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
84,501 - 84,520 of 114,587 Comments Last updated 6 min ago
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89413
May 18, 2013
 
creationist wrote:
Evolution has been proven wrong long ago and there are too many gaps.
And plenty filled:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

And from the gaps that are left, scientific predictions are made.

Successfully.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89414
May 18, 2013
 
The Great Iron Dictator wrote:
<quoted text>Jews are NOT semitic!!
Jews Killing Palestinians...what is that?
Jewish Bolshevism or Jewish Fascism?
Jews want to push Gun Control like they did in USSR!
They want to make us SLAVES!!
This is fact!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =4H-qOUmCrIUXX
your religious bigotry is pathetic, go peddle it elsewhere, most of the people here already know of the inherently divisive nature of your cults...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89415
May 18, 2013
 
Infinite Force wrote:
How can I be violating the law of non-contradiction when GOD and/ or nature endowed humanity with the ability to choose innately?
God is omniscient and all-knowing, making free will utterly redundant. You have violated the law of non-contradiction.
Infinite Force wrote:
This is not a violation of the law of non-contradiction because i am trying to protect what GOD and/or nature endowed us with!
You failed. Therefore you have violated the law of non-contradiction.
Infinite Force wrote:
You disagreeing and trying to take away humanity on planet earth ability to choose is in violation of the law of non-contradiction!
Merely disagreeing with you does not violate the law of non-contradiction. Thus the fact that I have not violated the law of non-contradiction means you have violated the law of non-contradiction. I am not taking away or even trying to take away humanity's ability to choose. You have violated the law of non-contradiction.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89416
May 18, 2013
 
creationist wrote:
No evolutionist has ever been able to answer this one question before.
Sure they have.
creationist wrote:
How do we tell right from wrong?
Well for one thing, it's NOT by saying: "God said so!"
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89417
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
But none of you even produce a how, not one of you. All you do is assert "who," which answers no questions. So, HOW did your god do it all?
He done it with his Word and commands in the beginning.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89418
May 18, 2013
 
creationist wrote:
<quoted text>
Better to believe in a god than believing that we came from a rock. Don't tell me that yours makes sense and my doesn't until you can actually prove what you believe.
I just presented a linky that did. Your opinion of which is "better" is irrelevant.
The Great Iron Dictator

Podgorica, Montenegro

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89419
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>your religious bigotry is pathetic, go peddle it elsewhere, most of the people here already know of the inherently divisive nature of your cults...
What about Secular Bigotry by People like you?
I mean it si not Me who lick the ass of other People,but people like you!
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89420
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

creationist wrote:
I will start to believe you if you can tell me how a soup can change to becoming the most complexed organism in the world.
No you won't. Creationists don't care about evidence. Especially since Goddidit with magic makes any kind of scientific evidence utterly redundant.

The beginning of life (abiogenesis) is currently under research by numerous scientific organisations all over the world, however it has not been resolved as yet. This is not surprising when one considers we're talking about an event with countless unknown variables that occurred over an unknown period of time over 3.5 billion years ago. But they have made some progress, as the ingredients of life are known to occur naturally, all the way up to RNA. The trick is getting from RNA to DNA.

However this has no bearing at all whatsoever on the validity of evolution, the validity of which has long been established.
creationist wrote:
Plus how did the moon,the stars, the sun, and the universe come to be in the first place?
That's the Big Bang theory you're referring to. Also not relevant to the validity of evolution.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89421
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Great Iron Dictator wrote:
<quoted text>What about Secular Bigotry by People like you?
I mean it si not Me who lick the ass of other People,but people like you!
no, I have clear and proveable facts to back up my aversion to your cults. that is not bigotry, that is reason and sanity.

and I can argue my points rationally, unlike you.

take your bigotry elsewhere.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89422
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>He done it with his Word and commands in the beginning.
what "he"? your god is a proven myth and no other god has one single shred of evidence to show it might possibly even exist...

you are basing your concept on a proven myth.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89423
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

creationist wrote:
<quoted text> wrong carbon dating doesn't work. Want proof? How's this. The found a mammoth in the ice and used carbon dating to date it. They said that one part was older than a different part of the same animal!
That's not proof. That's creationists not understanding/misrepresenting the process. What you have to remember is that different dating techniques can only be used in certain situations, and even when used it will be noted if the results are tentative due to complications. Creationists on the other hand will claim that it's wrong by using it deliberately in the wrong manner and wrong situations to get incorrect results just so they can claim it's wrong, for instance dating samples without removing zircon contamination.

I can even prove that you accept carbon dating. Only when it is convenient of course.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89424
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

creationist wrote:
becoming the most complexed organism in the world.
What IS the most complex organism in the world? How is complexity measured?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89425
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

creationist wrote:
I would also like to know how the laws of physics were invented!
Just curious - if you are able to come up with any questions anyone is unable to answer, does this in your mind mean that it justifies invisible Jewish magic as the default "explanation"?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89426
May 18, 2013
 
creationist wrote:
<quoted text>
And they have actually found true scientific evidence that evolution is true? If so please tell me where to find this.
Here's just a smidge that is more than enough:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89427
May 18, 2013
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>He done it with his Word and commands in the beginning.
Okay, so you can recite a poem, still does not answer how it was done.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89428
May 18, 2013
 
creationist wrote:
When you reject God you become stupid. Obviously that's what has happened here.
That's why creationists reject God.

All we do here is describe reality. If (a) God exists, it made reality. Then every day a ton of creationists come here and deny reality.

Now you see your problem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89429
May 18, 2013
 
creationist wrote:
<quoted text> actually I'm pretty shire he did. Check the Bible. And the were created each in their own way.
The Bible is irrelevant. It is not a science book. It should not be treated as such.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89430
May 18, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Previous Claim: CD011.1 | List of Claims | Next Claim: CD011.3
----------
Claim CD011.2:
Widely different radiocarbon dates are obtained from the same frozen mammoths. Different parts of the Vollosovitch mammoth date to 29,500 and 44,000 years before present (BP). One part of Dima, a frozen baby mammoth, was 40,000, another part 26,000, and wood immediately around it was 9-10,000 BP. Two parts of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth date to 15,380 and 21,300 BP.
Source:
Brown, Walt, 2001. In the beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood (7th ed.) Center for Scientific Creation. http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Fro...
Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp...
Response:
1. The dates come from different mammoths. The reference cited by Brown and cribbed by Hovind likely refers only to a Fairbanks mammoth, which Brown also mentions (Pw 1975, 30). The 15,380 and 21,300 BP dates come from separate mammoths, and it is noted that the 21,300 date is invalid because it comes from a hide soaked in glycerin. It is uncertain what is Brown's source for the 29,500 and 44,000 dates.
Ukraintseva (1993) reviews the Kirgilyakh mammoth, also known as Dima, and cites three dates obtained for it. All are around 40,000 years before present. Dates for deposits surrounding the mammoth are consistent with dates for the mammoth.
References:
1. Pw, Troy L., 1975. Quaternary stratigraphic nomenclature in unglaciated Central Alaska. U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 862.
2. Ukraintseva, V. V., 1993. Vegetation Cover and Environment of the "Mammoth Epoch" in Siberia. Hot Springs, SD: Mammoth Site of Hot Springs of South Dakota
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_2...
Ah, Walt Brown and Kent Hovind. Total whacko's both. Non-scientists both.

It's also worth noting that Brown in his references has used Norm Geisler who thinks UFO's are agents of Satan.

Oh, and referenced Banana-man Ray Comfort.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89431
May 18, 2013
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Intelligent Design Creation theory should include explanations for the beginning of our universe with a body of principles belonging to the subject of it's design. What caused our universe to come into being? Why is our universe arranged and designated to do what it does? Something that is created will show signs of originality of thought and will have meaningful forms. Our universe and Earth shows all the signs of having a Creator.
I agree. Unfortunately doesn't HAVE those explanations. Which is why it's not a theory.(shrug)
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#89432
May 18, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what "he"? your god is a proven myth and no other god has one single shred of evidence to show it might possibly even exist...
you are basing your concept on a proven myth.
The evidence clearly shows that things are built and reproduced in nature following patterns and the God of the Bible shows patterns as to how things are to be built and made.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••