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

#95644 Jul 28, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>The past, want to know where it's going too?
Nope
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95645 Jul 28, 2013
Waiting dan.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95646 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Waiting dan.
You can wait till hell freezes over scrote. You want to discuss time, then discuss it, but I not your personal information service.

You got something to say then spit it out.

We all know this is a diversion from getting called on posting a bunch of refuted cut and paste nonsense and speculation. Now your feelings are hurt and you lashing out like a child. Bizarre but still child-like.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95647 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.garnertedarmstrong.org/pubs/evolut...
"Evolutionist are fond of pointing to "MICRO-evolution," meaning the many VARIETIES within a kind, and applying it to their theory that a kind evolved from a different kind! This is utterly untrue. Whether pygmy or gigantic Swede, they are both human beings, and inter-fertile. Whether a snowshoe rabbit is white in the winter or brown in the summer, it is still a snowshoe rabbit, and is not in the process of becoming a whale, or a horse, or a monkey. Whether a chameleon which is green on a green leaf, and brown on a brown leaf, it is still a chameleon, and will give birth to other chameleons, not to a different species. Actually, the very fact of such marvelous adaptation, such as the camouflage of certain birds, insects, animals and fish, is another PROOF OF GOD; a proof of His intricate DESIGN placed within a myriad of His creatures."
Here is an original idea that was posted Saturday. No not an original idea. Cut and paste.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95648 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
"Violating the law:
The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. TheSecond Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials.
The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble."
Here is another of a string of posts with original ideas. No, just cut and paste again.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95649 Jul 28, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
So I go back further looking for original ideas from this poster and I find another series of posts with original work presented here.

No, no it isn't. Just more cut and paste. Upon closer examination these posts turn out to be cut and pastes of not very original work themselves. The points made are rehashed arguments that are incorrect, show a lack of understanding of science and widely refuted.

So this poster doesn't just not post original work, but the stuff he spams this thread with is pretty substandard drivel to boot.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95650 Jul 28, 2013
When asked to give his understanding of the material being posted the Almighty Tzar sort of drifted off and then continued to post more substandard material he or she found on various blogs apparently. Further refuting points within this post was greeted with a some rather bizarre behavior from the Tzar. Well bizarre may be stretching it since it is a common response from the beaten fundie. The pattern usually starts with name calling, then avoidance, then hostility. The Bi-Tzar has added his/her own spin by demanding answers to off topic points. At least that seems original. Apparently this is intended to intimidate or harass his opponent into giving up or forgetting that he never got a answer to his questions.

So Tzar, can you summarize what you posted? Do you have the least understanding of evolution let alone what you posted? Are you just a spam troll with a gut feeling but with nothing higher to back it up? Time seems to be what you want to know about, but I think it is just what you are trying to buy.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#95651 Jul 28, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text> (shortened to save space)Funny that you should mention Dr Patterson's book Evolution... I am no longer certain that natural selection is the complete explanation...".(p vii).
Now this doesn't sound like the guy you claim to have talked to on the phone.
Was one and the same. At any rate, at least he was honest with me. Spent a few min discussing no living transistionals, did discuss the lung fish as I recall. He had nothing to offer to support evo with hard evidence. He knew of Dentons work and others before him. Honorable man.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95652 Jul 28, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Was one and the same. At any rate, at least he was honest with me. Spent a few min discussing no living transistionals, did discuss the lung fish as I recall. He had nothing to offer to support evo with hard evidence. He knew of Dentons work and others before him. Honorable man.
I don't buy it. Funny how you remember something so well that you claim happened over 20 years ago. At least you didn't say it happened last year. You got a lot of information about the man from a brief phone conversation.

I can't imagine a man of science would point to a living animal and call it an example of a transitional species. That would be rather stupid. Of course it is a stupid topic. Transitional to what? That would require three points and not just a single point or even two points. I suppose I will have to spell it out. Transitional means coming from something and going to something.

A man that wrote a book entitled Evolution and then did a second edition had nothing to offer in support of evolution? Are you daft as well as a liar?

You are name dropping again. I would imagine that most evolutionists were aware of Michael Denton's book regarding evolution unless you mean his work in erythrocytes. What significance is knowing Denton's work germane to evolution? You are just throwing more window dressing into your post.

Maybe you called and maybe you didn't. Maybe he talked to you and maybe he didn't. We have only the word of a person with very little credibility and an agenda. What is supported by evidence is that Patterson was quote mined and continues to be quote mined as you have done. He was opposed to his words being taken out of context and his public views on this certainly do not reflect the story you tell. They do fit the pattern of using fundamentalist propaganda to support your belief that you have established on here.

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#95653 Jul 28, 2013
CHISEL Grab Bag...Moment!!!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#95654 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
http://www.newgeology.us/prese ntation32.html
"Violating the law:
The theory of Evolution violates two laws of science. TheSecond Law of Thermodynamics (law of increasing entropy) says that things which start out concentrated together spread out over time. If you heat one room in a house, then open the door to that room, eventually the temperature in the whole house evens out (reaches equilibrium). Knowing how far this evening-out has progressed at any point in time tells you the entropy. Entropy can measure the loss of a system's ability to do work. Entropy is also a measure of disorder, and that is where evolution theory hits an impenetrable wall. Natural processes proceed in only one direction, toward equilibrium and disorder. Things fall apart over time, they do not get more organized. We can overcome this by making a machine and adding energy, but the Second Law prevents such a machine from assembling spontaneously from raw materials.
The Law of Biogenesis was established by Louis Pasteur three years after Darwin's book was published, and simply says that life only comes from life. Living cells divide to make new cells, and fertilized eggs and seeds develop into animals and plants, but chemicals never fall together and life appears. Evolutionists often call certain chemicals "the building blocks of life", giving people the false impression that you just stack the building blocks together and you get life. No one has ever done that, including the famous 1953 Miller/Urey experiment where all they got were clumps of amino acids. Many people mistakenly think scientists have made life from chemicals in the lab, but they have not (though many have tried very hard). If one were to succeed, you would know about it. He would get every science award there is, be all over the news, and have movies, books, buildings, statues, and schools dedicated to him, so desperate are evolutionists on this matter. For something to be a law of science, it can never be found to have been violated, even once, over thousands of trials. No exceptions. A theory that violates two laws of science is in big trouble."
Fine so we just add thermodynamics to the big bang as further evidence that your source knows nothing about physics.

If we accepted his idiotic interpretation, the growth of babies would be impossible along with glaciers, snowflakes, volcanic mountains, diamonds ....etc etc. I think its time he went back to highschool, he isnt ready for university yet.

“pshhhhh”

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95655 Jul 29, 2013
And in the 3rd day god created the Remington bolt action rifle

So that man could fight the dinosaurs

And the homo-sexual's

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#95656 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
I love the quote by Dr. Collin Patterson, past head of the zoology section of the British museum -
"It occurred to me that after studying this stuff for over 25 years there wasn't one thing I knew about it - that I could prove was true"
Interesting and funny.
Dear Mr Theunissen,

Sorry to have taken so long to answer your letter of July 9th. I was away for a while, and then infernally busy. I seem fated continually to make a fool of myself with creationists. The specific quote you mention, from a letter to Sunderland dated 10th April 1979, is accurate as far as it goes. The passage quoted continues "... a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test."

I think the continuation of the passage shows clearly that your interpretation (at the end of your letter) is correct, and the creationists' is false.

That brush with Sunderland (I had never heard of him before) was my first experience of creationists. The famous "keynote address" at the American Museum of Natural History in 1981 was nothing of the sort. It was a talk to the "Systematics Discussion Group" in the Museum, an (extremely) informal group. I had been asked to talk to them on "Evolutionism and creationism"; fired up by a paper by Ernst Mayr published in Science just the week before. I gave a fairly rumbustious talk, arguing that the theory of evolution had done more harm than good to biological systematics (classification). Unknown to me, there was a creationist in the audience with a hidden tape recorder. So much the worse for me. But my talk was addressed to professional systematists, and concerned systematics, nothing else.

I hope that by now I have learned to be more circumspect in dealing with creationists, cryptic or overt. But I still maintain that scepticism is the scientist's duty, however much the stance may expose us to ridicule.

Yours Sincerely,

Colin Patterson
endtimeNews

AOL

#95657 Jul 29, 2013
.

ISRAEL to give POPE "Custody" of Temple Mount --

http://youtu.be/Qt9kEQB4ti8

.
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#95659 Jul 29, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you have something against birders? probably because watching birds can point out the facts of evolution, huh?
Birds can point out the awesome power of God's creation
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#95660 Jul 29, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
There is a type of fish that are 'immune' to the extremely poisonous plants that they live in. They could not have evolved this trait because they would not have lived long enough to change and therefore would have become extinct.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#95661 Jul 29, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
Birds can point out the awesome power of God's creation
Fancy yourself as a bird aye?
Imagine that.
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#95662 Jul 29, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Fancy yourself as a bird aye?
Imagine that.
??what??

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#95664 Jul 29, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
There is a type of fish that are 'immune' to the extremely poisonous plants that they live in. They could not have evolved this trait because they would not have lived long enough to change and therefore would have become extinct.
You should publish this massavely well researched bit of information that no nothing about.
Huh

Faribault, MN

#95665 Jul 29, 2013
Just once would like creationist to have one small shred of proof or data to try to prove there belief.

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
Is SWEETIE-PIE In Love With GENO? 10 min Yeah 50
A six word game (Dec '08) 13 min quilterqueen 17,961
Bill Cosby 15 min Larry Craig s WC ... 194
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min Wolftracks 151,067
Three Word Game Using Last Letter Of Each Word... (Jun '12) 21 min quilterqueen 1,754
100 Worthy Poets from the Past 100 Years 24 min whatimeisit 10
Ferguson Grand Jury Reaches Decision 26 min wichita-rick 133
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 34 min Wolftracks 23,976
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 57 min liarmouth 8,033

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE