God vs. Science: The Inclusion of Creationism in School Textbooks?

*sighs*

I honestly don't even know where to begin...

Getting more money through investment or a raise is NOT analagous to evolution. The money has not changed, there is simply more of it. It is still the same dollars and cents. It doesn't turn into a completely new form of money. If that happened, THEN it would have changed.

Trick, he does that all the time...if he can't respond to a post or part of it, he ignores it.

And like has been said. Whob, where is your proof that an intelligent being exists?

Originally posted by Trickster
Mother****! You just ignored the rest of my post, like I said you would!

Did you even read it? Do you understand that I am in High School? And it's obvious to me that you are wrong!

Once again..I'll accept that statement as another example of you running out of valid arguments...please make sure that you go and educate yourself with some form of higher learning...judging by the intelligence level you have demonstrated on this thread..I'm guarantee you're going to need it...😆 😆

They should use it as a test to see if you have a brain or not, like do you get into Credit classes or foundation class's.

If you know that evolution is the answer then... your let into the credit class.

If not, your put right.

Creationism to be considered science, is just plain daft.

Science is based on fact. There is fact to prove evolution, there is f*ck all to prove creationism.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Mr. Poe...

it still fails to discredit what has been labeled as

foolish

[On the topic of Creationism]

And what else do you continue to say?

A statement can be false,

for example..I could say....

Adam Poe is a fool.

Then, to expose your actions further;

Refer to the above response..seriously hang it up bud...i

continue to to blatantly lie

...😆 😆

So to simplify things..

I really don't even believe

Christianity.

😆

Then, after Tpt's post;

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Evolution does exist, and I really don't have to prove it to you.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I believe you

So, obviously, I think we have sweet, sweet victory.

Now accept that, or actually read what the **** I posted and made an adequate, mature reply.

Originally posted by Lana
*sighs*
I honestly don't even know where to begin...

I know..it's been quite obvious from the beginning of this debate..that you have difficulty comprehending things...

Getting more money through investment or a raise is NOT analagous to evolution. The money has not changed, there is simply more of it. It is still the same dollars and cents. It doesn't turn into a completely new form of money. If that happened, THEN it would have changed.

Good..Gotcha at your own game. So by your logic..I could state that...a particular family within a species of animal..like the Gallupagus Finches for example...hasn't really changed either....it's still a finch...and it hasn't completely turned into a new form of "animal"...😆😆😆

Trick, he does that all the time...if he can't respond to a post or part of it, he ignores it.

lol...speaking of ignoring..let me reitterate the question that has been asked to you multiple times throughout this thread...

where is your proof that that missing link exists?

Please let me know when you obtain this information..😆😆😆

THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT!

HOWEVER, THERE IS A LOT OF OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH WHEN LOOKED AT MAKES EVOLUTION SO MUCH MORE LIKELY!

Anyway, it doesn't matter, because you already agreed with us.

So that's okay.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Good..Gotcha at your own game. So by your logic..I could state that...a particular family within a species of animal..like the Gallupagus Finches for example...hasn't really changed either....it's still a finch...and it hasn't completely turned into a new form of "animal"...😆😆😆

But the money doesn't change, the finches do.

And the finches don't nesscessarily increase in population.

You are an idiot.

Originally posted by Trickster
THERE IS NO PROOF OF THAT!

Thank you...your assistance is no longer needed...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I know..it's been quite obvious from the beginning of this debate..that you have difficulty comprehending things...

Good..Gotcha at your own game. So by your logic..I could state that...a particular family within a species of animal..like the Gallupagus Finches for example...hasn't really changed either....it's still a finch...and it hasn't completely turned into a new form of "animal"...😆😆😆

lol...speaking of ignoring..let me reitterate the question that has been asked to you multiple times throughout this thread...

where is your proof that that missing link exists?

Please let me know when you obtain this information..😆😆😆

I can comprehend things just fine, it's you that I wonder about.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND AT ALL. The finches are all different species. And by saying "family within the same species" you are showing that you don't understand how organisms are classified - family is a broader classification than species. It goes Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. The finches are all different species and are classified as such, and do not all even belong to the same genus. Therefore, they are NOT the same animal!

And I've never said anything about the missing link in here nor made any claims, other than to say that scientists dislike the term 'missing link' because it suggests that things are linear, which they are not. YOU are claiming that an intelligent being is responsible for life being as it is. YOU need to back this claim up with evidence. I don't say anything unless I have evidence to back it up. All you've been doing is spouting BS with no evidence whatsoever.

And if you're going to quote posts, why don't you quote the whole thing instead of picking out anything that could possibly help your (non-existant) argument?

You really don;t get the point of my post before.

If you do that, then we can equally do this... again.

After Tpt's post;

Originally posted by Tptmanno1
Evolution does exist, and I really don't have to prove it to you.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
I believe you

And, to finish it off with your own statement...

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Thank you...your assistance is no longer needed...

Originally posted by Lana
I can comprehend things just fine, it's you that I wonder about.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND AT ALL. The finches are all different species. And by saying "family within the same species" you are showing that you don't understand how organisms are classified - family is a broader classification than species.

The wording was a bit off..however the anology was valid none the less..

The finches did not evolve into another type of animal..they stayed finches/birds..correct? A simple yes or no will do..

And I've never said anything about the missing link in here nor made any claims, other than to say that scientists dislike the term 'missing link' because it suggests that things are linear, which they are not. YOU are claiming that an intelligent being is responsible for life being as it is. YOU need to back this claim up with evidence. I don't say anything unless I have evidence to back it up. All you've been doing is spouting BS with no evidence whatsoever.

You have no evidence to back your theory....no transitional fossils have been found. End of discussion.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
The wording was a bit off..however the anology was valid none the less..

The finches did not evolve into another type of animal..they stayed finches/birds..correct? A simple yes or no will do..

You have no evidence to back your theory....no transitional fossils have been found. End of discussion.

Would you say that apes and humans are the same animals then? They're different species but within the same family; humans and apes are both primates in the family hominidae. According to your logic, they're not different animals.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Transitional fossils, right there. But I'm sure you'll pass it off as being biased info, even though it is a very good site, and my biology teacher told us last year that it is a very good source.

YES! You are ignoring me again because you realise I am right! My gratuitous use of quotes has stopped you talking to me. This is great!

You have no evidence to back your theory....no transitional fossils have been found. End of discussion.

You have no evidence to back your theory ....no intelligent creature that claims to have designed the universe has been found. End of discussion.

Originally posted by Lana
Would you say that apes and humans are the same animals then?

No.

They're different species but within the same family.

According to those who support Evolutionary theory...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Transitional fossils, right there. But I'm sure you'll pass it off as being biased info, even though it is a very good site, and my biology teacher told us last year that it is a very good source.

Allow me to provide evidence that is equally cannon.

http://www.apologeticscourses.com/Evol.htm

If the hypothesis of evolution is correct, then it must be supported by fossils: billions of intermediate creatures should be discovered. But that has never been the case. All plants, animals, and humans discovered have been found to be fully developed and not intermediates.

The evolution-believing scientists were able to produce only a handfuls of alleged intermediate forms. But the scientific community itself has been re-evaluating these fossils. It is their own verdict that none of these alleged fossils furnish plant, animal, or monkey-human intermediates. Some of the highly acclaimed "intermediate" fossils have even been found to be forgeries.

You're still ignoring me.

Originally posted by whobdamandog
According to those who support Evolutionary theory...

Allow me to provide evidence that is equally cannon.

So now you're debating how species are classified?

Originally posted by Trickster
You're still ignoring me.

Yes..because you've already proven to be a fool..lol..I don't need to respond any further..

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes..because you've already proven to be a fool..lol..I don't need to respond any further..

Actually, he was only doing what you do -- selective reading and responding, which I know that he was doing on purpose.

So now who's the fool?

Originally posted by whobdamandog
Yes..because you've already proven to be a fool..lol..I don't need to respond any further..

I responded to your idiocy. You respond to mine - explain why I am a fool.