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 (Page 3,400)

Showing posts 67,981 - 68,000 of111,912
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72264
Jan 26, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
What I have seen does not identify a cause of evolution.
I have seen an "If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.".
But thats horsesh!t.
To say "If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution...", is not different from saying "if you have reproduction you will have evolution".
It is not different because production in itself involves "variation, differential reproduction, and heredity".
All they have accomplished is a redefinition of natural processes to suit their view of the natural world.
It's only horseshit because you find it theologically inconvenient. All of those mechanisms are observed. All of them will naturally produce slightly different offspring in subsequent generations. If life gradually changes over time (as is scientifically observed) we will end up with evolution. It's not simply saying "reproduction therefore evolution", it's pointing out that "reproduction provides variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, BECAUSE these are observed. Ergo we will end up with evolution".

You can of course PREVENT evolution from happening by placing a barrier, such as the Earth being say, oh, about 6,000 years old? But then that would simply be arguing against reality. Which is why so many creationists find Young Earth dogma appealing.

So you claim we can have:

1+1
1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1+1+1

But we CAN'T have:

1+1+1+1+1+1+1

Which is absurd. The fact is is changes accumulate over time (and they do) we will eventually get something that is very different than was there a long time ago. The mechanisms are not in dispute, not even by other creationists (hence the love of YECism). But not only are the mechanisms not in dispute, but neither is the evidence I provided you with yesterday, which unequivocally demonstrates evolution via common descent.

Correction: it IS in dispute, but ONLY by those who promote invisible Jewish magic, and the occasional crank. But the ONLY disputes in the scientific community is NOT whether or not evolution actually occurred, but HOW it occurred. And such debate is normal for any valid scientific theory. There has been no genuine dispute over the validity of evolution since the discovery of DNA back in the 1950's at the very latest.

The fact there are incredulous people with no science education object to science has no bearing on the scientific validity of scientific theories.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72265
Jan 26, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, just like in all the other universe you created right?
You clown.
Whatever happened once life begins is a continuation of what was happening before life began.
Evolution is a continuation of chemistry. You are a walking talking bag of chemicals. Chemistry is a continuation of physics, which has been around since the earliest stages of the universe. However while you may like running headlong into the infinite regression fallacy, it has no bearing on the validity of evolution. All it needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise, you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

And evolution doesn't care whether it's an extension of natural processes of the universe or if it was suddenly magically poofed into being by an invisible magical Jewish wizard. We got the mechanisms, we got the processes, we got the evidence, we got life.
God Himself wrote:
So until you can say that evolution was a real phenomena before the beginning of time, I wont have you tell me it began any time after time.
Furthermore, you have no knowledge of what happened when life began.
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. For the EXACT same reason the theory of gravity does not rely on the origin of mass, nor the germ theory of disease rely on the origin of germs.

All three scientific theories work and are based on observable evidence.
God Himself wrote:
All you they is mere speculation which hangs on THE LOGIC in their arguments, which we are gradually beginning to discover is absent.
Furthermore, didnt you hear that all concepts are influenced by brain chemistry?
Ask "The Dude".
All you have evidence of is the chemical process in your brain. Period.
All abstract concepts are stored in the brain as brain states, made possible by chemistry. Do you accept this? If not then what's your alternative? If you do happen to accept reality in this instance, how does this necessarily invalidate those concepts?

Just because the theory of gravity is an abstract concept within someone's mind does NOT necessarily mean it's incorrect.
The Pencil Dick

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72267
Jan 26, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you not describe what 'reproduction' is? What gave birth to the universe?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!

I get it: WHAT IS A "BIG-BANG"?!!

I really like you; youre fun :)

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72268
Jan 26, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because there's a television show saying that this myth is real, doesn't make it true, your Jesus is still a myth.
It was on the HISTORY CHANNEL for God's sake...it's a science show!LMAO

( or maybe it was the Discovery Channel or Nova, I can't remember...but the point is it was on one of the major science channels)

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72270
Jan 26, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Just because there's a television show saying that this myth is real, doesn't make it true, your Jesus is still a myth.
You are wrong. This is just a Jewish conspiracy. Jesus existed.
Find out the work of Pliny the younger and others.
Pliny the younger was from the blood line of Pliny the elder, who witnessed Jesus.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72271
Jan 26, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
All you are doing is redefining reproduction from the viewpoint of evolution, as such.
Not really. Because unless reproduction does NOT involve those other phenomena discussed in our previous post then there is nothing to prevent evolution. Now, if we were all born clones then maybe you'd have a point.

But we aren't.

So you don't.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72272
Jan 26, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
2 answers:
1. We don't know if there is ANY other intelligence out there; advanced or otherwise.
2. The God/Jesus story is almost surely a fable/myth. Science is able to disprove a lot of it nowadays.
It still can't falsify (a) God.

This isn't a bad thing, as it only means the concept is non-falsifiable, therefore not scientific. The Flying Spaghetti Monster is just as valid.

“Somewhere in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72273
Jan 26, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You mean "sole". And it maybe. But then you have no idea that dolphins and whales don't have complex languages capable of communicating ideas like religion.
<quoted text>
Um, no. Evolution is certainly not dependent on the development of the ability to conceive abstract concepts. Evolution is dependent upon biological factors, and those have already long been demonstrated. You may think "religiosity" is all important but it simply is not the case. Keep in mind that religion could easily be equated with fictional stories (since no religion can be demonstrated valid) and your argument would be exactly the same as saying evolution can't explain Hollywood movies therefore evolution is invalid. It's a dumb argument.(shrug)
For someone who cannot even see a simple pun as soul/sole...lol...no wonder you can't see an inch past your own dogma.lol
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72274
Jan 26, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
why do Islamic people believe in 72 virgins in paradise?
The 72 virgins is actually more of an esoteric principle that a number of literal virgins. Many Muslims dont know that and they never will.

The number 72 is of great significance when dealing with Semitic philosophies of religion and spirituality.

72 represents the number of specific influences through which God's action/influence over all creation.

Islam came out of Judaism (Muhammed was a Hebrew/Jew at one time, but got fed up and decided to find God for himself).

So if you want to understand the significance of the number 72, you may have to search about:

"The 72 Names/Attributes of God".

But essentially, to see the 72 attributes as virgins which one will receive, represents the idea that one will "become one" with the powers of God.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72275
Jan 26, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
What lies?
If you want a WORKING/FUNCTIONAL knowledge the universe and whats in it; refer to science.
If you require the TRUTH about the nature of the universe; think critically about it.
Science can provide effective knowledge; but only logic and a will to know can lead you to truth.
As much as it may seem that religious individuals, not unlike myself here are anti-science; we are not.
We just know that in order for something to be absolutely true, it must be eternal.
But since there is no eternally enduring form nor substance in the universe; the only way one can ascertain the absolute (truth) is by logic.
How very Aristotelian.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72276
Jan 26, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> What was the action that led God to do that?
The people then did abominable things in the sight of God.
No time to explain to a sceptic.
Therefore he killed them on purpose. Meaning your claim "He didn't mean to kill anybody!" was complete bullshite.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72277
Jan 26, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Address the point.
If you have a sincere answer to that question( non human to human) show it.
I HAVE addressed it. You've never addressed mine.

Don't worry, neither has any other fundie.(shrug)

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72278
Jan 26, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
So if that be the case, why did I see a program on the history channel that's was tracing the lineage of Jesus?
Was that about the time of the program on the History Channel about Ancient Aliens?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72279
Jan 26, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure.
Like gravity.
Do you now see the implications of your idea that "ALL concepts are the result of brain chemistry" (or something to that effect)?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72280
Jan 26, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I50 years of guessing. lol
Those fossils could be any thing. Remember, to err is human. Scientist are humans and Radio metric or Carbon dating are all human(man) made. God is God.
Which is why they invented the scientific method and peer-review. By no means perfect, but so far no-one else has come up with a better method.

Oh, and God is undemonstrated. Therefore you can preach and proclaim as much as you like, and all we need do is say "Show us the evidence!"

You haven't once in all the time you've been here.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72281
Jan 26, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I have always respected you. But in this case you are wrong. Human evolution from non human has no foundations( basis). It is false...
Those links are nothing but projected guesses that can not be clearly verified.
You're lying (again). You've respected no-one. As you are constantly dishonest and are incapable of addressing scientific evidence in a scientific manner. Denial is all you have.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72284
Jan 26, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
Subjective classification of similarities made up by science, does not make humans ape, no more than it makes him a fish, if you believed that humans evolved from fish.
Are you suggesting that a Human resembles a Chimp no more than it does a Carp?
Fpro

Bedford Hills, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72286
Jan 26, 2013
 
If this leads into proposition that the universe is too orderly/perfect/beautiful/etc. that there had to be a greater intelligence at work in it's creation, the I have to ask this in return. If God was behind the creation of the universe and that explains everything.....who then created God. If you reply he always was, He wasn't created, then why is it not possible following the same logic that the universe was always, and didn't require a creator.

By claiming God created everything, you just push the question up a notch.Who created God?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72287
Jan 26, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said, double standards.
Like I said, your ignorance of scientific subjects ain't our problem.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72289
Jan 26, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
your trippin' dude...all concepts are the result of thinking. Just because the chemicals are there that support brain activity, doesn't imply the concepts.
Concepts ARE the result of thinking, yes. And thinking is made possible due to brain chemistry. If you like we can prove this to you by removing the top part of your cranium and introducing your brain to a food blender.

I can pretty much guarantee you a SEVERE reduction in your cognitive abilities. If you come back as a ghost then we'll know I was wrong.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 67,981 - 68,000 of111,912
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••