Evolution vs. Creation

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

United States

#83890 Mar 29, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The earth has been here for maybe 4.8 billion years…. life has been here for maybe 3.5 billion years.
Pre-humans of various types have been around for well over a million years. Pre-humans evolved from one species to another to finally Homo-sapiens around 200,000 years ago. We share some DNA with Neanderthals showing either early mating with them or just the common ancestor. This has established a link for us to the earlier hominids.
I think humans just evolved into what was already here. We love it and thrive in it because we have grown into it over at least a million years time.
Thank you for your kind and respectful response.

A question to ponder, or 2;

1. If we do the math on popluation growth of humans based on known factors,- and run this out 1 mill years, there would have been more than 10X25th people who whould have lived on the earth. Most of the known universe could not hold all the bones.. A thought, when all the bones if these transitionals can fit on your living room floor.

2. Ayala was very concerned about genetic load,(posters her are stating 120+ per generation), that in 200 generations (10K y)the human race would be done for. His words, not mine.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83891 Mar 29, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as the astronomical planet concept is fixed.
Sorry, I mean was.
No, the laws that govern this astronomical planet is fixed. Meaning any concept or idea that refutes it is wrong. I will explain why this is so. There is something the scientific method does not cover that the scientific researcer or scientist must comply to when searching for other un-discovered scientific laws.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Long Beach

#83892 Mar 29, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Was there a flood or not?
The answer is, there was flood and the bible said so.
The issue is, whether it was global or regional.
To me, i believe the people then thought it was global, this does not mean that the bible is in error.
The magnitude of the flood led to that conclusion.
But, we have that pesky Bible saying that the flood was world-wide and we have all those little details about the animals and floating around for nearly a year and landing on a 14,000+- foot high mountain.

And of course there is the DNA that totally does not support the story.

And then there is all that archaeology work over the last hundred years, on thousands and thousands of prehistoric sites, not supporting the story at all

Then we have the fact that world-wide...geology and geologists say there is no real evidence for a world-wide flood at any time.

I think we can safely say the Biblical story of the Noachian flood is just a parable....no truth to it at all

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Long Beach

#83893 Mar 29, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your kind and respectful response.
A question to ponder, or 2;
1. If we do the math on popluation growth of humans based on known factors,- and run this out 1 mill years, there would have been more than 10X25th people who whould have lived on the earth. Most of the known universe could not hold all the bones.. A thought, when all the bones if these transitionals can fit on your living room floor.
2. Ayala was very concerned about genetic load,(posters her are stating 120+ per generation), that in 200 generations (10K y)the human race would be done for. His words, not mine.
Hey Mark, thanks for the response.

Despite what you say about known factors in human population growth I believe some archaeologists and paleoanthropologists have done some work on this and come to the conclusion that this kind of growth would be impossible.

World-wide population at around 10,000 BC has been put at 1 to 3 million depending on what scientist you listen to. And Homo-sapiens has been roaming the earth for 200,000 years....that's not spectacular growth in my opinion.

Think about medical care for women and infant mortality rates up until about 1940 to 1950. It was horrendous and birth rates were historically low. Anthropologists have said that ancient humans were hard pressed to replace themselves (two surviving children)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Long Beach

#83894 Mar 29, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your kind and respectful response.
A question to ponder, or 2;
1. If we do the math on popluation growth of humans based on known factors,- and run this out 1 mill years, there would have been more than 10X25th people who whould have lived on the earth. Most of the known universe could not hold all the bones.. A thought, when all the bones if these transitionals can fit on your living room floor.
2. Ayala was very concerned about genetic load,(posters her are stating 120+ per generation), that in 200 generations (10K y)the human race would be done for. His words, not mine.
Oh, I forgot 2 big contributors to lower than expected earthly population….The Black Death epidemic in Europe in the middle 1300’s, killing an estimated 75 to 200 million souls. The Black Death is estimated to have killed 30 to 60 percent of Europe's population, and reoccurred in Europe until the 19th century. It took 150 years for the European population to recover.

Then there was the 1918 flu pandemic of 1918 to 1920, it was an unusually deadly influenza pandemic which infected 500 million people across the world, including remote Pacific islands and the Arctic, and killed 50 to 100 million humans….3 to 5 percent of the world's population at the time….making it one of the deadliest natural disasters ever in human history

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Long Beach

#83895 Mar 29, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> I dunno. The largest block in the pyramids was around 15 tons, so it doesn't look like they figured out the methods at all.
I've heard that some of them were up to 70 or 80 tons. Then of course they were cut in a quarry and had to be loaded on a boat and shipped down the Nile to the final site.

Amazing job no matter what was done.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83896 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Big deal. There was a rainstorm and the Koran said so.
See the problem?
No, of course you don't.
Your logic is wrong.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83897 Mar 30, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
But, you see all our information about the flood came from the Bible which is supposed to be inspired by God and without error and the Bible specifically says the flood was world-wide.
What is one to do??
Do some research or findings about population drift.
The flood then was massive and so the people then thought it was global or universal.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83898 Mar 30, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
Well crap I replied to the wrong post---sorry Dude. This should have gone to Charlie.
Your so called baseless assertions has no effects on the bible.
There are elements of truth on everything the bible said. It also goes with advise and warnings.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83899 Mar 30, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Accretion, gravitational attraction, and cosmic bombardment.
Grammar!
What brought about the cosmic bombardment or big bang?
Don't venture into questions you or any one can not answer.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83900 Mar 30, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Born in a stellar nursery....accretion....gravit y....almost the same way the earth was formed. Its a long process and we can see part of it going on now in the Orion constellation and a few other places in our galaxy.
Another grammar!
The constellations, galaxies and other planetary bodies, can you please honestly explain how they came into form.
The use of grammar as a cover will not solve any thing.
A simple answer, you don't know.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83901 Mar 30, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you mean the world is a shadow of itself Charles.
Ok, for the sake of this arguments, lets say you guys are right, what have you done to stop the menace of the world.
Technology is good, but at the same time bad.
Many daily, monthly and yearly die of plane/ air crash, auto crash and the likes.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83902 Mar 30, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
But, we have that pesky Bible saying that the flood was world-wide and we have all those little details about the animals and floating around for nearly a year and landing on a 14,000+- foot high mountain.
And of course there is the DNA that totally does not support the story.
And then there is all that archaeology work over the last hundred years, on thousands and thousands of prehistoric sites, not supporting the story at all
Then we have the fact that world-wide...geology and geologists say there is no real evidence for a world-wide flood at any time.
I think we can safely say the Biblical story of the Noachian flood is just a parable....no truth to it at all
No!
You can not rule it out completely.
There were thriving population around that area, so the people then thought it was global due to the massive nature of the flood. Get that!

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83903 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
The orbit of Mercury breaks the "law of gravity". Thought you should know this.
The laws of gravity did not stop governing Mercury. To break it, it must have been outside the influence of the laws of gravity and this is not the case. The laws of gravity govern everything (including mercury) in this universe at all times with NO (ZER0) exceptions.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
This is why I don't take your "principles found in the 'laws' of nature" claims very seriously.(
First of all I did not make this principle up that is found in the laws of nature. It’s sad the scientific method foundation does not rest on the “law of non-contradiction”. All of the scientific data and statements from any subject in the scientific field fail if it violates this law or principle. Here is the definition to my “principles found in the ‘laws’ of nature.

“contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.”
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontra...

For example, The laws of nature either governs all in the universe or don’t. For your method of reasoning to say that mercury broke the law of nature you claimed that the laws of gravity found in nature is un-able to govern it when mercury breaks it. So now I apply “the law of non-contradiction” to your statement,“The orbit of Mercury breaks the law of gravity". Before even using the scientific method I know your statement violates the “law of non-contradiction” and dismiss your statement because either the law governs mercury or don’t and the laws of gravity is constant in the universe.

AGAIN, do the laws of gravity govern mercury or don’t? To break it mercury must make the laws of nature stop governing it. I think not!

You got your scientific method when it comes to interpreting data
Vs
My scientific method which is founded on the “law of non-contradiction” checks the integrity of the information gathered by your scientific method. That’s right, the information that you spew from your lips is governed by the laws of nature also and this law shows me how to discredit information that violates its principle.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#83904 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
The laws of gravity did not stop governing Mercury. To break it, it must have been outside the influence of the laws of gravity and this is not the case. The laws of gravity govern everything (including mercury) in this universe at all times with NO (ZER0) exceptions.
<quoted text>
First of all I did not make this principle up that is found in the laws of nature. It’s sad the scientific method foundation does not rest on the “law of non-contradiction”. All of the scientific data and statements from any subject in the scientific field fail if it violates this law or principle. Here is the definition to my “principles found in the ‘laws’ of nature.
“contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time, e.g. the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive.”
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_noncontra...
For example, The laws of nature either governs all in the universe or don’t. For your method of reasoning to say that mercury broke the law of nature you claimed that the laws of gravity found in nature is un-able to govern it when mercury breaks it. So now I apply “the law of non-contradiction” to your statement,“The orbit of Mercury breaks the law of gravity". Before even using the scientific method I know your statement violates the “law of non-contradiction” and dismiss your statement because either the law governs mercury or don’t and the laws of gravity is constant in the universe.
AGAIN, do the laws of gravity govern mercury or don’t? To break it mercury must make the laws of nature stop governing it. I think not!
You got your scientific method when it comes to interpreting data
Vs
My scientific method which is founded on the “law of non-contradiction” checks the integrity of the information gathered by your scientific method. That’s right, the information that you spew from your lips is governed by the laws of nature also and this law shows me how to discredit information that violates its principle.
You're awfully fond of absolutes, aren't you?

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83905 Mar 30, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>You're awfully fond of absolutes, aren't you?
Only when it comes to explaining the laws of nature because nature does not contradict its self, people do.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83906 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Only when it comes to explaining the laws of nature because nature does not contradict its self, people do.
Isn't too bad that you cannot find any evidence that backs up your claims?

We can see evidence for evolution every where we look. You will not even tell us what these supposed laws of nature are or what real life evidence there is for them.

“Drive by wire”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#83907 Mar 30, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Grammar!
What brought about the cosmic bombardment or big bang?
Don't venture into questions you or any one can not answer.
Oh...but they can be answered, this is the thing you deny and despise the most.

“Drive by wire”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#83908 Mar 30, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Another grammar!
The constellations, galaxies and other planetary bodies, can you please honestly explain how they came into form.
The use of grammar as a cover will not solve any thing.
A simple answer, you don't know.
Well when it comes to cosmology we have to admit, we don't know everything. But we do know a great deal, enough to fill thousands of terabytes of hard drives. This is with observations alone of the early universe regarding solar system, stellar, and planetary formation. We however have not completely solved nor seen how the universe and early galactic formation took place. But because we do not know everything, does not mean we don't know anything.

That would be you , that does not know anything. You relish in it and hide your god in a place of stupidity. Not a particularly strong place to bargain your ideas from.

“Drive by wire”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#83909 Mar 30, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Another grammar!
The constellations, galaxies and other planetary bodies, can you please honestly explain how they came into form.
The use of grammar as a cover will not solve any thing.
A simple answer, you don't know.

Remember to tie the concrete blocks to your ankles, when you go deep thought exploring.

English is a West Germanic language that was first spoken in early medieval England.

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
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 4 min Parden Pard 31,518
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 5 min The - Wizard 159,692
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 9 min Parden Pard 25,645
Mongols MC (Oct '08) 15 min Guapo 411
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 30 min Phaerae 13,994
News Cemetery repeatedly calls dead Florida man 34 min Spotted Girl 1
Impossible brand and product combinations (Jan '12) 35 min Spotted Girl 382
News Will Alaska's weird winter be followed by equal... 43 min -Kevin- 42
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 55 min eleanorigby 39,936
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 1 hr say it aint so 28,104
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 8 hr Crazy Jae 993
More from around the web