Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73587 Feb 3, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>All it takes for you to lose is to point out that you play by your rules.

Trust me, your rules are the wrong rules. Look up the rules of debate.
I don't lose. I looked at the end of the book and we win.
Clone

Kansas City, MO

#73588 Feb 3, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Any one that bears the title God, I am that i am, Elshaddai, Elohim, Nissi, Shalom, Adonai, Tsedkenu, Rapha etc, can never be created, Yahweh is his name.
Im sorry, I dony speak Godsmack. WTF are you talking about? In plain english this time.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73589 Feb 3, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Your bible is not evidence, that is your assertion. Where is the actual evidence?
In the ruins of the of King David's kingdom, Babylon, Nazareth, The Star of Bethlehem, in the records of the Roman Empire, in the Dead Sea scrolls. And much much more.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73590 Feb 3, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly Lan, keep up the good works and may the almighty God be with you, amen.
Thank you Charles

You keep up the good work too.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#73591 Feb 3, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> We don't need shit as evidence. You have no evidence either, but just mere assertions that is subject to wild guessing.
Wrong.

On all counts.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#73592 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Then if, metaphorically speaking, you wish to refer to nature as "God" then fair play to ya. However nature is only evidence of nature.
No. I am not referring to nature as God.

What originated "nature"?

You cannot say that "nature is only evidence of nature", for a thing will reflect the potential of the cause/source which generated it.

Hence nature would demonstrate the potential of the realities that caused nature.

Do you know that nature occurs naturally; without God or an agent?
What supernatural phenomena have they discovered that they can say nature is "natural/normal"?

With what do you compare nature with so that you know that nature is "natural" and has no need for God to cause and guide it?
The Dude wrote:
It's called common ancestry. "Goddidit" is not an explanation. It gives us a WHO, not a HOW. And does so without evidence. It doesn't actually explain anything.
You dont know that there is any common ancestry; evidence only suggests common ancestry.

Goddidit is an explanation.

What you neglect is that there are different levels of explanations; such that explaining HOW does not explain WHO.

And we do have evidence that there is a WHO; in the Character called Jesu(s).

It does explain a lot; you just dont have the heart to search for answers in it.
The Dude wrote:
Baseless.
Meaning?
The Dude wrote:
I MIGHT agree with you here, except for the fact the agent IS relevant when you SPECIFICALLY claim it exists. And you have.
Ok then.

So the agent is relevant.

What next?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73593 Feb 3, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> We don't need shit as evidence. You have no evidence either, but just mere assertions that is subject to wild guessing.
Who's "we?" I am not a scientist, but they have collected a ton of evidence to support their theories, that's why they're theories and not hunches. Next time just say you don't have any evidence, because to believe in something without having evidence to support it is delusion, and you have that in spades thus far.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#73594 Feb 3, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
... dark matter can be detected, even though we don't know what it is exactly.
Right.

"...certain astronomical bodies are not where they should be...", so darkmatterdidit, right?

In times like these, your resentment of God is an insult to your own intelligence.

I know that God is a Genius, because He's sure causing you to make a fool of yourself.
The Dude wrote:
In science circles it is no longer considered a hypothesis but a scientific theory.
Fools seldom differ.*shrug*
The Dude wrote:
It IS still possible that the theory is incorrect, but in science we go with what works best. And so far no-one has been able to provide a better alternative capable of doing the job better. One example has been tried called Modified Gravity, but it simply didn't work. So until a better theory comes along they stick with dark matter.
So as absurd as darkmatterdidit might be, you will work with it because you have no better theory?

I will stick with Goddidit, because I see no better theory.
Clone

Kansas City, MO

#73595 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
No. I am not referring to nature as God.
What originated "nature"?
You cannot say that "nature is only evidence of nature", for a thing will reflect the potential of the cause/source which generated it.
Hence nature would demonstrate the potential of the realities that caused nature.
Do you know that nature occurs naturally; without God or an agent?
What supernatural phenomena have they discovered that they can say nature is "natural/normal"?
With what do you compare nature with so that you know that nature is "natural" and has no need for God to cause and guide it?
<quoted text>
You don't know that there is any common ancestry; evidence only suggests common ancestry.
God Did It is an explanation.
What you neglect is that there are different levels of explanations; such that explaining HOW does not explain WHO.
And we do have evidence that there is a WHO; in the Character called Jesus).
It does explain a lot; you just don't have the heart to search for answers in it.
<quoted text>
Meaning?
<quoted text>
Ok then.
So the agent is relevant.
What next?
Hey, God Himself....you going to show yourself someday. I mean being almighty and powerful and all. Creating all the heavens and the earth must have been exhausting? Plus, your son was killed.........Give us a date and time, you know like an appointment so all humans will see you in the flesh. Cant wait....later, God Himself!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73596 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Fools seldom differ.*shrug*
Yet, your religion is all about everyone being the same. Thank you for admitting religion is for fools.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73597 Feb 3, 2013
Clone wrote:
<quoted text>Im sorry, I dony speak Godsmack. WTF are you talking about? In plain english this time.
" I dony speak Godsmack"

You should leave then seeing as you can't keep up.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73598 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
No. I am not referring to nature as God.
What originated "nature"?
You cannot say that "nature is only evidence of nature", for a thing will reflect the potential of the cause/source which generated it.
Hence nature would demonstrate the potential of the realities that caused nature.
Then it is quite possible your god is also subject to such a cause.
God Himself wrote:
Do you know that nature occurs naturally; without God or an agent?
No. Do you know that it doesn't? No.

Darn.
God Himself wrote:
What supernatural phenomena have they discovered that they can say nature is "natural/normal"?
They haven't discovered supernatural phenomena, period. Nature is natural, hence the word "nature". And it's pretty normal for us to be surrounded by the natural universe. If I wake up tomorrow and find that the universe is not there then I'm gonna start thinking that something pretty abnormal is going on.
God Himself wrote:
With what do you compare nature with so that you know that nature is "natural" and has no need for God to cause and guide it?
The simple lack of evidence and proposed mechanisms for a God.
God Himself wrote:
You dont know that there is any common ancestry; evidence only suggests common ancestry.
Correct. It's possible that there's a cat out there with the DNA of a cactus.

We haven't found it yet.
God Himself wrote:
Goddidit is an explanation.
No it isn't. Cat with cat DNA? Goddidit. Cat with Cactus DNA? Goddidit. How? Goddidit. Where? Goddidit. When? Goddidit.

This is an explanation:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
God Himself wrote:
What you neglect is that there are different levels of explanations; such that explaining HOW does not explain WHO.
And what you neglect is that "how" does not necessarily require a "who".
God Himself wrote:
And we do have evidence that there is a WHO; in the Character called Jesu(s).
The existence of a hippy preacher (who may or may not have existed) still does not demonstrate the existence of a God. If Jesus could back then, I'm afraid that evidence died with him.
God Himself wrote:
It does explain a lot; you just dont have the heart to search for answers in it.
Why? Is there a defective heart condition I have that you know about and I don't? How did you determine this without subjecting me to medical examination? If I was subjected to such an examination then I demand you provide me with details of when and where this took place and what exactly those procedures were. And any minute now our resident UFO enthusiast will pop up and claim to have an explanation.

I'll let you choose whether to continue with this coy back and forth or admit you just used the appeal to emotion fallacy.
God Himself wrote:
Meaning?
You haven't demonstrated it.
God Himself wrote:
Ok then.
So the agent is relevant.
What next?
Then demonstrate it.
God Himself wrote:
Right.
"...certain astronomical bodies are not where they should be...", so darkmatterdidit, right?
And like I said, astronomers use calculations based on dark matter theory to successfully predict the status of astronimical phenomena. This is called testing a theory. Apparently it works.

I'm not an astrophysicist so if you like you can go ask one to go into more detail into how it works.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73599 Feb 3, 2013
God Himself wrote:
In times like these, your resentment of God is an insult to your own intelligence.
I know that God is a Genius, because He's sure causing you to make a fool of yourself.
So you claim. However the only thing you've given me to resent is the ignorance of creationists, not scientific evidence of a God.
God Himself wrote:
Fools seldom differ.*shrug*
But as with all scientific concepts you can only attack it via ad-hom rather than with a reasoned scientific argument. Just as we see with all other anti-science creationists on these forums.

As you say, fools seldom differ.
God Himself wrote:
So as absurd as darkmatterdidit might be, you will work with it because you have no better theory?
I will stick with Goddidit, because I see no better theory.
That's fine. Now all you need do is write a scientific paper on the subject of how Goddidit predicts the position of astronomical phenomena better than dark matter and get it peer reviewed and published. The entire astrophysics community will look forward to your revelation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73600 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
In the ruins of the of King David's kingdom, Babylon, Nazareth, The Star of Bethlehem, in the records of the Roman Empire, in the Dead Sea scrolls. And much much more.
None of which are evidence of invisible Jewish wizardry.

Especially the star, since you guys can't even decide on whether it was Jupiter, another star, a star/planet conjunction, Halley's comet, another comet, or whatever. The Raellians claim it was an alien spaceship. Just as valid.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73601 Feb 3, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
Well, I would say that creationists are sitting at home laughing their azzes off...because they know it takes the 'will of God' to make life.
They know nothing while pretending to know everything.

xxxooxxx wrote:
Is that a hypothesis on your part, or a theory?
The theory of creationists is a valid working theory.
xxxooxxx wrote:
You have no evidence, but you believe that it will happen...that would imply faith on your part would it not?lol
The fact there is scientific research belies your claim.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73602 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
"Evolutionists generally believe that although the spontaneous generation of life from non-living matter was a highly improbable event
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Spontaneous generation is creationism. Your source then goes on to make up numbers regarding probabilities which is not possible since not all the variables are known. Ergo, they lied (again). Also, like you, their "scientific alternative" is Goddidit with magic, which makes it highly hypocritical of them to pretend to be discussing scientific evidence.
Langoliers wrote:
If all life started from one speck of life, some where along the line you'll wind up with your first human. Why then would there not be a bottleneck.
If we have our "first" human, then it logically had parents. If so, there is logically numerous contemporaries who are still genetically compatible. That's what the genetics shows. You remove those contemporaries with the Adam & Eve and Noah scenarios.
Langoliers wrote:
Oh and God has no issues with your sexual reproduction bottlenecks.
You can't seem to grasp that God controls the laws they don't control him. Go figure.
Yes, I know. Meaning evidence is meaningless to you because any and all problems are fixed with Godmagic. Meaning you lie every time you pretend to talk about evidence. And ironically, you attempt to control God by placing your own laws upon Him, because He MUST have done things the way YOU say so.
Langoliers wrote:
10 ways Darwin got it wrong.
#1 The warm pond theory
The scientific evidence indicates that life did not and could not somehow arise spontaneously from some warm little pond, as Darwin thought. What we find from the evidence around us and from the fossil record is that, as the law of biogenesis states, life can only arise from life.
That's not what Pasteur's "law" was referring to. It was about the erroneous notion that fully-formed organisms such as maggots in carcasses (later found to be the result of flies laying eggs in bodies) could arise spontaneously. It said nothing about the natural development of life via chemistry. This is still irrelevant to the validity of evolution.
Langoliers wrote:
The supposed simplicity of the cell. So it turns out that cells are far more complex and sophisticated than Darwin could have conceived of. How did mere chance produce this, when even human planning and engineering cannot? In fact, no laboratory has come close to replicating even a single human hair!
Equating evolution with "random chance" is a long time creo caricature. This does not address the validity of evolution. In science emergent properties deals with natural forces producing complexity.
Langoliers wrote:
Everything we know about DNA indicates that it programs a species to remain within the limits of its own general type. Genetic changes that do occur are typically small and inconsequential, while large mutations, rather than producing improved and novel designs, are overwhelmingly harmful to the organism's survival.
There are no limits, unless the Earth is 6,000 years old. Mutations can be detrimental, neutral or beneficial. Detrimental mutations tend to be weeded out via natural selection, which fundies always ignore.

Continued:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73603 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
Yet faced with the evidence, he (Darwin) admitted: "The distinctiveness of specific forms, and their not being blended together by innumerable transitional links, is a very obvious difficulty... Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection to my theory"
Yes, as a good scientist he proposed problems and potential falsifications to his theory. He was later vindicated:

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

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Evidence is subsequently ignored by fundies.
Langoliers wrote:
But have we seen either in present life forms or in the fossil record that creatures are slowly changing and mutating from one kind to another?
Yes. See fossil record and ring species.
Langoliers wrote:
His discounting of the Cambrian Explosion.
Um, soft bodied organisms followed by hard-bodied organisms and increasing biological diversity anyone? Nope, sounds like evolution hadn't discounted it at all!

Though not sure why YEC's would want to mention events that apparently took longer than they think the Earth has been around for.
Langoliers wrote:
Yet this argument is based on an analogy that's quite weak since the fossil record shows no gradual evolution of these limbs from one species to another.
Which of course is incorrect, as seen in the fossil record. It's also interesting that homology also happens to fit into the same nested hierarchies observed in DNA. Which is why dolphins (as per their example) are more closely related to us than fish. They go on to postulate "common design" as an alternative. Such a limitation is only necessary to save on time and resources. Something an all-powerful immortal entity has a limitless supply of.
Langoliers wrote:
His theory of human beings evolving from apes.
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...

Not wrong.
Langoliers wrote:
His theory of the tree of life.
It was called nested hierarchies. First spotted by a creationist. Then later by others, including Darwin.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Langoliers wrote:
As Jonathan (AIDS denier) Wells notes: " no one has ever observed speciation"
Wrong. Ring species. Besides, when fundies say "speciation" what they really mean is violation of nested hierarchies (dog giving birth to cat) and-or complete biological class change (bacteria to a human). And they mean it to be within a human lifetime. These would falsify evolution.
Langoliers wrote:
His rejection of biblical creation by God
At most the man was an agnostic, but he did see that nature did not support Biblical literalism. However people's religious opinions have no bearing on the validity of science.

Continued:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73604 Feb 3, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
He promoted the idea that the world of matter and energy, mainly through natural selection and variation, might well account for all life we see around us a philosophy of science known as scientific materialism.
That can't be said only of him, but rather science as a whole. And to correct this gross miscaricature of science here, it does not rely on the "philosophy of scientific materialism", also often referred to as "philosophical naturalism", but instead relies on METHODOLOGICAL naturalism. This argument merely demonstrates creo's are just pished that they still can't perform scientific tests on magic. That's their problem.

And finally:

"We believe that Scripture, both the Old and the New Testament, is God's revelation, and His complete, expressed will to humanity. Scripture is inspired in thought and word, infallible in the original writings, is the supreme and final authority in faith and in life, and is the foundation of all truth"

http://www.ucg.org/fundamental-beliefs-info/

Which is an admission of throwing scientific objectivity out the window. So I ask again, why be dishonest and pretend that evidence is important when your "scientific alternative" is Jewmagic?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73605 Feb 3, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So if nothing was created as you claim, you imply that it(Universe) has always been here...is that your claim?
That is one possibility.
So your saying there's a possibility that the big bang theory is wrong?
It's possible. But the universe always being here may not *necessarily* preclude the Big Bang.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#73606 Feb 3, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Likewise.
You all are even more into this.
Your response doesn't even make sense in English, never mind in reasoned logical argument.

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
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 4 min Hoosier Hillbilly 30,035
Things that fit in a matchbox (Oct '08) 8 min whatimeisit 12,880
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 10 min Krypteia 23,888
ChANge "2" letter ChANgLE 11 min whatimeisit 26
Topix Talk 15 min Hoosier Hillbilly 35
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 19 min calm down 7,850
Obama and Sharpton setting in a Tree 46 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Roy 150,937
Bill Cosby 2 hr Michael 137
Two chocolate makers warn of huge annual deficit 4 hr TALLYHO 8541 140

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE