Evolution vs. Creation

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

“HATRED EATS THE SOUL OF”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

THE HATER -- NOT THE HATED

#98837 Aug 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
you seem totally unable to back up your own posts...obviously they are not your own thoughts in any way. or worse yet, they are and you cannot defend them...either way.. i'm outta here...
hopw you realize what you yourself have clearly stated about your own beliefs...
i'm sure i will point them out to you again and again. this is called standard deprogramming...
brrrk brrrk brrrk. Good night Chicken. You show your wisdom in anything is very limited. Roost well and lay an egg in the morning.:-)

“HATRED EATS THE SOUL OF”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

THE HATER -- NOT THE HATED

#98838 Aug 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
you seem totally unable to back up your own posts...obviously they are not your own thoughts in any way. or worse yet, they are and you cannot defend them...either way.. i'm outta here...
hopw you realize what you yourself have clearly stated about your own beliefs...
i'm sure i will point them out to you again and again. this is called standard deprogramming...
And you still failed to address this:

Lets put it to your peers in a review.

Subzone, Dan, Word, Chimney do you all believe in evolution or do you accept that these theories are the best explanation you have for observed phenomena and also make the best predictions concerning what you are likely to observe based off of the evidence.

Now when they answer you can eat your words. As I said they say "a scientifically literate person would not use the phrase "believe in" regarding a scientific theory" which would be evolution.

brrrrk brrrk brrrrk

“HATRED EATS THE SOUL OF”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

THE HATER -- NOT THE HATED

#98839 Aug 25, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
you seem totally unable to back up your own posts...obviously they are not your own thoughts in any way. or worse yet, they are and you cannot defend them...either way.. i'm outta here...
hopw you realize what you yourself have clearly stated about your own beliefs...
i'm sure i will point them out to you again and again. this is called standard deprogramming...
Oh I almost forgot. When you stop being a chicken I will educate you on singularities. The one thing you hold onto I can also refute.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

Los Angeles, CA

#98840 Aug 25, 2013
The story of creation in the bible is a Bronze Age myth. It has day and night, and plants growing before there was a sun. We know that's not the case. The bible indicates the earth if flat, that the sky is a dome and other silly things. I understand people's desperation to believe that all of life's answers are simple, and can be found in one place, and there is some big sky daddy taking care of us all, but that's just not the case.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#98841 Aug 25, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets put it to your peers in a review.
Subzone, Dan, Word, Chimney do you all believe in evolution or do you accept that these theories are the best explanation you have for observed phenomena and also make the best predictions concerning what you are likely to observe based off of the evidence.
Now when they answer you can eat your words. As I said they say "a scientifically literate person would not use the phrase "believe in" regarding a scientific theory".
All I know for sure is that the Bible is nothing but fiction.

“HATRED EATS THE SOUL OF”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

THE HATER -- NOT THE HATED

#98842 Aug 25, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
All I know for sure is that the Bible is nothing but fiction.
So do you believe in evolution or do you accept that the theories are the best explanation you have based off of the evidence.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#98843 Aug 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Lets put it to your peers in a review.
Subzone, Dan, Word, Chimney do you all believe in evolution or do you accept that these theories are the best explanation you have for observed phenomena and also make the best predictions concerning what you are likely to observe based off of the evidence.
Now when they answer you can eat your words. As I said they say "a scientifically literate person would not use the phrase "believe in" regarding a scientific theory".
I "accept" the theory.

But if I -- or anyone else -- were to respond that we 'believed' in the theory of evolutuion, this is not using 'belief' in a philosphical context, it is using a different definition of the word.

Definitions of BELIEF:

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing.

2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group.

3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bel...

If you 'believe' in a particular deity, you would be using definition #1 or possibly #2.

If I said I 'believed' in the Theory of Evolution, I would be using definition #3.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

UAE

#98844 Aug 26, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
So I can then Know that atheist do in fact know God but don't want to abide by his law so they pretend he's not real.
God is not real to me and christianity is downright absurd. And yet if I were Christian there is hardly a thing I would need to change in my lifestyle. This caricature that those who dont believe are just evildoers who dont want to live by God's rules is moronic.

Can you simply not fathom that God is a concept that is simply not real or realistic to some? And btw, entirely without evidence.

So here is the real truth. Guys like you believe because you are terrified of death. You know that you have made God up but you are so afraid of dying you will believe anything no matter how absurd in order to avoid the fact.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

UAE

#98845 Aug 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Just curious. When you go out to eat at a restaurant do you ask them what different kinds of meat do they have or do you ask them what different species do they have?
Sure. But if you are talking to a chef and you ask whats in the soup he isnt going to say "herbs" hebis going to say dill, tarragon, basil. There is a nomenclature with every specialty. Including accurate word usebin science.

Now Tsar makes the point that the bible was written before linnaeus etc.

But that is not the core issue with Kinds in the Bible. The issue is with separateness and this is what breaks down when you see the convergence in fossil kinds as we go back. See? I said kinds. Two kinds converge into one kind. So the idea of separate kinds from Creation each named by Adam falls apart. Kinds is nonsense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

UAE

#98846 Aug 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You are wasting your breath. Of course Linnean classification was not available in that time. They can't comprehend that or the language of back when the bible was written. The way they see it is that if we know all this now, then they should have known it back then as well. So when they read things that were 1000's of years ago they get confused because they can't comprehend it because they can only think in the way of what they have learned or know in the present.
They probably get confused about Shakespeare too because he said "where for out thou Romeo" instead of saying "where are you Romeo".
Biblical kinds dont fail for the trivial reason that they used a different classification system.

They fail for the much more profound problem that as we go back in the fossil record, different "kinds" whether species, genera, orders or classes show convergence. 2 kinds become 1 kind. Repeatedly. Whatever classificaton system you use.

This is what makes a mockery of separate and distinct ex nihilo creationism, but was both predicted and is explained by evolution.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#98847 Aug 26, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok so you have the time in the universe that you don't have a clue and you don't know how time started. I like the part were he claims the expansion of the universe slowed down and cooled. We know that the expansion of the universe is speeding up. Because time starting is impossible in the Big Bang theory they are now working in the eternal universe theory. A theory that time always existed.
So basically science now realize the paradox of time in the BB so they now believe the universe had no beginning.
That it always existed. Kind of like God.
You know the God you all keep saying must have been created because nothing could have always existed.
BOX
I've seen this kind of thing happen before.
If you keep playing word games with yourself like this you're going to end up talking yourself into believing there is some kind of invisible mysterious watcher at your elbow overseeing your every move...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#98848 Aug 26, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Biblical kinds dont fail for the trivial reason that they used a different classification system.
They fail for the much more profound problem that as we go back in the fossil record, different "kinds" whether species, genera, orders or classes show convergence. 2 kinds become 1 kind. Repeatedly. Whatever classificaton system you use.
This is what makes a mockery of separate and distinct ex nihilo creationism, but was both predicted and is explained by evolution.
He's a bit confused, too. And in his own language.

"Wherefore" (all one word) means "why?". Not "where".

“Evil Atheist :-)”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#98849 Aug 26, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all. God gave us the Bible thus it's knowable. Just read.
I've read it twice. It's full of absurdities and has very little about God himself.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
" if he can just exist without cause then so can some quirk of physics that sets of a chain reaction that results in the Big Bang."
Nope not at all. You seem to have an issues understanding the difference between God who created the universe and items he created in the universe.
No confusion on my part. Your the one committing the fallacy of special pleading by arguing that an incredibly powerful and intelligent God can just exist without explanation but a universe based on simple laws can't.

God isn't nothing. He does need to be explained.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#98850 Aug 26, 2013
Godlust wrote:
<quoted text>Look around genius...the primitive human animal believes whatever its told, without question! God created everything.....must be true. Evolved from apes...must be true. Deep space has all the answers genius.....
Really? Because Iīve told my dog a hundred times thatīs itīs wrong to pee on my tires. And youīre right, he doesnīt question it, he just continues to pee on my tires. Maybe if God had a car, this wouldnīt happen?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#98851 Aug 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So do you believe in evolution or do you accept that the theories are the best explanation you have based off of the evidence.
The theory/fact of evolution is the best explanation of what we see has happened on earth.

The Bible, except for some geographic and historical data, is mostly fiction.

There is no, nor has there ever been, any magic or supernatural phenomena on this earth....all is natural.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Tempe, AZ.

#98852 Aug 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You are correct to a point. I do not know if he was real and you do not know if he wasn't. Now people can say yea or nay but fact is we in reality will never know. He cannot be proven or disproven. He could be real or a work of fiction. We will never know.
ALL of the circumstantial evidence points to him being a fictional character. The theory is that religious followers wrote pious fiction to sort of bring the people together in and/or around the exile in Babylon. That's one theory, there are others. Suffice it to say that very few Biblical scholars believe Moses wrote the Pentateuch.

Level 2

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#98853 Aug 26, 2013
spOko

Oakland, CA

#98854 Aug 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When Christians and atheists debate the question "Does God exist?" atheists usually assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This is not true. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative (such as Does God exist?) is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof. This is unlike debating a proposition such as "God does exist," where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. That puts the atheist into a logical bind.
Craig may be technically correct, assuming that both sides agree upon the meaning of "God." The atheist who denies this proposition is saying that a being with all the qualities that define God does not, in all probability, exist. That's a positive statement about the real world. Among other things, it implies that no matter where we look we will never find God. Evidence is needed. We might call this the "strong" or "assertive" position for atheism. The theist, of course, is saying that there is good evidence that such a being exists. Again, that's a positive statement requiring support. In Craig's example both sides have a burden of proof, though not necessarily equal.
LOL ... that is known around here as a bunch of malarky(snookered by a lot of malarky), atheists have no reason to believe that there is a god and have certainly even less of a reason to even debate it!! Only certain individuals have chosen to participate in such debates because it can be fun for a depater!
Mack Dennive

Hutchinson, MN

#98855 Aug 26, 2013
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Atheistic Scientists were Humiliated As Their Junk DNA Evolution Paradigm recently Collapsed
Anti-theistic scientists, Ken Miller, Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents made failed observations about DNA, such that their Darwinian evolution paradigm has collapsed. Not that long ago, junk DNA was being defended as an important element of the Darwinian evolution paradigm ... The question now seems to be whether Ayala, Dawkins, Collins, Falk and other junk DNA proponents will continue to defend junk DNA, whatever they call it?- Rob Crowther,PhD
Evolutionary Biologist Richard Sternberg discusses modern genomics and the collapse of evolutionists junk DNA theory.
http://www.cross.tv/66770
Doubt Atheism & Question Darwinism
.
You mean to tell me that evolution didn't create the retarded ape known as Man. I guess I'm going to have to stop worshipping at the altar of science. What's next, I wonder. Maybe a rock concert where I can smoke dope and idolize a bunch of strange people who think distortion is music. There's always the Government that's giving away free money, or a best, think that money does grow on tree. Hollywood, yep Hollywood, where actors are like two year olds that can't keep their clothes on for five minutes and believe that aberrant sexual behavior is the new normal. God, please, protect the innocents. I've decided to become a sports junkie in a world where everything is real. At least the PED's are real.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#98856 Aug 26, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
brrrk brrrk brrrk. Good night Chicken. You show your wisdom in anything is very limited. Roost well and lay an egg in the morning.:-)
still refuse to answer where you learned about this god you believe in? because you know you learned about the myth from the bible you yourself admitted is completely the work of humans....

you admitted that you worship a man-made god, but yet you cannot admit it to yourself...classic cult mentality...classic.

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... 48 min DanFromSmithville 340
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 7 hr Chimney1 531
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... 8 hr nobody 7
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 18 hr Brian_G 13,618
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Fri Zach 4
Science News (Sep '13) Fri Ricky F 2,936
Genetic entropy Thu Discord 159
More from around the web