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
89,701 - 89,720 of 112,842 Comments Last updated 9 min ago

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94730
Jul 1, 2013
 
It is rather sad.

The creatards cannot even get what would be at best a middle school physics question right.

No wonder that they get evolution wrong.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94731
Jul 1, 2013
 
Man-on-Fire wrote:
<quoted text>
If HTS believes in God does his believe affect your life? If so how? If not then what does it matter what he believes?
1/, Public thread, ever consider the concept?

2/, I have no tolerance for lies, and when a liar accuses me of lying with absolutely nothing but lies to back him up then I reserve the right to highlight such ignorance, see 1 above and responde in any way I choose (see 1 above)

3/ When someone comes on a public thread (see 1 above) making bold but lying statements with no corroboration then this being a public thread,(see 1 above) gives anyone the right to reply.

Want more?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94732
Jul 1, 2013
 
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, I could start such a tread, but because it won't gather the attention of the sort that beat horses until the odor of glue is every where, wouldn't respond. This topic as presented was yesterday's news over 10 years ago. Has the sand of time became so quick we now have people against moving on. I do have more respect for those that wish to keep the stories of the past. Just as you record Darwin. You too are stuck in the past but just not as long ago. And you are also fundamentalist.
Who other than you cares about your egotestical (correct spelling) need for attention?

I will ask you too? have you ever considered the concept of a public thread?

I and everyone else is free to post whenever they like, preferably relevant to the thread (but that is not a requirement), and the fact that either you donít like that or you have nothing to add is besides the point.

P.S. Darwin is old stuff, he (and several other unsung heroes) provided a good grounding for the research into evolution. However it has progressed somewhat in the last 150 years, it has moved from theory to fact. However like in all good scientific disciplines, new and progressive findings are offered and are worthy of open discussion. Had the babble set taken such a human route there would be no use for such threads. But they didnít so live with it.

You should also know that Dawin was not the first by at least a couple of millennium, and at least 500 years before christianity was even a twinkle in Panteras eye. The ancient Greeks and Romans understood descent with modification, i.e. evolution

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94733
Jul 1, 2013
 
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
I am aware of the neanderthal dna
Its a fascinating subject do elaborate on your cro-magnon man theory
No theory of mine, just observation

The Cro-Magnon brain case was around 10 to 13% bigger by internal volume than modern humans. Consider also that in all species brain size is directly proportional to cranium size and intelligence is related to brain size.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94734
Jul 1, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
It is rather sad.
The creatards cannot even get what would be at best a middle school physics question right.
No wonder that they get evolution wrong.
Well, that was strange.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94735
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
You have got it all wrong DF and HTS has it right. My kids watched me debate university profs, a geology dept head and the uni president and befuddle them all as God helped me. Some converted my our side. My kids are all professional people (exp my 18YO) and know the truth. They get it at the cell level, the chem level and the geo level. They see it and feel sorry for the others. They have the big picture and where all this is headed. Look at where society is headed now that the evo worldview has taken over here. The numbers are telling, it has failed because it's a lie and goes against Gods framework of life, worldview and order.
Oh yeah. You debated professors in geology with your talking snake story.

Uhuh.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94736
Jul 1, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Our side embarked on a 7 year project to look at the isochron decay rate issue vs young earth.
They went back to a number of sites studied in the past by establishment scientists that formed the bulk of the modern lit on the subject, then submitted samples to multiple labs double blind.
What they found has ended up reopening the issue of reliability of long-age dating using isochon theory. Their primary paper called the "Rate Project" has passed peer review and been presented at a number of conferences being hailed as a "refreshing look" at the issue across a spectrum of geology professionals.
Apart from the lack of concordance between dating methods (sometimes over 900my) other testable chemical clocks contradicted the entire isochon system. The truth will win in the end.
http://www.icr.org/article/young-helium-diffu...
At worst, as Kong pointed out, the RATE project was a deliberate attempt to subvert the techniques through deception. Technicians know that older inclusions in lava can give false readings, for example. But generally, when SCIENTISTS in the field submit a sample, they will mention if such problems are likely. Why? Because the want the truth of course, they want an accurate date if possible.

We all know that different techniques have different ranges for accuracy, based on the decay rate of the particular elements being tested. So a 7 million year old inclusion is added to a sample that came form a recent eruption, and this "proves" the unreliability of radiometric dating? No, it would normally prove the sloppiness of the sample collector...and in this case merely proves the deliberate deception employed by the RATE project.

On the other hand, for samples known to be unadulterated and intact, multiple dating methods reliably give datings within 5-10% of each other, and often better. Its pretty hard to reconcile this fact with the claim that the techniques are unreliable.

And it is damned near impossible to reconcile them with any Young Earth scenario, unless you try some special pleading like claiming decay rates used to be much shorter...x700,000 acceleration is required to reconcile the dates with YEC!- And then you have the problem of dealing with enough energy release to fry the entire crust...not to mention spectroscopic analysis of distant stars showing decay has been pretty constant all this time.

We know you will attack radiometric dating with every means you can think of, because even more than evolution it proves that YEC is a pile of nonsense.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94737
Jul 1, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Used to be that there was a wall of separation between operational science and origins science. Now you show up in class and they expect a student to look into a microscope and see the two at once. They start out in lectures and show some nice drawings and video animation pushing evo. To the un knowing mind, thinking he is getting objective fact from the trusted prof, but instead is being brainwashed. Now they just fire the prof that won't follow their line.
I can say that the uni president that was a PhD geo with long-age dating focus was shocked when he saw the raw data on grand canyon flows that were telling the wrong story for them. He wrote me about this. His zoology dept head was ordered to write me an apology after attacking me in the papers. I thought to myself, these guys are being straight out w me and I need to show them respect. I did and would never publish their names. PO214 is an interesting subject. Writer is Gentry, a fine gentlemen also. Operational science has done us well since Tesla, electricity and the AC motor pumping all that freshwater and chem to clean it! Med is cool also but steering us away from natural meds is a catastrophe.
From one of your own. Lets see if you are the only YEC ever on Topix with the gumption to read it...

http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/geologic...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94738
Jul 1, 2013
 
To add on to Chimney1's post:

Radiometric dating is only one small part of the evidence for an old Earth. It is in many ways one of the most useful, but we know that the Earth is old through various other means.

First here is an easy one:

Does ice float in your world? It does in mine. From the icecap annual layers alone we know that the Earth is at least 200,000 years old and that there was no global flood.

There are mountains built from coral deposits. We can measure how fast coral deposits occur. it is on the order of millimeters per year. The strata of limestone gives and age of tens of millions of years for just those layers. The same can be said of chalk deposits, varves, and many other sedimentary deposits.

Here is an article that lists only some of the evidence for an old Earth:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94739
Jul 1, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Well, that was strange.
I am pretty sure that that idiocy was all replaytime.

I love the fact that he tried to use the "fact" that Aussiebob is "from Australia" as some sort of evidence that he is not one of his many sockpuppets. As you well know the computer automatically knows where you are from and have no choice in your shown location <rolleyes>.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94740
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
To add on to Chimney1's post:
Radiometric dating is only one small part of the evidence for an old Earth. It is in many ways one of the most useful, but we know that the Earth is old through various other means.
First here is an easy one:
Does ice float in your world? It does in mine. From the icecap annual layers alone we know that the Earth is at least 200,000 years old and that there was no global flood.
There are mountains built from coral deposits. We can measure how fast coral deposits occur. it is on the order of millimeters per year. The strata of limestone gives and age of tens of millions of years for just those layers. The same can be said of chalk deposits, varves, and many other sedimentary deposits.
Here is an article that lists only some of the evidence for an old Earth:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evidence_against...
All evolutionist lies!

Everybody with half a braincell knows that the world was created last Thursday. Every bit of evidence you get for evolution, was created just like that. Every memory you have of anything before last Thursday, you were born with.

Let us see you refute that one!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94741
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh yeah. You debated professors in geology with your talking snake story.
Uhuh.
I have noticed in Youtube debates that the YECs sometimes walk away with a triumphant air after being trounced and not even realising it.

Everyone's a winner!

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94742
Jul 1, 2013
 
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
All evolutionist lies!
Everybody with half a braincell knows that the world was created last Thursday. Every bit of evidence you get for evolution, was created just like that. Every memory you have of anything before last Thursday, you were born with.
Let us see you refute that one!
Ah but we have just received a cheque dated last Wednesday

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94743
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
All evolutionist lies!
Everybody with half a braincell knows that the world was created last Thursday. Every bit of evidence you get for evolution, was created just like that. Every memory you have of anything before last Thursday, you were born with.
Let us see you refute that one!
I can't, it looks like I am about to joint the Omphalos Oompah Band

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94744
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
No question I am correct. I have corresponded with atheist here that believe there is no such thing as paranormal.
I have no idea who may have said that but there is no evidence of a paranormal.
Robert Stevens wrote:
That statement means we know everything.
No, it means there is no evidence.
Robert Stevens wrote:
The plain simple truth is we will never know enough to prove that there is no creator, and I have heard higher educated atheist that you have in your top debates, admit this.
And that is entirely correct.
Robert Stevens wrote:
However one could prove to oneself there is a God, I am sorry for you if you can't, or refuse to accept it.
Don't feel sorry for me, bub. I'm doing just fine.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94746
Jul 1, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Science has advanced us in the last 200 years there is no doubt. Look at the technology. But science does not do anything for morals, well except maybe try to take them away from people that do believe and live by the word of God. Many morals people have and live by are on beliefs.
I dispute that, on two levels.

The first is that science respects truth whether we like that truth or not. Any scientist who is discovered committing fraud in research soon finds his/her career in the dumpster. And there is a process for detecting and eliminating fraud or error, called peer review. Its not perfect, but its good. So if you regard respect for truth as a moral value in its own right, science is a moral endeavour.

The second goes to looking hard at what morality is from a scientific viewpoint. If the purpose of morality is to ensure individual happiness within harmonious group relations, a social contract we can live by, then its not going to make sense unless we understand what we as individuals actually need to be happy.

Surely there is a place for science in examining that very question and coming up with researched, rational answers. We have competing needs for security, freedom, status, not to mention the basics like food and water. As disastrous experiments have shown in the past, we do not do well being treated as mere ants in the mound, we need a degree of freedom and responsibility for our own lives, while minimising the harm we cause others.

I think science, by understanding the human being better, will assist us in formulating a moral system that provides an optimal happiness and so will be most moral.

Up until now, morality, or I could say competing moral codes, have slugged it out in a kind of Darwinian "survival of the fittest" and the current dogmas are what's left. Die hard pacifists...failed. Iron fisted systems of control...failed. Purely communal systems....failed.

We should respect the survivors, and learn from them. But perhaps we can do even better by applying our minds, and the scientific method, to the problem.

Idealists in the past tried to use "science" to mold humans into some crazy new pattern. Real scientists of today can learn the actual pattern, the fabric of who we are (not who we should be according to some philosopher), and build our moral structures around THAT. Homo Sapiens, as we are.

And how we came to be, tells us a lot about who we are.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

Corvallis, OR

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94747
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
At worst, as Kong pointed out, the RATE project was a deliberate attempt to subvert the techniques through deception. Technicians know that older inclusions in lava can give false readings, for example. But generally, when SCIENTISTS in the field submit a sample, they will mention if such problems are likely. Why? Because the want the truth of course, they want an accurate date if possible.
We all know that different techniques have different ranges for accuracy, based on the decay rate of the particular elements being tested. So a 7 million year old inclusion is added to a sample that came form a recent eruption, and this "proves" the unreliability of radiometric dating? No, it would normally prove the sloppiness of the sample collector...and in this case merely proves the deliberate deception employed by the RATE project.
On the other hand, for samples known to be unadulterated and intact, multiple dating methods reliably give datings within 5-10% of each other, and often better. Its pretty hard to reconcile this fact with the claim that the techniques are unreliable.
And it is damned near impossible to reconcile them with any Young Earth scenario, unless you try some special pleading like claiming decay rates used to be much shorter...x700,000 acceleration is required to reconcile the dates with YEC!- And then you have the problem of dealing with enough energy release to fry the entire crust...not to mention spectroscopic analysis of distant stars showing decay has been pretty constant all this time.
We know you will attack radiometric dating with every means you can think of, because even more than evolution it proves that YEC is a pile of nonsense.
I was closely envolved in this one. There was no deliberate deception. You obviouly have not read the lit I linked nor looked at the tables or data. If you don't like what was found that's your issue, but please spare me the lecture on seeing what I want to see, I deal with hard science/technology and facts to make real things work every day here. Some of our gear is life and death serious biz and we can't deal with fiction, it must work - period. I have no room in my mind for delutions and lies, isotope based long-age dating has now been debunked.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94748
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I was closely envolved in this one. There was no deliberate deception. You obviouly have not read the lit I linked nor looked at the tables or data. If you don't like what was found that's your issue, but please spare me the lecture on seeing what I want to see, I deal with hard science/technology and facts to make real things work every day here. Some of our gear is life and death serious biz and we can't deal with fiction, it must work - period. I have no room in my mind for delutions and lies, isotope based long-age dating has now been debunked.
Please, once you are caught in lie it is best to drop the subject.

You claimed from the start that the rate project had undergone peer review. You were unable to show any peer review when you were challenged. Nor have you apologized for making that false claim.

Kong's article showed that the so called problems were known about and explained before this project started. That means that those people were either dishonest or ignorant, neither characteristic is a good one for a scientist to have.
CBOW

East Berlin, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94749
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

An atheist was seated next to a little girl on an airplane and he turned to her and said, "Do you want to talk? Flights go quicker if you strike up a conversation with your fellow passenger."

The little girl, who had just started to read her book, replied to the total ... Stranger, "What would you want to talk about?"

"Oh, I don't know," said the atheist. "How about why there is no God, or no Heaven or Hell, or no life after death?" as he smiled smugly.

"Okay," she said. "Those could be interesting topics but let me ask you a question first. A horse, a cow, and a deer all eat the same stuff - grass. Yet a deer excretes little pellets, while a cow turns out a flat patty, but a horse produces clumps. Why do you suppose that is?"

The atheist, visibly surprised by the little girl's intelligence, thinks about it and says, "Hmmm, I have no idea."

To which the little girl replies, "Do you really feel qualified to discuss God, Heaven and Hell, or life after death, when you don't know shit?"

And then she went back to reading her book.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94750
Jul 1, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

I hope this is not Kong's article. I don't think it is. This writer too shows the many flaws in the RATE Project. He also points out that none of it was peer reviewed:

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/hel...

SBT, you can repeat your posting fallacious stories about RATE. We will continually debunk it.

And again, radiometric dating is only one bit of evidence that shows the world is old. Its usefulness is that it gives specific dates. The best we can do with many geologic dating methods is to prove that the age of the Earth has to be hundred of millions or billions of years old and the relative age between strata. Radiometric dating is not needed to show that the Earth is old. We already knew that.

Let's say you see an old man walking down the street. There will be several tips of his age. How he walks, how his skin looks, how his hair looks, teeth, even fingerprints. A picture ID with a birth date is not needed to know that he is old. It does tell you exactly how old. An astute person could get a date within 10% for most cases and 30% for almost all cases.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

110 Users are viewing the Weird Forum right now

Search the Weird Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
The N-word: 10 min Denny CranesPlace 10
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 13 min Denny CranesPlace 34,950
Which O/B lady would you want to be stranded on... (Dec '13) 15 min The Martyr 49
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 22 min Denny CranesPlace 23,730
A six word game (Dec '08) 26 min Junket 17,232
What Makes You Turn Your Head When You're Driving? (Nov '10) 28 min Marley 19
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 30 min Big dawg 14,969
How did you get over a broken heart? (Oct '09) 4 hr wichita-rick 264
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 4 hr wichita-rick 141,322
Car Dealer Gives Woman Refund - in Pennies 5 hr Marcavage s Emission 7
•••
•••