Evolution vs. Creation

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

“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/

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61081 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.

One wrong thing after another.

First, theories EXPLAIN facts and make predictions. Good theories (like evolution and atomic theory) do this well.

Second, your "new theory" is just the Temple & Smoller hypothesis which fell apart with the observation of dark energy around the Magellanic Clouds. Now that dark energy has been observed there is no need for Temple & Smoller. They both have been remarkably silent since this research has been published.

Third, there are about 100 galaxies moving TOWARD us (blue shifted). Not just one.
http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/...

Can't you get anything right?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61083 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
What a liar! Those are not creation science and you misrepresented their work, in other words you lied about that too.

Those are molecular biologists who clearly believe the theory of evolution and were looking for limiting factors on the speed that bacteria can evolve.

Very nice, since there is not creationist peer reviewed articles Maz thinks it is fine to hijack some of that of evolutionists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61084 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
I have learned from many books. But only the Bible is Gods word. I dont see why you would read so many books written by men and believe them but wont believe Gods holy word.
And again, what is your evidence that the Bible is your god's word?

Your Bible can be shown to be wrong, have internal inconsistencies, it shows evidence of being rewritten after the fact for some of its prophesies and many other faults. In other words it has the same faults that any other religious work of man claiming to know how the world was made has.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61085 Nov 26, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You are more of an idiot than I ever suspected. I have never stated that creation is the most popular theory at all.

So you create your own misinformation and then apply it.

Indeed if these stupid researchers had of listened to creos they would not have wasted over a decade just working out that non coding dna was functional. This may have allowed the advancement of genetic therapies to advance much quicker than they have by wasting time chasing ghosts and evolutionary assumptions.

It is not the theory of evolution that has provided a benefit to the population you silly one. The benefit has come from observed research in the here and now.

In fact some researchers that are also evos are suggesting that indeed some evolutionary assumptions around retrovirus have hindered medical advancement in the treatment of aides.

http://www.originofaids.com/
http://www.originofaids.com/articles/early.ht...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#61086 Nov 26, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What a liar! Those are not creation science and you misrepresented their work, in other words you lied about that too.
Those are molecular biologists who clearly believe the theory of evolution and were looking for limiting factors on the speed that bacteria can evolve.
Very nice, since there is not creationist peer reviewed articles Maz thinks it is fine to hijack some of that of evolutionists.
I am not a liar you dickweed.

Just because a scientists still accept TOE when their assumptions and predictions are falsified does not mean I am a liar.

That fact that you have such a hard time accepting the obvious is a clear demonstration that you are the point leader here because you post the most woffle.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61088 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I suppose you aren't bright enough to understand that the research into junk dna being at least 80% functional has been peer reviewed

True, but that in no way supports creationism. In reality this is just more clarification of what DNA does and its role in evolution.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Complete lie.

Your opinions are about as useful as nipples on a man.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> I also suppose you are however blind and biased enough to be totally ignorant of any creationist work

Creationist work. Now there is an oxymoron for the books. Its right up there with "reality television".
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> nor how creos have to mask their work as evolutionary to even get it past the up themselves watch dogs.

You mean they have to go to work and do real science?!?!?! Oh the humanity!
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> Here is some creationist work on genetic entropy.
All this has been refuted. There is a reason Sanford never tried to publish it in peer review. He did make a bundle selling his book to gullible morons, however.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> 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...

Funny, neither of these supports Sanford, a point I guess you are hoping people won't notice.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text> 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.

Then you must be at a loss to explain why it DID happen. Logically speaking, if something happened it MUST be possible. Don't you think?

Your posts are no challenge.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#61089 Nov 26, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not a liar you dickweed.
Just because a scientists still accept TOE when their assumptions and predictions are falsified does not mean I am a liar.
That fact that you have such a hard time accepting the obvious is a clear demonstration that you are the point leader here because you post the most woffle.
Yes, you are a liar. You know it, I know it, the only fools you might put this over on are your fellow creatards.

That was not creationist work you linked. It does not support creationism in any way. The scientists working on it don't believe your nonsense.

It is a pretty sad state for your side when you have to steal and misrepresent the work of others.

By the way, how is that Blue Waffle of yours doing?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#61090 Nov 26, 2012
Constitution-lover wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible tells us it is the word of God. And my heart also tells me so. It has never been proven wrong....Please do tell me how your lies change the Bibles truths. I do care if yoru soul is lost. But I will serve and love God and be with him in heaven. Please turn from your sin and find Gods love and study his holy word.

Muslims believe in their heart that the Koran is the word of god. They will tell you it has never been proven wrong (and actually they have a better case). They will tell you that if you do not believe as they do that your soul is lost.

On behalf of all the Muslims in the world I implore you to serve and love Allah and be with him in heaven. Please turn from your sin and find Allah's love and study his holy word.

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
Ohio Sam sucks Co ck 5 min Sam 3
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min Wolftracks 148,961
Truck containing 36,000 pounds of Crisco stolen 11 min Are you sure 34
During Obama's Speech at Democratic Campaign Ra... 25 min Mitt s Santorum S... 21
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 25 min a_visitor 22,218
Word Association (Mar '10) 30 min White Fire 16,109
News System Rigged 37 min Enter Username 3
True or False Game 2 hr Vector aka Victor... 377
Family shocked after texting dead grandmother, ... 3 hr Protoham 9
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 5 hr Juju Beans 6,829

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE