Evolution vs. Creation

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

United States

#81989 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
So you believe this god created you, yet you would disgrace your creator by just buying whatever snake oil some human offers you and then lie down and give up. No, you are not very bright.
Back then I thought myself very scientific, now the older I get the less I know. I know exactly what you are getting at, I for sure didn't want to follow a concoction once something spoke to me and saved my behind. My second prayer,(the first being "If there is a God I need your help now") was, OK, I got the message, please direct me to the no-snake-oil guy. I gotta alot of questions about evo. answered. It all worked out. Am allowed here to tell you this story. Why do you beleive in evo, whats your real hang your life on it evidence?
Mark

United States

#81990 Mar 20, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you doing that when you quote passages from the Bible to support your argument?
My previous 30+ posts did not quote passages. Most of this fine group know's that. His words are His so when this comes down to what I beleive some day it will, the "no excuse" will be exactly that, not my words.

M

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#81991 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Back then I thought myself very scientific, now the older I get the less I know. I know exactly what you are getting at, I for sure didn't want to follow a concoction once something spoke to me and saved my behind. My second prayer,(the first being "If there is a God I need your help now") was, OK, I got the message, please direct me to the no-snake-oil guy. I gotta alot of questions about evo. answered. It all worked out. Am allowed here to tell you this story. Why do you beleive in evo, whats your real hang your life on it evidence?
Okay, so you want personal stories? Medical sciences, yes they do depend on the theory of evolution, has saved my life, several times. There, a personal story, it's meaningless, as meaningless as yours is because it does not demonstrate anything.

I don't "believe" in anything, nothing at all, I test everything about the world around me, I have always done that. dissected a frog when I was 7 years old, just to know what I could learn. Built a computer from nothing but transistors when I was about 10 or 11, just so I could know how they worked. My father had to look like he was punishing my brother and I for a fight, but he knew I was in the right so ... he had us disassemble, clean, and reassemble a car engine, and I loved it, my brother hated it, oh the sweet justice that was. The theory of evolution has presented terrabytes of evidence, I have begun to only analyze part of it, and it all holds water, it's solid. No religious claim ever, not ever in my entire life, has ever been presented with evidence, none. When asked for the actual evidence all you get are anecdotes and non-sequitors, no evidence, and certainly nothing verifiable. What you need to do is ask yourself, why would you buy the first explanation without ever learning about the others? That's what religion is, it's the "go to" explanation, it offers no answers, no benefits, and nothing to learn, it's a place holder. Like the boogeyman, tooth fairy, and Santa Claus, placeholders should be discarded when one becomes an adult.
Mark

United States

#81992 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, so you want personal stories? Medical sciences, yes they do depend on the theory of evolution, has saved my life, several times. There, a personal story, it's meaningless, as meaningless as yours is because it does not demonstrate anything.
I don't "believe" in anything, nothing at all, I test everything about the world around me, I have always done that. dissected a frog when I was 7 years old, just to know what I could learn. Built a computer from nothing but transistors when I was about 10 or 11, just so I could know how they worked. My father had to look like he was punishing my brother and I for a fight, but he knew I was in the right so ... he had us disassemble, clean, and reassemble a car engine, and I loved it, my brother hated it, oh the sweet justice that was. The theory of evolution has presented terrabytes of evidence, I have begun to only analyze part of it, and it all holds water, it's solid. No religious claim ever, not ever in my entire life, has ever been presented with evidence, none. When asked for the actual evidence all you get are anecdotes and non-sequitors, no evidence, and certainly nothing verifiable. What you need to do is ask yourself, why would you buy the first explanation without ever learning about the others? That's what religion is, it's the "go to" explanation, it offers no answers, no benefits, and nothing to learn, it's a place holder. Like the boogeyman, tooth fairy, and Santa Claus, placeholders should be discarded when one becomes an adult.
I like your honesty. My step dad is the oldest standing scientist in the gov. I was immersed in this stuff, scientific Ame, Science, Nature laying all around the house and I read them cover to cover. School evo bio, it all. No church. In Ak I hit the woods and mtns. Saw survival of the fittist in action but it had another soft and gentle side to it that I couldn't understand. Some things didnt make sense. The fantanstic complexity and color beauty perplexed me, as did the order of it, the instincts, where did they come from? No transitionals anywhere. Contridictions to evo often glared at me but I just accepted them as "one day the evo process that did it will come out". There was death for people in the water, in the mtns, flying. It was all around me, how could God allow such things I thought. One day a whole jet flight, part full of classmates was lost (was the day before school started). My class was seated salt/pepper, lost and living. FAA fouled up the nav equip.(I later gave part of my career to making sure that never happened again there), yet here I am, go fiqure, God showed me some why's and other things I dont get either. Don't give up your search for truth, ever.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#81993 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I like your honesty. My step dad is the oldest standing scientist in the gov. I was immersed in this stuff, scientific Ame, Science, Nature laying all around the house and I read them cover to cover. School evo bio, it all. No church. In Ak I hit the woods and mtns. Saw survival of the fittist in action but it had another soft and gentle side to it that I couldn't understand. Some things didnt make sense. The fantanstic complexity and color beauty perplexed me, as did the order of it, the instincts, where did they come from? No transitionals anywhere. Contridictions to evo often glared at me but I just accepted them as "one day the evo process that did it will come out". There was death for people in the water, in the mtns, flying. It was all around me, how could God allow such things I thought. One day a whole jet flight, part full of classmates was lost (was the day before school started). My class was seated salt/pepper, lost and living. FAA fouled up the nav equip.(I later gave part of my career to making sure that never happened again there), yet here I am, go fiqure, God showed me some why's and other things I dont get either. Don't give up your search for truth, ever.
Based on your post here, you have not actually studied the evidence of evolution.
Mark

United States

#81994 Mar 20, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>this is what the evidence points to.
if you had any evidence of any other theory, you would have produced it by now.
Is cellular science theory? You agree the computer screen you stare at has a maker but the eyes you use to see it doesn't? So how is that not the same as biotechnology? Biosensors use biomaterial connected to electric opamps to monitor for stuff like WMD material, is that not intel operating with and on bio-matter? Where do you differentiate, because it's bio matter evo made it by accident! That functionality didn't come about by someone wishing it into existence and waiting 20 mill years for evo to make it! How absurd! Does natural science be interpeted only through evo? My "Fundie Sect" didn't lie to me on that!

M

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#81995 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
My previous 30+ posts did not quote passages. Most of this fine group know's that. His words are His so when this comes down to what I beleive some day it will, the "no excuse" will be exactly that, not my words.
M
Ah, I see what you are saying.

You make veiled references to to the Bible but not actually stand by it. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

It'll be interesting to see if your little ploy outsmarts God.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#81996 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Is cellular science theory? You agree the computer screen you stare at has a maker but the eyes you use to see it doesn't? So how is that not the same as biotechnology? Biosensors use biomaterial connected to electric opamps to monitor for stuff like WMD material, is that not intel operating with and on bio-matter? Where do you differentiate, because it's bio matter evo made it by accident! That functionality didn't come about by someone wishing it into existence and waiting 20 mill years for evo to make it! How absurd! Does natural science be interpeted only through evo? My "Fundie Sect" didn't lie to me on that!
M
You employ several fallacies, those that have been repeated by many creatards who deny science so often they will earn you nothing but ridicule and eventually you will be treated like them. Word of advice, do some research first. I will point to the big one that is often mistaken for "logic."

Comparing biological processes to mechanical ones is an inherent failure, because the systems are very different. They are not different because of any "soul," but they are different because one is a result of forces, the other a result of chemical reactions, which differ on a molecular level. Accident is not applicable to either process, and one requires intelligent influence, the other we see occur on it's own all the time.
Mark

United States

#81997 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on your post here, you have not actually studied the evidence of evolution.
Evo's mechanism fails it, expecting random mutations to create things is anti-logic and not repeatable and impossible at the cell level, ever. Denton sealed this. They get a few random changes like friut fly alterations that include such great leaps such curved wings and eye color changes, but in thousands of gens of friut fly reproduction a fruit fly is still a fruit fly when they finish, and most all the mutations they force are bad and degenerative.

It must be in the cell mechanism to work, the code is read only but no one here wants to change their faith based on these facts. The code pattern is even trinary, no one want's to get into it because their commited to evo. beliefs. Talk about snake oil by-in. I have code writers working for me and we create some great stuff, world class stuff. but it doesnt come by chance.

True cell/gene operation and design is the issue, how variation works, thats not evo, it's designed in flexibility for adaptability with boundries. It's marketed as evolution but it's not. I know their arguments, they twist it to fit their belief's.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#81998 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Evo's mechanism fails it, expecting random mutations to create things is anti-logic and not repeatable and impossible at the cell level, ever. Denton sealed this. They get a few random changes like friut fly alterations that include such great leaps such curved wings and eye color changes, but in thousands of gens of friut fly reproduction a fruit fly is still a fruit fly when they finish, and most all the mutations they force are bad and degenerative.
It must be in the cell mechanism to work, the code is read only but no one here wants to change their faith based on these facts. The code pattern is even trinary, no one want's to get into it because their commited to evo. beliefs. Talk about snake oil by-in. I have code writers working for me and we create some great stuff, world class stuff. but it doesnt come by chance.
True cell/gene operation and design is the issue, how variation works, thats not evo, it's designed in flexibility for adaptability with boundries. It's marketed as evolution but it's not. I know their arguments, they twist it to fit their belief's.
We have repeated mutations, we know that the average number of mutations every human has from their parent DNA is 150 or more. We know this, we have seen this. So we know mutations happen, and that most are neutral.
Mark

United States

#81999 Mar 20, 2013
greymouser wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, I see what you are saying.
You make veiled references to to the Bible but not actually stand by it. You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.
It'll be interesting to see if your little ploy outsmarts God.
I made one Scripture reference directly relating to the posters question of why people should believe that God exists, e.g. looking at the created world, as it says. Accuratly quoting a single verse will not get me in any trouble with Him, quite the contrary. People here get quite enough sermons it seems. If they ask me for something i will try to maintain that trust and not go overboard.

M
Mark

United States

#82000 Mar 20, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
We have repeated mutations, we know that the average number of mutations every human has from their parent DNA is 150 or more. We know this, we have seen this. So we know mutations happen, and that most are neutral.
Ayala reffered to this as geneitic load. The perplexing thing to him was he could only envision the human species to survive only 10K years max, due to it's negitive effects. Look into it. I have his book.

M

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82001 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Ayala reffered to this as geneitic load. The perplexing thing to him was he could only envision the human species to survive only 10K years max, due to it's negitive effects. Look into it. I have his book.
M
Then he was not a very good scientist. The human species has many physical flaws, but we make them up with a few mental traits and behaviors that have secured our existence. The specific combination of social traits is unique to our species, and easily explained with the theory of evolution, though the individual traits are common in other animals so we aren't that unique. Our breeding capability, inherited by the chimp/ape lineage, is the reason we have benefited by the social traits so well. The one trait that is rare is our capability to alter our instinctual behaviors due to our intellectual advancement, it's why we have been capable of increasing our knowledge so much faster than any other species. This particular trait is so rare I cannot even recall the few other species that possess it.

Sagan said it best, "we can change ourselves." It's time we shed the childish things and embrace the beauty of reality. Pacifiers like religion are exactly the same as the tooth fairy.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#82002 Mar 20, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Evo's mechanism fails it, expecting random mutations to create things is anti-logic and not repeatable and impossible at the cell level, ever. Denton sealed this. They get a few random changes like friut fly alterations that include such great leaps such curved wings and eye color changes, but in thousands of gens of friut fly reproduction a fruit fly is still a fruit fly when they finish, and most all the mutations they force are bad and degenerative.
It must be in the cell mechanism to work, the code is read only but no one here wants to change their faith based on these facts. The code pattern is even trinary, no one want's to get into it because their commited to evo. beliefs. Talk about snake oil by-in. I have code writers working for me and we create some great stuff, world class stuff. but it doesnt come by chance.
True cell/gene operation and design is the issue, how variation works, thats not evo, it's designed in flexibility for adaptability with boundries. It's marketed as evolution but it's not. I know their arguments, they twist it to fit their belief's.
Gee!....you've obviously disproven evolution and all the sciences involved. Stand by for all the accolades and riches soon to be bestowed upon you.

Tell us where you got your evolution, genetics and other science degrees.

May we interview you for Scientific American?

I don't think I have ever seen such keen wit and stunning intellect on display before.

WOW....Just WOW

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#82003 Mar 20, 2013

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82004 Mar 20, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Gee!....you've obviously disproven evolution and all the sciences involved. Stand by for all the accolades and riches soon to be bestowed upon you.
Tell us where you got your evolution, genetics and other science degrees.
May we interview you for Scientific American?
I don't think I have ever seen such keen wit and stunning intellect on display before.
WOW....Just WOW
From here, the theory of Crevolution:

“In God we trust”

Level 7

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#82005 Mar 21, 2013
There's no such thing as crevolution
AVG JOE

Memphis, TN

#82006 Mar 21, 2013
Bible Belt wrote:
When the universe began, it may have branched out upon waves, and seed propagation may have occurred as things moved toward the natural inclination of what was to be manifested. Cycling is responsible for propagation, and the interactions which occur are effects of patterned systems which work an action in course of execution.
Cycling?
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#82007 Mar 21, 2013
AVG JOE wrote:
<quoted text>Cycling?
Don't waste your time. I suspect that this is nothing more than chumming the waters to get liberals on their high horses.

...and they will get on their horses! What purpose would evolution serve if one could not go through their rhetorical spiel about(insert derogatory slur here) conservative scum who do not agree with a knight's politics of redistribution of wealth.(As if that is a logical conclusion!)

In the mean time, intelligent conservatives who claim to endorse the Bible, but actually endorse anything that shuts up the masses without costing them anything, go on doing what they will do. They certainly don't post here......or at least not as anything other than a stupid puppet to knock down with your magic "Knight in Shining Armor" wonder lance!(tm)**(Boioioioinggggg!! !)

**magic lance polishing cream sold separately.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#82008 Mar 21, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Found a pretty cool article on this subject -
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/0...
"In Ian Kershaw's biography of Hitler, Professor Kershaw (who has no axe to grind on this topic, so far as I know) repeatedly attributes a belief or world view which he terms 'Social Darwinism' to the National Socialist leader".
"I believe that this ban (mention of which, I now gather, is a stock-in-trade Darwinist response to the allegation that the Nazis were influenced and inspired by evolutionary theory) was not caused by any NSDAP objection to the theory of evolution, but may have more to do with Hitler's specific disagreement with Haeckel's supporters and disciples, the Monists, who were very far from being Nazis.
So far as I know, the Monist League, which was made up of Haeckel's disciples, was shut down in 1933 by the Nazis, so publications linked with it would have been banned at the same time. Richard Weikart, in his book exploring the links between Darwinism and National Socialist ideology ('From Darwin to Hitler' p.70) notes:’The Nazi suppression of the Monist League was not a function of a fundamental change in the Monist League's orientation during the Weimar period, as [Daniel] Gasman has argued, but rather reflected significant differences between Haeckel and Hitler. Haeckel and the Monist League promoted many social reforms that were anathema to Hitler, such as homosexual rights, feminism, and pacifism.’
So he was at odd's with Haeckel(the promoter of the false concept of fish to human evolution occuring during pregnancy)Not Darwin.
Prof Kershaw may have no axe to grind on this topic but Mr Hitchens seems to: "(mention of which, I now gather, is a stock-in-trade Darwinist response to the allegation that the Nazis were influenced and inspired by evolutionary theory)".

Stock in trade?

In any event, after mentioning "primitive Darwinism" Hitchens rambles on about Haeckel but never, as far as I can tell, explains why "primitive Darwinism" was not directed at Darwin.

The referenced document is here:
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burne...

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
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 8 min The Dude 14
Darwin on the rocks 10 min The Dude 156
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 19 min Sketch 174,459
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 21 min polymath257 137,376
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 6 hr DanFromSmithville 656
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? Sep 27 David M 2
New Fossil Reveals Multicellular Life Evolved 6... Sep 26 TedHOhio 8

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE