Evolution vs. Creation

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

Birkenhead, UK

#71737 Jan 22, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
cultural participation works just as well without religion...so this would Imply a different reason.
(Not to mention religious wars which is detrimental to the species as a whole)
Yes, religion is not required, but is still on valid route to communal cooperation. As you pointed out war, competition with other communities is also an issue, and the potential benefits (real or imagined) of belonging to a particular group can help strengthen that group by acquiring more, or maintaining adherents.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#71738 Jan 22, 2013
neutral observer wrote:
<quoted text>
?????
It is semantics... not evidence.
There is an intelligence in how the universe operates. That does not imply that there is an intelligence guiding it.
Two different uses of the word.
Then if there is no intelligence guiding it, there is no intelligence in how the universe operates if there are no observers.

If an asteroid blew up the Earth, the universe would still exist and operate in the same manner even if we are not here to observe it. It would remain by and large unaffected.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#71739 Jan 22, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
If you know anything at all about psychology... the refusal to acknowledge an obvious intelligent process, is entirely ego based.
By the same token, the assertion of an intelligent process without evidence is also entirely ego based. For example: an invisible magical Jewish wizard that created the universe especially for us.

“You want a piece of this?!??”

Level 1

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#71740 Jan 22, 2013
Evolution > Creation

End of story.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71741 Jan 22, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>It happened at the command of the Creator and the universe and the earth did not take billions of years to answer to his word.
And his almighty felt it necessary to create elaborate evidence just to trick us? Why? Why shouldn't I just decide that a bunch of ignorant shaman are just playing word games and trying to wear everyone out?

Yeah, you've got a lot of company in that category, but I'll take a seat and watch the show when that comes on!
anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71742 Jan 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't. In fact there are numerous scientific organisations across the world who are working on that very subject. But it's more of a subject for chemists than for biologists. It still has no bearing on evolution, which doesn't care if life was magically poofed into existence, just as long as life is here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts.
You'll get yourself stuck up a tree if you don't keep the context straight. None of us have the time to sit around and observe evolution in action. We just analyze what is around us and calculate probability. If you phrase Evolution science any other way, you'll just waste time on other people's stupid debate tactics.

I'd rather ignore the trolls by encouraging thoughtful comments. I'm not interested in taking a victory lap around the city walls for skewering a troll.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#71743 Jan 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
By the same token, the assertion of an intelligent process without evidence is also entirely ego based. For example: an invisible magical Jewish wizard that created the universe especially for us.
who knows...in the Parallel Universe Theory anything is possible...

see ya in hell...

or maybe we're in hell and don't know it....

or...

anonymous

Franklin, PA

#71744 Jan 22, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> We are not talking about politics or nationalism but on homosexuality.
No, we are talking about Evolution vs. Creation.

In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only person who has had the sense to challenge the liberal advocates who suggest that "homosexuality" is the product of evolution by the virtue of its presumed "positive" impact on a culture. Only I do it with logic, not bible thumping so stay out of my debates.

Natural selection is based on sexual reproduction. If there is no passing of the genes from one to the next generation, there will not be an inherited trait. Even if the detrimental effect of homosexual failure to procreate were not enough to prove the concept false, the plain-as-day fact that such a trait is inherently racist by its nature proves the false logic of the claim.

Genes are selfish, period! Groups overcome selfish instincts by experience, but trust is vulnerability sooner or later if the group behavior is not constantly relearned from generation to generation, and it must be learned far faster than evolution could ever adjust for. Trust is also a negative attribute if it is simply a behavior learned by misdirected sexual gratification, and has no ability to discern a valuable group member from a parasite.

There! You have a logical argument. Not that you'll ever be able to use to do anything other than bludgeon yourself under the table!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#71745 Jan 22, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You'll get yourself stuck up a tree if you don't keep the context straight. None of us have the time to sit around and observe evolution in action. We just analyze what is around us and calculate probability. If you phrase Evolution science any other way, you'll just waste time on other people's stupid debate tactics.
I'd rather ignore the trolls by encouraging thoughtful comments. I'm not interested in taking a victory lap around the city walls for skewering a troll.
Since this thread is full of fundies thoughtful comments can be rare. However skewering trolls is not done merely for skewing trolls, it is also to counter the misinformation they spread. Which can at the very least provide potential lurkers to evaluate positions for themselves and hint at further lines of investigation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#71746 Jan 22, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
who knows...in the Parallel Universe Theory anything is possible...
see ya in hell...
or maybe we're in hell and don't know it....
or...
Anything is possible anyway. All things require are evidence.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#71747 Jan 22, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything is possible anyway. All things require are evidence.
All things are evident unto themselves...only man requires evidence.
nemesis

Kansas City, MO

#71748 Jan 22, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Or you both imagined it.
Or you are lying.
Either explanation is far more plausible than what you expect others to believe happened.
I dont expect primitive human animals that believe a story that some guy walked on water to believe that a starship/probe was 10ft from us.....so no, that would be silly, DS!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71749 Jan 22, 2013
Combat-Wombat-88 wrote:
Evolution > Creation
End of story.
what about Evolution + Creation?

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#71750 Jan 22, 2013
nemesis wrote:
<quoted text>I dont expect primitive human animals that believe a story that some guy walked on water to believe that a starship/probe was 10ft from us.....so no, that would be silly, DS!
Emesis, was that Jefferson Starship and was that an anal proble or the regular kind?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#71752 Jan 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.
It's just that easy, huh?
[/SARCASM]
You're so clueless I'm embarrassed for you.
Don't hate the word, " truth " .
A child will always follow the right morals if he or she is given the right training or upbringing.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71753 Jan 22, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>You keep referring to a definition that is not accurate.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mac...

So you don't agree to the fact there was increase in brain size in mammals, which is an example of macro-evolution?

Although I have questions about major transitions (origin of higher-level phyla) in species.
"You keep referring to a definition that is not accurate."

I'm sorry for that. I'm just quoting Berkeley's evolution science team.

Berkeley the center of Atheism.
And you believe you're correct and Berkeley is wrong.

I'll quote an old TV show here.
"Very interesting but stupid"

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#71754 Jan 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we know, you're gay and in the closet. Next topic now, it's getting old.
Tell them your secret...

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71755 Jan 22, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not playing games, I want answers. Because if there was one, you would be posting them by now, wouldn't you?

The bible actually tells you that and Science proves that and yet you still don't know?

Hint: We are literally made of star dust.
So no game? Yet you list here your belief of what man is made from.
So why ask? You're just a typical lying atheist. I see through you like a a plate glass window. You atheist sure like your little games.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#71756 Jan 22, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we are talking about Evolution vs. Creation.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only person who has had the sense to challenge the liberal advocates who suggest that "homosexuality" is the product of evolution by the virtue of its presumed "positive" impact on a culture. Only I do it with logic, not bible thumping so stay out of my debates.
Natural selection is based on sexual reproduction. If there is no passing of the genes from one to the next generation, there will not be an inherited trait. Even if the detrimental effect of homosexual failure to procreate were not enough to prove the concept false, the plain-as-day fact that such a trait is inherently racist by its nature proves the false logic of the claim.
Genes are selfish, period! Groups overcome selfish instincts by experience, but trust is vulnerability sooner or later if the group behavior is not constantly relearned from generation to generation, and it must be learned far faster than evolution could ever adjust for. Trust is also a negative attribute if it is simply a behavior learned by misdirected sexual gratification, and has no ability to discern a valuable group member from a parasite.
There! You have a logical argument. Not that you'll ever be able to use to do anything other than bludgeon yourself under the table!
Shit!
You do have some good points but due to your ill-mannered attitude you tend to spoil it with insults.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#71757 Jan 22, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we are talking about Evolution vs. Creation.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm the only person who has had the sense to challenge the liberal advocates who suggest that "homosexuality" is the product of evolution by the virtue of its presumed "positive" impact on a culture. Only I do it with logic, not bible thumping so stay out of my debates.
Natural selection is based on sexual reproduction. If there is no passing of the genes from one to the next generation, there will not be an inherited trait. Even if the detrimental effect of homosexual failure to procreate were not enough to prove the concept false, the plain-as-day fact that such a trait is inherently racist by its nature proves the false logic of the claim.
Genes are selfish, period! Groups overcome selfish instincts by experience, but trust is vulnerability sooner or later if the group behavior is not constantly relearned from generation to generation, and it must be learned far faster than evolution could ever adjust for. Trust is also a negative attribute if it is simply a behavior learned by misdirected sexual gratification, and has no ability to discern a valuable group member from a parasite.
There! You have a logical argument. Not that you'll ever be able to use to do anything other than bludgeon yourself under the table!
Shit!
This is a forum for all. What you have said had been said before.

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
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 4 min Crazy Jae 1,309
"2" TWO word FUN game*** (Mar '13) 5 min Crazy Jae 1,377
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 7 min Crazy Jae 993
Play "end of the word" (Nov '08) 8 min Crazy Jae 24,034
2words into 2new words (May '12) 9 min Crazy Jae 1,453
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 10 min Sharlene45 159,676
OFFBEAT.keepAword.DropAword.2011edition (Oct '11) 13 min Crazy Jae 18,439
News Will Alaska's weird winter be followed by equal... 1 hr Spotted Girl 39
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 2 hr say it aint so 28,098
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 hr Rod Stewart 39,933
More from around the web