Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62235 Dec 1, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry but your question must be in the form of an ANSWER. Ill ask again for you super evos out there. How does evolution explain the start of living organisms from nonliving matter?
Well, that is another topic besides evolution, but we explain it the same way that you do, abiogenesis. But for us this was done through natural chemical processes and for you it was done with magic. Which sounds more reasonable to you?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62236 Dec 1, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
Attention-seeking delusionist - you wouldn't know a fact if it jumped up and punched you on the nose; in the same way, you don't understand the articles you post off the web. A clue - telling us they say something different from their content does not make it true. I suggest that if you have the facts to support creationism, you rush out and find all the other delusionists and show it to them: it has been the stumbling block preventing the theory's academic acceptance as in the end it relies on goddidit. Given you cannot prove the existence of God, makes it all a bit of a conundrum.
Indeed evidence has jumped up and hit evos in the nose and they remain oblivious to all.

Many evos here have suggested researchers say something different from the content yet not one of you can demonstrate how. You are just quackers. Indeed the majority of you have no idea anyway as you are parrots that can't think for yourselves.

The research articles I refered to say exactly what I say they are saying as much as you are terrified by your own evo research. So terrified are evos that they cannot even imagine the gloss coming off their precious theory at all. So you pretend the research is not there or is misrepresented and woffle on in denial.

It is exactly the same with the overwhelmingly negative effects of epistasis and beneficial mutations. They demonstrate a decline in fitness over repeated experiments and limits to TOE but hand waving and hubris come along and saves the day.

It is the very evos that come up with the data that also cannot accept their own findings and what it is telling them. That is why they invent the hubris I speak about to refute their own data and realign it with TOE by story telling and no further substantiation other than an assumption. Hence obvious evidence that clearly suports creation and suggests TOE is very likely hits evo researchers in the face constantly and they just hand wave it away with hubris and ignorance.

Hence the fact that data suggests the genome is deteriorating and the effects of epistasis are negative, IS exactly what the data, as biased as it is, says. Evos then go on with unsupported and unfalsifiable rhetoric to give the evolutionary spin.

When one of you grow the smarts to actually articulate an appropriate and supported refute you will do so. The fact that none have or can't demonstrates who exactly holds the upper hand here and my 6 points of creationist support remains.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62237 Dec 1, 2012
Maz, our one female Black Knight. How many dragons have you slain today?

Seriously how many times do you need to be shown wrong to drop a subject? I know, you are totally anti-science but are not afraid to use the fruits of science. That would make you the same as most creationists, just another hypocritical Luddite.

I can have some respect for groups like the Amish, I don't know if you have similar folk in Australia (put another kangaroo on the barbie). They at least try not to be hypocritical Luddites. They avoid modern technology as much as possible. Of course their clothes are usually modern, though simple. They travel with horse and buggy on modern roads when they have to. And I have no idea what they do for medicine, to be honest. They are pretty much harmless and keep to themselves so we let them be.

Do you have the same where you live? Perhaps you should join them. You are indirectly supporting the theory of evolution by using modern devices that depend on modern technology.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62238 Dec 1, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, that is another topic besides evolution, but we explain it the same way that you do, abiogenesis. But for us this was done through natural chemical processes and for you it was done with magic. Which sounds more reasonable to you?
You're so called 'natural processes' are examples of 'poofing'. eg abiogenesis, theropods with avian feet and common ancestors.

So we both rely on "Just because we can't repeat the experiment now with our limited scientific knowledge does not mean that it can't happen". It is just that most evos are hipocrites and expect a higher level of substantiation from a creationist than you evos have ever been able to provide. eg abiogenesis, theropods with avian feet and common ancestors.

This is to detract from the fact that the entire theory of evolution is built on a straw man living on foundations of sand.

The straw man foundations are further supported by the instability of TOE. The constant change and falsifications highlight the straw man TOE is built on very clearly.

TOE remains a philosophy. It is no more different than any other philosophical assertion. In the majority the faith is that life arose without any interference other than natural processes. TOE is actually a faith/philosophy that evos are trying to turn into a science. TOE is not a science. At the moment it is far from being a science.

Yes true sciences get tweaked. However a theory that is so unstable about every fact that relates to it that being the how, when, where and why to evolution still remains up for grabs. Evolutionists like to send this monster of a relative to closet.

Indeed if life and engrams can be broken down to elements then a coalescence is possible.

Really, the same as you, I don't care. Maybe God went off into one of these dimensions astrophysicists speak about and grew life in a petrie dish. In that case we would both be right and so would Aliens bringing life to earth. After all, God is not an earth life form, nor is He organic.

The thing is to suggest that non life can organize itself into a complex factory of reproduction is no less an example of poofing than faster creation, it is just a matter of scale.

I suggest a siperior intelligence exists and can do it on a major scale. You suggest that non life can organize itself into a complex factory of reproduction. I suggest although I evoke a deity, my scenario still appears to be more plausible than yours.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62239 Dec 1, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, our one female Black Knight. How many dragons have you slain today?
Seriously how many times do you need to be shown wrong to drop a subject? I know, you are totally anti-science but are not afraid to use the fruits of science. That would make you the same as most creationists, just another hypocritical Luddite.
I can have some respect for groups like the Amish, I don't know if you have similar folk in Australia (put another kangaroo on the barbie). They at least try not to be hypocritical Luddites. They avoid modern technology as much as possible. Of course their clothes are usually modern, though simple. They travel with horse and buggy on modern roads when they have to. And I have no idea what they do for medicine, to be honest. They are pretty much harmless and keep to themselves so we let them be.
Do you have the same where you live? Perhaps you should join them. You are indirectly supporting the theory of evolution by using modern devices that depend on modern technology.
Thanks for your continuing replies. I should go back and count your post of baseless hubris such as above.

If you actually spent your time researching instead of wasting thread space you may actually learn how to mount a challenge to me.

Your replies make me happy because I know I can support my views and I see you struggling and squirming and posting absolute nonsense to justify your existence on a thread such as this. You need to go on a schoolies site and look for a creation/evolution debate there. Where I live has nothing to do with this, you ignorant and gobsmacked evolutionist.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62240 Dec 1, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed evidence has jumped up and hit evos in the nose and they remain oblivious to all.
Many evos here have suggested researchers say something different from the content yet not one of you can demonstrate how. You are just quackers. Indeed the majority of you have no idea anyway as you are parrots that can't think for yourselves.
The research articles I refered to say exactly what I say they are saying as much as you are terrified by your own evo research. So terrified are evos that they cannot even imagine the gloss coming off their precious theory at all. So you pretend the research is not there or is misrepresented and woffle on in denial.
It is exactly the same with the overwhelmingly negative effects of epistasis and beneficial mutations. They demonstrate a decline in fitness over repeated experiments and limits to TOE but hand waving and hubris come along and saves the day.
It is the very evos that come up with the data that also cannot accept their own findings and what it is telling them. That is why they invent the hubris I speak about to refute their own data and realign it with TOE by story telling and no further substantiation other than an assumption. Hence obvious evidence that clearly suports creation and suggests TOE is very likely hits evo researchers in the face constantly and they just hand wave it away with hubris and ignorance.
Hence the fact that data suggests the genome is deteriorating and the effects of epistasis are negative, IS exactly what the data, as biased as it is, says. Evos then go on with unsupported and unfalsifiable rhetoric to give the evolutionary spin.
When one of you grow the smarts to actually articulate an appropriate and supported refute you will do so. The fact that none have or can't demonstrates who exactly holds the upper hand here and my 6 points of creationist support remains.
Typo..this is corrected.

It is the very evos that come up with the data that also cannot accept their own findings and what it is telling them. That is why they invent the hubris I speak about to refute their own data and realign it with TOE by story telling BASED ON no further substantiation other than an assumption. Hence obvious evidence that clearly suports creation and suggests TOE is very UNlikely hits evo researchers in the face constantly and they just hand wave it away with hubris and ignorance.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#62241 Dec 1, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are looking at one side of the coin.
Faith is the belief of positive things.
It cuts accross all areas. Remember, faith without works is death.
Using bible "logic" ... yeah, that works.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#62242 Dec 1, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think you'll get a different answer than the last person who asked go back and read.
So you are hedging bets on a one billionth of a chance? The question you are responding to is best used to illustrate the fallacy of Pascal's Wager, though it does illustrate the point that your god, like thousands of others, was invented by human minds, guess work at best, but mostly snake oil charms. To better word the question to suite your position:

Why did you choose that one specific god out of the hundreds of thousands of others humans have proposed? Each has the same exact amount of evidence, each asserting that they're "the one," and most not even caring if you worship them. At what specific moment did you wake up and go "that's the god I'm going to worship and give my life to?"

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#62243 Dec 1, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
How does evolution vs creation thread go to atheists on parade? The atheist argue their is no God I can't prove what I'm saying but I don't have to because I know it's fact because I say so. Can't you see all the people who think the same way I do it must mean their is no God.......followed by insults. So if because the more people believe it makes something true a third of the world population worship God in Jesus name the Jews worship the same God not sure but that's 2 out of 3 of the worlds largest religions. Religion aside evolution has a major problem with the beginning.
"I know it's fact because I say so" ... Adolf Hitler said the same thing, so did the witch hunters. Muslims say the same thing when the attacked the Twin Towers. People who call the police about a murder that happens on their television show say the same thing. How do you know what you think you know is reality?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62244 Dec 1, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so called 'natural processes' are examples of 'poofing'. eg abiogenesis, theropods with avian feet and common ancestors...snip of her demonstration of blue waffling... I suggest although I evoke a deity, my scenario still appears to be more plausible than yours.
No, what you propose is nonsense. Science is repeatable. If an observation or experiment is not repeatable it is not of much value, just as a single point on a graph cannot be used to make a line, surface, or solid. That is why your example of bird like fossils is not enough to convince evolutionists. Even the study of abiogenesis is being done with repeatable science. That is why even though they have had some success they have not formed a complete hypothesis of abiogenesis yet, much less a theory.

All you can do is to either find an article that you misunderstand and try to misapply or find a very fringy statement, or even worse get claims for garbage sites like tourist magazines and try to pass them off as science.

All it takes to fend off your various attacks is a mere wave of the hands. If you had something of note you would get a more substantial reply. It seems that you are willing to be a typical hypocritical lying creationist. I am just here to remind people of that fact.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62245 Dec 1, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"I know it's fact because I say so" ... Adolf Hitler said the same thing, so did the witch hunters. Muslims say the same thing when the attacked the Twin Towers. People who call the police about a murder that happens on their television show say the same thing. How do you know what you think you know is reality?
You are a perfect example of a cyber bully.

You evade any scientific discussion, demonstrate a pure lack of understanding of recent data and then pick an a theist that admits to not being very eductated around TOE. Then insult him on a biased philosophical basis.

Then you evoke an extremist element of a peaceful faith to justify your existence on this thread. Hence you are also a religious bigot.

At least my sky daddy has the power to create a larger creation of scale than you evos suggest dead elements can do for themselves. That is much more plausibile than what you can come up with including hubris that supports TOE and handwaves away the data.

Evos like to chase their tails and theist tails in philosophical discussions because there they can hide away from the fact that they have no more than hubris to support themselves with.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62246 Dec 1, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You are a perfect example of a cyber bully.
You evade any scientific discussion, demonstrate a pure lack of understanding of recent data and then pick an a theist that admits to not being very eductated around TOE. Then insult him on a biased philosophical basis.
Then you evoke an extremist element of a peaceful faith to justify your existence on this thread. Hence you are also a religious bigot.
At least my sky daddy has the power to create a larger creation of scale than you evos suggest dead elements can do for themselves. That is much more plausibile than what you can come up with including hubris that supports TOE and handwaves away the data.
Evos like to chase their tails and theist tails in philosophical discussions because there they can hide away from the fact that they have no more than hubris to support themselves with.
Yeah Kitten Koder. It is cyber bullying to use facts and logic to show that creatards are wrong.

Look at lostinaMAZe here. She doesn't have a clue yet she continues to post the same garbage time after time. She won't put up with facts and logic, she knows her invisible friend made the world 6,000, no 10,000, wait maybe millions and millions of years ago, but whatever the people who believe the theory of evolution believe that is wrong.

Ya gotta love lostinaMAZe. Maybe someday she will actually make a substantive post.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#62247 Dec 1, 2012
I will try again. WHO CREATED THE CREATOR AND WHICH CULTS GOD IS THE CREATOR??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Twin Cities

#62249 Dec 1, 2012
ToManyLaws wrote:
I will try again. WHO CREATED THE CREATOR AND WHICH CULTS GOD IS THE CREATOR??
There is no such thing as 'The Creater', it's all mythical crap.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#62250 Dec 1, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
You're so called 'natural processes' are examples of 'poofing'. eg abiogenesis, theropods with avian feet and common ancestors.
So we both rely on "Just because we can't repeat the experiment now with our limited scientific knowledge does not mean that it can't happen". It is just that most evos are hipocrites and expect a higher level of substantiation from a creationist than you evos have ever been able to provide. eg abiogenesis, theropods with avian feet and common ancestors.
Yet there ARE examples of therapods with reversed hallux.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...

....and abiogenesis is being widely researched at this time.
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>This is to detract from the fact that the entire theory of evolution is built on a straw man living on foundations of sand.
The straw man foundations are further supported by the instability of TOE. The constant change and falsifications highlight the straw man TOE is built on very clearly.
TOE remains a philosophy. It is no more different than any other philosophical assertion. In the majority the faith is that life arose without any interference other than natural processes. TOE is actually a faith/philosophy that evos are trying to turn into a science. TOE is not a science. At the moment it is far from being a science.
Yes true sciences get tweaked. However a theory that is so unstable about every fact that relates to it that being the how, when, where and why to evolution still remains up for grabs. Evolutionists like to send this monster of a relative to closet.
Incorrect. The support for the Theory of Evolution is only contested by those who have a RELIGIOUS argument against it. Virtually the entire scientific and educational communities support the ToE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>Indeed if life and engrams can be broken down to elements then a coalescence is possible.
Really, the same as you, I don't care. Maybe God went off into one of these dimensions astrophysicists speak about and grew life in a petrie dish. In that case we would both be right and so would Aliens bringing life to earth. After all, God is not an earth life form, nor is He organic.
The thing is to suggest that non life can organize itself into a complex factory of reproduction is no less an example of poofing than faster creation, it is just a matter of scale.
I suggest a siperior intelligence exists and can do it on a major scale. You suggest that non life can organize itself into a complex factory of reproduction. I suggest although I evoke a deity, my scenario still appears to be more plausible than yours.
Your appraisal of your scenario is your opinion, nothing more.

Perhaps there is a Supreme Deity. If there is, the evidence suggests He/She/It used the forces and time scales as described by science -- including the Theory of Evolution -- to do His/Her/Its bidding.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62252 Dec 1, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
The bible is historically accurate, as well as their being proper evidence historically that Christ resurrected. And the prophecies in the bible were true, and are true, and will be true, evidentially.
Ummm, no.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#62253 Dec 1, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
The bible is historically accurate, as well as their being proper evidence historically that Christ resurrected. And the prophecies in the bible were true, and are true, and will be true, evidentially.
Not one shred of proof ever for your cults myth buybull...ANYWAY OUT AND ABOUT GONNA TAKE WIFES NEW CAR OUT AND GO TO EAT...BYE

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#62255 Dec 1, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet there ARE examples of therapods with reversed hallux.
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.13...
....and abiogenesis is being widely researched at this time.
<quoted text>
Incorrect. The support for the Theory of Evolution is only contested by those who have a RELIGIOUS argument against it. Virtually the entire scientific and educational communities support the ToE. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support...
<quoted text>
Your appraisal of your scenario is your opinion, nothing more.
Perhaps there is a Supreme Deity. If there is, the evidence suggests He/She/It used the forces and time scales as described by science -- including the Theory of Evolution -- to do His/Her/Its bidding.
Well I have got to say finally one of you evos gave it a shot.

This may support theropods having their foot around the wrong way but they did not leave modern bird footprints. Neither is the research suggesting they did.

The other sad fact if you look at the pictures is that they do not show a reversed hallux like a bird and are attributed to only the upper arms as far as I can tell. The picture demonstrates same. Then I can challenge the credibility of the entire paper because it is based on one single find and convoluted story of how the top dino 'arms' may or may not have acted. The footprints are ill defined. The author is suggesting the prints are the result of the back of such a reversed hand. That is all. Very flimsy indeed! It is also possible that the marks are not tail drag marks at all or some creature with a tail moved through another species, on that single spot...whatever.

Let's be clear. The footprints are not of a clear imprint of a creature with forearms or feet with a reversed anything. They are speculatively those of a theropod with theropod feet that left the imprint of the BACK of a supposedly reversed hand as it rested on a single spot. It is a real straw grab if ever I have seen one. I'd love to find the peer reviews.

The other sad fact is that none of the footprints spoken to look like these that are clearly modern bird footprints displaying a reversed hallux. They look just like one would expect modern bird footprints to look. There are NO tail drag marks.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v417/n68...

So now evos can present on flimsy assertions that a monster of a creature that had crippled and useless looking hands sat on a spot, and say you have support for a theropod that still does not leave modern bird footprints.

So your above research does not refute me at all, even if it has some merit.

You will find these modern bird footprints obvious. No tail drag marks, a clearly defined reversed hallux, not a digit.

I can still present modern avian footprints dated to 212mya that look exactly like modern bird footprints and that is more than halfway back to the heels of Devonian. Given that birds have hollow bones can be small and the process of fossilization is rare it is very fortunate that I can present these.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#62256 Dec 1, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
The bible is historically accurate, as well as their being proper evidence historically that Christ resurrected. And the prophecies in the bible were true, and are true, and will be true, evidentially.
Does it bother you that the Bible tells of a significant Israelite presence in Egypt which was completely unnoticed and unrecorded by the Egyptians.

The Israelites had no history so they invented one.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#62257 Dec 1, 2012
Orangelion wrote:
<quoted text>
Come back when you have read the resurrection factor. I have plenty of proof, but you have none.
Please present this proof of resurrection.

Note: The Bible is not "proof". It is an ascertation only, and not sufficient to provide evidence for resurrection.

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
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 12 min beatlesinafog 138,817
Sewage Brewage: Firm Wants to Brew Beer From Se... 26 min SLY WEST 4
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 34 min jimmy krack korn 155,325
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 39 min beatlesinafog 24,968
Word Association (Jun '10) 40 min beatlesinafog 26,478
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 47 min Suezanne 28,656
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 48 min beatlesinafog 30,886
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 55 min Brandiiiiiiii 3,636
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 38,507
Lets Discuss Men (Dec '13) 2 hr Oscar 498
More from around the web