Creationism museum to open in Alberta
Previous 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Blue_Nose @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:23 pm
This "everything is a theory, even science" argument is dumb.
I suppose, if we're going to call everything we know a "theory", that it's only a "theory" that you all exist and the universe isn't just a dream I'm having... I suppose it's on only "faith" that I assume gravity will exist tomorrow - if we're being ridiculously open-minded about things, that is.
At some point human rationality has to take hold and be taken for what it's worth, and creationism is well beyond that rational assumption of reality.
GerryHurt @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 4:27 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
This "everything is a theory, even science" argument is dumb.
I suppose, if we're going to call everything we know a "theory", that it's only a "theory" that you all exist and the universe isn't just a dream I'm having... I suppose it's on only "faith" that I assume gravity will exist tomorrow - if we're being ridiculously open-minded about things, that is.
At some point human rationality has to take hold and be taken for what it's worth, and creationism is well beyond that rational assumption of reality.
I suppose, if we're going to call everything we know a "theory", that it's only a "theory" that you all exist and the universe isn't just a dream I'm having... I suppose it's on only "faith" that I assume gravity will exist tomorrow - if we're being ridiculously open-minded about things, that is.
At some point human rationality has to take hold and be taken for what it's worth, and creationism is well beyond that rational assumption of reality.
In your mind...... the same as evolution is beyond rational assumption of reality for others.
Evolution IS a theory, it has not been proven conclusively, that is why it is called a theory.
xerxes @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:37 pm
GerryHurt GerryHurt:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
This "everything is a theory, even science" argument is dumb.
I suppose, if we're going to call everything we know a "theory", that it's only a "theory" that you all exist and the universe isn't just a dream I'm having... I suppose it's on only "faith" that I assume gravity will exist tomorrow - if we're being ridiculously open-minded about things, that is.
At some point human rationality has to take hold and be taken for what it's worth, and creationism is well beyond that rational assumption of reality.
I suppose, if we're going to call everything we know a "theory", that it's only a "theory" that you all exist and the universe isn't just a dream I'm having... I suppose it's on only "faith" that I assume gravity will exist tomorrow - if we're being ridiculously open-minded about things, that is.
At some point human rationality has to take hold and be taken for what it's worth, and creationism is well beyond that rational assumption of reality.
In your mind...... the same as evolution is beyond rational assumption of reality for others.
Evolution IS a theory, it has not been proven conclusively, that is why it is called a theory.
The same can be said for gravity. The forces involved haven't been completely explained so does that mean we should tell Sir Isaac Newton to sod off?
GerryHurt @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 5:43 pm
xerxes xerxes:
GerryHurt GerryHurt:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
This "everything is a theory, even science" argument is dumb.
I suppose, if we're going to call everything we know a "theory", that it's only a "theory" that you all exist and the universe isn't just a dream I'm having... I suppose it's on only "faith" that I assume gravity will exist tomorrow - if we're being ridiculously open-minded about things, that is.
At some point human rationality has to take hold and be taken for what it's worth, and creationism is well beyond that rational assumption of reality.
I suppose, if we're going to call everything we know a "theory", that it's only a "theory" that you all exist and the universe isn't just a dream I'm having... I suppose it's on only "faith" that I assume gravity will exist tomorrow - if we're being ridiculously open-minded about things, that is.
At some point human rationality has to take hold and be taken for what it's worth, and creationism is well beyond that rational assumption of reality.
In your mind...... the same as evolution is beyond rational assumption of reality for others.
Evolution IS a theory, it has not been proven conclusively, that is why it is called a theory.
The same can be said for gravity. The forces involved haven't been completely explained so does that mean we should tell Sir Isaac Newton to sod off?
That's right, it's a theory.
and you would want to tell Newton to "Sod off" because?................... you're a fucking idiot?
sandorski @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 6:11 pm
GerryHurt GerryHurt:
xerxes xerxes:
GerryHurt GerryHurt:
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
This "everything is a theory, even science" argument is dumb.
I suppose, if we're going to call everything we know a "theory", that it's only a "theory" that you all exist and the universe isn't just a dream I'm having... I suppose it's on only "faith" that I assume gravity will exist tomorrow - if we're being ridiculously open-minded about things, that is.
At some point human rationality has to take hold and be taken for what it's worth, and creationism is well beyond that rational assumption of reality.
I suppose, if we're going to call everything we know a "theory", that it's only a "theory" that you all exist and the universe isn't just a dream I'm having... I suppose it's on only "faith" that I assume gravity will exist tomorrow - if we're being ridiculously open-minded about things, that is.
At some point human rationality has to take hold and be taken for what it's worth, and creationism is well beyond that rational assumption of reality.
In your mind...... the same as evolution is beyond rational assumption of reality for others.
Evolution IS a theory, it has not been proven conclusively, that is why it is called a theory.
The same can be said for gravity. The forces involved haven't been completely explained so does that mean we should tell Sir Isaac Newton to sod off?
That's right, it's a theory.
and you would want to tell Newton to "Sod off" because?................... you're a fucking idiot?
...because Gravity has yet to be Proven. Just like Evolution.
Don't jump, you might not fall back down.
Arctic_Menace @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 7:59 pm
I'm beginning to think that evolution doesn't exist.
If it were true, why do we have retarded book-thumping automatons like Creationists adn right-wing extremists in growing numbers?
Arctic_Menace @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:10 pm
$1:
In the years after Darwin, his advocates hoped to find predictable progressions… these have not been found -- yet the optimism has died hard, and some pure fantasy has crept into textbooks.
What hasn't been found?
$1:
If matter acting on matter for a sufficient period of time can create anything, then I should be able to go out to the Mountains of Colorado and find naturally-occurring computers, cameras, and cell phones. As we've seen, those inorganic devices are much less complex than a "simple" organic bacterium. Yet, most people would find my statement to be "silly" at best. Why? Whether organic or inorganic, the complexity and design is obvious.
You. Are. A. Fucking. Moron.
$1:
With the blanks and holes that are still in the theory of evolution, you as an evolutionist, require as much faith in the theory as a creationist requires in God.
Faith is relative. Additionally, it is more logical, more probable, and mroe sensible to believe in tiny changes over time rather than some old fatherly-figure in the sky who said: "I'm bored. I think I'll create shit."
$1:
THe biggest problem with the whole Creationism/Evolution debate, is that the Evolutionists think it is simple, when it is not. It is impossible for humans to completely and fully understand creationism,
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!
It IS very easy for humans to comprehend creationism, because it is so simple and void of thought to believe that some almighty being in the sky created you and everything around you.
You're an idiot.
$1:
Many things must be taken on faith even in the scientific world.
Not necesarily. Why else do you think we have trial and error? Hypothesises? Theories? Speculations? Observations?
Science is about the following:
"'A' will happen when 'B' reaches Nx."
"Oh, I was wrong. Let's make some notes and observations. Next trial and error, please."
Not:
"I have faith that A will happen when B reaches Nx because a book written long ago by wisened men told me so."
Durandal @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:10 pm
Blue_Nose Blue_Nose:
Pfff, I read the entire article + 6 other pages on the same subject from the same site, and it did NOT answer my question.
Moreover, the word "hypotheses" appeared like 100 times.
Thanks for posting thow, it confirms someting I said in my previous message (and something your camarade Arctic_Menace is trying to deny).
Blue_Nose's evolution website Blue_Nose's evolution website:
How and Why Did Wings Evolve?
1...
2...
3...
4. Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust.
1...
2...
3...
4. Wings evolved from gliding ancestors who began to flap their gliding structures in order to produce thrust.
VLAN !
$1:
P.S. (as if it matters) Butterflies, bees, and all other insects, are capable of flight without airfoil-shaped wings. Lift and thrust are both provided by the motion of the wings.
Too bad I'm talking about birds (Aves, from your website
).Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
Actually, they don't. If you were to shave a poalr bear, it would have black fur. It appears white because the thread of the hair is hollow and traps air, which keeps the polar bear warm as well as provide camouflage.
It appears white, it looks white, it is white to my eyes, it is white, thanks.
$1:
God, if you're going to use animals as examples, at least get it right isntead of talking out of your ass.
Sorry, I'm not 100 % bilingual yet, how do we say pelage in English ?
http://cf.babelfish.yahoo.com/ gives me peeling, but I doupt than this is a correct translation.
I'm talking about the hairs.
I know the skin of polar bears is black (to absorb the warm from the sun), but the hairs... ?
$1:
If God could create animals to make them happy in any environment, why not creat amphibians that could withstand salt water without dying? Or utter lack of certain species of birds across the planet because their migratory patterns do not travel over certain continents? Why have migratory birds and insects, and non-migratory birds and insects?
No no no
, I'm not saying EVERY animal can live on ALL places on Earth, duh.$1:
When there is an area of low pressure, it creates a vacuum. In an area of high pressure, the air is wanting to go somewhere badly. The concept of a vortex is where high pressure moves out from udner the wing, over on top to the area of low pressure. This is near the tip, not above the wing.
Winglets help to minimize this effect on airplanes.
Winglets help to minimize this effect on airplanes.
OK, and
You are just explaining further the machanism that I have been talking about scince the beginning.Anyways, this brings us to an other of your quotes :
$1:
More air does not pass under the wing than over. Because of the curvature of the wing, air has more distance to travel by going over the top than the bottom, and thusly goes faster. As the speed increases, the pressure decreases, creating an area of low pressure on the top surface of the wing. High pressure is on the bottom. That is how lift is generated.
The mechanism that you yourself just explained works for both birds and airplanes.
I'm gonna use Blue_Nose's little joke to hypothetically [that's how we do in evolutionism] explain how some prehistoric form of life [allegedly] became the modern bird. Keep in mind that the real process is hum... complicated / "not simple" and "impossible for humans to completely and fully understand" (
)...Durandal Durandal:
OK, so one day, a retard frog squirrel tried to scared a monkey fish frog that wanted to eat it. The retard frog squirrel usied its paws to intimidate the monkey fish frog, and it worked.
Then, all other retard frog squirrels -- very adaptive to their environement -- copied the first one, and they found a new way to survive from their nasty predoator.
They continued to do this for about, say, 5 million years [admitting for a moment than the world is older than that]. During all that time, all the retard frog squirrels scared the monkey fish frogs with their paws. They did it so often that they bacame very very strong in their pays and sholders. Slowly but surely, their anatomy changed as their genetic code evolved [admitting than this can really happen].
After an other, say, 5 millions years, the retard frog squirrels' front paws and sholders bacame some sort of wings (kind of
). The new retard frog birds' -- inteligent creatures we must not forget -- figured ot that if they flipped their (always bigger) wings they could lift a few centimeters in the air. WOW, they could finally fly (almost). 
Then, all other retard frog squirrels -- very adaptive to their environement -- copied the first one, and they found a new way to survive from their nasty predoator.
They continued to do this for about, say, 5 million years [admitting for a moment than the world is older than that]. During all that time, all the retard frog squirrels scared the monkey fish frogs with their paws. They did it so often that they bacame very very strong in their pays and sholders. Slowly but surely, their anatomy changed as their genetic code evolved [admitting than this can really happen].
After an other, say, 5 millions years, the retard frog squirrels' front paws and sholders bacame some sort of wings (kind of
). The new retard frog birds' -- inteligent creatures we must not forget -- figured ot that if they flipped their (always bigger) wings they could lift a few centimeters in the air. WOW, they could finally fly (almost). Now, you guys still have NOT answered my question.
How come bird's wings a like an airplane, made in a way that is uses the laws of phisics to circumvent/defy the law of gravity ?
I repeat than it took us, humans, with our great intelligence and our incredible technology, centuries to figure that simple thing out.
Evolutionists, with your great religion called Evolution, your great prophet called Darwin, and your great god called Mother Earth, PLEASE EXPLAIN !
Durandal @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:13 pm
GerryHurt GerryHurt:
The biggest problem with the whole Creationism/Evolution debate, is that the Evolutionists think it is simple, when it is not. It is impossible for humans to completely and fully understand creationism, but at least we can observe enough of it to believe it to be true. That's why it bothers me when evolutionists think they're winning an argument against creation, when really they are not.
With the blanks and holes that are still in the theory of evolution, you as an evolutionist, require as much faith in the theory as a creationist requires in God.
You are right in one thing though, it is impossible , at this time at least, for humas to fully understand and comprehend evolution and even the way our universe in general operates( from begining to end), and the same can be said about God. We have all kinds of neat theory's, but that is all they are, theory's. Many things must be taken on faith even in the scientific world.
With the blanks and holes that are still in the theory of evolution, you as an evolutionist, require as much faith in the theory as a creationist requires in God.
You are right in one thing though, it is impossible , at this time at least, for humas to fully understand and comprehend evolution and even the way our universe in general operates( from begining to end), and the same can be said about God. We have all kinds of neat theory's, but that is all they are, theory's. Many things must be taken on faith even in the scientific world.
Very good post GerryHurt, keep the good religious beliefs even if you have (in my opinion) bad political ideas !
Arctic_Menace @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:16 pm
$1:
It appears white, it looks white, it is white to my eyes, it is white, thanks.
Oh, for the love of...
$1:
I know the skin of polar bears is black (to absorb the warm from the sun), but the hairs... ?
Holy Christ, go back to school!!!
The skin of a polar bear is not black. I phrased my sentence wrongly though; if you were to give a close shave of a polar bear so that there was some fur visible, it would be black.
$1:
How come bird's wings a like an airplane, made in a way that is uses the laws of phisics to circumvent/defy the law of gravity ?
It doesn't circumvent the law of gravity; gravity still affects birds and planes in flight, retard.
$1:
I repeat than it took us, humans, with our great intelligence and our incredible technology, centuries to figure that simple thing out.
But it's not simple, especially when it took millions of bloody years.
$1:
Evolutionists, with your great religion called Evolution,
$1:
your great prophet called Darwin, and your great god called Mother Earth, PLEASE EXPLAIN !
grainfedprairieboy @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:31 pm
GerryHurt GerryHurt:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
THe biggest problem with the whole Creationism/Evolution debate, is that the Creationists think it is simple, when it is not. It is impossible for humans to completely and fully understand evolution, but at least we can observe enough of it to believe it to be true. That's why it bothers me when creationists think they're winning an argument against evolution, when really they are not.
Let's make a few changes to what you have written above. After you read it, think about what it says and what you said.
THe biggest problem with the whole Creationism/Evolution debate, is that the Evolutionists think it is simple, when it is not. It is impossible for humans to completely and fully understand creationism, but at least we can observe enough of it to believe it to be true. That's why it bothers me when evolutionists think they're winning an argument against creation, when really they are not.
With the blanks and holes that are still in the theory of evolution, you as an evolutionist, require as much faith in the theory as a creationist requires in God.
You are right in one thing though, it is impossible , at this time at least, for humas to fully understand and comprehend evolution and even the way our universe in general operates( from begining to end), and the same can be said about God. We have all kinds of neat theory's, but that is all they are, theory's. Many things must be taken on faith even in the scientific world.
Excellent retort and very reasoned.
Arctic_Menace @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:34 pm
grainfedprairieboy grainfedprairieboy:
GerryHurt GerryHurt:
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
THe biggest problem with the whole Creationism/Evolution debate, is that the Creationists think it is simple, when it is not. It is impossible for humans to completely and fully understand evolution, but at least we can observe enough of it to believe it to be true. That's why it bothers me when creationists think they're winning an argument against evolution, when really they are not.
Let's make a few changes to what you have written above. After you read it, think about what it says and what you said.
THe biggest problem with the whole Creationism/Evolution debate, is that the Evolutionists think it is simple, when it is not. It is impossible for humans to completely and fully understand creationism, but at least we can observe enough of it to believe it to be true. That's why it bothers me when evolutionists think they're winning an argument against creation, when really they are not.
With the blanks and holes that are still in the theory of evolution, you as an evolutionist, require as much faith in the theory as a creationist requires in God.
You are right in one thing though, it is impossible , at this time at least, for humas to fully understand and comprehend evolution and even the way our universe in general operates( from begining to end), and the same can be said about God. We have all kinds of neat theory's, but that is all they are, theory's. Many things must be taken on faith even in the scientific world.
Excellent retort and very reasoned.
You.......
Complimenting a Liberal?!?!?!?!?!
Ladies and Gentlemen, Hell has frozen over.
GerryHurt @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:34 pm
Arctic_Menace Arctic_Menace:
Holy Christ, go back to school!!!
The skin of a polar bear is not black. I phrased my sentence wrongly though; if you were to give a close shave of a polar bear so that there was some fur visible, it would be black.
Well.....I guess you should take your own advice......
$1:
The polar bear (Ursus maritimus), a bear native to the Arctic, is the apex predator within its range. Its thick blubber and fur insulate it against the cold. Its fur is hollow and transparent but usually appears as white or cream coloured, thus providing the animal with effective camouflage. Its skin is actually black in color, however
Arctic_Menace @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:40 pm
$1:
The polar bear (Ursus maritimus), a bear native to the Arctic, is the apex predator within its range. Its thick blubber and fur insulate it against the cold. Its fur is hollow and transparent but usually appears as white or cream coloured, thus providing the animal with effective camouflage. Its skin is actually black in color, however
Whoa, I was taught grade 8 science by a retard then.
Damn Mr. Walker. 
GerryHurt @ Tue Jun 19, 2007 8:42 pm
why don't you try ...oh I don't know......google maybe?
Previous 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next