Evolution vs. Creation

[Buzzin Fr0g]

BuzzinFr0g wrote:

Another question I have is about the deity's awareness of his own future actions. In the Old Testament the deity sometimes acts and then later regrets the decision. For example, The Flood. Doesn't he express to Noah afterword that he is sorry for his action and in the future will not create another such cataclysm in response to 'waywardness'? That would indicate a lack of foresight as well as an ability to act irrationally (even if having such foresight), both of which seem at odds with being a 'perfect' entity. Correct?

Repost since this was jumped over.

[President Starky]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

I happen to know the history of both antibiotics and oil (As in their discovery and use by man)
Man discovered,manipulated their properties and utilized the end product.
It was hardly random.

[Subduction Zone]

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
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

No, rude is inviting people to call you a "tard". Who has called you a tard to day anyway?

Yes, the others here try to properly answer questions. Go ahead and tell that to Topix. And you are showing your idiocy since I have to tell you for the third time that I do not report people. I have even let violent threats slip by, which is much more of a no no than simple bad language. As you know that would make me a creationist, I mean hypocrite.

[President Starky]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Why do you think an animal has to evolve? No fail. That would be you.

I don't!

[Subduction Zone]

President Starky wrote:

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.

Of course we can do experiments. Who says that we can't? There is all sorts of experimental evidence that supports evolution.

Keep posting the stupid questions without waiting for an answer. It only makes it more apparent that you are a fool.

[President Starky]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
No, rude is inviting people to call you a "tard". Who has called you a tard to day anyway?
Yes, the others here try to properly answer questions. Go ahead and tell that to Topix. And you are showing your idiocy since I have to tell you for the third time that I do not report people. I have even let violent threats slip by, which is much more of a no no than simple bad language. As you know that would make me a creationist, I mean hypocrite.

So your post was an invitation to tell you top GFY!
Right?
Evotard!

[Subduction Zone]

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
I happen to know the history of both antibiotics and oil (As in their discovery and use by man)
Man discovered,manipulated their properties and utilized the end product.
It was hardly random.

You may know the early history, you do not know the current history. You could not find oil without the aid of evolution today. Antibiotics are designed by using evolution today.

[Subduction Zone]

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't!

Your argument against "living fossils" indicates that you do.

I know, logic is not your strong point.

[Subduction Zone]

President Starky wrote:

Questions for Evolutionists:
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted,“Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: The religious nature of evolution,“It’s not science”.

Karl Popper was wrong. And finding one loser who supposedly is an evolutionist does not give your side any credibility.

By the way, all of your quotes are improper. You need links to the original quotes. Not some cretinist quote mined garbage. Usually when cretinists quote the way you do further research shows that they did not believe what the cretinists were claiming that they said.

[Subduction Zone]

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
So your post was an invitation to tell you top GFY!
Right?
Evotard!

Hardly. I have refrained from calling you a creatard. By the way a creatard is a creationist who cannot defend their claims. The same would apply to an evotard. I can defend my claims, therefore I am not a evotard. You have not been able to defend any of your claims, so you know what that makes you.

[Aura Mytha]

President Starky wrote:

Questions for Evolutionists:
"How do ‘living fossils’ remain unchanged over supposed hundreds of millions of years, if evolution has changed worms into humans in the same time frame? Professor Gould wrote,“the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”7 See: Living fossils: a powerful argument for creation.

Species can have minute changes in some of their offspring due to a copy error , also since no member of a species is exactly the same . this is a natural occourence but...the mutated branch is now more suited to a slightly different habitat setting and is now as result changed its diet , location or habits slightly.

This leads to speciation. The new species emerges and gets separated and isolated completely from the parent species and takes a new evolutionary path.
However....
The parent species thrives in it's original habitat and did not suffer extinction. There is no requirement a parent species must die off, it just happens that in 99% of all cases the parent species does suffer extinction , and you are not seeing the living fossil , you are only seeing the species that took a different evolutionary path.

Every once and awhile we discover these so "living fossils that were thought to have been extinct".

[FALCONER]

President Starky wrote:

Questions for Evolutionists:
Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes? Karl Popper, famous philosopher of science, said “Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical [religious] research programme ….” Michael Ruse, evolutionist science philosopher admitted,“Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.” If “you can’t teach religion in science classes”, why is evolution taught? See: The religious nature of evolution,“It’s not science”.

This is the best question of all.

Most people who believe in evolution also happen to be atheists,so they become very aggressive when they find out that their own belief is in fact a religion.

I kept this question for my facebook friends many of whom are atheists.

I'm off to have some fun with them.

Keep up the good work.

[Aura Mytha]

I don't think you can ever even look at evolution like worms evolved into humans, it much to complicated to put it that way.

[Subduction Zone]

FALCONER wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

Falconer, the following is a video about the Dover Trial. It was the latest trial where creationists tried to sneak creationism into schools under the guise of Intelligent Design. If you watch it you will find out why Intelligent Design failed as a science. And the judge for this trial was a conservative judge. It was the ideal judge for the creationists and they still lost:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

[President Starky]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
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.

So now I'm supposed to wait for you, not knowing if you're even on here and ask one question before I ask the next?
Putz!
You don't get to dictate how or when I post.
My posts were open posts (not replies) and anyone can go through and answer them (Or in your case) not answer them and just attack the actualy scientists who posed the questions.
Saying they are wrong with nothing to back up your claims that they are wrong.
LOL

[President Starky]

Aura Mytha wrote:

<quoted text> Species can have minute changes in some of their offspring due to a copy error , also since no member of a species is exactly the same . this is a natural occourence but...the mutated branch is now more suited to a slightly different habitat setting and is now as result changed its diet , location or habits slightly.
This leads to speciation. The new species emerges and gets separated and isolated completely from the parent species and takes a new evolutionary path.
However....
The parent species thrives in it's original habitat and did not suffer extinction. There is no requirement a parent species must die off, it just happens that in 99% of all cases the parent species does suffer extinction , and you are not seeing the living fossil , you are only seeing the species that took a different evolutionary path.
Every once and awhile we discover these so "living fossils that were thought to have been extinct".

How convenient.
Got any proof?
Thought not.

[President Starky]

Aura Mytha wrote:

I don't think you can ever even look at evolution like worms evolved into humans, it much to complicated to put it that way.

Tell that to the evolutionist who wrote the article “We were once worms”

[Subduction Zone]

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
So now I'm supposed to wait for you, not knowing if you're even on here and ask one question before I ask the next?
Putz!
You don't get to dictate how or when I post.
My posts were open posts (not replies) and anyone can go through and answer them (Or in your case) not answer them and just attack the actualy scientists who posed the questions.
Saying they are wrong with nothing to back up your claims that they are wrong.
LOL

You keep projecting your faults upon others. No one has tried to limit how you post here. I have pointed out how your posting is rude here. So again, that does make you a putz.

Your posts were nonsense that has been debunked many times before and your unwillingness to debate them showed that you were merely doing a Gish Gallup. It only impresses the uninformed. Even most creationists know that what you were doing is very bad form.

And I gave more to debunk them than you put into them. I had logic on my side. At best you had improper quotes on yours. In other words I ruined your attempt to spam the board.

[Subduction Zone]

President Starky wrote:

<quoted text>
How convenient.
Got any proof?
Thought not.

Again you lose. There is no "proof" in science, that is a mathematical term. You should have asked if we had evidence, and we do have evidence that supports our beliefs. You do not have any evidence that supports any of yours. In fact you know your beliefs are so lame that you are afraid to own up to them. That makes you a rather pathetic fool.

[President Starky]

FALCONER wrote:

<quoted text>
This is the best question of all.
Most people who believe in evolution also happen to be atheists,so they become very aggressive when they find out that their own belief is in fact a religion.
I kept this question for my facebook friends many of whom are atheists.
I'm off to have some fun with them.
Keep up the good work.

Thanks for at least reading the questions I posted.
I didn't write them but I considered them worthy of the topic in spite of the narrow mindedness of the atheists who didn't give them a second thought nor did they try to rebut in any logical sense.
Instead they attacked the scientists who wrote these questions.
At least you didn't add the word "tard" at the end of a description of someone else.
Looks like some of them haven't evolved all that much.:)