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 (Page 2,440)

Showing posts 48,781 - 48,800 of106,046
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50904
Oct 7, 2012
 
FALCONER wrote:
<quoted text>
I happen to find these questions very interesting as well as on topic.
I may not understand all the science involved but the questions are very provocative and intelligent.
They don't want dialogue.
They want to dominate and suppress opposing opinions.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50905
Oct 7, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is easy. By applying selection to natural variation. You have heard of the thought experiment of having a huge number of monkeys typing on a type writer that eventually they would create all of the works of Shakespeare? Now if you use pure random numbers it would still take an inordinately long time, perhaps longer than the life of the universe to happen. But when natural selection is added to the mix it becomes almost child's play. Someone wrote a computer simulation of this and fairly quickly had generated over 90% of the works of the Bard.
Random numbers?
Fail!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Topanga

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50906
Oct 7, 2012
 
President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote,“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3 See: Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase)(includes animation).
You need to take up all your crap with evolutionary scientists. Trouble is they generally don't want to waste time on your creationist bulls--t. There is nothing that creationists have come up with in the last 25 years that real scientists haven't been able to discredit.

Creationist are just dead wrong in everything they have brought up.

Christianity is a man-made religion, just like ALL of the others.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50907
Oct 7, 2012
 
Questions for Evolutionists:

"How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? See: G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50908
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Questions for Evolutionists:

Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote,“Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 See:‘Just-so’ stories of sex and family life.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50909
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Questions for Evolutionists:

Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated:“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote,“It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: Is evolution relevant or helpful to real science?

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50910
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to take up all your crap with evolutionary scientists. Trouble is they generally don't want to waste time on your creationist bulls--t. There is nothing that creationists have come up with in the last 25 years that real scientists haven't been able to discredit.
Creationist are just dead wrong in everything they have brought up.
Christianity is a man-made religion, just like ALL of the others.
But i thought all the experts were on here.
Hahahahaha!

This isn;t about Christianity.

Its about Creationism vs evolution.
DUH!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50911
Oct 7, 2012
 
President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Report it to Topix then.
I placed quotation marks before each question.
Why does it bother you so much?
All I'm doing is my homework on the topic.
Suddenly you feel threatened by this information and want to suppress my freedom of speech.
Typical liberal!
Spamming is rude and inconsiderate. You are not doing your homework, you are attempting a Gish Gallup. It is a dishonest technique used by cretinists where they spout a whole bunch of untrue claims and are not really interested in the truth of the matter.

And as I said, I don't report people. I am sometimes guilty of breaking the rules here myself. To report people would therefore make me a creationist, oops I mean hypocrite.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50912
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution? Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated:“In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.”9 Dr Skell wrote,“It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….”10 Evolution actually hinders medical discovery.11 Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind? See: Is evolution relevant or helpful to real science?
You really need to ask? Most new antibiotics are based upon evolution. The exploration for oil that you put in your car is based upon evolution. If you don't believe evolution then you should not be a hypocrite and drive using oil that was found based upon that theory.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50913
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
Why is evolutionary ‘just-so’ story-telling tolerated? Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS(USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote,“Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”8 See:‘Just-so’ stories of sex and family life.
There is no "just so" story telling by evolution. That is a flaw of creationism. Perhaps you meant something else.

Just so stories are a creationist trademark.

“WISDOM IS A GIFT”

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50914
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't want dialogue.
They want to dominate and suppress opposing opinions.
Well I am a Deist and therefore believe in intelligent design.
I may not ascribe to a particular religion but I find several of them fascinating and I believe the doctrine of Jesus Christ to be a good guideline for human beings to follow above all other theological doctrines.
If for no other reason than the fact that if everyone could live up to his teachings, we would have paradise on earth.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50915
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"How did blind chemistry create mind/ intelligence, meaning, altruism and morality? If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes? See: G.K. Chesterton: Darwinism is ‘An attack upon thought itself’.
Chemistry is not blind. So the very basis of your claim is shot down. Take a chemistry class and try asking the question again.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50916
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See: Evolutionist Dr John Endler’s refreshing clarity about ‘natural selection’ has been largely ignored.
Because it is not just natural selection. It is natural selection along with natural variation that drives evolution. Creationists tend to look at only one at a time since evolution can be debunked if it is based solely upon natural variation or natural selection. It cannot be debunked when both are working.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50917
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

President Starky wrote:
Questions for Evolutionists:
"How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote,“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”3 See: Design in living organisms (motors: ATP synthase)(includes animation).
Once again chemistry is not blind. And you may want to check out the various articles on abiognesis on the internet. Since you are Gish Galloping I am doing an anti Gish Gallop. To find out why you are wrong you will have to do some work for yourself.

“WISDOM IS A GIFT”

Level 1

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50918
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Spamming is rude and inconsiderate. You are not doing your homework, you are attempting a Gish Gallup. It is a dishonest technique used by cretinists where they spout a whole bunch of untrue claims and are not really interested in the truth of the matter.
And as I said, I don't report people. I am sometimes guilty of breaking the rules here myself. To report people would therefore make me a creationist, oops I mean hypocrite.
I happen to find some of the other posts on here to be far more rude than the questions this poster is asking.
It seems to me that you are less bothered by the so-called spamming and more upset about the content of legitimate questions being asked about the topic at hand.

As I told the other poster, I'm not a scientist but I do find his/her posts provocative and interesting.
It may be that the truth lies somewhere in between intelligent design and evolution, but you seem to dismiss all argument that doesn't comply with your views.
That is not constructive debate.
IMHO!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50919
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
Random numbers?
Fail!
It was not random number, again, you are thinking like a cretinist. It was random mutations of words plus natural selection. By now it has been done. Live with it. Evolution does not work by only natural selection or random mutation, it works on both together. That is why the usual monkey example fails, they only used random variation. Add in natural selection and there was no problem.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50920
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

FALCONER wrote:
<quoted text>
I happen to find some of the other posts on here to be far more rude than the questions this poster is asking.
It seems to me that you are less bothered by the so-called spamming and more upset about the content of legitimate questions being asked about the topic at hand.
As I told the other poster, I'm not a scientist but I do find his/her posts provocative and interesting.
It may be that the truth lies somewhere in between intelligent design and evolution, but you seem to dismiss all argument that doesn't comply with your views.
That is not constructive debate.
IMHO!
Nope, sorry, not so. His posting of questions that have been answered before without waiting for an answer is the ultimate rudeness on an internet debate site.

His posts are all questions that have been asked and answered before. They are not interesting. Even he knows that since he runs away from his questions as soon as he asks them.

The man is a putz.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50921
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

1

President Starky wrote:
<quoted text>
"Niche" is your scientific answer?
Fail!
Why do you think an animal has to evolve? No fail. That would be you.

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50922
Oct 7, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Spamming is rude and inconsiderate. You are not doing your homework, you are attempting a Gish Gallup. It is a dishonest technique used by cretinists where they spout a whole bunch of untrue claims and are not really interested in the truth of the matter.
And as I said, I don't report people. I am sometimes guilty of breaking the rules here myself. To report people would therefore make me a creationist, oops I mean hypocrite.
Rude is signing out of your profile,coming back on as a grey sock and using foul language and personal insults such as "Tard" Usually at the end of whatever other descriptive word, as well as making personal threats of throwing someone in a trunk,"Better not come to my town BS!
That is rude.
I posted questions which I happen to read before I posted them and found them appropriate to this thread.
You don't have to agree with the questions or even answer them, but if what I'm doing is "spamming" Then you go on and report away.
I'll be happy to explain to Topix that the other posters on here used data they gathered,copy/pasted and leave links for virtually everything.
I was completely on topic. You just don't like the questions.

"Stuff's gettin better"
2012

“Stuffs gettin better ”

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50923
Oct 7, 2012
 
Questions for Evolutionists:

"Science involves experimenting to figure out how things work; how they operate. Why is evolution, a theory about history, taught as if it is the same as this operational science? You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said,“Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”12 See: A valid distinction: origins science versus operational science.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 48,781 - 48,800 of106,046
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

12 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 min The Dude 127,177
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 3 hr The Dude 168,581
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 7 hr Ooogah Boogah 13,493
Kevin Wingate: ID should be included in science... Thu llDayo 5
Science News (Sep '13) Thu Ricky F 2,671
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) Apr 16 MikeF 1,236
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) Apr 15 ChristineM 13,936
•••
•••
•••
•••