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 (Page 4,502)

Showing posts 90,021 - 90,040 of106,345
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“My DNA tastes like chicken”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94965
Jul 5, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Do the Jews really have their own calendar based on Adam? Or is it a fantasy calendar?
I don't know. That quote I found is about the extent of my knowledge on the subject of a potential Jewish calendar. I presume they had some sort of calendar. But I have no idea whether it was one they developed or co-opted from another culture or cultures.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94966
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I specifically made that comment about dinosaurs in the Bible because I fully expected this exact response. Thank you for following through. Your type just can't resist. It is like sugaring ants.
Behemoth is a large herbivore. You can try and call it a dinosaur, but that is pure speculation of the fantastical type.
A whale perhaps.
You know many people claim to have seen bigfoot, but so far nada.
Are you writing a screenplay for a science fiction movie?
Again, you are left with the dregs of very sketchy data to support your belief system. On your side, literal belief in a book that isn't supposed to be interpreted literally, unsubstantiated reports of unsubstantiated events, objects or animals, preliminary findings that show marginal differences if any and that which science doesn't understand. On the side of science we have hundreds of years of the development of methodologies, theories, tools, and an every growing body of evidence.
Funny how the science side seems to hold up so well considering you believe it to be falling apart, but then again, you believe a lot that isn't true or supported by facts.
Well DF,

I saw your little mind game, you're way too consistent. The Word of God will never change, let my words fall to nothing.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94967
Jul 5, 2013
 
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
I appreciate the response SBT, but in all honesty I cannot buy into this theory, other than to accept it as a metaphorical event, which hopefully serves a greater good. I respect your opinion, and respect the passion with which you go into great detail, but you can' t argue with science.
Forget the fact that the world was flooded, forget the fact that all life was wiped out (which, at least by my standards is not a very nice thing to do to), forget the fact that some dude fit so many animals into a boat, what we haven't even touched on yet is how did the world repopulate to almost 7 billion people in such a short amount of time? I mean, that' s a lot of getting'-it-on. Even if you considered every wife/daughter/sister/anything- with-a-vagina starting to bear children at 13 or 14, ignoring mass death by plagues/whatnot, and taking into consideration that the average lifespan of a human 1000 years ago was around 40, it would be impossible to have populated the world to current headcount.
And what about languages? Why would language need to be so diverse if we've been on Earth for less than 1000 years? My understanding is that the flood occurred around year 1050. Regardless of then-population of 250 million, they don't count in the equation because they were all wiped out by the flood. This means we started from zero again (sorry, 7) in 1050. Why then today are there more than 5000 languages? Why would we need so many languages? And how did the world become so diverse in such a short amount of time? I hate to break it to you, but 1000 years is not a whole lot of time for 7 billion people to speak 5000 languages. Unless the little ones were being born with languages pre-loaded into their little ROMs, well, let's just say there would be no need to have such a diverse population.
Glad you like Brazil. Next time you're here we can have a caiparinha!
All good here, on languages, you may note that on Papa New Guinea alone there hundreds of languages, fitting in a land locked area that's not that large. I would ck your population statistics numbers, I think their way too conservative. Same to you if you are ever in Oregon, Thanks
youtube

AOL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94968
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

.

300 MIL Americans -- "Hostile Towards God"

https://www.youtube.com/watch...

.

“My DNA tastes like chicken”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94969
Jul 5, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well DF,
I saw your little mind game, you're way too consistent. The Word of God will never change, let my words fall to nothing.
Sure you did.

And you still don't have a real answer to the questions proposed.

I will commend you though, this is the shortest most direct response you have given. At least that is something.

“My DNA tastes like chicken”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94970
Jul 5, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
All good here, on languages, you may note that on Papa New Guinea alone there hundreds of languages, fitting in a land locked area that's not that large. I would ck your population statistics numbers, I think their way too conservative. Same to you if you are ever in Oregon, Thanks
According to the information I found, there are about 850 languages known for Papua New Guinea. That sure is a lot for a fairly large island that isn't land locked. You may want to check a map or a globe to verify that it is an island. Still this doesn't put a time frame around the development of these languages, but if you consider that it was first settled by humans 30,000 years ago, maybe that number of languages isn't so difficult to accept.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94971
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Well DF,
I saw your little mind game, you're way too consistent. The Word of God will never change, let my words fall to nothing.
What "Word of God"?

Now if you mean the Bible it has changed. And to call the Bible the "word of God" is rather blasphemous. It is full of errors of all sorts including scientific error, geographic error, countless contradictions, bad morality, and failed prophesy.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94972
Jul 5, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know. That quote I found is about the extent of my knowledge on the subject of a potential Jewish calendar. I presume they had some sort of calendar. But I have no idea whether it was one they developed or co-opted from another culture or cultures.

Apparently they do, but is only used for religious purposes.

http://www.jewfaq.org/calendar.htm

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94973
Jul 5, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Do the Jews really have their own calendar based on Adam? Or is it a fantasy calendar?
Yes.

Today, for example, is 27 Tamuz, 5773.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94974
Jul 5, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>-
Behemoth was probably a hippo. It was definitely not an apatosaur.
Just because you can find a fossil creature that might fit a verse means nothing at all. There are thousands of creatures that are extinct. Odds are you could find one for every Bible verse that mentions an animal. You need to do a lot better than that.
The Messiah is called "behemoth" which is defined as a very strong person or animal. The key verses are 18 and 19. "His bones are as strong pieces of brass; his bones are like bars of iron. He is the chief of the ways of God; he that made him can make his sword to approach unto him". There was a reason why God allowed Job to suffer. The Messiah has also never broken a bone, Psalm 34:20.
susanblange

Norfolk, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94975
Jul 5, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What "Word of God"?
Now if you mean the Bible it has changed. And to call the Bible the "word of God" is rather blasphemous. It is full of errors of all sorts including scientific error, geographic error, countless contradictions, bad morality, and failed prophesy.
Please separate the OT from the NT. The OT is the word of God and is infallible. The NT was inspired by Satan and is myth and delusion.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94976
Jul 5, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Just curious but why do you think the great flood was in 1050? It supposedly happened sometime around 2345BC.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2012...
http://www.deusdiapente.net/science/flood.php
"Around" 2345BC.

hahhahahahahahhahhahahahaha

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94977
Jul 5, 2013
 
susanblange wrote:
<quoted text>Please separate the OT from the NT. The OT is the word of God and is infallible. The NT was inspired by Satan and is myth and delusion.
Oh, shut up.

Delusion is entertaining only in small doses.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94978
Jul 5, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry SZ, you are waving off hundreds of mil/y of 'evolution' way too quickly. This one is a nightmare for specialists in these 2 eons. They break out in cold sweats in the night and through things at you when you bring this up in their office.
Once again, your fictional characterisation that there is anything in the actual fossil record giving anyone cold sweats. Its kinds precious, this phony view you have.
So you get to the bottom of the canyon and when you look and pound the rocks this is what you find.
1. Shell fossils
2. Undersea worms
3. Trilobites
4. Nautiloids
If these were overcome in a turbidity, this is the exact order they should be in.
Says you, and its very arbitrary. Any sorting due to a flood might produce a preponderance at each level. But we would of course, expect the odd mammal, bird, or dino fossil even here. They don't exist. Of course not! They had not evolved.
What you don't find is EVOLUTION. There is no sign of any transnational's, just successive types in order of their mobility.
Except, of course that even in trilobites there is a clear succession from early primitive types to the most advanced types more that 100 m years later. And as a whole in the fossil record, the "greater mobility" model fails humorously. Even your "reptiles sink" (unverified) claim does not rescue it.
Don't blame me if the most dramatic model of geology on the planet falsifies the Geo Column.
I don't even blame you for getting it so wrong. That would be your gullible reliance on extremely unreliable sources. I am sure that once you look into it with your honest eyes open, you will see how deluded you have been by the superficially plausible claptrap fundamentalist apologists have been spouting.
We should find hundreds of intermediates between shell and soft-shell, different successive developments of trilobites and the COMPLEX EYE, right? NONE EXIST, period.
And how do you propose that, considering that the soft shells versions won't fossilise well? Or even your assumption that a shell had to evolve extremely slowly? Or the usual "hundreds of intermediates" creationist strawman?(Yawn, yet another) Again, when the machinery for creating a shell emerged, why should it take long enough to creates "hundreds of intermediates" in the fossil record before a full shell was used?
The trilobite eye is an amazing marvel, these have been found to correct for underwater aberration, a very lucky chance development, don't you think,
No, I don't think. I think that once the basis of an eye developed, natural selection would quickly favour variants whose structure corrected for underwater aberration. Just as when later eyes hit the atmosphere, they would soon optimise to atmospheric aberration too.
yet found at the start of all?
Your proposed start being the Cambrian, a period of 70 million years. Talk about e x p l o s i o n.... And trilobites changing significantly over that period and in later ones.
And the nautiloids, amazing creature, swims, millions of them are fossilized complete for hundreds of square miles in and around the Canyon in a limestone deposit. Where are all the transitions in the column there? I have seen those deposits.

The truth is it takes the concept of evolution in the mind of the beholder to bridge the gaps
[QUOTE]

No, the truth is the original geologists lived in a Flood paradigm as you do, but long before Darwin they had found it necessary to abandon that paradigm based on the evidence before them.

[QUOTE]
It's clear that the Grand Canyon doesn't represent anything calm and placid, but is a testament of a catastrophe, contrary to what all your supposed 'peer review' experts with all their education tout. They are wrong.
I will go with the peer reviewed research over your personal intuition any day.
drinK The hivE

Anonymous Proxy

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94979
Jul 5, 2013
 
Its The Afro - Brazilian Pastor With The Balloon'- Hes Still Alive...

https://www.youtube.com/watch...

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94980
Jul 5, 2013
 
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Sure you did.
And you still don't have a real answer to the questions proposed.
I will commend you though, this is the shortest most direct response you have given. At least that is something.
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.

Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94981
Jul 5, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.
Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.
Believing the theory of evolution is not a "liberal view".

Believing in creationism and Noah's Ark is a the same as believing in Santa Claus.

Does disproving Santa Clause debunk Christianity? The same can be said for the Creation and Flood myths.

“My DNA tastes like chicken”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94982
Jul 5, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.
Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.
So you typed in a search term and got some hits. What does that mean in regard to your claims? I don't believe you knew what I was expecting when I posted about dinosaurs and the Bible, but if it makes you feel better run with that. I wasn't playing a game, I was looking to see if I got an expected response and you were willing to provide it.

What liberal views are those? Would they be the biblical scholars concluding that the animals described in those passages you posted are probably a hippo and a whale. So liberal is just what you use to refer to opposing view. Nicely mischaracterized. Fits with all your others.

You make a lot of outrageous points that aren't true or are backed with questionable evidence.

“My DNA tastes like chicken”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I found a smile

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94983
Jul 5, 2013
 
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me see, you type in Dino and Bible and you get X no. of links. Really tough for me to figure that you were gaming me DFS. I read the contrary liberal views also before I replied to you.
Suggesting I am a liar is over the top. You're mistaken.
You might be better served spending your time going over Chimney 1's or SZ's posts. They have done more damage to your position than anything I have posted.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#94984
Jul 5, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, your fictional characterisation that there is anything in the actual fossil record giving anyone cold sweats. Its kinds precious, this phony view you have.
<quoted text>
Says you, and its very arbitrary. Any sorting due to a flood might produce a preponderance at each level. But we would of course, expect the odd mammal, bird, or dino fossil even here. They don't exist. Of course not! They had not evolved.
<quoted text>
Except, of course that even in trilobites there is a clear succession from early primitive types to the most advanced types more that 100 m years later. And as a whole in the fossil record, the "greater mobility" model fails humorously. Even your "reptiles sink" (unverified) claim does not rescue it.
<quoted text>
I don't even blame you for getting it so wrong. That would be your gullible reliance on extremely unreliable sources. I am sure that once you look into it with your honest eyes open, you will see how deluded you have been by the superficially plausible claptrap fundamentalist apologists have been spouting.
<quoted text>
And how do you propose that, considering that the soft shells versions won't fossilise well? Or even your assumption that a shell had to evolve extremely slowly? Or the usual "hundreds of intermediates" creationist strawman?(Yawn, yet another) Again, when the machinery for creating a shell emerged, why should it take long enough to creates "hundreds of intermediates" in the fossil record before a full shell was used?
<quoted text>
No, I don't think. I think that once the basis of an eye developed, natural selection would quickly favour variants whose structure corrected for underwater aberration. Just as when later eyes hit the atmosphere, they would soon optimise to atmospheric aberration too.
<quoted text>
Your proposed start being the Cambrian, a period of 70 million years. Talk about e x p l o s i o n.... And trilobites changing significantly over that period and in later ones.
<quoted text>
I will go with the peer reviewed research over your personal intuition any day.
Well Chimney1,

Here is a peer reviewed stmt on the trilobite eye

Even the earliest trilobites had complex, compound eyes with lenses made of calcite (a characteristic of all trilobite eyes), confirming that the eyes of arthropods and probably other animals could have developed before the Cambrian.[16]

Emphasis "could"

The article continues;

"The fossil record of trilobite eyes is complete enough that their evolution can be studied through time, which compensates to some extent the lack of preservation of soft internal parts".

"What!!??" Johnny's hand goes up, "don't worry" the teacher says, "brighter scientists have worked this all out, its evolution you know". Pretty soon Johnny gives up asking questions.

It's clear that the statements above contradict each other. Trilobites appear abruptly in the lower Cambrian WITH eyes. They can toss about the word 'evolution' to help the reader bridge the colossal gaps with mental games, but that doesn't make it real.

To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body. Now that's another amazing ability of evolution, it can also defy the physics of decomposition over several hundred mil/yrs, in strata that would only survive 20 M/Y of erosion by know and observed uniform rates. Wow, Im surely delusional to not blindly follow this.

The 'could' stmt call for faith, if one get's into the complexiy and marvels of this creatures eye right from the start book's could be written. That's real.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trilobite

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 90,021 - 90,040 of106,345
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••