As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[AV1611VET]

D@*!

Did your McAfee scramble that?

 

[Astrid]

I've only ever read Who Rules the World, by Noam Chomsky. Is he related to Norm?

Sounds like what he'd write.

He had a theory about some speech organ
within the brain.

 

[HitchSlap]

Sounds like what He'd write.

He had a theory about some speech organ
within the brain.

Norm, or Noam?

 

[Astrid]

I've only ever read Who Rules the World, by Noam Chomsky. Is he related to Norm?

Is Chomsky's Theory of Language Wrong? Pinker Weighs in on Debate

 

[Astrid]

Norm, or Noam?

Norm
It's all I can do to speak engrish w/o I have to spell it too.

 

[HitchSlap]

Norm
It's all I can do to speak engrish w/o I have to spell it too.

Noam*

 

[Hans Blaster]

I don't think you actually understand "emergent" properties. If science can explain the changes then the changes are by definition not "emergent". The term only applies to changes which science cannot explain.

No. (and the unquoted portion of your post was uncalled for. Don't make things up about other posters.)

Emergent properties aren't properties of unknown origin.

Emergent properties aren't mystery properties.

As I said before, you seem not to understand what an emergent property is.

Emergent properties are properties possessed by collections of similar or identical items that are *not* properties of the individual items. Water molecules aren't "wet", but a fluid of many water molecues is.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The question is: Is creationism superior to evolution?

I say a resounding YES.

I'll make a poll.

A poll does you no good is you have a biased and ignorant base. Since evolution much more closely resembles reality and is useful for scientific purposes it wins hands down.

 

[Astrid]

Noam*

Didn't noam that was a name.

I just kind of look at the shape of words, I'm not a good spelr

 

[HitchSlap]

Didn't noam that was a name.

I just kind of look at the shape of words, I'm not a good spelr

Awviusly.

 

[Bradskii]

How about explaining the maximum number of possibilities that your evo theory is nonsense:

Nah. That's the way you work. What you do is make a claim and then demand everyone else give evidence to back up any opposing view. And then scattergun any number of posts in all directions on umpteen topics that tie everyone up answering them. The one you just mentioned would no doubt take quite a few posts to dismantle because every explanation given would be followed by multiple responses heading off in random directions which would then divert even more time and effort.

So what's your post number so far? 80+? And how many of those posts have included any evidence whatsoever for your claim in the op? Absolutely none. And this thread could go on for weeks and your post number could hit 4 figures and I guarantee that none of them will present any evidence whatsoever. So I think everyone has realised this is a wild goose chase. The thread is long enough for everyone to come to terms with what to expect when you're involved in a thread.

I'll call in now and then to ask the same question. Not to get a response - I know that won't happen. But just as a reminder that you have no response. So...

...that overlap between the theological and scientific aspect of creationism that you said existed. Can you tell us what it is so we can investigate the scientific aspect? And that's nine times you've been asked. I wonder what figure we'll get to?

 

[Astrid]

Nah. That's the way you work. What you do is make a claim and then demand everyone else give evidence to back up any opposing view. And then scattergun any number of posts in all directions on umpteen topics that tie everyone up answering them. The one you just mentioned would no doubt take quite a few posts to dismantle because every explanation given would be followed by multiple responses heading off in random directions which would then divert even more time and effort.

So what's your post number so far? 80+? And how many of those posts have included any evidence whatsoever for your claim in the op? Absolutely none. And this thread could go on for weeks and your post number could hit 4 figures and I guarantee that none of them will present any evidence whatsoever. So I think everyone has realised this is a wild goose chase. The thread is long enough for everyone to come to terms with what to expect when you're involved in a thread.

I'll call in now and then to ask the same question. Not to get a response - I know that won't happen. But just as a reminder that you have no response. So...

...that overlap between the theological and scientific aspect of creationism that you said existed. Can you tell us what it is so we can investigate the scientific aspect? And that's nine times you've been asked. I wonder what figure we'll get to?

"We" ?

 

[Bradskii]

"We" ?

Me and those who'd be interested.

 

[dlamberth]

Sorry to interrupt.

John McAfee found dead in Spanish prison cell.

I was just reading that in the news.

 

[AV1611VET]

A poll does you no good is you have a biased and ignorant base. Since evolution much more closely resembles reality and is useful for scientific purposes it wins hands down.

We'll see.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was just reading that in the news.

Sad, isn't it?

 

[pitabread]

We'll see.

More like we've already seen.

I mean, no matter how we slice it, life has the appearance of having been evolved. I've yet to see anything from creationists that adequately disputes that.

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

DUE TO MULTIPLE RULE VIOLATIONS

MOD HAT OFF​