Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#94802 Jul 1, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>You're correct.

We cannot PROVE that there is a Creator, any more than you can prove there IS one.

What we have MASSIVE evidence for is that the Creation stories (as well as many of the tall tales told in Genesis and Exodus) are mythology, without base.

No single Adam or Eve.
No talking snake or donkey.
No world-wide flood.
The sun did not stand still in the sky for a full day.
Jonah did not live in the belly of a 'great fish' for 3 days.

...and so on.
"No single Adam or Eve."

You cannot say this.
You could trace back to Noah but not past Noah and his family. That's as far back as your bottle neck could go.

"No talking snake or donkey."
Impossible to prove. Were you there?
Didn't think so.

"No world-wide flood."
Lots of evidence of a WWF, I will save the readers of 10,000+ postings showing just a fraction of the proof of the WWF.

"The sun did not stand still in the sky for a full day."

Why? Because you say so? Arrogance!

__________

Your 3 BIG Myths:

1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.

2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.

3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.

And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.

"SNAP"

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#94803 Jul 1, 2013
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you prove 100 % that the egyptians mayans and many others did not walk the earth in a time when creators where present no no you cannot all you can do is try and ridicule these things in order of your own cooky beliefs
i can prove 100% that there is not one teensy shred of evidence that there was ever any creator ever, anywhere, at any time. because there isn't one.

here's your chance to prove me wrong! give me that very first shred of evidence that any creator ever existed...

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#94804 Jul 1, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"No single Adam or Eve."
You cannot say this.
You could trace back to Noah but not past Noah and his family. That's as far back as your bottle neck could go.
"No talking snake or donkey."
Impossible to prove. Were you there?
Didn't think so.
"No world-wide flood."
Lots of evidence of a WWF, I will save the readers of 10,000+ postings showing just a fraction of the proof of the WWF.
"The sun did not stand still in the sky for a full day."
Why? Because you say so? Arrogance!
__________
Your 3 BIG Myths:
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.
2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.
3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.
And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.
"SNAP"
yes we can. two genetically identical people cannot populate a whole planet. Adam and Eve is a myth.

not one shred of evidence for a world wide flood in the time of humans. not one shred. you have been proven wrong on this so many time, why do you continue to lie about this?

“pshhhhh”

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#94805 Jul 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>i can prove 100% that there is not one teensy shred of evidence that there was ever any creator ever, anywhere, at any time. because there isn't one.

here's your chance to prove me wrong! give me that very first shred of evidence that any creator ever existed...
Show me that none ever existed ??
Can you ??
No

“pshhhhh”

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#94806 Jul 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yes we can. two genetically identical people cannot populate a whole planet. Adam and Eve is a myth.

not one shred of evidence for a world wide flood in the time of humans. not one shred. you have been proven wrong on this so many time, why do you continue to lie about this?
Nobody has even mentioned adam and eve only you

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#94807 Jul 1, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"No single Adam or Eve."
You cannot say this.
You could trace back to Noah but not past Noah and his family. That's as far back as your bottle neck could go.
"No talking snake or donkey."
Impossible to prove. Were you there?
Didn't think so.
"No world-wide flood."
Lots of evidence of a WWF, I will save the readers of 10,000+ postings showing just a fraction of the proof of the WWF.
"The sun did not stand still in the sky for a full day."
Why? Because you say so? Arrogance!
__________
Your 3 BIG Myths:
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.
2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.
3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.
And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.
"SNAP"
do you have to keep telling these proven lies to make youself fell better about worshipping a proven myth ? I know that must make you feel foolish...quite the gullible idiot, really, but most sane people would grow from that mistake, you seem to be devolving...

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#94808 Jul 1, 2013
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me that none ever existed ??
Can you ??
No
until that very first teensy shred of evidence that wny creator ever existed, the question is pointless. why even bring it up? why even believe in the cults that push this idea? all the creators of the cults have been proven false.

“pshhhhh”

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#94809 Jul 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>until that very first teensy shred of evidence that wny creator ever existed, the question is pointless. why even bring it up? why even believe in the cults that push this idea? all the creators of the cults have been proven false.
Who said i believe in any cults your a moron and clearly not a free thinker your a follower if ever iv seen one

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#94811 Jul 1, 2013
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said i believe in any cults your a moron and clearly not a free thinker your a follower if ever iv seen one
perhaps you don't. which creator do you believe in then? wanna bet it came from a cult?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#94812 Jul 1, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"No single Adam or Eve."
You cannot say this.
Actually, we have definitive genetic evidence that there was no one, single "Human" couple.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You could trace back to Noah but not past Noah and his family.
That's as far back as your bottle neck could go.
Wrong again. There is evidence (genetic again) that there was a bottleneck 70k years ago. None since. In fact there were many cultures spread out world-wide that existed prior to, DURING and after your mythological flood that never got their sandals moist.

Written records by Egyptian and Chinese cultures continue uninterrupted throughout the "Flood" period.

Pleanty of local/regional floods.

No gobal floods.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>"No talking snake or donkey."
Impossible to prove. Were you there?
Didn't think so.
Your claim (the Bible's actually), YOUR burden of proof. Extraordinary claims (talking animals) require extraordinary evidence on your part.

"No world-wide flood."
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>Lots of evidence of a WWF, I will save the readers of 10,000+ postings showing just a fraction of the proof of the WWF.
There is NO scientific proof of a world-wide flood, and a massive amount of proof against it.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>"The sun did not stand still in the sky for a full day."
Why? Because you say so? Arrogance!
Again, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claim of the sun standing still requires you to prove the earth ceased rotating for a full day, and again re-started rotating.
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>__________
Your 3 BIG Myths:
1) the Big Bang when nothing exploded
and created everything.
2) rain falling on rocks and settling in a mud puddle and spontaneous self generating life sprang forth.
3) plants evolving into plant eating animals.
And when I snap my fingers you will wake up and believe these 3 myths as if they were fact.
"SNAP"
No, this is **NOT** what science believes.

Get an education before responding further.

“pshhhhh”

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#94813 Jul 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>perhaps you don't. which creator do you believe in then? wanna bet it came from a cult?
Omfg do you not get it i dont believe in a single creator or a single theory thats kind of like putting all your eggs in one basket which makes nil sense

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#94814 Jul 1, 2013
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
Omfg do you not get it i dont believe in a single creator or a single theory thats kind of like putting all your eggs in one basket which makes nil sense
so your 'faith', like most cult members is just hedging your bet...

so which multiple creators do you believe in without one single shred of evidence for their existence?

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#94815 Jul 1, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is not a lie. In fact it is always the creationists who end up lying. That is rather humorous.
For example you claimed your RATE study was peer reviewed and you have yet to provide a link showing that it was peer reviewed.
Wouldn't that make you a liar?
SZ, no matter how many links I provide you will make no diff. You are playing the lawyers game of keeping me on the defensive with busy requests that have little or nothing to do with the facts. When i find them you brush them off.

Fact is any 5th grader can be convinced that long-age isochon dating is a failed blunderbust of non-science. Do you realize that every other uniform or physics time measurement from moon dust to sediments to erosion to HE to PO214 to magnesium and so on and so on faults the isochons? It's so bad that none of my geo professors would consider using them on this issue in my undergrad, pretty telling to me. Go to school and find out for yourself, it's geo 102. The isochron's false each other and don't make any sense to correlate even in the strata vs the column. What are they then? Parent and Daughter decay isotopes with long half-lives that appear related. This was a major obstacle and the nuc physicists on the rate team were direct about it. We found using the same 4 major tests on the same rock sample's provided wildly differing age results IF, and I say IF, the sample's were given to multiple labs in blind. If you don't they start tossing out 'discordant ages' at will to fit the evo age model. The study caught them. One thing they were concordant in, they all had a fast fwd signature, interesting. The dates are also upside down (and always have been) in the G canyon, which should be your best model, again all buried in the tables, it gets old, they always want it both ways. And don't worry, I have alot more to say about dating systems.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94816 Jul 1, 2013
Aussiebob wrote:
<quoted text>
Show me that none ever existed ??
Can you ??
No
The burden of proof lies upon the person making the positive statement, not the other way around.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94817 Jul 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
SZ, no matter how many links I provide you will make no diff. You are playing the lawyers game of keeping me on the defensive with busy requests that have little or nothing to do with the facts. When i find them you brush them off.
Fact is any 5th grader can be convinced that long-age isochon dating is a failed blunderbust of non-science. Do you realize that every other uniform or physics time measurement from moon dust to sediments to erosion to HE to PO214 to magnesium and so on and so on faults the isochons? It's so bad that none of my geo professors would consider using them on this issue in my undergrad, pretty telling to me. Go to school and find out for yourself, it's geo 102. The isochron's false each other and don't make any sense to correlate even in the strata vs the column. What are they then? Parent and Daughter decay isotopes with long half-lives that appear related. This was a major obstacle and the nuc physicists on the rate team were direct about it. We found using the same 4 major tests on the same rock sample's provided wildly differing age results IF, and I say IF, the sample's were given to multiple labs in blind. If you don't they start tossing out 'discordant ages' at will to fit the evo age model. The study caught them. One thing they were concordant in, they all had a fast fwd signature, interesting. The dates are also upside down (and always have been) in the G canyon, which should be your best model, again all buried in the tables, it gets old, they always want it both ways. And don't worry, I have alot more to say about dating systems.
It is not the number. It is the quality.

You claimed your article was peer reviewed. I knew that was not the case, that was why I challenged you to show that it was peer reviewed. Like most lying creationists you ran away from your lie after you were caught.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94818 Jul 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact is any 5th grader can be convinced that long-age isochon dating is a failed blunderbust of non-science.
How do you expect anyone to believe you when you make such blatant lies.
Do you realize that every other uniform or physics time measurement from moon dust to sediments to erosion to HE to PO214 to magnesium and so on and so on faults the isochons?
Nope, more lies. Or complete idiocy on your part.
The first Moon dust estimate was off by orders of magnitude. There is no problem with Moon dust. You are getting your "science" from lying creatard sources. What sediments? Are you talking about those on the bottom of the ocean? You are truly an ignorant fool. Look at my user name.
It's so bad that none of my geo professors would consider using them on this issue in my undergrad, pretty telling to me. Go to school and find out for yourself, it's geo 102. The isochron's false each other and don't make any sense to correlate even in the strata vs the column. What are they then? Parent and Daughter decay isotopes with long half-lives that appear related. This was a major obstacle and the nuc physicists on the rate team were direct about it. We found using the same 4 major tests on the same rock sample's provided wildly differing age results IF, and I say IF, the sample's were given to multiple labs in blind. If you don't they start tossing out 'discordant ages' at will to fit the evo age model. The study caught them. One thing they were concordant in, they all had a fast fwd signature, interesting. The dates are also upside down (and always have been) in the G canyon, which should be your best model, again all buried in the tables, it gets old, they always want it both ways. And don't worry, I have alot more to say about dating systems.
Even more lies from a hopeless idiot. Plus you broke the rule on the Gish Gallop. If you want to make a list like this all it takes to debunk the whole list is to show that one item is wrong. Do you want to play that game?
I will give you another chance. Bring these up one at a time until you are tired. I will show you how each and every claim is wrong. Or if you bring the list up I will debunk it by choosing the one I want to debunk.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#94820 Jul 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>do you have to keep telling these proven lies to make youself fell better about worshipping a proven myth ? I know that must make you feel foolish...quite the gullible idiot, really, but most sane people would grow from that mistake, you seem to be devolving...
Which came first? the plants or the plant eaters?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94821 Jul 1, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I deal with hard science/technology and facts to make real things work every day here.
Then deal with this, written by an ex-Creation geologist.

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

Not a single creationist on this forum has had the balls to read it.

But its packed with the hard science you deal with every day, so perhaps you can deal with it. It also contain the full list of references to peer reviewed science.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94822 Jul 2, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
If you did have the fats you wouldn't be debating me about the burden of proof because you would have the proof. You have faith and belief like everyone else. I do have my personal proof and as I said I except you are not of God, you are a drone, or acting like you are a drone.
Faith versus Proof are not the only ways of looking at the world.

There is another way, which is, a degree of confidence based on the amount of supporting evidence and the lack of evidence against.

Nobody "believes in" evolution. They accept it as the best explanation we have based on the evidence - evidence explained by evolution and often predicted by it. If new evidence falsifies evolution, it will be modified or ditched. So far, in 150 years, no evidence has been found that falsifies it. So our level of confidence that it is true or close to true is pretty high.

That is the way we look at ALL scientific theories, and evolution is no different.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#94823 Jul 2, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
You could trace back to Noah but not past Noah and his family. That's as far back as your bottle neck could go.
Funny that. There is no bottleneck in the human population around 5000 years ago or anything remotely close to that.

On the contrary, we have evidence from haplotype analysis etc that any bottleneck occurred at least 50,000 years ago, and that bottleneck still comprised at least 10,000 adults.

And for most creatures, there is no bottleneck even back then.

We have heard all the claims of evidence for a flood, and none of it is convincing. You also ignore the scientific method completely. You can have 10 or 50 pieces of evidence consistent with a Flood, but it only takes ONE verified falsification to debunk your hypothesis.

So lets add to the missing bottleneck, the 600,000+ years of continuous ice sheet cores, the archeological evidence of human continuity through any "flood period", the impossible requirements of an Ark given the number of species we now know exist, the inclusion of Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in some but not all human populations...

Each alone would be enough to convince an objective thinker in the matter. The Flood is a myth. Probably derived from a real local flood event, possibly a huge one as north of the fertile crescent, the Black Sea was created in a single flood event around 6000 years ago, probably wiping out entire communities wholesale.

Having no better explanation at the time, no doubt this event was ascribed to the anger of the Gods at human sinfulness.

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
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 7 min Good-Evil 13,724
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 9 min Flower-Child 24,201
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 18 min Hoosier Hillbilly 7,634
"man" words 20 min Hoosier Hillbilly 180
Last 3 Letters into 3 new words. (Dec '08) 21 min Hoosier Hillbilly 55,748
Wantabes }POTUS{ 31 min Chose Carefully 1
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 33 min Selecia Jones- JA... 17,614
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 49 min Good-Evil 155,189
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr Grace Nerissa 38,410
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 8 hr buck 28,497
More from around the web