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

#63133 Dec 4, 2012
Orriapa paquia wrote:
<quoted text>
What claim?
And I can prove my claim, but once again, I have to run now.

Perhaps some of the others may be able to make the same point. Otherwise you have to wait.

Of course a modicum of honesty is necessary to discuss this. Are you ready to admit that you were mistaken yesterday?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#63134 Dec 4, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim that the theory of evolution is supported by a mountain of scientific evidence and that there is no scientific evidence that supports creationism.
You keep saying that over and over but there aren't sufficient evidence to support TOE from the sources being posted here

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63135 Dec 4, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep saying that over and over but there aren't sufficient evidence to support TOE from the sources being posted here
You only say that because you don't understand scientific evidence. I will be back in about three and a half hours.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#63136 Dec 4, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>WTF are you talking about? Yes, you did miss something. The whole point is that it grew on citrate in an aerobic environment; the fact that you can type that out verbatim shows that you did not investigate the issue and have no idea what you're talking about. Prior to this experiment, ecoli could not digest citric acid. The link you posted claimed that bacteria never changes into anything else. What constitutes "something else" to you? Do you want a dog to pop out of it? In a (relatively)*extremely* short time span, Ecoli was able to evolve the ability to digest citric acid. That is evolution.
I'm asking you what species did E. Coli evolved into because that's what you're claiming. Organisms adapt to their environment that's why many animals use camouflage to protect themselves from prey. It's a defense mechanism.

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#63137 Dec 4, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Not sure I understand what you are getting at.
This post
Makes sense wrote:
Oh, and if God is creating new viruses, why couldn't He complete the jobs in 7 days, like all the other stuff He created?

If this were the case and a new type of say flu virus were created every 6 days how many people would be left?

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#63138 Dec 4, 2012
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?

“What can I do to get the Topix”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

cops upset?

#63139 Dec 4, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
This post
Makes sense wrote:
Oh, and if God is creating new viruses, why couldn't He complete the jobs in 7 days, like all the other stuff He created?
If this were the case and a new type of say flu virus were created every 6 days how many people would be left?
Ok. Thanks. I see what you are getting at. Of course if would depend on whether all those new flu viruses were virulent.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#63140 Dec 4, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm asking you what species did E. Coli evolved into because that's what you're claiming. Organisms adapt to their environment that's why many animals use camouflage to protect themselves from prey. It's a defense mechanism.
I meant predators, sorry

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63141 Dec 4, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
In the history of football or soccer, all parts of the history are taken seriously.
<quoted text>
If we are discussing the origin of "English", then we must discuss the origin of *Old English*, because *Old English* is the earliest form of English.
You suddenly realized that *Old English* was already spoken by the Angles and Saxons on their boats on the way to England.
No wonder you want to move the goalposts.
I have earlier told you that, the Angles, Saxons, and Jutes left mainland europe in their mass to England.
According to law, when a person leaves a particular place to another, he automatically becomes the citizen of that place, the same with the Angles, Jutes and Saxons, they later became the English.
And also, every knows that English was first spoken as a language in England. Challenge that!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63142 Dec 4, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for admitting that Old English, which is a form of English, is not native to England.
You are wasting your time. Despite that, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, were/ are no German or Danish, they became English. Do your research on international laws or immigration laws.
English is a language that was first spoken in England. It is native to England, no one including you, can deny that.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#63143 Dec 4, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
Random mutations.

Level 5

Since: Apr 11

North Hollywood, CA

#63144 Dec 4, 2012
How can this be an issue in the 21st Century!? The tale of creation is a Bronze Age myth. It has day and night time, and growing plants existing before the sun is created.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63145 Dec 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
How can this be an issue in the 21st Century!? The tale of creation is a Bronze Age myth. It has day and night time, and growing plants existing before the sun is created.
Never underestimate the ignorance of your fellow human beings.

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

#63146 Dec 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>Random mutations.
Sorry peanut but random mutations? That means the outcome is unpredictable making impossible to project the outcome. How would it come out with male and female of the same species?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#63147 Dec 4, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are wasting your time. Despite that, the Angles, Saxons and Jutes, were/ are no German or Danish, they became English. Do your research on international laws or immigration laws.
English is a language that was first spoken in England. It is native to England, no one including you, can deny that.
That's what everyone keeps telling you is wrong.
The language referred to as "Old English" was a fully developed language brought over by those tribes. You can't say that it was defined by stepping onto the shores of the British Isles, nor is there any particular moment where the language suddenly fused with Celtic or Roman influences, or any other language. It was and is constantly changing, and you are way overdue to stop wasting everyone's time with absolutes that are NEVER absolute.

Charles, you can't function without your arbitrary word rituals, can you? Of course, you're an excellent driver too! Yeah!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#63148 Dec 4, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I meant predators, sorry
I completely miss your analogy.

Bacteria and camouflage?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#63149 Dec 4, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry peanut but random mutations? That means the outcome is unpredictable making impossible to project the outcome. How would it come out with male and female of the same species?
You asked where new information came from. You did not ask how it was implemented. By implying that the answerer of your question was answering a different question you are lying. Lying is against the Ninth Commandment. That makes you a hypocritical person and a dick in general.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#63150 Dec 4, 2012
Rose_NoHo wrote:
<quoted text>
Random mutations.
Can you explain that. Doesn't the DNA repair system corrects any mismatch in genome or reduces mutations that occur. Mutations can occur (inherited or acquired) if there is an error in DNA and is either neutral or harmful. Unless you can prove that there are beneficial mutations. If most mutations known are harmful and causes defects, imagine the odds of having a 'beneficial' mutation if DNA mismatch repair system detects those mutations all the time. If humans evolved from lower life forms, that's a whole lot of mutations and an overworked DNA!

anonymous

Franklin, PA

#63152 Dec 4, 2012
Orripa Paquia wrote:
<quoted text>
You cant understand the basic principles of evolution that you believe in? What do you understand then?
If you cant understand a basic statement of what evolution implies or believes in, how can we go any further? A rational conversation cannot be had.
I would like to educate you, but i usually charge for that.
You seriously cannot believe in evolution without a basic understanding of its principles. Both you and subduction zone have serious deficits in your understanding.
So what IS your angle here?

We aren't scientists publishing peer reviewed work, or most of us aren't! We tend to read layman publications like Wikipedia where the currently accepted theories are phrased for layman readers and sources are provided.

When it comes down to it, Evolution is a largely untestable theory because of the time involved in recreating events and the reality is that the same mutations are not guaranteed to happen twice.

So when it comes down to it, properly worded predictions should be non-specific, while genetic and fossil evidence should be open to new inclusions in the subtleties of species adaptability. I see no reason to go beyond the responsibly presented material as is.

Dismissing all Evolution over any apparent anomaly discovered is ignoring the majority of evidence in favor of a small minority. This is a science problem, not a civil liberties problem. Are you just a political hack on a stealth mission to poison two liberal wells at the same time?
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#63153 Dec 4, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you explain that. Doesn't the DNA repair system corrects any mismatch in genome or reduces mutations that occur. Mutations can occur (inherited or acquired) if there is an error in DNA and is either neutral or harmful. Unless you can prove that there are beneficial mutations. If most mutations known are harmful and causes defects, imagine the odds of having a 'beneficial' mutation if DNA mismatch repair system detects those mutations all the time. If humans evolved from lower life forms, that's a whole lot of mutations and an overworked DNA!
Perhaps you can explain this "repair system". As I understand it, the only repair system is natural selection. What's this other one?

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
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 12 min Mechanic 3,644
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 25 min Ricky F 24,219
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 33 min TALLYHO 8541 38,516
10,000th Post WINS 4.0 (Apr '12) 41 min NotaGoth 5,601
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 46 min NotaGoth 138,822
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 58 min Parden Pard 4,515
Thanx And Goodbye 58 min Wolftracks 4
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Good-Evil 155,369
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 3 hr UnderstandPeople 28,663
Mr. Incredible Guilty of Assault 3 hr TALLYHO 8541 19
More from around the web