Evolution vs. Creation

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

Birkenhead, UK

#76262 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
What does Richard Dawkins, a mortal, understood about the origin of the universe?
Not much, since he's a biologist and not a cosmologist.

And I bet he still knows a trillion times more than you.

Other than how to speak English, the education you've demonstrated thus far on this thread is less than zero.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#76263 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
It might 'appear' to be flat at this time, with current scientific understanding...the same as the earth was consider flat at one time but was later discarded...
Never the less...why aren't the obvious intrinsic intelligent processes that govern the Universe never addressed by science?
Because they aren't obvious.

That's why you can't demonstrate them.

Neither can the scientific community.
xxxooxxx wrote:
These processes are the very foundation in the belief in God.
But yet, science refuses to look at the actual processes behind the Universe...
Ah, so you are aware of SCIENTIFICALLY OBSERVABLE AND VERIFIABLE processes which the ENTIRE scientific community does NOT?

Interesting.

Please elaborate.
xxxooxxx wrote:
Science just calls these processes "natural" ("Existing in or caused by nature")but never really questions the actual processes directly.
Why?
They do question them all the time.

YOU are the one who claims there are OTHER processes which they are somehow unaware of.

Yet somehow you always FAIL to point them out.

Did you forget that I asked you a ton of times over to present us with evidence of IDC and all you did was point me to things that humans made?

And yet you still haven't appeared to understand the problem you have...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#76265 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Science is an ideology, that for the most part is anti-religion...
No it isn't. That's why plenty of religious people are scientists.

In fact we've pointed this out to you months ago.

The fact you're repeating this lie means you're a liar.

If science is mere "religious ideology" then stop taking medicine, stop using your computer, stop going to the shops, using your car, anything. Go back to living in the woods and go hunt for your own chickens.

You won't because you're a hypocrite.
xxxooxxx wrote:
There are really only two ways to look at the creation of the Universe...either it is the result of a inconceivable intelligence ...or it somehow magically manifested itself out of nothing?
So which is more rational?
Actually there are more than two ways. Here's some more:

1 - The universe has always been here in some form or another.

2 - The universe manifested itself by NON-magical means.

3 - The universe manifested itself by a CONCEIVABLE intelligent agent, such as (a) God or Gods.

Rather amusing that in one post you're claiming that there's conceivable scientific evidence for the intelligent creation of the universe and in the very next post you're arguing that it's INconceivable.

If it's INconceivable then you have no case. Because you cannot conceive of it. QED.

In my humble opinion? If such an entity exists, this thing creates entire universes in its spare time as a hobby. There is NO WAY humans are gonna have a hope in hell of comprehending such an entity.

Fundamentalist ego presumes otherwise. And not only that, but that said entity made the entire thing just for them.

Whoooowaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#76266 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth"
Observer effect (physics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_...
"However in quantum mechanics, which deals with very small objects, it is not possible to observe a system without changing the system, so the observer must be considered part of the system being observed."
..."and God saw that it was good."
omnipresent...
Adjective:
1. Present everywhere at the same time.
Luke 17:21
"nor will they say,‘Look, here it is!’ or ‘There!’ for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you.”
Ah, quantum woo. Note that in actual quantum mechanics it does not *require* an external observer, only that any such observer (such as humans) would be a part of that system. And the problem with those observers, as demonstrated by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, is that the observation itself causes a change which then makes the *complete* actual state of the system unknown. Which is why one can only know either the direction OR the position of a travelling particle but NOT both. For the observation would add energy to said particle thus affecting both position and direction. This causes a paradox for would-be quantum-woo loving creationists.

And funny, once again XO claims science is "anti-religion", and here she tries pretending that science supports her creationist position.

Never let it be said that fundies are not hypocritical.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#76267 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
William A. Dembski
Shame that Dumbski is a mathematician, not a scientist. And doesn't know a thing about biology, chemistry, or physics. Oh, and I'm sure the fact that he's just another dishonest fundie liar for Jesus apologist is just a coincidence.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#76268 Feb 16, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
“The complexity of the simplest known type of cell is so great that it is impossible to accept that such an object could have been thrown together suddenly by some kind of freakish, vastly improbable, event. Such an occurrence would be indistinguishable from a miracle.”
&#8213; Michael Denton
Ah, still that old chestnut. The fact that Denton accepts evolution and doesn't hold the same fundie views as he used to has not stopped fundies from quoting him from his old days. And unlike you, they likely knew that but still quoted him anyway.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#76269 Feb 16, 2013
zander714 wrote:
The refusal to acknowledge intelligent design in the universe laughable.
One cannot refuse to acknowledge what has not been presented.

So by all means, I'm all ears. I shall ask you the same question that I've had no answer for for 7 years:

What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of IDC?

I thank you in advance for not answering.

Don't worry though. Even the mooks who made it up haven't been able to answer it either. In fact they also admitted they don't have one.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#76270 Feb 16, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
“Not only Herod many other biblical characters have been verified archaeologically.
Others not yet discovered can not make the bible to be false.
The bible once again, is real!"
I love the way you are claimining conclusive evidence through inductive reasoning.
The final chorus from the Bach Saint Matthew Passion is in c minor.
The Bach Passacaglia and Fugue is in c minor.
The Mozart piano sonata, K 457, is in c minor.
The Haydn piano sonata, Hob. 16-20, is in c minor.
The Schuber piano sonata, D 958, is in c minor.
Beethoven's Fifth Sympony is in c minor.
Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata is in c minor.
Brhams' First Symphony is in c minor.
The Burgmuller Ballade, op. 100 no. 15, is in c minor.
#3 and #6 of "Buds and Blossoms" by Cornelius Gurlitt are in c minor.
"The Doll's Burial," #7 in the Tschaikovsky Album for the Young is in c minor.
The Chopin mazurkas op. 30 no. 1 and op. 56 no. 3 are in c minor.
The Chopin prelude op. 28 no. 20 is in c minor.
The Chopin nocturne op. 48 no. 1 is in c minor.
The Chopin Revolutionary Etude is in c minor.
The Saint-Saens Organ Symphony is in c minor.
Rachmaninoff’s Second Piano Concerto is in c minor.
Mahler’s Second Symphony is in c minor.
It’s not just classical music, either.
“As Long As You Love Me” by Justin Bieber is in c minor.
"Could It Be Magic” by Barry Manilow is in c minor.
"Fireflies” by Owl City is in c minor.
"Judas” by Lady Gaga is in c minor.
"Rolling in the Deep” by Adele is in c minor.
"Skyfall” by Paul Epworth is in c minor.
"Turn Me On” by David Guetta is in c minor.
"Paparazzi” by Lady Gaga is in c minor.
"Where Have You Been” by Rihanna is in c minor.
Wow! Look how many musical compositions I’ve listed!
And they’re all in c minor!
I guess that proves that every musical composition ever written is in c minor!
bohart

Newport, TN

#76271 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not an "explosion", but an expansion of space-time. Keep in mind the words you ascribe to Einstein here are subjective. Also keep in mind that even Einstein could be wrong, such as his ideas about a steady-state universe.
By the way, if the universe was "comprehensible", then how come that no-one on the planet knows for definite how it started?
All I did was point out that at LEAST up until the point of singularity, the Big Bang is the ONLY scientific theory that makes successful scientific predictions based upon observable phenomena, such as predicting background radiation levels at approx 3 parts per million.
In fact when I say it's the only scientific theory that makes such predictions, not only that, it's the only theory in town.
I ain't seen YOU come up with anything better.(shrug)
And considering your extreme lack of education it's extremely likely that you ever will.
Ahh! the typical puddle gooist defense mechanism, when you lack the faith in the goo you lack education, yet the puddle gooists themselves have only a vague, unprovable theory of lifes beginnings....{ without testable hypotheses and repeatable results all you have is personal opinion, not actual knowledge}..

Damn! your lack of understandable knowledge concerning science renders you incapable of an informed opinon on the subject. Ergo you are a dumbass blinded by a zealous faith in nothing.
bohart

Newport, TN

#76272 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No it isn't. That's why plenty of religious people are scientists.
In fact we've pointed this out to you months ago.
The fact you're repeating this lie means you're a liar.
If science is mere "religious ideology" then stop taking medicine, stop using your computer, stop going to the shops, using your car, anything. Go back to living in the woods and go hunt for your own chickens.
You won't because you're a hypocrite.
<quoted text>
Actually there are more than two ways. Here's some more:
1 - The universe has always been here in some form or another.
2 - The universe manifested itself by NON-magical means.
3 - The universe manifested itself by a CONCEIVABLE intelligent agent, such as (a) God or Gods.
Rather amusing that in one post you're claiming that there's conceivable scientific evidence for the intelligent creation of the universe and in the very next post you're arguing that it's INconceivable.
If it's INconceivable then you have no case. Because you cannot conceive of it. QED.
In my humble opinion? If such an entity exists, this thing creates entire universes in its spare time as a hobby. There is NO WAY humans are gonna have a hope in hell of comprehending such an entity.
Fundamentalist ego presumes otherwise. And not only that, but that said entity made the entire thing just for them.
Whoooowaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
1 There has been evidence of the universes beginning, shattering the 19th century thought of an eternal universe.
2.There is zero evidence , ZERO, of the universe coming into being on its own, only the zealous puddle religionists believe that.
3. An intelligent agent causing the universe fits with # 1, and agrees with #2 that things need a cause.

As for you not believeing it , you puddle gooists have a favorite line ,...your incredulity is not an arguement.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#76273 Feb 16, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
1 There has been evidence of the universes beginning, shattering the 19th century thought of an eternal universe.
2.There is zero evidence , ZERO, of the universe coming into being on its own, only the zealous puddle religionists believe that.
3. An intelligent agent causing the universe fits with # 1, and agrees with #2 that things need a cause.
As for you not believeing it , you puddle gooists have a favorite line ,...your incredulity is not an arguement.
Wow blowhard got one right. But number two is wrong of course.

bohart did you know that each and every time that you have claimed there was "zero evidence" for an event you have been wrong here?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#76274 Feb 16, 2013
bohart, do you think that you can answer the simple Biblical question that Langoiers failed at?
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#76275 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
One cannot refuse to acknowledge what has not been presented.
So by all means, I'm all ears. I shall ask you the same question that I've had no answer for for 7 years:
What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of IDC?
I thank you in advance for not answering.
Don't worry though. Even the mooks who made it up haven't been able to answer it either. In fact they also admitted they don't have one.
SCPID theory is a good one!

“All things considered”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#76276 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah, the good old fundamentalist revenge fantasy. You must be one of them "true Christians" we keep hearing about.
Fact is, the FSM is every bit as valid as your god. Both concepts are non-falsifiable.
There's only one flaw in your claim that the FSM is as valid as God...

everybody knows that the FSM was made up to mock the belief in God.


Your posts are so inconsistent, and fundamentally full of rhetorical BS that they don't even merit a reply. So I will not waste my time trying to address your constant flip flopping and obvious avoidance of the real issues at hand.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#76277 Feb 17, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
Charles Idemi wrote:
&#8220;Not only Herod many other biblical characters have been verified archaeologically.
Others not yet discovered can not make the bible to be false.
The bible once again, is real!"
I love the way you are claimining conclusive evidence through inductive reasoning.
The final chorus from the Bach Saint Matthew Passion is in c minor.
The Bach Passacaglia and Fugue is in c minor.
The Mozart piano sonata, K 457, is in c minor.
The Haydn piano sonata, Hob. 16-20, is in c minor.
The Schuber piano sonata, D 958, is in c minor.
Beethoven's Fifth Sympony is in c minor.
Beethoven's Pathetique Sonata is in c minor.
Brhams' First Symphony is in c minor.
The Burgmuller Ballade, op. 100 no. 15, is in c minor.
#3 and #6 of "Buds and Blossoms" by Cornelius Gurlitt are in c minor.
"The Doll's Burial," #7 in the Tschaikovsky Album for the Young is in c minor.
The Chopin mazurkas op. 30 no. 1 and op. 56 no. 3 are in c minor.
The Chopin prelude op. 28 no. 20 is in c minor.
The Chopin nocturne op. 48 no. 1 is in c minor.
The Chopin Revolutionary Etude is in c minor.
The Saint-Saens Organ Symphony is in c minor.
Rachmaninoff&#8217;s Second Piano Concerto is in c minor.
Mahler&#8217;s Second Symphony is in c minor.
It&#8217;s not just classical music, either.
&#8220;As Long As You Love Me&#8221; by Justin Bieber is in c minor.
"Could It Be Magic&#8221; by Barry Manilow is in c minor.
"Fireflies&#8221; by Owl City is in c minor.
"Judas&#8221; by Lady Gaga is in c minor.
"Rolling in the Deep&#8221; by Adele is in c minor.
"Skyfall&#8221; by Paul Epworth is in c minor.
"Turn Me On&#8221; by David Guetta is in c minor.
"Paparazzi&#8221; by Lady Gaga is in c minor.
"Where Have You Been&#8221; by Rihanna is in c minor.
Wow! Look how many musical compositions I&#8217;ve listed!
And they&#8217;re all in c minor!
I guess that proves that every musical composition ever written is in c minor!
No, but it is safe to say C or D or E or F or G or A or B were used in every one most commonly repeating three of these.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#76278 Feb 17, 2013
Nature has a movement with uniform and patterned recurrence of a beat, accent, or the like, and the organization of this is in particular kinds of systematic forms which are brought about by a series of events that are regularly repeated in the same order. SCP theory explains this.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#76279 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not much, since he's a biologist and not a cosmologist.
And I bet he still knows a trillion times more than you.
Other than how to speak English, the education you've demonstrated thus far on this thread is less than zero.
Sorry Dude, when did Chucky ever demonstrate the ability to understand English? Things must have changed a lot around here if that's the case...

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Taizhou, China

#76280 Feb 17, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
"There's only one flaw in your claim that the FSM is as valid as God...

everybody knows that the FSM was made up to mock the belief in God."

I've thought about that.
But then I thought,
just because someone made up the story about the flying spaghetti monster doesn't mean that there isn't a flying spaghetti monster.

When Sarah Josepha Hale wrote Mary Had a Little Lamb, she made the story up out of thin air. However, when her poem got published, she received numerous letters from women named Mary, and who had childhood memories of pet lambs following them to school, just as the fictional Mary's lamb followed her to school.

So maybe there really is a flying spaghetti monster which Bobby Henderson doesn't know about.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#76281 Feb 17, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I pointed out to you the Egyptians got you beat. That was 6 months ago. Here you are again repeating the same lie.
Fact. There was no global flood. No Noah. No Adam and Eve. No talking lizards. No talking donkeys. And the Earth is DEFINITELY not flat.
So just because it got Herod right doesn't mean that other parts have not been falsified. Even the priesthood have known this for nearly 400 years.
Amazing how accurate "prophecy" is - as long as it's in the "prophet's" past.

Goes all pear-shaped when it comes to his future, though.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#76282 Feb 17, 2013
zander714 wrote:
The refusal to acknowledge intelligent design in the universe laughable.
The inability of ID supporters to scientifically support their assertions, yet want it included in public school science curriculums, is what is laughable.

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
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 2 min Mambie Pambie 25,723
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 3 min toad4754 2,877
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 6 min Jennifer Renee 7,585
True or False Game 8 min toad4754 1,265
tellmealie (Dec '12) 11 min toad4754 336
Federal Disability Insurance Program 21 min LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 13
Is it possible to....... 22 min toad4754 579
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr _hellbilly_ 152,518
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 3 hr Princess Hey 334
More from around the web