Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94190 Jun 27, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Fail. On so many levels.
He would not even present a link to his chimpanzee article. It was obvious from his wording that he got his info from a creatard site. I had the original article. It was not that hard to find. As I said a possible explanation was included with the article. I am fairly sure that his source edited that out.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94191 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
So you totally screwed up.
Thanks for admitting it.
Even How's That has admitted that he has nothing. I don't even have to try to dig up his DeBeers' link.
Quoting from Denton, "Evolution: A theory in Crisis" (1986, 10th printing) pg 151 -

De Beer is quoted;

"Homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes and homology phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotype."

Denton continues;

"With the demise of any sort of straightforward explanation for homology one of the major pillars of evolution theory has become so weakened that its value for evidence for evolution is greatly diminished." He goes on to quote Alister Hardy who honestly admits;

"The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution - yet in truth we cannot explain it at ALL in terms of modern day evolution theory".

Denton shuts the door with this comment;

The evolutionary interpretation of homology is clouded even FURTHER by the uncomfortable FACT that there are many cases of 'homologous like' resemblance which cannot by ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION be explained by decent from a common ancestor". In other words if God so chose to use a similar design salt and peppered across the natural world he did it so randomly it is explained better as "Common Creator" than common ancestor. Modern biochem supports the observation in the operational relationship of DNA and cell function.

Your evolutionary professors lied to you.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94192 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
And thanks for mentioning Talk Origins, HST:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB811.h...
<quoted text>
Talk about a worthless special pleading argument...
This is why I denounced talkorigins...
It is nothing less than a propaganda machine.

All you can do is hope that some day in the future homologous structures arising from non-homologous genes will be explicable within the context of evolution.

Until then, you lose.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#94193 Jun 27, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting from Denton, "Evolution: A theory in Crisis" (1986, 10th printing) pg 151 -
De Beer is quoted;
"Homologous structures need not be controlled by identical genes and homology phenotypes does not imply similarity of genotype."
Denton continues;
"With the demise of any sort of straightforward explanation for homology one of the major pillars of evolution theory has become so weakened that its value for evidence for evolution is greatly diminished." He goes on to quote Alister Hardy who honestly admits;
"The concept of homology is absolutely fundamental to what we are talking about when we speak of evolution - yet in truth we cannot explain it at ALL in terms of modern day evolution theory".
Denton shuts the door with this comment;
The evolutionary interpretation of homology is clouded even FURTHER by the uncomfortable FACT that there are many cases of 'homologous like' resemblance which cannot by ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION be explained by decent from a common ancestor". In other words if God so chose to use a similar design salt and peppered across the natural world he did it so randomly it is explained better as "Common Creator" than common ancestor. Modern biochem supports the observation in the operational relationship of DNA and cell function.
Your evolutionary professors lied to you.
It's no use, SBT...
SZ desperately wants to be the descendant of a worm.
He will go to unparalleled lengths to distort and pervert facts in the vain attempt to justify that worldview.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94195 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about a worthless special pleading argument...
This is why I denounced talkorigins...
It is nothing less than a propaganda machine.
All you can do is hope that some day in the future homologous structures arising from non-homologous genes will be explicable within the context of evolution.
Until then, you lose.
How is that a pleading argument tard?

It shows the errors in the assumptions of De Beer.

Homology is in no trouble at all. If it was some creatards would have an article that sites much more recent research.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94196 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
It's no use, SBT...
SZ desperately wants to be the descendant of a worm.
He will go to unparalleled lengths to distort and pervert facts in the vain attempt to justify that worldview.
Ah, misrepresenting our beliefs again. A sure sign that you know that you are wrong.

Your lies only strengthen our case tard.
Patriot

Antioch, TN

#94197 Jun 27, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and opposition can never explain away Godly small, outnumbered military troops being triumphant over large, heavily armed ungodly troops. Many times, fog comes about mysterily or a large storm on the seas against the opposition with large, military ships being totally disabled.
This can't be explained away, but they sure try, don't they?
Science has proven that nature(i.e the strong east wind) could have parted the Red Sea, even if nature was used to bring it about, that does not take away the miraculous nature of the event.
Patriot

Antioch, TN

#94198 Jun 27, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry, bub. It never happened.
Sounds like you are attempting to offer an eye witness account
Patriot

Antioch, TN

#94199 Jun 27, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Agreed. It takes a lot of faith to believe in the evolution science fiction. This is why I think that people who can't stand to be wrong, or can't admit they have been following a lie, a false teaching, who do not want to face their wrong doings, these people will viciously attack and call names, hurl insults, twist words and call everyone who opposes them a "liar".
In my life experience I have seen countless times witness those who do not have a valid argument just default to rhetoric and/or insults.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94200 Jun 27, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>In my life experience I have seen countless times witness those who do not have a valid argument just default to rhetoric and/or insults.
Do you mean like imagine just did?

I will insult people who have been given an answer countless times and have them ignore the given answer. That is another reason that people are insulted.
Patriot

Antioch, TN

#94201 Jun 27, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean like imagine just did?
I will insult people who have been given an answer countless times and have them ignore the given answer. That is another reason that people are insulted.
If Bill Gates were to state over and over that he is Chinese will not make it so.Some people deny the parting of the red sea but they ignore that chariot parts have been found BY EXPLORES/SCIENTISTS under water at the site of the event.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94202 Jun 27, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text> If Bill Gates were to state over and over that he is Chinese will not make it so.Some people deny the parting of the red sea but they ignore that chariot parts have been found BY EXPLORES/SCIENTISTS under water at the site of the event.
That is true.

But what if he said that and had Chinese parents, grandparents, great grandparents etc..

Chariot parts have not been discovered underwater. A round coral growth, that was not even measured for size was observed underwater.

Let's see your evidence. We have evidence that strongly supports our beliefs. You have very very weak evidence. None of those "chariot wheels have ever been recovered as far as I know.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#94203 Jun 27, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text> If Bill Gates were to state over and over that he is Chinese will not make it so.Some people deny the parting of the red sea but they ignore that chariot parts have been found BY EXPLORES/SCIENTISTS under water at the site of the event.
So some chariot parts underwater are more likely to be evidence of magical suspension of the laws of physics and probably not a boat carrying chariots that sank? You're dumber than I thought.

Well okay, you're not really dumber than I thought...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94204 Jun 27, 2013
Or perhaps you mean the "wheels" found that can be seen in this video:

&fe ature=c4-overview-vl&list= PL9227B27E6FFE0F05

If you want to see the "wheels" skip ahead to 3:20.

There are several things wrong with these that indicate they are not wheels. Most important Ron Wyatt did not include the most important tool that an archaeologist has, a ranging rod. Without something that tells us how big the wheels are they could be anywhere from ten centimeters to a meter across.

The evidence seems to say no.

Why would an archaeologist not use his most basic tool in a photograph that badly needs it?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94205 Jun 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So some chariot parts underwater are more likely to be evidence of magical suspension of the laws of physics and probably not a boat carrying chariots that sank? You're dumber than I thought.
Well okay, you're not really dumber than I thought...
And probably not even chariot parts. Watch the video I linked by a real archaeologist.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#94206 Jun 27, 2013
SBT wrote:
Quoting from Denton, "Evolution: A theory in Crisis"
Oh, you mean the guy who used to subscribe to fundamentalist creationism but now accepts evolution? You WERE aware of his epiphany since then aren't you?
SBT wrote:
In other words if God
Then evolution is not impossible, period. You can forget about all your claims about evolution being unscientific now, since your alternative is invisible Jewmagic.
SBT wrote:
so chose to use a similar design salt and peppered across the natural world he did it so randomly it is explained better as "Common Creator" than common ancestor.
Actually it's not explained in any fashion at all. First how Goddidit is not explained. Second there is no rational reason at all whatsoever (not even a ickle tiny widdle bit) for God to be limited by "common design" in any way shape or form. The ONLY reason to make use of common design principles is for two reasons: to save time and resources. Something an eternal all-powerful universe-creating entity has an infinite supply of. To counter this you would need to provide evidence of God's limits and why the Almighty is subject to those limitations. I imagine you'd have a lot of trouble though, since not one person on the entire planet has been able to scientifically demonstrate this God thingy of yours even exists yet.

Thirdly "common design" is not merely limited to common design but also to nested hierarchies. These hierarchies explain why we don't find whales with gills, cats with gills, pigs with compound eyes, dogs with wings, hamsters with scales, centaurs, griffins, mermaids, werewolves, vampires, minotaurs, fossils with feathers and three middle-ear bones, or other mythical creatures. There's no physical laws which prevents any of these body layouts, and even if there were that's not a problem for a god anyway, so there must be another reason. But since there is no reason that is incompatible with invisible Jewish magic that idea cannot make any testable scientific predictions, which is why creationists are incapable of providing a rational answer. That is why evolution predicted nested hierarchies and creationism didn't.
SBT wrote:
Modern biochem supports the observation in the operational relationship of DNA and cell function.
Your evolutionary professors lied to you.
Not at all, since that fits with evolution no problem. But if tomorrow we find a cat with the DNA of a cactus? That would be a SERIOUS problem for us. Wouldn't even slow invisible Godmagic though, would it? See it was evolution which proposed common ancestry based on observable similarities way before fundies jumped on the bandwagon with "common design", which is really just their way of taking credit for the predictions of evolution after the fact. Then creationists ignore the very same "common design" idea when it's convenient, such as DNA being a measure of how closely related we all are. After all, "common design" can't distinguish two humans created separately via "common design" between two that are related, so they just assume that DNA works until it arbitrarily passes the arbitrary species "barrier", for no other reason except the Bible's "separately created kinds". And one possibility must also never be considered - that God used evolution. Because that would contradict the old religious book that said lizards and donkeys can talk and that the world was a flat square circle.

Your creationist buddies lied to you. Because the 9th Commandment is NOT important to fundies.
Researcher 7

Louisville, KY

#94207 Jun 27, 2013
I ask GOD every night to hit the ARK with an
meteorite.

When we fail to teach the truth, we become a segemented society.

Just because you chose not to believe in evolution
doesn't mean it is not true.

All the univeristies support evolution because it is a scientific fact.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#94208 Jun 27, 2013
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about a worthless special pleading argument...
This is why I denounced talkorigins...
It is nothing less than a propaganda machine.
All you can do is hope that some day in the future homologous structures arising from non-homologous genes will be explicable within the context of evolution.
Until then, you lose.
As usual you didn't address it. Like you never addressed ERV's, or this:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

However how have we lost? Apart from you losing every single time you post since you don't even have a grade school level education on science much less have any medical training, the scientific community accepts evolution, has done since the fifties at the VERY latest, we've beat you every time in court since 1925, and it's legal to teach evolution in public schools. While you in the meantime are a well known liar for Jesus regurgitating BS from other well known liars for Jesus and are a reality-denying YEC, whose BS is NOT legal to teach in public schools and is NOT accepted by the scientific community, and can only get around that by using PR and political pressuring to ILLEGALLY push your BS in public schools by lying to kids by telling them invisible Jew magic is scientific.

You, HTS are nothing more than a joke. The only sad part is that today in the 21st century, you are more than happy to lie for God and ignore the 9th Commandment and do your best to destroy kids' education by telling them the Flinstones is a science documentary.

I'm sure Jesus is proud.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#94209 Jun 27, 2013
BiggBBoss wrote:
Since no one could challenge my precious point, allow me to make another. Since a cell is the simplest of life forms, it may have been the first life. So a cell would have had to create itself, learn to breath, learn to reproduce, learn to evolve. Obviously this is impossible. Even a single cell is way to complex for this to be possible. Watch this video of how a cell actually works. It probably won't make sense to most people but it clearly demonstrates the complexity of even the simplest life form.
http://youtu.be/RrS2uROUjK4
1 - The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis.

2 - Non-intelligent organisms don't have to learn anything. Trees don't have to learn to reproduce but they don't appear to have any problems. Both these points render your objections moot.

3 - You have only your incredulity to claim that abiogenesis was impossible. Since life IS here, quite obviously it is not. The only question is now whether it occurred naturally or whether it was due to the invisible Jewish wizard. Out of the two possibilities only one is capable of a scientific research program, of which the guys responsible for your video are currently researching.

4 - Isn't it dishonest of you to link to a science video made by scientists who disagree with you?(interesting side note, I think that's the video the Expelled rubes plagiarised in their mockumentary, producing an exceedingly similar but more poorly produced version. Which is why it's not surprising why creationist will often link to the genuine Harvard version instead).
JBH

Richmond, Canada

#94210 Jun 27, 2013
The basic understanding of the concept of behavior has not been understood by radicals.

Because there are growing too many extremists as they only know how to break rules and International ruling and Universal law, such as forcing out the UN WMD inspection and going forced bombing Iraq, in addition to do crazy droning without clear evidences by playing the big brother (while some acts are criminal), these are facts of the symbol of radicalism.

""""" """"As the example of Snowden case, Snowden said he wanted to live a in a country of liberty.""" """"" ""

"""Thus, HE WOULD BE VIEWED as A DEFECTOR when he spoke of such."""

In regard to this, when some keep calling him as fugitive, but they still have to comply with rules as if they are so backward to not know living in a modern world with many beliefs and diversities of ideology, to abide to the realization in the understanding of logic and rules. That is why it is easy to generate the outlaws in that way with lots of extremism, like still living in the old wild west. How can radicals come to make calls then?

WHEN SOMEONE SAYS HE/SHE WANTS TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY OF LIBERTY AND FREEDOM RIGHTS, HOW FREEDOM LIBERTY COMES ABOUT AND EXISTS IN WHICHEVER COUNTRIES IS ACCORDING TO THAT SOMEONE WHO SAYS WANTING LIBERTY.

THAT MEANS, WHILE A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE FEEL THEY HAVE LIBERTY IN US, yet SNOWDEN OR SOME OTHERS DO NOT. Thus, as how he thinks, Snowden has freed himself to Russia when Russia says it would give him asylum and hence Snowden is the defector, whereby Uncle Sam has no case to present to Russia.
IN the first place, Russia does not have any extradition treaty with US, that it gives the suitability of matching to someone like Snowden's wants by giving him accommodation. Russia has every right to refuse US, and If Russia grants asylum, this is the basic simple standpoint of concept of general rules--that people have to realize in the acknowledgement, so as not to get astray with the gone wild mentality in this era of today's world of International arena.

Even some countries have extradition treaty with US, they still can give him Asylum if they go through the evaluation proceeding especially through court. Based on differences in the outlook of beliefs and differential values of liberty and freedom and the sort of unfair system with no justice truth, some countries and any people do not find there is a just system with liberty in US.
As some people think so, that US just appears and looks like that way by being called a freedom democratic country, but really is not a system of fair justice with freedom rights, for many people think that way too after all, other countries may suit such people seeking basic liberty rights in granting Snowden asylum. And even radicals have to come to terms of rules in the recognition that not all people in this world are alike, believe and dig radicalism and radicals.

Some call Snowden as a traitor. He worked for a private contractor firm and was not a direct government worker, despite his work involved in the matters of interests to the government. That is somewhat different than bureaucrats, department heads, FBI, military personnel, etc., where a lot of them have done lots of calling policies or giving information to others to gain valuable technology, such as satellite and radar technology given away from Clinton--whereas this gives the disadvantage and imbalance of US military stand that can cause US damage. Therefore, Snowden might have breached the firm's contract and yet he had data from the work he was in, regarding government snooping programs. But then, for any breach he had committed, that was not as serious as the direct government people, including policy makers, and uniform people from military to policemen and so on, if they ever break rules.

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
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 36 min Charles Idemi 635
How would creationists explain... 8 hr TurkanaBoy 393
Science News (Sep '13) 8 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