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
68,001 - 68,020 of 113,158 Comments Last updated 37 min ago

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72308
Jan 26, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Scientist are humans, and the saying goes, to err is human.
The best answer is faith. No one can really find that evidence except God.
Go on with your fruitless quest.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72309
Jan 26, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think we're alone in the universe? That life only exists on this planet?
Way too early to tell yet. But if life exists here, there's no reason why it can't anywhere else. God or no.

I mean, what - God made this entire universe just for us even though we can barely get past our own solar system? Surely the guy must have played around making other lifeforms on other planets elsewhere too, right? Otherwise He could have stopped once he made the Milky Way.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72310
Jan 26, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are indeed a sceptic. Go through the bible and find out why God took the life of those abominable people and nations.
I did. Your god's an ahole.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72311
Jan 26, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Likewise.
You have addressed none. It was just only an assertion that is subject to wild guessing.
Guessing, projections, exaggerations and manipulations, etc, can never be facts.
No wild guesses. Hence they pass scientific testing.

Hence why you are incapable of going through it piece by piece and objectively showing to everyone here why it's wrong in a scientific manner.

Poor boy.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72313
Jan 26, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think we're alone in the universe? That life only exists on this planet?
Apparently God loves creating life..
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72314
Jan 26, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
wow... so any show I see on tv about evolution, is for entertainment purposes only. Will keep that in mind.TY
Since it's for the common laypeople, yeah. That's why they can sometimes make mistakes (the Walking With Dinosaurs one being an example where they portray an ancient crab as a land-dwelling animal rather than aquatic - later evidence showed otherwise). In the end, what really matters in science is scientific research. Not TV shows.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72315
Jan 26, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Scientist are humans, and the saying goes, to err is human.
The best answer is faith. No one can really find that evidence except God.
Go on with your fruitless quest.
Faith isn't an answer. It may be fine on a personal philosophical level, but beyond that can be considered BS. Muslims have faith yet you would dispute their answers DESPITE the fact you just said that they have the best approach.

Of course if scientists really COULDN'T find that evidence and were working as fruitlessly as you claim, you wouldn't even be able to type on that computer you're on right now.

Never let it be said that fundies aren't monumentally massive hypocrites.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72316
Jan 26, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Apparently God loves creating life..
And killing it.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72317
Jan 26, 2013
 
All you have done is redefined aspects of reproduction to suit evolution theory.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>... it's pointing out that "reproduction provides variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, BECAUSE these are observed. Ergo we will end up with evolution".
See what I'm saying.

It is an undeniable fact that "reproduction provides variation, differential reproduction, and heredity"

But that those elements contribute to a general "evolution", is your contribution to the observations of aspects of reproduction.

Its as if you see two motor tires lying on the ground and conclude that they are put there by the same person.

Now, while such a conclusion is plausible, events could have transpired differently than the way you concluded that they did.

You bear a burden of proof somewhat, because YOU CANNOT SAY THAT EVOLUTION OCCURRED UNTIL YOU CAN SAY THAT IT WAS NOT ANYTHING ELSE THAT OCCURRED.
The Dude wrote:
... 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.
Your head must have been spinning when you wrote that because it is nothing more than circular reasoning.

Change is the resulting of something different over time; so how is it that you start out with "change" and arrive at the definition of change as the change?

It is as if you said "change is changing".
The Dude wrote:
The mechanisms are not in dispute, not even by other creationists (hence the love of YECism).
There is never any need to dispute anything.

We hold that God is Omnipotent, having all potentials; so we can fit whatever you say into the set of things done by God.*shrug*
The Dude wrote:
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.
There is no need for us religitards to dispute evidence either.

However, there is always a need to question the TREATMENT OF EVIDENCE.

The observer always contributes to what is observed; or didnt you hear?
The Dude wrote:
... But the ONLY disputes in the scientific community is NOT whether or not evolution actually occurred, but HOW it occurred.
All thats happening here is that you are asking how it occurred SPONTANEOUSLY while I am asking how GOD-DID-IT.

But interestingly, the involvement of an agent is superfluous to the study of a thing created by that agent.

So I can accept scientific fact without ceasing to believe in God.

However, your whole world falls apart even if you as much as think for a second that God may be real and existent.

I find that interesting.
The Dude wrote:
...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.
Fools seldom differ in opinions.*shrug*
The Dude wrote:
The fact there are incredulous people with no science education object to science has no bearing on the scientific validity of scientific theories.
But its more disturbing that people with science education can be so stupid.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72318
Jan 26, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
So the fundies claim. Of course there's no historical basis for that. Funny how Jesus was running around performing all manner of impressive magic and not one single Roman bothered to even take notice until a minimum of 100 years after his alleged death. Hence why there's not a single contemporary account of Jesus.
Not that this matters in the slightest to you, since you outright blatantly LIED the last time you brought up the idea of Roman historians supporting Jesus.(shrug)
But of course, they were unbelievers like you.They cared more about killing, and pleasures of the flesh than spiritual matters.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72319
Jan 26, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You have no evidence either.
Who are the reviewers? are they not humans?
Damn!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72320
Jan 26, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
You are not Bill( Thewordofme) are you?
We respect each others views and integrity, despite our differences.
You are wrong again.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72321
Jan 26, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Again, is scientific method man made, yes or no?
If yes, it is not all that reliable.
Denial is all you have.(Shrug).

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72322
Jan 26, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
But of course, they were unbelievers like you.They cared more about killing, and pleasures of the flesh than spiritual matters.
In fact what does this thread always deteriorate to, time and time again...

the subject of killing and homosexuality.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72323
Jan 26, 2013
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, don't be a skeptic! Just accept any old BS that Chuck comes up with!
What ever!
You have no idea of reality, you " evotards"( retarded evos)...

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72324
Jan 26, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You sound a lot like Adolf Hitler did. We should be watching your kind more closely.
Likewise.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72325
Jan 26, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
All you have done is redefined aspects of reproduction to suit evolution theory.
<quoted text>
See what I'm saying.
It is an undeniable fact that "reproduction provides variation, differential reproduction, and heredity"
But that those elements contribute to a general "evolution", is your contribution to the observations of aspects of reproduction.
Its as if you see two motor tires lying on the ground and conclude that they are put there by the same person.
Now, while such a conclusion is plausible, events could have transpired differently than the way you concluded that they did.
You bear a burden of proof somewhat, because YOU CANNOT SAY THAT EVOLUTION OCCURRED UNTIL YOU CAN SAY THAT IT WAS NOT ANYTHING ELSE THAT OCCURRED.
We don't have to falsify other possibilities that have either not been proposed or have no evidence.

So what's your alternative explanation for orthologous ERV's in great apes?
God Himself wrote:
Your head must have been spinning when you wrote that because it is nothing more than circular reasoning.
Change is the resulting of something different over time; so how is it that you start out with "change" and arrive at the definition of change as the change?
It is as if you said "change is changing".
Change means something becomes something slightly different. You really need a definition of such a simple word as "change"?
God Himself wrote:
There is never any need to dispute anything.
We hold that God is Omnipotent, having all potentials; so we can fit whatever you say into the set of things done by God.
Bingo. Meaning evidence is irrelevant. Evolution happened? Goddidit. Didn't happen? Goddidit. Evidence of God? Zip.

Your baseless religious opinions are irrelevant.
God Himself wrote:
There is no need for us religitards to dispute evidence either.
However, there is always a need to question the TREATMENT OF EVIDENCE.
The observer always contributes to what is observed; or didnt you hear?
Yet we can test it. For example we can all pretty much agree on the colour "red", unless one happens to be colour-blind (also testable).
God Himself wrote:
All thats happening here is that you are asking how it occurred SPONTANEOUSLY while I am asking how GOD-DID-IT.
But interestingly, the involvement of an agent is superfluous to the study of a thing created by that agent.
No, I am explaining how it occurred. "God" is irrelevant to science, period. Unless you have scientific evidence.
God Himself wrote:
So I can accept scientific fact without ceasing to believe in God.
If that were the case you'd be a theistic evolutionist.
God Himself wrote:
However, your whole world falls apart even if you as much as think for a second that God may be real and existent.
I find that interesting.
You mistake me for an atheist making a positive case for atheism. I don't care. Science doesn't care. I'm quite open to the possibility. I just have different ideas about such an entity as you do.
God Himself wrote:
Fools seldom differ in opinions.*shrug*
I agree you have no coherent argument so instead have to rely on ad-hom.
God Himself wrote:
But its more disturbing that people with science education can be so stupid.
Indeed. Even some YEC's are scientists. Not that they can scientifically support their religious beliefs.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72326
Jan 26, 2013
 
I also note your use of "religitard", as if that's my opinion of theists. It never has been.

Don't mistake criticism of fundies for criticism of theists. Fundies do that because they enjoy playing the martyr complex (just ask Chuck).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72327
Jan 26, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
But of course, they were unbelievers like you.They cared more about killing, and pleasures of the flesh than spiritual matters.
No, they were believers. And they still enjoyed those things even AFTER Rome became Christian.

Twice.

Me on the other hand, I find killing distasteful. Nice try at ad-hom though.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#72328
Jan 26, 2013
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You have no evidence either.
Who are the reviewers? are they not humans?
Damn!
Humans are all we have to review. Your god is undemonstrated.

Besides, to err is to human. You could be wrong about God. You will never accept that because of your own hubris.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••
•••