Evolution vs. Creation

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

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

#64814 Dec 12, 2012
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You say:
"You DID state that the ENTIRE old testament is myth and allegory"
Then I apologize for 'misspeaking' and I did clarify what I was saying.
I don't feel the least bit 'frightened' when you say it is the 'word of God' because I know it's not. It just bronze age crap that was written by Jewish men with good motives and it got out of control.
Of course I don't believe, and I don't care if you do.
This IS a place to debate and interact with people who believe many
divergent things.
Do you want to continue on?
Sure!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#64815 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG-WRONG-and WRONG.
You seem to be a classic example of that river in Egypt--dat one dey callz DE NIAL ==ESPECIALLY of the TRUTH .
And in true hateful free speech ofagnostic form, I shall add--Hedonist, delusional, degenerate LIAR.
Atheists Irk Einstein
In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human understanding, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.
— Prince Hubertus zu Löwenstein, Towards the Further Shore (Victor Gollancz, London, 1968), p. 156; quoted in Jammer, p. 97
I was barked at by numerous dogs who are earning their food guarding ignorance and superstition for the benefit of those who profit from it. Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is of the same kind as the intolerance of the religious fanatics and comes from the same source. They are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against the traditional "opium of the people"—cannot bear the music of the spheres. The Wonder of nature does not become smaller because one cannot measure it by the standards of human moral and human aims.
— Einstein to an unidentified adressee, Aug.7, 1941. Einstein Archive, reel 54-927, quoted in Jammer, p. 97
Atheists Miss the Wonder of the World

You find it strange that I consider the comprehensibility of the world (to the extent that we are authorized to speak of such a comprehensibility) as a miracle or an eternal mystery. Well a priori one should expect a chaotic world which cannot be grasped by the mind in anyway. One could (yes one should) expect the world to be subjected to law only to the extent that we order it through our intelligence. Ordering of this kind would be like the alphabetical ordering of the words of a language. By contrast, the kind of order created by Newton's theory of gravitation, for instance, is wholly different. Even if the axioms of the theory are proposed by man, the success of such a project presupposes a high degree of ordering of the objective world, and this could not be expected a priori. That is the "miracle" which is being constantly re-enforced as our knowledge expands.
Well, it only goes to show that Einstein didn't like to be quoted by either group.

In my humble opinion, he was a person who was acutely unaware of his mental uniqueness in the world. Imagine if you would, brain cells having a shape and function, sort of like a computing prism. You won't see it at the cellular level, but when cells are in an array of trillions, these patterns emerge.

In Einstein's world, he was two things in particular. He was a right brain dominant individual practicing a left brain dominant career path, and he was an Ashkenazi Jew, a people who I propose have some unique mental traits in our world. Certainly not alone in uniqueness, but enough so that they might find it taboo to express that uniqueness publicly.

To become a role model in controversial times such as his, must have been a world of perpetual landmines. And while he was only human and enjoyed attention, it would always be used as part of an agenda, whereas he was not a meddler by nature.

To make the problem worse, he probably had other Germanic traits which exploited mental algorithms so similar, that he may have had a very hard time knowing when he had crossed the line. He genuinely never saw the difference between innocent attempts to get attention and meddling attempts to control. Such revelations can be very upsetting and would take a long time to reconcile, but the NAZIs probably made that a much easier task.

All in all, Albert was only human. He was a physicist. His political insights were of no more value than anyone else's who lived in his times and under his circumstances.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#64817 Dec 12, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You have vividly outlined your attributes. That is generous of you.
Big bang and others, are just an excuse or guess to side line God.
I didn't come here to hide my opinions!
bohart

Newport, TN

#64818 Dec 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Your link does not go to an article.
Try again.
Click on the scrolling articles twit.
bohart

Newport, TN

#64819 Dec 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
Origin of life needs a rethink scientists argue...
Duh! ya think!
livescience.com
Quotes from the article:
"In trying to explain how life came to exist, people have been fixated on a problem of chemistry, that bringing life into being is like baking a cake, that we have ingredients and instructions to follow said co author Paul Davies a theoretical physicist and astrobiologist at Arizona state university.That approach is failing to capture the esscence of what life is about."

A terrible commentary about the church of the puddle gooists

or this comment:
Part of the problem is that there isn't really a good definition of what life is?"
Sara Walker co author and astrobiologist at Arizona state.

So my dear puddle people

It seems that life isn't about just organizing chemicals, there's something science can't grasp about, and like a monkey fumbling with a combination lock the faithful keep claiming, give us more time,give us more time, and we'll solve it.Yeah right!
stormy

Clarksburg, WV

#64820 Dec 12, 2012
I believe when the people get so bad, with the killings and have no sense of right and wrong,
This earth will end. It could start again. who
knows? The professors? Yea, right

You know? diseases could wipe us all off the
face of this earth?
So I will still believe in God and what he
wants to do with us, will be just fine with me.
Makes as much sense as anything you say. Evil
never wins, and that is what the people are now.
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

#64821 Dec 12, 2012
Arguing apples (beliefs=religion) with oranges (facts=science) will never answer the problem. It's a categorical mistake. You'll just go round 'n round trying to convince a believer with facts or trying to dispel facts with beliefs.

With that said, I think the more interesting question is if there is a deity, to which religion does it belong? Hindu? Islam? Inca? Christian? etc. There must be hundreds of religious deities each with their own unique sacred and infallible religious texts (the bible, Quran, etc). One would think you'd better have chosen the right one or face the consequences. So what makes one religion the correct one and the others not?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64822 Dec 12, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it only goes to show that Einstein didn't like to be quoted by either group.
In my humble opinion, he was a person who was acutely unaware of his mental uniqueness in the world. Imagine if you would, brain cells having a shape and function, sort of like a computing prism. You won't see it at the cellular level, but when cells are in an array of trillions, these patterns emerge.
In Einstein's world, he was two things in particular. He was a right brain dominant individual practicing a left brain dominant career path, and he was an Ashkenazi Jew, a people who I propose have some unique mental traits in our world. Certainly not alone in uniqueness, but enough so that they might find it taboo to express that uniqueness publicly.
To become a role model in controversial times such as his, must have been a world of perpetual landmines. And while he was only human and enjoyed attention, it would always be used as part of an agenda, whereas he was not a meddler by nature.
To make the problem worse, he probably had other Germanic traits which exploited mental algorithms so similar, that he may have had a very hard time knowing when he had crossed the line. He genuinely never saw the difference between innocent attempts to get attention and meddling attempts to control. Such revelations can be very upsetting and would take a long time to reconcile, but the NAZIs probably made that a much easier task.
All in all, Albert was only human. He was a physicist. His political insights were of no more value than anyone else's who lived in his times and under his circumstances.
Thank you for NOT sounding like a "know it all", especially about subject matter of OPINION rather than absolute "fact".. that of which most of us weren't even around to have any sort of personal interaction with to even begin to ascertain anything with such reckless, pompous nothing but "arrogance of certainty" of nothing but ones OWN opinion on a subject.

In other words, rational, sane, logical and therefore, relate-able.

Pleasure reading it.

:-)

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#64823 Dec 12, 2012
stormy wrote:
I believe when the people get so bad, with the killings and have no sense of right and wrong,
Suggesting that humanity was formerly all sunshine and lollipops in the past? Don't be naive. Human history -- including that reflected in Biblical stories -- is replete with slavery, wars, cruelty, intolerance, tyranny, racism, sexism, etc.

DESPITE the state of world conflict, the incidence of warmongering (as well as tyranny) world-wide is actually on the DECREASE.
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/12/01/a-future-...
stormy wrote:
This earth will end. It could start again. who
knows? The professors? Yea, right
Yeah, the world could end Dec 21st, just like the Mayans predicted [/sarcasm]. People -- usually those of a religious persuasion -- have been predicting the 'end of times' since time began! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dates_pr...
stormy wrote:
You know? diseases could wipe us all off the
face of this earth?
Yet with every outbreak, we're learning (albeit slowly) how to combat disease. Human lifespans have almost DOUBLED since 1850, and infant mortality has dropped by over 50% in less than 50 years. Thank SCIENCE, and your doctors.

http://mappinghistory.uoregon.edu/english/US/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_mortality
stormy wrote:
So I will still believe in God and what he
wants to do with us, will be just fine with me.
Makes as much sense as anything you say. Evil
never wins, and that is what the people are now.
*Perspective*, stormy....perspective.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#64824 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And those Christian scientists accept evolution.
You also know nothing about God. You don't know any more about God than anyone else does on the entire planet. Everyone knows just as much about it as you do. You are not special. You're not the world's best religious scholar. You don't have extra special access to extra special knowledge that no-one else does.
You're just another fundie with a super-massive ego that's probably responsible for the Earth's axial tilt.
Then you should start behaving as one who understands the bible.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#64825 Dec 12, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Then you should start behaving as one who understands the bible.
LIKEWISE!

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#64826 Dec 12, 2012
(just HAD to be the first to respond!) ;-)

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#64827 Dec 12, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, just offering you some geography, if you want to ignore it that’s your problem. There is a considerable difference between the hills near you and the Himalayas.
You mean genetic distance that results from isolation by distance?
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
The great wall of China was built about 2200 years ago, The skeletal remains of Chinese from thousands of years before that were identifiably oriental. You don’t really have a handle on the time aspect of human evolution do you?
You really think the Great Wall goes back millions of years ago? LOL. Do you know what humor/sarcasm means? Physical boundaries mayb have caused genetic distance but how do you think the Native Indians cross over one continent to another?
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, food has an effect as does environment
Do you have evidence of that?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#64828 Dec 12, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then we both agree then that we've found no evidence yet of extra-terrestrial life and that all these scientific findings you've provided support that? Jolly good!
I was making a point. That science supports the notion that there could be alien life on other planets.

Here is a more recent article:

http://news.discovery.com/space/has-evidence-...
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
See what they have found is evidence that organic compounds can indeed form naturally out there in the universe. Hence considering the sheer vastness of the universe it is probably quite likely that there are alien forms of life elsewhere. Perhaps even advanced civilisations. We have no evidence so far though due to the likely great distances involved and the problems of reaching them.
But does this justify little green men visiting Earth to leave patterns in crops, kill our beef and abduct people for weird sexual experiments?
No.
I never mentioned anything about grey lizards.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
... which later turned out to be produced by con-artists selling to private collectors, and found to be faked by combining two different fossils together, thanks to evolution.
No thanks to 'real science.' I don't deny the evidence of fossil records. But I am not naive to the fact that fossils have been forged to show evidence for missing links such as the Archaeopteryx or the piltdown man. I'm sure there's more.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You left that part out ya know, where it was the evolutionist using evolutionary science that you reject to discover the fraud in the first place. And the resulting two fossils turned out to be fine examples of evolution. And since you reject said theory based on your own incredulity you should therefore be claiming that said Chinese fraud is actually a genuine fossil of a once living organism. Or forever be known as an ignorant hypocrite like Maz, Russ and all the other fundies.
Comprende?
I don't reject real science. I said evolution is a THEORY just like the Big Bang.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#64829 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
It's a scientific hypothesis, of UNKNOWN, INcomplete origin.
Finally, the abundance of the "light elements" Hydrogen and Helium found in the observable universe are thought to support the Big Bang model of origins.
It's also the FIRST stanzas in Genesis..
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said,“Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.
But either way anyone looks at it-
In the beginning... there was probably LIGHT!!!
No, he was correct, that isn't a theory, that's called an assertion, and by adding into the assertion "god dun it" you are making a huge assertion that you cannot demonstrate any reliable evidence to support, because now you have to provide the evidence suggesting:

1. If happened that way, and in that order.

2. A god exists.

3. Your god exists.

4. Your god did it all and not one of the other millions of gods.

5. Your god told mortals about it.

6. The mortals wrote down the words correctly.

7. The words were never altered by anyone.

8. The translations across the languages is accurate.

Well, 1 to 5 you still have no evidence to support, unless you're holding out. 6 to 8 we already know are not fact at all.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#64830 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
No thanks to 'real science.' I don't deny the evidence of fossil records. But I am not naive to the fact that fossils have been forged to show evidence for missing links such as the Archaeopteryx or the piltdown man. I'm sure there's more.
Achaeopteryx is a FAKE? Really? Which one of the TEN specimins found is fake?(hint....Archy is evidence of a REAL organism).

Pildown Man was a hoax perpetrated by a non-scientist. Most life scientists of the day didn't buy into this hoax in the first place, and THEY -- not creationists -- exposed the hoax. Unfortunately, this was not before the unscrupulous news organizations of the day sensationalized the "find".
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>I don't reject real science. I said evolution is a THEORY just like the Big Bang.
"Theory" in science does not have the same definition as the lay term.

"Theory -- A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it."

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/...

Under this definition, the THEORY of Evolution is a VERY good example of "real science".
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>I'm sure there's more [forgeries].
Yes, but most of those are fake religious artifacts, not scientific.
And of all the scientific forgeries found, how many were identified as such by persons OUTSIDE of the scientific disciplines?
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64831 Dec 12, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he was correct, that isn't a theory, that's called an assertion, and by adding into the assertion "god dun it" you are making a huge assertion that you cannot demonstrate any reliable evidence to support, because now you have to provide the evidence suggesting:
1. If happened that way, and in that order.
2. A god exists.
3. Your god exists.
4. Your god did it all and not one of the other millions of gods.
5. Your god told mortals about it.
6. The mortals wrote down the words correctly.
7. The words were never altered by anyone.
8. The translations across the languages is accurate.
Well, 1 to 5 you still have no evidence to support, unless you're holding out. 6 to 8 we already know are not fact at all.
NO "We" don't.
1. There was no "we" in MY post.
2. NO, I personally did NOT reference an assertion-you perhaps are referencing MY usage of ascertaining in a DIFFERENT post?
3.YOU are MERELY ASSUMING AGAIN, you have ANY inkling of who/what MY "God" is Or ISN'T--how IDIOTIC can YOU be?
4. It is a KNOWN FACT by MANY ALREADY- that the book was transcribed from language (HEBREW) to another (GREEK). So your "point" is? NOTHING/moot, as usual...other than you might want to READ what YOU post, because in reference to your own WORDS of

"6 to 8 we already know are not fact at all"....

REALLY?

WRONG.

it's a well known FACT, the Bible was trnaslated from one language to MANY.

Give it up...you lost.

People will believe WHAT they want--and MANY will choose to base thier beliefs on FACT and FAITH-becaise the two CAN and DO, often go hand in hand!

Just like EINSTIEN stated.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Long Beach

#64832 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Did it ever occur to you, that not ALL of those of REAL FAITH, are out to "disprove Science"?
I didn't think so.
That seems to be mostly what we get on this forum.
Are you out to disprove science??
Do you accept the evidence that science has found that relates to the Bible??
TheIndependentMa jority

Somerset, KY

#64833 Dec 12, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, he was correct, that isn't a theory, that's called an assertion, and by adding into the assertion "god dun it" you are making a huge assertion that you cannot demonstrate any reliable evidence to support, because now you have to provide the evidence suggesting:
1. If happened that way, and in that order.
2. A god exists.
3. Your god exists.
4. Your god did it all and not one of the other millions of gods.
5. Your god told mortals about it.
6. The mortals wrote down the words correctly.
7. The words were never altered by anyone.
8. The translations across the languages is accurate.
Well, 1 to 5 you still have no evidence to support, unless you're holding out. 6 to 8 we already know are not fact at all.
Although, if whomever "he" was that you are referencing-was talking about COMPUTERS--then YES, he WOULD be "correct"

TO which I've Already ACKNOWLEDGED the FACT.

Computing Dictionary

assertion definition
programming
1. An expression which, if false, indicates an error. Assertions are used for debugging by catching can't happen errors.
2. In logic programming, a new fact or rule added to the database by the program at run time. This is an extralogical or impure feature of logic programming languages.
(1997-06-30)

END of TTUE Story.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64834 Dec 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
Maz, you are making a prediction not upon observation and experimentation, but upon a fairy tale. That is not science. You believe in this fairy tale so weakly that you will not even clearly state what parts of it you believe. All you will clearly say is that you are against evolution. This makes your prediction not science based and hypocritical.
And once again you link articles that you clearly don't understand. As I said, just finding that "junk DNA" or even ERV's are functional is not good enough to give creationism a pass on this particular fail of their busted world view. They have to show that the function fits a creation paradigm and not an evolutionary one.
My prediction is that as we understand more about how the genome works it will work according to an evolutionary paradigm. And you still have no explanation for ancestral genes.
You don't even know what you are talking about do you? My question is the start of the argument I am presenting but you are too silly to see it.

You are too uneducated to even see any argument Subby. We get 4000 words in a post, not the space to write a book. It is going to be one point at a time, just like our discussion on junk dna.

Your prediction that data will continue to align is not a scientific prediction. Does TOE predict functionality, no functionality, it doesn't matter because anything will be shown to support TOE. IOW TOE has little to NO predictive ability. TOE is not a science.

Exactly what scientific basis do evolutionists use to determine if a so called erv is ancestral or independently inserted?

The answer is your own philosophical asumptions of common ancestry. The ervs that do not align are automatically determined to be inserted after separation and the ones that pop up where they shouldn't be is hand waved away as a matter of convergent evolution.

The problem with believing we share a common ancestor with a chimp can also be an issue of time. It is one thing to have millions of different base pairs separating chimps and humans, but if we both came from a common ancestor, that means our differences would have been caused by mutations in our genetic material after we split away from our ancestors.

The problem: Per evolutionary models humans and chimps split off about 300,000 generations ago. In order to account for the vast amount of genetic differences between us, we would have to have had experienced about 133 genetic mutations in each generation. That many mutations in such a short amount of time is absurd, and is commonly known as Haldane’s Dilemma.

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) 2 min The - Wizard 159,692
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 6 min Parden Pard 25,645
Mongols MC (Oct '08) 12 min Guapo 411
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 27 min Phaerae 13,994
News Cemetery repeatedly calls dead Florida man 31 min Spotted Girl 1
Impossible brand and product combinations (Jan '12) 32 min Spotted Girl 382
Add 2 Letters to Complete a Word 34 min -TheExam- 390
News Will Alaska's weird winter be followed by equal... 40 min -Kevin- 42
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 52 min eleanorigby 39,936
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 1 hr say it aint so 28,104
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 8 hr Crazy Jae 993
More from around the web