Search Results

Quote from Neal: “? Creationism could not have been a theory based off observations. For example, no 1 could have observed God creating the world in 6 days, right?” Neither could Evolution. For example, no one observed a fish evolving into a man. God, Neal, think before you put something. Please it helps alot especially your side of the debate.

Quote from Neal: “You still haven't answered what the difference is. Evolution does not require faith as evolution is not an observation or a set of observations, but an *explanation* for the observations. Creationism, is not.” Two words, Bull shit. Neal, I thought you were smarter than this. Creationism is a theory just as many others. Do not deceive yourself young man.

Quote from LOLFag: “First and foremost, there is absolutely no way you know more calculus than me. I've taken calculus courses in MIT. You?” And the college, and place matter how? When you only take the same thing? I think you expected me to respect a piece of paper, from MIT, more than another from other places? I think not, when taking the same thing, MIT takes a hell of a lot of money. Most may not have, there will have their students take the same course elsewhere. Quote from LOLFag: “Second…

Quote from LOLFag: “I don't give credibility to weapons research in Star Trek. Anyway, normal is defined by the scientific community. In gases, it's 1 atm, 25 degrees Celsius. In terms of quantum mechanics, it's a vacuum. As a researcher in this field, I'm sure then that you understand that light still travels at 300,000 km/s between each atom? Lastly, electromagnetism and quantum mechanics are two different things. Quantum mechanics addresses subatomic physics, whereas electromagnetism is a who…

Quote from Bebop: “Answer your question?” And is it universal? no, you have more than just a vacuum in space, even you should know this.

Quote from Bebop: “*blink* Really? There are times when I wonder about your comprehension skills..... or whether you even read what you're responding to in the first place.” And you're questioning this because? I did not respond in the expected way? Or would you rather me attack the other side of the argument that was made as well? That he knows , most probably nothing of YEC, OEC, or if any comparatively little, compared to his knowledge of his own belief?

Quote from Bebop: “Somehow I doubt this qualifies you.” But I do most probably possess more knowledge than most on energy fields. Quote from Bebop: “Did you read his post at all?” Yes, and the question is valid, or you can answer if you wish, What is normal?

Quote from Simplistic_Revolution: “The sad part of this post, is that you are only trying to end this argument because you can't find a way around my side. I knowing that both cannot be proven, yet choosing one side strongly strengthens by imagination by allowing a clear view of mine, and a clear view of the other side, as it should be more or less anything that is not believed by myself. There are no facts at all in religion. Religion is called "faith" for a reason, you can't prove it, and you …

Quote from LOLFag: “Calculus is governed by theory and speculation. Being in a little world does not mean it doesn't apply to the real world. And no, they cannot change as "mathematicians whim." You need to take more classes and less football. Yes, facts are more realistic than theory. I never said they weren't. I'm saying to give more credibility to theory because it is, after all, based on fact and physical evidence. We just can't *prove* that evolution exists. What do you want us to do, set u…

Quote from DamnImGood: “But we know fossilization requires millions of years to accomplish. Fossilized dinosaur bones have been found all over the world. Do you honestly believe they existed 6,000 years ago and were fossilized within that time? Do you believe all life began 6,000 years ago? Notice why I am asking you how old the Earth is?” Millions of years? I can fossilize you in a matter of days, dig. Technology has come a long way. They used to think it took millions of years for a material t…

Who said it would not? Now, you cannot prove anything on that young man, other than that it was a genetic defect, the rest is all speculation, and guessing.

Umm, genius I do not know who you think made the original argument there, but you're currently debating his own argument. This ladies and gentlemen, is known as ignorance.

Quote from DamnImGood: “So what are fossils, then? And as we've said before countless times... even if they are wrong by millions of years with the carbon dating, the margin of error is negligible when you're dealing with hundreds of millions of years. Do you believe the Earth is only 6,000 years old?” That is if you're dealing with hundreds of millions of years. Fossils are simple organisms placed under extreme pressure, the result being fossilization. Just like it can take a man, mere minutes …

Quote from The Guardian: “Could you really in your right mind think or believe that you could oppose something that one, cannot be seen, and two cannot even begin to be imagined? I think not, when your imaginations are the current limit, to everything, and you are by doing so proving how limited.” Case closed, but its whatever makes you sleep at night, Neal. Your choice.

Quote from Neal: “What about cases where people give birth to ape-like people? The case of backwards evolution. It happened to a Muslim family in Turkey. They initially rejected evolution, of course.” Neal, that's evolution but a severe disorder, from the result of a genetic defect. Which is a known fact, the case where they use it to push the theory of evolution is a conclusion, of which they have nothing to prove, and will never be able to.

Again you try to use the validity of another argument, for the betterment of your own ideals, Neal. You are, in this case, trying to transfer this validity from one argument to another(evolution). Of which is no where near the argument used. In this case humans have been recorded back past 6,000 BC, of which there is no known history past that. Now, as you are using the word reject, you are trying to better you're stance in this argument by using words with bad connotations. And what would I rej…

Quote from Neal: “My argument still stands.” Its not your argument, try again.

Quote from LOLFag: “So will you disregard many theories in Calculus (such as Gabriel's Horn, limits to infinity, etc.) because there's no hard evidence? That they are merely proven on paper?” You're doing the same thing you have been. Calculus is like its own little world. Of which it has governing rules, and laws that cannot be broken, then it has the value and symbols, of which can change at anytime on the bases of the mathematicians whim. Now, stop trying to rub the near perfect natures of on…

Quote from Simplistic_Revolution: “Oh, but there are no such facts in this topic. You close yourself off to all speculation. And alas, you fail to see the thoughts that flow through my head, if I look at one side, I must look at the other, lest both shall merge in my mind. You have limited yourself by following non-existent "facts" in a topic that you have said can never be proven.” Did I now? Somehow me placing my knowledge in the facts of the world is now speculation. You have chosen one, not …

By William J. Cromie Quote: “Lene Hau has already shaken scientists' beliefs about the nature of things. Albert Einstein and just about every other physicist insisted that light travels 186,000 miles a second in free space, and that it can't be speeded-up or slowed down. But in 1998, Hau, for the first time in history, slowed light to 38 miles an hour, about the speed of rush-hour traffic. Two years later, she brought light to a complete halt in a cloud of ultracold atoms. Next, she restarted th…