Evolution 'not established truth'

Evolution 'not established truth'

There are 9177 comments on the GoErie.com story from May 30, 2008, titled Evolution 'not established truth'. In it, GoErie.com reports that:

Public schools should teach established truth. Evolution is not established truth.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at GoErie.com.

Wilson

United States

#1097 Jul 22, 2008
Gavin,
We are talking about two different things here. You are seeking to establish "the oldest religion" and I am pointing to the oldest documents. You failed to see what I wrote:
"God dealt exclusively with the nation of Israel for centuries. They had His law; they had the principles of true worship of Jehovah. By dealing closely with Israel he held them together and preserved his truth in the earth, while THE OTHER NATIONS WENT THEIR OWN WAY OF SELF-RULE AND OPPOSITION TO GOD AND HIS WORD, FOLLOWING ALL KINDSOF FALSE BELIEFS AND SUPERSTITIONS."
What does that tell you Gavin? You are striving to establish a point that is not even being challenged. Can't you see it in the above statement? "The other nations went their own way, etc."
THEN THERE'S THIS:
"More than 3,000 years ago, when the writing of the Bible got started, Israel was just one small nation among many in the Middle East. Jehovah was their God,
*while the surrounding nations had a bewildering variety of gods and goddesses.*
* During that period of time, the Israelites were not the only ones to produce religious literature. Other nations too produced written works that reflected their religion and their national values..."
About these ancient older-than-the-Bible people:
I asked you before - now I'm asking you again:
Where did they come from? Who was their progenitor? Where is their geneology? Does your "sources" tell you? THE BIBLE TELLS WHERE ALL PEOPLES COME FROM.
You are left in the dark.
About Abraham, THERE IS ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF HIS EXISTENCE. I must repeat:
1. How did Beer-sheba get its name?
2. What about the archeological evidence found at
the ancient royal city of Mari (Tell Hariri) near the Euphrates River?
3. And those found at Karnak?
I see you trying to skip over these tough questions, but I will keep them stuck up your nose.
One more thing:
By stressing older, are you suggesting better or more accurate or truthful?

Wilson.

Since: Feb 08

Lake Mary, FL

#1098 Jul 22, 2008
Wilson wrote:
Gavin,
We are talking about two different things here. You are seeking to establish "the oldest religion" and I am pointing to the oldest documents. You failed to see what I wrote:
"God dealt exclusively with the nation of Israel for centuries. They had His law; they had the principles of true worship of Jehovah. By dealing closely with Israel he held them together and preserved his truth in the earth, while THE OTHER NATIONS WENT THEIR OWN WAY OF SELF-RULE AND OPPOSITION TO GOD AND HIS WORD, FOLLOWING ALL KINDSOF FALSE BELIEFS AND SUPERSTITIONS."
What does that tell you Gavin? You are striving to establish a point that is not even being challenged. Can't you see it in the above statement? "The other nations went their own way, etc."
THEN THERE'S THIS:
"More than 3,000 years ago, when the writing of the Bible got started, Israel was just one small nation among many in the Middle East. Jehovah was their God,
*while the surrounding nations had a bewildering variety of gods and goddesses.*
* During that period of time, the Israelites were not the only ones to produce religious literature. Other nations too produced written works that reflected their religion and their national values..."
About these ancient older-than-the-Bible people:
I asked you before - now I'm asking you again:
Where did they come from? Who was their progenitor? Where is their geneology? Does your "sources" tell you? THE BIBLE TELLS WHERE ALL PEOPLES COME FROM.
You are left in the dark.
About Abraham, THERE IS ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF HIS EXISTENCE. I must repeat:
1. How did Beer-sheba get its name?
2. What about the archeological evidence found at
the ancient royal city of Mari (Tell Hariri) near the Euphrates River?
3. And those found at Karnak?
I see you trying to skip over these tough questions, but I will keep them stuck up your nose.
One more thing:
By stressing older, are you suggesting better or more accurate or truthful?
Wilson.
No, you're skipping over the fact that if the bible is literal...no...other...religio n/practice...would exist prior. No text or documents would predate the beginnings of the Nation of Israels humble start.

You telling me they were just "slow to get going"?...that God would let something as monumental as his existance and his creation of man be trumped by non-believers? How could anyone trump him, Adam and Eve were supposedly the ONLY people on earth at one time (as long as you take out that troublesome Nod place, that screws up the whole TOTALLY ALONE, NO ONE ELSE IN EXISTANCE thingie)...but they couldn't pen anything? Then we flash forward to Noah...evidently, in all the time between him and Adam and Eve's beginnings...no one took it upon themselfs to jot anything down. Then, we have that flood...wiped out all of humanity...but we go from Noah, ALLLLLLLLL the way until we reach Abraham, but he, evidently doesn't find it neccesary to chronicle anything...UNTIL...we get to Moses. Nope, that all makes PERFECT HISTORICAL SENSE to the beginnings and authenticity of the one true religion.

First means "First"...there is no second, third or fourth...no, "Well, we have Mr. So and So (in this case Abraham) who SAYS we got the patent first, who we can't verify or find documention for outside of a singular source, as told by Mr. Whats It (Moses) who we also can't prove actually existed, as told by Mr. Who's Dat, which we also can't verify, in lieu of Mr. So and So prescence, as to the claims of the intellecutal property in question" Sorry, that doesn't fly in the real world...no matter how much you believe it.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1099 Jul 22, 2008
TheGavin wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you're skipping over the fact that if the bible is literal...no...other...religio n/practice...would exist prior. No text or documents would predate the beginnings of the Nation of Israels humble start.
You telling me they were just "slow to get going"?...that God would let something as monumental as his existance and his creation of man be trumped by non-believers? How could anyone trump him, Adam and Eve were supposedly the ONLY people on earth at one time (as long as you take out that troublesome Nod place, that screws up the whole TOTALLY ALONE, NO ONE ELSE IN EXISTANCE thingie)...but they couldn't pen anything? Then we flash forward to Noah...evidently, in all the time between him and Adam and Eve's beginnings...no one took it upon themselfs to jot anything down. Then, we have that flood...wiped out all of humanity...but we go from Noah, ALLLLLLLLL the way until we reach Abraham, but he, evidently doesn't find it neccesary to chronicle anything...UNTIL...we get to Moses. Nope, that all makes PERFECT HISTORICAL SENSE to the beginnings and authenticity of the one true religion.
First means "First"...there is no second, third or fourth...no, "Well, we have Mr. So and So (in this case Abraham) who SAYS we got the patent first, who we can't verify or find documention for outside of a singular source, as told by Mr. Whats It (Moses) who we also can't prove actually existed, as told by Mr. Who's Dat, which we also can't verify, in lieu of Mr. So and So prescence, as to the claims of the intellecutal property in question" Sorry, that doesn't fly in the real world...no matter how much you believe it.
You are asking an awful lot of Wilson, here. You are asking him to use logic, reason and have an open mind about what you are saying. None of that is going to happen.

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

AOL

#1100 Jul 22, 2008
Wilson wrote:
<quoted text>
Tangled,
You're right about one thing: It wasn't Gavin who messed up - it was you. You're repeating it again without admitting it or maybe not seeing it.
I quote: "In the 1860s - 70s, archaeologists excavated several Sumerian cities in Mesopotamia and found clay tablets written in cuneiform. THIS IS THE OLDEST WRITTEN LANGUAGE ON EARTH."
You think I am mixed up about what you wrote, but I note that you were referring to cities, not language. There was a time when Akkadian was the language spoken in Sumerian cities. Let me illustrate my point this way:
There is a city called Brasilia, but the language spoken there is Portugese. There is a city called Caracas, but the language spoken there is Spanish. There is a city called Manila, but the language spoken there is Tagalog. So don't give me that horse dung about the Sumerian language.
Maybe you should not have stated it the way you did, but you uttered the wrong thing.
You claim my history is mixed up but I can back it up with continuity and coherence. Can you do the same?
Wilson.
...and if you would have finished my quote ".....stories date back at least to 4000 BC, and most were recycled by the Mythology of the Akkadian, Babylonian, and Assyrian cultures THAT REPLACED THE SUMERIANS IN MESOPOTAMIA." Taken in context - it becomes plain to see that I was referring to Sumerians and the Sumerian language. See what happens when you take a quote out of context? But then again I guess you do. You seem to have lots of experience with that (based on many of your previous posts).

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1101 Jul 22, 2008
Bluenose wrote:
I don't know about you blokes, but I suggest we simply ignore Wilson. He is obviously unwilling to learn anything and as amusing as his twisted ideas are at one level, I find his overly long posts full of drivel, bizarre logic, incorrect factual data and worst of all, they are BORING. I say we just let him stew in his own juices for a while and he will go away. I am certainly not wasting any of my life on reading any more of his inane mutterings.
Way ahead of you.

Unless he specifically directed it AT ME, I ignore it.

Especially the long-winded cut-and-paste nonsense.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Level 2

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#1102 Jul 22, 2008
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
You are asking an awful lot of Wilson, here. You are asking him to use logic, reason and have an open mind about what you are saying. None of that is going to happen.
Too true.

I'm STILL waiting for his "answer" to the proof of the bible-god is fake....

Level 2

Since: Jun 08

AOL

#1103 Jul 23, 2008
Fossil Bob wrote:
But since there was NO world-wide "Noah's Flood", why was it included in the Biblical writings?
A good question which deserves to be answered.......
Rob

Elk Grove Village, IL

#1104 Jul 23, 2008
BEWARE
Wilson is out there doing "research" this very moment and will be back soon enough to spend the remainder of the day destroying all opposing viewpoints (in his own mind anyway), however logical and factual they may be.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#1105 Jul 23, 2008
Rob wrote:
BEWARE
Wilson is out there doing "research" this very moment and will be back soon enough to spend the remainder of the day destroying all opposing viewpoints (in his own mind anyway), however logical and factual they may be.
Your post reminds me of a common Aussies saying (although I suppose it may be used elsewhere), that seems somehow applicable to Wilson.

He is a legend in his own lunch box.
Rob

Elk Grove Village, IL

#1106 Jul 23, 2008
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Your post reminds me of a common Aussies saying (although I suppose it may be used elsewhere), that seems somehow applicable to Wilson.
He is a legend in his own lunch box.
Indeed!
He's certainly shown that to be an established truth.
Wilson

United States

#1107 Jul 23, 2008
Wilson wrote:
TheGavin

So, again I say...I guess the people who actually WROTE the old testament/Torah...just don't..."get it"? But yourself and other fundamentalist Christian's do?
+++Wilson++
Again, I ask: who are you talking about? All Jews?
What is the position of modern Jews towards the Bible? Why is it that they did not "Get it" in the days of Jesus and his apostles?
“In reply he said:“To YOU (true Christians)it is granted to understand the sacred secrets of the kingdom of the heavens, but to those people it is not granted. For whoever has, more will be given him and he will be made to abound; but whoever does not have, even what he has will be taken from him. This is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations, because, looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, neither do they get the sense of it;  and toward them the prophecy of Isaiah is having fulfillment, which says,‘By hearing, YOU will hear but by no means get the sense of it; and, looking, YOU will look but by no means see. For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes; that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back, and I heal them.’ “However, happy are YOUR eyes because they behold, and YOUR ears because they hear. For I truly say to YOU, Many prophets and righteous men desired to see the things YOU are beholding and did not see them, and to hear the things YOU are hearing and did not hear them.”(Matthew 13:11-1)
Gavin,
Before I move on to another aspect of your objections, I expect you to respond to this post.

Wilson.
Wilson

United States

#1108 Jul 23, 2008
Wilson wrote:
Gavin,
We are talking about two different things here. You are seeking to establish "the oldest religion" and I am pointing to the oldest documents. You failed to see what I wrote:
"God dealt exclusively with the nation of Israel for centuries. They had His law; they had the principles of true worship of Jehovah. By dealing closely with Israel he held them together and preserved his truth in the earth, while THE OTHER NATIONS WENT THEIR OWN WAY OF SELF-RULE AND OPPOSITION TO GOD AND HIS WORD, FOLLOWING ALL KINDSOF FALSE BELIEFS AND SUPERSTITIONS."
What does that tell you Gavin? You are striving to establish a point that is not even being challenged. Can't you see it in the above statement? "The other nations went their own way, etc."
THEN THERE'S THIS:
"More than 3,000 years ago, when the writing of the Bible got started, Israel was just one small nation among many in the Middle East. Jehovah was their God,
*while the surrounding nations had a bewildering variety of gods and goddesses.*
* During that period of time, the Israelites were not the only ones to produce religious literature. Other nations too produced written works that reflected their religion and their national values..."
About these ancient older-than-the-Bible people:
I asked you before - now I'm asking you again:
Where did they come from? Who was their progenitor? Where is their geneology? Does your "sources" tell you? THE BIBLE TELLS WHERE ALL PEOPLES COME FROM.
You are left in the dark.
About Abraham, THERE IS ARCHEOLOGICAL EVIDENCE OF HIS EXISTENCE. I must repeat:
1. How did Beer-sheba get its name?
2. What about the archeological evidence found at
the ancient royal city of Mari (Tell Hariri) near the Euphrates River?
3. And those found at Karnak?
I see you trying to skip over these tough questions, but I will keep them stuck up your nose.
One more thing:
By stressing older, are you suggesting better or more accurate or truthful?

Wilson.
I also expect you to respond to this one.

Wilson
Rob

Elk Grove Village, IL

#1109 Jul 23, 2008
Here we go again...
Big surprise.

WATCH OUT GAVIN, YOU'RE IN HIS CROSSHAIRS

“Creation Science!”

Since: Mar 08

Grand Island, NY

#1110 Jul 23, 2008
Hey! Who wants to refute evolution in a single sentence?
I do!

A single genetic mutation does not have the ability to create or maintain a biochemical pathway.

According to nearly every biology text-book, genetic mutations are the "raw-material" for natural selection to work on- leading to larger changes, which (hypothetically) would be evolution.
However, by observing these mutations, we find that almost all either neutral or detrimental.
In the rare case that a mutation does indeed have beneficial outcomes, it doesn't validate evolution.
For example. A mutation in blood cell hemoglobin gives the carrier a complete resistance to malaria. I would consider that a beneficial outcome, wouldn't you?
The bad news is that people with this mutation... have Sickle Cell Anemia.

Mutation? Yes.
Beneficial? Only in certain context.

This is the same for nearly every single example evolutionists give as an example of evolution.

Pesticide resistant populations? Nope!
Natural selection works on a pre-existing populations genes. The ones that are not naturally resistant- die. The ones that are naturally resistant- live. The ones that live pass on their pesticide resistant genes to the next generations, making a whole population of pesticide resistant bugs.

This is what you call "micro-evolution". I don't like calling it that, because evolution is a lie. Either way, the processes that produce pesticide resistant populations can not and has not resulted in single-cell to cell-biologist evolution.

Now, if mutations cannot create or maintain a biochemical pathway, then how did photosynthesis evolve? If you've ever studied what goes on during photosynthesis, you know that it's not a simple process. Don't even try to tell me that photosynthesis evolved from an ancient cyanobacteria either, because cyanobacteria is fully photosynthetic.

Why and How did sexual reproduction originate?
The production of gametes specifically relies on the opposite sex's ability to produce complimentary gametes.

But why evolution? Because science deals strictly in the natural world. There is no other explanation that modern science will accept because of it's blatant bias towards humanistic naturalism.
Yes. Evolution is biased science, and if you're going to say any different, you're lying.
And for you evolutionists to claim that creationists are biased and that you're not, you're being hypocritical.
Evolution is a LIE.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#1111 Jul 23, 2008
Rob wrote:
Here we go again...
Big surprise.
WATCH OUT GAVIN, YOU'RE IN HIS CROSSHAIRS
... but no ammunition!
Fossil Bob

Urbana, IL

#1112 Jul 23, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Hey! Who wants to refute evolution in a single sentence?
I do!
You have failed.

“Creation Science!”

Since: Mar 08

Grand Island, NY

#1113 Jul 23, 2008
Fossil Bob wrote:
<quoted text>
You have failed.
I did?
How exactly?

My biology professor (at buffalo state college) didn't seem to have an answer either.

Remember, you can't just say that I've failed- you have to explain why I've failed.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#1114 Jul 23, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
However, by observing these mutations, we find that almost all either neutral or detrimental.
Look again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB101.h...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#1115 Jul 23, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
Now, if mutations cannot create or maintain a biochemical pathway, then how did photosynthesis evolve? If you've ever studied what goes on during photosynthesis, you know that it's not a simple process. Don't even try to tell me that photosynthesis evolved from an ancient cyanobacteria either, because cyanobacteria is fully photosynthetic.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB510.h...

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#1116 Jul 23, 2008
CreationScience wrote:
But why evolution? Because science deals strictly in the natural world. There is no other explanation that modern science will accept because of it's blatant bias towards humanistic naturalism.
Blatant bias? Look again:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA601.h...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 38 min DanFromSmithville 164,726
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 57 min kelly008 178,621
proof of gods existence .....or lack there of 2 hr ChristineM 107
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 11 hr lozzza 19,142
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 16 hr dirtclod 141,472
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon MikeF 490
When is Quote Mining Justified? Sun Zog Has-fallen 28
More from around the web