Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#104031 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to confuse proof with evidence.
In fact you seem confused.
In fact you confuse nonesense with evidence all the time.

you are , in fact, confused all the time.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104032 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet people who know the subject far better than you have no problem researching. They keep getting closer and closer to an answer.
Though not as totally brain dead idiotic as either SBT or bohart you are getting close when you make as foolish of a post as this.
You do realize that time is a problem. They don't have the time it would have taken life to form naturally in the lab to run an experiment from from only the basic ingredients to life itself. Let's be kind and say it took only a million years for life to form naturally. How are they going to reproduce those million years in the laboratory.
It is moronic in the extreme to claim that just because they have not reproduced the whole nonlife to life in the laboratory to claim that abiogenesis is a crock.
Ha,Ha,Ha, sucking bone the Apostle of the time God! just throw a few chemicals together , stir with the tides and cover with the blanket of a million years and shazzam! life! You are a comically idiotic moron. Time is not a mechanism to transform non living matter to living matter ! You are so faith driven that nothing is too imbecilic to be accepted as plausible, except of course a creator, now that's impossible !but only in the puddle goo sect.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104033 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
But the Bible is evidence. The Bible has thousands of item in it that could not have possible been known but was written long before science figured it out.
No, it doesn't. It has thousands of items that have been reinterpreted in light of today's science. They were not known then, and in fact if you read the Bible in context it does not make any amazing discoveries.
So you would rather believe things like what Stephen Hawking said. As bout how time started. Paraphrasing: there was no before the big bang because time started at point of the Big Bang when all the laws of the universe break down.
There is NO POINT where the laws of the universe break down! That would require being outside of the universe which is impossible.
Universe: ALL that is known or postulated.
There is no outside of that definition of the universe.
But you all believe that myth.
Times existence is proof of a creator.
You misunderstood what he wrote. He never claimed that the Laws of the Universe broke down. He claims, and rightly so, that there are points where the man written theories break down.

You problems is that you don't have a clues as to what scientists say and all you can do is to make strawman arguments. Strawman arguments only convince other ignorant fools.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104034 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha, sucking bone the Apostle of the time God! just throw a few chemicals together , stir with the tides and cover with the blanket of a million years and shazzam! life! You are a comically idiotic moron. Time is not a mechanism to transform non living matter to living matter ! You are so faith driven that nothing is too imbecilic to be accepted as plausible, except of course a creator, now that's impossible !but only in the puddle goo sect.
Poor bohart. His brain looks like it will be permanently underdeveloped.

Still I would help him learn if he ever had a clue to the errors of his ways.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104035 Oct 31, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. Not only does your post have nothing to do with the linky he presented you got it totally wrong by not taking non-random factors into account.
In other words, you are a real live Intelligent Falling proponent.
"It is one thing to explain the occurrence of heads on a single coin toss by appealing to chance, it is quite another to take the view that ,..the specific sequence of nucleotides in the DNA molecule of the first organism came about by a purely random process in the early history of the earth"

Bernd Olaf Kuppers

" We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not to much,. In our theory of how we came to exist , we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck. This ration has as it's upper limit, the number of eligible planets in the universe,...We therefore have at our disposal ,odds of 1 in 100 billion ,billion as an upper limit to spend in our theory on the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory . Suppose we want to suggest, for instance ,that life began when both DNA and it's protein based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed a 100 billion billion to one"

Richard Dawkins

Notice ! no mechanisms , no working hypothesis, no experimental success .just random chance as the origin of life!
Fascinating! a scientific theory based on astronomical luck! The entire basis of this myth is that given enough time and chance virtually anything can happen!, even inanimate matter , completely random ,can create the information to self organize and spring to life.. the fools roulette wheel!

..and the Dud makes fun of magic! ha,ha,ha.

If you fools want to continue to defend your faith, have at it! but don't call it science.

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#104036 Oct 31, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>"Supper at such an hour!
My stars and garters! who would be,
To have such guests, a landlady"
A Journey to Oxford?

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104037 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor bohart. His brain looks like it will be permanently underdeveloped.
Still I would help him learn if he ever had a clue to the errors of his ways.
I understand you can't answer, hell no one can. To claim that a primordial puddle will spring to life given enough time is the pinnacle of blind denial,... as you say, oh those experiments won't work , you need a million years!

You need help to break the grip of this cults belief, counseling perhaps?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104038 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand you can't answer, hell no one can. To claim that a primordial puddle will spring to life given enough time is the pinnacle of blind denial,... as you say, oh those experiments won't work , you need a million years!
You need help to break the grip of this cults belief, counseling perhaps?
Sure I can answer your questions.

Of course we all know that you are a moron so you won't be able to ask coherent questions, much less understand the answers given to you.

The poor idiot still believes his book of fairy tales and thinks that he can defend them by attacking science problems that are still being solved.

How pathetic.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104039 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
"It is one thing to explain the occurrence of heads on a single coin toss by appealing to chance, it is quite another to take the view that ,..the specific sequence of nucleotides in the DNA molecule of the first organism came about by a purely random process in the early history of the earth"
Bernd Olaf Kuppers
Poor fool. Does anyone who accept the theory of evolution and believes that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation believe in a random process?

No, of course not. That means that any idiot who implies that we do does not understand what the hell he is talking about.

Ladies and Gentlemen I present you that idiot, he goes by the name of "bohart."
" We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations, but not to much,. In our theory of how we came to exist , we are allowed to postulate a certain ration of luck. This ration has as it's upper limit, the number of eligible planets in the universe,...We therefore have at our disposal ,odds of 1 in 100 billion ,billion as an upper limit to spend in our theory on the origin of life. This is the maximum amount of luck we are allowed to postulate in our theory . Suppose we want to suggest, for instance ,that life began when both DNA and it's protein based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the luxury of such an extravagant theory, provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed a 100 billion billion to one"
Richard Dawkins
And by not supplying a proper link bohart shows that he is lying once again.

It is amazing how little shame creatards have about breaking the Ninth Commandment. They insult Jesus by assuming that he is as big of an idiot as they are and that it will be okay with him that they can lie for him.
Notice ! no mechanisms , no working hypothesis, no experimental success .just random chance as the origin of life!
Fascinating! a scientific theory based on astronomical luck! The entire basis of this myth is that given enough time and chance virtually anything can happen!, even inanimate matter , completely random ,can create the information to self organize and spring to life.. the fools roulette wheel!
..and the Dud makes fun of magic! ha,ha,ha.
If you fools want to continue to defend your faith, have at it! but don't call it science.
Perhaps that is because, as I already pointed you, that you quote mined the whole thing at best and perhaps even openly lied.

So moron, do you have anything besides your various lies? Quote mining and straw man arguments are both a form of lying.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#104040 Oct 31, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Leave the irony meters alone, bub.
Amazing how when one escapes from reality that reason a logic fly off with it. You folks have bought unto the evo pyridine hook line and sinker. So you think you have the right to judge me and truth? you are wrong. Your mindless, self-making, unplanned accidental nothingness is exactly that, its a delusion, a lie, untrue and a deception. I apply the rules of reason and logic in technology and create real equipment that mankind uses everyday across the planet. What my friend do you or any of your group here really do?, except to mock, judge and put people down? Good at that for sure! That's a reality test my friend and the analogy is the same as applied to the biological world, including that little tiny proton powered motor that you can't describe nor understand yet you arrogantly mock in ignorance, but in truth when you call it evolved you are actually mocking Almighty God, and I am not so foolish.

http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/a-questio...
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/10/evolution...

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#104041 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>Kind of like the life that lives in the deepest parts of the oceans. We can't see them, we can't hear them, we can't test for them, we don't know of them, we can't reach them and they are hid out of site but they are there huh.
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
That makes no sense whatsoever.
<quoted text>
Without any evidence there can be no test.
So you think we have covered the deepest depths of the ocean and found all species that live down there? That would be a no we haven't. So like I said we "life that lives in the deepest parts of the oceans. We can't see them, we can't hear them, we can't test for them, we don't know of them, we can't reach them and they are hid out of site but they are there". Every time we get deeper we find new species.

I see you still think absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#104042 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor fool. Does anyone who accept the theory of evolution and believes that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation believe in a random process?
No, of course not. That means that any idiot who implies that we do does not understand what the hell he is talking about.
Ladies and Gentlemen I present you that idiot, he goes by the name of "bohart."
<quoted text>
And by not supplying a proper link bohart shows that he is lying once again.
It is amazing how little shame creatards have about breaking the Ninth Commandment. They insult Jesus by assuming that he is as big of an idiot as they are and that it will be okay with him that they can lie for him.
<quoted text>
Perhaps that is because, as I already pointed you, that you quote mined the whole thing at best and perhaps even openly lied.
So moron, do you have anything besides your various lies? Quote mining and straw man arguments are both a form of lying.
You say people believe in abiogenesis and have evidence to support that. You have said many times there is evidence to support that. You have been asked many times to show said evidence. Why is it you have never produce evidence of abiogenesis?

Is abiogenesis as elusive as God is?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104043 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You say people believe in abiogenesis and have evidence to support that. You have said many times there is evidence to support that. You have been asked many times to show said evidence. Why is it you have never produce evidence of abiogenesis?
Is abiogenesis as elusive as God is?
I have shown it to you. You have ignored it. I have admitted that there is not enough evidence to make us sure of how abiogenesis happened, so it is not "proven" by any means yet.

Why do you ignore evidence after it is give to you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104044 Oct 31, 2013
Arggh, that should say "Why do you ignore evidence after it is given to you/"

A simple example of evidence that supports abiogenesis was the very first successful experiment taken on abiogenesis. The Miller Urey experiment. They showed that amino acids could form naturally in an early Earth atmosphere.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#104045 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I have shown it to you. You have ignored it. I have admitted that there is not enough evidence to make us sure of how abiogenesis happened, so it is not "proven" by any means yet.
Why do you ignore evidence after it is give to you?
You have gave nothing but your words. That is not scientific evidence.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#104046 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I have shown it to you. You have ignored it. I have admitted that there is not enough evidence to make us sure of how abiogenesis happened, so it is not "proven" by any means yet.
Why do you ignore evidence after it is give to you?
It is not proven yet you say. Don't you also say science does not go by proofs? It goes by evidence for or evidence against? That proof is for whiskey.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104047 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not proven yet you say. Don't you also say science does not go by proofs? It goes by evidence for or evidence against? That proof is for whiskey.
Please notice that I put the word proof in quotes.

Do you know what that means when someone does that?

This is not time for you to slip back into stupid.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104048 Oct 31, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
You have gave nothing but your words. That is not scientific evidence.
And you are caught in a lie again.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#104049 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And you are caught in a lie again.
Show me peer reviewed scientific evidence of abiogenesis. Either you can or you can't. It is that simple.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104050 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor fool. Does anyone who accept the theory of evolution and believes that abiogenesis is the most likely explanation believe in a random process?
No, of course not. That means that any idiot who implies that we do does not understand what the hell he is talking about.
Ladies and Gentlemen I present you that idiot, he goes by the name of "bohart."
<quoted text>
And by not supplying a proper link bohart shows that he is lying once again.
It is amazing how little shame creatards have about breaking the Ninth Commandment. They insult Jesus by assuming that he is as big of an idiot as they are and that it will be okay with him that they can lie for him.
<quoted text>
Perhaps that is because, as I already pointed you, that you quote mined the whole thing at best and perhaps even openly lied.
So moron, do you have anything besides your various lies? Quote mining and straw man arguments are both a form of lying.
Puddle gooiest defense mechanisms

You are lying!
quote mining !
strawman!
insults!

But never a scientific rebuttal, why because your religious myth isn't based on any known science.

the mechanism of abiogenesis, by the puddle gooists

put your inanimate material in a puddle
stir
wait millions of years
Life!

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
"Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 min One way or another 16,847
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 10 min MikeF 176,951
Birds Evolved From Dinosaurs Slowly—Then Took Off 30 min The Dude 20
Teach the controversy: Education bills contain ... 1 hr paul porter 1
Creationism isn't a science and doesn't belong ... 1 hr Chimney1 708
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 7 hr Chimney1 1,394
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 hr Chimney1 141,002
More from around the web