Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
nemesis

Kansas City, MO

#71580 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not a mystery at all. There can be countless advanced civilizations in the Universe. That doesn't mean that they have the capability to communicate across interstellar distances (let alone travel between them).
Experience.....We had a close encounter @10ft.....not lights in the sky, not light refraction, not swamp gas.........It was 10 ft away. We both saw it. So don't tell us that we were dreaming and in the same dream. Unless God flies around in a starship and can make us fall asleep and wake up at the same time, than it was God. Or, it was the Govt. What was a reversed alien engineered craft doing out in the middle of BFE! Or, it was those interstellar travelers.....from what we could tell. It was hovering 15-20ft, on a high power line. We came over a hill after going thru mature trees that covered the road from the air. We surprised them/it(being a probe, a study vehicle). it than turned towards us. It had a soft white light it was using in front.They/It put us both to sleep. We lost time, but not exactly how much.As we were waking up, we were slumped in our seats facing each other, blinking, trying to wake up. Just than, the craft appeared hovering 10ft off the ground and just in front of us. It crossed over us without a sound. The bottom was covered in red glowing panels(probably the power source), 6" x 2' not rotating. It was awsome!!!!!My friend lost it and said, "Lets get out of here before they come bagk!" I step out of the car because I knew this was a once in a life time event. I saw nothing, no leaves moving just above us. Oh, in the canopy of leaves just behind our car there was a 15 ft hole in the trees.....freaky! The question we had was answered. Are we alone in the universe? A BIG FAT NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#71581 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I have. None of those can be identified as unambiguous prophecies that aren't either (1) twisted to fit a scenario or (2) made into a self-fulfilling prophecy.(Or the ones that are flat-out wrong.)
<quoted text>
You mean the dating that is increasingly written as "BCE" and CE"?
By the way, should we conclude that people believe that Thor and Woden and the other Norse gods were real because we have days named Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday?
Heck, even Jews that don't use "BC" and "AD" have no problem in using those words to refer to those days of the week.
Not to mention all the planets and their moons, plus other 'heavenly' bodies that bear the names of greek and roman deities.

Venus, Mercury, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Pluto, yadda, yadda, yadda...

And ALL of the months of the year, if I'm not mistaken.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71582 Jan 21, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
(Then describe your criteria for irrefutable evidence...)
Irrefutable is evidence that does not change what it suggests. Unlike mythology, the evidence produces the same results in all cases.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#71583 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Relevant, objective, and unambiguous evidence.
When the evidence meets those criteria, the evidence can be presented, and it can be seen whether or not the evidence can be refuted.
and again...if you were by yourself and saw a tree fall in the forest,...you would have doubts that it happened, because there was no objective witnesses?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#71584 Jan 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Irrefutable is evidence that does not change what it suggests. Unlike mythology, the evidence produces the same results in all cases.
so the Universe "suggests" some sort of intelligence, acknowledged by every culture that has ever exist in some form or other...I would call that objective evidence.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71585 Jan 21, 2013
nemesis wrote:
<quoted text>Experience.....We had a close encounter @10ft.....not lights in the sky, not light refraction, not swamp gas.........It was 10 ft away. We both saw it. So don't tell us that we were dreaming and in the same dream. Unless God flies around in a starship and can make us fall asleep and wake up at the same time, than it was God. Or, it was the Govt. What was a reversed alien engineered craft doing out in the middle of BFE! Or, it was those interstellar travelers.....from what we could tell. It was hovering 15-20ft, on a high power line. We came over a hill after going thru mature trees that covered the road from the air. We surprised them/it(being a probe, a study vehicle). it than turned towards us. It had a soft white light it was using in front.They/It put us both to sleep. We lost time, but not exactly how much.As we were waking up, we were slumped in our seats facing each other, blinking, trying to wake up. Just than, the craft appeared hovering 10ft off the ground and just in front of us. It crossed over us without a sound. The bottom was covered in red glowing panels(probably the power source), 6" x 2' not rotating. It was awsome!!!!!My friend lost it and said, "Lets get out of here before they come bagk!" I step out of the car because I knew this was a once in a life time event. I saw nothing, no leaves moving just above us. Oh, in the canopy of leaves just behind our car there was a 15 ft hole in the trees.....freaky! The question we had was answered. Are we alone in the universe? A BIG FAT NNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!
So from this experience, how did this affect you?

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

#71586 Jan 21, 2013
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, but you don't make a good critique here.
Try explaining what a species is and you'll see where your argument fails.
:)

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

#71587 Jan 21, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
so the Universe "suggests" some sort of intelligence, acknowledged by every culture that has ever exist in some form or other...I would call that objective evidence.
of course.. universe is intelligent design perfectly with balance system in it

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71588 Jan 21, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
so the Universe "suggests" some sort of intelligence, acknowledged by every culture that has ever exist in some form or other...I would call that objective evidence.
No, it doesn't. The universe suggests a universe and that is all.

Appeal to popularity fallacy, also known as the bandwagon. The majority has historically proven wrong more often than correct, so you are siding with what is more likely wrong.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71589 Jan 21, 2013
Islamic Scientist wrote:
<quoted text>
of course.. universe is intelligent design perfectly with balance system in it
If it was balanced then nothing would change, there would be no black holes, there would be no stars ... and there would be no planets or us.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71590 Jan 21, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>I did say in essence...lol
LOL

Funny.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71591 Jan 21, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Venus?...lol
Island in the Sun

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

#71592 Jan 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was balanced then nothing would change, there would be no black holes, there would be no stars ... and there would be no planets or us.
i mean 'the system' too.. like day n night, man n woman, strong n weak, material n anti-material, gravity n anti-gravity, n many more

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#71593 Jan 21, 2013
Islamic Scientist wrote:
<quoted text>
i mean 'the system' too.. like day n night, man n woman, strong n weak, material n anti-material, gravity n anti-gravity, n many more
Erm, life evolved on the planet to become accustomed to "day and night."

Binary gender reproduction is the worst of all the reproductive systems.

The rest is meh. That's not a "system," it's just the way things are, and there is no balance at all, again, if there was balance nothing would ever change. Without change nothing would be here.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71594 Jan 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds improbable to me. I doubt the word was coined to refute scripture. Personally, I don't see the idea as being very essential to evolutionary theory. Mutation occurs and is passed on at the individual level, period!

The idea of a "macro" evolutionary strategy is flawed. It's like saying that the predecessors of birds decided to take several steps to become birds. That doesn't happen. What does happen is that environmental conditions occur that allow a species to bridge a gap between their old niche and a new one. Without those conditions, no birds would happen.

I don't know if it's your interpretation or the logic that is flawed, but I won't defend it.
Posted earlier by derek4

Challenging Darwin's Myths

The essence of Darwin's theory is that all living creatures descended from a single anscestor. All the plants, animals, and other organisms that exist today are products of random mutation and natural selection—or survival of the fittest.

According to Darwin, nature acts like a breeder, carefully scrutinizing every organism. As useful new traits appear, they are preserved and passed on to the next generation. Harmful traits are eliminated. Although each individual change is relatively small, these changes eventually accumulate until organisms develop new limbs, organs, or other parts. Given enough time, organisms may change so radically that they bear almost no resemblance to their original ancsestor.

Most importantly, all this happens without any purposeful input— no Creator, no Intelligent Designer. In Darwin's view, chance and nature are all you need.

This all sounds very elegant and plausible. Problem is, it's never been supported by any convincing data.

For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.

As Darwin himself pointed out in his book, The Origin of Species:

...The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth,[must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Darwin, of course, attributed this problem to the imperfection of the fossil evidence, and the youthful state of paleontology. As the discipline matured, and as scientists found more fossils, the gaps would slowly start to fill.

continued:

“... Darwinism is ultimately based as much on philosophical assumptions as on scientific evidence.

This admission, which took place at a national meeting of country's largest science society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, scandalized the Darwinist community, which likes to portray evolution as an indisputable fact. It was all the more scandalous because the speaker had specifically been invited to the meeting to denounce Johnson.

So things are slowly beginning to change. Creationists are still far from winning, but things are getting better. As Johnson points out, creationist arguments are getting more sophisticated, while most Darwinists are still responding with cliches. Thus, it's now the creationists who come across as asking the hard questions, and demanding fair debate.

But ultimately, says Johnson, it's not the debates or the arguments that will win the day.

"It's reality that's doing it. It's just the way the world is. And sooner or later, scientists will have to acknowledge that fact."

http://www.arn.org/docs/dardoc1.htm

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71595 Jan 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Erm, life evolved on the planet to become accustomed to "day and night."
Binary gender reproduction is the worst of all the reproductive systems.
The rest is meh. That's not a "system," it's just the way things are, and there is no balance at all, again, if there was balance nothing would ever change. Without change nothing would be here.
What planet are you from?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71596 Jan 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds improbable to me. I doubt the word was coined to refute scripture. Personally, I don't see the idea as being very essential to evolutionary theory. Mutation occurs and is passed on at the individual level, period!

The idea of a "macro" evolutionary strategy is flawed. It's like saying that the predecessors of birds decided to take several steps to become birds. That doesn't happen. What does happen is that environmental conditions occur that allow a species to bridge a gap between their old niche and a new one. Without those conditions, no birds would happen.

I don't know if it's your interpretation or the logic that is flawed, but I won't defend it.
Evolution: when you think of it you would have start at the very beginning with the primordial soup. Let's go back to the making of the soup. Rain falling on rocks for millions and millions of years washing the correct minerals and elements into a puddle to combine with the correct gases over millions of years. Then to make the fairy tale really good something some how created the spark of life and a speck of life came forth. Now this very primitive ( the most primitive life form ever ) lived long enough to mutate and mutate billions of times creating all forms of life ever to exist. Plants and animals adding more and more DNA along the way. Perfecting host and symbiont relationships. Fish and mammals swimming in the oceans some with gills others with blow holes then the birds in the sky and of course the birds that can't fly. Insects and ticks and worms.
Grass and trees and flowers. All from the speck of life that sprang to life with who knows how long of a life span.
Creating some as in algae to create oxygen that would be needed for the life forms that were to follow as it just kept mutating and adding DNA until the arrival of the great ape who figured it all out with no room for error and stood on his soap box and proclaimed this is how it happened no other explanation is possible.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71597 Jan 21, 2013
Personal experience/observation/observa tion doesn't count as evidence toward the existence of anything, if it can't be made objective.
Or did you not realize that you've identified no way to distinguish between wishful thinking and reality?
xxxooxxx wrote:
so speaking from your own Personal experience and observations, you have determine that Personal experience/observation has to objective
From *merely* my personal experience and observations? No.

From a logical evaluation of what should qualify as reliable evidence. Yes.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71598 Jan 21, 2013
Are you an unbiased observer? I don't think so.
xxxooxxx wrote:
do you think of yourself, as a unbiased observer?
I don't think of *anyone*, myself included, as an unbiased observer.

That's why evidence needs to be objective and unambiguous in order to rationally justify a belief.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71599 Jan 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>You write:
"The thing is you have zero proof of Macro evolution. As far a micro evolution no big deal"

That's OK, you have absolutely zero proof that your god exists.

You write:
"Not one fossil proves Macro evolution
Not once has it been observed."

So what? You guys took 300 years to produce your Bible and decide on your dogma. Some things take time.

You write:
"Never in the history of the planet has macro evolution left behind a bit of proof that it ever happened."

Maybe we haven't found it yet...see the point above.

Not having an example of macro evolution to toss around yet, means absolutely nothing at this point in time.

We have PLENTY of proofs for evolution....where is your proof of your god?? I don't think you have any.
Why do Atheist have such a hard time with definition of such easy words.

Here let me help you out.

athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

ag·nos·tic\ag-ˈnäs-tik,əg -\
noun
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Religion
noun
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Faith
noun
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

There that should help you out.

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
How would creationists explain... 30 min replaytime 403
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 6 hr Kong_ 650
Science News (Sep '13) 22 hr positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
Genetic entropy Dec 18 Discord 159
More from around the web