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

#80415 Mar 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Can we understand anything outside our universe, assuming there is an outside when the very laws that we understand may not even be relevant? Effectively an out of context problem on a big scale. I look at it this way, just because a person does not understand a problem does not automatically mean goddidit, it just means that there is more to learn.
Bingo.
ChristineM wrote:
Gravity is one of the fundamental laws of this universe, mass exists therefore gravity exits, in this universe the two are the same. Additional gravity may be leaking in however that gravity must meet the physical laws of this universe.
Possibly. I'd rather defer to Polymath though. Wish he were here.
ChristineM wrote:
In recent times, perhaps the last 2 years or so dark matter has been mapped and what has been mapped accounts for approximately 5/6 of the mass of the mapped volume of the universe, as predicted by the “missing” mass. That dark matter must have a gravitational content otherwise the lensing effect that allowed it to be mapped would not exists.
Agreed.

“The Devil in details ”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80416 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Anthony Flew was a philosopher and not a scientist. His one reason for believing in an Aristotlean god was an argument from ignorance:
" Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ...[In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.' "[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
So you have an old man. Possibly in his dotage staring death in his face and he blinked. Not the best role model to use to try to defeat atheism.
but the fact that he did not believe in a personal god, refutes your claim that he was trying to get 'right' before his death.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80417 Mar 11, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Nothing but opinion, no scientific evidence to back it up.To say otherwise is a lie.
So you're saying no-one is conducting research?

If not, it is not a lie.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#80418 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Anthony Flew was a philosopher and not a scientist. His one reason for believing in an Aristotlean god was an argument from ignorance:
" Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ...[In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.' "[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
So you have an old man. Possibly in his dotage staring death in his face and he blinked. Not the best role model to use to try to defeat atheism.
I might add that Anthony Flew did not know of the wide existence of DNA in space.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80419 Mar 11, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You liars for the magic goo always say the same thing, we are working on it, we're almost there! there are good leads,it's just a matter of time.Tactics of the lie.
How is pointing out there are people working on the problem a lie? As usual you have a great desire to attempt to smear concepts you do not understand by any methods necessary, despite the fact you have no real argument. The reality is that you find some concepts theologically inconvenient. There is nothing more to it. Your ignorance does not render them invalid.

And it still has no bearing on the validity of evolution, which is really all we care about in the evolution forum.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80420 Mar 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
but the fact that he did not believe in a personal god, refutes your claim that he was trying to get 'right' before his death.
Who knows. Only the very immature beliefs of Christians and Muslims has a god that is out to punish you forever if you do not believe in him. His belief may have been his own way of trying to "get right". He still realized the folly of Christianity.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80421 Mar 11, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I might add that Anthony Flew did not know of the wide existence of DNA in space.
DNA in space? I do not know of that myself. I know the building blocks are there, but did they actually find signs of DNA itself?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80422 Mar 11, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
None of these has even ...REMOTELY caused anything close to life! has it. They are total failures!
Then in that case anyone researching abio should all pack up their bags and go home, because Bo has it all figured out.

I suggest you go and ring 'em all and tell them. I'm sure you will be taken seriously and thanked for saving people from wasting money.
bohart wrote:
you are just a liar
Why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?
bohart wrote:
for the goo trying to cloak your faith in it with pseudo faith based theories as a cover.You haven't had any credibility here since you stated that something that was alive then dead, couldn't come back to life yet something that was never alive could spring to life.You are simply a victim of willful blindness driven by a locomotive of denial which you will stay on at all costs.
Bo? Once you were not alive. Now you are. That is because formerly non-living chemicals have been converted to a living biological organism. As much as you would like to escape this fact, you can't.

Please stop projecting your own failures onto others. Science has never been your strong suit.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80423 Mar 11, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
The more accurate theory has not been hypothesized yet.
Darn. I guess that means we have no way of knowing if it's more accurate yet.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80424 Mar 11, 2013
AyeAmigo wrote:
CREATION HAS A LOT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
EVOLUTIONISTS REFUSE TO EVEN LOOK INTO THE OTHERSIDE
JUST CHECK IT OUT
Linky no worky.

And if you noticed, I have been on each and every thread asking the fundies themselves to present the evidence. And I have also visited many of their sites over the years too.

They still got zip.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80425 Mar 11, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So you agree that I know the truth? lol yay!
The more I learn about the theory of evolution and real science, the more questions I have. But don't worry they are all scientific questions. I will address more later when I come across something else about your lovely theory and I expect you not to be dishonest as a typical evolutionist liar for Darwinist cult. lol
Don't worry, I don't need to lie for evolution. I leave that to creationists. I may occasionally get some stuff wrong, but it's not very often that a creationist points it out.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80426 Mar 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Anthony Flew
Who?(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80427 Mar 11, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
Works by Antony Flew
Ah, appeal to authority fallacy. Pity the man couldn't back up his theological beliefs with science. And as often as creationists love to bring him up, I'm not convinced he would be flattered by being equated with reality-deniers such as fundamentalist creationists. One can still be a theist and reject fundamentalist creationism.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Santorini Greece

#80428 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
DNA in space? I do not know of that myself. I know the building blocks are there, but did they actually find signs of DNA itself?
Yes, some researchers funded by NASA found it. I had a link to their site back aways in this forum. I'll look for it. It's an official NASA site.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80429 Mar 11, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, some researchers funded by NASA found it. I had a link to their site back aways in this forum. I'll look for it. It's an official NASA site.
I would appreciate it. I found several articles on how they found the building blocks of DNA, guanine and adenine as this article states. I can't find an article on actual DNA:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0812/Ar... .

Still once you have the building blocks DNA is not all that far away. In fact it is hypothesized that RNA was made first and that DNA cam later. They both use the same basic building blocks.
bohart

Newport, TN

#80430 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That was not your claim idiot. You said no repeatable science that supports abiogenesis. Those articles show that you are wrong.
And none of them are total failures. Most of them are successes. Why do you make that idiotic claim that they were failures?
Continuing to lie for the goo,...its oh look! an amino acid has been created in a lab, therefore life began on its own sitting on a warm rock! I have a lab result that says so! The only idiotic claim is that you,science or anyone else knows how the mythical abiogenesis happened.

There is zero empirical evidence seen, or tested that life can come from anything but already existing life.To say otherwise makes you a liar.

“The Devil in details ”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80431 Mar 11, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Anthony Flew was a philosopher and not a scientist. His one reason for believing in an Aristotlean god was an argument from ignorance:
" Flew also said: "My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ...[In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.' "[21]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antony_Flew
So you have an old man. Possibly in his dotage staring death in his face and he blinked. Not the best role model to use to try to defeat atheism.
keeping his lifelong commitment to go where the evidence leads, he now believes in the existence of God.[6]

The point was it that he seen the ID of "integrated complexity" as evidence. Which it is.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80432 Mar 11, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Continuing to lie for the goo,...its oh look! an amino acid has been created in a lab, therefore life began on its own sitting on a warm rock! I have a lab result that says so! The only idiotic claim is that you,science or anyone else knows how the mythical abiogenesis happened.
There is zero empirical evidence seen, or tested that life can come from anything but already existing life.To say otherwise makes you a liar.
You are incorrect. And I've been through this with you so many times before. Each time you get argued down to the ground until all you can do is make lame goo jokes. Oh, and you just slammed yourself straight into the infinite regression fallacy.

Again.
bohart

Newport, TN

#80433 Mar 11, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then in that case anyone researching abio should all pack up their bags and go home, because Bo has it all figured out.
I suggest you go and ring 'em all and tell them. I'm sure you will be taken seriously and thanked for saving people from wasting money.
<quoted text>
Why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?
<quoted text>
Bo? Once you were not alive. Now you are. That is because formerly non-living chemicals have been converted to a living biological organism. As much as you would like to escape this fact, you can't.
Please stop projecting your own failures onto others. Science has never been your strong suit.
What a Herculean dumbass! I am alive because a living biological organism reproduced .Perhaps you have evidence of non living chemicals being converted into life by itself? You don't , and this is the failure you are your ilk desperately try to hide and more often lie about with broad exagerations about the tremendous progress being made.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#80434 Mar 11, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
What a Herculean dumbass! I am alive because a living biological organism reproduced .Perhaps you have evidence of non living chemicals being converted into life by itself? You don't , and this is the failure you are your ilk desperately try to hide and more often lie about with broad exagerations about the tremendous progress being made.
Wow, you at least almost stated it correctly. Non-living matter being converted to "living" matter is your myth still, not what we know of based on scientific inquiry. Matter is neither living nor non-living, it just is. That's like saying a robot is a living machine but a car is a non-living machine, they are both ... machines.

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
Should a Husband Help His Wife With the Dishes? (Dec '12) 4 min flbadcatowner 464
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 5 min -Lea- 23,863
20,000th Post Wins - 2d Edition (Jan '13) 6 min Truths 1,595
Two words only please! (Aug '08) 7 min Princess Hey 39,673
The Letter "S" (Nov '08) 7 min Wolftracks 9,470
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 10 min Vee 37,443
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 15 min Mega Monster 7,820
Bill Cosby 16 min Dr Wu 131
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 30 min Wolftracks 150,911
Two chocolate makers warn of huge annual deficit 1 hr Xstain Mullahs 126

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE