Is a naturally occuring universe/life the biggest conspiracy ever?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Evidence isn't the problem here.

Willingness to accept it is.

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

I can't believe somebody asked if your name meant you were from the middle east. I mean I got it right away. Sofa king crazy!!!!

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Evidence isn't the problem here.

Willingness to accept it is.

Well show it to me
Don't talk it up, show it to me

I will accept any empirical evidence you show me

a reply to: Raggedyman

Resistance to antibiotics is a good place to start.

And to save you some time you can classify this as macro evolution and avoid the question yet again.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Resistance to antibiotics is a good place to start.

And to save you some time you can classify this as macro evolution and avoid the question yet again.

Oh you silly boy

We all know how wrong that is, maybe not all of us

I said empirical, not assumed, go study cowboy, go study it

Try type in why resistance to antibiotics is not evolution, just a hint

a reply to: Raggedyman

OK I did that.

Of the first 10 results all that have a "Donate" link support your view, all that don't support mine.

Do you think that's a coincidence?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

OK I did that.

Of the first 10 results all that have a "Donate" link support your view, all that don't support mine.

Do you think that's a coincidence?

I couldn't care less if it's a coincidence or not.
I guess one is public funded and the other not

Point is my sharp friend, there is another argument to your empirical proof

If your argument is over funding then I guess that exposes more about your argument and its validity than mine

Let me paraphrase your argument

Hey look, my beliefs are public funded, yours are not
That means I am right and your wrong

Thanks but no thanks

Having to explain this to you, I feel embarrassed for you.

a reply to: Raggedyman

Hmmmm, getting a little bothered? Your grammar seems to have improved.

The paraphrasing isn't entirely accurate. I may have said it clearer in my first post...

If we start by assuming that the bible is correct and that the world was created in the same week as Adam.

Why do all the scientists not making a buck out of the religious go against this idea?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Hmmmm, getting a little bothered? Your grammar seems to have improved.

The paraphrasing isn't entirely accurate. I may have said it clearer in my first post...

If we start by assuming that the bible is correct and that the world was created in the same week as Adam.

Why do all the scientists not making a buck out of the religious go against this idea?

Great swerve

Let's go back to your silly arguments

Then let's talk about " let's talk about all religious... go against" and grammar.
Me, it's the Internet and spell correct, I am not so petty, grow up.
Your grammar or your spell correct is crap, but hey...

Hey Einstein, all scientists are making a buck, do you really think they are volunteers lol

So far you havnt addressed anything other than silly, petty, childish arguments

Let's see the empirical stuff, called out, money on the table, step up or blow away

Are you scarred about dealing with the issue of funding, you have gone silent

You can only shadow box if it's your shadow, I am not a shadow

Empirical evidence or blow

a reply to: Raggedyman

It wasn't a swerve. It was a clarification.

The main thing is that there are practical applications for evolutionary theory.

All that can be gained from creationist theory is "donations".

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

It wasn't a swerve. It was a clarification.

The main thing is that there are practical applications for evolutionary theory.

All that can be gained from creationist theory is "donations".

Nice empirical evidence, nice clarification about nothing related.

So far you are looking pretty silly

Now as for practical applications, scientists are copying the natural because it is so well designed, ba bow, you look a little silly, copying natures design because it is so well designed or because it was so lucky to be what it is

And your argument is about donations, cmon, empirical evidence, use your brain, end it, cut off my head with science

Think about it

Scientists copying nature is irrelevant to the topic.

Whether magic made a structure we can copy or evolution did makes no difference.

Bioinformatics would be a practical application of evolutionary theory.

What exactly would be a practical application of creationism?

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
Scientists copying nature is irrelevant to the topic.

Whether magic made a structure we can copy or evolution did makes no difference.

Bioinformatics would be a practical application of evolutionary theory.

What exactly would be a practical application of creationism?

I don't have to provide evidence for faith, the onus of empirical evidence is on scientists

Now go search the issues with bioinformatics quora

You throw it out I will smash it as a faith

Next?

originally posted by: Raggedyman

I don't have to provide evidence for faith, the onus of empirical evidence is on scientists

I didn't ask you to provide evidence of your faith.
I was just asking if there are any practical applications for creationism.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

I don't have to provide evidence for faith, the onus of empirical evidence is on scientists

Now go search the issues with bioinformatics quora

You throw it out I will smash it as a faith

Next?

You provide evidence for faith with every post.
You cannot prove that your faith has a rational basis however. Sure you can claim that you don't have to, but someone might call this swerving.

The argument that evolutionary theory is as baseless as creationism just doesn't seem to be a convincing argument to me.

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Resistance to antibiotics is a good place to start.

And to save you some time you can classify this as macro evolution and avoid the question yet again.

Oh you silly boy

We all know how wrong that is, maybe not all of us

I said empirical, not assumed, go study cowboy, go study it

Try type in why resistance to antibiotics is not evolution, just a hint

LMAO! He gives you a direct example of how evolution is applied in modern medicine and you just blindly deny it with no counter except, "THAT DOESN'T COUNT". Grow up already. If you can't discuss the evidence you have no business even bringing up a topic like this. Ignorance is bliss though, right? You guys REALLY fear evidence because your faith is already wavering. That much is obvious.

a reply to: Raggedyman

You really don't get it. While you may hold a strong faith. You can't use that faith to discredit evidence. That is not how this works. Conversely one can't discredit faith with evidence.

originally posted by: Barcs

originally posted by: Raggedyman

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: Raggedyman

Resistance to antibiotics is a good place to start.

And to save you some time you can classify this as macro evolution and avoid the question yet again.

Oh you silly boy

We all know how wrong that is, maybe not all of us

I said empirical, not assumed, go study cowboy, go study it

Try type in why resistance to antibiotics is not evolution, just a hint

LMAO! He gives you a direct example of how evolution is applied in modern medicine and you just blindly deny it with no counter except, "THAT DOESN'T COUNT". Grow up already. If you can't discuss the evidence you have no business even bringing up a topic like this. Ignorance is bliss though, right? You guys REALLY fear evidence because your faith is already wavering. That much is obvious.

Hey Barcs, you should learn to study, there are a myriad of issues

Antibiotic resistance is hardly evolution, go read a few reports

It's not that difficult

Saying "it does count, it does count it does count" over and overisn't evidence

Some one like you who clearly has no concept of any science at all is easily dismissed from these arguments, someone ignorant of science is easily ignored

Learn to study then enter the fray

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: Raggedyman

You really don't get it. While you may hold a strong faith. You can't use that faith to discredit evidence. That is not how this works. Conversely one can't discredit faith with evidence.

You really don't get it, while you may hold a strong faith, you can't use that faith to fabricate, manufacture scientific evidence.

This is exactly how it works
Fortuitelsy one can discredit science with a lack of evidence

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Raggedyman

I don't have to provide evidence for faith, the onus of empirical evidence is on scientists

I didn't ask you to provide evidence of your faith.
I was just asking if there are any practical applications for creationism.

Let me see, I figure you can spell and type, I figure you are educated, I figure you have access to the net

Now how about you type in .. practical applications for creation science.. you may be surprised how easy it is to find an answer