Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

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

Comments (Page 3,826)

Showing posts 76,501 - 76,520 of105,810
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Topanga

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

Topanga

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81004
Mar 15, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
"When men cease to believe in God, they do not then believe in nothing, they will believe in anything"
G.K Chesterton.
Great, we can do that too:

http://thechapel.files.wordpress.com/2010/08/...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81005
Mar 15, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ask Darwin, he knew.
Ah, so you again ignored the evidence that validated him. How dishonest of you.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81006
Mar 15, 2013
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh! liar, the first line of defense of your religion.
Bo, why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#81007
Mar 15, 2013
 
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Thats where you are mistaken.
Jesu(s) said "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to determine if they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world." [John 4:1]
So Christians should be willing to LOOK FOR SIGNS OF CREATION BY ANY MEANS EFFECTIVE; because if God is Almighty, He will not be limited to creating any single way.
Most of your conception of religion and God seem to be fueled by mere heresy and prejudice.
Hey, just cos Jesus said to test it doesn't mean that's what fundies DO. None of 'em around here do.(shrug)

Anyway, heresy is irrelevant.
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
We dont.
I just brought that up to show you that you are only seeing one side of the picture; and you are bound by education and ambition to keep limiting your view to the one side that is convenient to you.
<quoted text>
I know that.
Evolution could also have been used by God to create the universe.
Whoa, careful! According to most fundies here that's a one way ticket to hell!
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
Thats because they were idiots.
If God is Almighty, He can do whatever, however, whenever. So there would be no need to debate about whether or not the earth was the center of anything, anywhere.
P.S. The person that KNOWS that Genesis is a myth cannot be accurately called a Christian.
Why not? You just invoked God using evolution and many fundies would say you cannot accurately be called a Christian. In fact one said that very same thing on another thread just a few hours ago. Who is correct?

Different Christians disagree over the details. That's why there's so many different sects. What makes yours the "right" way? They believe in God, so do you. They read the Bible, so do you. They pray, you pray. NONE of you can demonstrate that their beliefs are "correct" or the "best". It's simply your opinion. And your baseless religious opinions are no better than anyone else's religious opinions.

But the fact is that Genesis does not completely line up with reality - IF taken literally. So either it is an allegory or parable from which to derive religious meaning, or it's simply incorrect.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 76,501 - 76,520 of105,810
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
•••
•••