Evolution vs. Creation

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

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

London

#82641 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Don't you just love the "you have no scientific evidence" claim?
Ooops, sorry SZ I picked the wrong post to reply to. It's getting late here.

My humble apologies..:-)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82642 Mar 24, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
That says nothing about the reality of the existence of "dark matter" as such.
The hypothesis is merely a "working knowledge"; you dont have to understand something to even control it.
<quoted text>
Actually, I dont have to prove that he did it with magic; just that natural power and potential exists.
And thats where you see something very interesting:
EVEN IF all things came to be by themselves, it would demonstrate that they possess a natural potential in and of themselves to exist and develop.
SO YOU CANNOT DENY THAT POWER EXISTS.
So when I make reference to "That Which Is Almighty", you should shut the f@ck up.
You have it backwards.

It is not up to us to disprove your power. It is up to you to prove it.

It is always up to the person making the positive claim to provide evidence that supports his claim.

For example we are more than happy to provide evidence for evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82643 Mar 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Ooops, sorry SZ I picked the wrong post to reply to. It's getting late here.
My humble apologies..:-)
No problem. Give em' both barrels.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#82644 Mar 24, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
That's because creationism is non-falsifiable and hence not scientific.
<quoted text>
Of course creationism is falsifiable!

If you can prove that an mindless, chaotic, unnatural forces can create a an efficient universe as this over the dispensation of millions of years; then you can prove that creationism is falsehood.

And you know what all those experiments in synthesizing proteins and living cells prove?

THEY PROVE THAT AN INTELLIGENT AGENT CAN SYNTHESIZE LIVING CELLS AND PROTEINS.
The Dude wrote:
Another slight problem (for you)- evolution makes successful predictions based on those physical features. Creationism does not.
Do we need to?

And even if we did, we could just use some of yours. Science dis not in conflict with God; scientists are... duh.
The Dude wrote:
That's why evolution can say if it's likely that we'll find a fossil with feathers and three middle-ear bones. That's why it can say if it's likely we'll find a pre-Cambrian rabbit or not. That's why it actually predicts the location of fossils and FINDS them.
My argument still stands:

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

#82645 Mar 24, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:


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..?

[QUOTE who="The Dude"]<quoted text>
Actually we CAN prove that men are apes. Why? Because that's what scientists arbitrarily decided to call them...
I rest my case.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#82646 Mar 24, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Boy you nailed that one, it's not so much that they fail to see though, but that they refuse to see, or even consider it for a moment. It is simply not allowed to be discussed.
I thank you for your response.

I agree with you 100%.

But I want these people here to understand that there is lack of scientific knowledge regarding God and the spiritual in general; simply because it is against their agenda.

Let me share something with you:

“It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
[http://www.mercatornet.com/ar ticles/view/a_divine_foot_in_t he_door]

Therefore the principles and concepts of science are structured in ways which make them seem naturally conflicting, when there is no real conflict.

These so called atheists on here are "fighting" a "war" they dont even understand.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82647 Mar 24, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course you have proof/evidence for your assertions??
This all sounds like supernatural superstitious beliefs from the bronze age.
You understand that magik and the supernatural are disproven don't you??
Have been for centuries.
So, tell me how did the universe and all its elements came into form?
Before modern civilisation, there was ancient civilisation, i hope you know that?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#82648 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not against being educated at all. I just didn't see anyone demonstrating they were in the comment I replied to.
Then you need an education.
One of it/ them is, look before you leap!
Or don't jump into an hasty conclusions without thorough examination, right?
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#82649 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate this sites quoting system at times.
That first quote is clearly a quote out of context, but I don't feel like going back and diffing up the post to see how HOG mangled it.
And poor HOG's ability to communicate totally breaks down by the end of his post.
So HOG, can you make yourself clear?
I mangled nothing.

All I did was use a quote from one of your previous posts.

There is nothing taken out of context. Its just that earlier you made a statement regarding justification for your lack of will to seek evidence for the existence of God.

Your response at that time implied that BELIEF,(which is necessarily ASSUMPTION) is necessary to move you to seek evidence for a thing.

Yet in your response to my post you tell me as it is quoted here:
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Fool, you are assuming the existence of god. You cannot do that.
We can show that there is no need for god in the universe. All observed phenomena can be explained without referring to mythical beings.
What happened to the person that pretended to be rational?
[#80959 Friday Mar 15]

So we see that YOU are allowed to make assumptions for your convenience, while others are NOT allowed to make assumptions even for the sake of discussion.

So now we see who is the fool and the hypocrite and the one who pretended to be rational.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#82650 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
...A better way to put it is that Atheists reject belief in matters that there is no evidence for.
No.

Such behavior is typical of the average human being.

The average human being rejects belief in matters that there is no evidence of; hence you are wrong because the average human is not atheist.

At least the statement would not be true for it would be dependent on demography and such...
Subduction Zone wrote:
There is no real evidence for the existence of any gods.
Garbage!

THE EVIDENCE FOR "THE ALMIGHTY" IS THE EXISTENCE OF POWER AND POTENTIAL.

You would be a lunatic to deny the existence of potential and power; so f@ck with and act like you are intelligent...

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#82651 Mar 24, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> No. True educated Christians in the field of sciences, arts, social and management sciences, will never disagree to that.
True educated Christians, eh?

Almost sounds like the "No True Scotsman" fallacy needs to be renamed.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#82652 Mar 24, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Then atheist would have been the only educated in the earth.
You and some others here are liars.
Theist are also very educated and intelligent.
Some theists are very educated and intelligent. They have interesting question and arguments.

You are not one of them. You are a parrot.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#82653 Mar 24, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
...It is not up to us to disprove your power. It is up to you to prove it...
Seriously?

My power is all around me, and you too;

All matter and energy have potential;

You just cant see that if energy and matter generated something like a human brain; then energy and matter must have the potential/capacity for intelligent behavior.

If they don't, then you will never demonstrate intelligence; even if you create an Omniscient God.

Intelligent is as intelligent does: so the efficiency of the processes of nature reveal a natural intelligence at work.

BTW, HOW THE F@CK CAN YOU HAVE "NATURAL SELECTION" WITHOUT A "NATURAL INTELLIGENCE"?

A disposition is not a choice; so the tendency for a specific type of traits to survive or emerge does not describe a "SELECTION".

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

London

#82654 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>No, not really. You see, if the science is created as part of the creation, then all fits nicely together. 99% of the bible is not in contradiction with any science and the parts you think are- aren't important to every day life.
<quoted text>You don't know what you are talking about.
<quoted text>Obviously you so not understand the bible or the story of Jesus. Perhaps when you learn a bit about it you can come back and play.
By the way, slavery is alive and well today. What on earth makes you think it isn't? Every state arrest and binds people to work programs for violations of their laws.
<quoted text>You really do not understand the Christian religion. IF you did, you wouldn't not have even come close to those statements. The bible is a record of covenants with god, all of what you listed is old covenants and not supported under the new covenant. What you are actually saying is, do you really want to ignore the covenant with Christ and go back to the old covenants that do not apply any more? That is the only way to make your statement sound sane in the reality of Christianity.
<quoted text>Why are you only concerned with the blacks? There was white slaves, Chinese slaves, indian's and many other slaves. slavery exists and thrives to this day in Africa, as well as is implied in the US as almost every state forces it's incarcerated populations to work in some fashion to either help pay for their keep or benefit the society they were plucked out of.
But all of that is moot due to your ignorance anyways. Those were the accepted ways of the past in the bible. They are not justified in the new testament or the new covenant with God. You should really try to understand what you are going to talk about before speaking. Of course there are idiots who claim to be christian who do not understand that too, but I suspect they got their biblical teachings from the same idiot you did.
continuation....
Would a REAL God support slavery in any form?? No, of course not. This speaks strongly for the absence of a REAL God. If God were real, and his Bible was really inspired by Him, all He would have had to do is make sure there was a line in the book nixing slavery.

No Godly injunction against slavery in the Bible….where is your God??

You write:
“You really do not understand the Christian religion. IF you did, you wouldn't not have even come close to those statements. The bible is a record of covenants with god, all of what you listed is old covenants and not supported under the new covenant. What you are actually saying is, do you really want to ignore the covenant with Christ and go back to the old covenants that do not apply anymore? That is the only way to make your statement sound sane in the reality of Christianity.

“Jesus taught the Law, because the New Covenant did not go into effect until after He died and rose from the dead. He did take several opportunities to proclaim the New Covenant, but He did not really teach it like He taught the Old. When the New Covenant went into effect, the Old Covenant did not cease to be in effect. This is a very important point to understand. The New Covenant did not replace what we understand to be the Old Covenant, the Law of Moses.”
http://www.livinggodministries.net/fulfill_th...

You write:
“Why are you only concerned with the blacks? There were white slaves, Chinese slaves, Indian’s and many other slaves. Slavery exists and thrives to this day in Africa, as well as is implied in the US as almost every state forces its incarcerated populations to work in some fashion to either help pay for their keep or benefit the society they were plucked out of.”

Just using them as an example because they resonate here is the US. And incarceration is not slavery in the normal sense
more.....

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#82655 Mar 24, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_radio....
Scientists have dated lava rock samples from various active volcanoes with the radiometric method. Because the formation of these rocks has recently been observed, radiometric dating should not give them an age of millions of years.[72] Yet there are many such examples. Consider the following:
Rock which was formed in 1986 from a lava dome at Mount St. Helens volcano was dated by the potassiumargon method as 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old.[73]
Rocks from five recent lava flows at Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand were dated using the potassium-argon method, and resulted in dates ranging from <0.27 to 3.5 million years — but one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975.[74]
Salt Lake Crater on Oahu was determined to be 92–147 million years, 140–680 million years, 930–1,580 million years, 1,230–1,960 million years, 1,290–2,050 million years, and 1,360–1,900 years old, using different radiometric dating methods.[75]
How did 1,000-year-old carbon-dated trees in the Auckland volcanic field of New Zealand get buried under 145,000-465,000 year old potassium-argon-dated lava rock?[76]
One explanation given by scientists for some of these incorrect dates is that excess argon was retained in the rocks when they solidified from a molten state. According to theCanadian Journal of Earth Sciences,“It is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale.... The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.”[77]
But if excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should this dating method be trusted for rocks ofunknown age?
http://www.oocities.org/stuball127/dating.htm...
"Geologists often say that the percentage of anomalies is low. But there are quite a number of rather outstanding anomalies in radiometric dating that creationists have collected. These anomalies are reported in the scientific literature. For example, one isochron yielded a date of 10 billion years. A Rb-Sr isochron yielded a date of 34 billion years. K-Ar dates of 7 to 15 billion years have been recorded. It's also not uncommon for two methods to agree and for the date to be discarded anyway. Samples with flat plateaus (which should mean no added argon) can give wrong dates. Samples giving no evidence of being disturbed can give wrong dates. Samples that give evidence of being disturbed can give correct dates. The number of dates that disagree with the expected ages is not insignificant. I don't know what the exact percentage is.
Many dates give values near the accepted ones. But even these often differ from one another by 10 or 20 percent. And quite a few other dates are often much, much farther off. Whatever is making some of these dates inaccurate could be making all of them inaccurate."[2]
Sooo... You present an anomaly and suggest that we should throw out the baby with the bathwater.

But any discrepancies in the Bible... well, let's not be too hasty to toss that aside.
Logic

Rochelle, IL

#82656 Mar 24, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> So, tell me how did the universe and all its elements came into form?
Before modern civilisation, there was ancient civilisation, i hope you know that?
Where do you get your facts from?
You can't even properly spell the word "civilization". You don't have the ability to comprehend truth.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#82657 Mar 24, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>lol
They did proclaim, many times, that man should not slave for man. In 1 Cor 7:21-23, Paul said that a slave should seize the opportunity of freedom and stop being slaves of men.
Anybody can Google the bible, ya know?
"Anybody can Google the bible, ya know?"

And that's a big problem for theists...

Just like the printing press and translating the Bible into the local language was a big problem for the Catholic church.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#82658 Mar 24, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
Such behavior is typical of the average human being.
The average human being rejects belief in matters that there is no evidence of; hence you are wrong because the average human is not atheist.
At least the statement would not be true for it would be dependent on demography and such...
Yes, the average person should be atheistic. Of course the problem is that the society they were born into has false beliefs. Since at best your beliefs are shared by at most one third of the population of the world even you would agree that is true at least two thirds of the time.

It is very hard to throw off the shackles of those false early beliefs.
<quoted text>
Garbage!
THE EVIDENCE FOR "THE ALMIGHTY" IS THE EXISTENCE OF POWER AND POTENTIAL.
You would be a lunatic to deny the existence of potential and power; so f@ck with and act like you are intelligent...
No not garbage, you cannot even try to argue against it without spouting undefined nonsense.

What is "THE ALMIGHTY"? What is "POWER"? Or "POTENTIAL" for that matter?

Tell me exactly what I am supposedly denying so that I can see if there is any truth to your claim.

It seems to me like you are merely blowing smoke.

“Right click Left click Yay!”

Level 7

Since: Dec 10

Nehwon

#82659 Mar 24, 2013
Evolution Smasher wrote:
MAGNETIC FIELD
The earth's magnetic field is decaying rapidly, at a constant (if not decreasing) rate. At this rate, 8000 years ago the earth's magnetism would have equaled that of a magnetic star, a highly unlikely occurrence. Also, if electric currents in the earth's core are responsible for the earth's magnetism, the heat generated by these currents 20,000 years ago would have incinerated the earth.
3. FOSSIL AND FOSSIL FUEL FORMATION
Evolutionists like to tell us that at least thousands of years are needed to form the fossils and fuels (such as coal and oil) that we find today. However, objects must be buried rapidly in order to fossilize. This, bearing also in mind the billions of fossils and fossil fuels buried around the world, seems to indicate a worldwide catastrophe. None other than, you guessed it, Noah's flood.
Ken Ham, director of the Australia-based Creation Science Foundation, presents some interesting facts in seminars which he gives. Oil can now be made in a few minutes in a laboratory. Black coal can also be formed at an astonishing rate. Ham also has in his overlay presentation a photograph of a fossilized miner's hat, about fifty years old. All that is necessary for
fossilization is quick burial and the right conditions, not thousands of years.
4. DATING METHODS
Many of the radiometric dating methods used for determining the age of fossils are quite unreliable. Carbon-14 dating is usually sound within a few hundred years span of time. But there are exceptions to this. For example, a living mollusk was dated using the carbon-14 method. The readings said it had been dead for 3000 years.
Lava rocks from a volcano in Hawaii which erupted in 1801 were tested, using the potassium-argon method. The readings showed them to be nearly 3 billion years old. Moon rocks were tested by various radiometric methods, yielding dates ranging from 700 million to 28 billion years.
Dating methods such as potassium-argon, uranium-lead, and rubidium-strontium, are based on assumptions. These methods are based on chemical change (uranium to lead, etc.) where the parent material (ie., uranium) is converted to the daughter material (ie., lead) at a known rate, called a half-life. These methods cannot be trusted on the basis that too little is known. In order to come up with a correct date, you must know:
1.how much of the parent material was in it at the start,
2. how much of the daughter material was in it at the start, &
3. if there has been some type of contamination since.
In obtaining dates now, scientists assume the answers to or ignore these questions. The fact is that we cannot know how old a specimen is unless we were there when it was formed.
5. SUN'S DIAMETER
The sun's diameter is shrinking at the rate of five feet per hour. At this rate, life could not have existed on the earth 100,000 years ago.
6. NILE RIVER'S OVERFLOW
Measurements of the sediment deposited as a result of Nile's flooding each year leads to the conclusion of an earth under 30,000 years old. Considering the worldwide flood it would place the age of the earth close to the biblical account.
7. EARTH'S ROTATION
The spin rate of the earth is slowing .00002 second per year. If the earth were the billions of years old that the evolutionists say it is, the centrifugal force would have notably deformed the earth.
The information included here is from www.Jesus-is-Savior.com
Ok. you cut and pasted your claims.

Now go to here and see if they've already been rebutted:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

London

#82660 Mar 24, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>No, not really. You see, if the science is created as part of the creation, then all fits nicely together. 99% of the bible is not in contradiction with any science and the parts you think are- aren't important to every day life.
<quoted text>You don't know what you are talking about.
<quoted text>Obviously you so not understand the bible or the story of Jesus. Perhaps when you learn a bit about it you can come back and play.
By the way, slavery is alive and well today. What on earth makes you think it isn't? Every state arrest and binds people to work programs for violations of their laws.
<quoted text>You really do not understand the Christian religion. IF you did, you wouldn't not have even come close to those statements. The bible is a record of covenants with god, all of what you listed is old covenants and not supported under the new covenant. What you are actually saying is, do you really want to ignore the covenant with Christ and go back to the old covenants that do not apply any more? That is the only way to make your statement sound sane in the reality of Christianity.
<quoted text>Why are you only concerned with the blacks? There was white slaves, Chinese slaves, indian's and many other slaves. slavery exists and thrives to this day in Africa, as well as is implied in the US as almost every state forces it's incarcerated populations to work in some fashion to either help pay for their keep or benefit the society they were plucked out of.
But all of that is moot due to your ignorance anyways. Those were the accepted ways of the past in the bible. They are not justified in the new testament or the new covenant with God. You should really try to understand what you are going to talk about before speaking. Of course there are idiots who claim to be christian who do not understand that too, but I suspect they got their biblical teachings from the same idiot you did.
Hi again adif understanding.

You write:
“But all of that is moot due to your ignorance anyways. Those were the accepted ways of the past in the bible. They are not justified in the New Testament or the new covenant with God. You should really try to understand what you are going to talk about before speaking. Of course there are idiots who claim to be Christian who do not understand that too, but I suspect they got their biblical teachings from the same idiot you did.

Oh please, let’s be civilized here..:-)

You sir, are overestimating my ignorance….by a long ways.

I’m sorry that science is ruining your fairy tal…erm… religion.

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
10,000th Post WINS 4.0 (Apr '12) 2 min tiger_-_dad 5,186
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 min Tom2Tone 150,819
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 4 min Doug77 26,397
Should a Husband Help His Wife With the Dishes? (Dec '12) 5 min dragoon70056 457
Add a Word, Ruin a Movie (Oct '13) 6 min dragoon70056 3,714
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 10 min GANNY 7,643
Fake book titles game (Feb '10) 11 min Parden Pard 4,211
Bill Cosby 14 min Sublime1 49
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 14 min -Shaman- 23,747
Spirit's Good Bye Thread 3 hr -CatCiao- 57

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE