Evolution vs. Creation

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

Adelaide, Australia

#64495 Dec 11, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
All you have offered to date is a mixture of articles that you did not understand and misinterpreted. eaily debunkable sources, and the rare fringe article of dubious veracity.
And this last article is from a bit of a questionable source. Due to economics open access journals are less reliable than regular peer reviewed journals. The peer review of your article is a bit dubious to say the least.
Are you still going on about peer review?

Other than all the issues I have clearly outlined previously on the parallel Creation/evolution Forum:

Here are further papers discussing more issues:
"Do we need an alternative to peer-reviewed journals?
The problems with peer review and scientific publishing have been a topic for …
by Jonathan M. Gitlin - July 19 2011, 0:29am -950


"Problems with peer review"

BMJ2010;340doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c1409 (Published 15 March 2010)
Cite this as:BMJ2010;340:c1409

From the New York Times:
The Doctor's World

"For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap "


Published: May 2, 2006
For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap

And finally, from InfoToday
“Could Peer review be Wrong” by Robin Peek
Vol. 20 No. 4 — April 2003

Including a mention of Cochrane Review, about which I quote:

“In January, Cochrane published "Editorial Peer-Review for Improving the Quality of Reports of Biomedical Studies." According to the organization, this study was conducted because "the knowledgebase of peer review has traditionally lagged far behind its acceptability and use as a quality-assessment tool."

Cochrane claims that assumptions about the use of peer review for objective decision making have "rarely been tested." In addition, it says that the need to "prioritize information sources is crucial since there are over 20,000 biomedical journals published globally."


Obviously, peer review requires peer review

So it is obviously not the panacea for every ill in science publishing

But it means a heck of a lot to the layperson...

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#64496 Dec 11, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
....and since the planet earth has been continuously bombarded by intersteller debris in the form of asteroids, comets, etc since being formed, those compounds have 'hitched a ride' here as well.
Spread out the napkin on the table... who's got a pen...?

OK, so it looks like life developed on the earth about a billion years or so after the earth was formed. Moreover, it looks like life developed on the earth within a few hundred million years after life could have possibly survived. Maybe a lot less. Now the fastest intersellar meteroids seems to travel at about 50 miles per second, and light travels at about 200,000 miles a second, so in 200 million years that meteroid could possibly have travelled about 25,000 light years, which is only about 1/5th of the diameter of our galaxy.

Well, that is a lot of room in human terms, but those projectiles would have to have been very numerous, and of amazing aim to hit the moving target of the earth, and have enough pieces left, not incinerated to plant it's germ seed here. So I'd say that while panspermia is possible, it might not even be statistically as likely, as life just having come out of abiogenesie right here in River City, folks.

If the numbers were a bit different, and life had taken billions of years to show up after the earth was ready, then panspermia would be more plausible. Anyway, play with those numbers. Maybe I made a mistake in my head. In any case it certainly looks like life would have had to exploded out along with the big bang itself, if panspermia has any chance of explaining it, otherwise the origin of life would have had to be very much more local. Don't forget, those other stars were spreading out and getting further and further away all the time.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#64497 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Babbling!
You are interpreting the bible wrongly.
Go on with your gibberish.
I am not interpreting the babble at all (that is the job of true believers like you) I am reading it logically, as it is written with no faith telling me what I should interpret it as

Anyway what is to interpret about Exodus 20:4-5

“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God”

Tell me how you interpret that passage?

What about Psalm 82:1

“God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods”

Tell me how you interpret that passage?

Nerang, Australia

#64498 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> If you are from the US, UK, western Europe and some other parts of the world, you would know that there is only one God. The bible said so.
HAHAHA O your killing me and the bibles always right Right hahahahaha I'm not trying to upset you, really I'm not But that's such an insane thing to say. The bible is a story book that's all and one day waaay in the future, they will look back at the history of human evolution and think wow we've come a long way Thank Darwin we are not like that any more :)

Adelaide, Australia

#64499 Dec 11, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot boy is back!
No, peer review is a fair process. If creationists really had a valid idea it would pass peer review.
This was not peer reviewed:

Watson, J.D. and Crick, F.H.C., A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid, Nature 171:737–738, 25 April 1953

Probably a load of rubbish

By your standards

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#64500 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> God is a God of science and wonders. You will never understand that.
Why not. Not impossible that anyone will convert. And death bed conversions are a dime a dozen. Boy, the day that light hits me, I am going to make all the evos squirm,'cause I'll know all their tricks by then. That other me will probably be a real pain in the neck!
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64501 Dec 11, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Blow it out your ass, Russ.
I no more believe in aliens than I do in a magic, bearded Jew sitting on a gold throne in the clouds that has an over-riding concern about my sex life.
I remain open to possibilities of SOME form of life existing elsewhere -- even if it's (for example) a simple one-celled plant form on Titan.
ET? Not likely.
What about possible ET's in black holes? After all...it is theoretically possible that earth "evolved" out of such?

Adelaide, Australia

#64502 Dec 11, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>One day you will realize that trying to poke holes in evolutionary theory does not equal evidence for creation. That will be a momentous occasion. Pointing out one small, inconsequential thing and ignoring the plethora of evidence for evolution is dishonest and desperate. Why do you even care so much? Can't you still enjoy your god and your religion without frantically trying to disprove one of the most successful theories in modern science? It's akin to some idiot trying to prove that the sun revolves around the earth because his holy book told him so. Oh wait, you guys already did that. Didn't work out too well.
Aristotle first suggested an earth-centric universe 384–322 BC

Ptolemy (AD 2nd century) expanded these ideas into what became known as the Ptolemaic system

A Christian, 16th century, Copernicus (1473–1543) postulated as a better explanation that the earth and planets revolved around the sun

Another Christian, 17th century, Galileo (1564–1642), with his telescope, was able to carry out repeated and repeatable observations which refuted Aristotle and Ptolemy, and supported Copernicus.

The heliocentric or Copernican system opposed the views of the astronomer-philosophers of the day, who earned their livelihood by teaching Aristotle and Ptolemy, and so were biased against change.

They therefore either ignored, ridiculed, destroyed, or hostilely opposed Galileo’’s writings.

Many Catholic Church leaders allowed themselves to be persuaded by the Aristotelians at the universities that the geocentric system was taught in Scripture and that Galileo was contradicting the Bible.

This was because:
The Church leaders had accepted as dogma the belief system of the pagan (i.e. non-Christian) philosophers, Aristotle and Ptolemy, which had become the worldview of the then scientific establishment. The result was that Church leaders were using the knowledge of the day to interpret Scripture, instead of using the Bible to evaluate the knowledge of the day.

They clung to the ‘majority opinion’ about the universe and rejected the ‘minority view’ of Copernicus and Galileo, even after Galileo had presented indisputable evidence based on repeatable scientific observations that the majority was wrong.

They picked out a few verses from the Bible which they thought said that the sun moved around the earth, but they failed to realize that Bible texts must be understood in terms of what the author intended to convey. Thus, when Moses wrote of the ‘risen’ sun (Genesis 19:23) and sun ‘set’(Genesis 28:11), his purpose was not to formulate an astronomical dictum. Rather he, by God’s spirit, was using the language of appearance so that his readers would easily understand what time of day he was talking about. And it is perfectly valid in physics to describe motion relative to the most convenient reference frame, which in this case is the earth

They therefore bitterly opposed Galileo to the extent of forcing him on pain of death to repudiate his findings.

A lesson to the Church today

Do not compromise...

And you, timn17

Need to read more..
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64503 Dec 11, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, this is self-contradictory for both creos AND evos, since there could be no sense of meaning in the word "once" is there is no time.
Hense the major "flaw" in the science of "cloning" (and why ETHICS in such are crucial IM(humble)O!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64504 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> If you are from the US, UK, western Europe and some other parts of the world, you would know that there is only one God. The bible said so.
Actually if you had any sort of education at all you would know that there is actually literally thousands.

And how do you "know" that yours is the "right" one? Oh yeah - people DIE, therefore the Bible iz troo cuz teh Bible sez so.

You one smart cookie.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64505 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And that gift is creation, God is the almighty.
Freak, i want you to know that.
and the Bible for some, can be a great book of instruction, for those willing to read with open heart, rather than ignorant narrow mind anyway, on how NOT to be repeatedly "STUPID" for all man(et woe-man) kind lol.

Ah like that werd Freak...it is SO applicable to some of the walking uh "NOT so evolved" rocks sometimes lol.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64506 Dec 11, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> A one and simple answer to this question, humans can never be God.
God is still God, that is why science is still lacking.
And the science of God is still lacking since you have no science to show it even exists.

Adelaide, Australia

#64507 Dec 11, 2012
timn17 wrote:
There. Sorry. You say that so much, and it really gets on my nerves. They make after the fact predictions, and that's it. You can't piggy back evolutionary theory for your predictions. Make your own, falsifiable theory. Until then, your god is not science.
Yes, yes
They do...
From the paraellel, now defunct since every evo-god worshipper has been utterly thrashed, Creation/Evolution debate:
Post number 1354

Creationist Dr Russell Humphrey's model out-guns the evolutionary model
He proposed, using several scriptures...here's evidence that scientists can and have used the Holy scriptures as a basis for their science....
for example 2 Peter 3:5:

2 Peter 3:5
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

5 For this they are wilfully ignorant of, that the heavens were before, and the earth out of water, and through water, consisting by the word of God.

Russell Humphreys refined the Barnes model that had calculated that the current, underlying the freely decaying magnetic field, could not have been decaying for more than 10,000 years, or else its starting strength was have been large enough to melt the earth.

As the Barnes model HAS to be rejected by evo-goblins, their preferred model is the self-sustaining dynamo.

No working analytic model of this has been developed despite work for some 40-50 years.

Thus, no evidence exits for this model...despite being clung to with white knuckled desperation by evo-aficionados

His model also calculated the fields of other planets and the sun!

Dr Humphreys model explains features that are puzzles to dynamo theorists such as the enigma of lunar magnetism

Dr Humphreys also correctly predicted a lower Mercury magnetic field as measured by Messenger 2008 vs that measured earlier on by Mariner spacecraft in 1975.

Humphreys, D R, The creation of planetary magnetic fields, CRSQ 21(3):140-149, 1984

Adelaide, Australia

#64508 Dec 11, 2012
Dr Humphreys also predicted the field strengths of Uranus and Neptune. His predictions were 100, 000 times that of the evolutionary dynamo predictions.

The two rival models were inadvertently put to the test when the Voyager 2 spacecraft went past these planets in 1986 and 1989.

The field for Neptune and Uranus were just as predicted by Dr Humphreys.

The Humpreys model also explains why the moons of Jupiter, which also have sores, have magnetic fields, while Callisto which lacks a core, also lacks a field.

Adelaide, Australia

#64509 Dec 11, 2012
Humphreys model also predicts rapid reversals of the magnetic field.

This is in defiance of the evolutionary models predictions of reversals taking thousands of years 'proving' the earth is millions of years old.

This is the usual wishful thinking exhibited by evolutionists

But please see:

Coe, R S and Prevot M, Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal, Earth and Planetary Science, 92(3/4) 292 to 298, Apr 1989


Coe, RS Prevot M and Camps P, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374 (6564) 687-692, 1995
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#64510 Dec 11, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Chucky is unwittingly not wrong in this particular case. Creationism can never be completely ruled out of science. All they need to is present a scientific case for it.

3,000 years later they have none.
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64511 Dec 11, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Why were many of those rocks created to look like they were accreted to look like they were laid down millions of years earlier in sedimentary basins?
<quoted text>
Were there grapes in that process? Your answer is not making sense to me. I forgive all typos. Want to try that answer again?
The question too...were grapes in the process of making wine? Which grape would gather the others into one fermenting vessel, or was it perhaps just a handful of grapes, just randomly felled in one same spot, in the process of turning themselves into wine? If so, would the fermented result puddle itself randomly as well, enough to take an ancient spoon and drink from?

Oh the profoundness of such processes lol

TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64512 Dec 11, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Look at who is having faith problems. Is it not those who fail to worship at Darwin's alter? If it only took faith to believe in evolution, what are you waiting for? BTW, evos allow other methods to arrive at faith besides only reading one book. You won't even have to believe that Darwin was magic!
Have the outlawed that monkey pictograph past 2nd grade schoolers yet?
They should!

Adelaide, Australia

#64513 Dec 11, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh Subby likes to hide in ignorance. Creos did indeed claim many years ago that there would be no junk dna and that is being validated. I just love to watch evos struggle and squirm.
I have said that Subdud squirms like a stuck pig

But he will never admit he's wrong

Its EVOLUTION or BUST for this guy
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64514 Dec 11, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually Chucky is unwittingly not wrong in this particular case. Creationism can never be completely ruled out of science. All they need to is present a scientific case for it.
3,000 years later they have none.
Sure has left a few actual scientific geniuses stumped over the courses of time on this planet as we know it too!!!

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 wichita-rick 149,093
A six word game (Dec '08) 13 min Parden Pard 17,752
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 18 min Parden Pard 29,806
Cappuccino Potato Chips? America Says No 19 min wichita-rick 3
Nebraska trucker returns bull mastiff to Arizona 22 min wichita-rick 3
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 23 min Parden Pard 40,430
only TWO words! (Nov '08) 1 hr David0407 25,494
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 1 hr Captn Morgan 6,841
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 hr -Lea- 22,239
Truck containing 36,000 pounds of Crisco stolen 8 hr JV Team 44
True or False Game 9 hr -CatCiao- 410

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE