Creation/Evolution Debate

Level 1

Since: Nov 12

Kalispell, MT

#714 Nov 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Seriously there may be some questions that we never know the answer to. That does not mean that "god did it". Our inability to answer a question is not support for your god in any way.
And if you want to learn more about the origin of life you might want to explore this website:
http://exploringorigins.org/rnaworld.html
Hi Zone, maybe there is someone here who can carry on a discussion :) I'll check out your link as time allows, I like that stuff.

"Our inability to answer a question is not support for your god in any way."

Nor does that inability disprove God in any way, science cannot disprove God :) I also accept that the Bible cannot prove or disprove evolution, the Bible is not a scientific journal, it wasn't meant to be. The Bible answers why we are here not how we are here, the creation in Genesis is simply a starting point for those interested in the why.

From where I sit there is much more to human knowledge than just hard science and God created science along with math, logic, ethics, philosophy, aesthetics, metaphysics and a host of others. I do find Genesis to be a pretty good plain language description of the Big Bang, even though it is a few thousand years old.

Do you like youtube?

Video: Alien Planet

Where do they get all this malarkey? This drama is supposedly motivated by real science missions, such as the NASA Origins Program and the NASA/JPL Planet-Finder Mission, as well as the European Space Agency's Darwin Project. "Alien Planet" is a cosmic expedition with Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Jack Horner, Craig Venter, and George Lucas.

Ex-atheist shares why he left the lie of Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#715 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
Ex-atheist shares why he left the lie of Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Ex-fundamentalist minister and Christian musician Dan barker, now total atheist and leader os the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

http://ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/

Read his writings and chapters form his book "Losing Faith in Faith."
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#716 Nov 20, 2012
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi, Jesus Freak Liar.
Hi
Evo-god worshipper and frantic-not-to-be-proven-wrong
Gillette wrote:
And what is Kondrashov's ANSWER to this supposed "problem"? You never go on and quote him or quote the conclusion of his paper. Why is that?
You tell me. He's asking a question. He's an evolutionist. So otherwise known as a hostile witness to my case. He is suggesting that mutations should have wiped us out by now despite evolutionary time scales. And I have covered all this earlier on. It's not difficult, dear angry boy.
Gillette wrote:
Kondrashov is a highly-respected evolutionary geneticist at the University of Michigan, so clearly he isn't promoting your lying, crackpot Jesus Freakery.
Yes, I know
Which is precisely why he has been quoted, or referenced
Gillette wrote:
Darwin posed the "problem" of the complexity of eye evolution, then proceeded to ANSWER that problem with 3 whole pages of explanation.

The so-called "evolution"of the eye has been covered most adequately elsewhere. See:
http://creation.com/did-eyes-evolve-by-darwin...

Suffice to say, it is not a problem for creationists. Nor indeed should it be a problem for you. Despite your numerous rather obvious problems...
Gillette wrote:
Go ahead and post Kondrashov's conclusion.

Post it yourself
Why not answer his question first?
If you have an answer, and not just a Linda Blair style bile vomit like your evo-god fellow-worshipper Christine
Gillette wrote:
You may not find it in your book of clipped-off, Jehovah's WItnesses quote mines.
Where can I get one of those?
Gillette wrote:
Until then, you are a degenerate Christian Liar trolling for attention, nothing more.
Aw shucks
You're making me blush!

And you, my friend, are a materialistic bigot.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#717 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Zone, maybe there is someone here who can carry on a discussion :) I'll check out your link as time allows, I like that stuff.
"Our inability to answer a question is not support for your god in any way."
Nor does that inability disprove God in any way, science cannot disprove God :) I also accept that the Bible cannot prove or disprove evolution, the Bible is not a scientific journal, it wasn't meant to be. The Bible answers why we are here not how we are here, the creation in Genesis is simply a starting point for those interested in the why.
From where I sit there is much more to human knowledge than just hard science and God created science along with math, logic, ethics, philosophy, aesthetics, metaphysics and a host of others. I do find Genesis to be a pretty good plain language description of the Big Bang, even though it is a few thousand years old.
Do you like youtube?
Video: Alien Planet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =BNLfNe12BKEXX
Where do they get all this malarkey? This drama is supposedly motivated by real science missions, such as the NASA Origins Program and the NASA/JPL Planet-Finder Mission, as well as the European Space Agency's Darwin Project. "Alien Planet" is a cosmic expedition with Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Jack Horner, Craig Venter, and George Lucas.
Ex-atheist shares why he left the lie of Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Ron, he loves YouTube
Course he'll watch it

He preaches "science" and then denies what scientists say, if it disagrees with his evo-god
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#718 Nov 20, 2012
Mugwump wrote:
<quoted text>
To shamelessly plagiarise Dawkins ... It's like playing chess with a pidgeon .... He knocks over the pieces, craps over the board - then flies back to claim victory.
But agree - Russell has shown no capability/inclination to engage - and less to actually understand the subject.
Go away unless you have something decent to talk about

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#719 Nov 20, 2012
Ron May wrote:
<quoted text>
Hi Zone, maybe there is someone here who can carry on a discussion :) I'll check out your link as time allows, I like that stuff.
"Our inability to answer a question is not support for your god in any way."
Nor does that inability disprove God in any way, science cannot disprove God :) I also accept that the Bible cannot prove or disprove evolution, the Bible is not a scientific journal, it wasn't meant to be. The Bible answers why we are here not how we are here, the creation in Genesis is simply a starting point for those interested in the why.
From where I sit there is much more to human knowledge than just hard science and God created science along with math, logic, ethics, philosophy, aesthetics, metaphysics and a host of others. I do find Genesis to be a pretty good plain language description of the Big Bang, even though it is a few thousand years old.
Do you like youtube?
Video: Alien Planet
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =BNLfNe12BKEXX
Where do they get all this malarkey? This drama is supposedly motivated by real science missions, such as the NASA Origins Program and the NASA/JPL Planet-Finder Mission, as well as the European Space Agency's Darwin Project. "Alien Planet" is a cosmic expedition with Stephen Hawking, Michio Kaku, Jack Horner, Craig Venter, and George Lucas.
Ex-atheist shares why he left the lie of Atheism
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Please, shock of god is not an exatheist. He is a mental midget who thinks he can argue against evolution. He will lie just as readily as any other creatard.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#720 Nov 20, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Ron, he loves YouTube
Course he'll watch it
He preaches "science" and then denies what scientists say, if it disagrees with his evo-god
That of course is a lie. You are the one who has been caught more than once quote mining. That means you have been caught lying. You have never apologized for lying that means anything you say is worth less than zero.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#721 Nov 20, 2012
Back to the nature of scientific evidence. Do either of you two, Ron or Russell, have any questions about how having a model that you are testing is vital to say that something is evidence?

Since there are no effective creationist models there is no scientific evidence for creation. A scientific model does not need to answer all of the questions. Einstein's model created by his theories of relativity do not answer all of the questions regarding gravity, they only answer some of them. Yet it is an extremely useful theory and people treat it as if it were a "fact". The same applies to the theory of evolution, it does not answer every question about evolution.

So to develop a theory of creation you need to find questions or claims that creationism can handle better than evolution and develop a testable hypothesis first that describes your model. Then you could actually start to claim that you have scientific evidence for creation. Of course the evidence sword cuts both ways. It can support a model, it can also destroy a model. So far all proposed creation models have been destroyed by the scientific evidence out there.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#724 Nov 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Back to the nature of scientific evidence. Do either of you two, Ron or Russell, have any questions about how having a model that you are testing is vital to say that something is evidence?
Since there are no effective creationist models there is no scientific evidence for creation. A scientific model does not need to answer all of the questions. Einstein's model created by his theories of relativity do not answer all of the questions regarding gravity, they only answer some of them. Yet it is an extremely useful theory and people treat it as if it were a "fact". The same applies to the theory of evolution, it does not answer every question about evolution.
So to develop a theory of creation you need to find questions or claims that creationism can handle better than evolution and develop a testable hypothesis first that describes your model. Then you could actually start to claim that you have scientific evidence for creation. Of course the evidence sword cuts both ways. It can support a model, it can also destroy a model. So far all proposed creation models have been destroyed by the scientific evidence out there.
Huh
You talking to me?
Or a bunch of kindergarten kids?

And how very hypocritical of you....
Thewissen et al used the scientific method and published in a peer reviewed journal. It was not Scientific American.

And you say
With a straight face, no less
The a big rat with a long snout became a whale

And that's your science?

I have definitely won this 'debate'
Even my Mum says so...

It was more like shooting fish in a barrel really
You have made me a cruel person, SubDud
But you brought it upon yourself...

No science
No evidence...NONE
No transitional fossils
No whale evolution
No Cambrian
No mutations
AND

No Archie...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#725 Nov 20, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Another act of desperation, Kong?
This study is merely an exploration of the human brain. That's it.
The grandiose "human brain evolution" is just a claim. I've seen stuff like this so often.
Its like Pakicetus all over again.
.

Yeah. You present yourself as one who reads science literature frequently [/SARCASM].

[Shrug] Dont attack the messenger, Russell.

Tell Dr Schahram Akbarian of the University of Massachusetts and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. YOU tell him he's full of shit.

If I were to choose sides.....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#726 Nov 20, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Huh
You talking to me?
Or a bunch of kindergarten kids?
And how very hypocritical of you....
Thewissen et al used the scientific method and published in a peer reviewed journal. It was not Scientific American.
And you say
With a straight face, no less
The a big rat with a long snout became a whale
And that's your science?
I have definitely won this 'debate'
Even my Mum says so...
It was more like shooting fish in a barrel really
You have made me a cruel person, SubDud
But you brought it upon yourself...
No science
No evidence...NONE
No transitional fossils
No whale evolution
No Cambrian
No mutations
AND
No Archie...
Yes, and Thewissen supported that evolution of whales from Pakicetidae. Make sure that you refer to some of his later work. He did have some doubts when they first found some more detailed Pakicetidae fossils, but after more study he agreed that they are an ancestor of whales.

And your understanding of evolution and science is a bit better than that of kindergarteners, but worse than someone in middle school. Therefore I was simplifying the subject down to your level.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#727 Nov 20, 2012
And Russell, you still do not understand the nature of scientific evidence or you are lying.

Is there or isn't there scientific evidence for evolution?

Are you a liar or an idiot? Or perhaps it is both.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#728 Nov 20, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>.
Yeah. You present yourself as one who reads science literature frequently [/SARCASM].
[Shrug] Dont attack the messenger, Russell.
Tell Dr Schahram Akbarian of the University of Massachusetts and the Mount Sinai School of Medicine. YOU tell him he's full of shit.
If I were to choose sides.....
...desperation....
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#729 Nov 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and Thewissen supported that evolution of whales from Pakicetidae. Make sure that you refer to some of his later work. He did have some doubts when they first found some more detailed Pakicetidae fossils, but after more study he agreed that they are an ancestor of whales.
And your understanding of evolution and science is a bit better than that of kindergarteners, but worse than someone in middle school. Therefore I was simplifying the subject down to your level.
But...but...but

Giant RAT, SubDud
I mean BIG
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#730 Nov 20, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
And Russell, you still do not understand the nature of scientific evidence or you are lying.
Is there or isn't there scientific evidence for evolution?
Are you a liar or an idiot? Or perhaps it is both.
Neither
Don't need to lie..EVER
And idiot?
Well, I don't think so
Because if I see a very LARGE RAT
I don't immediately think, "I wonder how that whale got there"....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#731 Nov 20, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
But...but...but
Giant RAT, SubDud
I mean BIG
I see that you are going with the "idiot" option. Very good.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#732 Nov 20, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
...desperation....
Surely, were it ever despiration that I exhibited, I doubt you have the capacity to elicit that emotion in anyone other than yourself.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#733 Nov 20, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither
Don't need to lie..EVER
And idiot?
Well, I don't think so
Because if I see a very LARGE RAT
I don't immediately think, "I wonder how that whale got there"....
If you don't "need" to lie, why do you lie so often?

And what is this "very big rat" nonsense? Are you complaining that paki looked like a giant big rat? So what? Our ancestors were monkeys.

Creationists find the weirdest things to complain about.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#734 Nov 20, 2012
By the way, the first thing that went through Thewissen's head was not "this very big rat was the ancestor of whales". He thoroughly analyzed it and found remarkable similarities to important structures and from that determined it was the ancestor of whales. You did not expect the land based ancestor of whales to look like a modern day whale did you? Hmm, I might have to lower the explanations for the middle school level to a kindergarten level. It seems you were right in implying that is the level needed to get you to understand.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#735 Nov 20, 2012
Ex-Christian minister, now Atheist leader Dan Barker:

"You believe in a book that has talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water, and all sorts of magical, absurd and primitive stories, and you say that we are the ones that need help?"

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
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr WHAT 222,738
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr marksman11 163,746
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Dogen 79,858
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr Eagle 12 - 32,581
What's your religion? 11 hr Zog Has-fallen 2
Life started in Tennessee proof. Sep 15 Science4life 1
Science News (Sep '13) Sep 8 Ricky F 4,001
More from around the web