Evolution vs. Creation

Jan 6, 2011 Read more: Best of New Orleans 160,046
High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Read more

“Eleanor, Where is your heart?!”

Level 6

Since: Nov 11

Location hidden

#59632 Nov 18, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Where's it say that??
Adam and Eve never existed...
Can you prove they didn't exist..like I can prove Cleopatra didn't exist?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#59633 Nov 18, 2012
I fish wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you prove they didn't exist..like I can prove Cleopatra didn't exist?
Jeez! Another story teller.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#59634 Nov 18, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Fossil being the word I used not a fresh one. Also prehuman the "evolution" stage before modern man the "missing link" .
And that would be just as much of a fossil as "Lucy" was. From my readings it appears that they are finding actual bone fragments and not traditional fossils where most of the original material is replaced.

The bones they found of Lucy were only about 40% of the skeleton. Of course they have found quite a few others and some lone bones were able to be categorized by the finding of Lucy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus...

Between all of the fossils they now have a very good picture of what Australopithcus afarensis looked like.

So, if Lucy was just a pile of bones what is the difference between her and the fresh remains we could dig up today, except for a matter of time and evolution?

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#59636 Nov 18, 2012
I fish wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you prove they didn't exist..like I can prove Cleopatra didn't exist?
It can be proven by archaeology and DNA that Homo-sapiens was wandering around Africa around 200,000 years ago.

It can be proven by DNA that our ancestors of around 40,000 BC were mating with Neanderthals.

It can be proven by DNA that most people alive today, except sub-Saharan Africans, carry a small percentage of Neanderthal genes/blood.

It can be proven by DNA that Neanderthals are related to the new kid on the block...Homo-Denisova.

This pretty much establishes a link to earlier Homo species such as Homo-erectus, Homo-habilis, Homo-heidelbergensis, etc., etc. We ARE in the great ape line.

There is no way these pre-humans fit in with the Adam and Eve myth.

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#59637 Nov 18, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And that would be just as much of a fossil as "Lucy" was. From my readings it appears that they are finding actual bone fragments and not traditional fossils where most of the original material is replaced.
The bones they found of Lucy were only about 40% of the skeleton. Of course they have found quite a few others and some lone bones were able to be categorized by the finding of Lucy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus...
Between all of the fossils they now have a very good picture of what Australopithcus afarensis looked like.
So, if Lucy was just a pile of bones what is the difference between her and the fresh remains we could dig up today, except for a matter of time and evolution?

More important is Australopithecus Sediba it clearly shows transformation toward human.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59638 Nov 18, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>If God knew for sure what choices his creation would make, then why would he allow them to be tempted? THINK!
But did not god created lucifer knowing exactly what he would do?

Or are you suggesting that free will and succumbing to temptation can thwart god's divine plan?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59639 Nov 18, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> This same question can be likened to humans.
God created perfect creations, but no one knows what went wrong.
Why are you bringing humans into this?

The questions I had were concerning God creating Satan.

Did not God know what his own creation would do?
Or did god purposefully introduce such an evil into the world?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59640 Nov 18, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No. When we sinned in the garden of Eden, the spirit of God left us, through Adam and Eve or the first human presence. By that, men began to know between good and bad, this is the reason why problem still persist.
Only if you take the Garden of Eden story literally. And now you have to come up with fanciful apologetics to try to explain inconsistencies with the Adam and Eve story.

Now if you think of the Garden of Eden story as a child to adult "coming of age" allegory, it's easier to understand.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59641 Nov 18, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> One thing we must learn from the bible, is that, we should not attach much importance one particular person. God did this to Lucifer(Satan), and look at the result, he was proud, and that pride, led to his rebellion.
Like Jesus?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59642 Nov 18, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
Much importance should not be attached to a single person. That could lead to pride, on the part of that person, and finally rebellion.
"Much importance should not be attached to a single person."

How about Jesus?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59643 Nov 18, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
My faith in God doesn't have me wallowing in doom and gloom. I don't fear God nor death. I do not hate your non believing as you loath my believing. I do think its an odd thing that so many people who think God is nothing more than myth like Santa spend so much time trying to prove he isn't there. Do you spend equal amounts of time trying to dis prove the tooth fairy? Or as much animosity toward children who believe in Santa? Maybe it is your guilt and fear that makes you feel you must. Now go come up with some witty way of telling me how I have it all wrong than insult me so I can once again reply.
Christianity via the Bible puts forth a version of god. Other religions put forth their versions.

Believe what you want.

Now when you use your Christian beliefs to be enacted into law is where we are going to differ.

You may think you are being righteous in forcing your beliefs upon me. I wish to continue my journey of discovery (free will and all that) without worry that I'm not mouthing the proper worship words in the right manner.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59644 Nov 18, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Since I have accepted Jesus into my heart and life, I have great hope and freedom in life now. It is the world that puts us in bondage, Jesus can make us free indeed.
Now here's the really big question...

Do you live your life as Jesus instructed or is just belief in Jesus enough to guarantee salvation?

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#59645 Nov 18, 2012
I fish wrote:
Can you prove they didn't exist..like I can prove Cleopatra didn't exist?
Is it your contention that Cleopatra didn't exist?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59646 Nov 18, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
I am aware of Simon Zelotes being a member of Jesus' disciples and that the Zelotes were another name for the Sicarii (or a subgroup of the Zelots). The Zelotes were the "forth sect" of Judaism at that time.
I will research what you have given me.
Thanks. It is an interesting diversion at the very least.
I must admit, I haven't run across that one before.

It does add additional comedy to the "Life of Brian" when Brian finds out his father is a Roman, Naughtius Maximus.

Not to be confused with Biggus Dickus in Wome who has a wife, you know.

And if any of you giggle at that, it's back to gwadiatow school where you will be fighting wabid wild animals in a week!

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59647 Nov 18, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok, so you have no idea about the problems with big bang theory, which in themselves can be seen to refute rather than support the status quo.
Here is 10 of them.
http://metaresearch.org/cosmology/top10BBprob...
If you're not happy with that and wish to speak to any of a plethora of theories that basically support anything you want supported, here is something else...
Big Bang Afterglow fails intergalactic shadow test.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/09/...
Here is a simpler geocentric model that does not need to evoke mysteries like dark energy and matter that are meant to comprise 96% of the matter in the universe that researchers know nothing about.
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
As for your last question "who says the first living thing was a cell?" all I have to say to you is asking a question to mask the fact that evolutionists really have no idea how to answer their questions they themselves pose is soooo typical!
Also don't forget the famous single celled LUCA, the prize evidence that evos carried on about for over a decade now resides in the trash can of evolutionary delusions past. The death knell sounded by the discovery of HGT. This is yet another example of a single find overtuning what many naturalists suggest is convincing evidence that only a fool would contest. It is obvious that much of what is currently accepted as empirical evidence is no more than flavour of the month.
What ever convolution you care to carry on about, reproduction I'd say, is a priori for anything to be classed as 'living' in an organic and biological sense, regardless of what ever woffly descriptor or name you wish to call the first living organism.
Evaluating your linked references:
1)metasearch and thomas van flandern is a bit iffy even with a google search.

2) You use a journal citing one report as evidence. Not really going to take the time to search to see if a subsequent finding showed a flaw in the findings of that report. If Cold Fusion has taught us anything, it's to view reports like these skeptically.

3) a blog trying to reconcile science with the bible? really?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59648 Nov 18, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Denial is not a good look. Anyone that suggests that big bang theory has no concerns has already demonstrated the level of their true scientific base.
Look at you quacking about my straw men. Either these idiots know what they are saying or they do not.
This is what you are hiding your head i the sand over.
University Of Alabama In Huntsville (2006, September 5). Big Bang's Afterglow Fails Intergalactic 'Shadow' Test. ScienceDaily.
No shadows, no big bang. Is that too scientific for you? Perhaps you can quote Womans Day.
"The various theories that exist on the early universe are, therefore, experimental and have not been empirically verified. The direct measurement of gravitational waves would enable us to look back to the first billionth of the first second after the Big Bang and thereby obtain completely new insights into the universe."
http://www.mpg.de/4333311/background
The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down.
http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-ti...
Words from man himself....... If you disagree you should go give Hawkins a mouth full.
And the big one that everyone should know is this, Hawkins knows his physics break down at the singularity. Of course that is not a problem for these scientific types with an assumption to sell off as science. A stuff up at the base is easily hand waved away, just as long as all the research chooks in the chook pen are happy.
So how do those two links support your "no shadows, no big bang"?

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59649 Nov 18, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you mean like over 150 years of human knucklewalking ancestry was evidence that turned to myth on the back of one single fossil find? Or would you like to discuss the multitude of common ancestors that have never surfaced when you discuss myths? How about the myth of 1% difference between the chimp and human, or the revolving door of human ancestors? How about the myth of single celled LUCA, the story of a tree stumped by HGT?
Archaeologists have uncovered what appears to be the foundation of the Tower of Babel within the ancient city ruins of Babylon. The base is square, 91 metres along each side, with earthen embankments.
http://www.world-mysteries.com/newgw/gw_shaye...
As for Adam and Eve...
You would have to go back in time only 2,000 to 5,000 years and probably on the low side of that range to find somebody who could count every person alive today as a descendant.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,201908,00...
We all know that one can find some research to support just about anything one wants. We can also find heaps of woffle to challenge any other. You can also likely find some research to support whatever you wish to support. Isn't theoretical science great????
Algorithmic population size, mutation rates and many other values are unknown insertion values tweaked to support any status quo. Indeed even biased evolutionary research points to a single male and female common ancestor. Indeed the dates for mteve and Yadam are based on assumptive algorithms with assumptive and unknown insertion values. Evolutionary researchers assume the above dates relate to extra cohorts and assume that advanced culture also coincidently appeared at around the same time.
Do you suppose Darwin proposed TOE as a process orchestrated by God?
Is it not so, that the majority of evolutionists need a naturalistic interpretation of any data that does not evoke the hand of any God?
Lots of whargarbble here.

With a nice dollop of the Gish Gallop on top.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59650 Nov 18, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear, here is yet another evolutionist that can't tell an evo site from a creationist site.
Nonw of this is crp lovey.
You evos refer to your own crap and your own crap can easily be used against you because the lot of you have no idea what science really is.
The profeesor started this thread on the back of you evo own refurte to your crap claim that Junk dna proves evolution. Now that you have found non coding dna to be functional,this functionality is now meant to also prove evolution.
Evos shoved thos crap down creos throats ad nauseum. "Look" these evo geese quacked, "why did God make useless dna, 98% of our dna IS USELESS" quack quack.
This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...
BTW evolution news is not a creo site, just in case you are too ignorant to know.
Then you lot went searching for ghosts and found tiny sequences that you assume are related to virus and called them ervs that were also useless remants, again only to find that ervs also provide vital function.
Creationists have always predicted that if God created there would be no useless DNA.
Still evos will quack now about the 20% that is supposedly non functional.
Well here is a prediction you can all shove down your own throats and it goes like this...
Over time these evolutionary inculcated boofheads that call themselves scientists will eventually find that there is no junk in dna and that every bit of dna has some function.
This research can only be performed with credible research that has actually looked into the long term useage of any genomic material. Unlike the crap they present at present where they shoot off their gobs to create headlines and get research grants and don't really care if their results are misleading or mean anyuthign at all. eg 98% of dna is junk.
The concern for evo quackers is that just about anything you present is no more than flavour of the month, may be falsified tomorrow, and that is what the entire empire of evolutionary theory is based on. That is also why TOE adherants are no more than a form of faith with their own atheist or theist slant.
You certainly have a future writing for answersingenesis. It may pay the bills if they get around to writing you a check for your creative writing.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#59651 Nov 18, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
The links I have already provided that you obviously are totally ignorant of.
This is not rocket science lovey. This info has been around for ages. I should not have to be telling you this stuff.
While dealing with gene loss is tricky, it is not an insurmountable hurdle it just means reconstructing LUCA will be peppered with a lot of educated guesswork, and probably a few gaps. But gene swapping is another matter altogether it threatens to fell the tree of life, and consign LUCA to the dustbin.6,7,8
http://www.actionbioscience.org/newfrontiers/...
".. it is no longer safe to assume that those were the only lateral gene transfers that occurred after the first eukaryotes arose. Only in later, multicellular eukaryotes do we know of definite restrictions on horizontal gene exchange, such as the advent of separated (and protected) germ cells...
If there had never been any lateral gene transfer, all these individual gene trees would have the same topology (the same branching order), and the ancestral genes at the root of each tree would have all been present in the last universal common ancestor, a single ancient cell. But extensive transfer means that neither is the case: gene trees will differ (although many will have regions of similar topology) and there would never have been a single cell that could be called the last universal common ancestor..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizontal_gene_...
Evo researchers are now wasting their grant money scratching around for some organelle.
So the prediction of a single celled LUCA has been falsified. Failed predictions are no problem for evos. After all they can wave that magic wand and find a plethora of excuses for thier failed predictions and history of falsifications. Most of you evos are too ignorant or scared to even admit to the facts of your history. The rest have no clue and just read the glossy magazine articles that never show the warts.
That's when we get bright sparks requesting peer reviewed and pay for view research...it is because that many of you truly have no clue what is going on in recent research.
Considering your other posts, you earned this:

tl;dr

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#59652 Nov 18, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh dear, here is yet another evolutionist that can't tell an evo site from a creationist site.
Nonw of this is crp lovey.
You evos refer to your own crap and your own crap can easily be used against you because the lot of you have no idea what science really is.
The profeesor started this thread on the back of you evo own refurte to your crap claim that Junk dna proves evolution. Now that you have found non coding dna to be functional,this functionality is now meant to also prove evolution.
Evos shoved thos crap down creos throats ad nauseum. "Look" these evo geese quacked, "why did God make useless dna, 98% of our dna IS USELESS" quack quack.
This week, 30 research papers, including six in Nature and additional papers published online by Science, sound the death knell for the idea that our DNA is mostly littered with useless bases. A decade-long project, the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), has found that 80% of the human genome serves some purpose, biochemically speaking. Beyond defining proteins, the DNA bases highlighted by ENCODE specify landing spots for proteins that influence gene activity, strands of RNA with myriad roles, or simply places where chemical modifications serve to silence stretches of our chromosomes.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/337/6099/11...
BTW evolution news is not a creo site, just in case you are too ignorant to know.
Then you lot went searching for ghosts and found tiny sequences that you assume are related to virus and called them ervs that were also useless remants, again only to find that ervs also provide vital function.
Creationists have always predicted that if God created there would be no useless DNA.
Still evos will quack now about the 20% that is supposedly non functional.
Well here is a prediction you can all shove down your own throats and it goes like this...
Over time these evolutionary inculcated boofheads that call themselves scientists will eventually find that there is no junk in dna and that every bit of dna has some function.
This research can only be performed with credible research that has actually looked into the long term useage of any genomic material. Unlike the crap they present at present where they shoot off their gobs to create headlines and get research grants and don't really care if their results are misleading or mean anyuthign at all. eg 98% of dna is junk.
The concern for evo quackers is that just about anything you present is no more than flavour of the month, may be falsified tomorrow, and that is what the entire empire of evolutionary theory is based on. That is also why TOE adherants are no more than a form of faith with their own atheist or theist slant.
Hi.

Ever been to a museum?

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 4 min Crazy Jae 78,852
--EVANGELICALS Deceived by ANTICHRIST-- 5 min Kid_Tomorrow 2
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 5 min Old Sam 14,071
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 10 min Old Sam 18,585
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 11 min Old Sam 4,759
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 15 min Old Sam 140,033
Word goes to the Movies (Nov '08) 17 min Old Sam 14,258
motorcycle traveling stories 20 min Mega Monster 486
News NC man's obituary urges readers to reject Hilla... 1 hr Christian Taliban 15
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr Mega Monster 40,173
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr I Am No One_ 161,096
News SC deputies: 11 cyclists victims in strange rev... 3 hr Mega Monster 15
More from around the web