Evolution vs. Creation

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

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#95434 Jul 20, 2013
gr umpy wrote:
<quoted text>See post #117.
Why? Because you stated,
gr umpy wrote:
<quoted text>
"We use intelligence to replicate nature. That pre-supposes intent (design)."
?
Nah.
Only good jokes bear repeating.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#95435 Jul 20, 2013
Aw dangit. Lost track of the threads and thought I'd found a new one. Sorry folks.

“Robert Stevens”

Level 1

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#95447 Jul 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Its abundantly clear, SBT, that the only exposure to the evidence you have experienced is the baloney you learned in creationist site or literature.
<quoted text>
There is a level below which this kind of debate is futile.
Debating science with idiots and liars like Ben Stein and Hovind who will use the debate to showboat is a waste of time. Frankly, their tactics are daytime talkshow level and they would be laughed out of any academic debating circles where you actually have to respect data and provide coherent logic for your claims.
<quoted text>
Good lord, do you think DAWKINS originated the idea of a mutation???? It goes right back to Darwin, 150 year, spontaneous random variation. And as soon as the DNA code was cracked, mutations were understood to be random changes in the sequence.
Sorry you were not better informed as a child. I was.
<quoted text>
Refuted.
<quoted text>
Nope. At the cell level, it gets even better for evolution.
<quoted text>
99.85% of biologists accept it.
<quoted text>
Read the following:
The Treaty of Tripoli (Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary)...signed at Tripoli on November 4, 1796 and at Algiers ...on January 3, 1797. It was submitted to the Senate by President John Adams, receiving ratification unanimously from the U.S. Senate on June 7, 1797 and signed by Adams, taking effect as the law of the land on June 10, 1797.
...
"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion,—as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen [Muslims],—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan [Mohammedan] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Explain that.
One Catholic was allowed in. In truth, John Adams ' work on government was foundational, Jefferson acknowledged that. We know that Jeff and Franklin did poorly in the area of morals, hopefully they got it right in the end, but are poor examples of upstanding seculars.
Our motto, "In God We Trust" is based on the Bible, we have been blessed as the greatest Nation on Earth, devising the best inventions and innovations, feeding parts of the planet and training more, have the most prosperous people and our brave military saving the world from slavery more than once as a "Christian Nation", apart from the philosophies you cited. You are mistaken in your characterizations and our history.
The sick practices of the nations Israel displaced in Canaan are well documented, offering children in fire, widespread child abuse and more that’s unprintable here. God made the decision, sad as it was, but from what we now know of the generational effects of pedophiles and their victims, it must have been justified, He is the perfect Judge.
Get a life.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#95451 Jul 20, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Get a life.
What a brilliant, on point rebuttal. You have torn his entire argument to shreds. I doubt he will have the strength or desire to post here ever again after so scathing a dressing down as this.

It is a shame too, but when a rebuttal like yours rips out the very heart of an argument, it is all over but the crying.

Well done.

“Robert Stevens”

Level 1

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#95452 Jul 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>What a brilliant, on point rebuttal. You have torn his entire argument to shreds. I doubt he will have the strength or desire to post here ever again after so scathing a dressing down as this.
It is a shame too, but when a rebuttal like yours rips out the very heart of an argument, it is all over but the crying.
Well done.
Giving you clowns made so many long winded post her on this very out dated and very over posted topic thread, I actually believe you are not being sarcastic, and if you say otherwise I wouldn't buy it. I know you guys go from conversation to conversation about this. Really you guys do need to get a life. The bird watches are way more interesting. Go count the birds you spot for a year. It'd be much more rewarding.

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#95453 Jul 20, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Giving you clowns made so many long winded post her on this very out dated and very over posted topic thread, I actually believe you are not being sarcastic, and if you say otherwise I wouldn't buy it. I know you guys go from conversation to conversation about this. Really you guys do need to get a life. The bird watches are way more interesting. Go count the birds you spot for a year. It'd be much more rewarding.
I do? You are so right. I have reviewed the last few decades of my life which must be so apparent to a gentleman of your education and quality and you are right. I just don't know what to do now that you have exposed me. I mean sure there is science and chicks, but what about underwater ballroom dancing or sudden impact simulation? There is too much for me to choose from. What do you think about full contact, egregiously heterosexual, bird watching? Or maybe top ranked television chef combined with self mutilation? I just don't know where to begin or what to choose.

Nice talking with you on Topix.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#95455 Jul 20, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Giving you clowns made so many long winded post her on this very out dated and very over posted topic thread, I actually believe you are not being sarcastic, and if you say otherwise I wouldn't buy it. I know you guys go from conversation to conversation about this. Really you guys do need to get a life. The bird watches are way more interesting. Go count the birds you spot for a year. It'd be much more rewarding.
you have something against birders? probably because watching birds can point out the facts of evolution, huh?
Drink The HiVe

New York, NY

#95456 Jul 20, 2013
The Egyptian' Believed That Some Soul' Become Suns In Orion And Many Are Devoured In Draco...



http://files.shroomery.org/avatars/www.shroom...

“Robert Stevens”

Level 1

Since: Dec 08

Jersey City , NJ

#95494 Jul 21, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you have something against birders? probably because watching birds can point out the facts of evolution, huh?
Not at all most of my point is this crowd really needs to get out. I would wager that some of the posters here are over 500 pounds. The attraction of atheism and online is crazy. At the very least have this conversation evolve. The Fundamentalist Christians have grown bored with you, my guess is the are out doors cooking while you ramble on as you do. You believe you only have one life, you should do better than this with it.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#95495 Jul 21, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all most of my point is this crowd really needs to get out. I would wager that some of the posters here are over 500 pounds. The attraction of atheism and online is crazy. At the very least have this conversation evolve. The Fundamentalist Christians have grown bored with you, my guess is the are out doors cooking while you ramble on as you do. You believe you only have one life, you should do better than this with it.
my life is quite full, thank you...

i probably read more novels and other books, and practice my guitar while hacking on this site than you do the rest of your life...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#95496 Jul 21, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all most of my point is this crowd really needs to get out. I would wager that some of the posters here are over 500 pounds. The attraction of atheism and online is crazy. At the very least have this conversation evolve. The Fundamentalist Christians have grown bored with you, my guess is the are out doors cooking while you ramble on as you do. You believe you only have one life, you should do better than this with it.
Yet here you are.

Congratulations, hypocrite.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#95497 Jul 21, 2013
Robert Stevens wrote:
<quoted text>
Not at all most of my point is this crowd really needs to get out. I would wager that some of the posters here are over 500 pounds
170, thank you very much.
Robert Stevens wrote:
The attraction of atheism and online is crazy. At the very least have this conversation evolve. The Fundamentalist Christians have grown bored with you...
TFB
Robert Stevens wrote:
...my guess is the are out doors cooking while you ramble on as you do.
Actually, at the moment, I am helping with a large fundraiser for the Volunteers Assisting Veterans. Very worthy organization.
Robert Stevens wrote:
You believe you only have one life, you should do better than this with it.
Better than what? Raising money for veterans. What are you doing for your fellow man this afternoon? Besides bitching at us, I mean.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95499 Jul 23, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That seems to be the view of many modern Christians.
Don't think so dan.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#95500 Jul 23, 2013
This argument has come to an end by implying the "Universal Law Of Non-Contradiction."

The theory of evolution is a contradictory philosophy and the scientific method is flawed!

By applying the universal law of non-contradiction (because nature does not contradict its self) you are either/or when it comes to a biological reproductive species.

Changing from one biological reproductive species to an opposite/incompatible biological reproductive species over time is a violation of the universal law of non-contradiction.
You people need to know when to say when on an argument!

"The Flawless Scientific Law And Method That Detects Contradictory Information That Is Not Lined Up When Used To Explain How Nature Works, Because Nature Does Not Contradict It’s Self And Neither Should The Information Used To Explain How Nature Works By Scientist, Researchers, Individuals And Political World Governments Which Uses Information To Instruct And Govern Humanity with In The Ecological Environment We Live In"

>>>> http://www.natureinforce.org/science-nature-i...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95501 Jul 23, 2013
How is evolution contradictory?

I can assure you Infinite Force you are in error.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95502 Jul 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
How is evolution contradictory?

I can assure you Infinite Force you are in error.
Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070

One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.

These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.

Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95503 Jul 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
How is evolution contradictory?

I can assure you Infinite Force you are in error.
Part 2

But even prefiltering cannot always help the theory. For even cleansed data routinely lead to evolutionary trees that are incongruent (the opposite of consilience). As one study explained, the problem is so confusing that results “can lead to high confidence in incorrect hypotheses.” And although evolutionists thought that more data would solve their problems, the opposite has occurred. With the ever increasing volumes of data (particularly molecular data), incongruence between trees “has become pervasive.”

This problem became all the more obvious in a new study that examined 1,070 different genes found in a couple dozen yeast species (yes, the data were prefiltered). All those genes taken together produced one evolutionary tree, but each of the 1,070 different genes produced a different tree—1,070 plus 1 different trees. It was, as one evolutionistadmitted “a bit shocking.”

Or as another evolutionist put it,“We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 [types of] yeast.”

Clearly something is amiss and for evolutionists it cannot be the theory. That means it must be the data. The solution is postfiltering, to go along with the prefiltering. Whereas evolutionists once assured themselves that their problems would go away when more data became available, they now are headed in exactly the opposite direction.

What is needed now is less data. Specifically, less contradictory data. As one evolutionist explained,“if you take just the strongly supported genes, then you recover the correct tree.” And what are “strongly supported” genes? Those would be genes that cooperate with the theory. So now in addition to prefiltering we have postfiltering. We might say that the data now are theory-laden-laden. Evolutionists will be eliminating the uncooperative genes and retaining those genes with what evolutionists euphemistically refer to as “strong phylogenetic signals.”

Then they can tell us again that evolution is a fact because the evidence says so.

That’s just the stuff of good solid scientific investigation.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contr...
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95504 Jul 23, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
How is evolution contradictory?

I can assure you Infinite Force you are in error.
Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070

One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.

These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.

Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.

http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contr...

“Don't be mad at me.”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

I'm just a little bunny.

#95505 Jul 23, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070
One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.
These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.
Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contr...
Can you explain this in layman's terms? Maybe I will understand what you are trying to say better.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#95506 Jul 23, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Can you explain this in layman's terms? Maybe I will understand what you are trying to say better.
It appears to be a misinterpretation of this article:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23657258

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 8 min wichita-rick 159,952
Write cities alfabetically (tell the country/st... (Sep '11) 15 min wichita-rick 2,474
Favorite Oldies Songs (Jun '10) 16 min Wolftracks 18,763
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 20 min Mr Pip 4,620
News James Franco Says He and Selena Gomez Had a "Ba... 26 min Marcavage s Trick 6
motorcycle traveling stories 27 min Beautiful Black M... 35
Christian Metal Hangout (Nov '10) 32 min Wolftracks 6
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 51 min Beautiful Black M... 251
Word Association (Jun '10) 1 hr Mega Monster 27,013
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 3 hr NinaRocks 18,025
More from around the web