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
93,141 - 93,160 of 113,016 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98541
Aug 24, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Most regular people on earth and most scientists believe the world/universe to be Billions of years old.

You come to me and say, "the earth/universe is only 6,000 (or whatever) years old"

I say to you, Bulsh!t....that's crazy, you can't prove that.

"where's the bee' umm. err..where's the proof???"

[QUOTE]Show me your proof of what is incorrect in the Bible."

That 'short' proofs have been shown many many times on this forum. I believe I gave you a healthy list of science sites myself, not long ago.

The proofs have to be read on a science site, and you have to make a commitment to learn because the information is VERY long and VERY involved. I've spent years learning it.

However, you being a creationist and all, I know you will never learn any of it because you want to preserve your precious ignorance.
"Most regular people on earth and most scientists believe the world/universe to be Billions of years old."

A long long time ago people believed the earth was the center of the universe.

So all this means is a lot if people are wrong.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98542
Aug 24, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly, procreation is not the same as creationism.
Is fire alive?

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98543
Aug 24, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Exactly, procreation is not the same as creationism.
Never said it was. I said almost 90 million people where created from their parents that where born today
Mary

Reading, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98544
Aug 24, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
So far this year there have been roughly 90 million people created from their parents.
http://www.worldometers.info/world-population...
Very interesting live graph, thanks for posting this.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98545
Aug 24, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You claim you don't know but it can't be bla bla bla. Why? No prove only admitting you don't know how and still so adamant that it could not be God.
You must at this point agree that time does look like an impossibility form the science view point.
And then the usual closing snide comment. So classy, sometimes it gets pretty hard to tell the difference between you and booby
Idiot, I have never said that it cannot be God. There is no valid reason to believe it was started by God. I will leave it as an exercise for you to figure out why.

No, time does not look like an impossibility. You must have your head firmly stuck up your rectum today. Why do you keep making such idiotic statements?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98546
Aug 24, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"The burden of proof is upon the person making the positive claim."
Yup that's why I'm asking for proof that it could not be that God created a mature earth and universe. He claimed he didn't. A positive assertion.
Against a possibility.
There is nothing wrong with the bible.
Idiot, did you notice the word "not" in your rrequest? The wrod "not" is a negative. That would make that a .... come on, your brain can figure it out if you try hard enough..

By the way who claimed "he" didn't?

I have always wondered why creationists believe in a lying god, or is there some reason that the Earth is made to look like it is billions of years old?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98547
Aug 24, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Exactly, procreation is not the same as creationism.
I think that replaytime may have noticed that all of the other creatards are idiots and he is practicing being one.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98548
Aug 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Idiot, did you notice the word "not" in your rrequest? The wrod "not" is a negative. That would make that a .... come on, your brain can figure it out if you try hard enough..
By the way who claimed "he" didn't?
I have always wondered why creationists believe in a lying god, or is there some reason that the Earth is made to look like it is billions of years old?
When Christians and atheists debate the question "Does God exist?" atheists usually assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This is not true. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative (such as Does God exist?) is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof. This is unlike debating a proposition such as "God does exist," where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. That puts the atheist into a logical bind.

Craig may be technically correct, assuming that both sides agree upon the meaning of "God." The atheist who denies this proposition is saying that a being with all the qualities that define God does not, in all probability, exist. That's a positive statement about the real world. Among other things, it implies that no matter where we look we will never find God. Evidence is needed. We might call this the "strong" or "assertive" position for atheism. The theist, of course, is saying that there is good evidence that such a being exists. Again, that's a positive statement requiring support. In Craig's example both sides have a burden of proof, though not necessarily equal.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98549
Aug 24, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
"Most regular people on earth and most scientists believe the world/universe to be Billions of years old."
A long long time ago people believed the earth was the center of the universe.
So all this means is a lot if people are wrong.
A long time ago we didn't have the scientific abilities we have now.

A long time ago most Western civilizations were controlled by religions and they kind of put a damper on some kinds of knowledge.

The earth being the center of the universe was a myth promoted by the church because God loved us and we were 'special'

Of course we now know that that wasn't the case at all.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98550
Aug 24, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When Christians and atheists debate the question "Does God exist?" atheists usually assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This is not true. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative (such as Does God exist?) is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof. This is unlike debating a proposition such as "God does exist," where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. That puts the atheist into a logical bind.
Craig may be technically correct, assuming that both sides agree upon the meaning of "God." The atheist who denies this proposition is saying that a being with all the qualities that define God does not, in all probability, exist. That's a positive statement about the real world. Among other things, it implies that no matter where we look we will never find God. Evidence is needed. We might call this the "strong" or "assertive" position for atheism. The theist, of course, is saying that there is good evidence that such a being exists. Again, that's a positive statement requiring support. In Craig's example both sides have a burden of proof, though not necessarily equal.
William Lane Craig has no authority when it comes to this sort of debate. The only reason he makes that lame claim is that he is at least honest enough to admit that his side has no evidence.

Try to think logically for a second, what evidence would there be of a god NOT existing?

And worse yet for Christians, not only do they need to supply evidence that a god exists. They need to provide evidence that their particular god is the one that exists.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98551
Aug 24, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
William Lane Craig has no authority when it comes to this sort of debate. The only reason he makes that lame claim is that he is at least honest enough to admit that his side has no evidence.
Try to think logically for a second, what evidence would there be of a god NOT existing?
And worse yet for Christians, not only do they need to supply evidence that a god exists. They need to provide evidence that their particular god is the one that exists.
Funny you say that. It comes from a site you posted. The link you provided of the Self contradictions in the bible also has that information on it.

http://etb-agnosticism.blogspot.com/

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98552
Aug 24, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Idiot, I have never said that it cannot be God. There is no valid reason to believe it was started by God. I will leave it as an exercise for you to figure out why.

No, time does not look like an impossibility. You must have your head firmly stuck up your rectum today. Why do you keep making such idiotic statements?
Science:
Time started with the Big Bang
The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago.
Nothing can exist with out time
Nothing can happen with out time.
Yet some how Time happened into existence when there was no time
A bit of a paradox.

God:
In the beginning.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Lagrangian L2

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98553
Aug 24, 2013
 
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
When Christians and atheists debate the question "Does God exist?" atheists usually assert that the entire burden of proof rests on the Christian. This is not true. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has stated, when an interrogative (such as Does God exist?) is debated each side must shoulder the burden of proof. This is unlike debating a proposition such as "God does exist," where the burden of proof rests entirely with the affirmative side. It follows then that when debating the question of God's existence, both the Christian and the atheist are obligated to provide support for their position. The Christian should insist that the atheist provide proof as to God's alleged nonexistence. That puts the atheist into a logical bind.
Craig may be technically correct, assuming that both sides agree upon the meaning of "God." The atheist who denies this proposition is saying that a being with all the qualities that define God does not, in all probability, exist. That's a positive statement about the real world. Among other things, it implies that no matter where we look we will never find God. Evidence is needed. We might call this the "strong" or "assertive" position for atheism. The theist, of course, is saying that there is good evidence that such a being exists. Again, that's a positive statement requiring support. In Craig's example both sides have a burden of proof, though not necessarily equal.
When 70% of the world does not believe in your God, I think that puts the onus on the Christians to prove his/her beliefs.

However, we atheists have readily provided proofs and links to support our position, but you Christians have refused to learn about the proofs, or most often just refused to acknowledge that proofs exist.

The old 'Head In The Sand ' tactic.

Science is right, except when it conflicts with your religion....Catholics are the same way

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98554
Aug 24, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Science:
Time started with the Big Bang
The Big Bang happened 13.7 billion years ago.
Nothing can exist with out time
Nothing can happen with out time.
Yet some how Time happened into existence when there was no time
A bit of a paradox.
God:
In the beginning.
Not quite correct.

The furthest back our present science works is to shortly after the expansion that we call the "Big Bang" stared.

There may have been time before the Big Bang, there may not have. We don't know right now. Time may have come from some outside source or our universe may have been much

It is not a paradox if you don't put your false conclusions in there.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98555
Aug 24, 2013
 
-And if you try to claim that God had to somehow create the universe then I can claim some uber-God had to create God and an Uber-Uber-God created hims and so on and so forth. Isn't it a lot more likely that the universe has always existed in some form or other?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98556
Aug 24, 2013
 
And lastly if you move the debate back to the start of the universe you have already conceded defeat in the evolution debate. Cosmology is a TOTALLY different subject than evolution.

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98558
Aug 24, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>Idiot, did you notice the word "not" in your rrequest? The wrod "not" is a negative. That would make that a .... come on, your brain can figure it out if you try hard enough..

By the way who claimed "he" didn't?

I have always wondered why creationists believe in a lying god, or is there some reason that the Earth is made to look like it is billions of years old?
Yes there is a reason for an old earth.
I'll let you figure it out.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98559
Aug 24, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
When 70% of the world does not believe in your God, I think that puts the onus on the Christians to prove his/her beliefs.
However, we atheists have readily provided proofs and links to support our position, but you Christians have refused to learn about the proofs, or most often just refused to acknowledge that proofs exist.
The old 'Head In The Sand ' tactic.
Science is right, except when it conflicts with your religion....Catholics are the same way
If God is supernatural and science examines the natural, then science (as it currently stands) cannot be used to prove or disprove God.

How can you measure a miracle? How can doctors or science explain healing that should not have been? How can science disprove the presence of God that so many say they have felt? What scientific tools do we have to prove or disprove any of these events?

If we think God can be proven by a man made system, then we clearly have a warped (and very human) sense of who God is (or would be) and the God we are looking for is not one who made man, but one that man made.

Additionally, how can you prove God doesn't exist when you don't know what His properties are to test? What kind of test can you run against an element that you think doesn't exist?

Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98561
Aug 24, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>A long time ago we didn't have the scientific abilities we have now.

A long time ago most Western civilizations were controlled by religions and they kind of put a damper on some kinds of knowledge.

The earth being the center of the universe was a myth promoted by the church because God loved us and we were 'special'

Of course we now know that that wasn't the case at all.
Science knows less then 2% of the universe. Don't you agree you're a bit vain To be making the claims you do with only a 2% knowledge level.
roly poly

Franklin, KY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#98562
Aug 24, 2013
 
Huh wrote:
I can see the almighty tzar is just a liar and moron. PROVE YOUR RELIGION AND GOD ARE REAL OR SHUT UP FREAK.
I agree, anyone claiming religion as the answer to life has the burden of proof on their shoulders. Get with it bible thumpers and show some please! Otherwise, shut up and let the people researching the origins of life do their work. You're certainly not doing anything to further your cause.

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.

•••
•••