Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Evolution Disclaimer Supported
The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

Posted on 12/11/2002 6:28:08 AM PST by A2J

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,221-1,2401,241-1,2601,261-1,280 ... 7,021-7,032 next last
To: PatrickHenry
I think we have a problem here regarding the burden of proof. If you want to claim that the "God hypothesis"

Actually it is atheits that cannot disprove God by scientific means: abiogenesis has been proven scientifically impossible, the Universe has been shown to be intelligently designed, the development of a human from conception to birth is not random but a program which cannot be stochastically changed. It is you and your fellow atheists that have to disprove God and you have nothing but lame rhetoric to do it with.

1,241 posted on 12/28/2002 8:49:42 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1194 | View Replies]

To: Michael_Michaelangelo
How old is the Earth?

Give us a number, and some supporting evidence.

1,242 posted on 12/28/2002 8:53:18 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1163 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
For those who tuned in late, this question first came up in post 1081, and since then it has not been answered.

It has not been answered because it is totally irrelevant to the question of whether evolution is scientifically true or not. However the following posts are relevant and have gone totally unrefuted. This proves your atheistic religion (aka evolution) to be totally false and totally unscienitific:

Neither you nor any evolutionists has ever given proof that a single species has transformed itself into another more complex species. If I am wrong, let's see the proof. Come up with a real arguement that slams evolution can you do it?

There are many. The bacterial flagellum is one. The program by which a single cell at conception turns into a 100 trillion cells at the time of birth - with every single cell of the exactly proper kind in the exactly proper place is another. There are many more which have been scientifically proven, but these two should keep you busy for a while.
988 posted on 12/23/2002 7:07 AM PST by gore3000

'Gradual loss of egg laying' is more easily said than done. You must remember that the you need to provide nutrition to the developing organism throughout its development - as well as after the birth until it can feed itself. To say that all these changes can occur simultaneously is totally ludicrous and you have disproven nothing. Let's see an article describing how this change occurred in detail. Can you find any? I doubt it because this is one of the things evolutionists never speak of.
989 posted on 12/23/2002 7:14 AM PST by gore3000

And where did you debunk the flagellum besides in your own mind?

As to the eye spot, your article only says that because it happened more than once then therefore the eye spot could have occurred. It is not a refutation of the complex mechanism required for an eye spot.

BTW - a blog from Don Lindsay is proof of absolutely nothing. The guy cannot even give references for his nonsense.

991 posted on 12/23/2002 7:28 AM PST by gore3000


1,243 posted on 12/28/2002 8:59:00 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1200 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

When are the lamers of evolution going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991

1,244 posted on 12/28/2002 8:59:34 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1203 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
BTW gore3000 How old is the Earth?

When are you, the #1 lamer of evolution going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991

1,245 posted on 12/28/2002 9:01:33 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1210 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
Where is that Answer How old is the Earth?

The #1 lamer of evolution continues to spam the thread. As I have told you already Vade, you need to take your meds and have a long rest.

When are you going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991

1,246 posted on 12/28/2002 9:04:26 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1213 | View Replies]

To: Sentis
HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?M

I see you have not taken your meds yet and continue to spam the thread.

When are you, the #1 lamer of evolution going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991

1,247 posted on 12/28/2002 9:06:40 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1215 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

Continuing to spam the thread. Seems that is all you do on these threads Patrick. When are you and your fellow lamers of evolution going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991

1,248 posted on 12/28/2002 9:08:41 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1223 | View Replies]

To: newguy357
You really need to take a few physics classes. Perhaps then you would learn the credentials of people you insult. Your post is not only shows ignorance but insulting too.
1,249 posted on 12/28/2002 9:09:12 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1205 | View Replies]

To: PatrickHenry
HOW OLD IS THE EARTH? (This isn't directed at Tribune7.)

Of course it is not directed at anyone but me. You are even too dishonest to address your posts to the person you are attacking.

When are you and your fellow lamers of evolution going to refute the following posts: 988, 989, 991

1,250 posted on 12/28/2002 9:11:33 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1230 | View Replies]

To: Physicist
And what makes YOU think that the force that keeps the moon in its orbit is the same thing as the force that keeps your keyster in its chair?

You claim to be a physicist and you ask that quesition? It is totally dishonest to ask a question for which you know the answer so you are either not a physicist or you are attacking someone for making a statement you know to be true. Either way you are showing your dishonesty.

1,251 posted on 12/28/2002 9:15:11 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1235 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
You really need to take a few physics classes. Perhaps then you would learn the credentials of people you insult. Your post is not only shows ignorance but insulting too.

You really need to stop lying and insulting people. Gravity is a scientific fact, evolution is not. Gravity can be observed by anyone, evolution has never been observed.

1,252 posted on 12/28/2002 9:17:11 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1249 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
Sorry, but gravity has never been observed. Events and relations among objects have been observed, and equations have been proposed to describe and predict these relations, but noone are completely satisfactory, so far. So exactlaty what is the "fact" that you refer to?
1,253 posted on 12/28/2002 9:20:52 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1252 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
If you think that gravity has been observed, what color is it?

How old do you believe the Earth is?
1,254 posted on 12/28/2002 9:22:51 PM PST by Doctor Stochastic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1252 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
Some silence going on here.
1,255 posted on 12/28/2002 9:33:58 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1254 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Stochastic
If you think that gravity has been observed, what color is it?

Aaah, semantics again! It is the same color as electricity which has been observed also. However, if you think gravity is not true, lets both of us go on top of a 20 story building. If you fall up, I will agree with you that gravity is false.

1,256 posted on 12/28/2002 9:39:07 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1254 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Sorry, but gravity has never been observed.

Okay, then you and Dr. Stochastic go up together on a 20 story building and see if you fall up. This is your great chance to prove me wrong, let's see you guys do it. Heck it's sure better than making fools of yourselves denying what is incontrovertibly true.

1,257 posted on 12/28/2002 9:41:33 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1253 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
What, exactly, is it that is true?
1,258 posted on 12/28/2002 9:42:26 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1257 | View Replies]

To: js1138
Some silence going on here.

Yup, the evolutionists always grow silent when they know they have lost the discussion. Guess you did not get your e-mail from Patrick telling you not to bump this thread.

1,259 posted on 12/28/2002 9:43:34 PM PST by gore3000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1255 | View Replies]

To: gore3000
If you fall up, I will agree with you that gravity is false.

Perhaps if the moon were a lot closer, as it once was, we would be light enough to fly. At least according to the theories of one former poster.

1,260 posted on 12/28/2002 9:45:03 PM PST by js1138
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1256 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,221-1,2401,241-1,2601,261-1,280 ... 7,021-7,032 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson