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

#80984 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
I dont see that every imagined concept would be equally valid if that were correct.
Explain yourself.
Because any evidence one has the other can claim the complete opposite with the same evidence. YOU said that.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Nevertheless, the scientific method does not prove anything nor validate anything.
"Prove", no. Validate, yes.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
The scientific method is an attempt to REDUCE BIAS; but the reduction of bias and the human ability to experience absolute reality are two different things.
There is no such "absolute" experience because experiences are subjective. Hence with the scientific method another scientist on the other side of the world can test someone else's claims OBjectively.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Or is it that whatever has been approached with the scientific method is automatically valid and accurate?
No, that's why peer-review is in place. But when a scientific concept reaches a few hundred thousand science papers all supporting the concept that tells you it's working.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
I swear you keep jabbering about that scientific method crap as if it makes a difference.
If it didn't you'd still be in the stone age.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
There are only two objective unambiguous answers in all of existence: YES and NO.
Either a this IS or that thing NOT. No amount of procedure and 'methodologizing' can get around that simple IS or NOT, YES or NO.
Are viruses alive?
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Totally superfluous to the discussion. I could give a rat's @ss where you send your space craft.
That's because you're intellectually dishonest. If a science works it must at least be partially true.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Let them roll their eyes till they fall from the sockets.
But if YOU were not there; you cannot know beyond the shadow of a doubt what occurred,so we have all authority to ask "Where YOU THERE!?"
If you were not there, all your conclusions and descriptions will be dependent on evidence the way YOU choose interpret it.
And then those interpretations are tested. Science thinks the Earth is old. Fundies think it's young. Tests show the fundie model would sterilize the universe. So which interpretation is correct?
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
You have resorted to the confusing of terminologies (that only you seem to be able to understand)to attempt to make us fail.
<quoted text>
Anything can be logical.
The validity of a logical argument is based on what the premises are.
As long as the conclusion is consistent with the premises of an argument, the argument is logical and sound.
Yes, but ONLY within the confines of that logic.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
LOGIC DOES NOT DEPEND ON AXIOMS; BUT AXIOMS DEPEND ON LOGIC.
That's TOTAL backwards. Without axioms you HAVE no logic.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80985 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
You are thinking backwards and being utterly nonsensical.
You say that reality must be tested by practical means; but show me the practical thing that is not logical.
Logic is the fundamental means of testing reality; because at no point in time are we able to perceive the entirety of reality.
No, practicality is the fundamental means of testing reality. That's why the "logic" that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects was WRONG. Reality is logical whether we like it or not. But reality cannot be determined UNTIL it is TESTED.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
The side of reality that is undetectable by human senses can only be related to and measured through logic.
Then two-dimensional universe is reality because it is logical. Your rules.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
I REST MY CASE.
You had one?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80986 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt that you are most read upon Him; you dont even seem to have any literacy skills.
Furthermore, to say that you are "most read up on" Him says nothing; you could have read only one sentence about other gods and read only one paragraph on Him then make that claim.
If you were sufficiently literate and had actually read to any length; you would not call Him a myth.
<quoted text>
But if The Almighty Created nature, then It is a part of nature; hence Its Potentials will be demonstrated in nature. And you cannot dispute the existence of power.
Hence:
"1The heavens declare the glory (success/efficiency) of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. 2Day to day utters speech, and night to night shows knowledge." [Psalm 19:2]
Short version - "Reality, therefore God!"

Alternate version - "Reality, therefore Flying Spaghetti Monster!"
bohart

Newport, TN

#80987 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Poor bohart has less than nothing.
That is why he has to rely on lies all of the time.
Please note, when we have something we can post an article about it. Usually a simplified one so that the general public can read it. But if challenged we can provide the peer reviewed science that it is based upon.
bohart and other fundies in their undies have only various different forms of lies.
It must suck to try to make a scientific argument without any scientific evidence.
Accuse others of lying , bragging on your intelletual superiority.
two more defense mechanisms to go .
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80988 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Do you realize that you are still inferring the existence of the phenomena by describing its assumed effects in the readily observable plane?
You have identified that something is happening; BUT you have not proven whether its "dark matter" or "Holy angels".
Which of those make the most accurate predictions of observable astronomical phenomena? Dark matter or angels?

Even modified gravity does better than holy angels and modified gravity is wrong.(shrug)
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
So who is saying that?
I am certainly not saying that.
Why should I say scientific evidence can safely be ignored, when science itself can help me to understand HOW GODDIDIT?
Are you new here?
Furthermore, even if I was saying Goddidit, it would be justifiable according to my definition/understanding of The Nature of God.
And it's just as justifiable as my claim of the FSM.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Clown, modern society is built on the bronze ages etc.
The modern is a development of the primitive. Notice that the only significant difference between the tools of modern man and those of ancient man is the level of efficiency. THE SAME THINGS THAT WERE VALID THEN ARE THE SAME THINGS THAT ARE VALID NOW.
Where do you think even your medical knowledge comes from?
Your most sophisticated sciences are steeped in the occult principles of nations long ago. Idiot.
No, they are not. The occult was discarded IN FAVOUR of the scientific method. The reason? One worked. One didn't.

You are not typing on an "occult" computer.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80989 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
OMG!!!!!!
I thought you were dumb the moment you took an atheistic stance; but that statement just slaps the f@ckin icing on the cake.
The only place where no evidence for creation exists, is in a place where absolutely nothing exists; YOU IDIOT!
It is lunacy to say that there is no evidence for creation; the only thing you can question as such, regarding the presence of structure, is what actually created it.
IF "There is no scientific evidence for creation."; then you cant prove that man has created anything?
The means by which you seek to deny the existence of God will be the very means used to deny your existence. Keep it up.
If "creation" merely refers to existence then you are correct. However if "creation" specifically means existence was created by the invisible magical Jewish wizard then Sub-Z was correct.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Thats because the education system is in favor of the secular. Hence it is too difficult and maybe even impossible to refute secular concepts using secular knowledge.
So its not that creation scientists are not willing to make a testable hypothesis of that nature; but rather that the system of knowledge does not allow them to do so.
So the nature of academics is to be blamed for that shortcoming, not creation scientists.
So it's the scientists fault for being able to come up with scientific concepts that work and it's also the scientist's fault that creationists can't?

There's NOTHING STOPPING creationists from coming up with their own alternative system. They just simply CAN'T. And on top of that your boys have had a FOUR THOUSAND YEAR HEAD START.

That should tell you something.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Obviously you have never read the Bible.
You mean that book which talks of global floods, flat square Earth and talking lizards and donkeys? Those concepts I just mentioned are all in the Bible. They are also all incorrect.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80990 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
You are entitled to your opinion.
<quoted text>
He is so marvelous and awe-inspiring. I know right.
<quoted text>
I might not be immediately showing evidence of anything; but the line of reasoning CAN SHOW ME WHERE/HOW TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE.
You know that. You know better.
You know that it is a valid practice to test the logical validity of an idea before you go about searching for it.
Stop wasting my time.
You're wasting you're own time. You are attempting to preach apologetics to a bunch of people who are only interested in science. If you don't want to waste your time then talk to the fundies on this thread or do something else entirely.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80991 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet somehow you fail to see how the existence of the Almighty may be deduced, though only Its effects can be observed.
You are the true definition of hypocrisy.
Not really. Dark matter is verified by testable predictions made via astronomical research. Electrons are verified by testable predictions in physics research. They both still could be wrong.

But there is NO prediction that creationism can make which would make it wrong. Is the Earth 4.5 billion years old? Goddidit. Is the Earth 6,000 years old? Goddidit. It doesn't matter. Evidence is superfluous. THIS is why ALL concepts are valid according to YOUR rules.
bohart

Newport, TN

#80992 Mar 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. Dark matter is verified by testable predictions made via astronomical research. Electrons are verified by testable predictions in physics research. They both still could be wrong.
But there is NO prediction that creationism can make which would make it wrong. Is the Earth 4.5 billion years old? Goddidit. Is the Earth 6,000 years old? Goddidit. It doesn't matter. Evidence is superfluous. THIS is why ALL concepts are valid according to YOUR rules.
Evolutions better? you claim that rodents evolved into men , hey changes over time thats what evolution says. Some animals don't ever change, what do you say? well evolution predicts that too!Your God of evolution explains everything right? then it explains nothing
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80993 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
I intentionally disregard terminologies like "scientific evidence" and "scientific observation".
That's because you are intellectually dishonest and guilty of the very same hypocrisy you accuse of others. I will retract this statement the moment you give up all benefits of science (house, cellphone, car, computer, medicine, etc) and go back to living in a cave and foraging for your own food.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
No evidence is any more or less scientific than any other; EITHER THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR A THING OR THERE IS NONE. Period. Hence it become unnecessary to distinguished between scientific and non-scientific evidence.
Bingo. This is promising. There is only evidence we can examine or no evidence to examine.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
You only add those terminologies to make yourself feel special.
No, this is wrong. We use those terminologies because it's what are used to help us understand the world.

You claim reality is evidence of God. We claim reality is evidence only of reality. From there we both hypothesize about our gaps of knowledge. We hypothesize evolution and predict the pattern of nested hierarchies in the fossil record. It helps us find fossils with the expected characteristics in the correct geological strata. You hypothesize an invisible magic Jew made reality. It helps you find...
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
So its not that there is no "scientific" evidence; just that they havent found it yet? I tend to agree.
... nothing, as you just admitted.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh, I would say the fact that something is present suggests that it was created at sometime by something, somewhere. Wouldnt you?
But not necessarily someONE.

Yesterday there was no water on my windowsill. This morning there was. Some might claim angels snuck in and didit. I won't.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Thats the only way I can lose; by the way you choose to define the terms at that point in time.
You aint more knowledgeable nor reasonable than the average creationist; you just shift things up a whole lot more and invent stuff to convince yourselves.
You are complaining that science works. Not our problem.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
What is the function of forming separate terminologies as if to form a separate language?
Bingo. Colloquial English is not always sufficient to describe technical concepts. Hence we use a modified form using technical terminology. It's not perfect but it helps. That's why "theory" in science does not mean "wild azz guess".
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Are you not the same people studying the same phenomena in the same universe?
No. Scientists are studying the phenomena while creationists are only looking at it and assuming it lines up with what their parents told them about invisible wizards.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
If the normal terms used by the natural person cannot describe what is happening; then are you describing something supernatural and abnormal?
No, creationists are describing abnormal supernatural phenomena because either they are not verifiable in reality or even contrary to reality.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Bay of Fundy

#80994 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
What have you been proving, except that you are a f@ckin clown?
Did you ever notice that new Christian posters come on this forum using foul language and bully like tactics?

I don't think they are really Christians.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Bay of Fundy

#80995 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
What have you been proving, except that you are a f@ckin clown?
What is more logically sound to conclude after you observe two (2)different structures that have common parts:
A. That both structures were made under similar in similar processes
OR
B. That both are from the same object..?
Finding a million commonalities and relationships between men and apes will never prove that men are apes or that men evolved from apes.
You can prove that men and apes were created under the same condition or created by the same processes; but you can never prove that men are apes as such, nor anything of the sort.
Did the evolution of humankind through the great ape line ever get settled??

Archaeologists and other related sciences have bee saying for decades that humans evolved from that line and showed us the line of fossils to prove it.

Then DNA science came along and proved them right.

DNA has settled the matter...we did evolve from great apes.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80996 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to me that EVOLUTION THEORY is an attempt to replace the current THEORY OF CREATION with something a bit more... scientific.
Since there IS no "theory" of creation there is nothing to replace. Unless of course you mean it's replacing the wild azz guess of creationism with the scientific theory of evolution.(shrug)
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Arent they attempting to explain why they believe life emerged from 'the inanimate'(which includes non-existence, interestingly enough)?
No. First of all matter is not inanimate. Second, the theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. Third, it CERTAINLY doesn't have to explain the origin of the universe itself. Evolution, abiogenesis and the Big Bang are separate scientific concepts. You are correct that one EVENTUALLY leads to another, but only chronologically.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80997 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I am.
Same with the Hindu. His claim is just as valid.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80998 Mar 15, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you ever notice that new Christian posters come on this forum using foul language and bully like tactics?
I don't think they are really Christians.
Seems like the VAST majority of name calling, and foul behaviour comes from the people of faith.

i gues being in a cult makes one really angry...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#80999 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Its interesting that you know what to look for, yet you dont proceed to look for it.
Now that communicates something about your attitude or natural disposition towards "God".
You are hardly arguing without your personal biases.
Your argument is motivated by prejudice.
It is the ones who argue for a thing that bear the burden of proof; so the ones that argue AGAINST it have the "burden of disproof".
It is you that bear the burden of disproof regarding the existence of God. We are still waiting.
We don't have to argue against evidence that has not been presented. That's why we don't have to falsify "God".

The concept is non-falsifiable. That's not a good thing since Cosmic Sheep from dimension Zog are also non-falsifiable. Science can happily ignore what is non-falsifiable because there's no valid reason to presume they exist. Hence they are irrelevant to science.

If you want to argue against fundamentalist atheists who claim to have falsified the God concept outright then go talk to them. Science doesn't care. There's this one guy who goes by the moniker of "Skeptic" (affectionately referred to as Skippy).
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#81000 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
There is nothing that suggest that no god or gods or goddesses had anything to do with creation either.
God or gods or goddesses could have influence creation; there is no way to prove that they didnt.
All you have is that "agent is superfluous to the study of the created" garbage. Pffft.
So either stop hating on God or continue to prove how lunatic you are.
How can one hate what might not even exist?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#81001 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious?
If I came to you and said there was a green light around the back of your house; how would you verify my claim?
Have you not heard of the "effects" (attributes) of God, and how His efficiency is demonstrated in the workings of nature and the universe at large?
Are you serious?
No we haven't heard of them. That's why we keep asking. XO keeps pointing us to cellphones and computers. You keep pointing us to existence. Some point us to the Bible. No-one is able to point us to God.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#81002 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
If you cant see evidence for creation, you are not only blind, but brain-dead.
Science would speculate that the world EMERGED from the point of the Big-Bang; so the universe was brought into existence at a specific point.
YET YOU SEE NO EVIDENCE OF CREATION?
Interesting. How very interesting.
If you mean evidence of reality then we see it. If you mean evidence of invisible Jew-wizards then no. Our eyes are fine.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Well I dont have to give a good f@ck.
The validity of my thoughts and conceptions is not based on their scientific-ness; but rather on the consistency between them and the world in which I live.
As such: I dont have to be scientific to be factual, accurate and right. All I need is to be equal in my thinking or be able to think with equity.
You aren't equal in your thinking. We use the scientific method. You said you don't care. Equality between us is now impossible.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
It is equity which validates all knowledge, because if there is no equivalence between what you have in mind and the reality; your knowledge is a lie, scientific or not.
Accuracy, fact, reality and truth dont revolve around science dude. Science depends on these things, these things dont depend on science.
They certainly don't depend on your subjective opinions, contrary to your claim.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Awwwwww f@ck!!!
You mean to tell me that a simple word does not mean what it means?
You twist and turn things so much, that a simple word such as "create" might not even mean "create" anymore!
Sure it does. You merely expand the definition to include invisible wizards.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
OMFG!!!
<quoted text>
WTF?
Are you sane?
THE UNIVERSE THAT WAS NOT CREATED DOES NOT EXIST; FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT GENERATED.
<quoted text>
That has nothing to do with whether God created the universe or not.
The idea of God's origin is a separate one from God's creation of the universe.
True.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
But if you accept evolution which speculates at life from the in-animate; why cant you accept that God created Himself (life from the non-living, existence from the non-existent)?
Because there is no evidence of your god. There is evidence of evolution.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Thats obviously not working...
Actually it is. All the creationist denials in the world can't deny the existence of medicine.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Thats not working out too well for you either.
It is in the scientific arena. It doesn't work here because fundies aren't interested in science, as you've admitted numerous times now.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
I actually disregard the term because it is deceptive.
The term separates one type of experience from another when "Experience" in one thing.
I hate the term because it makes things appear as if no one can make a valid point or assertion unless they think the way you do.
And youre boring; so just imagine if we all thought like you. F@ck nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooo!!!
It's not deceptive. You just hate the fact that things which are objectively verifiable hold more validity than the subjective.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#81003 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So it cannot be used to dispute nor refute the claim or speculation that God created first life.*shrug*
Evolution makes no theological claims. In fact it would work just as well even if (a) God was responsible for abiogenesis. In fact, there is no scientific concept at all which makes any theological claims.

It's the fundies who argue that evolution is atheism because they say it's incompatible with their god. Their god apparently is limited by what THEY think.

Personally I don't think it cares what they think.(shrug)

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
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 4 min tiger_-_dad 137,722
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 5 min Vector aka Victor... 29,387
Word Association (Jun '10) 7 min Kid_Tomorrow 26,336
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 7 min Grace Nerissa 24,120
2 Arrested In State Fair Armed Robbery 12 min Christaliban 1
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 12 min Chilli J 20,197
Cops: Wash. Man Posed as Policeman ... for 25 Y... 13 min Christaliban 3
What's your tip for the day? 34 min ms_Sweeter 1,052
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Kid_Tomorrow 147,094
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 1 hr Fred Bear 5,604
I Like..... (Mar '14) 2 hr Hatti_Hollerand 306
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••