• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What kind of twisted explicit sexual perversions are schools now teaching?

Angel said:
So you did not reject science in our exchanges in the Duggars thread? Is that so?
Well, here are some of your posts from those exchanges, in which you reject primatology and evolutionary biology, with my bolding to highlight your present mendacity:
Click to expand...

More fact free opinions from you. I reject your failed use of science. It is that simple.
 
marke said:
Defining terms in unique ways will never turn Darwininian foolishness into scientific truth. Humans and bananas do not share a common ancestor with raspberries.
Click to expand...


Defining terms in a scientific way, under a scientific method does.

And, despite what your church blindly preaches humans do share 50% DNA with bananas meaning they have a common ancestor.


Humans and bananas do indeed share a common ancestor with raspberries. The fact you and your church are ignorant about DNA and evolution doesn't mean it's not happening.



Do you even know what DNA and chromosomes are ?
 
Deuce said:
Don't get mad because you keep asking for something that doesn't exist. "How does evolution explain the origin of life, checkmate liberals?" The answer is that it doesn't, and makes no attempts to do so. Picture someone asking "how does gravity explain how my computer works?" You'd think that is a silly question, wouldn't you?

That's how you sound when you demand evolution explain the origin of life.
Click to expand...

Why would an evolutionist assume plants and animals had a common origin if he knew he was ignorant about origins?
 
Peter King said:
And you are illogical enough to think our commons plants and our current human form are impossible to be from the same far far far far far far far far ancestor. All DNA, both plant as animal DNA has the same structure (the double helix) and are all built up of nucleotides. So it is very much possible that far far ago we were descendant from one and the same organism. Now if plants would have had a totally different make up at the core of their DNA you might have been right but as is often the case, you are wrong. It is not foolish to claim that DNA may be another piece of evidence that all life comes from the same one cell plant/animal/amoeba.
Click to expand...

You assume life began as neither plant nor animal and then split at some point? You should be reminded that evolution knows nothing about the origin of DNA or how it might have once originated in a single life form that was neither plant nor animal.
 
Rich2018 said:
Defining terms in a scientific way, under a scientific method does.

And, despite what your church blindly preaches humans do share 50% DNA with bananas meaning they have a common ancestor.
Click to expand...

For admitting they don't know squat about the origin of life evolutionists sure do make some outrageous claims about the nature of original life. They assume original life was neither plant nor animal. That is not science, that is dummass.

Humans and bananas do indeed share a common ancestor with raspberries. The fact you and your church are ignorant about DNA and evolution doesn't mean it's not happening.
Do you even know what DNA and chromosomes are ?
Click to expand...
 
marke said:
Why would an evolutionist assume plants and animals had a common origin if he knew he was ignorant about origins?
Click to expand...

Because the branch point came later. This isn't really that complicated.


Origin of Life -----> Early microbial life ----> Plant/animal split
 
Deuce said:
Because the branch point came later. This isn't really that complicated.


Origin of Life -----> Early microbial life ----> Plant/animal split
Click to expand...

Evolutionism: (We don't have a clue how life began on earth), but after it began as early microbial life it then split into two main branches of plants and animals. That nonsense is not science, it is bullcrap.
 
marke said:
For admitting they don't know squat about the origin of life ...
Click to expand...

On the question of the origin of life we have a good idea how it started but right now the correct answer is "I don't know"


Which is a hell of a lot better than "god did it".
 
marke said:
For admitting they don't know squat about the origin of life evolutionists sure do make some outrageous claims about the nature of original life. They assume original life was neither plant nor animal. That is not science, that is dummass.
Click to expand...

Science already has a good idea of how life started but the correct answer is "I don't know" not your dogmatic retreat of "god did it"

DNA does indeed prove relationships so we can trace our evolution back, the DNA record has conclusively proved evolution - it is only Theists who object because to accept it would challenge the very bedrock their "revealed truth" is based on.

It is probably already to late for an elderly person like you to change a life time's belief wedded to your Bible but it's not too late to teach chilren the truth on who they are and where they came from, even if churches like yours try to fill their heads with nonsensical religious dogma.

"...DNA has been an important discovery for many reasons, a key one being its relationship to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have been particularly excited with DNA advances because the basis of DNA is such that it can be utilised to document the history of evolution."


Evolution of DNA


And yes we can also conclusively demonstrate we have a relationship with bananas through DNA studies:


"We’ve long known that we’re closely related to chimpanzees and other primates, but did you know that humans also share more than half of our genetic material with chickens, fruit flies, and bananas?

Since the human genome was first sequenced in 2003, the field of comparative genomics has revealed that we share common DNA with many other living organisms — yes, including our favorite yellow peeled fruit. "

How Genetically Related Are We to Bananas? | Get Science




The challenge to your world view by evolution mean you have to dismiss it with an insult or stick your fingers in your proverbial ears shouting "la, la, la"

To you and your church, you know the truth. Scientifically looking for real answers is a waste of time guaranteed to produce "garbage claims" if they don't 100% agree with your beliefs.
 
marke said:
Evolutionism: (We don't have a clue how life began on earth), but after it began as early microbial life it then split into two main branches of plants and animals. That nonsense is not science, it is bullcrap.
Click to expand...

You still don't understand how different fields work. Astrogeology doesn't cover how life began either. They're different fields.

We do have clues about how life began on earth.
 
Deuce said:
You still don't understand how different fields work. Astrogeology doesn't cover how life began either. They're different fields.

We do have clues about how life began on earth.
Click to expand...

He's mentally retreated into his god of the gaps redoubt.

You don't know
=> God did it.
 
Rich2018 said:
On the question of the origin of life we have a good idea how it started but right now the correct answer is "I don't know"


Which is a hell of a lot better than "god did it".
Click to expand...

God rejecting evolutionist: "We don't know how life began but she sure as hell know God did not create it."
 
Rich2018 said:
Science already has a good idea of how life started but the correct answer is "I don't know" not your dogmatic retreat of "god did it"

DNA does indeed prove relationships so we can trace our evolution back, the DNA record has conclusively proved evolution - it is only Theists who object because to accept it would challenge the very bedrock their "revealed truth" is based on.

It is probably already to late for an elderly person like you to change a life time's belief wedded to your Bible but it's not too late to teach chilren the truth on who they are and where they came from, even if churches like yours try to fill their heads with nonsensical religious dogma.

"...DNA has been an important discovery for many reasons, a key one being its relationship to evolutionary theory. Evolutionists have been particularly excited with DNA advances because the basis of DNA is such that it can be utilised to document the history of evolution."


Evolution of DNA


And yes we can also conclusively demonstrate we have a relationship with bananas through DNA studies:


"We’ve long known that we’re closely related to chimpanzees and other primates, but did you know that humans also share more than half of our genetic material with chickens, fruit flies, and bananas?

Since the human genome was first sequenced in 2003, the field of comparative genomics has revealed that we share common DNA with many other living organisms — yes, including our favorite yellow peeled fruit. "

How Genetically Related Are We to Bananas? | Get Science




The challenge to your world view by evolution mean you have to dismiss it with an insult or stick your fingers in your proverbial ears shouting "la, la, la"

To you and your church, you know the truth. Scientifically looking for real answers is a waste of time guaranteed to produce "garbage claims" if they don't 100% agree with your beliefs.
Click to expand...


Darwinists make yup all sorts of nonsense and call it science. For example, Crick knew DNA proved life did not began spontaneously on earth so he suggested aliens in spaceships were responsible.
 
Deuce said:
You still don't understand how different fields work. Astrogeology doesn't cover how life began either. They're different fields.

We do have clues about how life began on earth.
Click to expand...

Of course you do, like the Panspermia theory one of your Nobel Prize winning scientists proposed.
 
marke said:
God rejecting evolutionist: "We don't know how life began but she sure as hell know God did not create it."
Click to expand...

How can you possibly reject what has no evidence of actually existing? Yous seem to think that God exists because you believe it in or that you god exists by default. Can you prove that Krishna does not exist or does it exist because there are many people who believe in him??
 
Lisa said:
How can you possibly reject what has no evidence of actually existing? Yous seem to think that God exists because you believe it in or that you god exists by default. Can you prove that Krishna does not exist or does it exist because there are many people who believe in him??
Click to expand...

God will not accept the excuse that people did not believe in Him because they had determined, wrongly, that He did not exist.
 
marke said:
God will not accept the excuse that people did not believe in Him because they had determined, wrongly, that He did not exist.
Click to expand...

which might something that would make christians think about altering behavior but we atheists know there is no god or heaven so it is all good.
 
Peter King said:
which might something that would make christians think about altering behavior but we atheists know there is no god or heaven so it is all good.
Click to expand...


If you "know" there is no God then you "know" too much that isn't true.
 
marke said:
Darwinists don't know how life started by they think they know where it went immediately after it did start. They know no such thing. They just think they do, the poor devils.
Click to expand...

For some reason, I don't connect 3.5 BILLION years with "immediately", but I suppose that is me thinking in a rational manner.
 
marke said:
God rejecting evolutionist: "We don't know how life began but she sure as hell know God did not create it."
Click to expand...

Evidence does not support god or the supernatural generally.

Saying that because biologists don't know yet how life stated is an argument for god is an argument from ignorance.

Most scientists are Atheists but even a committed Atheist will concede there is a possibility that a super natural god or gods exist. The DNA shows no divine intervention, indeed it shows that intelligent design is most unlikely and the Creation claim is false.

We weren't created, we evolved so the Bible's account of Creation is basically a lie.


If you're going to argue for the god of the gaps, go ahead and explain the origin of life with evidence not some bogus claim in a 4,000 year old book.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom