Comments on: Why Creationists Say There’s No Proof

by: J.R. "Bob" Dobbs

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:26:22 +0000

Sorry Zandovise, that just won’t cut it here.You actually have to provide proof here to support (Un)Intelligent Design.Those EVIL-utionists always demanding proof!Can’t they ever learn to put blind faith in something.

And sorry. Buddhists!I’m pretty sure that they don’t care how the world began.

by: Ron Britton

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:23:58 +0000

I don’t know what Zandovise thinks he’s proving with his comment. Definition 4 is the correct definition in this context, and it has been for well over a hundred years. Organic chemistry is the chemistry of carbon. That’s how it is used in all of the above comments, at least by everybody but him.

by: Parrotlover77

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 17:54:27 +0000

It may come to surpise you that Merriam Webster is not a biology textbook.

by: Zandovise

Sat, 05 Jul 2008 07:24:45 +0000

Hi Parrotlover77,

Thought I’d swing by here again and see what you know-nothings were up to. You must be an attorney as you have to change the meaning of “organic” to fit your definitions to win the argument. For you I have the definition of organic from the Merriam Webster Dictionary of 1946, before persons like you decided to “expand” the meaning to fit your limited perspective.

Organic: 1. Of or pertaining to an organ or a system of organs; specif., pertaining to the internal organs of the body (not something political). 2. Having a systematic co-ordination; organized (no this is not in the evolutionary sense). 3. Pertaining to, or derived from, living organisms, exhibiting characters peculiar to living organisms. (uh-oh!) 4. Pertaining to or designating that branch of chemistry which treats the compounds of carbon (the basis of life).

Your arguments on this site are not actually to prove evolution. Your arguments are to deny Christianity. This is your fundamental flaw, you see, we Hindus, along with Buddhists, Muslims, Shintos and Jews also believe in intelligent design. Science, real, honest science proves it. You can twist your arguments all around, however, you cannot prove evolution and still man cannot create a living organism from inorganic material. I doubt any of you possess even an associates degree in biology or chemical biology. My source is also Hindu, posseses a Ph.D. in Biological Chemistry and believes in Intelligent Design. Scary, huh?

Have a nice day!

by: Sarah

Wed, 07 May 2008 21:19:43 +0000

Ah, sorry Parrot, what I meant is that we can’t properly recreate every single fossil that didn’t show up in the record and such. I didn’t mean holes as in the theory itself. Probably should have made that clearer.

If they ever do quote mine me, I shall tell them to reread it and put it in context and if they fail to do so, I’ll advise them to retake their basic high school English class. ^^

by: Parrotlover77

Wed, 07 May 2008 17:27:36 +0000

Although possibly technically correct, I’m not sure I like the “evolutions has holes like…” statement, Sarah. It sort of feeds into the fundies wet dreams of naturalists admitting evolution was a mistake. I think probably a better way of wording it is, “of course the current working theories of evolution does not yet explain every nuance of evolution.” Something like that. Remember many fundies are simply quote miners and that quote is ripe for the mining! Who needs context when you it sounds so much worse out of context!!!?

by: Sarah

Wed, 07 May 2008 06:18:05 +0000

Ok…just reading this pissed me off so here I go: FUNDIES, GET A F—ING CLUE!

You can reference all the ID (creation) books you want…but don’t you think that that kind of scientific breakthrough would at the very least make the news? I mean, if someone had REALLY proved ID, wouldn’t all the churches be jumping onto it instantly (as they do with everything, possible believers, liberals, money, etc) and shoving it into the faces of the scientists?

You don’t need half a brain to use simple logic such as this.

Seriously…if ID had been proven, would there still be a so called ‘controversy’ (Although it’s only been given that name because people are too thick-skulled to give up their own personal beliefs to bother picking up a textbook and, GOD FORBID, actually learn something!)

Evolution has holes as do most scientific theories (We can never truly recreate things in a lab as they were way back when…and no, we can’t fill in every single friggin gap in the fossil record..but then again, we really don’t need to). Scientists don’t claim anything as fact, but as a method that WORKS. If evolution did not work, it would have been tossed out decades ago (especially if all the breakthroughs in genetics didn’t link up). Scientists simply do not keep theories that don’t fit the scientific method, previous properly tested theories, and discoveries made in the future…that is how SCIENCE works.

However, the only reason creationism has survived for so long is due to ignorance, which unfortunately for us, spreads a lot faster than knowledge.

Well I’m done for the night!

by: Parrotlover77

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:20:32 +0000

Zandovise - Based on your rants here, I’m pretty sure “organic” doesn’t mean what you think it means.

Look it up.

by: Zandovise

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:51:55 +0000

All right, read your “About” page. This is your site so I can respect that. Good policy. Nice discussing with you, even if it does get a bit heated. A good argument makes both sides think and you are correct about producing evidence. This will be a challenge, but I have to try!

by: Zandovise

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 22:10:52 +0000

Good article! Again we run into that old problem of “may have” and “probably” and yet man kind still cannot duplicate them experimentally. Now, we can find a few serine forms that can MIMIC the process, yet they are still INORGANIC chains, not functioning, reproducing life. The right handed bacteria use the right orbitals for FUNCTIONS not ESSENTIAL to LIFE.

by: Ron Britton

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:54:49 +0000

As I told you in my post above, every single creationist claim has been thoroughly debunked! If this chirality argument is your idea of some new secret information that’s available in that book, I refer you again to what I wrote about above. I don’t need to read your silly book; I’ve already seen everything it says on the web.

If you’d learn how to use the internet as a research tool, you would have easily been able to find out that the chirality argument is nonsense. The topic is explained in this TalkOrigins article.

Please double-check your facts before embarrassing yourself yet again.

P.S. The comment policy is explained on the About page. It explains why I’ve been deleting your more retarded comments.

by: Zandovise

Thu, 24 Apr 2008 21:14:25 +0000

OK. So we have a theory on the origin of cells regarding the assembly and combination of polynucleotides. Sounds nice. One little flaw, organic cell particles orbit to the LEFT while inorganic particles orbit to the RIGHT. This is why your body absorbes vitamin C more efficiently from an orange than a pill. The pill is a chemical combination of inorganic molecules while the orange is organic. You absorb 100% of the orange and only about 20% of the chemical equivalent. Inorganic atoms cannot suddenly turn organic. If this were true, how come science cannot duplicate it under any circumstances?