Evolution vs. Creation

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

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61059 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Think as you wish. It is your soul that will fry if you dont except God. I hope you did not raise any children. Sad if you did to know they will fry also.
Don’t you juts love these crustard threats

Think like me or fry, wonderful and so telling of the type of god you choose to worship

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61060 Nov 26, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>HAHA. Then put forth your scientific theory on creationism. I'll wait.
Above is a demonstration of an evolutionists trying his hardest to look as if he actually has something of substance to reply back to me when unfortunately, he hasn’t.

Lets see creos if these evos demand a higher level of substantiation from us that they have ever been able to supply themselves. This is where hypocrisy and/or religious bigotry may become apparent.

You are a spam bot because you are too silly to know when to stop. If you keep denying that you evos had no idea what they were talking about, with junk dna and vestigial organs in particular, then I will continue to remind you. That is a fact now, written into the pages of your evo history. Deal with it!

Indeed evos would like to think their data means something but in actual fact that is far from the truth, regardless of any ridicule evos have in relation to creationism.

My theory of creation is already set out in Genesis. Genesis continues to be validated. At least Genesis provides an account to support of falsify. Where as TOE continues to change the scenarios that support it and any old story will do.

My creationist theory is that there is a God and that God can use his ENERGY to create matter, including cognitive engrams that are also simply rearranged elements. This has been supported to some degree in that energy can produce matter. Hence the 'mechanism' for creation is supported.

This is further supported by the Genesis account that outlines what the sciences should find in support or in falsification. Eg fossils found in line with Genesis as opposed to TOE, moon created after the earth as opposed to initial scientific thinking, the universe having a beginning as scientists now concur, plants not requiring sunlight as the only source of energy to thrive and predictions around the content of the genome and organs in opposition to the opposing hypothesis etc.

Being created by a creator predicts no requirment for left over ‘junk’ dna nor left over functionless organs from ‘evolution‘, quite the opposite to TOE.

TOErs suggested that TOE predicted the opposite of creo claims and insisted they had empirical evidence for junk dna and functionless organs, and creos were just ignorant idiots that refused to accept any form of science. Evos would not accept creos claims that the data was biased and flawed.

Both these evo claims have been falsified. Now we see evos scurrying off and hoping it will all go away the same as many other major blunders they called evidence now live in the huge rubbish bin of delusionary evidence past.

Despite the obvious fact that creos predictions were validated over evos, no evolutionist will have the integrity to acknowledge this historical fact. For example, look how you lot are stuggling with it. This is the lack of scientific integrity that creationists come against and have to battle against continually.

I claimed victory in demonstrating over a week or so that indeed what evolutionists call empirical evidence isn’t any better than what creos have to offer. You may be too proud to admit to it, but that is the truth of the matter.

At least creos can make assertions and predictions along side evos and have their creo predictions validated in time. Creos did not change their prediction and come up with convoluted excuses when so called jnk dna and supposed vestigial organs were found, as evos commonly do. That is why, to me, creos appear to have the upper hand in general, despite the fact that neither side has all the answers.

What predictions does TOE offer that were not made in hindsight and actually are predictions? That should not be difficult for evos to research and find. If you need help I can post a dandy!

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61061 Nov 26, 2012
oops - just

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61062 Nov 26, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Uh....since we cannot detect the EDGES of the universe, there is no way we can calculate the CENTER of the universe.
You will, of course, reply that science has shown that (most) all other galaxies are moving away from us. This is true,*BUT*(most)all other galaxies are moving away FROM EACH OTHER as well. So in that regard, EVERY galaxy could say THEY are the center of the Universe.
Or do you have a link that says different?

Temple-Smoller hypothesis would have replace dark energy with standing wave form from the big bang. One of the necessary implications of this idea is that we would have to be near the center of the universe for this hypothesis to be true (otherwise the observed data would not fit).

Temple-Smoller was effectively refuted when the dark energy measurements from the small magellanic cloud data was released. http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/science/

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61063 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>So, backing up your claims somehow prevents people from making choices?

Look fool, you are using the same old tired arguments which christians have attempted for so long they are redundant and old, very old. They don't work, but keep making them, the more people see them the more deists and atheists we see, because no one wants to be that stuck on stupid.
I'm not arguing nor does my God need a defender. You simply fear the truth and that's ok most people fear what they don't understand. It is funny how you will read ever crap theory science puts out but you won't even try to understand God. As for my faith being old or whatever it might be an oldie but its still truth.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61065 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Above is a demonstration of an evolutionists trying his hardest to look as if he actually has something of substance to reply back to me when unfortunately, he hasn’t.
Lets see creos if these evos demand a higher level of substantiation from us that they have ever been able to supply themselves. This is where hypocrisy and/or religious bigotry may become apparent.
You are a spam bot because you are too silly to know when to stop. If you keep denying that you evos had no idea what they were talking about, with junk dna and vestigial organs in particular, then I will continue to remind you. That is a fact now, written into the pages of your evo history. Deal with it!

[Blah blah blah..........

TOErs suggested that TOE predicted the opposite of creo claims and insisted they had empirical evidence for junk dna and functionless organs, and creos were just ignorant idiots that refused to accept any form of science. Evos would not accept creos claims that the data was biased and flawed.
Both these evo claims have been falsified. Now we see evos scurrying off and hoping it will all go away the same as many other major blunders they called evidence now live in the huge rubbish bin of delusionary evidence past.
Despite the obvious fact that creos predictions were validated over evos, no evolutionist will have the integrity to acknowledge this historical fact. For example, look how you lot are stuggling with it. This is the lack of scientific integrity that creationists come against and have to battle against continually.
I claimed victory in demonstrating over a week or so that indeed what evolutionists call empirical evidence isn’t any better than what creos have to offer. You may be too proud to admit to it, but that is the truth of the matter.
At least creos can make assertions and predictions along side evos and have their creo predictions validated in time. Creos did not change their prediction and come up with convoluted excuses when so called jnk dna and supposed vestigial organs were found, as evos commonly do. That is why, to me, creos appear to have the upper hand in general, despite the fact that neither side has all the answers.
What predictions does TOE offer that were not made in hindsight and actually are predictions? That should not be difficult for evos to research and find. If you need help I can post a dandy!

We have refuted all of this before.

Creationism is an belief system, not a scientific theory.

Creationism neither explains the data actually observed nor does it make an coherent predictions of what will be found in the future.

http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/evo_sc...

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61066 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting fot the peer reviewed data that you say you can offer...

... still waiting

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61067 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
It is called the Bible. That is the proof. Open your heart to God and live a good life. Or keep living in sin and burn in hell when you die. Simple choice.
What if your wrong....Eternity in burning hell....or....etternity in wonderful joy of heaven.....WHICH SOUNDS BETTER.
Assertions, and still no evidence. Where is your evidence to back up the assertions in your book?

Again with Pascal's wager, what if you're wrong about which god it is? Do you want to anger Zeus? How about Cthulhu? Perhaps Ra or Anpu? Maybe it's Apollo? Your chances of picking the correct religion is 1 in 10^1000, chances of us atheists angering a god are oddly the same. However if you're wrong, and we destroy ourselves because of following your belief, we waste our short lives, sort of ticks on in favor of atheism, no?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61068 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
What I dont get is that being a Christian is easy and it is all about leading a good life. Nothing about being a Christian will harm you or hurt you in any way. Following Gods word is good for you and will bring you joy and happiness. Being a Christian is easy and means freedom for eternity. WHY DONT PEOPLE DO IT....
Tell me how does being a Christian hurt anyone?

It does not necessarily hurt anyone. But for many people it seems to turn off their cerebral cortex and turns on their limbic system. Many Christians seem angry, judgmental and deliberately ignorant.

Many feel a compulsion to reject science (all the while living in the comfort and technology science has helped provide) in favor of allegorical tales (which they mistake to be literal) in the book of Genesis. Dumbing people down is not good for anyone.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61069 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
Your lies dont change the fact and truth of the Bible. You are wrong....Turn from sin.
What lies and what sin? What is sin by the way? I don't think I have ever sinned in my life.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#61070 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
What I dont get is that being a Christian is easy and it is all about leading a good life. Nothing about being a Christian will harm you or hurt you in any way. Following Gods word is good for you and will bring you joy and happiness. Being a Christian is easy and means freedom for eternity. WHY DONT PEOPLE DO IT....
Tell me how does being a Christian hurt anyone?
You don’t seem to know much about christians do you?

Personally I have been mocked for having dyslexia – by christians and the reason I left the church

I have been injured in an explosion initiated by christians – look up the Manchester bombing

Christians attempted to murder my children by tipping there push chair into moving traffic

You want I should go onto the wider world of people like Anders Breivik and Slobodan Milosevic?

How about recent history and Adolf Hitler?

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61071 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Assertions, and still no evidence. Where is your evidence to back up the assertions in your book?

Again with Pascal's wager, what if you're wrong about which god it is? Do you want to anger Zeus? How about Cthulhu? Perhaps Ra or Anpu? Maybe it's Apollo? Your chances of picking the correct religion is 1 in 10^1000, chances of us atheists angering a god are oddly the same. However if you're wrong, and we destroy ourselves because of following your belief, we waste our short lives, sort of ticks on in favor of atheism, no?
You can't prove nor make a case against FAITH. The faithful have first hand knowledge of God. Where people of science have faith in some real "smart" guy had an idea ok an educated guess but its still a guess. When the bottom line is creos are waiting for the evos to just say "I really don't know how it all came about" and lets face it evos have an idea but they do not know. It is your faith in the collective knowledge of people smarter than you coming up with a claim they know but they really don't know either. No one knows the real process of the beginning. You think it is evolution and you guys think a lot. Come off your pride and vanity accept that no one alive knows where it all started and accept the what if their was a creator.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61072 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
What I dont get is that being a Christian is easy and it is all about leading a good life. Nothing about being a Christian will harm you or hurt you in any way. Following Gods word is good for you and will bring you joy and happiness. Being a Christian is easy and means freedom for eternity. WHY DONT PEOPLE DO IT....
Tell me how does being a Christian hurt anyone?
You said it, it's easy, as in an easy way to discard responsibility and to avoid learning. One book, you learn one book, that's easy. We learn from hundreds of books, papers, reports, and various other resources. Why would we give up actually thinking for an easy way out?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61073 Nov 26, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The way the universe works is…
…nowhere is the centre of the universe
There is no centre because the expansion is the same everywhere.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativ...
I absolutlely love the way people make such statements like as if what is on offer is actually proven to be factual as opposed to theoretical. Just because a theory is popular does not mean it has merit.

Let's not forget that the physics of the Big bang do not make any sense and break down at the moment of the universes creation. As more biased data came in they have has to now place the material universe on the outer edge of a bubble. That is the latest.

Of course BB in its entirety requires that 96% of the matter in the universe to be dark energy, a mysterious substance they know nothing about except it gives them an insertion value that helps some of the muddle but does not save the physics breaking down.

Many researchers are looking for new theories because they can see BB is problematic.

http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...

I have posted the above many times previously.

This is another theory, still based on a big bang style model, that by placing the earth at the centre of the universe does not require the mystery of dark energy and still aligns with theories of general relativity.

Further to that the best challenge to it, the predicted afterglow, is now being challenged as some galaxies do not cast the intergalactic shadow that should be seen. This info is not very pubicized.

The other challenge is that scientists can't stand the thought that the earth is placed in a special position, because that may actually get people believing they have support for Gods and such things and they can't have that going on at all.

Hence to offer a premise as fact based on a model that is problematic is really not a fact at all.

What is observed is that all galaxies, except Andromeda, are moving away from the earth. It is atheists prticularly that support the Copernican principle that the earth and man is not special. Then theists follow them because they actually believe these speculators know what they are talking about and have evidence.

So researchers build algorithms and models that explain why indeed what we observe is not real at all and why their algorithmic magic and speculative modelling is actually more factual than observation. Atheists, in particular, are very skilled at this task.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61074 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't prove nor make a case against FAITH. The faithful have first hand knowledge of God. Where people of science have faith in some real "smart" guy had an idea ok an educated guess but its still a guess. When the bottom line is creos are waiting for the evos to just say "I really don't know how it all came about" and lets face it evos have an idea but they do not know. It is your faith in the collective knowledge of people smarter than you coming up with a claim they know but they really don't know either. No one knows the real process of the beginning. You think it is evolution and you guys think a lot. Come off your pride and vanity accept that no one alive knows where it all started and accept the what if their was a creator.
Ah, now you're trying the projection angle. Okay, at the risk of being redundant here's the typical, and factual, reply:

We do say we don't know all the time, it's you who refuses to say you don't know, you fill in the blanks with "god dun it" and then give up, we push on making things like computers, cellphones, mp3 players, etc. and you just sit back, lazily enjoying the fruits of our effort. We're just asking for the check.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#61075 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I absolutlely love the way people make such statements like as if what is on offer is actually proven to be factual as opposed to theoretical. Just because a theory is popular does not mean it has merit.
Let's not forget that the physics of the Big bang do not make any sense and break down at the moment of the universes creation. As more biased data came in they have has to now place the material universe on the outer edge of a bubble. That is the latest.
Of course BB in its entirety requires that 96% of the matter in the universe to be dark energy, a mysterious substance they know nothing about except it gives them an insertion value that helps some of the muddle but does not save the physics breaking down.
Many researchers are looking for new theories because they can see BB is problematic.
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
I have posted the above many times previously.
This is another theory, still based on a big bang style model, that by placing the earth at the centre of the universe does not require the mystery of dark energy and still aligns with theories of general relativity.
Further to that the best challenge to it, the predicted afterglow, is now being challenged as some galaxies do not cast the intergalactic shadow that should be seen. This info is not very pubicized.
The other challenge is that scientists can't stand the thought that the earth is placed in a special position, because that may actually get people believing they have support for Gods and such things and they can't have that going on at all.
Hence to offer a premise as fact based on a model that is problematic is really not a fact at all.
What is observed is that all galaxies, except Andromeda, are moving away from the earth. It is atheists prticularly that support the Copernican principle that the earth and man is not special. Then theists follow them because they actually believe these speculators know what they are talking about and have evidence.
So researchers build algorithms and models that explain why indeed what we observe is not real at all and why their algorithmic magic and speculative modelling is actually more factual than observation. Atheists, in particular, are very skilled at this task.
You said one truth in there. Evolution is still not the most popular theory, it's just provided us with the most benefits, your creationist mythology is actually more popular, and it's not produced anything beneficial. You just defeated your own argument, thank you for conceding that the theory of evolution is beneficial.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61076 Nov 26, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't prove nor make a case against FAITH. The faithful have first hand knowledge of God. Where people of science have faith in some real "smart" guy had an idea ok an educated guess but its still a guess. When the bottom line is creos are waiting for the evos to just say "I really don't know how it all came about" and lets face it evos have an idea but they do not know. It is your faith in the collective knowledge of people smarter than you coming up with a claim they know but they really don't know either. No one knows the real process of the beginning. You think it is evolution and you guys think a lot. Come off your pride and vanity accept that no one alive knows where it all started and accept the what if their was a creator.
No, scientists don't have faith in any one person. The neat thing about science is that it is repeatable. If it is not repeatable it is not science. Christine M can find evidence for evolution in her home country, write an article about it, and Kitten Koder and I can jump into a plane at SeaTac, fly over the pole and look at her evidence for ourselves.

You have some guy who supposedly talked to a burning pile of sagebrush and you want us to believe that? Where is the sagebrush? Where is the fire?
Were any audio recordings made?

Why should we believe your fictional book rather than some other fictional book? What EVIDENCE do you have that supports your book? Don't you think that the braindead of other religions claim the exact same thing about their books of magic?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61077 Nov 26, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting fot the peer reviewed data that you say you can offer...
... still waiting
I suppose you aren't bright enough to understand that the research into junk dna being at least 80% functional has been peer reviewed as has all the work that suggests so called vestigial organs have function that resulted in evos having to suck it up and change their definition of vestigial.

I also suppose you are however blind and biased enough to be totally ignorant of any creationist work nor how creos have to mask their work as evolutionary to even get it past the up themselves watch dogs.

Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy. You may now go off and search for your own algorithmic magic based on your own assumptions and try to make that dwoddle look as if it refutes Sanford.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/332/6034/11...

While you're at it you may as well explain how research that suggests an overwhelmingly negative effect re epitasis does not support Sanfords claims that there are limits to the amount of adaptation and accumulation of mutations an organism can undergo without such huge costs that the process could not have continued for over 4 billion years without all organisms going into extinction.

Since: Sep 12

United States

#61078 Nov 26, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>It does not necessarily hurt anyone. But for many people it seems to turn off their cerebral cortex and turns on their limbic system. Many Christians seem angry, judgmental and deliberately ignorant.

Many feel a compulsion to reject science (all the while living in the comfort and technology science has helped provide) in favor of allegorical tales (which they mistake to be literal) in the book of Genesis. Dumbing people down is not good for anyone.
So because I like my iPhone, tv, and electricity I can't be a "real" Christian? You called Christians judgmental. I would dare say if you see an angry judgmental "Christian" they're fake. Jesus taught faith, hope , love. Rather than take my word for it read the bible start in John. If you only read one book that one is great.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61079 Nov 26, 2012
Maz, did you read Dogen's article that is supposed to have effectively debunked Temple-Smoller? By the way, the article you linked was pretty bad. It called Temple and Smoller's work a theory when in reality it is not even a tested hypothesis. In other words it was not very much above a SWAG.

Dogen's article, one more time. It is more than one page long, the answer is not on the first page:

http://www.darkenergysurvey.org/science/

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
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 12 min liam cul8r 8,097
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 17 min Jeffrey 139,752
News Will Alaska's weird winter be followed by equal... 20 min rightupthemiddle 46
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 20 min The - Wizard 159,798
News Robbery 101: Don't pocket-dial 911 in the act 21 min Marcavage s Emission 34
News Giant alligator is back at Florida golf course,... 26 min harlehoney 4
News Mystery of California hilltop piano solved 32 min TALLYHO 8541 2
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 35 min say it aint so 28,127
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 2 hr Go Blue Forever 1,003
More from around the web