Evolution vs. Creation

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

Melbourne, FL

#83091 Mar 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
At one point everyone did speak one language, then they branched off as populations became isolated and evolved into what we use today.
The English language, to the colonists from England, was native to them. Just as the French brought the French language here and the ... well, Spanish brought the Spanish here ... originally. But people in England still have to learn English, just like we do.
So your premise is that primal man in Africa spoke the same language as primal man in China. Your stupidity has no bounds and is only outdone by your unbelievable arrogance.

You should really get an education instead of proclaiming one, then there is a chance that you may not make such a fool of yourself, but not likely.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83092 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I seriously doubt it.(shrug)
Well you are seriously wrong.

"... all scientific knowledge is tentative and provisional, and nothing is final."
[http://www.psychologytoday.co m/blog/the-scientific-fundamen talist/200811/common-misconcep tions-about-science-i-scientif ic-proof]

So if scientists are not working to adjust the understanding of protons and neutrons and even God Himself; they are seriously wrong too.
thewordofme wrote:
Creationists are consistently wrong.
Why is that I wonder.
"Wrong" implies morality is associated; you are on your own with moral philosophy.

If by "wrong" you meant inaccurate; I will have to disagree, because as you said, the Bible is written in allegories etc.

Allegories and such can transcend context more often than not, and as such possess general accuracy when applied to compatible subjects.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83093 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sorry HOG, I look at reality and easily recognize it. If there is a rock in front of me I can see its there and do not try to deny it.
You miss the point totally.

The idea is that whichever way one chooses to interpret reality can be justified.

Thus nothing can convince you to believe what you dont already choose to believe; you can describe reality how you choose and associate your own meanings and values.

Reality conforms to meaning, as long as the elements in the reality are represented by elements in the idea.
thewordofme wrote:
...This is an unseen unknown creature that is a figment of imagination.
That figment of imagination is the mind's representation of the approximation of the Nature/Character of the Agent which is the Source of its potentials.
thewordofme wrote:
There can be no proof the He exists and there is no way to prove Him, so the logical conclusion is He is a non-entity.
That conclusion is fundamentally illogical; for you cannot say that there is no way to prove "X".

The nature of the evidence required to support a claim is dependent upon the nature of the subject/element of which the claim is made: as such, we test for evidence of wetness with things that are dry.

All attributes of God have manifested in the natural world.
thewordofme wrote:
In our world there is no magik or supernatural....never was.
There is no science to test that; so you can make no objective conclusions on the matter.
thewordofme wrote:
If you think there is magik than you probably believe in angels, demons, spirits, hell and heaven, a Satan that controls our world and all that other crap....that's really creepy for a grown man/woman to buy into.
All of those things which you mention have totally difference meanings than the ones you think you know.

The word "Satan" for example simple means "accuser"; so one is present in every criminal court.*shrug*

You are only kicking against pricks.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83094 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
...
Homo-sapiens first appeared in Africa around 200,000 years ago,
That disproves nothing.

The reference to time is irrelevant; it is power that creates, not time. Time doesnt even really exist in and of itself.

Furthermore, the Bible never stated in what natural historical year man was created.
thewordofme wrote:
...and the DNA evidence concurs that we DID NOT arise from 1 couple living 6,000 years ago....or 4 couples 4350 years ago. It never happened.
That is totally superfluous to the argument.

YOU HAVE NOT FOUND THE REMAINS OF ADAM AND EVE SO YOU CANNOT MAKE ANY FINAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE NATURE OF THEIR STRUCTURES.

Furthermore, IF common genes suggest common ancestry, there can be no DNA evidence to prove that we did not arise from 1 couple: because human DNA are comprised of similar genes.
thewordofme wrote:
You can believe anything you want HOG, but I think I will believe facts and the truth.
Yeah, you think.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83095 Mar 27, 2013
I shall write in response to this idea once again because I cant believe one human can be so stupid.

Look what he wrote:
thewordofme wrote:
...There can be no proof the He exists and there is no way to prove Him, so the logical conclusion is He is a non-entity...
But ladies and gentlement look at the definition of "Reality":

Reality:

"Reality is the state of things as they actually exist, rather than as they may appear or might be imagined.[1] In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been,WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OBSERVABLE OR COMPREHENSIBLE." [Wikipedia.com]

Which brings us to logical conclusion:

Not all real and existing things will be provable: because reality includes that which is incomprehensible, yeilding do direct way to prove or disprove them.

THE ATHEIST IS NOT A REALISTIC PERSON.

Clearly the Atheist is a troubled individual.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

#83096 Mar 27, 2013
Something caused everything to work the way it does and if we can not say it is super then what is?

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#83097 Mar 27, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Something caused everything to work the way it does and if we can not say it is super then what is?
Average?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#83098 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Even as we 'speak' there are theoretical Physicists working on what they are going to have to do to adjust understanding of protons and neutrons for their consensuses.
*Shrug*
Because refining our understanding of reality is evil.

/sarcasm

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#83099 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
YOU HAVE NOT FOUND THE REMAINS OF ADAM AND EVE SO YOU CANNOT MAKE ANY FINAL CONCLUSIONS ON THE NATURE OF THEIR STRUCTURES.
Furthermore, IF common genes suggest common ancestry, there can be no DNA evidence to prove that we did not arise from 1 couple: because human DNA are comprised of similar genes.
WTF?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83100 Mar 27, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Why the concern? We Americans couldn't care less about UK politics.
You have nukes. You have fundies. We couldn't care less about US politics - as long as no fundies are President. That's why we worried when Sarah Palin entered politics.
Libertarian

UK

#83101 Mar 27, 2013
Atheistic scientist?!

Anti-theistic scientist?1

What are you talking about?
A proper scientist can be none of the above. Science deals with facts supported by evidence, it is not changed depending on the point of view of someone. Thats the whole point.

Presumably those numptys who still deny evolution never visit a doctor, never take medicine, never have operations or accept any modern medical knowledge.

Once we mapped the genome and it backed up everything we knew about evolution that was the proof!

Science however does not claim all the answers, thats the whole point, We want evidence etc. Only religion has the arrogance to say it has the answer while not actually knowing anything.

It's your poor ignorant children I feel sorry for. You're condeming them to living by bronze age ideas when the rest of us live in the modern world. Unless they're lucky enough to be properly educated and think for themselves.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#83102 Mar 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You have nukes. You have fundies. We couldn't care less about US politics - as long as no fundies are President. That's why we worried when Sarah Palin entered politics.
ARGH! Knock on wood!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83103 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
That cant be right.
The objective would have to precede the scientific, in order for the scientific to be valued for its objectivity.
No precedence necessary. In fact it would be simultaneous. If I dig up a bone everyone else can see it. You quite simply have no clue as to what you're talking about.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
The tone of your expression suggests that your intellects is pathetic enough to seek refuge in a limited philosophy represented by so-called science.
How tragic.
On the contrary, science doesn't give a flying fig about philosophy. It is, as they say, as useful to science as ornithology is to birds. All it deals with is what is practically demonstrable. Your position is not practically demonstrable. That is because you value (your) philosophy more than reality. That's your problem, not anyone else's.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83104 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
I bet you do NOT know for a fact that they did not exist as such.
Actually we do. The Adam and Eve scenario is not genetically viable. That is why mitochondrial Adam and Eve are separated by thousands of years, but that also acknowledges the fact that they both had plenty of contemporaries.

Therefore you are required to invoke magic to make the scenario work.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Thats where science comes in.
Goddidit with magic is not science. You don't have any science. You couldn't care less about science. All you have are philosophical arguments which have been around for thousands of years. They are no longer relevant to science. Perhaps back in the day they were, as part of the necessary development of the critical thinking process which eventually led to technological development. However today though those same arguments are now being used not for the purpose of advancing knowledge but rather advancing apologetics.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83105 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Even as we 'speak' there are theoretical Physicists working on what they are going to have to do to adjust understanding of protons and neutrons for their consensuses.
*Shrug*
Bingo. They are modifying scientific models to more closely match observable reality in order for them to make better and more accurate scientific predictions. This is what distinguishes science from religious dogma.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83107 Mar 27, 2013
Mark wrote:
As above, you hold to the sensitive spot hypothesis leading to eye development. This is a tough sell on the geologic chart, where trilobites at the bottom sport eyes found to be very complex, can even correct for underwater aberrations. No transitionals' have been found supporting the magical concept of softspot to eyes.
Since trilobite and eye evolution is quite well documented, PLUS the fact that even today every single kind of eye you could imagine already exists ranging from light sensetive skin to complex eyes your assertions are absurd.
Mark wrote:
For your theory to be proved there should have been thousands and adaptive types as you claim, but there are none, and the cell's closed mechanism doesn't support it. Yes, if I repeatedly show pictures of such a tale to a trusting child they will eventually believe it. Thatís your brainwashing, and those who practice it will one day pay the price for it. Utter foolishness!
Yes we are aware that your mantra is "JUST SAY NO!" but it unfortunately ignores the facts of reality.
Mark wrote:
I think you have missed or ignored my point regarding the past study of fruit flys in attempting to generate positive mutations in the DNA. I repeat for you - after thousands of said generations (to speed up generational time)being observed in controlled tests, the concept of evolution failed to produce any such needed changes at all. So what is observed in the cell mechanism is what we get. You assert that that's not enough time, time, time the magical maker!
You've ignored shedloads more, including the fact that genetic new genetic material is not only possible but also reality.
Mark wrote:
Variation in pure "Kind" gene pools is a different matter and is often interpreted or proposed as evolution, but is macroevolution. That doesn't provide the evolutionary leap of an opossum to a lemur that can reproduce,(which is exactly what current human evolution lineage drawings show). Evolutionist now claim this all happened quickly out if sight somehow, leaving no evidence. Wishful thinking.
Only if evolution requires violating nested hierarchies, which would actually falsify evolution. Facts are:

Fossils - we have them. Genetics - we have it. New genes - we have them. Evolutionary change - we have it. Speciation - observed. The evidence is there, you just have to be willfully ignorant not to notice. That's why any scientific information we present is ignored by creationists without rebuttal. Your posts on the other hand are addressed, and in fact could be by yourself if you had the slightest interest of looking it up.

But you don't.

Again, not our problem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83108 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
You are entitled to your views.
As a matter of fact, you can say whatever you want and be justified in this reality.
You can look at a rock and say that it doesnt exist; IF you can explain that its existence as a real object is dependent on so on and so on...
But it is undeniable that natural power exists: so there must be a Source which is The Almighty.
Yes, it's called physics.

Whether or not there's an invisible magic Jewish wizard behind it all has not yet been demonstrated. The last person who was able to do that was 2,000 years ago. And even that's based on hearsay.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83109 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
If by "wrong" you meant inaccurate; I will have to disagree, because as you said, the Bible is written in allegories etc.
Then it's worthless for making scientific pronouncements on period.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#83110 Mar 27, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Since trilobite and eye evolution is quite well documented, PLUS the fact that even today every single kind of eye you could imagine already exists ranging from light sensetive skin to complex eyes your assertions are absurd.
Precisely.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#83111 Mar 27, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
The idea is that whichever way one chooses to interpret reality can be justified.
No they can't. As I pointed out to both you and Mark over the past few weeks, scientists interpret the evidence that the world and the universe is old. Creationists interpret the evidence and say it is young. One of these destroys all life in the universe. Ergo one is factually incorrect. Both "interpretations" are NOT equally valid.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
That conclusion is fundamentally illogical; for you cannot say that there is no way to prove "X".
The nature of the evidence required to support a claim is dependent upon the nature of the subject/element of which the claim is made: as such, we test for evidence of wetness with things that are dry.
All attributes of God have manifested in the natural world.
The attributes have not been adequately defined. About the only attribute we know is intelligence, and that has not been scientifically demonstrated in any way shape or form whatsoever.

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
what are you feeling right now? (Dec '08) 2 min SLY WEST 1,199
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 min CJ Rocker 152,710
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 3 min Crystal_Clear722 3,000
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 5 min Mega Monster 7,741
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 7 min SLY WEST 4,011
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 7 min Crystal_Clear722 30,037
7 Teens Come Home Pregnant From School Trip 14 min -Lea- 65
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 26 min ferrerman 25,831
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 1 hr andet1987 2,989
More from around the web