Evolution vs. Creation

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

Adelaide, Australia

#64394 Dec 10, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Get a room.
Gee, you're easy
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64395 Dec 10, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, I did see that.
A case could be made for *indirectly* receiving money through tax payers.
But this begs the question: Why would NASA and the US Air Force (among others) provide funding to SETI without those organizations holding the possibilty of a return?
A modest monetary offering by these donors could result in mighty interesting data. You might say it's a long shot (as would I), but we don't know what kind of funding they're offering.
In order to get more funding, silly
Its a popular thought amongst dodos like you that aliens are real and trying to send us coded messages...
Apologies to any Christians that also think that!

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

#64396 Dec 10, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You are not really making any sense here.
The Old Testament is demonstrated to be just a bunch of myths and allegory...not real in any sense. And just think how many people have fallen for it.
How is "Thou shalt not kill" a myth or allegory?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64397 Dec 10, 2012
EvolutionRules wrote:
<quoted text>
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. There is no scientific theory of Creationism.
I don't adhere well to affixing "labels" onto personal beliefs..."broad range ones" especially.

"In the beginning, there was light" says plenty enough for me, to be able to appreciate BOTH the scientific aspects of the "subject", as well written words as found in non-scientific books, such as the Bible.

and I like this define better--
Scientific theory

Systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner.

and even more so, since we really do NOT "know" with 100 percent certainty, on EITHER, calling the "big bang" elements a theory, would be "stretching" the truth somewhat as well, as it really is more of a "hypothesis", much along the lines of the statement "in the beginning there was light..." ..we think, but we were NOT thre, to KNOW, with certainty.

hy·poth·e·sis
[hahy-poth-uh-sis, hi-] Show IPA
noun, plural hy·poth·e·ses [-seez] Show IPA .
1.
a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts.
2.
a proposition assumed as a premise in an argument.
3.
the antecedent of a conditional proposition.
4.
a mere assumption or guess.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64398 Dec 10, 2012
EvolutionRules wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm a Christian and I can assure you, that isn't a scientific theory.
How can you be a Christian and believe in evolution?
What did Jesus die for?

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#64399 Dec 10, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
The Bible tells us in GEN 1:1&2&3 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light." If we could use our understanding of sound light and heat and describe the command as a literal voice which traveled upon waves of patterned compressions and rarefactions, then we can form a creation theory which seperates the event into understandable constituents. We can apply our observations concerning sound as it travels through water to make claims describing the reality.
I don't think outer space is made of water. You want astronauts to trade in their spacesuits for swimsuits?

“My hand is over my crotch.”

Level 8

Since: Jan 10

It's time to put it to use

#64400 Dec 10, 2012
I love these threads as they tend to lead to the embarrassment of the creationists.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64401 Dec 10, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Is there any physical evidence left over from those miracles?
Big Bang Theory - The Only Plausible Theory?
Is the standard Big Bang theory the only model consistent with these evidences? No, it's just the most popular one....

In 2003, Physicist Robert Gentry proposed an attractive alternative to the standard theory, an alternative which also accounts for the evidences listed above.5 Dr. Gentry claims that the standard Big Bang model is founded upon a faulty paradigm (the Friedmann-lemaitre expanding-spacetime paradigm) which he claims is inconsistent with the empirical data. He chooses instead to base his model on Einstein's static-spacetime paradigm which he claims is the "genuine cosmic Rosetta." Gentry has published several papers outlining what he considers to be serious flaws in the standard Big Bang model.6 Other high-profile dissenters include Nobel laureate Dr. Hannes Alfvén, Professor Geoffrey Burbidge, Dr. Halton Arp, and the renowned British astronomer Sir Fred Hoyle, who is accredited with first coining the term "the Big Bang" during a BBC radio broadcast in 1950.

:-)

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#64402 Dec 10, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I agree. Same with my old, pos car, my television, my yard, my dog, and the planet itself. No argument there.
<quoted text>
That does have a possibility. All you need to be able to teach that belief of yours in public school classrooms is evidence of this 'programming', and evidence of the 'Programmer'.
Until then, it does not qualify as science, and thus has no place in public school classrooms.
That's right. It may not be science to you, but when SETI finds evidence in space, you will be wrong!

How else can DNA be formed? random chance? I don't think so. DNA code looks like it was manipulated by an intelligent life.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#64403 Dec 10, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>This thread is concerning creation and I believe the Creator is the God of the Bible.
I believe the creator of god is the Scribe of the bible who wrote down the first joke after writing was invented.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64404 Dec 10, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The Big Bang is a hypothesis about the origine of the Universe.....cosmological, not the beginning of life itself, which is biological.
Thank youuu lol.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64405 Dec 10, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. It was a great surprise to most scientists after they thought they
had a handle on telling which parts of the DNA actually coded for proteins
and which didn't. It was hard to believe, but it was looking like most of
it did nothing. So some just decided to call it junk DNA, and then tried to
rationalize how that could possibly be explained. So naturally there has
been a lot of speculation about it.
I don't think it was so much the idea that there could be some parts that
were left behind by evolution as other parts of the genome changed, but what
was shocking was the possibility that maybe as much as 90% of the DNA for
some species could be non-coding.
Now it seems that parts of the previously inexplicable segments operate in a
kind of different way, and so it remains to be seen how much is really
essential. I believe most scientists in the field were expecting some sort
of explanation eventually, and were suspending judgement. Others preferred
to run with what what they saw, to see if they could make a theory that fit
that evidence. It's typical of the way science progresses, and no reason to
worry about who to criticise for leaping to conclusions. Some times those
who leap first are the pioneers, and sometimes they just arrive at the dead
end sooner, while someone else discovers the path that leads forward.
There is no cause to disparage the excitement for the pursuit of knowledge
in that way, or to take all the mistakes to blame science as a whole,
without crediting it for the progress that is eventually made.
Scientists are human, and probably a few percent never accept newer
theories. Then what happens is that ignorant people with political or
manipulative agendas try to inject politics or religious views into the
fray, pick and choose the from the results or personalities. They then make
a lot of irrational noise about it, to harness the non-scientists and the
gullible into some project they have in mind. I love fairy tales and
science fiction myself, but I keep them separate in my head, so that I know
what to depend on when reality smacks me in the face.
Best way to "read/learn" anything (and thnx--I enjoyed reading that!!:-)...)
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64406 Dec 10, 2012
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Interesting smattering of quotes and facts, but it does not answer the question.
What was the question?

Any discussion of the Big Bang theory would be incomplete without asking the question, what about God? This is because cosmogony (the study of the origin of the universe) is an area where science and theology meet. Creation was a supernatural event. That is, it took place outside of the natural realm. This fact begs the question: is there anything else which exists outside of the natural realm? Specifically, is there a master Architect out there? We know that this universe had a beginning. Was God the "First Cause"? We won't attempt to answer that question in this short article.

We just ask the question...

Stand in line :-)
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64407 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what that means, do you? I just admitted to not knowing, that's not a fallacy, why would I know? I haven't studied that yet, unlike you I don't attempt to address what I haven't at least read about, because that would be dishonest.
Not knowing didn't stop you from saying this:
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What theory? We have the fossils, it's in stone actually.
You still don't even know how and why DNA changes, you have a ton of studying to do. Well, here's the basics, the DNA is a LOT of chemicals bound together in chains. These very long chains are tiny, they get bunched up into chromosomes. Copying chains that long in chemical processes, the way our cells work, will lead to inevitable "mistakes," quotes because they are not detrimental, most times. These mistakes account for variations in cosmetic appearances between the offspring and parent, such as hair color, eye color, etc., and somethings a new physiological trait or loss of one. The organism passes these changes on if it survives, then the real test of the new traits begin, if the population becomes more successful because of the trait, since the successful organisms will be more likely to breed that trait will quickly become more common. But you won't see the trait most times, it may just be a small bump on the shoulder, or a single cell change in the eye, or a new mucus membrane over a sensitive organ ... but it's there, there's always something different, always something new. If it proves detrimental, the organism(s) die(s) before the trait spreads to most of the population. There, over simplified, but genetics 101.
Or this-->
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you make an veiled implication that you know something, then pull out an old canard, I mean a really old one ... no wait, there's two in there. Cant' count, a bit sleepy today.
Changes in the DNA IS evolution, good or bad, it's an evolutionary trait. A change in the DNA results in a difference in traits, basic genetics there.
Because shorter necked animals starved and didn't get a chance to breed. Please don't ever pull out this old one again, you will feel so stupid for doing it that you will curl up in a ball and just poke your fingers into your ears chanting "I know I'm right, I know I'm right" all night long, and this thread will grow a few more pages as a result.
Or this-->
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
What?
Okay, you are clearly uneducated or a really bad liar about not being a creatard. The grassland vanished because of continental drift, a phenomenon that takes millions of years to cause a drastic climate difference, plenty of time for animals to evolve to be more suited to the new environments, such as growing long neck to eat leaves in the relatively untouched trees, or developing bipedalism allowing for the use of tools more efficiently, or smaller bodies so less food is required. All gradual changes, all recorded in the fossil and genetic record. Humans didn't make the land into a desert, the sun did, being closer to a huge ball of fire will do that.
All rather silly vacuous statements revealing the truth about your more recent statement: That you don't know....
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64408 Dec 10, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we baked Ham last month, it was Thanks Giving after all.
Giving thanks to whom?
And for what?

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#64409 Dec 10, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you're stupid is showing. I claimed creos made their claims around junk dna being functional before it was found otherwise. Neither creos or evos could make any claims on junk dna until the stuff was found initially,..Stupid!
ERVs were classified as junk dna and we will look at that specifically when we are done with this. I am not evading anything, I have said this to you before, and don't want this discussion going down the usual tail chasing circle of evasion evos employ when they have lost a point. We are now specifically talking about creos and evos general claims around junk dna. We will talk about ervs specifically, next.
How much would it matter the the evo vs creo debate how much junk DNA remains? Would it be deadly to either side or why not just forget that side issue for now?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64410 Dec 10, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Babbage was not a "creation scientist". There is no such animal since there is no such thing as "creation science" yet.
Now he may have been a scientist who believed in a biblical creation. But that does not make him a creation scientist. And it is not reasonable to claim someone is a creationist before Darwin's time. People knew of no other mechanism besides the bedtime fairy tales they had heard as children.
WRONG WRONG WRONG
Again.....sigh
Its so very sad
And just before Christmas too....

Anyone with two neurons synapsing correctly knows that the "creation/design/evolutio n debate predates Darwin by AGES AND AGES:

The Roman orator and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 BC) in his book De Natura Deorum (On the Nature of the Gods), vigorously used design arguments against the evolutionist Epicurus (341-270 BC). Epicurus taught that everything formed by chance collisions of particles, which could form even something as beautiful as the world. Cicero replied that this was on par with believing that if the letters of the alphabet were thrown on the ground often enough they would spell out the Annals of Ennius. And he pointed out that if chance collisions of particles could make a world, why then cannot they build much less difficult objects, like a colonnade, a temple, a house, or a city, that no one doubts were designed?

Similarly,
William , Paley (1743-1805), an Englishman, was a famous design advocate and who wrote the best seller Natural Theology (1804). This was required reading in British Universities for several decades, and was a highly influential work for generations.
Proctor RM Value-free science? Purity and Power in Modern Science, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA, p 47, 1991

Many claim that David Hume (1711-1776) refuted Paley’s design argument in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (published 1779) in which Hume’s own views represented by the character Philo argued against Cleanthes’ design argument. However, Paley’s work was written almost 30 years after Hume.

Thus design arguments versus the mindless nonsense of evolutionary philosophy predate Darwin by a long shot.

Wrong again, Mashmallow Terminator....wrong
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

#64411 Dec 10, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
The very papers that Russell's source sites show that Babbage believed in a clockwork deity who set up the universe to run so that he did not have to constantly interfere:
http://www.xtimeline.com/evt/view.aspx...
"He also postulated on theory of evolution in his unofficial "Ninth Bridgewater Treatise" in 1837, putting forward the thesis that God had the omnipotence and foresight to create as a divine legislator, making laws (or programs) which then produced species at the appropriate times, rather than continually interfering with ad hoc miracles each time a new species was required"
Russell's lying source once again conflated Christian with creationist.
And Russell wonders why one of his nicknames is colander feet. He shoots himself in the foot so often it is pathetic.
Theistic evolutionists are not atheists
Hence the term "theistic'
Dumbo
Subduction Zone wrote:
I am currently going over the Ninth Bridgewater Treatise by Charles Babbage and he definitely is not a creationist. In fact he warns against that sort of assumption in view of the limited geological discoveries of his time, with a specific warning about how the church was wrong about Galileo:
"Such being the present state of the case; — it surely becomes a duty to require a very high degree of evidence, before we again claim authority for the opinion that the book of Genesis contains such a precise account of the work of the creation, that we may venture to appeal to it as a refutation of observed facts. The history of the past errors of our parent Church supplies us with a lesson of caution which ought not to be lost by its reformed successors. The fact that the venerable Galileo was compelled publicly to deny, on bended knee, a truth of which he had the most convincing demonstration, remains as a beacon to all after time, and ought not to be without its influence on the inquiring minds of the present day."
http://www.victorianweb.org/science/science_t...
So you like Babbage too? Good

The whole point, and you do have a tendency to miss the whole point, of my mentioning Babbage was that the development of computers does not rest on the scrawny shoulders of evolutionist atheists

Thanks for helping to prove that assertion....
What a laughable dolt!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#64412 Dec 10, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
That's right. It may not be science to you, but when SETI finds evidence in space, you will be wrong!
Au contraire mon cheri! SETI is pure science. I find it fascinating, yet a long shot that any 'messages' from space will be delivered. But I'd still like to see it.

And *IF* we found intelligent life in deep space, that would only mean -- that we found intelligent life in deep space. It would be a BIG leap of logic to assume that these aliens had anything to do with the beginning of life on Earth.
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>How else can DNA be formed? random chance? I don't think so. DNA code looks like it was manipulated by an intelligent life.
RNA. We've made GREAT strides in developing a theory on how RNA could have formed by way of natural processes. Take a look:

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/rib...

Life’s First Spark Re-Created in the Laboratory (and this article is 3.5 years old).

Were you aware that complex organic compounds have been detected in deep space? And water? And alcohol? And methane?

In fact, it could be that some form of life is fairly ubiquitous in the universe, and we have yet to stumble upon something that can commnicate with us. After all, we've only been really looking for a few decades.

Be patient.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64413 Dec 10, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
Theistic evolutionists are not atheists
Hence the term "theistic'
Dumbo
<quoted text>
So you like Babbage too? Good
The whole point, and you do have a tendency to miss the whole point, of my mentioning Babbage was that the development of computers does not rest on the scrawny shoulders of evolutionist atheists
Thanks for helping to prove that assertion....
What a laughable dolt!
You IDIOT!

I never claimed he was an atheist. Could you be any more stupid.

Believing the theory of evolution does not make you an atheist. And Babbage was not a cretin or a creationist.

He was not a creation scientist. I don't think there are any.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 10 min CJ Rocker 148,930
What's your tip for the day? 18 min wichita-rick 1,215
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 44 min wichita-rick 1,869
tell me one word to describe yourself (Jun '09) 46 min wichita-rick 15,446
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 53 min Captn Morgan 6,829
Texas Governor Rick Perry Indicted 1 hr Bill 343
Family shocked after texting dead grandmother, ... 1 hr Chilli J 5
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 1 hr David0407 6,824
Puppy-sized spider spotted in South America 5 hr a_visitor 24
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 hr sunshine 22,209
True or False Game 6 hr Sublime1 348

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE