Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
21 - 40 of 113,011 Comments Last updated 11 min ago
Jamel Quentrell

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

4

4

3

Denny Crain wrote:
<quoted text>That is true. Look how they cooked the books on global warming to be politically correct.In 1973 they said were were on the edge of a new ice age. Man has very little to do with climate change
The very same way that they promote fake Global warming data to the public is the same way they promote darwin's pipe dream. Scientists use Darwinian-styled Censorship & Deception to Hoodwink the Public for Money and Power. Now that Man-made global warming is proven to be a Hoax, the public is now aware that the very same tactics of deception to promote it has been used to convince the public about evolution and the common ancestry of all living things.

Most real Scientists don't even believe in man-made global warming.
http://climatedepot.com/

Man-made Climate Change Data was a Hoax from the beginning
http://www.cross.tv/36771

Climate Change Data Hoax
http://www.cross.tv/36770

Climategate & Evolutiongate Scandal
http://www.cross.tv/41938

New Revelations on Climategate
http://www.cross.tv/43232

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

Professor wrote:
Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.
After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.
That's an assumption of a first cause in an infinite process.

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Illustrated Man wrote:
<quoted text>
That's an assumption of a first cause in an infinite process.
For the sake of argument, does there really have to be a first cause in an infinitum?(if that would be the case)

“ain't she sweet?”

Level 7

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#24
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

1

1

Professor wrote:
Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.
After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.
I'm open to the theory of evolution; and I fail to buy the Christian theory of the story of creation I grew up with; but at the same time there is so much wonder in the world that I figure there has to be something Bigger than me to have "created" all of this. I mean it didn't get here by itself and some of it is too amazing. IMHO

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#25
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

"I know this world is ruled by infinite intelligence. Everything that surrounds us- everything that exists - proves that there are infinite laws behind it. There can be no denying this fact. It is mathematical in its precision."

Thomas A. Edison

Since: Sep 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#26
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

1

Cosmology solved? I think not.(lol)
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#27
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

6

5

3

This thread demonstrates why the United States will loose it's ability to compete on global science and technology fronts.

Adam and Eve were real?!? Hilarious.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#28
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

4

2

2

MIDutch wrote:
This thread demonstrates why the United States will loose it's ability to compete on global science and technology fronts.
Adam and Eve were real?!? Hilarious.
Indeed.

Not to mention that even the cross.tv report noted that their so-called 'scientific' Adam and Eve lived nore than 100,000 years apart.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#29
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

Jamel Quentrell wrote:
<quoted text>
The very same way that they promote fake Global warming data to the public is the same way they promote darwin's pipe dream. Scientists use Darwinian-styled Censorship & Deception to Hoodwink the Public for Money and Power.
Money and power? That cracks me up. How much money and power do you think scientists have? And how does supporting Evolution generate all this money and power?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#30
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

3

3

2

PROFESSOR X wrote:
What is intelligent design?
Intelligent design refers to a scientific research program as well as a community of scientists, philosophers and other scholars who seek evidence of design in nature.
Except they refuse to tell us exactly who is doing what and where. Probably because they aren't doing anything.
PROFESSOR X wrote:
The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.
A theory which they already admit they don't have.
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Through the study and analysis of a system's components, a design theorist is able to determine whether various natural structures are the product of chance, natural law, intelligent design, or some combination thereof. Such research is conducted by observing the types of information produced when intelligent agents act. Scientists then seek to find objects which have those same types of informational properties which we commonly know come from intelligence.
But again they won't say what, when, where or how.
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Intelligent design has applied these scientific methods to detect design in irreducibly complex biological structures
What methods? They have none. And they have no research to support Irreducible Complexity. We know Behe hasn't done it.
PROFESSOR X wrote:
the complex and specified information content in DNA, the life-sustaining physical architecture of the universe, and the geologically rapid origin of biological diversity in the fossil record during the Cambrian explosion approximately 530 million years ago.
Yet they can't tell us how "Complex Specified Information" is quantified/measured.
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Is intelligent design the same as creationism?
No.
I see. So I guess the fact that both you and they keep complaining about "atheistic science/scientists", and the fact that you use the exact same arguments (complicated, natural laws, cambrian explosion, anthropic principle etc) like you did above is just sheer coincidence then. What's more, since they claim the universe is "designed", what else then is the "designer" supposed to be but God?

So much anti-kitten propaganda some will have to wait till I get home...
Chicago Guy

Wilmette, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#31
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

4

3

2

PROFESSOR X wrote:
<quoted text>
I know ... but someones got to help him get back to reality. It's not an accident that Darwin's theory is defended more by books and movies of science-FICTION than the scientific evidence. Too bad many of these scientist hide behind their degrees and unproven press releases in order to create the illusion of being authoritative, meanwhile they are busy behind the scenes censoring any and all scientific evidence that challenges Darwin's theory from reaching the public. They are also censoring professors in universities from exposing any information to the public that threatens their little monkey fairy-tale.
The roles have been reversed. The atheist and evolutionist is today - what the Catholic Church was in the past. They hate scientific advance and would rather shut down public discussion before confronting evidence that proves that all life did not arise from one common ancestor.
That doesn't mean that the earth has to be 6000 year old. But isn't it amazing how humans were suppose to have evolved from Apes 3 million years ago, but there are organisms that are in rock strata dated over 300 million years old that are still ALIVE TODAY and they are unchanged? What's so special about us that it's necessary for evolutionists invent pseudo-science stories only fit for the Sci-Fi Channel?
Darwinism Destroyed by Geological Evidence & Anomalies
http://cross.tv/64437
Wow.

A website called "Cross TV" debunking Evolution???

Nothing like credible, peer-reviewed research!!

LMAO

“Shoot for the stars”

Level 5

Since: Dec 10

Planet Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#32
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

5

5

4

Jamel Quentrell wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Your professor lied to you!
The story of Adam and Eve is scientific
DNA Proves Adam & Eve Existed
http://www.cross.tv/29711
Sodom and Gommorah were real cities that you can visit today
http://www.cross.tv/41280
The Rea sea Evidence: Archeology Proves the Exodus
http://www.cross.tv/30044
Rea Sea parting
http://www.cross.tv/41289
Shattering the Jesus Myth
http://www.cross.tv/24457
The James Ossuary Silences Atheists & Bible Skeptics
http://www.cross.tv/67298
etc etc etc.
The point is the evidence is out their is you are looking for the truth.
Links from Christian groups always seem to have illusionary evidence.
Chicago Guy

Wilmette, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#33
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

5

3

2

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And as already been pointed out, evolution makes no theological claims. Since we have pointed this out to you almost every time you've popped up here, the only possible conclusion can be that you're just another liar for Jesus.
<quoted text>
And yet amazingly, the ONLY people who are aware of this are "good Christians", since the scientific community is blissfully unaware of it.
So what "scientific alternative" do you propose? That's it - Goddidit with magic!
This is why no-one takes you seriously.
And, as always, it should be duly noted that millions of Christians-- like me-- completely accept Evolution as reality, and a further revelation of the power and majesty of God.

Only the fundies are threatened by truth.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#34
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Jamel Quentrell wrote:
<quoted text>
The origin of the idea that humans evolved came about when the God of the Bible was rejected, THEN from this departure, Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the "similarity" and the theory was born - out of their racist minds. Notice AFTER God is rejected then racist human evolution theory developed.
Darwin did not invent Evolution out of thin air. The concept of Evolution had been around since ancient Greece. Also, Christians support Evolution.
Jamel Quentrell wrote:
<quoted text>Darwin-Loving Holocaust Museum Shooter Hated Jews, Blacks, and Christians
http://www.wnd.com/index.php...
Hitler's Ethic and the Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress in Nazi Policy
http://www.cross.tv/33031
Racism Among Evolutionists Bred the Failure of Darwinism
http://www.cross.tv/29310
From Darwin to Hitler
http://cross.tv/33100
Atheist and DNA discoverer, Dr. James Watson makes RACIST comments inspired by his belief in Darwinism
http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/articl...
.
It doesn't matter if Darwin was or wasn't a racist. It doesn't matter if Darwin kicked puppies. That doesn't change the Theory. For one thing, Evolution isn't just supported by White Europeans. Secondly, the modern Theory of Evolution isn't the same as it was in Darwin's time. It has been updated with new evidence, including genetics.

Secondly, are you implying that if Origin of Species was never published then the Nazis would have been carebears and the Holocaust would never have happened? If Hitler was so influenced by Darwin why was he burning books on Evolution?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#35
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Jamel Quentrell wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. Tell the truth. You can stop lying now.
I didn't. However the fundies you like to reference do.
Jamel Quentrell wrote:
The origin of the idea that humans evolved came about when the God of the Bible was rejected, THEN from this departure, Darwin and his cohorts "saw" the "similarity" and the theory was born - out of their racist minds. Notice AFTER God is rejected then racist human evolution theory developed.
So racism and prejudice was never around before Darwin came up with evolution? Oh wait a minute - IT WAS. Also evolution makes no theological claims, hence why many religious people, Christians included also accept evolution. Also evolution makes no claims as to which human 'races' are "better" than the others (especially as evolution is not goal-directed). So at this point it is you who is now lying.
Jamel Quentrell wrote:
Benjamin Wiker said
Not surprisingly you get your info from religious apologists rather than those appropriately educated on the subject.
Jamel Quentrell wrote:
THE INFAMOUS RACIST EVOLUTION BIOLOGIST, ILYA IVANOV
Learn how the racist history of Darwinism is marked by deception and genetic failure. HIV is an STD of apes, chimps and monkeys. Evolutionists assumed that blacks were closer genetically to apes and attempted to secretly create conception between humans and primates.
Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov, a Russian atheist biologist during the days of Stalin, tried to prove the evolution of man from apes by conducting bizarre fiendish experiments on African women and men in an attempt to create human-ape hybrids. As a result, this atheist psuedo-science called Darwinism may have led to the global epidemic of HIV and AIDS throughout Africa and around the world.
Since Stalinist Russia rejected Darwinian evolution in favour of Lamarck your claims are rather absurd.
Jamel Quentrell wrote:
Hitler's Ethic and the Pursuit of Evolutionary Progress in Nazi Policy
Since eugenics flies in the face of natural selection your claims are rather absurd.
Jamel Quentrell wrote:
Atheist and DNA discoverer, Dr. James Watson makes RACIST comments inspired by his belief in Darwinism
So go take it up with him. Evolution does not rest on Watson's shoulders.

And STILL, NONE of this is relevant to the scientific validity of evolution. But as usual, fundies prefer to poo-fling and attempt to tarnish via association (whether real or imagined) rather than deal with reality.

At least you admitted your "scientific alternative" was Goddidit with magic.

“frequently laughing”

Level 8

Since: Apr 09

Hotel California

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

1

crayzz ox8thongee wrote:
Pro X! this essay or thesis for u to working on!
(U vs, You):-00000h, good luck ;)
Wow crazy I haven't seen you in a long time!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

2

PROFESSOR X wrote:
The theory of intelligent design is simply an effort to empirically detect whether the "apparent design" in nature acknowledged by virtually all biologists is genuine design (the product of an intelligent cause) or is simply the product of an undirected process such as natural selection acting on random variations. Creationism typically starts with a religious text and tries to see how the findings of science can be reconciled to it. Intelligent design starts with the empirical evidence of nature and seeks to ascertain what inferences can be drawn from that evidence. Unlike creationism, the scientific theory of intelligent design does not claim that modern biology can identify whether the intelligent cause detected through science is supernatural.
The guys who *invented* ID disagree. Philip Johnson said that ID is actually about "getting the reality of God back into public schools". And so far they have no actual method of detecting "design" in nature.
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Honest critics of intelligent design acknowledge the difference between intelligent design and creationism. University of Wisconsin historian of science Ronald Numbers is critical of intelligent design, yet according to the Associated Press, he "agrees the creationist label is inaccurate when it comes to the ID [intelligent design] movement." Why, then, do some Darwinists keep trying to conflate intelligent design with creationism? According to Dr. Numbers, it is because they think such claims are "the easiest way to discredit intelligent design." In other words, the charge that intelligent design is "creationism" is a rhetorical strategy on the part of Darwinists who wish to delegitimize design theory without actually addressing the merits of its case.
Actually we've been waiting for over 20 years for them to present the merits of their case. Instead they were forced to openly admit that ID actually IS Creationism.
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Is intelligent design a scientific theory?
Yes. The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information.
As pointed out, they have not expounded on the way to quantify "CSI", or the demarcation line between designed and non-designed things. Nor the method of which to test for "CSI". Plus what happens if we have an EXCEEDINGLY SIMPLE object which is designed? It's then they realise that the fallacy of "complexity = design" is a flawed premise at best.
PROFESSOR X wrote:
One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed.
Yet they haven't found one. Not to mention the fact they did no research to support this (as previously mentioned). What I'm interested to know is how they were able to test the allegedly all-powerful universe-creating designer directly to determine its limits and why it could not have used evolution.
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Technical Paper: The Positive Case for Intelligent Design
A non-technical paper written by a non-scientist lawyer.

Thanks for the spam "prof", but after all that we still don't know jack about what exactly the "scientific theory" of ID is. Apart from "Something intelligent did something intelligent!"
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#38
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Jamel Quentrell wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL! Your professor lied to you!
The story of Adam and Eve is scientific
DNA Proves Adam & Eve Existed
Oh, so you ADMIT to evolution?

Fundies. Never EVER can they maintain an internally consistent position or do they understand the consequences of their own arguments.

You guys do our job for us.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39
Jul 6, 2011
 
Professor wrote:
Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.
After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.
If the universe was already here, then life did not appear out of nothing, did it?

As it now stands, the current hypothesis revolves around biochemistry.

However this is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. Evolution specifically deals with the diversification of life on Earth. That's it. And all it needs is for life to be here.

Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. It doesn't matter if you think chemical abiogenesis started life off or if you think Goddidit with magic, life is here. In order for evolution not to occur, one has to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

I wish 'Professor X' luck...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40
Jul 6, 2011
 

Judged:

4

1

1

Jamel Quentrell wrote:
<quoted text>
The very same way that they promote fake Global warming
Why do you hate kittens?

This is an evolution forum. It has nothing to do with global warming. Mentioning global warming in a biology forum causes kittens to be sacrificed and makes the rest unhappy.

Please, think of the kittens before you post.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••