Comments Posted By Tom
Displaying 61 To 70 Of 109 Comments
THE DEMONS ARE STIRRING...THE CANDLE IS GUTTERING
toilet plunger: the point of miller-urey is that evolution has always been about the EVOLUTION OF LIFE....ie you're a liar. get it?
as far as a 'laughingstock' who cares. truth is truth, whether you laugh at it or not. I notice you darwiniacs don't have any answers...not that it matters, faith is never swayed by logic.
mr. 'scientist' (toilet plunger) I notice you have ZERO ZIP NADA references. if you've ever been to college (doubtful) you would know about writing papers that require REFERENCES! its real easy, DO RESEARCH. You say things, define evolution, for example, but have nothing to back up what you say....but faith doesn't require any 'backup' I've noticed!! I am derided as 'anti-science' but I have the quotes and references.
as far as 'allowing me to speak' who cares? I notice that I was called names first, and the owner of this site was not concerned about that....I laugh at the foolishness of a poster, and my post is deleted....it couldn't be due to the bias of the proprietor now could it??
its simple: evolution doesn't happen. random changes do not lead to new life forms. The information does not increase from mutations. Evolution is this supposed grand force that created life, and all the living animals today, but it cannot be measured, and it cannot be disproved.....the whole notion that something as complex as life can self-organize is as believable as computers can self-organize, whats laughable is you darwiniacs laugh at that notion, but totally believe life can self-organize.
Why? because Darwinism is the main plank of the religion of secularism. As Wald said:
The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. There is no third position. For this reason many scientists a century ago chose to regard the belief in spontaneous generation as a "philosophical necessity." It is a symptom of the philosophical poverty of our time that this necessity is no longer appreciated. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46
One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible. Yet here we are as a result, I believe, of spontaneous generation. "The origin of life" Scientific American August 1954 p.46
get a clue, anything that can't be disproved isn't science, its FAITH....duhhhhhhhh
go ahead and laugh at me all you want. I will state it plainly, the Bible is true, There is a God in Heaven who created all life forms, and the entire universe, and Darwin, and you darwiniacs are liars!!
and yes, this is a cultural and religious war, comparable to the war islam is waging upon the west right now. Darwinism serves as a basis for social values and morals, Hitler would not have slaughtered the jews, had he considered them created by the same God who created him, but darwinism gave him the justification to slaughter those he considered 'sub-human'....yes you supporters of darwinism have much to answer for.
Comment Posted By tom On 16.08.2006 @ 17:39
don't like anything that disagrees with your 'god'....
don't like freedom of speech, you piece of
Comment Posted By tom On 16.08.2006 @ 06:11
rick, go yourself!!!
Comment Posted By tom On 16.08.2006 @ 06:10
it blanked out the previous post.....
every hear of miller-urey??? its one of the icons of evolution...but you know whats funny? for supposedly representing 'science' toilet plunger...you POST NO REFERENCES!!!
and your word isn't enough hhahahhahahahhaha
Comment Posted By tom On 16.08.2006 @ 06:10
it blanked out the last word...try BS...bullchit...you get it
Comment Posted By tom On 16.08.2006 @ 06:07
oh yeah toilet plunger, when you publish something about the second law, maybe I'll take YOUR word for it....until then...HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Comment Posted By tom On 15.08.2006 @ 06:10
as far as the link....add the "L".....
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.html
'Look, no matter how many times you say this, it doesn’t make it true. The TOE does not and can not and does not claim to explain the origin of life'
you're right, no matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make it true!!!
How did life begin? Biochemical evolution on mineral surfaces
How did life begin on Earth? University of Chicago geophysicist Joseph V. Smith, in a Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences paper published Tuesday, March 31, provides a theory for how small organic molecules may have been able to assemble on the surfaces of minerals into self-replicating biomolecules--the essential building blocks of life.http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/98/980331.origin.of.life.shtml
the whole point that you darwiniacs refuse to see is that the same natural processes that gave us life, and this immense and incredible complexity of biological life, you totally believe.
but when I ask why these same natural processes that gave us this huge biological complexity, couldn't have given us much simpler thinks like roads and bridges, you laugh.....just as we laugh at your 'evolution'
Comment Posted By tom On 15.08.2006 @ 06:08
here andy, try thinking outside of your little darwiniac box. despite what toilet plunger says, evolution is a theory of origins, and in order to do that it had to take inorganic matter and make it organic. Duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
The other point is very simple, but also seems to be appreciated only by more mathematically-oriented people. It is that to attribute the development of life on Earth to natural selection is to assign to it--and to it alone, of all known natural "forces"--the ability to violate the second law of thermodynamics and to cause order to arise from disorder. It is often argued that since the Earth is not a closed system--it receives energy from the Sun, for example-- the second law is not applicable in this case. It is true that order can increase locally, if the local increase is compensated by a decrease elsewhere, ie, an open system can be taken to a less probable state by importing order from outside. For example, we could transport a truckload of encyclopedias and computers to the moon, thereby increasing the order on the moon, without violating the second law. But the second law of thermodynamics--at least the underlying principle behind this law--simply says that natural forces do not cause extremely improbable things to happen**, and it is absurd to argue that because the Earth receives energy from the Sun, this principle was not violated here when the original rearrangement of atoms into encyclopedias and computers occurred.
The biologist studies the details of natural history, and when he looks at the similarities between two species of butterflies, he is understandably reluctant to attribute the small differences to the supernatural. But the mathematician or physicist is likely to take the broader view. I imagine visiting the Earth when it was young and returning now to find highways with automobiles on them, airports with jet airplanes, and tall buildings full of complicated equipment, such as televisions, telephones and computers. Then I imagine the construction of a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet (perhaps using random number generators to model quantum uncertainties!). If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards? If we graphically displayed the positions of the atoms at the end of the simulation, would we find that cars and trucks had formed, or that supercomputers had arisen? Certainly we would not, and I do not believe that adding sunlight to the model would help much. Clearly something extremely improbable has happened here on our planet, with the origin and development of life, and especially with the development of human consciousness and creativity.
http://www.math.utep.edu/Faculty/sewell/articles/mathint.htm
Comment Posted By tom On 14.08.2006 @ 20:02
all your efforts toilet plunger, are for naught, polls show your lies aren't working
haahaaahhahahahahahahahhahahahhahhahhahahahahahahhahah
Comment Posted By tom On 14.08.2006 @ 16:55
'I am willing to bet that if you are claiming your school taught you that rocks evolved, then you are either lying, crazy, or you grew up in some sort of bizarre new age cult sect and not a public school (as lousy as those are).'
besides being an arrogant asshole you're full of shit, and you wouldn't have the guts to call me a liar in person you punkazz pussy . I'm not going to waste anymore time with a jackazz, keep believing your fairy story, its BS. keep twisting what you think evolution is, doesn't matter what some wacko on a message board says.
I'm not going to believe your BS, and fewer and fewer people are!!
Comment Posted By tom On 14.08.2006 @ 16:51
