Comments Posted By Tom
Displaying 41 To 50 Of 109 Comments
CNN SEES NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN US AND TERRORISTS
Actions like this from CNN and statements like the comment from Ed above makes me wonder if we can actually win this war when so many people can't differentiate between the good guys and the bad guys. The only reason we "quit" in Vietnam was because of this and you wonder if the same thing will happen in Iraq, damn the consequences of what happens if we withdraw.
Comment Posted By Tom On 20.10.2006 @ 16:21
Why is this a surprise? I hope Bolton gets within kicking distance of Chirac and shoves his boot squarely up that frog's anus.
Comment Posted By Tom On 19.09.2006 @ 15:11
THE DEMONS ARE STIRRING...THE CANDLE IS GUTTERING
'he admits that there is math in evolutionary biology, and yet he claimed that there wasn’t any. Not very honest of him, was it? Isn’t there some kind of commandment against bearing false witness?'
seriously, how stupid are you? don't you know the difference between measuring evolution itself...ie the force of evolution (if it exists), compared to the mathematics for random genetic mutations? I mean seriously...pathetic.
'“you know you really make me sad….you believe in something that doesn’t even exist.â€'
so now you're telling me evolution exists....where before it was a 'process' .....not very honest of you....Isn’t there some kind of commandment against bearing false witness?
'rabidly anti-evolution creationists, he makes the error of cocksurely mistaking his own notions of what he presumes about evolutionary biology, for the reality itself. He never once bothers to stop for a moment and go check his fantasies against the reality, by for example cracking open a biology textbook or reading science journals to learn what they’re really about.'
now you're delusional, I'm the one who has the quotes, and the references from the evolutionists themselves....while you have your own 'definition'....really pathetic...shows a deeply disturbed individual
'spoiled, arrogant, ignorant brat that I would have been able to muster.'
oh yes, you evolutionists are so much more 'evolved' than the rest of us HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA jackazz!!
wish I were younger. What inclines me now to think you may be right in regarding [evolution] as the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives is not so much your arguments against it as the fanatical and twisted attitudes of its defenders.â€
-Dr. C.S. Lewis, in letter to Capt. Bernard Acworth of the Evolution Protest Movement, 1951.Dear Mr. Lewis is correct, you darwiniacs are wacko as hell....I'm outa here!!
just remember all your efforts (lies) are in vain....HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH
Comment Posted By tom On 19.08.2006 @ 18:55
I doubt you have the logic to build a computer program.
lets review:
1) evolution is not a 'force' like the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravity....the physicists (real scientists) don't include 'evolution' in their fundamental forces.
2) the very definition of evolution is 'evolving' all the time, and is rather a mish-mash of whatever someone wants it to be.
4) if life did not 'evolve' how did it get here? if it did 'evolve' then evolution IS a force, and should be measured mathematically, and it should work on other inorganic things, since it 'evolved' life from inorganic carbon.
3) so now we're just talking about 'biological' evolution....but if you can't measure evolution...then all you have is CHANCE...so chance is evolution.
4) as far as how new species 'evolve' well we're really not sure....we're 'open to other possibilities'5) lets use mr. Futuyma's definition:
Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions.†– Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
6) so evolution 'created' 'evolved' all the species, but we're really not sure how....we have theories though!! but they CANNNOT include God....heaven forbid....
I can see why you evolutionists are afraid to debate creationists. And I can see why REAL scientists (mathematicians and physicists) have so little to do with your 'theory' ie religion.
'That doesn’t even make any sense. That’s like asking “where is the mathematical formula for star formation'
funny you should say that....guess you're not up on science these days:
http://sciencematters.berkeley.edu/archives/volume3/issue22/story1.php
'Did you do what I asked and actually read a biology journal? You’ll find that it’s filled with math.'
yeah, the mathematics of chance....which is all 'evolution' really is.
you know you really make me sad....you believe in something that doesn't even exist.
Comment Posted By tom On 19.08.2006 @ 12:52
plain and simple: where is the mathematical formula for new species?
here's a real simple equation for ya:
NO MATH = NO SCIENCE.
you darwiniacs unknowingly prove the truth of the Bible:
Romans 1:
20: Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse;
21: for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened.
22: Claiming to be wise, they became fools,
23: and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.
24: Therefore God gave them up in the s of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves,
25: because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen.
Comment Posted By tom On 18.08.2006 @ 22:40
how new species arise:
Evolutionary biologists have written extensively about how natural selection could produce new species. For instance, in the called allopatry, developed by Ernst Mayr of Harvard University, if a population of organisms were isolated from the rest of its species by geographical boundaries, it might be subjected to different selective pressures. Changes would accumulate in the isolated population. If those changes became so significant that the splinter group could not or routinely would not breed with the original stock, then the splinter group would be reproductively isolated and on its way toward becoming a new species.
Natural selection is the best studied of the evolutionary mechanisms, but biologists are open to other possibilities as well. Biologists are constantly assessing the potential of unusual genetic mechanisms for causing speciation or for producing complex features in organisms. Lynn Margulis of the University of Massachusetts at Amherst and others have persuasively argued that some cellular organelles, such as the energy-generating mitochondria, evolved through the symbiotic merger of ancient organisms. Thus, science welcomes the possibility of evolution resulting from forces beyond natural selection. Yet those forces must be natural; they cannot be attributed to the actions of mysterious creative intelligences whose existence, in scientific terms, is unproved
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=5&catID=2
(I put in the bolds to see if it would work)
notice the use of the words 'might' 'if' and the pronouncement that the 'forces must be natural'....can you imagine a physicist talking about gravity this way: IF you drop a ten lb weight on your foot, you MIGHT break it.....unbelievable....the state of 'science'.....and why mention that those forces must be natural....I can see the evolution gritting his teeth, and saying THERE MUST NOT BE A GOD.....
'open to other possibilities' translation: we really don't know. thats the state of modern evolution after 150 years of 'science' yeah
and you darwiniacs buy this hook, line and sinker.....I've got some swampland to sell ya!
Comment Posted By tom On 18.08.2006 @ 22:33
from that same site:
One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:
*"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve*. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986since this evolution is all-pervasive, why doesn't inorganic matter EVOLVE????
let me guess, he's misquoted!!! ahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhaahahh
Comment Posted By tom On 18.08.2006 @ 21:54
you give me the definition from a dictionary....you really are clueless when it comes to your own 'god'
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.
Standard dictionaries are even worse."evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers
"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster'sThese definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to strate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
as far 'wikpedia' come on, thats an open site, that anyone can write things in....and you're the evolution 'expert' HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHH
you're a true believer, except I don't beleive anything you say!!
and if you believe in evolution, then someday that dog will not be a dog...it will be something else, just like we all evolved from a single celled organism that 'evolved' from inorganic matter....thats evolution, not the BS you're peddling! from 'wikpedia' HAHHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAH
81Lamuella: so how did this life get here?? you darwiniacs are so fond of 'given this' then that.....life had to EVOLVE from non-living matter....and if life can self organize, why not something simpler.....duh.....
Comment Posted By tom On 18.08.2006 @ 21:49
'Okay. If bird fossils are conclusively shown to show up in the Cambrian era, evolution is disproven. If a cat reproductively gives birth to a dog, evolution is disproven. And so on.'
there are fossils that disprove evolution, but OF COURSE they are 'fake'!!
hint: because a cat can't reproduce with a dog, it shows the limits of genetics....in other words genetics will NEVER 'evolve' one life form into anything else....a dog WILL ALWAYS BE A DOG......it willl NEVER EVER EVER 'evolve' into a 'higher' or 'lower' life form.....duhhhhhhhhhhhh
Comment Posted By tom On 17.08.2006 @ 20:34
'Oh no, I cited a DICTIONARY and an ENCYCLOPEDIA and told you to READ A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK to get an idea of what evolution is instead of a random quote from a book published 4 decades ago. I’m so incredibly depraved and loony!'
seriously, how stupid are you? you act as though evolution just 'evolved' a couple of years ago. it has a long history, which you ignore to serve your lies. really pathetic.
btw: where IS your paper on the Second Law? your words mean nothing! in fact I'm PROUD VERY PROUD to have *wackos like uncle andy and toilet plunger laugh at me*
a man is defined by his enemies as much as his friends, and you two I definately want to be on the other side!! hahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahah
Comment Posted By tom On 17.08.2006 @ 20:20
