Evolution vs. Creation

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

Birkenhead, UK

#80880 Mar 15, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
what conspiracies? Are you being a dumbass who couldn't think of any other argument than call people flat-earthers? lol lame.
What conspiracy? Why, the evil world-wide atheist Darwinist evolutionist elitist scientist gayhomo liberal socialist Communist Nazi anti-Christian God-hating Satan-worshipping baby-eating Jewish illuminati conspiracy of course!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80881 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
We all know that evidence proves nothing;evidence only supports.
Evidence is as good as what you can make of it. The same piece of evidence used to argue for a thing, is the same piece of evidence used to argue against that thing.
And this is where you fail. If this were correct EVERY imagined concept would be equally valid. This is not the case. The reason being the scientific method.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
We dont have to understand something to control it; so our best descriptions may be nothing more than a 'working knowledge', and not the truth.
Yes, just like we only have a working knowledge of gravity, but even today it is not completely understood. Despite this our knowledge has enabled us to send spacecraft to other worlds.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Its interesting that you speak of the hypocrisy and ignorance of others?
You, have effectively demonstrated your unwillingness or otherwise utter failure to apply your concepts consistently in times past;
Ah, the "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" argument. There's a reason why they roll their eyes in court every time they hear this one.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
you and that IANS b@stard. I wonder if lightening has struck him yet.
You'll have to ask him.(shrug)
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
You would readily accept that logic is a valid means of discovering aspects of the natural world; yet when logic leads people to believe in God or an Almighty, you got issues.
Its strange how reasoning and logic only seems to work 'your' way.
You misunderstanding of terminology is why you fail. A two-dimensional universe is logical. We can have mathematical models of it and you can throw all the numbers you like at it and it will still be logical and internally consistent. But a two-dimensional universe is inconsistent with reality. Logic, like math, is dependent upon axioms. Axioms are arbitrary. So while logic can work it doesn't mean it's describing reality. Reality has to be tested by practical means. And if reality coflicts with your logic then your logic is simply wrong. Like heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones was thought to be logical until it was scientifically tested.

As it is, there is a logical reason why you believe in God. Mom said so. And if you were born in India you'd likely believe in Vishnu.

And that's fine if you have religious beliefs. But once you start claiming your religious beliefs are scientific then you will more often than not find that you're incorrect.

Godddit with magic is not scientific, period. And it shouldn't even take a rocket scientist to figure that out.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80882 Mar 15, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
After working all over the earth for 30+ years in underground mining, and touching some of the largest fossil deposits in the world, what I see is a world that was created out of water with water,(see the fossilless pre-cambrian formations in the central Grand Canyon, you have to float to it, I have been there) and secondly destroyed by water leaving fossil deposits and death (unlike the pre-cam because God made the earth first without death) and then eroded by uniform means until today. The Great unnconformity proves it. Naturally sea creatures would be buried first. Reptiles sink when they drown, mammals bloat and float, so hence a progression of fossil deposition in text book fossil deposition drawings. An exception in the Lewis range in Montana where the sea life is on the top and Dinos and debris is on the bottom. The evolutionists have been trying to divise a way to flip that range for years but found it better to remove it from the text books. How about the Redwood trees in Antarctica 10ft at the butt or mega flora and fruit trees found in Siberia? This evidence points to the fact that this world was mightly different once in the past.
I see. So you're a liar for Jesus.

Perhaps you're a miner.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80884 Mar 15, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
"Fossils are the most obvious and serious objections which can be urged against the theory of evolution"
Charles Darwin, Origin of the species.
So according to the originator of your religion , the thing YOU hang your hat on is it's most serious objection.
what a joke you are.
Don't worry, Darwin was vindicated.

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

Of course if you had been paying attention you would have seen this the first 30 times.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80885 Mar 15, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
We shouldn't diss on Ayala so badly, he advanced the concept of genetic "load" that due to mutations no species, especially humans, could survive more than 10,000 years... Hmmmm, he kinda stepped on his own belief's, or, was he hiding the truth in the data tables to get published? Seen that before. As all living organisms use the same triplicate code with a lauguage convention was an accident, created by accidents! Genetic paralellism put the the last nail in the evolutionaly coffin anyway. Thats where Denton showed that the right and left appendages is living things are comtrolled by unrelated genes. Their argument is they will find the answer someday, evolutionists always have "faith" in impossible discoveries or lots of time providing the answers or changes needed.
Oh, so you're a liar.

DNA itself is not a language so what "code" are you referring to?

What is the "scientific theory" of creationism?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80886 Mar 15, 2013
Mark wrote:
After working all over the earth for 30+ years in underground mining, and touching some of the largest fossil deposits in the world, what I see is a world that was created out of water with water
Since the world is mostly rock and not water I wonder how you can say that out loud with any seriousness. How was the world created with water? Yes, we understand the idea of water erosion so that's not what I'm talking about. How many mountains have you seen made of water?
Mark wrote:
(see the fossilless pre-cambrian formations in the central Grand Canyon, you have to float to it, I have been there) and secondly destroyed by water leaving fossil deposits and death
Except there ARE fossils in the pre-Cambrian. The whole fundie argument about that is a long known creo lie. And what is found are fossils of soft-bodied organisms as opposed to hard-bodied organisms found from the Cambrian explosion onwards. Precisely what one would expect from evolution. It's just that fossilization is rare, and even more so with soft-bodied organisms. Hence "explosion".
Mark wrote:
(unlike the pre-cam because God made the earth first without death) and then eroded by uniform means until today.
I'm sorry, "God"? Do you have scientific evidence that such a being exists? Do you not understand that this COMPLETELY undermines your premise that any of the BS you spout is scientific? And did you know there are dead things in the pre-Cam?
Mark wrote:
The Great unnconformity proves it. Naturally sea creatures would be buried first. Reptiles sink when they drown, mammals bloat and float, so hence a progression of fossil deposition in text book fossil deposition drawings. An exception in the Lewis range in Montana where the sea life is on the top and Dinos and debris is on the bottom.
Funny, since we only find modern animals in upper strata and ancient fossils in lower strata. But according to your model we should ONLY find modern male leatherback turtles at the bottom of the geological column. Darn. Your premise also doesn't explain how we got fossils buried intact INSIDE rock. Darn. Your premise also doesn't explain that if animals both floated AND sunk according to animal type WHY are there no velociraptors at the top of mountains? They were QUITE mobile and if they died in a flood which covered all land there's no reason we shouldn't find them mixed with modern fossils on mountaintops. Your premise is also referring to a "global flood" which never happened.
Mark wrote:
The evolutionists have been trying to divise a way to flip that range for years but found it better to remove it from the text books. How about the Redwood trees in Antarctica 10ft at the butt or mega flora and fruit trees found in Siberia?
And how did modern plants outrun the velociraptors getting to high ground too?
Mark wrote:
This evidence points to the fact that this world was mightly different once in the past.
No scientist in the world doubts that. But you claim physics itself worked totally differently despite all evidence to the contrary. Since you are obviously not a scientist and CERTAINLY not a geologist, would it interest you to know that the major creo organisations in the 80' sent geologists out into the field and they came back saying there was no scientific evidence of the flood? So they stopped sending scientists out into the field and instead focussed on apologetics.

Darn.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#80887 Mar 15, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
Asexual reproduction would be the most logical way to go in terms of evolutionary survival. so why wouldn't all species develop along these lines?
And why would some species develop camouflage to avoid predators, while others species exhibit bright colors that would attract predators?
Evolutionary survival claims make no since at all.
What and miss all the fun???

Have you ever heard of dazzle camouflage. A little trick of nature that several militaries have picked up on

http://www.google.co.uk/search...

Just because you are incapable of comprehending should not mean you throw in the towel and shout,I dont understand so it must be god wot done it

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#80888 Mar 15, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
Happy Pi Day everyone!
It was also Steak and BJ Day.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#80889 Mar 15, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So homology is evidence for evolution? Do you know how animal camouflage works? You call that evolution? lol
Animals who can hide better can hunt better and avoid BEING hunted better.

They survive to reproduce and pass on the trait.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#80890 Mar 15, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet there are snakes just as colorful, but are not poisonous at all.
Mimicking is an assumption with no proof.
It worked.

They survived to reproduce and pass on the trait.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#80891 Mar 15, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
23 if 7 = A then goto 1 else 10
You mean

(7==A)? 1 : 10
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80892 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>What logic would lead people to vbelieve in some god myth that has no evidence of being real, or in the case of most people, a god myth that has been proven false?
there is no such logic as that.
I am not familiar with that god myth of which you speak.

I know that man came to speculate that The Almighty exists, AFTER EXPERIENCING REALITY.

It is the experience of natural processes that leads man to think that there is a God;

Therefore, the nature of the natural world is evidence in and of itself that The Almighty exists.

You need to be specific about those mythological gods you speak of...

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#80893 Mar 15, 2013
John777 wrote:
If evolution is true? Why did it stop. How come evolution is not happening today. How come there are still not apes turning into men and walking around with us now? Where are these half human half monkey species at today? I believe God created the world and created the "old" stuff in it, he did create time as we know it. Testing that says something is millions of years old can be true and God could have created it a s well to be old when he made it. Was not meant for our human minds to understand in this life.
Who says it stopped?

Among humans, I'd be willing to bet it has slowed since we now do more to control our environment and, for the most part, don't have to struggle for food.

We also have modern medicine and now those born with defects are much more likely to survive.

But evolution is a never ending process.

At least for as long as there is life which, on this planet, won't last forever.

Even our universe won't last forever.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80894 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Spirituality. pure hokum.
Well I could say that the Dark Matter proposed by science is pure hokum too; because its existence can only be logically inferred.

But how is it that ones like you are ready to accept a thing that you can only logically infer; yet you cant see how the reality of The Almighty's existence can be inferred?

Is it that your capacity to infer just shuts the f@ck down when its time to think of The Almighty?

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#80895 Mar 15, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
another assumption to support your evolutionary theory.
like I said, just an assumption with no actual proof.
You keep conflating "proof" with "evidence".

That is patently dishonest.

I didn't think your god liked dishonesty.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#80896 Mar 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh, you mean that guy who might not even have existed? Either way though since creationists tend to be big fat juicy liars I heard there was something about a 9 Commandment? Something about lying being a no-no. For some reason pretty much every creationist on here ignores that one.
The creationist "9th Commandment Explanation Guide" allows for exemptions in cases of lying to promote one's particular religious view. It also states that "lying by omission" is acceptable as long as one makes an genuine attempt to ignore any and all contradictory evidence. If one accidentally sees contradictory evidence, all they need do is intone "I didn't actually see that" 7 times with their heads raised to the sky and their arms outstretched in a symbolic tribute to Jesus. Other than that, lying is still a top 10 no-no
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80897 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
HOG, first I would like to know what you believe and why. I believe that the theory of evolution is very accurate.
I doubt that the accuracy of a concept is dependent on its concreteness; numbers are abstract concepts, and they are quite accurate and/or improve accuracy also.*shrug*
Subduction Zone wrote:
Yes, evidence can cut both ways. The problem for creationists is that it is very hard if not impossible to argue that the evidence supports creationism in any way at all.
Well, I also realized that YOU cant argue that the evidence refutes creationism in any way at all.

How do you prove that things were not "created" when they are standing smack dab in front of your eyes? You can even demonstrate how they were created in a lab.

We know things are created.

The only relevant question is; what is the true nature of the influences which did the creating.

You may argue that 'things' did the creation and not an individual(s).

But considering the fact that an individual is a type of thing; neither you nor the creationists would be wrong.

The debate must end in a stalemate, because cause is reason and intelligence becomes efficiency.

Hence there is no difference between that which works naturally and that which was intelligently designed.
Subduction Zone wrote:
My speciality is geology. Creationists have no explanation for the fossil record. Or perhaps I should say that any explanation they try to make has been easily debunked to date.
So once again, what do you believe and why? How old do you think the Earth is? Are you a YEC or an OEC?
Well, the fossil record is quite an interesting thing.

All the fossils in the world prove nothing, except that creatures lived long ago that had those physical features.

The similarities between the appearances of the remains of different organisms, does not have to be more than that; remains that have similarities in their appearances.

We know that every now and then, mutant genes produce some "differentiated" offspring. But that these mutations take the form of an on-going "evolution" is just your contribution.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80898 Mar 15, 2013
Limbertwig wrote:
I think this post explains fossils best.
Quote - Evolution is simply mild adaption over a large amount of time. ALL fossils are "transitional" fossils. It amazes me that you are able to post a thread such as this, online, while denying the very mentality that made the internet possible. Sir, the irony isn't lost on me.- End Quote.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/barbourville-...
I have heard you redefine the terms in science so many times that I wonder how you nerds actually know what you are talking about.

Is evolution evolution; or is evolution adaptation?

If evolution is adaptation; then we could have done just fine without the mentioning of evolution.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#80899 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not familiar with that god myth of which you speak.
I know that man came to speculate that The Almighty exists, AFTER EXPERIENCING REALITY.
It is the experience of natural processes that leads man to think that there is a God;
Therefore, the nature of the natural world is evidence in and of itself that The Almighty exists.
You need to be specific about those mythological gods you speak of...
pretty much most of them. the christian god of the bible ( the abrahamic one) is hte one i am most read up on.

no, the fact that nature exists is proof only that nature exists. nothing more. In no way does it suggest any god, gids or goddesses

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#80900 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I have heard you redefine the terms in science so many times that I wonder how you nerds actually know what you are talking about.
Is evolution evolution; or is evolution adaptation?
If evolution is adaptation; then we could have done just fine without the mentioning of evolution.
this statement makes no sense...

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
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 2 min Mechanic 28,192
Word Association (Jun '10) 3 min dragoon70056 27,017
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 5 min Mechanic 31,217
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 6 min Mechanic 5,033
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 8 min dragoon70056 262
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 8 min Hatti_Hollerand 1,325
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 9 min andet1987 1,295
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 9 min Hatti_Hollerand 8,147
motorcycle traveling stories 28 min Beautiful Black M... 42
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr dragoon70056 40,019
More from around the web