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
60,841 - 60,860 of 115,228 Comments Last updated 46 min ago
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65004 Dec 13, 2012
Cybele wrote:
And what are you trying to say? That those who benefit from all disciplines of Science must accept the theory of evolution and reject their beliefs? Wow you guys are worse than a dictator.
Just pointing out that rejecting a major science like evolution will have a knock on effect on other subjects. Reject evolution and you reject geology. Reject that you have no oil. Hence no plastics. Meaning you don't have a PC to type on.

Dictator? Nay, you are FREE to reject reality as much as you like.(shrug)
Cybele wrote:
I never said evolution is wrong. I keep saying this over and over that it's a theory not a fact.
Scientific theories NEVER get "proven" to become facts. Theories are MADE UP of facts. There are FACTS of evolution - life changes over time. And the THEORY of evolution, which EXPLAINS those facts.
Cybele wrote:
Unless genetics can provide evidence. It's really hard to determine from a non-scientist point of view the authenticity of a fossil evidence.
Genetics provides lots. In fact we don't NEED fossils. Genetics demonstrates evolution on its own.
Cybele wrote:
And I don't care who gives a crap about my experience. They or you can kiss my ass and piss off!
Mmmmmwah! xx

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#65005 Dec 13, 2012
Jesus Diablo wrote:
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?
Over 3700 documented deities since the Sumarians, prior to that who knows? Of those 3700 at least 2400 are identified as gods or goddesses.

And we can also break that down into branches of a particular religion, take christianity for example with of 37000 different cults. Each claiming theirs is the only way and most claiming that unless you are of their cult you will not get to heaven.

As to what makes a religion (or a cult) the right one, well of course it all depends which one the particular believer belongs to, that is obviously the correct one.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65006 Dec 13, 2012
Russell wrote:
And all the transitional fossils are ...where????
Page 1, other thread, always ignored by fundies, never addressed. Along with everything else.
Russell wrote:
Not at all
Your perspective is all wrong, Bud
Natural selection is NOT EVOLUTION
It's an integral part of it, along with other mechanisms.
Russell wrote:
The evolutionary paradigm DEMANDS species that are lower in the "evolutionary tree of life"
Ah, so you don't understand evolution. CONGRATULATIONS!
Russell wrote:
Thus, microbes to man, pelicans to people, goo to you
Abio ain't relevant. Sorry.
Russell wrote:
Natural selection was described first by a number of others, including a Christian, Edward Blyth
"Edward Blyth (1810–1873) was the man whose ideas probably influenced Darwin most.
Cool.
Russell wrote:
Also, new evidence has emerged that Scottish geologist, Dr James Hutton (1726–1797), conceived a theory of selection as early as 1794.
(Hutton is best known as the man who proposed that the earth was ‘immeasurably’ old, not thousands of years, because he rejected the Flood of the Bible and so erroneously assumed that there were no major catastrophes in the earth’s early history. WRONG!
We know. He wasn't wrong about the flood or the Earth being old tho.
Russell wrote:
blah
A systematic classification system of the natural order of life does not pre-suppose evolution
No it didn't. But evolution is the only one that explains it. It makes no sense under creationism as God can do things anyway the heck it wants. Hence they can't make predictions from it. So what's the likelihood of a fossil with feathers and 3 middle-ear bones? Under Magic Poof theory, 50-50.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#65007 Dec 13, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ and the evidence that supports it is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis. It is not clear whether the changes that bring about speciation are of the same nature as those that brought about the development of new phyla. The answer will be found in future experimental work and not by the dogmatic assertions that the General Theory of Evolution must be correct because there is nothing else that will satisfactorily take its place.”
—Kerkut, G.A.(1927–2004), Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960 (available online in the Public Domain at ia600409.us.archive.org/23/items/implications... ).
Nothing satisfactorily takes its place even now....that is naturalistic
Sorry. Evolution still doesn't rely on abio.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#65008 Dec 13, 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.
Nope, not wrong. There is much misrepresentation and misinterpretation and deliberate lies about Einstein’s thoughts. He made himself clear on several occasions

“Religious apologists cannot entirely be blamed for claiming Albert Einstein as one of their own. He was fond of quoting "God" as a poetic metaphor, in rather irresponsible fashion although, to be fair in turn to Einstein, he couldn't have anticipated the extent of today's dishonest quote-mining.“ Richard Dawkins

Einstien wrote that he had gradually lost his faith early in childhood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_...

Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.

Einstein wrote: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”

Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including "agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a believer in "Spinoza's God."

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#65009 Dec 13, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> An angry one is an hungry one. Get some lunch or break, loser. Lol
You are doing it again, effectively condemning your lack of intelligence on my anger and I have told you before the last time I got angry with a christians is when they tried to KILL my children and before than when they tries to KILL me.

Juts because you come across as a 10000Watt LYING christian had buggerall with my temperament

I love the way you are too stupid to realise you are beaten, keep it up, looser

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#65010 Dec 13, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean genetic distance that results from isolation by distance?
<quoted text>
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?
<quoted text>
Do you have evidence of that?
Yes.

Say what? please read my post – I wrote QUOTE ”The great wall of China was built about 2200 years ago” ENDQUOTE

Where the fook do you get millions of years from. is it deliberate ignorance? You are the on who brought up the great wall let me quote you –“LOL! You do know there are myriads of mountains everywhere right? BTW, they built that Great Wall of China. LMAO”

Yes
http://www.direct-ms.org/pdf/NutritionFats/Si...
http://irpee.bio.uci.edu/ReznickGhalambor2001...

http://irpee.bio.uci.edu/ReznickGhalambor2001...
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/12/13/...
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#65011 Dec 13, 2012
If we consider man from our beginnings, we have been seperated from the other creatures and our refinements are mostly associated with large brain to body size and bipedal locomotion allowing us to more creativly use our hands in conjunction with the cognate mind. The European word "man" means thinker or "men" means to think. The word "man" may have origins from old English "mann" and Gothic "manna" and Proto Germanic "mannaz". We don't know for sure what our Creator called us, but we may be "whatsh macallit" because the Hebrew word "Man', mannah or man hu" sounds similar. The word "mannah" means which you didn't know and 'Man', means What is it? REF Exodus 16:15,31 and Dueteronomy 8:3.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#65012 Dec 13, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
BTW are you using H for dihydrouridine and F for pseudouridine? And what does the Y stand for? Another from of modified uridine?
Nope typos (oops)

The H should have been U

The F was a G and the Y was a total screw up

The code should have read

AUG ACG GAG CUU CGG AGC UAG
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#65013 Dec 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Don't think any could've made it OUT of the _spheric levels from such a jolt?
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#65014 Dec 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course they do.
And they are not evidence, no one claimed them as evidence. They are the motivating factors.
I don't need someone who failed high school biology to try to give me lessons.
Now if you have any serious questions we would be more than happy to help you. Even though you have continually shown yourself to be one of the most idiotic members to ever debate this subject we are always willing to educate.
You cannot even argue until you learn what is evidence and what is not.
Hey, you oughta have to try and tolerate some of that thar type "speshull bleating" from some of dem dar types NEVER even HAD any "high school biology".

(you can recognize some of dem by dar cultish like obsessions with things like ape pictographs)

Timestamp:Years too late. Why do they let kids waste such amounts of time still, in the formative years these days?
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#65015 Dec 13, 2012
Russell wrote:
<quoted text>
A kind offer
And I politely decline...
I doubt very much you could teach kindergarten the alphabet...
Subduction Zone to a Tiny Tot:
"No! That's not what I said
Go back to what I said
No I am not a liar
You're the liar
Get an education!"
Little Tot, aged 4 or so:
"Please Sir, that's why I am here...
And, what evidence is there for evolution? Please sir?
I don't think any evidence you have presented thus far constitutes evidence for evolution at all!
Why are you so wrong all the time, Sir?"
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
YOU winnuh a phat crayon Bingo dauber lol
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#65016 Dec 13, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not wrong all of the time. In fact I usually tell people that I am out of my specialty too far when I am getting uncomfortable answering a question with any authority. And I seriously doubt if you can find somewhere where I was wrong. You will not find a serious mistake of mine at all. Where serious mistakes are made by you in at least every other post.
So, please quit lying. Try to learn what you are arguing about. Perhaps you should read your damn Bible so that you will know how terribly wrong it is.
and you winnuh one too lol
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#65017 Dec 13, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Your ignorance is NOT our problem.
And why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?
There's a name for the sub-par, UNethical of the species like that-but don't tell them--they would never believe you.

We'll pwetend, and call it "Code Hpe2Dnth" umm...degree.

(Deya Santerclaws--may I have a wet noodle, made of cattail strands plz? I pwomise only to use it on the willfully ignorant and hatefilled lol)
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#65018 Dec 13, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Over 3700 documented deities since the Sumarians, prior to that who knows? Of those 3700 at least 2400 are identified as gods or goddesses.
And we can also break that down into branches of a particular religion, take christianity for example with of 37000 different cults. Each claiming theirs is the only way and most claiming that unless you are of their cult you will not get to heaven.
As to what makes a religion (or a cult) the right one, well of course it all depends which one the particular believer belongs to, that is obviously the correct one.
So, not anyone else's problem, till such becomes a problem. A lot of people don't like blond haired people either. Should they all be castrated and dehumanized because of it?

No, and neither should the ones that prefer it, unless of course any of them become willfull ignorance problems, willfully hating on others, for having their OWN likes and dislikes, and of course, thier OWN opinions and beliefs.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#65019 Dec 13, 2012
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, not wrong. There is much misrepresentation and misinterpretation and deliberate lies about Einstein’s thoughts. He made himself clear on several occasions
“Religious apologists cannot entirely be blamed for claiming Albert Einstein as one of their own. He was fond of quoting "God" as a poetic metaphor, in rather irresponsible fashion although, to be fair in turn to Einstein, he couldn't have anticipated the extent of today's dishonest quote-mining.“ Richard Dawkins
Einstien wrote that he had gradually lost his faith early in childhood:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_...
Einstein stated: "I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one.
Einstein wrote: "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this. These subtilised interpretations are highly manifold according to their nature and have almost nothing to do with the original text. For me the Jewish religion like all other religions is an incarnation of the most childish superstitions.”
Einstein used many labels to describe his religious views, including "agnostic", "religious nonbeliever" and a believer in "Spinoza's God."
YOU seem to be one of those example species with a willfull ignorance problem.

I referenced what Einstien said DIRECTLY (as in from the source of, not from a chain of ignorant, grade school tin can he said she said garbage), based on DIRECT interviews and LETTERS, as spoken and written by the man himself.

Emphasis on "DIRECT", as in out of the mans mouth, and penned from his hands himself.

And it's not nice to ATTACK people, that aren't around to defend themselves especially! So in a right spirit, I shall uphold the original author and interviewer of the articles I quoted, and say, I enjoyed reading them immensely, and found them quite enlightening.

MUCH more so than from a rewritten, not even restated factually, often UNcredible source as wikistoopedia.

Back to the dunce chair for you, and tighten your tin foil caplet, it seems to be somewhat askew, and loosely hanging.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#65020 Dec 13, 2012
Footnote: and to say ANYthing else beyond whathas already been posted on the verbage of Eistien, would not only be "willfully ignorant" it would be utterly "abjectly" ignorant as well, because, the written words of the history of such stated, is all the evidence we have, and beyond that evidence, the truly honest with even HALF a non-dysfunctional brain, could ONLY say, "we DON'T know".

And we don't, because we Weren't there!!

End of PSA.

###

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65021 Dec 13, 2012
Maz, thanks for the confirmation that you have no clue of what a transitional form is.

Tiktaalik has not been discredited. Yes, there may be some older forms of tetrapods. That has no bearing upon whether Tiktaalik is a transitional form or not. And it was still found using the help of the theory of evolution. So you are still wrong about the predictive powers of the theory too. I know there are others. Some of them are so obvious that you miss them. For example, the theory of evolution predicts the sort of fossil record that we see every day. It may not be the most useful of predictions, but it is still a prediction. A fossil out of order could be deadly to the theory, the Cambrian bunny rabbit that your side hopes to find some day is a good example.

Now on to Haldane. Haldane was never a problem for evolutionists because WE DID NOT MISINTERPRET HIS WORK. There is no Haldane's dilemma. Not only two pairs are involved in evolution. How many times do you need to be told this simple point before you see what an idiot you are. Experience says we will probably need to tell you this at least fifty times or more before you sheepishly drop this idiotic idea.

Lastly ERV's. You made this incredibly stupid statement:
There are numerous ervs that are not shared between chimps and humans and the only thing that makes them recent is the fact that they 'need' to be 'recent' according to TOE.
I did not want to tell you the one obvious fact that shows that ERV's are old. According to the TOE the older an ERV is the more mutations it will have. ERV's get mutations just like every other gene in the genome. Also according to the TOE, shared ERV's between animals that are more distantly related to us than chimps or other apes would have to be older ERV's. So the ERV's that we share with a dog or a cat would have more changes in them than the ERV's we share with a chimp. Even if it was the exact same ERV, there would be fewer mutational differences between the ERV's of a specific ERV that we share with a chimp than the same ERV that we share with a dog.

A prediction that evolution makes that you cannot claim for creationism.

Now for the big difference between Maz and I and other people who believe the theory of evolution. This necessary difference is obvious to me, yet since I am not a geneticist who is reading this topic every day I have not read any articles that support that very claim of mine. I bet I can find some. I am not afraid to make a reasonable prediction and then find if I am right after the fact. The reason? I know that I am right. My side has been shown to be right thousands and thousands, if not millions and millions of times. Maz and her sort have been shown to be wrong millions and millions of times. It makes them a bit gun shy.

So off to search at bit on articles on ERV's.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#65022 Dec 13, 2012
Still looking, it has been only a few minutes and most of it has been involved in reading this primer that Maz should read so she might GET A CLUE. It explains how ERV's work. And links articles properly so you can check his work:

http://ecritis.blogspot.com/2009/06/winaces-e...
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#65023 Dec 13, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Is the flying fish real?
Yes, but it doesn't engage in actual self-sustained flight. It's another glider that propels itself into the air. Perhaps someday it may evolve into an true flier but I doubt it. Gills are a bit of a liability when you're airborne.

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

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Words or names starting and ending with the sam... 8 min -patricia- 207
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 14 min SimplyLoveYou 145,229
Name something that gets past around (Feb '14) 27 min SimplyLoveYou 540
Pair Took Selfie With Dead Friend, Dumped Body:... 38 min SimplyLoveYou 5
What's your tip for the day? 45 min SLY WEST 807
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 48 min Just TLC 28,500
Songs with the Word "Love" in the Title (Nov '11) 1 hr --IslandGurL-- 297
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 4 hr -Lea- 18,602
Fergson Police Dept. 5 hr A TROLL NAMED SLACK 366
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••