explain to me why he has a belly button? ??? ??? ???
(http://i61.tinypic.com/mpizt.jpg)
Don't forget the shaved body hair and trimmed up beard...
-
I wonder what that penguin is doing in the jungle with the fox. ???
-
It looks like the Penguin is blowing him and the Fox is about to join in. :o
-
This is the "Adam" in the Ken Ham Creationist Museum. Can anyone explain to me why he has a belly button? ??? ??? ???
(http://i61.tinypic.com/mpizt.jpg)
Good everyday physique, easy to maintain without a ton of gear. Adam looks like a pussy slayer !!!
-
There was no debate.
It was simply facts and Science versus fiction. Science and Facts win.
thread over
-
Funny you think you delusionites think that science as you think you know it, can explain everything. lol
We can start with global warming.
-
Don't forget the shaved body hair and trimmed up beard...
Oh, well you know, gotta look fine for the only female in the Garden of Eden...
Using a puddle of water as a mirror.
-
Funny you think you delusionites think that science as you think you know it, can explain everything. lol
We can start with global warming.
Joe, no one said science can solve everything. But science, more than anything else is what has propelled man forward. Without science, we would all be dead.
Joe, I do not get how you can hate science. Science has created skyscrapers, tvs, computers, bridges, cars, airplanes, spaceships, cell phones, medicine, machines, etc. Science is the most important thing to humans. Its really baffling that you knock science.
Day in and day out, scientists work hard to explain just about everything. Religion has obviously played some role in man. However, without all the medicine and technology created by science, we would either be dead or be reverting back to cavemen times.
And just because science cant explain everything, it doesnt mean there is a supernatural explanation, either.
-
evolution theroy also has plenty of holes in it.
but i can see how poorly educated will believe creationism.
i call bs on both.
holla at me when the bigbang is explianed in layman terms.
Nice false equivalency moron. I actually have more respect for the all out retards who believe creationism is the end all be all.
-
That photo is factually inaccurate. All races come from blacks. Therefore Adam and Eve were black. They were also very tall around 9-10 feet and physically perfect. These were the first two humans made by God himself. They were without sin and blemish. If they were here before you wouldn't think of them as human. You'd think of them as alien. They'd be the most beautiful and perfect beings you've ever seen.
-
That photo is factually inaccurate. All races come from blacks. Therefore Adam and Eve were black. They were also very tall around 9-10 feet and physically perfect. These were the first two humans made by God himself. They were without sin and blemish. If they were here before you wouldn't think of them as human. You'd think of them as alien. They'd be the most beautiful and perfect beings you've ever seen.
Put the pipe down! You have a job now.
-
Put the pipe down! You have a job now.
Fuck off and quit hating. What I said was the truth about Adam and Eve. They were perfect and they were black and they were 9-10 feet tall because the earth was different then. Everything was bigger,
-
Fuck off and quit hating. What I said was the truth about Adam and Eve. They were perfect and they were black and they were 9-10 feet tall because the earth was different then. Everything was bigger,
Wiggs, that's not in the bible. :-\ :-\
-
Wiggs, that's not in the bible. :-\ :-\
Prior to the flood, there was deluge around the earth. imagine an atmosphere of ice or water. This kept harmful radiation out. In addition the earth had a much higher content of oxygen and carbon dioxide. The plants were bigger and the animals were bigger. The part they don't tell you is that humans were too. They scew it with that evolution bullshit. This is all pre-flood. Like I said, were talking physically perfect humans. We've deteriorated show much, they'd be alien to us.
-
Fuck off and quit hating. What I said was the truth about Adam and Eve. They were perfect and they were black and they were 9-10 feet tall because the earth was different then. Everything was bigger,
;D ;D ;D
Any archaeological evidence in "hebrews" museum about yours BS ;D
-
Nye was respectful to religion. The main debate was "is the earth only 6000 years old and Noah' s ark is ridiculous fairy tale"
Those 2 points are very easy to win.
Russel Crowe is new Mr.Noah ;D but hold on he is white ???.
Noah was Kiwi-New Zealander, FACT :D
-
That photo is factually inaccurate. All races come from blacks. Therefore Adam and Eve were black. They were also very tall around 9-10 feet and physically perfect. These were the first two humans made by God himself. They were without sin and blemish. If they were here before you wouldn't think of them as human. You'd think of them as alien. They'd be the most beautiful and perfect beings you've ever seen.
Wiggs, who is Mr.God's creator ;D
-
That photo is factually inaccurate. All races come from blacks. Therefore Adam and Eve were black. They were also very tall around 9-10 feet and physically perfect. These were the first two humans made by God himself. They were without sin and blemish. If they were here before you wouldn't think of them as human. You'd think of them as alien. They'd be the most beautiful and perfect beings you've ever seen.
Cool story bro! Did adam and eve ride T-rexs? When did the spacelizards take over the world?
-
Joe, no one said science can solve everything. But science, more than anything else is what has propelled man forward. Without science, we would all be dead.
Joe, I do not get how you can hate science. Science has created skyscrapers, tvs, computers, bridges, cars, airplanes, spaceships, cell phones, medicine, machines, etc. Science is the most important thing to humans. Its really baffling that you knock science.
Day in and day out, scientists work hard to explain just about everything. Religion has obviously played some role in man. However, without all the medicine and technology created by science, we would either be dead or be reverting back to cavemen times.
And just because science cant explain everything, it doesnt mean there is a supernatural explanation, either.
Why do you bother? Coach does not want to know becuase it will shake his worldview. Watch Penn and tellers episode on creationism, they explain very well why people like coach act the way do.
-
That photo is factually inaccurate. All races come from blacks. Therefore Adam and Eve were black. They were also very tall around 9-10 feet and physically perfect. These were the first two humans made by God himself. They were without sin and blemish. If they were here before you wouldn't think of them as human. You'd think of them as alien. They'd be the most beautiful and perfect beings you've ever seen.
perhaps they were black because they were still covered in monkey hair lol
-
Funny you think you delusionites think that science as you think you know it, can explain everything. lol
We can start with global warming.
Joe... Do you believe the earth is truly 6000 years old, or as Ken claimed... only 4000?
-
I really don't think anyone can answer that. Except atheists, because they know all.
-
I really don't think anyone can answer that. Except atheists, because they know all.
But I asked what YOU believe... Do you believe it's only 6,000 years old?
Personally, your belief.
-
But I asked what YOU believe... Do you believe it's only 6,000 years old?
Personally, your belief.
Hi, not the Coach but a Christian all the same so if I may?
I have no clue how old the earth is but I would imagine it is far older than 6,000 years. It's likely that this hunk of rock is millions of years old and to be honest I could care less either way. ;D
The mental age of many of the people participating in this thread is likely to be far less than 6,000 years. Or even 12. ;D
Science is great! It neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. It is what it is, i.e., science. You can't make a leap of faith in two jumps but any of us can make a fool of ourselves in a single sentence, myself included. No, I don't speak for Coach nor any other Christian here, but I tend to think that the majority of those that believe in the Christ really don't care about such things as how old the earth is or how long it really took for all this to come to pass. I look at it this way.
We don't tell our little ones everything, do we? We don't explain physics to babies. I have yet to meet a mother or father (Christian or Atheist) that admits to reading technical manuals to an infant for their bedtime story. Those children, those babies, would not understand a word.
How much more mankind? Certainly we've progressed since the time of Moses (regarded as the author of the first five books of the Old Testament) and while we are still children, Moses and those of his time were even more uneducated than are we. And so we have many of the stories from the Old Testament wherein things were explained in a fashion understandable for the time. If there is a God (and I choose to believe there is and that Jesus is His Son), all will be revealed in the full measure of time and our ability to understand it all.
Science neither adds to nor takes away from my faith. It does add to my life but then so too does my faith albeit in a different way and for different reasons.
Hopefully I have explained myself adequately. If any choose to belittle me for my faith, so be it. They're the ones acting as children.
Be well.
-
Everything perceived as a "benefit" from Christianity can be accomplished without it.
-
(http://images.christianpost.com/full/48616/thomas-jefferson-billboard-backyard-skeptics.jpg)
-
Bringing "religion" into a discussion about common sense. You people are all fucking nuts.
-
Everything perceived as a "benefit" from Christianity can be accomplished without it.
One of the best men I have known in my brief lifetime was an Atheist but before that he was my friend. We agreed to disagree on the matter of faith. I see the concept of "friendship" is foreign to such as you. Allow me to play your role, little boy.
You are an asshole, afraid of what awaits you when none of us really knows what to expect. And why not? We all fear the unknown. Think not, pussy? Get dropped into the middle of the ocean, miles from shore and tread water until you feel something bump your meaty little legs. And now for more of the truth.
You fear that which you know least of all. Yourself.
I suspect that even if you never type it, your primary response to this would be the typical pussified one of that so often written here by others of your type when confronted with something so foreign to you, so inescapably truthful, i.e., "Meltdown!" God, what a feeble individual you are.
Here's one for John.
Fuck your noise. Asshole.
OneMoreRep? Please forgive me this instance of rudeness. I won't say that I couldn't stop myself for that would be a lie. I like to think John (Reeves) is laughing his self silly right now from a better place.
-
why do whales have hip bones
?
-
why do whales have hip bones
?
Why do idiots have brains? Why don't dogs see in color? Why do men have nipples? Why are some people murderers? Why are there midgets? Why are some races smarter while others are faster? Why are some people fat and others are skinny? Why don't dogs and cats live together in harmony? If dolphins are so freaking intelligent how come they don't have iPods? Why can't some bodybuilders train without drugs?
Why? Good question, but you already knew the answer to yours. They likely evolved or in this case, de-evolved back into the ocean because they were too HUGE to walk on land. Why would you ask a question like that other than to make a point everyone already knew? It's not very original of you nor was it clever. So why would you do it?
To reaffirm your belief in evolution. Nothing wrong with that.
-
Why do idiots have brains? Why don't dogs see in color? Why do men have nipples? Why are some people murderers? Why are there midgets? Why are some races smarter while others are faster? Why are some people fat and others are skinny? Why don't dogs and cats live together in harmony? If dolphins are so freaking intelligent how come they don't have iPods? Why can't some bodybuilders train without drugs?
Why? Good question, but you already knew the answer to yours. They likely evolved or in this case, de-evolved back into the ocean because they were too HUGE to walk on land. Why would you ask a question like that other than to make a point everyone already knew? It's not very original of you nor was it clever. So why would you do it?
To reaffirm your belief in evolution. Nothing wrong with that.
calm down broad and change your ob
-
calm down broad and change your ob
Try to be as intelligent as I know you are.
-
Try to be as intelligent as I know you are.
You've just proven yourself to be clueless.
-
Hi, not the Coach but a Christian all the same so if I may?
I have no clue how old the earth is but I would imagine it is far older than 6,000 years. It's likely that this hunk of rock is millions of years old and to be honest I could care less either way. ;D
The mental age of many of the people participating in this thread is likely to be far less than 6,000 years. Or even 12. ;D
Science is great! It neither proves nor disproves the existence of God. It is what it is, i.e., science. You can't make a leap of faith in two jumps but any of us can make a fool of ourselves in a single sentence, myself included. No, I don't speak for Coach nor any other Christian here, but I tend to think that the majority of those that believe in the Christ really don't care about such things as how old the earth is or how long it really took for all this to come to pass. I look at it this way.
We don't tell our little ones everything, do we? We don't explain physics to babies. I have yet to meet a mother or father (Christian or Atheist) that admits to reading technical manuals to an infant for their bedtime story. Those children, those babies, would not understand a word.
How much more mankind? Certainly we've progressed since the time of Moses (regarded as the author of the first five books of the Old Testament) and while we are still children, Moses and those of his time were even more uneducated than are we. And so we have many of the stories from the Old Testament wherein things were explained in a fashion understandable for the time. If there is a God (and I choose to believe there is and that Jesus is His Son), all will be revealed in the full measure of time and our ability to understand it all.
Science neither adds to nor takes away from my faith. It does add to my life but then so too does my faith albeit in a different way and for different reasons.
Hopefully I have explained myself adequately. If any choose to belittle me for my faith, so be it. They're the ones acting as children.
Be well.
I don't really care about your religion... I don't buy into it, but it's your right to believe whatever you want.
That said, if the book is historical as you all say it is and Adam and Eve were the first 2 people on earth, as it says, then the earth must be only 6,000 years old.
However, as you said, you don't believe that it is.
The problem with using religion as a scientific context is that it's been shown to be incorrect in many areas.
If it's wrong about one thing, how can you trust it to be right about anything.
-
why do whales have hip bones
?
Uh, because they are mammals and used to have legs when they were land dwelling wolf-like animals.
Galeniko, you really don`t know any of this stuff?
(http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/images/evograms/whale_evo.jpg)
-
Why do idiots have brains? Why don't dogs see in color? Why do men have nipples? Why are some people murderers? Why are there midgets? Why are some races smarter while others are faster? Why are some people fat and others are skinny? Why don't dogs and cats live together in harmony? If dolphins are so freaking intelligent how come they don't have iPods? Why can't some bodybuilders train without drugs?
Why? Good question, but you already knew the answer to yours. They likely evolved or in this case, de-evolved back into the ocean because they were too HUGE to walk on land. Why would you ask a question like that other than to make a point everyone already knew? It's not very original of you nor was it clever. So why would you do it?
To reaffirm your belief in evolution. Nothing wrong with that.
Dogs do see in color.
-
Why do idiots have brains? Why don't dogs see in color? Why do men have nipples? Why are some people murderers? Why are there midgets? Why are some races smarter while others are faster? Why are some people fat and others are skinny? Why don't dogs and cats live together in harmony? If dolphins are so freaking intelligent how come they don't have iPods? Why can't some bodybuilders train without drugs?
Why? Good question, but you already knew the answer to yours. They likely evolved or in this case, de-evolved back into the ocean because they were too HUGE to walk on land. Why would you ask a question like that other than to make a point everyone already knew? It's not very original of you nor was it clever. So why would you do it?
To reaffirm your belief in evolution. Nothing wrong with that.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/200810/can-dogs-see-colors
Jay Neitz at the University of California, Santa Barbara, tested the color vision of dogs. For many test trials, dogs were shown three light panels in a row--two of the panels were the same color, while the third was different. The dogs' task was to find the one that was different and to press that panel. If the dog was correct, he was rewarded with a treat that the computer delivered to the cup below that panel.
Neitz confirmed that dogs actually do see color
(http://images.sussexpublishers.netdna-cdn.com/article-inline-half/blogs/1987/2008/10/2111-75460.png)
-
why do whales have hip bones
?
All the drugs have fucked up your brain ::)
-
Hope this helps.
-
Fuck this debate. There is no debate. A debate with a creationist does nothing but serve to legitimize their asinine beliefs.
Never argue with a retard.
-
http://debatelive.org/
Does Nye explain why Africans and Arabs are such pure fucking scum? Or is there a better explanation in the bible?
-
Fuck this debate. There is no debate. A debate with a creationist does nothing but serve to legitimize their asinine beliefs.
Never argue with a retard.
X2
You never see a "debate" between a holocaust denier and a ww2 historian.
-
Why are GOD botherers EVIL ????????
-
I don't really care about your religion... I don't buy into it, but it's your right to believe whatever you want.
That said, if the book is historical as you all say it is and Adam and Eve were the first 2 people on earth, as it says, then the earth must be only 6,000 years old.
However, as you said, you don't believe that it is.
The problem with using religion as a scientific context is that it's been shown to be incorrect in many areas.
If it's wrong about one thing, how can you trust it to be right about anything.
Despite what you think people believe, there is nothing in the bible that indicates the age of the earth. Hope this helps.
-
Despite what you think people believe, there is nothing in the bible that indicates the age of the earth. Hope this helps.
As usual when your crap gets you in to a corner you plead the fifth ::) every fucking time you do that.
-
Not wanting to debate here (as it's getbig.com = humour not sorting the universe) but I always wondered why, when we have discovered 1000's of intact skeletons of dinosaurs, whales, monkeys, fish, wolves etc etc but never a SINGLE skeleton of the 'halfway phase' of these creatures while they were supposedly evolved?
Yes, the odd mishaped skull, or toe bone has been found, and then an entire artwork/sculpture has been fabricated around that single bone (lol) for display in scientific museums (haha) - but why never a full skeleton when supposedly there are billions of dead semi evolved apes for example.
This question is not in the context of religion or age of the earth, just something that has always bothered me - even if I subscribed to the Theory of Evolution, I would still wonder this?
-
Not wanting to debate here (as it's getbig.com = humour not sorting the universe) but I always wondered why, when we have discovered 1000's of intact skeletons of dinosaurs, whales, monkeys, fish, wolves etc etc but never a SINGLE skeleton of the 'halfway phase' of these creatures while they were supposedly evolved?
Yes, the odd mishaped skull, or toe bone has been found, and then an entire artwork/sculpture has been fabricated around that single bone (lol) for display in scientific museums (haha) - but why never a full skeleton when supposedly there are billions of dead semi evolved apes for example.
This question is not in the context of religion or age of the earth, just something that has always bothered me - even if I subscribed to the Theory of Evolution, I would still wonder this?
PLS don't talk about things that make evolution look like an "unproven, unlikely theory"
-
Not wanting to debate here (as it's getbig.com = humour not sorting the universe) but I always wondered why, when we have discovered 1000's of intact skeletons of dinosaurs, whales, monkeys, fish, wolves etc etc but never a SINGLE skeleton of the 'halfway phase' of these creatures while they were supposedly evolved?
Yes, the odd mishaped skull, or toe bone has been found, and then an entire artwork/sculpture has been fabricated around that single bone (lol) for display in scientific museums (haha) - but why never a full skeleton when supposedly there are billions of dead semi evolved apes for example.
This question is not in the context of religion or age of the earth, just something that has always bothered me - even if I subscribed to the Theory of Evolution, I would still wonder this?
Humans were seeded here by another civilization.
We have some DNA that is alien to this planet, 233 genes precisely.
-
Not wanting to debate here (as it's getbig.com = humour not sorting the universe) but I always wondered why, when we have discovered 1000's of intact skeletons of dinosaurs, whales, monkeys, fish, wolves etc etc but never a SINGLE skeleton of the 'halfway phase' of these creatures while they were supposedly evolved?
Yes, the odd mishaped skull, or toe bone has been found, and then an entire artwork/sculpture has been fabricated around that single bone (lol) for display in scientific museums (haha) - but why never a full skeleton when supposedly there are billions of dead semi evolved apes for example.
This question is not in the context of religion or age of the earth, just something that has always bothered me - even if I subscribed to the Theory of Evolution, I would still wonder this?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Here you have all answers: http://www.trueorigin.org
-
You have no idea what you are talking about. Here you have all answers: http://www.trueorigin.org
Thanks, looks very boring.
-
Thanks, looks very boring.
Ignorance is a choice.
-
Thanks, looks very boring.
The truth often is. Perhaps that's part of the motivation to believe in fairy tales and mythology, it's more exciting. Kind if like believing in Santa is more fun then the reality that there isn't a kindly grandpa dressed in a red suit destined to fulfill the material wishes of children everywhere once a year.
-
Saying the earth is 6,000 years old, proves how dumb some people are. It's not even possible given what we know
Ancient Egypt is a 5,000+ year old civilization in itself.
Don't forget about T-Rex. They came before the Egyptians ;)
-
Saying the earth is 6,000 years old, proves how dumb some people are. It's not even possible given what we know
Ancient Egypt is a 5,000+ year old civilization in itself.
Don't forget about T-Rex. They came before the Egyptians ;)
Come on Shizzo, I know you're a stupic drunk but surely you can use reason here.
"given what we know" I've read papers, listened to debate after debate from the best creationists and evolutionists over the last 10 years and NOT ONE has been able to "know" how old even a single fossil is, when it's over a few thousand years old. Carbon dating is theoretical beyond a few thousand years.
So you don't KNOW anything bro.
-
Come on Shizzo, I know you're a stupic drunk but surely you can use reason here.
"given what we know" I've read papers, listened to debate after debate from the best creationists and evolutionists over the last 10 years and NOT ONE has been able to "know" how old even a single fossil is, when it's over a few thousand years old. Carbon dating is theoretical beyond a few thousand years.
So you don't KNOW anything bro.
Nice troll brah. I would think written accounts of ancient civilizations would have commented on living alongside dinosaurs. Places like Rome are even 2,500+ years old.
It's common sense. There are trees that are thousands of years old. It takes forever for geological formations such as the Grand Canyon or the Rocky mountains to form.
It is impossible for it to be only 6,000 years old.
-
Jesus once warned: “Whosoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be in danger of the hell of fire” (Mt. 5:22). And yet elsewhere, the Lord, in addressing the scribes and Pharisees, declared: “You fools …” (23:17).
While the superficial student might see a conflict here, actually, there is none; the respective passages are addressing different matters.
In the earlier context, Christ is condemning the impulsive, insulting use of hateful epithets for the purpose of venting one’s personal hostility. “Fool” (Greek, more) may be designed to reflect upon the character of an adversary, in the sense of: “You scoundrel!” (Bruce, 107).
On the other hand, the word “fool” (or a kindred term, e.g., “foolish”) may be employed calmly and objectively to describe someone who is acting in a senseless, stupid fashion. To certain misguided Christians, who were being seduced away from Christ towards the Mosaic regime, Paul could say: “O foolish Galatians” (Gal. 3:1). J. B. Phillips rendered the phrase: “O you dear idiots of Galatia” (393).
It makes for a fascinating study to explore the sort of person who is denominated as a “fool” in Scripture. Let us consider but one example — that of the atheist.
A thousand years before the birth of Jesus, the poet-king of Israel wrote: “The fool hath said in his heart, there is no God” (Psa. 14:1). The Hebrew term for “fool” is nabal, which signifies a “senseless” person. Especially is the word used of one who has “no perception of ethical and religious claims” (Brown, et al., 614).
In the Greek version of the Old Testament, the word rendered “fool” is aphron, literally, “mindless.” It represents “the lack of common sense perception of the reality of things natural and spiritual” (Vos, 44).
In the passage just cited, the “fool” denies the existence of God (cf. 53:2); elsewhere in the same book the term describes one who insults his or her Creator continually (74:22). The prophet Isaiah employed the word of the individual who stands in contrast to a noble-minded person (32:5). Why is the one who affirms — “There is no God!” — a fool? There are many factors.
First, in defiance of one of the most elementary principles of logic, the atheist suggests that “something” (e.g., the Universe) came from “nothing;” that zero plus zero equals something greater than zero.
Victor Stenger, an atheistic professor at the University of Hawaii, admits that “everyday experience and common sense” supports the concept that something cannot come from nothing. Nevertheless, he suggests that “common sense is often wrong, and our normal experiences are but a tiny fraction of reality” (26-27). If you want to be an atheist, you must put your “common sense” on the shelf!
Second, atheists contend that the entire Universe, estimated to be 20 billion light years across (the distance light could travel in 20 billion years at the rate of 186,000 miles per second) accidentally derived from a submicroscopic particle of matter. As one writer expresses it: “Astonishingly, scientists now calculate that everything in this vast universe grew out of a region many billions of times smaller than a single proton, one of the atom’s basic particles” (Gore, 705). This is totally nonsensical.
Then consider this fact. Atheism contends that the marvelously ordered Universe, designated as Cosmos by the Greeks because of its intricate design, is merely the result of an ancient explosion (the Big Bang). Does a contractor pile lumber, brick, wire, pipe, etc., on a building site, blast it with dynamite, and expect a fine dwelling to result? Is that the way atheists build their houses? To so argue is to reveal a truly “senseless heart” (cf. Rom. 1:21).
In spite of millions of examples in nature, which suggest that biological life can only derive from a living source, atheists believe that billions of years ago, life was accidentally generated from inorganic materials. Common sense and experimentation argue otherwise, but skeptics are willing to abandon logic and opt for the myth of “spontaneous generation,” because the only other alternative is “special creation.” To atheists that simply is not a possibility. Why? Because the fool, for emotional reasons, has already decided: “There is no God.”
Here’s a puzzle. Atheists believe that blind, unintelligent forces of nature, via genetic mutations and the process of natural selection, produced the myriads of delightful creatures that inhabit Earth’s environment. But the skeptic can clearly see that a simple pair of pliers, with only four components, must have been designed by an intelligent being.
Still he argues that the human body, with its 100 trillion constituent elements (cells), organized into ten magnificent systems, is merely the result of a marriage between Mother Nature and Father Time. How very stupid such ideology is!
Finally, Atheists believe that from a tiny speck of inorganic, self-created matter, human consciousness and moral sensitivity evolved. That is utterly ludicrous. Can a rock decide to “think”? Can a proton “feel” guilt?
The notion that morality has developed merely as a survival factor (cf. Hayes, 174), is asinine in the extreme. Plants have survived; do they possess a moral code? And what if one decides that he doesn’t care about the “survival” principle? Can he do any “wrong”?
When men refuse to have God in their knowledge, he gives them up to a “reprobate mind,” i.e., one which does not “pass the test” (Rom. 1:28). They are not “intellectuals,” as they fantasize; they are fools.
As G. K. Chesterton once said: “When men cease to believe in God, they do not believe in nothing; they believe in anything!”
-
Nice troll brah. I would think written accounts of ancient civilizations would have commented on living alongside dinosaurs. Places like Rome are even 2,500+ years old.
It's common sense. There are trees that are thousands of years old. It takes forever for geological formations such as the Grand Canyon or the Rocky mountains to form.
It is impossible for it to be only 6,000 years old.
(http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ancient27.jpg)
Utah (150BC / 2164 years ago)
(http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Girifalco-Dinosaur3.jpg)
Greece (550BC / 2564 years ago)
(http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Hongshan-Turquoise-Dragon5-300x254.jpg)
China 2000BC (4000 years ago)
So there's 3 ancient depictions of different dinosaurs, from 3 different continents at 3 different times.
I can post 50 more if you'd like?
-
(http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ancient27.jpg)
Utah (150BC / 2164 years ago)
(http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Girifalco-Dinosaur3.jpg)
Greece (550BC / 2564 years ago)
(http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Hongshan-Turquoise-Dragon5-300x254.jpg)
China 2000BC (4000 years ago)
So there's 3 ancient depictions of different dinosaurs, from 3 different continents at 3 different times.
I can post 50 more if you'd like?
I thought you said we really don't know how old shit is? Besides, I have always thought that humans have lived along side of animals that are now extinct to us. We still live with dinosaurs (crocs, alligators, turtles, sharks, lizards, roaches) We still have giant sea creatures to this day (squid)
The first pic looks like a forgery, although there are still Loch Ness sightings to this day.
Are you implying that Dinosaurs lived earlier then 6,000 years ago?
-
I thought you said we really don't know how old shit is? Besides, I have always thought that humans have lived along side of animals that are now extinct to us. We still live with dinosaurs (crocs, alligators, turtles, sharks, lizards, roaches) We still have giant sea creatures to this day (squid)
The first pic looks like a forgery, although there are still Loch Ness sightings to this day.
Are you implying that Dinosaurs lived earlier then 6,000 years ago?
Lol, obviously we can't accurately carbon date past a few thousand years, but with artifacts there is more evidence to date this. I.e. a vase from a certain chinese dynasty will have specific techniques/patterns/craftmanship so you can almost 100% confirm it is x amount of years old. Problem with skeletons and fossils, is that the scientist dig them up and then ASSUME that that particular layer of earth/rock is x amount of years old, and therefore the bones MUST be the same haha. Take the last major flood or landslide that happened within the last 10 years, and 1000 years from now some scientsists will be digging up remains and saying "Yes this one is 100,000 years old a least, as it's iin this particular layer blah blah" not accounting for the fact that natural disasters can throw the whole spectrum out the window.
I believe that dinosaurs are 6000-6014 years old, along with people and the rest of creation.
-
Lol, obviously we can't accurately carbon date past a few thousand years, but with artifacts there is more evidence to date this. I.e. a vase from a certain chinese dynasty will have specific techniques/patterns/craftmanship so you can almost 100% confirm it is x amount of years old. Problem with skeletons and fossils, is that the scientist dig them up and then ASSUME that that particular layer of earth/rock is x amount of years old, and therefore the bones MUST be the same haha. Take the last major flood or landslide that happened within the last 10 years, and 1000 years from now some scientsists will be digging up remains and saying "Yes this one is 100,000 years old a least, as it's iin this particular layer blah blah" not accounting for the fact that natural disasters can throw the whole spectrum out the window.
I believe that dinosaurs are 6000-6014 years old, along with people and the rest of creation.
;D
-
Fuck this debate. There is no debate. A debate with a creationist does nothing but serve to legitimize their asinine beliefs.
Never argue with a retard.
qft
-
Fuck this debate. There is no debate. A debate with a creationist does nothing but serve to legitimize their asinine beliefs.
Never argue with a retard.
Oh, I see. You think "science" as you think you know it, can answer everything?
-
Oh, I see. You think "science" as you think you know it, can answer everything?
Never said that Joe. Are you illiterate?
-
The Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate Was a Nightmare for Science
In a much-hyped showdown, “the Science Guy” tried to defend evolution against creationist Ken Ham, and proved how slick science-deniers can be. How did the guy who’s right go so wrong?
On many mornings, I wake up and think, “You know what this country needs? More culture war.” As I scramble up a couple eggs, I find myself wishing—fervently wishing—that we could spend more time reducing substantive issues to mere spectacle. Later, as I scrub the pan, I’ll fantasize about how those very spectacles might even funnel money toward some of the country’s most politicized religious groups.
Fortunately, Bill “the Science Guy” Nye has heard my wish—which, really, is the wish of a nation. Why else would he have traveled to Kentucky this week in order to debate Ken Ham, the young-earth creationist founder of Answers in Genesis, about the origins of the world?
Actually, there are two other reasons that Nye might have done so, and I’ve given both possibilities a great deal of thought in the past few days. The first is that Nye, for all his bow-tied charm, is at heart a publicity-hungry cynic, eager to reestablish the national reputation he once had as the host of a PBS show. When his stint on Dancing With the Stars ended quickly, Nye turned to the only other channel that could launch him back to national attention: a sensationalized debate, replete with the media buzz that he craves.
Possibility number two is that Nye is clueless—that, for all his skill as a science communicator, Nye has less political acumen than your average wombat.
After watching the debate, I’m leaning toward that second possibility. Last night, it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.
It was like watching the Broncos play the Seahawks. Nye never had a chance. Ham won this debate months ago, when Nye agreed to participate. By last Friday, when I spoke with Ham, Nye hadn’t even arrived in Kentucky, but Ham was already basking in the glow of victory (Nye didn’t respond to my request for comment). “The response,” Ham told me, “has been absolutely phenomenal.” He talked about the media attention. He talked about how professional the stage was going to look. He talked more about the media attention. “It’s going to create a lot of discussion. I think that’s very healthy,” said Ham, in reference to the raging scientific debate over whether evolution actually happened. “In many ways aggressive atheists have shut down that discussion.” But, Ham continued, “the public wants to hear about” origins. Fortunately, Nye has given them that chance.
When I asked whether the debate would bring any financial perks, Ham hastened to talk me down. “The ticket sales won’t come to half the cost of the debate,” he explained. The publicity, though, may be priceless. The last time Ham gained national media attention, it was for his failure to raise enough money to build the enormous Noah’s Ark theme park he’s been planning as an accompaniment to his slick creation museum. This time, he gallops onto the national stage as defender of the faith—a stance that may open some pocketbooks. Perhaps Ham will dedicate a plank in the replica ark to his bowtied benefactor.
It was like watching the Broncos play the Seahawks. Nye never had a chance.
Ham had nothing to lose. When you exist on the cultural fringe and make your living by antagonizing established authority, there’s no form of media attention you don’t love. All Ham had to do was sit still for two-and-a-half hours, sound vaguely professional, and pander occasionally to his base. Sure, if you listened closely, what Ham was saying made absolutely no scientific sense. But debate is a format of impressions, not facts. Ham sounded like a reasonable human being, loosely speaking, and that’s what mattered.
Nye, meanwhile, spent three-quarters of the debate sounding like a clueless geek, even if his points were scientifically valid. He went on strange asides and make awkward appeals to the obviously hostile audience, which he at one point referred to as “my Kentucky friends.” He spent 10 minutes delivering a dry lecture on geological sediments and biogeography, using the kind of PowerPoint slides that a high school junior might make for his AP Biology class. Ham, seemingly aware that debate is a form of entertainment, and that entertainment thrives on human stories, presented testimonial videos from engineers and biology PhDs who hold creationist views. Nye, on the other hand, spent a lot of time talking about the “billions of people” who “are religious, and who accept science and embrace it”—because God knows that Americans love nothing more than conforming to the religious opinions of foreign nations.
In one all-too-typical two-minute span, Nye started out by explaining how evolutionary biologists make predictions. He then veered into the sexual habits of minnows, suddenly jumped to the number of bacteria in the human gut, discussed the amount of energy required for roses to produce fruit, told the story about how his first cousin (once removed) died from the flu, and then bounced back to the horny minnows, with reference to certain fish diseases. All of this talk about sex and germs will make sense if you’re familiar with the Red Queen hypothesis. If you’re not, good luck. Five topics in two minutes, with extensive prior knowledge assumed: science communication in action!
It was around this point that I began drinking.
Ham’s argument, essentially, was that there are two kinds of science—observational, concerned-only-with-what-we-can-touch-and-see science, on which, Ham said, we all happily agree; and historical science, on which we don’t. This is bullshit, of course. We can use evidence from the present to extrapolate about the past. But it’s straightforward, logical-sounding bullshit, which means that it makes for good debate material.
Nye went into the debate, he says, in order to protect and promote science education in the United States. His most important argument was that people like Ham are ruining America’s global competitiveness by weakening science education. It’s a shame that Nye pushed that point so strongly, because it was the one thing he said all night for which he did not have any actual evidence. Creationism in public schools may be a social disaster, but it’s hard to prove that it’s a financial one, too. And Ham was ready. He had a recorded statement in which Raymond Damadian, who helped invent MRI, expressed his firm belief that the world was created in six days, six thousand years ago, as outlined in Genesis. Ham’s message was clear—and accurate: you can be a creationist and invent economically useful stuff.
There are those who will claim a victory for Nye. He did have his moments. Near the end of the debate, Nye found his footing, speaking passionately about the joys of scientific discovery. Doing so, he highlighted the degree to which creationism is a decidedly incurious, insular worldview. Ham was at a loss for words only once during the whole debate, when an audience member asked what it would take for him to change his mind. By contrast, Nye seemed most alive when talking about all the things that he couldn’t explain. The Ham-leaning audience was skeptical. But for anyone who lives in that uncomfortable middle, who engages with the uncertainty and wonder of a universe they don’t understand; and for anyone who doesn’t have a rigid dogma to fall back on, those moments couldn’t help but make Nye seem like a true champion of the common moderate.
But it was too late. Months too late. You don’t need to be Sun Tzu to realize that, when it comes to guys like Ken Ham, you can’t really win. If you refuse to debate them, they claim to be censored. If you agree to debate them, you give them a public platform on which to argue that, yep, they’re being censored. Better not to engage at all, at least directly. Nye may be the last to understand a point that seems to be circulating more widely these days: creationism is a political issue, not a scientific one, and throwing around scientific facts won’t dissuade those who don’t accept scientific authority in the first place.
When I spoke with Ham last week, he happily compared the debate to a football or baseball game. This brings up another, slightly subtler point. Simply put, thanks to the existence of antagonists like Nye, creationism is both profitable and, by all appearances, kind of fun. And profitable, fun activities tend to stick around, no matter what their moral hazards. Just ask anyone who enjoys watching football, concussions be damned.
Near the end of his opening statement, Ham explained that when it comes to the evolution debate, “the battle is really about authority.” Ham might not understand the science, but he gets the politics. A couple minutes later, Nye began his reply on a civil note: “Mr. Ham,” said Nye. “I learned something.”
Let’s hope so.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/the-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-was-a-nightmare-for-science.html
-
Joe is reaching hard to find some people who think that Ham won the debate.
It's really funny.
<3 you bro... no homo.
-
There is no limit to ignorance and Getbiggers prove that statement abundantly. Next thing they will claim that free weights are superior to machines!
-
Oh, I see. You think "science" as you think you know it, can answer everything?
Nothing against you personally, you are a pioneer after all... But you've lost it.
-
I thought you said we really don't know how old shit is? Besides, I have always thought that humans have lived along side of animals that are now extinct to us. We still live with dinosaurs (crocs, alligators, turtles, sharks, lizards, roaches) We still have giant sea creatures to this day (squid)
The first pic looks like a forgery, although there are still Loch Ness sightings to this day.
Are you implying that Dinosaurs lived earlier then 6,000 years ago?
Awesome, bro.
-
The Bill Nye-Ken Ham Debate Was a Nightmare for Science
In a much-hyped showdown, “the Science Guy” tried to defend evolution against creationist Ken Ham, and proved how slick science-deniers can be. How did the guy who’s right go so wrong?
On many mornings, I wake up and think, “You know what this country needs? More culture war.” As I scramble up a couple eggs, I find myself wishing—fervently wishing—that we could spend more time reducing substantive issues to mere spectacle. Later, as I scrub the pan, I’ll fantasize about how those very spectacles might even funnel money toward some of the country’s most politicized religious groups.
Fortunately, Bill “the Science Guy” Nye has heard my wish—which, really, is the wish of a nation. Why else would he have traveled to Kentucky this week in order to debate Ken Ham, the young-earth creationist founder of Answers in Genesis, about the origins of the world?
Actually, there are two other reasons that Nye might have done so, and I’ve given both possibilities a great deal of thought in the past few days. The first is that Nye, for all his bow-tied charm, is at heart a publicity-hungry cynic, eager to reestablish the national reputation he once had as the host of a PBS show. When his stint on Dancing With the Stars ended quickly, Nye turned to the only other channel that could launch him back to national attention: a sensationalized debate, replete with the media buzz that he craves.
Possibility number two is that Nye is clueless—that, for all his skill as a science communicator, Nye has less political acumen than your average wombat.
After watching the debate, I’m leaning toward that second possibility. Last night, it was easy to pick out the smarter man on the stage. Oddly, it was the same man who was arguing that the earth is 6,000 years old.
It was like watching the Broncos play the Seahawks. Nye never had a chance. Ham won this debate months ago, when Nye agreed to participate. By last Friday, when I spoke with Ham, Nye hadn’t even arrived in Kentucky, but Ham was already basking in the glow of victory (Nye didn’t respond to my request for comment). “The response,” Ham told me, “has been absolutely phenomenal.” He talked about the media attention. He talked about how professional the stage was going to look. He talked more about the media attention. “It’s going to create a lot of discussion. I think that’s very healthy,” said Ham, in reference to the raging scientific debate over whether evolution actually happened. “In many ways aggressive atheists have shut down that discussion.” But, Ham continued, “the public wants to hear about” origins. Fortunately, Nye has given them that chance.
When I asked whether the debate would bring any financial perks, Ham hastened to talk me down. “The ticket sales won’t come to half the cost of the debate,” he explained. The publicity, though, may be priceless. The last time Ham gained national media attention, it was for his failure to raise enough money to build the enormous Noah’s Ark theme park he’s been planning as an accompaniment to his slick creation museum. This time, he gallops onto the national stage as defender of the faith—a stance that may open some pocketbooks. Perhaps Ham will dedicate a plank in the replica ark to his bowtied benefactor.
It was like watching the Broncos play the Seahawks. Nye never had a chance.
Ham had nothing to lose. When you exist on the cultural fringe and make your living by antagonizing established authority, there’s no form of media attention you don’t love. All Ham had to do was sit still for two-and-a-half hours, sound vaguely professional, and pander occasionally to his base. Sure, if you listened closely, what Ham was saying made absolutely no scientific sense. But debate is a format of impressions, not facts. Ham sounded like a reasonable human being, loosely speaking, and that’s what mattered.
Nye, meanwhile, spent three-quarters of the debate sounding like a clueless geek, even if his points were scientifically valid. He went on strange asides and make awkward appeals to the obviously hostile audience, which he at one point referred to as “my Kentucky friends.” He spent 10 minutes delivering a dry lecture on geological sediments and biogeography, using the kind of PowerPoint slides that a high school junior might make for his AP Biology class. Ham, seemingly aware that debate is a form of entertainment, and that entertainment thrives on human stories, presented testimonial videos from engineers and biology PhDs who hold creationist views. Nye, on the other hand, spent a lot of time talking about the “billions of people” who “are religious, and who accept science and embrace it”—because God knows that Americans love nothing more than conforming to the religious opinions of foreign nations.
In one all-too-typical two-minute span, Nye started out by explaining how evolutionary biologists make predictions. He then veered into the sexual habits of minnows, suddenly jumped to the number of bacteria in the human gut, discussed the amount of energy required for roses to produce fruit, told the story about how his first cousin (once removed) died from the flu, and then bounced back to the horny minnows, with reference to certain fish diseases. All of this talk about sex and germs will make sense if you’re familiar with the Red Queen hypothesis. If you’re not, good luck. Five topics in two minutes, with extensive prior knowledge assumed: science communication in action!
It was around this point that I began drinking.
Ham’s argument, essentially, was that there are two kinds of science—observational, concerned-only-with-what-we-can-touch-and-see science, on which, Ham said, we all happily agree; and historical science, on which we don’t. This is bullshit, of course. We can use evidence from the present to extrapolate about the past. But it’s straightforward, logical-sounding bullshit, which means that it makes for good debate material.
Nye went into the debate, he says, in order to protect and promote science education in the United States. His most important argument was that people like Ham are ruining America’s global competitiveness by weakening science education. It’s a shame that Nye pushed that point so strongly, because it was the one thing he said all night for which he did not have any actual evidence. Creationism in public schools may be a social disaster, but it’s hard to prove that it’s a financial one, too. And Ham was ready. He had a recorded statement in which Raymond Damadian, who helped invent MRI, expressed his firm belief that the world was created in six days, six thousand years ago, as outlined in Genesis. Ham’s message was clear—and accurate: you can be a creationist and invent economically useful stuff.
There are those who will claim a victory for Nye. He did have his moments. Near the end of the debate, Nye found his footing, speaking passionately about the joys of scientific discovery. Doing so, he highlighted the degree to which creationism is a decidedly incurious, insular worldview. Ham was at a loss for words only once during the whole debate, when an audience member asked what it would take for him to change his mind. By contrast, Nye seemed most alive when talking about all the things that he couldn’t explain. The Ham-leaning audience was skeptical. But for anyone who lives in that uncomfortable middle, who engages with the uncertainty and wonder of a universe they don’t understand; and for anyone who doesn’t have a rigid dogma to fall back on, those moments couldn’t help but make Nye seem like a true champion of the common moderate.
But it was too late. Months too late. You don’t need to be Sun Tzu to realize that, when it comes to guys like Ken Ham, you can’t really win. If you refuse to debate them, they claim to be censored. If you agree to debate them, you give them a public platform on which to argue that, yep, they’re being censored. Better not to engage at all, at least directly. Nye may be the last to understand a point that seems to be circulating more widely these days: creationism is a political issue, not a scientific one, and throwing around scientific facts won’t dissuade those who don’t accept scientific authority in the first place.
When I spoke with Ham last week, he happily compared the debate to a football or baseball game. This brings up another, slightly subtler point. Simply put, thanks to the existence of antagonists like Nye, creationism is both profitable and, by all appearances, kind of fun. And profitable, fun activities tend to stick around, no matter what their moral hazards. Just ask anyone who enjoys watching football, concussions be damned.
Near the end of his opening statement, Ham explained that when it comes to the evolution debate, “the battle is really about authority.” Ham might not understand the science, but he gets the politics. A couple minutes later, Nye began his reply on a civil note: “Mr. Ham,” said Nye. “I learned something.”
Let’s hope so.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/05/the-bill-nye-ken-ham-debate-was-a-nightmare-for-science.html
Coach so you agree the Ken Ham guy is full of shit like this author is saying? Or is it that you 'agree' with the article purely because it doesn't portray Bill Nye in a good light, even if it doesn't agree with your viewpoint on creationism/evolution? ??? I cannot help but feel the latter, or it maybe that you posted the article without comprehending what it is saying.
I skimmed over the article and I don't agree with the points I came across. The different styles in presentation merely reflects the truthfulness of the viewpoints... Bill Nye didn't need to 'pander to the base', appeal to authority ("This really smart guy believes in evolution, therefore its correct!"), or use other deceptive tactics to make his point. Serious minded people aptly able to tell the truth apart from fiction, regardless of the presentation.
-
I missed the debate! :(
-
.
-
.
-
I missed the debate! :(
???
not an actual quote, stupid argument regardless
-
El Numero Moron posting fake quotes I see.
Is that what its come to?
-
El Numero Moron posting fake quotes I see.
Is that what its come to?
:D
-
.
-
.
-
:D
well lol to be fair, water was there way before temperatures were systemacaly established,lol.
this quote has got to be fake ;D
-
haha lol those fake quotes are hilarious, post some more ;D
-
haha lol those fake quotes are hilarious, post some more ;D
They are too funny :D
-
.
-
First, in defiance of one of the most elementary principles of logic, the atheist suggests that “something” (e.g., the Universe) came from “nothing;” that zero plus zero equals something greater than zero.
Victor Stenger, an atheistic professor at the University of Hawaii, admits that “everyday experience and common sense” supports the concept that something cannot come from nothing. Nevertheless, he suggests that “common sense is often wrong, and our normal experiences are but a tiny fraction of reality” (26-27). If you want to be an atheist, you must put your “common sense” on the shelf!
Second, atheists contend that the entire Universe, estimated to be 20 billion light years across (the distance light could travel in 20 billion years at the rate of 186,000 miles per second) accidentally derived from a submicroscopic particle of matter. As one writer expresses it: “Astonishingly, scientists now calculate that everything in this vast universe grew out of a region many billions of times smaller than a single proton, one of the atom’s basic particles” (Gore, 705). This is totally nonsensical.
Then consider this fact. Atheism contends that the marvelously ordered Universe, designated as Cosmos by the Greeks because of its intricate design, is merely the result of an ancient explosion (the Big Bang). Does a contractor pile lumber, brick, wire, pipe, etc., on a building site, blast it with dynamite, and expect a fine dwelling to result? Is that the way atheists build their houses? To so argue is to reveal a truly “senseless heart” (cf. Rom. 1:21).
LOL do you Nutters even listen to yourselves. Mocking atheists who suggest something came from nothing when that's exactly what God botherers say about God. You ask them where God came from and he miraculously just came from nothing, or they suggest the even more ridiculous, God is eternal. Just is, therefore never created, never to be destroyed.
And you offer a straw man argument, you misrepresent the atheists argument, he doesn't suggest that nothing came from nothing, he suggests that the Universe came from an infinitely dense singularity.
On the quantum level, matter appearing from nothing is exactly what happens. And since we know the Universe was once incredibly small, matter appearing from noting doesn't violate the LAWS of NATURE !!!
Also, "The laws of physics demand something called negative energy, To get your head around this crude but crucial concept, let me draw an analogy. Imagine a man wants to build a hill on a flat part of land. The hill will represent the Universe. To make this hill, he digs a hole in the ground, and uses that soil to build the hill. But he isn't only making a hill, he is also making a hole. In effect a negative version of the hill. The stuff that was in the hole has know become the hill. So it all balances out. This is the principle behind what happened right at the beginning of the Universe. When the Big Bang produced a vast amount of positive energy, it simultaneously produced the same amount of negative energy. In this way the positive and the negative all add up to ZERO. Always!. It's another law of nature. So where is all this negative energy today? It's in space. According to the laws of nature concerning gravity and motion, space itself is a vast store of negative energy, enough to ensure that everything adds up to zero. So this means if the Universe adds up to nothing, you don't need a God to create it. The Ultimate free lunch."
-
LOL do you Nutters even listen to yourselves. Mocking atheists who suggest something came from nothing when that's exactly what God botherers say about God. You ask them where God came from and he miraculously just came from nothing, or they suggest the even more ridiculous, God is eternal. Just is, therefore never created, never to be destroyed.
And you offer a straw man argument, you misrepresent the atheists argument, he doesn't suggest that nothing came from nothing, he suggests that the Universe came from an infinitely dense singularity.
On the quantum level, matter appearing from nothing is exactly what happens. And since we know the Universe was once incredibly small, matter appearing from noting doesn't violate the LAWS of NATURE !!!
Also, "The laws of physics demand something called negative energy, To get your head around this crude but crucial concept, let me draw an analogy. Imagine a man wants to build a hill on a flat part of land. The hill will represent the Universe. To make this hill, he digs a hole in the ground, and uses that soil to build the hill. But he isn't only making a hill, he is also making a hole. In effect a negative version of the hill. The stuff that was in the hole has know become the hill. So it all balances out. This is the principle behind what happened right at the beginning of the Universe. When the Big Bang produced a vast amount of positive energy, it simultaneously produced the same amount of negative energy. In this way the positive and the negative all add up to ZERO. Always!. It's another law of nature. So where is all this negative energy today? It's in space. According to the laws of nature concerning gravity and motion, space itself is a vast store of negative energy, enough to ensure that everything adds up to zero. So this means if the Universe adds up to nothing, you don't need a God to create it. The Ultimate free lunch."
You are trying to use logic with people that thinks that the flintstones was a documentury. You will fail.
-
You are trying to use logic with people that thinks that the flintstones was a documentury. You will fail.
Not the most eloquent, but true all the same.