Evolution vs. Creation

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

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

Twin Cities

#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.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#64835 Dec 12, 2012
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Achaeopteryx is a FAKE? Really? Which one of the TEN specimins found is fake?(hint....Archy is evidence of a REAL organism).
The feather imprints? It's a dinosaur not dino-bird. LOL
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx_i...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64836 Dec 12, 2012
Subby...Here is an example of a hand waving excuse from evos.....

One particularly remarkable incidence of functionality with regards these sequences is the involvement of the highly fusogenic retroviral envelope proteins (the syncytins) which are known to be crucially involved in the formation of the placenta syncytiotrophoblast layer generated by trophoblast cell fusion. These proteins are absolutely critical for placental development in humans and mice. The different kinds of Syncytin protein are called "syncytin-A" and "syncytin-B" (found in mice); "syncytin-1" and "syncytin-2" (found in humans). But here's the remarkable thing: Although serving exactly the same function, syncytin-A and syncytin-B are not related to syncytin-1 and syncytin-2. Syncytin protein also plays the same function in rabbits (syncytin-ory1). But rabbit syncytin is not related to either the mouse or the human form. These ERVs are not even on the same chromosome. Syncytin-1 is on chromosome 7; syncytin-2 is on chromosome 6; syncytin-A is on chromosome 5; and syncytin-B is on chromosome 14.

http://www.pnas.org/content/102/3/725.abstrac...

This is yet another example of a supposed virus hitting the germ line and immediately becoming an integral part of a system, which is impossible. Refute with research if you wish but I have grown weary of your hummble opinion, circular discussion, evasion and laziness in researching and providing appropriate responses. You chose this topic, now go learn something about it, instead of wasting your entire day, every day, on line talking in circles.

I am actually presenting the start of an argument in this simple question you have refused to answer.

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

If you don't know, just say so. If the correct answer is too obviously biased to speak to then just keep evading it.

I have given my answer to the question, now it's your turn seeing as you'd like to think you know what an acestral gene might be.
Jesus Diablo

Plymouth, MN

#64838 Dec 12, 2012
Let's be practical for a moment. Our education system attempts to prepare individuals for the real world. To get jobs, to be good citizens, to be contributors. A college education takes it one-step farther and tries to make one think, analyze, and draw valid conclusions.

So, if creationism is correct, then how come you'd end up with an "F" in your high school/college science/history/geography/geol ogy/etc. classes? Remember, the folks who established our education system and continue to run it, are, for the most part, religious.

Thus, in terms of practicality, creationism is worthless.

"What about spiritually! Spiritually it is not!!" Yeah, right; as if God is on the side of individuals like you.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#64839 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
The feather imprints? It's a dinosaur not dino-bird. LOL
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx_i...
Unfortunately, "evolutionwiki" is reporting incomplete information (psst....THEY LIED!).

"Over the years, eleven body fossil specimens of Archaeopteryx and a feather that may belong to it have been found. All of the fossils come from the upper Jurassic lithographic limestone deposits, quarried for centuries, near Solnhofen, Germany."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specimens_of_Arc...

At the above website, you will be given a short description, and a picture of the ELEVEN different Archaeopteryx fossil specimens found.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64840 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Einstiens energy equation is ICOMPLETE as well.
It does NOT validate BLACK HOLES.
Wrong, Einstein's (please note spelling) predicted black holes. Perhaps if you spelled correctly you would have been able to Google search that for yourself.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#64841 Dec 12, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
The feather imprints? It's a dinosaur not dino-bird. LOL
http://evolutionwiki.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx_i...
We have already been all over arch with Subby.

Feathers were found on TRex and are not solely an avian trait. Feathers sprouting on arch, with no dino connection, would be intermediate, however they are not.

The beak is not a beak at all and is shared amongst many different species.

That is on top of having perfectly modern bird footprints dated to 212mya whilst arch did not have a reversed hallux.

And Yes, there have been forgeries, indeed, but not all are thought to be forgeries at this time. Maybe the forgers got better at it.

It is obvious that all the so called 'bird' traits arch had are now dino traits and not exclusively aves. The reversed hallux, was around before arch so evos can struggle as much as they like but their explanation of the footprints is an unknown and undiscovered mythical theropod because evos can't have modern birds flapping around 212mya. IOW you have invented a myth as a handwave.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Level 7

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#64842 Dec 12, 2012
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/X6qZ_ufwmjY/mqdefault....

What caused life to begin where there had never been life before? Science has repeatedly demonstrated that life comes only from life. This is a law of science called the "Law of Biogenesis." The opposite of this law would be spontaneous generation - life beginning spontaneously from non-living matter. But science has repeatedly proved this cannot happen.

So every living thing must come from a previous living thing. You received life from your parents, who in turn received it from their parents, etc. The same is true for all living things.

But evolution requires that, when you go back far enough, non-living matter somehow came to life by chance where there was no life before. Evolution requires spontaneous generation in complete violation of scientific evidence. So evolution cannot explain even the origin of the very first form of life.

http://www.gospelway.com/man/meaning-life.php

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Twin Cities

#64843 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
WRONG...as many REAL SCIENTIST can and DO-DISPROVE...because APES did NOT just FALL out the SKY---anymore than DINOSAURS did!!!!!!!
DOUBLE DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH H.
Of course apes or dinosaurs did not fall out of the sky. I never said anything like that.

Apes and dinosaurs evolved on earth...just like everything else.

And of course we evolved from the great apes as has been proven recently.

Whats up with the screaming??

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Twin Cities

#64844 Dec 12, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Tell it to the dark age, barbaric, illiterate masses of the UNeducated, narrow/close minded hate and vengence filled, twisted and distorted anarchial sectors--because The MANY PEACE lovers of the world ALREADY realize that!!
Maybe you could start in AFRICA, or LIBYA.
You are coming off incoherent and a bit crazy here bud. You might want to set down and chill for awhile

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
A Five Letter Word (Jan '12) 6 min Roxie Darling 2,213
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min Good Luck 155,226
Word Association (Mar '10) 9 min Mega Monster 16,386
Dave's bar and grill,is now open. (May '13) 10 min modhippie1 5,767
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 10 min Mega Monster 8,715
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 15 min mr goodwrench 7,649
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 17 min Bill 13,726
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 35 min Ohio Sam 28,569
"man" words 38 min andet1987 195
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr TALLYHO 8541 38,436
More from around the web