Creationism/Evolution
See other Creationism/Evolution Articles
Title: Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution
Source:
The Guardian
URL Source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/201 ... -trial-bible-genesis-evolution
Published: Mar 27, 2013
Author: Amanda Holepunch
Post Date: 2013-03-27 15:33:40 by Thunderbird
Keywords: Creation, Evolution, Trial
Views: 71627
Comments: 104
A California creationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Dr Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial, in the hope of improving the quality of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, has pledged to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account before the debate. His competitor would be expected to do the same. The winner would take the $20,000 balance. The argument would not be made in a formal court, but under an alternative dispute resolution model known as a minitrial. Mastropaolo said he would present the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story once he had found a willing scientist to argue that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific. News World news Creationism Creationist stakes $10,000 on contest between Bible and evolution Creator of Literal Genesis Trial believes people who argue in favor of evolution are at a scientific disadvantage Share Tweet this Email Amanda Holpuch guardian.co.uk, Monday 25 March 2013 15.46 EDT Jump to comments (437) creationism A scene from the Creation Museum in Petersburg, Kentucky. Photograph: Jeff Haynes/AFP/Getty Images A California creationist is offering a $10,000 challenge to anyone who can prove in front of a judge that science contradicts the literal interpretation of the book of Genesis. Dr Joseph Mastropaolo, who says he has set up the contest, the Literal Genesis Trial, in the hope of improving the quality of arguments between creationists and evolutionists, has pledged to put $10,000 of his own money into an escrow account before the debate. His competitor would be expected to do the same. The winner would take the $20,000 balance. The argument would not be made in a formal court, but under an alternative dispute resolution model known as a minitrial. Mastropaolo said he would present the argument in favor of a literal interpretation of the creation story once he had found a willing scientist to argue that a non-literal interpretation of Genesis is more scientific. "They [evolutionists] are not stupid people, they are bright, but they are bright enough to know there is no scientific evidence they can give in a minitrial," Mastropaolo said. A minitrial differs from a regular trial because it does not need to be held in a courthouse and does not require the presence of traditional court figures. Mastropaolo plans to have a bailiff and court reporter in attendance, along with the judge. Contest rules state that evidence must be scientific, which means it is "objective, valid, reliable and calibrated". --snip--
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Comments (1-46) not displayed.
.
.
.
#47. To: A K A Stone (#39)
(Edited)
I never said they did. You are just making things up because you don't have any provable facts.
It appears that none of the Bible is meant to be taken literally because it's a collection of myths and fables showing the evolution of God. Actually, it appears that you offspring of the cult of Pasiphae aren't willing to ante up the scratch necessary to present scientific evidence of your evo-fundie beliefs in open court. God goes from the mean, vengeful god of the Jews to the sweet Christian one full of forgiveness and redemption, all in 2000 years. What other proof do you need but the Bible?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
We're not talking about evolution. We're talking about physics -- the age of the universe. I agree that evolution has all kinds of problems. The more things we discover, the more problems evolution has. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE. We're talking about the age of the universe. Unlike evolution, the more we learn about the universe, the more the standard model of physics is PROVEN correct. The universe is 13.8 billion years old. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. There is NO question about this. Again Stone, you don't have any real evidence to support your views, so you change the subject to evolution, which has a growing number of issues. Pitiful.
Are you retarded or what? Seriously.
Why are you so obsessed with everyone's sex life here? I bet you've been arrested for peeping through your neighbor's bedroom windows.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
I really don't want to get into this too much because it's mostly futile. However, your statement about this being PROVEN is a bit ignorant. Outside of mathematics, nothing is really proven in science ( and some of that is questionable). What you can say is there are a lot of mutually agreeable arguments for the age of the universe being billions of years. But if you think that that anyone who says God created the heavens and earth some 6000 years must be some inbred moron, you'd be wrong on this too. Many knowledgeable young earth creationists present sound backing for their ideas; they are just mostly ignored.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Speaking of being arrested, I'm surprised you haven't benn arrested and committed for being that "crazy old lady" mumbling to herself and acting dangerous.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Again, the more we learn about evolution, the more we know that it's wrong. We have never found any intermediate species that the Darwinist's predicted we would. The evidence has not materialized. Darwinism is as much a religion as fundamentalist Christianity, because they don't have any evidence and because they don't believe that they can be proven wrong. Physics is a different story. Physics is proven wrong all of the time. Unlike evolutionists, physicists are willing to be proven wrong. However, observation over the last four decades has been right in line with with the early theories of the expanding universe and the prediction of the evidence that we would find left over from the big bang (the cosmic background radiation). We have now heard the cosmic background radiation. We have now seen the cosmic background radiation. It's there, just as predicted. Observation has proven the theory -- real science. It tells us that the universe is a little less than 13.8 BILLION years old. As I said early, maybe we are all just part of a computer simulation with God as the programmer and god planted all of this evidence. But the evidence is there. There is no denying it. I have to get on a plane. I'll be back tomorrow. I agree that evolution has all kinds of problems. The more things we discover, the more problems evolution has. And in BOTH cases you haven't a SCIENTIFIC leg to stand on. That's right - the cult of science can't "prove" a damned thing -- the establishment high preists of science just refuse to admit it and junk their fake "facts" (like "man-made global warming.") Why not? Human nature. Not many are willing to admit their entire belief system is wrong. Of course the ENTIRE Theory of Evolution is a fraud. And so is the Big Bang. Don't even go there -- REAL scientists no longer want to embarrass themselves by talking about either any more. In respected scientist Michael Behe's 'Darwin's Black Box', he reveals an admission that Darwin basically was lunatic grasping at straws while noting that the tiniest living organism and its processes are MORE complicated than the workings of a entire city. The more scientists examine life and this Universe the MORE they accept irrefutable evidence of a Creator. Unlike evolution, the more we learn about the universe, the more the standard model of physics is PROVEN correct. The universe is 13.8 billion years old. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. There is NO question about this. Again. The respective age of the universe AND earth (as Stone has already contended) are also unproven BS. But it's not your fault -- you, like scientists are just parroting the cards of dogma you've been handed down as "fact" in whatever area explaining the age of the Earth....OR Universe. Maybe I can help clarify or illuminate the issues and offer a conduit of knowledge. Scientific knowledge. And yes, the Bible is VERY helpful in providing (or reinforcing) evidence of a Young Earth. Read that info in the link near the bottom of this post if you're interested. If not, then you're really not curious or open-minded about up until recently has been one of THE great mysteries. Firstly, dating methods: Erroneous, and totally inaccurate. But that has been the primary basis of determining the age of the earth, hasn't it? We never hear how inaccurate the different methods actually are, do we? This planet before the Great Flood (a world-wide proven scientific event) was a radically different planet. Science (through fossil records) sez there was once evidence of warm weather and abundance of life at both poles. Science has found sea shells on Mount Everest. All animals (through fossils) were generally found to be MUCH larger in the past; The Bible (yes, the Bible) also tells us man was larger as well - AND lived longer. How can that be? Doesn't that kinda break all the "rules" and laws of nature? So what kind of planet was it and what happened to change both the geography, weather, flora, fauna? And is it possible many "laws of nature" were indeed affected by the event of the Great Flood? THE GREAT FLOOD. Oh, and you'll appreciate this, Stone. The Bible of course tells us and Noah about the rain, which came in torrents. But people miss THIS explanation for the Flood covering the planet: Genesis 7:11 -- "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened." Get that? "The founts of the deep" -- God busted open and released the subterranean waters of the planet to help create The Great Flood! Fossils -- all and any of them -- can only be formed when life forms are swept away quickly and buried quickly under tremendous force BEFORE it can decay. It happened ONCE. During the Cataclysm of The Great Flood. Animal and plants created strata which are NOT "millions" of years old but....yes, thousands. The Bible IS right. AGAIN. Oddly, below the sedimentary strata created by the Great Flood is the pre-Cambrian period. Guess what? THERE ARE ZERO FOSSILS AT THAT LEVEL OR BELOW! No fossils embedded in granite either. What's that also prove? It proves that BEFORE the Great Flood dinosaurs lived. No, NOT 65 million years ago during the Triassic Era (btw, the "Eras" assigned to dinosaurs and all "prehistoric life" is based again on the strata created BY the Great Flood.) Thus the "Cambrian" represents the bottom layer of strata washed away from The Flood, and the Pliocene Era the next to last. The faster mammals and smaller reptiles made it to the higher ground of the highest strata (found in the Pliocene), while the slower animals (like dinosaurs) are found in lower -- again all in neat layers consider by science as "eras" of what them claim is millions of years. Of note -- these strata are not found at uniform levels around the world. The Pliocene Era is the most active days of the new earth when the Flood ended. As the waters receded mountain chains began lifting up and forming as continents rose, ocean basins dropped (pre-Flood, seas were shallow and...there were no mountains (according to the Bible.) The quick process of the earth changing is referred to as "Catastrophism" (as opposed to science's claim of "Uniformitarianism" -- the gradual millions/billions years of change in the earth.) Needless the say, the planet underwent a TOTAL and radical makeover. The planet was literally busting at its seams. All the volcanoes above and below the seas began bellowing and spewing lava, smoke and pollutants, helping to create more land....and The Ice Age. More animals died off and became extinct as the earth cooled, the air became fairly toxic, and sunlight was impeded. But by then, the atmosphere changed, air pressure changed, the magnetism of the earth changed, the pole position may have been altered...apparently resulting in a further reduction of flora and fauna...AND the shrinkage and radically lowered age expectation of both animal AND man. As per the Bible, man often live to be 500 years old BEFORE the Flood. THERE WAS NO METEOR that caused the death of dinosaurs and Ice Age (which was really QUITE recent.) So how old IS the earth? According to the Bible (and science)...life appears to be no more than 6,000-8,000 years old. The planet and universe? Much younger than we think, but EVERYONE is just guessing (especially since all those dating methods are based on faulty baselines and rates of decay.) To both of you and all: For fascinating detailed info in a scientific (pegler, you will especially appreciate this - even as a secular evolutionist) book called, The Evolution Handbook. OR, you can peruse the book as a FREE download: http://evolutionfacts.com/Downloads.htm By Chapter: Introduction; Preface: A Treasure House of Information; A Theory Already Collapsed 1 - History of Evolutionary Theory (How modern science got into this problem) 2 - The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution (Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas) 3 - The Origin of the Earth (Why the Earth did not evolve out of a molten state) 4 - The Age of the Earth (Why the Earth is not millions of years old) 5 - The Problem of Time (Why long ages cannot produce evolutionary change) 6 - Inaccurate Dating Methods (Why the non-historical dating techniques are unreliable) 7 - The Primitive Environment (Why raw materials on earth cannot produce life) 8 - DNA and Protein (Why DNA and protein could not be produced by random chance) 9 - Natural Selection (Why natural selection only makes changes within species) 10 - Mutations (Why mutations cannot produce cross-species change) 11 - Animal and Plant Species (Why the species barrier cannot be broken) 12A - Fossils and Strata (Why the fossil/strata theory is a hoax) 12B - Fossils and Strata (Why the fossil/strata theory is a hoax) 13 - Ancient Man (Why there is no evidence humans have evolved from anything) 14 - Effects of the Flood (What actually happened after the Flood) 15 - Similarities and Divergence (Why similar structures are not an evidence of evolution) 16 - Vestiges and Recapitulation (You have no useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life forms) 17 - Evolutionary Showcase (The best examples of evolution have proven worthless) 18 - The Laws of Nature (The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary theory) 19 - Evolution, Morality, and Violence (Evolutionary theory is ruining modern civilization) 20 - Tectonics and Paleomagnetism (The truth about plate tectonics and paleomagnetism) 21 - Archaeological Dating (Correlating Egyptian and other archaeological dates with the Bible) 22 - Evolutionary Science Fiction (Fabulous fairy tales which only tiny children can believe) 23 - Scientists Speak (Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless) 24 - Utterly Impossible (Things evolution could never invent) 25 - The Latest Evolution Crisis (The most recent news [to 2006] in the Evolution Battle) 26 - The Case for Intelligent Design (The evidence keeps getting stronger) 27 - Summary of the Anthropic Principle (Discovering a flood of coincidences) 28 - Eighteen Factors Disproving Evolution (Evolution flunks the science test) 29 - Say It Simple (What is this all about?) 30 - Problems with Big Bang Creationism (When opposites are combined) 31 - Will You Defend God in this Time of Crisis? (Schools, Employment, and Churches) Whatever your respective beliefs, this read and research (yes, by REAL scientists and science -- even Christians respect and discover real scientific facts) will cause you to reconsider erasing the blackboard and starting all over again.
PROVEN. OBSERVED. FACT. In which primitive species??
Oh, stop. So your highest food chain example of "asexual reproduction" is WHAT?? Birds, amphibians and reptiles? Which ones? Source? (and please -- NOT wiki, ok??)
In many cases it indeed IS literal. All evidence points to the earth being about 4.5 billion years old, in a universe that's 13.8 billion years old. There is no evidence, anywhere that demonstrates that the earth and universe are 6,000 years old. NONE. On the contrary -- your finger-in-the-wind 13.8 billion year old earth age is one of many arbitrary age given to the planet of the last hundred or so years. One such scientific "expert" started at 20 million years. Then as science became more desperate for time (and like their their gazillion chimps typing 24/7 for a gazillion years metaphor), they hope to one day cobble a evo fairy tale based on crumb of scientific "proof." In an above post I have submitted for your scientific curiosity and search for the truth a source of REAL science and variables that completely and utterly refute your claims of definitive ages of both the planet and universe. Sience is very clear about the age of the universe -- including brand new evidence from high resolution scans of the cosmic microwave background radiation. We have to go with what we can prove through science. At the site/in the nook, addressed. Refuted. NEXT.
You said we have to go with what we can prove. You can't prove any of the comments you made. Not one. Yup. It's amazing. As I've stated and explained a bit, The Great Flood wasn't just about rain. The earth opened and "founts" of water burst through, creating all kinds of cataclysmic activity. ALL of evidence of life ("prehistoric" and otherwise) is found ONLY in the fossil records that were produced ONLY during THE single Flood event. God had a reason for making the earth in 6 days. How anyone can deem the power of the Creator of the Universe incapable of doing so would also have to "prove" He is a liar. The days before the Great Flood were a very alien world compared to the post-Flood.
All your points are refuted in the book (or at the site.) Scientifically -- NOT based on any religious dogma. The vast majority of Christians reject this young earth nonsense. Young earth believers are a small minority within the Christian community. They shouldn't be taken seriously because they reject all scientific evidence out-of-hand, just like you are doing here. This is true and understandable, but only because of ignorance and the Cult of Fake Science fiercely protects its dogma because its fragile house of cards is dependent solely upon OTHER scientists to help keep sham science alive. They treat their business the way MSNBC fiercely protects the bogus dogma of 0buma and the Dem Party.
No, God didn't drop that exact number, but the math and evidence is there that supports a 6,000-10,000 year earth (strata, fossils, Great Flood.) Could be considered a date of life OR the planet. Btw, you'd be shocked at the number of astronomical that support a Young Earth. NOT including the magnetic field decay rate or thickness of the ocean sentiment. NOR the oldest Sequoia's tree rings (no older than 4,000 years old. NOR man's records. Lot of evidence of a Young Earth you've obviously not been privy to. Again - I don't blame anyone for lacking this info or knowing where to find it. The internet has been EXTREMELY helpful in this regard. Seek and ye shall find.
You're a pistol. LOL!
What part of, "what came first" did you miss? This isn't a sex ed class.
You mean....Adam was asexual? And became pregnant with Eve? Woaaaah, dude....
And God declares it in Isaiah 42: 5 Thus says God the Lord, Who created the heavens and stretched them out, Who spread out the earth and its [d]offspring, Who gives breath to the people on it And spirit to those who walk in it, 6 “I am the Lord, I have called You in righteousness, I will also hold You by the hand and watch over You, And I will appoint You as a covenant to the people, As a light to the nations, 7 To open blind eyes, To bring out prisoners from the dungeon And those who dwell in darkness from the prison. 8 “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to [e]graven images. 9 “Behold, the former things have come to pass, Now I declare new things; Before they spring forth I proclaim them to you.” Amen, brutha!
Not at first... And then there were Democrats, MSNBC....and Zombies (do you hear a bell?)
LOL...they're not happy unless EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is miserable or a victim.
"This is Science" lol. Not even close. Couple of points: MUCH of what is claimed by "science" in the book, 'The Evolution Handbook' is described as you said: "circular reasoning." Secondly, the book refutes abd debunks pegler's supposed ace in the hole -- "cosmic background radiation." Nope. Proves zilch. If you thought the "Global Climate" bone was hard to take away from "science", choking off their supposed age of the earth and universe theory will make Charlton Heston's "cold dead hands" seem like he was an infant clasping a rattle.
The Bible says there was a worldwide flood. If that really happened you would expect to see billions of dead things laid down by water all over the earth. Here is some more facts. Go to the badlands and you can see the shore lines where the water eroded all over the place. You know your stuff.
Look, again, I'm not going to argue this. I appreciate you viewpoint, and I thank you for presenting it. However, I don't know what a "physicist" is. I look on Monster, etc, and I'll be damned if i can find a listing for that. Other views? The name Safarti (SIC?) comes to mind.
Obama has played at being a president while enjoying the perks … golf, insanely expensive vacations at tax-payer expense. He has ignored the responsibilities of the job; no plans, no budgets, no alternatives … just finger pointing; making him a complete failure as a president
Low budget comedy, written by someone who has most of the basic facts wrong. I don't have time to debunk the entire book, but here are a few tidbits that demonstrate how wrong on the basic facts this guy really is. Chapter 4 - THE AGE OF THE EARTH There are many star clusters in the universe. Each one is a circular ball composed of billions upon billions of stars. He apparently doesn't know the term "galaxy". LOL. Galaxies are not circular balls. Galaxies come in many shapes, but none of them are balls. some of these clusters—with their stars—are moving so rapidly, together, in a certain direction that it should be impossible for them to remain together if the universe were very old. Completely untrue. Galaxies are held together by a type of matter (dark matter) that our current technology has not been able to detect yet. Physics predicted the cosmic background radiation, which was later discovered in the 1960s. Physics predicted the Higgs boson, which was almost certainly detected by the Large Hadron Collider a couple months ago. At some point, we'll have the technology to figure out what dark matter really is. Some stars are so enormous in diameter that it is thought that they could not have existed for even a few million years, otherwise their initial larger mass would have been impossibly large A basic misconception in how stars work. Stars do not shrink much as they burn through their hydrogen. The Sun's mass at the end of its lifetime (in another 4 billion years) will be 99.966% of its current mass (simple math, which you know little about). Depending upon the size of the star, when the hydrogen is gone, the star will either puff up into a red giant and then collapse into a white dwarf, or the star will explode into a super nova and collapse into a black hole. Very large stars burn their fuel in as little as 10 million years. Stars like our sun will burn their fuel in 8 to 10 billion years. Red dwarfs could take up to a trillion years to burn their fuel. in 1967, that the trillions of particles in the rings circling the planet Saturn are primarily composed of solid ammonia. Since solidified ammonia has a much higher vapor pressure than even ice, reputable scientists recognize that it could not survive long without vaporizing off into space No. Saturn's Rings are made of water ice with a trace amount of rocky material. The 60s are long gone. It's time to get over it. Meteoroids bombarding Saturn’s rings would have destroyed them in far less than 20,000 years. No. Saturn's rings are not solid. Something striking one small area won't disrupt the entire thing. Saturn's gravity will quickly align the small disrupted area back in place. Io is the innermost of the four original “Galilean moons,” and was found to have over sixty active volcanoes! These volcanoes spew plumes of ejecta from 60 to 160 miles [97 to 257 km] above Io’s surface. This is astounding. Nothing on our planet can match this continuous stream of material being shot out by Io’s volcanoes at a velocity of 2000 miles per hour [3218 km per hour]! The usual evolutionary model portrays all the planets and moons as being molten 5 billion years ago. During the next billion years they are said to have had active volcanoes. Then, 4 billion years ago, the volcanism stopped as they cooled. Io is quite small; yet it has the most active volcanoes we know133 of. Obviously, it is quite young and its internal heat has not had time to cool. Wrong again. Io's extreme geologic activity is the result of tidal heating from friction generated within Io's interior as it is pulled between Jupiter and the other Galilean satellites—Europa, Ganymede and Callisto. Io's interior will never cool because of the enormous gravitational forces it's subject to. If all four moons of Jupiter’s “Galilean moons” evolved, they should be essentially alike in physical characteristics. Just because he said so? LOL... that earth’s magnetic field is gradually decaying The earth's magnetic field goes through cycles and occasionally reverses (where magnetic north is at the south pole). We can see the magnetic field drifting today and magnetic north is no longer at the North Pole. Prior to such a magnetic field reversal, the magnetic field tends to get weaker. After the reversal, the field gets stronger. This is well documented in the geological record. According to one theory of solar energy, hydrogen is constantly being converted into helium as stars shine. But hydrogen cannot be made by converting other elements into it. *Fred Hoyle, a leading astronomer, maintains that, if the universe were as old as Big Bang theorists contend, there should be little hydrogen in it. It would all have been transformed into helium by now. Yet stellar spectra reveal an abundance of hydrogen in the stars; therefore the universe must be youthful. The answer is too long to post here. Google "star formation", "stellar nurseries", and "supernovas". Perhaps, you'll actually learn something. Also, Fred Hoyle was a critic of the Big Bang in 1949, BEFORE we had the technology to observe that the universe actually is expanding. Quoting things from the 1940s and 1960s is not helping your case. I don't have to time to futz with this anymore. Any objective observer should realize that whomever wrote this book is largely ignorant of basic scientific facts. But of course, you take his uniformed nonsense as gospel, which is a real problem.
Of course you don't.
.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side
with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso
posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
Why did you delete my post and how do you know for certain that Libby doesn't reproduce asexually?
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
It's nice to see you learning the humility that a dumb, ignorant fuck like you should have had all along...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Here's an example of a physicist. Michio Kaku (pron.: /ÈmiÐtƒioŠ ÈkQÐkuÐ/) (加来 道雄 Kaku Michio, born January 24, 1947) is an American theoretical physicist, the Henry Semat Professor of Theoretical Physics in the City College of New York of City University of New York, a futurist, and a communicator and popularizer of science. He has written several books about physics and related topics; he has made frequent appearances on radio, television, and film; and he writes extensive online blogs and articles. He has written two New York Times Best Sellers, Physics of the Impossible (2008) and Physics of the Future (2011). I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Stone is deleting posts again? Sounds like someone else we both know...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
"We've", in fact, found several..
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
Sounds like someone else we both know... Yep off topic.
Was your mother one? If not start naming them please.
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
I'll believe that a corporation is a person 1 second after Texas executes one...
You effing a-hole. You should be boiled in oil.
Yet you only delete off topic posts that make you look stupid. And you were the first to go off topic.
Almost every country in the Middle East is awash in oil, and we have to side with the one that has nothing but joos. Goddamn, that was good thinkin'. Esso posted on 2012-01-13 7:37:56 ET
You effing a-hole. You should be boiled in oil. Little war is the one who wsid there is a missing link. He said lots of them. Why couldn't it be his mom? Since there are no "missing links" and he couldn't name any.
Comments (87 - 104) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestNO person has ever asexually reproduced.
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#48. To: Thunderbird (#46)
To: mininggold
#49. To: A K A Stone (#40)
(Edited)
he satanic religion of evolution has no explanation for the fossil record.
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#50. To: A K A Stone (#38)
It is also an observed fact that trees have leaves. Some reproduce asexually. Do you expect to see a person born with leaves for hair?
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#51. To: A K A Stone (#39)
That is nonsense. I can't believe you think that just because mininggold can't get any men that she can still reproduce.
#52. To: jwpegler (#49)
Unlike evolution, the more we learn about the universe, the more the standard model of physics is PROVEN correct.
#53. To: mininggold (#51)
#54. To: no gnu taxes, A K A Stone (#52)
(Edited)
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#55. To: jwpegler, A K A Stone, ALL Creationists and Evolutionists (#49)
We're not talking about evolution. We're talking about physics -- the age of the universe.
#56. To: jwpegler (#35)
When there is a shortage of males, the females use asexual reproduction for survival. When is there an abundance of males, they switch to sexual reproduction to pass on the best genes.
#57. To: jwpegler (#32)
Asexual reproduction came first.
#58. To: jwpegler (#1)
The bible shouldn't be read literally. Israelites: We wandered in the desert for 40 years. Native Americas: We haven't had rain in many moons. 40 years, many moons -- both mean a really long time. God created the universe in 6 days. 6 days means a very short time, because god is powerful. They are expressions, not accurate measures of time.
#59. To: A K A Stone (#2)
All evidence points to a young earth. Just like God said. His word is accurate.
#60. To: jwpegler, A K A Stone (#3)
There is tons of evidence for the universe being 13.8 billion years old and the earth being 4.5 billions of years old. The evidence includes, but is not limited to: the rate the universe is expanding, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the observable life-cycle of stars of various types, the newly observable life-cycle of exo-planet formation, the geological record on earth, and much more.
#61. To: jwpegler, A K A Stone (#4)
God did NOT say the earth and universe are 6,000 years old as young earth believers claim. There is no evidence in the Bible for this view.
#62. To: A K A Stone (#5)
What came first the penis or the vagina?
#63. To: mininggold (#13)
They [penis/vagina] originate from the same cells under the influence of differing levels of hormones.
#64. To: war, A K A Stone (#15)
Don't tell Stone about asexual reproduction...he'll stroke out...
#65. To: redleghunter, A K A Stone (#16)
("Just like God said. His word is accurate.")
#66. To: mininggold (#17)
He created such a defective world according to conservatives and the Bible.
#67. To: CZ82 (#19)
And then Leftards went and ruined everything...
#68. To: A K A Stone, jwpegler (#24)
You call this [cosmic background radiation] proof? This isn't science. This is presupposition circular reasoning circle jerk.
#69. To: A K A Stone, jwpegler (#25)
Fact there are billions of dead things buried im mud laid down by water all over the earth.
#70. To: jwpegler (#54)
Physics is a different story. Physics is proven wrong all of the time. Unlike evolutionists, physicists are willing to be proven wrong.
#71. To: Liberator (#55)
http://evolutionfacts.com/Downloads.htm
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#72. To: no gnu taxes (#70)
However, I don't know what a "physicist" is
"we must as a species go into a period of shrinkage that we have not experienced since the Dark Ages and the Black Plague" -- lucysmom
#73. To: Liberator (#67)
!["Whatcha]("http://i48.tinypic.com/dgrzhs.jpg")
Say hi to your mom for me.
#74. To: Biff Tannen, Liberator (#73)
#75. To: A K A Stone, Biff Tannen, Liberator (#74)
#76. To: no gnu taxes (#70)
(Edited)
#77. To: no gnu taxes (#70)
#78. To: mininggold (#75)
#79. To: jwpegler (#54)
Again, the more we learn about evolution, the more we know that it's wrong. We have never found any intermediate species that the Darwinist's predicted we would.
#80. To: war (#78)
Stone is deleting posts again?
#81. To: war (#79)
"We've", in fact, found several..
#82. To: A K A Stone (#80)
#83. To: A K A Stone (#81)
(Edited)
#84. To: A K A Stone (#81)
Was your mother one?
#85. To: A K A Stone (#80)
Yep off topic.
#86. To: Fred Mertz, war (#84)
Was your mother one?
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]