Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
60,341 - 60,360 of 114,618 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64484
Dec 11, 2012
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Yes you can, just as with any other book, it’s easy. However I think you are not talking about the physicality but about the interpretation. In that case too you are mistaken, there are as many interpretations as there are sects of your religion (and every one of the 38000+ sects of christianity claims to be the only correct one). The nice thing about reading it as a book rather than a as a religious guide is that you don’t need to interpret based on what you are told to interpret but instead apply logic and literalness of the writing.
However those passages each mention other gods which you deny. Psalm 82:1-2 even mentions that he joined them, went amongst them, it does not mention anything about over them or subjugation of them, i.e. He considered himself equal, not above.
Yes the babble states he warned not to worship them but not that they were disgusting but he was jealous of them and he said so himself,
“You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God”(Exodus 20:4-5).
Say what? He is said in Revelation 19:6 (KJV) to be omnipotent yet he is petty?
Why is your view so different from your gods? So again you are ignoring the word of your god, some christian you turned out to be.
Babbling!
You are interpreting the bible wrongly.
Go on with your gibberish.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64485
Dec 11, 2012
 
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
Things that make me think:
Odd that an Aussie, talking to a fellow Aussie, would use an American reference. One would think that with all the racial issue the white Australians had with the Australian Aborigines, that a suitable Australian reference would have been used, thus ensuring the understanding between the two Aussies.
I am sure that many excuses will or could be made, but I wouldn't believe them. I believe that someone is lying about being an Aussie.
MazHere, whatcho lyin' fer agin
Honey

Nerang, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64486
Dec 11, 2012
 
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
I'd like to pick Kali to be born in the image of. I could always use and extra hand...
HAHA that's more like it These E vs C comments can get a little heated and at the end of the day every sane person knows there isn't a god I mean DAR. I mean OK GOD, COME ON, SMITE ME O GOD, COME ON waiting waiting It's just soooo silly, but fun
Honey

Nerang, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64487
Dec 11, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course even the "95%" would have to admit that with a best case scenario 2/3 of the people on the planet are wrong. There is a slue of gods out there and the only thing they all agree on is that the others don't exist.
Hmm, maybe they are more right than I give them credit for. The whole world is at least 99.9% atheist!
O MY GOD YOUR RIGHT you should get a medal, you are brilliant. HAHA love it Thanks for the laugh.:)

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64488
Dec 11, 2012
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
More admission of your ignorance, how do you live with yourself?
Science is working on answers, unlike the godbots who are stuck in the bronze age yet willing to embrace that science that they decry to decry that science.
God is a God of science and wonders. You will never understand that. Evolution of non human to human, is baseless.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64489
Dec 11, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>The different religious sects or factions, does not rule out the existence of God. God exist and he wants us to seek him.
Religious factions are man made.
"Religious factions are man made."

Along with the bible and all the rituals.

Now some religious factions are so washed out they don't even seem to recognize a God, but mainly, yes, the God believers of some sort certainly don't rule him out -- by definition. You might be surprised, but nor do I, even if there are some atheist fundies who do.

I never knew God wanted us to seek him out. I wouldn't mind his wanting us to, but I have always been fascinated to follow up any leads even without knowing or considering his wants.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64490
Dec 11, 2012
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Location has buggerall to do with babble BS
The babble also states there were multiple gods as I have already shown you with the last hour, it even claims you god joined them. A point that you CHOOSE to ignore, that’s true christianity in a nutshell
Which bit of the babble ya going to believe (if any)?
Wrong.
Read or study the first commandment.
The one given in the old and new testament.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64491
Dec 11, 2012
 
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
I found this in my notes:
"set of catalytic residues are responsible for synthesizing ATP"
Cellular Metabolism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =E0G2UpESxV4XX
Note: not for the faint hearted nor poorly educated.
High school level Krebs cycle?

Not for the faint hearted?

Too many wet lettuces on this Forum

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64492
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.
Organic compounds and other essential substances in deep space, the ability of these chemicals to NATURALLY combine to create base elements for life (RNA).....
Hmmmm....
It is estimated that even today, after 4.5 billion years of “hoovering” 14 million tons of dust, around 180,000 tons of meteors and between 10 and 20 thousand tones of meteorites fall on earth every year. A percentage of this debris (from stone debris) is organic.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64493
Dec 11, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Wrong.
Read or study the first commandment.
The one given in the old and new testament.
Why is it wrong? Are you saying that the babble is wrong?

Is Exodus 12:12, Exodus 20:2-5, Exodus 34:14 and Psalm 82:1-2 wrong?

I have quoted a few of the passages that you IGNORE, that is not me who is wrong but you who is ignorant

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#64494
Dec 11, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> God is a God of science and wonders. You will never understand that. Evolution of non human to human, is baseless.
Evidence please, come on, you make the claim and after all that’s what science is after all - to provide evidence of a hypothesis and to have it have that evidence examined and tested by peers. Come on we wait in anticipation for you evidence and just think how rich and famous you would become by providing such evidence. Don’t you think it really strange that no godbot has yet managed to provide such evidence?

However to make unfalsifiable claims as to what science is, is simply lying and lying for you god is the worst possible lying that one can commit, it’s sick and demonstrates a delusional mind.

Evolution is proven, the theory explains the fact, it is measured, recorded, documented and can be observed at this very moment in time in various locations around the world. Your denial of truth and fact will not make it go away.
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TMH...

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

http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/07/do-we-...

And
BMJ
"Problems with peer review"

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

From the New York Times:
The Doctor's World

"For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap "

By LAWRENCE K. ALTMAN, M.D.

Published: May 2, 2006
For Science's Gatekeepers, a Credibility Gap
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/02/health/02do...

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."

http://www.infotoday.com/it/apr03/peek.shtml

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?
Honey

Nerang, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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 :)
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.
But.
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?
Russell

Adelaide, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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:
1.
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.

2.
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.

3.
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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••