Evolution vs. Creation

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

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120669 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
A circular argument has presents no evidence and an axiom requires none?
A circular argument does nothing. An axiom is simply the start of the inquiry. If evidence shows the assumption (axiom) to be wrong, it can be dispensed with.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#120670 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Describe the difference.
An axiom is simply a starting assumption.

A circular argument attempts to prove a point by using the point itself.

Axioms are necessary to begin a discussion. Circular arguments are useless since even a false proposition proves itself. p=>p

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#120671 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
A circular argument has presents no evidence and an axiom requires none?
Does calling it "daytime" when the sun is shining brightly outside require proof?

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120674 Aug 22, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Secondly, I guess you missed this in your link.
"The problem here is that while the creationists got the main result right,"
What main result was that, that there is a 30% difference?
Additionally I saw another report first from a Chinese source (not Spanish) which said the same thing.
I assessed 3 websites with the 30% claim, all directly or indirectly from Tomkins.
I did plough through last 15 Topix pages to trace back your Chinese source, didn't find it.
Could you provide it again? I can easily provide dozens of sources with the 1.2% and 4%, also one from Chinese origin.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
(Moreover, 10 years ago we didn’t have the complete DNA sequence from chimps.)

This didn't stop them making a 99% correlation assertion, or a 96% assertion.
(Are we seeing a pattern here?)
Yes we see a pattern here indeed.
1. science is ever progressing
2. now we have the full genomes of both chimps and humans, it even then turns out to be nothing more than 4%
3. the earlier figure of 1.2% even now still stands for the functional part of the DNA
4. nothing better than having both genomes complete, when comparing, won't you agree?
5. in almost each of those earlier studies the researchers noted that there are limitations
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have access to the data, as far as I can see from your rebuttal, the % is not disputed.
Plus, I haven't required anything, I have requested it and I am still waiting!
Still awaiting for what?
For mutations rates that already have been provided? done.
In case you meant evidence for the fossil sequence: see below.
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, you have no right or authority to tell me what to do.(oh I forgot, you have delusions of grandeur), please forgive oh great one, I didn't mean that.
I would say, spare me of your amiss nuisance.
I already expressed that it is not done in a public forum to just ignore posts addressed to you.
I am not the only one who noticed it, Dude also reminded you of it (#120575: "Don't worry, I won't. Lots of people have presented data that you subsequently ignore. And I've explained numerous times why you do this - evidence doesn't matter to you.").
I perfectly understand when it happens once or twice. As you remember, previously I just copied my earlier posts without much ado to restate my points again.
As it keeps on happening, my annoyance will increase. Especially when you are teaching others a lesson in neat debate. Yes then I will take notice of it. The precise form it takes should be assessed in its context, don't you think?
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
You have not been able to prove anything regarding the ancestors or progeny of a fossilized animal. I don't know how anyone could believe it can be proven. This is obviously a unsupported (by proof) assertion. All you have is evidence of similar animals. That does not prove ancestry. When I am dead you can compare my remains to someone who died 200 years ago and say well they look alike he must be the ancestor/progeny. Oh really?
.
Your sparse list of an evolutionary path is just an opinion.
As noted above, this has been addressed 4 or 5 times before in my earlier posts. I won't answer these questions BEFORE you addressed those posts of days ago. Point by point. As I do with yours.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120675 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop asking me to do YOUR JOB for you!
It is YOU that believe in invisible magic Jew wizards!
PARDON?
WE should prove or disprove for YOUR claims?

SH!T post, AS ALWAYS.
The only thing you produce is utter misunderstanding of how proper debate works AND addressing metaphors as to be taken literally.

WHAT A SH!T.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120676 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
I see.
LOL
Translation: "I have no idea what I am tattling about, using the words "principle of equality" and therefore I just say "Oh.", "I see." and "LOL".

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120677 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_the hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>A circular argument presents no evidence and an axiom requires none?
TOLD you that you have not the slightest understanding of the most elementary of sound reasoning.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#120678 Aug 22, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You started out life as a single cell. What did you gain as you got closer to adulthood? New structures. We've presented evidence of mutations adding bases to the genome (even new genes) for YEARS on this forum, and to you personally only a few months ago when you first showed up. Do we CARE if YOU call it evolution? Nope. And what we observe as we travel through time in the fossil record (and it doesn't even matter if you call the Earth young or old as it's irrelevant to this point) we see new fossils with new structures. And furthermore, we see it in a manner that's consistent only with what evolution expects. Which is why evolution is the only theory that's been developed so far that's capable of making successful predictions based on the fossil record. And as usual the evidence presented has been left unaddressed and dismissed.
Feel free to come up with a better alternative theory that does a better job of explaining the evidence.
I neatly produced several posts to him where I patiently to explain the biostratification in the geological record. I also tried to explain the differential origin of the geological layers we observe. And pointed him out to the fact that e.g. in the records of the Grand Canyon we see sea floors, desert floors, former forests, lagoons, etc. etc. all on top each other, in seemingly random order on the very same spot. I even tried to exclude the exact dating of those rocks and explained that at least we see a relative (ordinal) chronological pathway.

He didn't take notice or he just dodged it.
Already the observed biostratification completely debunks his idea that life all sprang out with the current biodiversity completely in place.

His only "try" was "the assumed layering", even after having corrected 2 or 3 times it isn't an assumption but an observation. Ironically the first who observed this were the 18th and 19th century first, English geologists who almost all were ardent creationists who even actively sought for evidence of the Biblical flood. They all failed and, instead, only saw evidence for the opposite.

Like Sedgewick, who wrote: "If I have been converted in part from the diluvian theory [the idea that observed sediments are laid by a worldwide catastrophic flood]...it was...by my own gradual improved experience, and by communicating with those about me. Perhaps I may date my change of mind (at least in part) from our journey in the Highlands, where there are so many indications of local diluvial operations.... Humboldt ridiculed [the doctrine] beyond measure when I met him in Paris. Prévost lectured against it."
In response to Charles Lyell's uniformitarian geology Sedgwick mentioned floods at various dates, then on 18 February 1831, retiring as president of the Geological Society he abandoned his former belief in Buckland's diluvial theory. Later he stated that the Biblical flood must have been a local, Middle East event.

Although he became increasingly evangelical when ageing, he strongly supported modern geology against conservative churchmen.

That, ladies and gentlemen depicts how a scientist, a strong believer, should behave: when the established and observed facts oppose doctrine OFF goes doctrine. That's why the Sedgwick Museum of Earth Sciences in Cambridge justly bears his name.

Even in the 21st century YEC and their cult caboodle do not manage to learn this lesson in scientific course from the early 19th century.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120679 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Whereas you made no attempt to distinguish between books nor authors; science text books, journals, reports etc are nothing but formalized opinions.
<quoted text>
That has no meaning except at the point where it betrays your hypocrisy.
What do you mean by "allow for the possibility"?
Either a) God exists or b) God does not exist.
As such it is you who choose to believe what you want to; inasmuch as you decide what it will take to convince you.
Otherwise... the scenario presents itself as a coin having two faces. And when the coin is tossed, there is a 1/2 chance that it will fall on either side. But the side YOU determine that it will fall on is the side YOU HOPE it will fall on.
YOU SIMPLY DO NOT WANT THERE TO BE A GOD.
<quoted text>
You make nothing at all.
<quoted text>
So since when is that a crime or a mark of ill character?
Is it not my responsibility as a rational being to criticize EVERYTHING?
<quoted text>
I cant support my belief... because I cant convince another to believe?
MikeF, GO F YOURSELF!
No, you can't support your claim because you can't provide evidence.

When a positive claim is made (in this case yours) no-one else knows if it is correct or not. Therefore while there may well be only two possibilities (in this case existence of God or non-existence of God) until conlusive evidence is presented, an agnostic position is not unreasonable, and is in fact THE most rational position to take.

Either it exists or it doesn't. BUT nobody knows yet. Therefore be open to the possibility until we have conclusive evidence.

You can't provide that.

That's not our problem so you can stop whining now.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120680 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Does it need to?
But does the fact that there is little or no physical evidence that he left of his own existence, mean he never existed?
Do not know Socrates?
<quoted text>
What do you call the fulfillment of the predictions that He made and the accuracy of the implications of the concepts he communicated?
Ancient?
Vague. Plus I dispute your claim because we know there are blatant inaccuracies in the Bible, such as flat geocentric square circular Earth, talking lizards, talking donkeys, and global flood which never happened in reality.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Does it need to?
Do we need him to have "magical" powers?
Or do we simply need to know that he knew what he was talking about?
Actually YES we DO need him to have magical powers. It's one of the claims of the Bible don'cha know, not sure if you've actually read it or not. So if he DIDN'T have magical powers then that's just yet another Biblical inaccuracy we can add to the list. If God meant in any way at all to use the Bible to communicate with humanity then that was obviously a big mistake.

The other was to give the job to fundies like you.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So describe the evidence that cannot be verified byt he scientific method
I already TOLD you, that sentence is a contradiction in terms. Stop asking other people to do your own homework.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120681 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Stop asking me to do YOUR JOB for you!
It is YOU that believe in invisible magic Jew wizards!
Actually I don't believe in invisible magical Jew wizards because there's no evidence. So it's up to you to present it. Since that IS what the Bible claims God to be. Observe:

Traditionally God is known as God the Father rather than God the Mother. Hence it's a wizard and not a witch.

The New Testament is a follow-on from the Old Testament, which ultimately stems from the proposition of the Jewish God of Abraham. There's also this guy called JESUS, KING OF THE JEWS. You may have heard of him. Hence Jewish. Doesn't matter if we're talking about Judaism, Christianity or Islam. They're all Abrahamic religions.

Is God capable of performing miracles? Is it limited by physics? Does it have the ability to violate physics whenever it likes and do supernatural stuff that we would not normally see in today's modern society? Bible say yes. Hence magic.

Can we see God? How tall is he? Is he black or white? Does he have long hair? Short hair? Blue eyes? Brown eyes? Green eyes? Or is He an albino? Though many Christians like to claim he's a blue-eyed caucasian adonis, technically speaking nobody really knows what God looks like because we apparently have to be dead to see Him. Hence invisible.

Invisible.

Magic.

Jewish.

Wizard.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120682 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So you dont even know the facts as presented by history?
I see.
History has been going for over 13 billion years, so it is not possible for everyone to know it all. So to which facts are you referring?

Because if you're just gonna give me Josephus and the Plinys et al I will just laugh my big booobs off.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
You are not only psychotic, schizophrenic and paranoid; now you are obsessed with Jewish wizards? Is there a medical term for that?
But since I'm not obsessed and it's actually your claim and not mine (since I don't believe in the thing) obviously it's not me who's psychotic.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Was that the only thing he was thought to be?
Why, what else was he? An alien from beyond our known universe? A magical wizard with a special telephone line to the Almighty? You tell us.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#120683 Aug 22, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Are you retracting your inference that there are limitations?
.
Regardless of the means of increase, we still have a pig, cow, etc. When you can show some kind of significant structural change, which would have to happen if evolution is correct, then I would be impressed. But nothing like that has ever been recorded in human history.
.
By the way, are you a sock of Turkana boy? You display the same arrogance and condescending nature? Or is that just a trait of the highly evolved evolutionist?
My reference?

Don’t ya just love godbot igg’rance. You make the statement and then slope shoulders by accusing me?

Means of increase... yes.

Once again, see my avatar... you have to open your eyes to see, and the old godbot standby of “I am not looking so I can’t see” is kind of pathetic

Get over it and stop hiding behind bronze age camp fire stories

No, I am no one’s sock, but Turkana boy does speak a lot of sense and I have never read anything of his I can object to... however his attitude is entirely that of a male and I can assure you that I am not male. When you get to the stage that you are able to tell the difference between male and female then perhaps you will be old enough to venture out onto topix.

Honey the arrogance here is yours, you make claims and dis scientific knowledge and fact based on nothing but your own belief based on bronze age stories. And condescending, sorry buddy, disagreeing with you is not condescending, it’s simply showing the godbot how little his lack of intelligence impresses anyone... but if you consider pity and attempts to educate you as condescending then it does explain quite a lot.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#120685 Aug 22, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Did he have to include cockroaches?
And did he have to specify "Living"?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#120686 Aug 22, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Are you retracting your inference that there are limitations?
.
Regardless of the means of increase, we still have a pig, cow, etc. When you can show some kind of significant structural change, which would have to happen if evolution is correct, then I would be impressed. But nothing like that has ever been recorded in human history.
.
By the way, are you a sock of Turkana boy? You display the same arrogance and condescending nature? Or is that just a trait of the highly evolved evolutionist?
When paleontologists uncover fossils of the elusive jackalope or crockoduck then will you be convinced?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#120687 Aug 22, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
When paleontologists uncover fossils of the elusive jackalope or crockoduck then will you be convinced?
Probably not.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120688 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Whereas you made no attempt to distinguish between books nor authors; science text books, journals, reports etc are nothing but formalized opinions.
In general, correct. Since you referred to a religious text, I am absolutely correct.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
That has no meaning except at the point where it betrays your hypocrisy.
What do you mean by "allow for the possibility"?
Are you stupid or something? I need to explain what that means???
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Either a) God exists or b) God does not exist.
Agreed.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
As such it is you who choose to believe what you want to; inasmuch as you decide what it will take to convince you.
Correct.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Otherwise... the scenario presents itself as a coin having two faces. And when the coin is tossed, there is a 1/2 chance that it will fall on either side. But the side YOU determine that it will fall on is the side YOU HOPE it will fall on.
Ignoring for the moment that this is a piss-poor analogy, if you tossed the coin in the dark, you would have know way of knowing on which side it fell. So you could "allow for the possibility" that it fell on the side hoped for. The situation is the same. We are in the dark.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
YOU SIMPLY DO NOT WANT THERE TO BE A GOD.
Bullshit. And when have I ever said such?
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
You make nothing at all.
Useless and pointless verbiage.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
So since when is that a crime or a mark of ill character?
No one has said it is a crime. But it is an indication of YOUR character. See you're last comment, below.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Is it not my responsibility as a rational being to criticize EVERYTHING?
To be skeptical, yes. To criticize, yes, when appropriate. To disparage another, no, it is not your responsibility.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
I cant support my belief... because I cant convince another to believe?
Not what I said.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
MikeF, GO F YOURSELF!
Hey, backatch! And thanks for your wonderful display of Christian hypocrisy.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#120689 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I am likewise open to the possibilities.
Odd. I thought such terminology confused you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120691 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
I am likewise open to the possibilities.
<quoted text>
So do I.
Then you need to define your position better. You have since refused.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
The problem is not evidence, for no matter what evidence I present will be questionable; REMEMBER, "Yes. Evidence is always questionable"?
The problem is with the justification for accepting any evidence.
And while it is by logical that man justifies, it is the principles by which one thinks and concludes that are essence of facts... for we do not experience reality directly... since our experiences of reality are subject to our bodies etc.
My attack on your character is warranted, because a person who will knowingly perform extreme acts without necessity is a person who is willing to continue thinking with inequality; even though he knows better.
Simply put, such a person lie intentionally and so cannot be trusted.
Yet you have not demonstrated me to be a liar. Disagreeing with me is not enough justification. I don't expect anyone here to trust each other as we are mostly strangers to each other. I don't care whether you trust me or not. It doesn't matter anyway, for in a debate situation the whole point is to pick apart the opponent's position. So trust is not even an issue, but rather our ability to back up our positions.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
SEE WHAT I MEAN?
...you demonstrate resentment at my attack on your character; then you proceed to attack the character of another?
INEQUALITY IN THINKING: INEQUALITY IN ACTIONS (which tend extremes).
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
There is nothing extreme in pointing out that Messy is a liar. The reason being is that it's an accurate description. The simple fact is that he doesn't have the slightest clue as to what he's talking about. This is evident even in the manner in which he phrases his queries, as they demonstrate a gross misunderstanding of biology in particular and the scientific method in general. The same goes for Bohart. They are clearly dishonest in their engagements.

They are both idiotic liars for Jesus. There's nothing extreme in pointing this out when it is only an accurate description.

The fact that you seem to have no problem with that but call me extreme for merely disagreeing with you is a potential indication that you're either unqualified to judge or engaged in projection.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Yes I do.
And you have effectively demonstrated that my justification is valid.
Hardly. Personally I think you're projecting.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#120692 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
I am not afraid to say that I am not able to scientifically explain those things, if by "justify" you mean give an explanation.
And I am not afraid either. The explanation is that the claims were BS.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
But that doesnt mean he was not able to do them.
And just because no-one believes I'm Superman does not mean I can't do everything Superman can. Therefore if your claim is valid then so is mine.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Are scientists afraid to say that they do not know (yet) what might have caused the universe to emerge?
No.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
I am claiming that also. But he was more than that alone.
Then back it up.

But something tells me you won't. After all I just prompted you to provide evidence of Jesus' magical powers and all you could do was coyly avoid doing so.

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
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 51 min Chimney1 711
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Chimney1 138,183
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 1 hr Dogen 374
Darwin on the rocks 15 hr The Dude 358
Monkey VS Man Sun Bluenose 14
Charles Darwin's credentials and Evolution Oct 19 TurkanaBoy 204
There is no scientific evidence whatsoever for ... Oct 17 Discord 431

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE