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
68,801 - 68,820 of 112,795 Comments Last updated 36 min ago

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73129
Jan 30, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course its tied in christian creationism...It has to be, because the obvious can't be honestly refuted.
What's "obvious?" I don't think that word means what you think it means.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73130
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny how someone tries to use logic to explain something with substance and yet you counter it with "well show me empirical evidence or it never happened."
Logic is not evidence.
Cybele wrote:
Well, then why don't you give us the evidence. You know how scientists have perfectly assembled fossilized dinosaur bones and yet NONE of them contain DNA. And yet the list of dinosaurs is astounding. No matter what you say we know that all bones contain DNA.
Start from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dinosaur...
Not to get all sciency on you but...
http://www.nature.com/news/dna-has-a-521-year...

A little research is a good thing. Don't you agree?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73131
Jan 30, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't want evidences that goes against their science ideologies...they only except evidences that support their own secular views.
Their claim of one of bias impartiality.lol
So what is your most convincing piece of evidence?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73132
Jan 30, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
At what point does carbon dating break down?
If you mean no longer usable for measurement, 50-60,000 years roughly.
xxxooxxx wrote:
And how would you really know if it did or didn't?
Science. Observation and mathematics.
anonymous

Franklin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73133
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Laugh your ass out to death you educated backward clown.
Charles, I think it's time for your nap. You obviously don't have a knack for the polysyllabic.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73134
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Just admit that you have no defence of your point.
You have been pissing your self up since 1949. Huh!
Just admit you have no answer. As evidenced by the above monumentally stupid (and expected) reply.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73135
Jan 30, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Universal Intelligence is a term used by some to describe what they see as organization, or order of the universe. It has been described as "the intrinsic tendency for things to self-organize and co-evolve into ever more complex, intricately interwoven and mutually compatible forms."
Interesting. Sounds exactly like abiogenesis.
Cybele wrote:
There is math in everything. That's the universal language and the universal intelligence of everything!It's simple matrix.
What?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73136
Jan 30, 2013
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>You still don't understand that the earth was purposefully assembled by the Creator and his word said water was involved in the very beginning.
Then he was wrong.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73137
Jan 30, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
There are a number of Scripture passages that identify the flood waters with the present-day seas (Amos 9:6 and Job 38:8-11 note “waves”). If the waters are still here, why are the highest mountains not still covered with water, as they were in Noah's day? Psalm 104 suggests an answer. After the waters covered the mountains (verse 6), God rebuked them and they fled (verse 7); the mountains rose, the valleys sank down (verse 8) and God set a boundary so that they will never again cover the earth (verse 9)[1]. They are the same waters!
Isaiah gives this same statement that the waters of Noah would never again cover the earth (Isaiah 54:9). Clearly, what the Bible is telling us is that God acted to alter the earth's topography. New continental landmasses bearing new mountain chains of folded rock strata were uplifted from below the globe-encircling waters that had eroded and leveled the pre-Flood topography, while large deep ocean basin were formed to receive and accommodate the Flood waters that then drained off the emerging continents.
That is why the oceans are so deep, and why there are folded mountain ranges. Indeed, if the entire earth's surface were leveled by smoothing out the topography of not only the land surface but also the rock surface on the ocean floor, the waters of the ocean would cover the earth's surface to a depth of 1.7 miles (2.7 kilometers). We need to remember that nearly 70 percent of the earth's surface is still covered by water. Quite clearly, then, the waters of Noah's Flood are in today's ocean basins.
Yeah, your book made a claim with zero evidence therefore any water left "must" be from the flood.

Just ignore the fact there's zero evidence for and plenty of evidence against. But none of that matters when Godmagic fixes everything.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73138
Jan 30, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I said I don't care about the politics...politics and facts might be the same to you...but there's a world of difference.
Science taught with political bias, to support the ideology of science is not true science.
Religion taught with political bias, to support the ideology of religion is not true religion.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73139
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The word of God says it came about by the dividing of the waters. This is how the other elements were seperated from what was water to begin with and the dry part became solid earth. This is how it happened and the Bible tells us about it.
No, the BIBLE says it. A book written by men. And quite clearly, wrong on many points including this one.

If you want to look at what "God said", read the universe. Humans cannot fake a universe and the universe is telling us that Genesis is wrong.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73140
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Cybele wrote:
Funny how someone tries to use logic to explain something with substance and yet you counter it with "well show me empirical evidence or it never happened."
Well, then why don't you give us the evidence.
I've provided evidence for my position numerous times over. So far it's never been addressed.

Not even once.

Nothing wrong with logic, but logic alone is not enough. The ways of Aristotle have been considered out of date for a LONG time now. It was that line of thinking that one could sit on their fat azzes and just apply "logic" and claim to be able to figure out everything that led to erroneous conclusions. For example, it was considered "logical" to conclude that heavier objects fall faster than lighter ones. There's a nice video of one of the first astronauts on the moon dropping a feather and a heavier object. Without air resistance they both fell at the same rate.

Evidence and testing are ESSENTIAL to science. Logic alone simply doesn't cut it, for abstract concepts of logic may not necessarily match up to reality. Quantum physicists certainly agree with that.
Cybele wrote:
You know how scientists have perfectly assembled fossilized dinosaur bones and yet NONE of them contain DNA. And yet the list of dinosaurs is astounding. No matter what you say we know that all bones contain DNA.
Start from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_dinosaur...
65 million year old fossils are made of bone? Really? When did that start happening?

We don't get much DNA once the years reach 6 figures. On rare occasions we CAN get dessicated proteins, and they fall in line with what's expected of evolution. As does your list of fossils. Thanks for that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73141
Jan 30, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"A study by ancient DNA researchers at Western Australia's Murdoch University has found the hereditary material cannot survive more than 6.8 million years. Most dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/science/7803373/Fossil...
Wow, as long as that? Interesting. I stand corrected.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73142
Jan 30, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
They don't want evidences that goes against their science ideologies...they only except evidences that support their own secular views.
Their claim of one of bias impartiality.lol
It's not a problem, you simply haven't presented evidence.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73143
Jan 30, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I know that. But there are claims of DNA found in some dinosaurs.
The Mighty T-Rex!
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7285683/ns/technolo...

How's that for a contradiction, eh?
There was none. That the Schweizer piece? Yup, no DNA. What they found was dried collagen, not DNA. Collagen is a very stable protein, and they hypothesize it survived due to being dried out and hermetically sealed, protected from the elements. And as pointed out the proteins were very similar to what we find in modern birds, thus helping confirm the dino-bird hypothesis.

Unfortunately a few popular news sites, as well as many lying creationists keep repeating the claim that they found DNA. This is not actually the case.

Not that it would have any bearing on the validity of common ancestry, the claims made by creo's are about the age of the Earth issue.
wow

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73144
Jan 30, 2013
 

Judged:

1

wow
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73146
Jan 30, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
Man should have an even closer relative than chimpanzee:the potato!. Because the number of chromosomes in potatoes is the same as that of man: 46
The analyses done on some proteins show man as close to some very different living beings. In a survey carried out by the researchers in Cambridge University, some proteins of land dwelling animals were compared. Amazingly, in nearly all samples, man and chicken were paired as the closest relatives. The next closest relative was crocodile.(New Scientist v.103, 16 August 1984, p.19)
It's hard to believe, but each tree has unique DNA. Tree DNA is surprisingly similar to human DNA. It has the same basic building blocks. It has the same bases. They're arranged in the same way. The genetic code is the same in trees and in humans. There's a surprising similarity.
- Dr. Eleanor White
That's like saying fish are our closest relatives because they also have two eyes.

Sorry, but there's lots of organisms which have the same amount of chromosomes as other organisms. But when we do a base-by-base comparison they are very different, including the chromosomes. Now, if all the chromosomal DNA was also greater than a 98% match then maybe you'd have something...

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73147
Jan 30, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course God condoned slavery too. In America in the mid 19th century church pastors were using the Bible as justification for slavery. Rednecks Southerners believed it all.
There are several passages in the babble when god instructs that slaves should be taken and or beaten

Exodus 21:20-21
Deuteronomy 20:13-14
Deuteronomy 21:10-13
2 Samuel 8:13
Numbers 31:31-40 this includes the approval of human sacrifice such a nice role model.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73148
Jan 30, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
so in "reality" there is no empirical evidence carbon dating does not break down as a reliable measurement.
T/F...?
Of course it does. Which is why it's not used passed 60,000 years. Since evolution uses timescales of millions of years its validity remains largely unaffected by carbon dating. There's around 60+ different methods of dating, all used in different ways for different situations. When used correctly, the dates concur.

But since you now have an issue with various scientific dating techniques as well as biology, I thank you for openly admitting to throwing out physics and biology too. In short, you reject ALL science.

Stop using your computer and go back to living in a cave.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#73149
Jan 30, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Then there can be no real evidence to trace how chickens evolved from dinosaurs without DNA evidence.
Actually we have evidence from comparative anatomy and protein comparisons. But if you want DNA then we have that too, in the form of dormant DNA that sometimes reactivates and causes them to grow their dino teeth. This has an unfortunate effect of fusing their beak together and killing the chicken.

Happy now?

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.

•••
•••