Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
55,601 - 55,620 of 113,033 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Marrickville, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59504
Nov 17, 2012
 
Professor wrote:
Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.
After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.
That's only if Big Bang has merit. There is as much around to refute it as support it as a theory. Don't forget the latest flavour of the month is that we are on the outer edge of a bubble, with zilch or something in the middle depending on whose work one wishes to support.

In the end any philosophy can find some interpretation of some data to support it and try to turn a philosophy into a science. TOE is nothing more than an atheist philosophy around how life came to be WITHOUT the hand of God or direction from a deity at its base.

If the hand of God was involved in any way "creation" is established regardless of whether or not it was via the process of instant creation or via intelligent and directed design of some sort.

To date the fact that with all the advances in science and genetics life cannot be seen to evolve from non life. A living cell is by definition a complex factory of irreduceably complex functions such as reproduction.

The fact that amino acids cannot be given 'that spark of life' attests to have been given by the hand of God as suggested in the bible. This is some of the best "evidence' that the creation of life remains miraculously unobtainable by mankind, despite many theoretical possibilities.

Hence any variation of creation appears to have more merit at its base than any philosophy that suggests otherwise.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59505
Nov 17, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Prove it, Charles. Prove that Germans can understand Old English.
The internet or other historical sources can not lie. The Saxons, Jutes and Angles, spoke a form of German, that is similar to the modern German today.
Why their language is called old English is not far fetched, they are the ancestors of the English nation.
Middle and modern English, is a blend of Latin, Greek, French, old Norse, etc, all these blending took place in England.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59506
Nov 17, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Satan is the spirit of sin and disobedience to God and the Bible says he is a real being and he is a deciever and a liar. Are you knowingly following him or are you ignorant of his devices?

I am most certainly not following YOU!

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Gobekli Tepe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59507
Nov 17, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
I'm not trying to sound stupid I believe this to be a lagit question for the evolutionists out there. If human evolution is true and man has been around millions if not billions of years evolving slowly through all this time than shouldn't their be proof in the fossil record shouldn't paleontologists be digging up protohuman bones all over the earth finding small colonies of remains? Where is the missing link? Oh and also if evolution is absolute why would Human evolution followed such a different path from all others if man comes from ape than why are their still apes?
Fossilization of bones is pretty rare, only a very small percentage of bones end up in an environment that is conducive to being fossilized. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil and
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Gobekli Tepe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59508
Nov 17, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> A good one. These are one of the question left unanswered. All answers given to date, are guesses, projections, exaggerations, assertions and manipulations, etc.
Sorry guy, but you are wrong.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59509
Nov 17, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am most certainly not following YOU!
I don't want anybody to follow me, I want everyone to follow Jesus. I am just a man and like all men I will die unless the lord comes back first. I have made mstakes in the past and I don't want to but I may make some sort of error because to err is human, but the one I serve is worthy.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Gobekli Tepe

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59510
Nov 17, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
I'm not trying to sound stupid I believe this to be a lagit question for the evolutionists out there. If human evolution is true and man has been around millions if not billions of years evolving slowly through all this time than shouldn't their be proof in the fossil record shouldn't paleontologists be digging up protohuman bones all over the earth finding small colonies of remains? Where is the missing link? Oh and also if evolution is absolute why would Human evolution followed such a different path from all others if man comes from ape than why are their still apes?
Yeah, and I know where you get your questions. From fundamentalist religious sites...and every one of them have been answered before by science.

Learn some new stuff please you are boring the sh!t out of us.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59511
Nov 17, 2012
 
MazHere wrote:
That's only if Big Bang has merit. There is as much around to refute it as support it as a theory.
What refutes it?
MazHere wrote:
To date the fact that with all the advances in science and genetics life cannot be seen to evolve from non life.
Sure about that? Let's look:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/07/what-...
MazHere wrote:
A living cell is by definition a complex factory of irreduceably complex functions such as reproduction.
Who says that the first living thing was a "cell"?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59512
Nov 17, 2012
 
Prove that Germans can understand Old English.
Charles Idemi wrote:
The internet or other historical sources can not lie.
Identify a specific, authoritative source, Charles. You can't get away with waving your hand vaguely at the Internet or at unnamed "historical sources".
Charles Idemi wrote:
The Saxons, Jutes and Angles, spoke a form of German, that is similar to the modern German today.
Prove that claim, Charles.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59513
Nov 17, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
Prove that Old English was a type of German.(Hint: The words "Germanic" and "German" are not synonyms in this context.)
<quoted text>
No, Charles, Old English was not a "type of German language".
Old English was a *Germanic* language.
"Germanic" and "German" are not synonyms.
You've lost the debate again.
Yes it is a Germanic language that it is closer to German and old frisian language.
enwikipedia.org/wiki/old.English
libra.england.arts.gla.ac.uk/o eteach/units/3_description_of_ OE.html
babae.tripod.com/archive/grammar43.html

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59514
Nov 17, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I don't want anybody to follow me, I want everyone to follow Jesus. I am just a man and like all men I will die unless the lord comes back first. I have made mstakes in the past and I don't want to but I may make some sort of error because to err is human, but the one I serve is worthy.

You are Satan the deceiver. The near enemy of god. Outright lies are not your forte, but rather twisting the truth so that people look away from God.

You are very good at your job.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59515
Nov 17, 2012
 
Typographical error:
Please check these sites, to see the relationship between German, old friesian with old English.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/old.English
libra.englang.arts.gla.ac.uk/o eteach/units/3_Description_of_ OE.html

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59516
Nov 17, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Yes it is a Germanic language that it is closer to German and old frisian language.
enwikipedia.org/wiki/old.English
libra.england.arts.gla.ac.uk/o eteach/units/3_description_of_ OE.html
babae.tripod.com/archive/grammar43.html
Neither link works.

And again, you claimed that Germans could understand Old English.

Prove it.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59517
Nov 17, 2012
 
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
You are Satan the deceiver. The near enemy of god. Outright lies are not your forte, but rather twisting the truth so that people look away from God.
You are very good at your job.
I don't know what you are talking about. I tell it as I see it and you are the one twisting the truth around here as far as I can see, but I am supposed to pray for you and as hard as it is for me to obey that part of the lord's commands I will.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59518
Nov 17, 2012
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry guy, but you are wrong.
To your understanding. But in reality, NO!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59519
Nov 17, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
Prove that Germans can understand Old English.
<quoted text>
Identify a specific, authoritative source, Charles. You can't get away with waving your hand vaguely at the Internet or at unnamed "historical sources".
<quoted text>
Prove that claim, Charles.
Check this sites or sources as against the previous ones, i gave.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/old_English

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59520
Nov 17, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither link works.
And again, you claimed that Germans could understand Old English.
Prove it.
There was a typographical error:
Check this, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/old_English

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59521
Nov 17, 2012
 
Identify a specific, authoritative source, Charles. You can't get away with waving your hand vaguely at the Internet or at unnamed "historical sources".
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>
Check this sites or sources as against the previous ones, i gave.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/old_English
That site doesn't say that Germans can understand Old English.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59522
Nov 17, 2012
 
Old English is a Germanic language spoken by the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, an ancestor of the English nation. Their language is similar to German and Icelandic. It is also similar to Anglo frisian and low German unlike modern English.
Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/old_English

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59523
Nov 17, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
Identify a specific, authoritative source, Charles. You can't get away with waving your hand vaguely at the Internet or at unnamed "historical sources".
<quoted text>
That site doesn't say that Germans can understand Old English.
Then, you did not go down through the given information.
Old English is similar to German and Icelandic unlike modern English.
Check through that site and see for your self.
English or modern English which is a blend of Latin, Greek, Celtic, etc, became a single and independent language in England. It started in England.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••