Story Comments
Posted by: Dionys 1 year, 2 months ago
This page is a permanent archive of the comment below and its replies.
To view this comment in the context of the full discussion for the story, use this link.
-
88%
Dionys1 year, 2 months ago
-
buckncindykillComment removed: Spam
-
-
-
-
-
80%
StevieGee1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What does a line item veto have to do with dinosaurs? We have a Vice Presidential nominee who doesn't believe in science. Who believes that the world is 6000 years old and flat and the center of the universe and coming to an end in 2012. Protoham had nothing to say about that so he starts to spew drivel about line item vetoes? Typical.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
BronxBomberComment removed: Retracted by user
-
-
-
-
-
17%
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, Dionys. Are you saying Muslims DON'T believe humans existed with Dinos, and that Muslims agree with evolutionists, Allah waited billions of years to produce humans to do five times a day, every day, of butt in the air? Are you SURE about that, O "I'm not a Muslim"?
Reply-
67%
mark-stevens1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
And Christians praying to a cross, a tool that represents the way the Romans executed criminals... by the way it took God seven days to create a universe that is 13 billion light years in size, did he have to make it that big... maybe if half that size could have been done in a couple of days... what was a day back than in the beginning
Reply-
-
-
89%
Wolfie20071 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You are talking about Catholics not Christians. They also pray to statues.
Reply
Imagine, your hate is derived from ignorance!"
What?? Are you saying Catholics are not Christians? Ignorance is ignorance no matter where it derived from. You need a good check up.-
-
0%
TruthDetector1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So many responses. I don't know where to post this. What does Catholicism have to with Christianity? Someone tell me how you have all been led to believe that they are the same? I have nothing against the people themselves who follow the Catholic Church. But that Church could not be further away from Christ and his teachings, and even the Old Testament. Does not one person speak with knowledge of which they are speaking? Liberalism, it constantly amazes me. Once again, what does the teachings of the Catholic Church have to do with Jesus, except using his name to promote their agenda?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
86%
djn3nunez31 year, 2 months ago
-
40%
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
-
60%
Dionys1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"It's just that Dionys is making fun of Palin for believing people existed with dinos. Being that Dionys is a Muslim, I was asking him if Muslims DON'T believe like Palin."
Reply
I wasn't making fun of her. I was criticizing her for holding dogmatic beliefs with no foundation in fact and for being a literalist interpreter of the Bible, which is impossible when one actually looks at the conflicts of fact within the Bible.
Plus I'm not a Muslim and I don't really know what the majority of Muslims believe regarding Evolution / Creationism. I do know that the majority of them aren't young-earthers, however. Just like the majority of Christians aren't. Thank God.-
33%
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I wasn't making fun of her. I was criticizing her for holding dogmatic beliefs with no foundation in fact and for being a literalist interpreter of the Bible, which is impossible when one actually looks at the conflicts of fact within the Bible."
Reply
Mutainia: NOT making fun of her, just saying "Well that would be par for the course considering her young-earth beliefs, extremist 'evangelical' stances and insane lack of education and knowledge." In otherwords, you're just calling her and young-earthers "insane". Ok.
"Plus I'm not a Muslim"
Mutainia: RIIIIGHT. :)
"and I don't really know what the majority of Muslims believe regarding Evolution / Creationism. I do know that the majority of them aren't young-earthers, however."
Mutainia: What is it, O "I'm not a Muslim? "don't really know what the majority of Muslims believe regarding Evolution/Creation", or, KNOWING that "the majority of them aren't young earthers..."? Which is it?
"Just like the majority of Christians aren't. Thank God."
Mutainia: How do you know? By the way, what's so horrible for believing in a young earth? Why 'Thank God" to believe there is evolution instead of what the Bible infers?-
50%
hamy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You should really look at why this makes you so angry that you have to pour over someone's words to try and find things to argue over. It saddens me to think that you are more concerned with someone else's religion who isn't running for political office so harshly when the woman who would be second in command according to your preferences believes that christian doctrine should be taught in publicly funded schools. Someone who continuously has cut funding for unwed mothers and doesn't believe that a woman should have rights over her own body. Someone who continues to push for "Abstinence only" programs in school when they have not only been proven not to work, but her OWN DAUGHTER is pregnant at 17.
Reply
That record shows a lack of judgement. It shows a lack of world view. And the definition of crazy is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. By her pushing her abstinence only program again and again and expecting that, unlike her own daughter, other kids won't get pregnant, she is truly insane.
-
-
29%
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
ROTFLMAO
Reply
You have absolutely no understanding of what Christians believe. The fact that atheists believe evolution has all the answers is where your head is I guess.
There is no effective way to date material using carbon or other isotopes. The same mammoth had way different date for the front and the rear. One speciman was given a date of 500,000 years ago plus or minus 500,000. A living seal was dated 60,000 years ago.
There are many problems dating the different layers. The evolutionists use a tautology. That layer is this old because of the bones in it. Those bones are that old because they are in that layer.
Then there is the problem that some of the layers are in a different order in different places. Another problem is that petrified trees have been found going through several layers.
Evolutionists always ignore the problems they can't answer.
It is not as simple as you try to make it seem.-
83%
Coatl1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"You're wrong in oh so many ways."
Reply
If you don't even understand the physics behind carbon dating and it's limits, I can't even start arguing with you. I just don't know where to start.
"Evolutionists always ignore the problems they can't answer."
All are already explained, try reading something other than Hovind.
Ok, for the sake of the debate:
"That layer is this old because of the bones in it. Those bones are that old because they are in that layer."
This is just another lie.
"The same mammoth had way different date for the front and the rear."
If this is one of Hovind's claim, this is a lie, since the paper Hovind quotes specifically says they're 2 different animals. Go find the source and read it! If it's not then I would need the source of that claim.
"A living seal was dated 60,000 years ago."
The short explanation of this is, carbon dating doesn't work on sea organisms, nor animals that eat seafood, why? Because marine animals doesn't get their carbon from the air.
"Then there is the problem that some of the layers are in a different order in different places."
Something that geologist solved in the 19th century.
"Another problem is that petrified trees have been found going through several layers."
Rapid burrial is responsable for this, and this is one of the best evidences aganist Young Earth Creationism, if this trees were caused of a single world wide flood, how come that they're the exception and not the rule?
-
-
-
100%
djn3nunez31 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It's just that Dionys is making fun of Palin for believing people existed with dinos
Reply
I think he was criticizing believing our planet was created 6000 years ago. Anyone who professes that belief is opening themselves up for critisism.
I don't believe Dionys is a Muslim-
-
-
-
50%
djn3nunez31 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You probably don't believe he's a Muslim because you've never been critical of Islam with him.
Reply
Islam is the same basic belief as Christianity. God and all the angels in Heaven versus the Devil and all the demons in Hell. I don't believe in either God or the Devil. I feel that the religionist are the cause of most of the world problems.
Is not believing in Allah or that mohamand was not in anyway a profit being critical of Islam?-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 1 month ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Islam is the same basic belief as Christianity. God and all the angels in Heaven versus the Devil and all the demons in Hell. I don't believe in either God or the Devil. I feel that the religionist are the cause of most of the world problems."
Reply
Mut: The thing is, though, a Christian isn't ordered by his God to carve your atheistic head off for not accepting Christ as Lord and Savior. GOD saves the "fun" for Himself. Allah, for some reason, wants to put blood on the hands of His/Their/It's followers.
"Is not believing in Allah or that mohamand was not in anyway a profit being critical of Islam?"
Mut: Critical like a dull knife at your throat, yes.
-
-
-
-
-
-
60%
Dionys1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Hey, Dionys. Are you saying Muslims DON'T believe humans existed with Dinos, and that Muslims agree with evolutionists, Allah waited billions of years to produce humans to do five times a day, every day, of butt in the air? Are you SURE about that, O "I'm not a Muslim"?"
Reply
Who said anything about Muslims?
Even most Christians agree with evolutionists.-
17%
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Who said anything about Muslims?"
Reply
Mutainia: No one. But, even though you said that you aren't a Muslim, everything about you makes me think that you are. And, since you were making fun of Palin for believing people existed with dinosaurs, it forced me to ask you if Muslims believe people existed with dinos like a LOT of Christians believe, rather than your saying "even most Christians agree with evolutionists". As a matter of fact, most Christians DON'T believe with evolutionists. That is a lie. MOST Christians believe the Genesis account, OR, they aren't really Christians. A Christian is supposed to believe what Moses taught, even if it Moses taught stoning and a reality that goes counter to the notion of the earth being billions of years old.-
83%
willottica1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"As a matter of fact, most Christians DON'T believe with evolutionists. That is a lie."
Reply
I was taught evolution in a Catholic school with Catholic teachers. Very few Canadian Christians believe that Genesis is a literal account, it is only (so far as I know) recently, that the growing movement towards scientific ignorance has created so many literalist Christians.
Btw, a CHRISTian is supposed to believe what JESUS CHRIST taught. (You may want to look into the roots of the words. You may also want to see how frequently Jesus used parables to present his lessons, a trick he MAY have learned from his Father in the writing of the Old Testament... Just some food for thought.)-
25%
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You were taught evolution in a Catholic school? I guess you believe what you were taught? You say a CHRISTian is supposed to believe what JESUS CHRIST taught. Are you saying that Jesus preached evolution through parables? If not, what does Jesus using parables have to do with Christians believing in evolution or not? Just wondering.
Reply-
83%
willottica1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, I was taught evolution in a Catholic school... and it made sense.
Reply
What does Jesus using parables have to do with literal interpretations of the Bible?
Well, Jesus words were often metaphors. It's possible then that his Father also used metaphors, and therefore not everything in the Bible must be literal truth, even it is the Word of God.
Jesus didn't teach evolution through parables, believing in his teachings and example does not preclude believing in anything else. But as a Christian, I don't have to believe what Moses taught, beyond the ten commandments.
Have you ever wondered why they call them the Ten Commandments? And yet Leviticus goes on to list hundreds upon hundreds of laws "given at the same time"? It's almost as though there was a team of lawyers crafting their own interpretations of 10 very simple, very basic, laws. Stick to the 10 and the 2.-
25%
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So, you believe in the Bible, you just believe it's a book of symbolism and metaphor, like the Quran saying the sun "runneth to a RESTing place", or, the Hadith saying the sun "has to ask permission of Allah to rise again" after "prostrating under the throne of Allah", true? THAT kind of metaphor? If so, how much do you believe the Bible is to be taken literally, or, to be taken like the Quran and Hadith?
Reply-
86%
willottica1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not sure about the Bible. I don't believe that it is entirely a fabrication, and I know that it is not entirely literally true.
Reply
I believe it has a lot of important lessons contained within. I look to the 4 Gospels as my primary moral guide. Whether Jesus actually existed as described, the actions and teachings accredited to him make him a valuable role model, and if one were to live by that example, one would be a credit to society.-
-
-
-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hardly. We can see all of the components that make up a primitive cell being formed naturally today, it's not that much a stretch to realize all those pieces could, and did come together as naturally as each component forms.
Reply
No matter how well we understand the process of life, even when (and if) we reach the point of creating actual life in the lab and when (and if) we discover and compare extra terrestrial life we still won't know the exact means life began on Earth-so people will always be free to insert magic into the process if they wish.-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I've talked with atheists, who claim to be scientists. They really seem to get excited over self replicating molecules, but, if you talk about how jostling them in vents, or, having them resting on special ancient sea floors that no longer exist will add a code TO those molecules to the point where a reverse disintegration will take place, and, a "simple" cell forms, then they start showing their spiritual side that is loaded with faith. Atheists LOVE to talk DNA, NOT the instructions they contain that would make life. Instead, they say things like "when (and if) we reach the point of creating actual life in the lab". In otherwords, it's IF we can do something that could ONLY come about through accident, meaning, accident is smarter than a lab scientist.
Reply-
Neutral
smithichie1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Accident? Who said that? I suspect life begins where the conditions are favorable for it, no more accidental than liquid water. It's no accident there is no liquid water on the moon, conditions aren't right for it.
Reply
Science hasn't made any stars or recreated plate tectonics but I see no reason to insert magic into either process, the same goes for the origin of life on Earth. Magic has never once been verified in any way, shape or form and to insert such as the cause of ANYTHING is what takes faith. Natural processes on the hand are obervable and verifiable, to assume natural processes is not a leap of faith.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
80%
Tangent0011 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"That is a lie. MOST Christians believe the Genesis account, OR, they aren't really Christians."
Reply
Well golly, using that sort of 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, you could say that NO Christian accepts evolution, since if they did, they wouldn't be a 'true' Christian, yes?
BTW, there is a HUGE difference between believing God created everything and believing God did it all in six literal 24-hour days some 6,000 years ago.-
33%
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"you could say that NO Christian accepts evolution, since if they did, they wouldn't be a 'true' Christian, yes?"
Reply
Mutainia: You can read, alright.
"BTW, there is a HUGE difference between believing God created everything and believing God did it all in six literal 24-hour days some 6,000 years ago."
Mutainia: So, believing God created it all in six literal 24 hour days some 6,000 years ago cancels out God creating everything? Is that what you mean? Well, what do you mean?
-
-
50%
Dionys1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Mutainia: No one. But, even though you said that you aren't a Muslim, everything about you makes me think that you are. "
Reply
Well you're more than welcome to your delusions. I don't have to justify or explain what my faith tradition is to you or anyone else for that matter. If you want to obsess over Islam and make false claims that I subscribe to that tradition, you can persist in your obsession and lies, as you always have.
"it forced me to ask you if Muslims believe people existed with dinos like a LOT of Christians believe, rather than your saying "even most Christians agree with evolutionists". "
Which I answered to the best of my knowledge. I would imagine that most Muslims, as most Christians, don't read their holy texts as literal, inerrant truth. This could be said of any tradition, excepting of course the small percentage of extremists found within any tradition.
"As a matter of fact, most Christians DON'T believe with evolutionists." Is English your first language? Maybe you used to be a Muslim and are projecting? Most Catholics believe in Evolution and it is Catholic dogma that Evolution co-exists just fine with Catholic dogma, cannon law and theology. I would expect that the majority of non-literalist Christians also understand that there isn't a single contradiction between the Bible and Evolution.
"MOST Christians believe the Genesis account, OR, they aren't really Christians."
There's nothing that conflicts with Evolution in Gensis unless you're a literalist. If you're a Bible literalist, you have a lot more contradictions to worry about within the Bible (and especially the Gospels) than evolution/Genesis.
"A Christian is supposed to believe what Moses taught, even if it Moses taught stoning and a reality that goes counter to the notion of the earth being billions of years old."
What kind of weird Christian are you? A Christian is literally a 'little Christ,' and in being a little Christ we use Christ's life as example and his life as given to us in the Gospels as our guidance.-
-
50%
Dionys1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I provide evidence of your lies every single time you lie. Other people understand you're lying.
Reply
As for it being a 'Jihadi' thing to do, my understanding of a 'Jihad' is a Holy War with strict guidelines as to how you can act under those circumstances. Given how many times BushCo and various other self-proclaimed Christians lie, it seems silly to link lying to 'Jihadists.' It seems much more like the ugly side of Human nature to me.
Calling you a liar doesn't make someone a Muslim. It simply makes that person correct more often than not.-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"I provide evidence of your lies every single time you lie. Other people understand you're lying."
Reply
Mutainia: Again, point to a place where I've lied, O "I'm not a Muslim". It is SOOOOO Jihadi to either use ad hominem or, accuse the other guy of being a liar without evidence. So, again, GIVE an example of where I've lied. :) Oh, by the way, I bet you think I'm a Bush supporter, huh? That I support a guy who said Islam is a "religion of peace", huh? Well, I hope you're right when you accuse Bush of being a liar...because if he was telling the truth when he said "Islam is a religion of peace", hey, God help us.
-
-
-
-
-
-
50%
ProudBlueTexan1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your profile CONsists of an endless paragraph of this tripe:
Reply
"When a mutated superhuman became the captain of a ship named "Mutainia", little did he and his peaceful crew realize that it contained a robot with a mind-control ray, and that Mutainia was actually an incredibly powerful weapon designed by a robot race to lower the defenses of the earth's galaxy for invasion...."
You expect anyone to take you seriously? Yours is exactly the mentality that the bushCo/cheney crime family have depended on for years.
Moron...-
0%
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Hey, I don't think people would give a rat's ass if I presented them with a profile of myself, so, instead, I copied and pasted, a simple, sci-fi childrens' parable, on how I feel we can end Islamic terror. If you hate my writing, and think it's written by a moron, I bet you aren't much of a fan of Star Trek, the Bionic Man, and Japanese sci-fi, which my series borrowed a lot from.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wrote this series when I was a kid. So, yeah, it's pretty dated. I'll never publish it now. "Newtin Vs. The Ramadars" on Propeller, is the closest it will ever get to being published. By the way, I can understand why you'd look down on the Bionic Man, but, "Star Trek"? I guess you are sooooo smart, you only watch TV shows like "Masterpiece Theatre" and movies like "Howard's End" and "Reds", huh? Actually, I bet you LOVED "Lawrence of Arabia", right? No, I bet you REALLY loved "The Messenger"...THAT would be your all time favorite, huh, O "I'm not a Muslim"?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
22%
TruthDetector1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Insane lack of knowledge and extreme hate derived from ignorance. I know that ignorance does not like facts but here is one fact for you. There is not one iota of evidence ever found or brought forward that proves the theory of Evolution. Before you respond and prove yourself as over schooled and undereducated, give me one piece of evidence. Just one. If you come up with something stupid like "Lucy" or "Neanderthal man", all who have been proven false, it won't work. I am talking about real evidence, like the believe that a cow had a dog or a Giraffe had a baby lion. That has never happened, but somehow you find it safe to mock someone who doesn't believe it. If you come up with some evidence, take it to the following website, they are offering $250,000.00 for the evidence. "http://www.drdino.com". Or post it here and I will collect. .............waiting.
Reply-
-
20%
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
In the begining there was nothing.
Reply
Then there was a big mass.
Then that mass exploded.
After millions of years suns formed and then planets.
After millions of years life came out of the primordial goo.
Where is the evidence of any of this?
I laugh a lot.-
-
0%
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You forgot to mention jostling atoms in thermal vents creating a reverse disintegration (anti-entropic effect of an object) to the point where the atoms form DNA strands that get jammed up into a bubble, I mean, lipid bilayer, and, with more jostling, form a code on how to turn that bubble, I mean, lipid bilayer, into a "DNA factory", that quickly evolved switches to turn off the production of DNA in time and, at the same time, make the bubble form two bubbles, I mean, two lipid bilayers forming TWO more lipid bilayers, and, so on and so forth. And such complexity coming about through "random" accident. Yeah, I laugh a lot myself.
Reply -
CoatlComment removed: Spam
-
-
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Listen, when the Greeks had their creation stories, they were used to explain the unexplainable. Such as the stories were *myths* then, they were taken as truth.
Reply
The same happened for many religions, they invented myths to explain the beginning of creation. Each of them, in turn, have been ridiculed for being ignorant stories.
What make Christianity different?
Oh, and you ask for evidence?
I wouldn't be talking, as there is more evidence to evolution than to creationism. And that the Bible has waaaay to many contradictions to be considered a reliant source of information.
-
-
-
70%
Beau78901 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
TruthDetector:
Reply
There's also no evidence whatsoever that you exist. You could be in a pod inside the matrix.
But if you were running for office and actually SAID you were in a matrix pod, the public and the media wouldn't be out of line for calling you insane.
The fact is, while evolution cannot be proven without making assumptions, it's a MUCH more useful theory in terms of advancing human knowledge about the world than creationism. Since we cannot predict God's actions (if he or she exists), then creationist models do nothing to advance our understanding of the world and they give us nothing upon which to build future advancements in that understanding.
The ability to use a model as a foundation upon which we can build further knowledge about our world is the most important property of the theory of evolution, and for that matter, of any other scientific model.-
29%
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What you ignore is that both evolution and religions are based on faith. There is no use for the complete view of either ideas in science. Science is based on FACTS to try to come up with theories of how the world works today.
Reply
The fossil record does not support the Evolution basic concept. That an animal slowly became a different kind after a very long period of years. Those fossils don't exist. In fact the more we know about microbiology and DNA the more unlikely that seems to be able to happen. What seemed a good theory when all we knew about cells was that they existed now makes it much more unlikely it happened. It also makes it extremely unlikely that life started in the primordial goo.-
60%
Tangent0011 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Those fossils don't exist."
Reply
As a matter of fact, they do. I'd take a look at the evolution of the horse:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_hors...
It is perhaps the most complete series we have to date.
I'd also check out ugulates to cetaceans. What is remarkable about this series is that analysis of the phylogenetic tree PREDICTED the discovery of a fossil, including the approximate geologic strata. -
100%
Bluedragon9121 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
No fossil record? Very interesting...
Reply
Source?
My claim:
Scientists have been able to make "life" at its most basic state, called the Miller-Urey experiment.
Proof:
http://www.chem.duke.edu/~jds/cruise_chem/Exobiolo... -
100%
Beau78901 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Yes, both evolution and religion are based on faith--one is faith in an entity that is unknowable through observation, and the other is based on what we can see and measure in the world around us. (And of course, that's exactly why science is great for learning more about that world, and using that background for creating new discoveries that enable us to live in the world.)
Reply
But you ignore a couple of things, Endoscopy.
Evolution doesn't quite work the way you say. An animal doesn't slowly become a different kind--a life form mutates many different ways and one or several of the new forms succeeds because of an inherently better mechanism for adaptation than the others. evolution
Regardless, what matters is what you can DO with either evolution or creationism. Creationism can't be used to predict what will happen or to expand further knowledge and create new technologies. Science--and specifically, evolution--can. Medical advances using genetic engineering come from theories stemming from evolution, for example.
I've never argued that the existence of a god or gods is impossible. We can never know with any certainty. What I've always said is that religion is best left to philosophy and spirituality, while science is best left to discovering the physical world.
And creationism--which is not based on observation--is best left out of a science classroom. If you want to talk about the nature of the assumptions necessary to make science work (for instance, that our oservations are reliable), then that falls under the category of philosophy--that's epistemology or metaphysics, not science.
Now, if you want to talk about teaching religion as a philosophy in schools, that's a whole other can of worms having to do with separation of church and state, which I won't get into here.
-
-
-
80%
Coatl1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
" I am talking about real evidence, like the believe that a cow had a dog or a Giraffe had a baby lion."
Reply
LOL I love how Hovind (may he rest in jail) and his little zombies want you to prove to them the cartoonesque vision they already have about evolution. Now how it really is, but what they have misunderstood it to be. This is not about evidence or lack of (I really would love to hear how is that homo neanderthalensis have been proven false, since we have even their DNA); this is about trying to prove their "truth" as they already had imagined it. -
-
100%
SaveTheEarth1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, dumbass First of all, evolution is a theory, and theories cannot be proven, only supported. Second of all, a Giraffe would not have a cow or anything of the sort. Evolution is based on change over time, and by time I mean millions and millions of years. Subtle changes in genetic material in combination with an ever-changing environment add up to changes in physical characteristics over time. If you don't beilive it there are examples of evolution in action. When a species, say a bird for example, has its geographic range separated by a barrier, the two halves of the distribution experience slightly different environments and will adapt differently. After a period of time, if individuals from separate halves of the distribution are brought together, they will not interbreed due to differences in physical characteristics such as coloration or may not be successful in mating due to differences in chromosomes.
Reply-
Neutral
TruthDetector1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Name calling huh? Must be a liberal. So with this long explanation of half this and half that and environment and millions of years and stuff, like Obama your mama would say is "above my pay grade", just give us an example of this half thingys or whatever. Just one example. Oh yes, for you and all the other very intelligents out there, a theory is a theory and can be used to build upon when fact present themselves. But what happens to a theory when after many, many years, there are still no facts to support the theory? As a matter of fact, but of course it is just facts, there has been proof over and over that the theory of evolution could not have happened. That is why the "Theory" has changed over and over and over and over again. Every part of the evolution theory has been proven wrong. Yet they still teach it in the schools. Why do you think all these smart Liberal professors in Berkley, and other so called institutes of learning , will not debate Dr Holvin? Not one! Well, here's my theory, "How can you debate the truth, with a defunct theory?" You must be a young one, fresh out of the brain altering public school system. Now give me some fact to support your theory or bow down and accept that you are actually the second word in you response.
Reply-
Neutral
traveler20001 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Concerning "name calling"
Reply
I also hate that. It is wrong and shouldn't happen. We can disagree on things, but should respect each others opinions (even stupid ones). It does happen unfortunately from both sides. However, it is a FACT, that it comes mostly from the "conservative" and "non liberal" side
Science is based on experience.
Many theories often can not be completely right from the first moment
New facts and research might correct or fine tune a theorie
A lot of facts however do defend and proof evolution.
And, by the way, if I understand you well, the Bible and "intelligent design" are a fact?????? says who?
-
-
-
100%
chuck-the-canuck1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'll agree that evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. Facts and theories are two different things. Facts are based on observation. Theories explain and interpret the facts. The facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories. Einstein's theory of gravity replaced Newton's, but gravity didn't take a vacation while waiting to hear which theory was going to prove the most popular. That man has evolved from the apes is a fact whether or not the theory that explains it is Darwin's or someone else's yet to be proposed.
Reply-
Neutral
traveler20001 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I agree in great lines,
Reply
however, Einstein's theory of gravity and relativity does not replace Newton's: it fine tunes it and explain things on a different scale.
Newton's theory and laws still stands on the "normal" "visible" scale and time frame.
also, man does not really evolves from "apes" (well, most of us don't .... lol) rather,we have the same ancestries/roots.
-
-
-
31%
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The problem is that there is evidence from several sources that it could be a fact. What would they have been called in old documents? The term dinosaur is a relatively modern word so it would not have been used. There is some credible accounts that the Chinese emperors had "giant lizards" pull the emperors cart. There are accounts of "dragons" that are not part of make believe. There are writings that use words and phrases describing for very large animals not known today.
Reply
How credible are these writings? Any one of them can probably be discredited but the amount of them presents a problem.-
73%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are always capable of good research, albeit even if you ignore other research. You are willing to put the research into anything if it will further a conservative claim, even if it is something as rediculous as dinosaurs and humans coexisting.
Reply
There are tons of writings pertaining to the inferiority of a black race....does that make them right?
(i'm sure there are plenty more examples but, cmon).
The only dinosaur we coexist with is John McCain.-
-
-
67%
lbrtyordeath1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Well, in War As I Knew It, General George Patton, one of the greatest Generals in US Military history, stated that he doubted that black soldiers had the mental capacity to operate a tank.
Reply
Obviously this has been proven false time and time again.
Now...because George Patton said it, is it true? -
-
-
67%
Coatl1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We are deailng with people seeing things they didn't understood, Marco Polo wasn't a biologist so his writings about dragons can be taken more seriously than the reports of mexicas of people half beast half men when they saw the Spaniards on their horses. For what we know it's more likely that he had saw Komodo dragons. He could have seen a living fire breathing chineese dragon, but the first explanation is more likely isn't it?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
75%
Tangent0011 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Travels of Marco Polo is hardly infallible. Legend has it the book was dictated to a fellow prisoner and written in Old French (a language Polo didn't even know). It has gone through several translations and different versions often conflict. The original is long lost.
Reply
Further, there is much discussion how much of Polo's account is first-hand and how much is the re-telling of accounts he learned from other traders.
-
-
-
71%
Tangent0011 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are also plenty of writings about:
Reply
Unicorns
Hippogriffs
Winged Horses
Gorgons
Giants
Cyclopes
Leprechauns
Griffins
Basilisks
Centaurs
Harpies
Imps
Faeries
Gnomes
Manticores
Vampires
Zombies
Succubi
etc.
etc.
Writings about important figures are frequently embellished based on local folklore and include all sorts of magical objects, places, and animals.
Science has yet to find a bona fide dinosaur fossil above the KT boundary, much less one with any evidence of humans.-
-
40%
Endoscopy1 year, 2 months ago
-
Neutral
markmawn21 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Here's one explanation as to why we do not see mythological creatures anymore.
Reply
http://www.vidilife.com/video_play_1124011_Robot_C...
-
-
33%
willottica1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I think you raise some valid points, Endo. Cultures around the world have had independant legends about dragons... many of them are probably based in some sort of fact - and there may have been some survivors to the mass extinction events (in fact, it's quite likely that there were). Pterodactyls, especially, with their ability to travel long distances may have survived for a time, and gone extinct much more gradually, possibly with a few surviving into the time of humans. But the legends point to the unlikelihood of large numbers of dinosaurs cohabitating with humans. If they were common, legends wouldn't have been formed.
Reply
It's also been suggested that the Loch Ness Monster was a descendant of the dinosaurs. -
33%
willottica1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The Komodo dragon is a fairly large lizard. Here's a random, unprovable, theory, just made up by me that makes sense:
Reply
The Komodo's ancestor was much larger, it was used by Chinese emperors to pull carts, but obviously the largest of these were most useful at this task.
Like dogs and primates, the Komodo's ancestors were much less aggressive and easier to control once neutered, so this was done before they were put into service.
The smaller Komodos were not as useful for pulling carts, so they were released to the wild or used for breeding. Over time, by not allowing the larger specimens to reproduce, the breed became smaller and smaller.
Is the Komodo the descendant of a much larger dinosaur? Maybe, and maybe the Chinese are largely responsible for its diminished size and reduced ferocity.
-
-
-
100%
Dionys1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Has it? She's claimed previously to being a young-earther. Which means she believes the earth is around 7000 years old (I forget the exact number). Does she then believe that Fossils were put there by God to test our faith? Many young-earthers believe dinosaurs and humans walked side by side. What does she believe?
Reply-
0%
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Actually we young earthers don't believe God put fossils here to test our faith, but, believe the only reason we HAVE fossils, is due to the flood causing mud-slides. I mean, to me, dinosaurs are miss named. They should be called "mudslidesaurs", due to the fact that just about every dino is found to have been killed in a mudslide, or, something that makes it looked like it drowned.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"tually we young earthers don't believe God put fossils here to test our faith, but, believe the only reason we HAVE fossils, is due to the flood causing mud-slides. I mean, to me, dinosaurs are miss named. They should be called "mudslidesaurs", due to the fact that just about every dino is found to have been killed in a mudslide, or, something that makes it looked like it drowned."
Reply
You're joking, right? You're just a troll. No one could possibly be as ridicuous as you are and really believe all the crap you post. -
-
-
-
Neutral
Mutainia1 year, 2 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I bet you'd think she'd be smarter if she believed, exCUSE me, THOUGHT, that jostling atoms creates a reverse disintigration, making something SO complex, it forms not only a long DNA strand, but, puts code ON that DNA strand, telling it to form a "simple" cell, true? That that strand of DNA will get inside a lipid bilayer, (a bubble), and, have all the instructions on it to TURN the bubble, I mean, (lipid bilayer), into a "DNA factory", all the while not ONCE asking who is in charge OF that factory to create the switches to keep the DNA factory from created a bunch of worthless DNA that, eventually would destroy the bubble, excuse me, "lipid bilayer". IF she believed that, (rather than fossils being the result of a flood), why, you'd think she was SMART, true?
Reply
-
-
-
-
loading ...
People Who Liked This Comment (29)
-
Ratskii
-
Eagle_Eye
-
joey-evans
-
AbuAmirah
-
PapaWolf
-
picvegita
-
miklkit
-
hamy
-
jovial
-
globalwarmer
-
ind06
-
dadesider
-
BillieMaxer
-
Beau7890
-
Coatl
-
inverse
-
fsev41
-
quiescence
-
ProudBlueTexan
-
Blackacereturn
-
PsychoHosebeast
-
GWHayduke
-
beymudakov
-
smithichie
-
bluetexasvalley
-
burntorange
-
geniuswaitress
-
Progressive
-
garyh84
PinkyPie
lovemylibs
Wolfie2007
redtomato
Post Reply
You are not signed in to Propeller.com. Please sign in to post a reply.