Evolution vs. Creation

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

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#99736 Sep 17, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...my 'cult information sources' are a thing called 'modern science'. Modern science has stated after research that there's more water in the crust of the earth than what's on the surface. Maybe you should research this 'cult information' eh?
Give me just the link about the underground water

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#99737 Sep 17, 2013
spOko wrote:
<quoted text>
The tiny, tiny blue speck in the universe?

Dynamite comes in a small package.
The results are no less than "explosive".

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#99738 Sep 17, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
People read without considering what is being said, just saying :)
9 And God said,“Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
The writer of Genesis understood plural and singular. In Genesis the writer used words in plural many many times. They also used words in singular tense. If the writer knew that bodies of water separated land masses and that Islands of land did in fact exist in large and small sizes, it's curious that the writer would reference all words concerning land and ground in the singular and never in the plural in Genesis concerning the creation of things. Neither did the writer use the word 'islands' as other later writers would use it.
The writer's story insinuates/suggests the existence of a single landmass existing in the beginning of the creation of the earth instead of 'lands/isles/islands' of lands being made to exist.
The problem for you is that we know when the dry land was just one mass, and when it split and started forming the different continents and Islands.

We're talking many 10's of millions of years ago.

The writer of Genesis (supposedly Moses around 1200-1300 BC)left all these genealogies that some have interpreted to place the formation of the universe,earth, and every thing else at about 5,000 to 4,000 BC

This is simply not true....EVERY available bit of information that mankind has gathered about our past refutes this....NOTHING supports this young earth scenario.

Your cult is lying to you.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#99739 Sep 17, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said I could explain the theory of theism and creation any more than I claimed I could explain how after some supposed 'big bang' the first biological matter came from non-biological matter.
Consider this. In thought we use at most 10% of our brain's capacity. Consider if a single individual on this earth was able to use 100% of their brain in thought.
See, we humans have proved in thought we are geared to 'invent' and inventing has no limits for us. Just in the last century we have taken from materials and have caused to be examples of biology to exist that didn't exist before, hybrids we call them. We've crossbred different fruits and different vegetables so new species exist that didn't exist before. We're creating things all the time.
Well take that one person who had the talent to use 1005 of their brain in thought and consider what they could create/invent from what already exists. No more cancer? Flight without fuel? a replacement for electricity? Humans living till 200 to 300 years of age? What could this mind do for the populating of another planet? Could they be it's god? Could they bring together from existing materials the matter to be used and shaped and harnessed to bring a dead lifeless planet to one thriving with life?
I believe our comprehension of what 'God' could really be should be reexamined and based upon what we do just using one tenth of our brain for thought. Just saying...
That old trope that we only use 10% of our brain turns out to not be true.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

Level 1

Since: Aug 13

Miami, FL

#99740 Sep 17, 2013
So many creation myths ...
to which does humanity akin to ? I shake my head at people pushing their own belief on others as it is a personal path they should take to see which they feel akin to.

http://www.gly.uga.edu/railsback/CS/CSIndex.h...

Find your own way

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99741 Sep 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me just the link about the underground water
This is one link from a growing number of scientists in various fields that believe there is more water beneath the earth then there is on it.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/06/23/...

So I asked him: "If you had to make a rough calculation, right now, and no one's going to hold you to it, how much water do you think we have on earth?" And he said a conservative (albeit blind) guess would be the earth today carries with it 3 global oceans of water, 1/3 on top, where we can swim in it, sail on it, drink it, get rained on by it, and 2/3rds down below where it sits silently with the minerals.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99742 Sep 17, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
So then you agree that at least portions of the Bible are metaphorical or allegorical?
But you still believe in a LITERAL world-wide flood 4500 years ago, and Jonah/Whale?
Yes. Stories in the Bible are stories without proof of being actual events etc. Call them what you wish.
Concerning a global flood, I don't know. I do know under the right conditions the earth could flood itself globally with ease. Just having the earth experience volcanic activity that would raise the oceans surface level would cause the surface water to flood the earth globally.
Nearly every culture on earth has a local or global flood story to tell. Call it coincidence? Why don't we have stories of a global fire? Why don't we have a story of a global freezing ice age? Of all the stories that cultures could have told, why a story of a flood? People on this earth for thousands of years have experienced the ravages of fires as well as floods. Yet it's flood stories they remember and which theism choose to repeat. Theism a few thousand years ago could have stated God destroyed all of life by fire except for a few in a boat on a ocean.
When I read the story of the flood I don't see fact or fiction. I'm marveled by a single sentence in the entire story.
11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
"..the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up,"
The above verse actually describes what factually takes place on the ocean floors with volcanic vents and underwater volcanoes that force water from the crust up into the ocean. But the writer couldn't have known that fact 3000 years ago. But they did a good job of describing what they shouldn't have had a single idea about right?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99743 Sep 17, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem for you is that we know when the dry land was just one mass, and when it split and started forming the different continents and Islands.
We're talking many 10's of millions of years ago.
The writer of Genesis (supposedly Moses around 1200-1300 BC)left all these genealogies that some have interpreted to place the formation of the universe,earth, and every thing else at about 5,000 to 4,000 BC
This is simply not true....EVERY available bit of information that mankind has gathered about our past refutes this....NOTHING supports this young earth scenario.
Your cult is lying to you.
First, you have to consider things theism politely ignores about their own story timeline about their creation story.
According to a thousand years human time to a heaven's day, it took 7000 years to create everything.
Than we have an unknown timeline of how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden before Eve decided it was time to split.
Even though we have genealogies in the Bible beginning with Adam, not all of these family histories are 'accurate' in their timelines. There are missing pieces here and there.
So whether the creation story is true or false, the timeline of the creation story has flaws which means the creation timeline is older than theists believe no matter if you think the story true or false. The timeline is obviously longer than it's admitted to being by theists.
The writer of Genesis alone insinuates in singular tones that the earth Adam and Eve were set upon was a single (not plural) land mass. How could that writer 2500 years ago have guessed about the single continent theory? His story in Genesis should have been filled with plural tones of land masses and islands but it wasn't.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99744 Sep 18, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
That old trope that we only use 10% of our brain turns out to not be true.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
The expression that we only use ten percent of our brain is an expression. But it's a true expression nonetheless. Only an apologist for political thinking correctness would say it's not true in an attempt to show we're all equal in the ability to think and reason and that's BS.
Studies comparisons of lower and higher learning individuals connected to brain imaging devices show higher learning person's brains light up more when problem solving then lower learning individuals.
We use all of our brain to think etc. But not all of our brain's potential is used as it could be used when thinking/problem solving.
As I stated, take a single individual that could use their brain's full potential for thought and people would think of them to be a god.
Not understanding yet? Consider all of the greatest singular thoughts by various individuals over the last two thousand years that have allowed us to become what we are and to have what we have improved upon. Now take all those singular incidences of genius and consider a single individual that could think those genius type ideas and so many more never considered or thought about all day long. That type person would be a god to many.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#99745 Sep 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
First, you have to consider things theism politely ignores about their own story timeline about their creation story.
According to a thousand years human time to a heaven's day, it took 7000 years to create everything.
Than we have an unknown timeline of how long Adam and Eve were in the garden of Eden before Eve decided it was time to split.
Even though we have genealogies in the Bible beginning with Adam, not all of these family histories are 'accurate' in their timelines. There are missing pieces here and there.
So whether the creation story is true or false, the timeline of the creation story has flaws which means the creation timeline is older than theists believe no matter if you think the story true or false. The timeline is obviously longer than it's admitted to being by theists.
The writer of Genesis alone insinuates in singular tones that the earth Adam and Eve were set upon was a single (not plural) land mass. How could that writer 2500 years ago have guessed about the single continent theory? His story in Genesis should have been filled with plural tones of land masses and islands but it wasn't.
Hey 'No surprise' thanks for reply.

I'm on here for just a few minutes because of the lateness in my time zone.

Two things I need to reply to quickly and will do more tomorrow.

Number one, there was no Adam and Eve as written in the Bible. This is pretty much accepted by the science community (and some theists) because of bone and DNA evidence.

Number two is that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, and he may not have even existed. There was no Exodus lead by him...proven. Many scholars think the Pentateuch is a pious fraud perpetrated around the time of the Hebrew exile in Babylon 700-600+- BC. The supposed Moses was said to have lived around 1300 to 1200 BC

There's more of course

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#99746 Sep 18, 2013
pgardner31 wrote:
The Specific Cause of the "Evolution vs.'Creationism'" Controversy, and of the apparent discrepancy between science and the Bible
There is no apparent discrepancy, there is actual discrepancy.

There is the babble account, based on the superstition and mythology of bronze age goat herders and escaped slaves as advocated by creationists. Or there is the scientific view that is validated in several different and irrefutable ways as recognised by everyone else

The two completely contradict each other to the extent that creationists have to include special pleading and employ apologists (to apologise?) and so the separate sides will never see eye to eye except in the rare circumstance when a babble follower suddenly realises:-

“Hey, this does not make sense, it is not logically or factually close to accurate, why the hell have I been suckered by all this BS for so many years”

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99747 Sep 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
People read without considering what is being said, just saying :)
9 And God said,“Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
The writer of Genesis understood plural and singular. In Genesis the writer used words in plural many many times. They also used words in singular tense. If the writer knew that bodies of water separated land masses and that Islands of land did in fact exist in large and small sizes, it's curious that the writer would reference all words concerning land and ground in the singular and never in the plural in Genesis concerning the creation of things. Neither did the writer use the word 'islands' as other later writers would use it.
The writer's story insinuates/suggests the existence of a single landmass existing in the beginning of the creation of the earth instead of 'lands/isles/islands' of lands being made to exist.
Insinuates??? That's quite a stretch. And it has been pointed out to you that there were half a dozen supercontinents prior to Pangaea. Pangaea was only the most recent.

While there has been a study that suggested that the majority of the earth may have been covered by water, there is no evidence that it was once *entirely* covered in water. So your authors suggestion that "dry land appeared" doesn't hold water - so to speak.
headlines

AOL

#99748 Sep 18, 2013
.

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

http://youtu.be/Qt9kEQB4ti8

.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99749 Sep 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
People read without considering what is being said, just saying :)
9 And God said,“Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear”; and it was so.
The writer of Genesis understood plural and singular. In Genesis the writer used words in plural many many times. They also used words in singular tense. If the writer knew that bodies of water separated land masses and that Islands of land did in fact exist in large and small sizes, it's curious that the writer would reference all words concerning land and ground in the singular and never in the plural in Genesis concerning the creation of things. Neither did the writer use the word 'islands' as other later writers would use it.
The writer's story insinuates/suggests the existence of a single landmass existing in the beginning of the creation of the earth instead of 'lands/isles/islands' of lands being made to exist.
By the way, this was only ONE of your claims. How about the others?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#99750 Sep 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...my 'cult information sources' are a thing called 'modern science'. Modern science has stated after research that there's more water in the crust of the earth than what's on the surface. Maybe you should research this 'cult information' eh?
I have researched it :-

The amount of water on earth is known, roughly 1,260,000,000,000,000,000,000 litres. Around 1,260,000,000 cubic kilometres of water

The oceans average around 800 metres deep, approximately 0.36% is found underground and 0.035% is found in lakes, rivers, clouds etc.

In the past I have calculated how much water would be needed to cover the earth to a depth of 9 metres (approximately 20 cubits) above the highest mountain (Everest at 8.8km high) as specified in the Noah story,

You need approximately 5,655,678,336,000,000,000 cubic kilometres of water or 5,655,678,336,000,000,000,000, 000,000,000 litres

I believe that is around 4,488,633,600 time more water than is actually available

Admittedly that does not take account of landmass, hills, mountains etc but even taking the worse scenario that all land mass is as high as Everest (which of course it isn’t) then you are still looking 3,000,000,000 more water than there is

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99751 Sep 18, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
This is one link from a growing number of scientists in various fields that believe there is more water beneath the earth then there is on it.
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2011/06/23/...
So I asked him: "If you had to make a rough calculation, right now, and no one's going to hold you to it, how much water do you think we have on earth?" And he said a conservative (albeit blind) guess would be the earth today carries with it 3 global oceans of water, 1/3 on top, where we can swim in it, sail on it, drink it, get rained on by it, and 2/3rds down below where it sits silently with the minerals.
Interesting section to quote. How about this one?

"In the lower, bigger mantle, the calculations get more theoretical, and therefore chancy, but he guesses anywhere from one tenth to 1.8 global oceans."

"*GUESSES* anywhere from one tenth to 1.8 global oceans." 0.1 to 1.8 is quite a spread. But then, this is only a guess, right?

"Then, all the way down, in the earth's core, nobody knows. There's enough capacity to house 60 oceans. Or maybe 100. The core could be very, very rich in hydrogen (a water ingredient) or totally dry. We have no data. Which leaves us in the odd position of not knowing where most of the Earth's water is."

Love the last two sentences. Also note that hydrogen is not water.

While it is an interesting article and certainly some truth to it, it is far too vague to be taken seriously as an accurate estimate of the total amount of water on the planet.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#99752 Sep 18, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Insinuates??? That's quite a stretch. And it has been pointed out to you that there were half a dozen supercontinents prior to Pangaea. Pangaea was only the most recent.
While there has been a study that suggested that the majority of the earth may have been covered by water, there is no evidence that it was once *entirely* covered in water. So your authors suggestion that "dry land appeared" doesn't hold water - so to speak.
REUNITE GONDWANALAND!!
forreal

Corpus Christi, TX

#99753 Sep 18, 2013
Evolution is a HOAX! Evolution needs billions of yrs to explain how things evolve and yet the MAYFLIES only live a DAY!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL just 24 hour life span nothing more!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Darwin was a bornagain Jackass!LOLOLOLOLOL

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#99754 Sep 18, 2013
forreal wrote:
Evolution is a HOAX! Evolution needs billions of yrs to explain how things evolve and yet the MAYFLIES only live a DAY!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL just 24 hour life span nothing more!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Darwin was a bornagain Jackass!LOLOLOLOLOL
Stop spamming, jackass.

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TCT...

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#99755 Sep 18, 2013
forreal wrote:
Evolution is a HOAX! Evolution needs billions of yrs to explain how things evolve and yet the MAYFLIES only live a DAY!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL just 24 hour life span nothing more!LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL Darwin was a bornagain Jackass!LOLOLOLOLOL
Funnily enough the world as been here for over 4.5 billion years and it is now shown that evolutional change can occur on a generation by generation basis.

Just because you do not understand the reproductive cycle, genetic inheritance or time is no ones fault but your own. Try a little education, I understand that it can be quite beneficial in driving away deliberate ignorance

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
Official: Oklahoma beheading suspect a bit 'weird' 5 min NOM s Waffle House 32
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 6 min Bree_Z 21,267
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min Princess Hey 147,594
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 11 min CJ Rocker 26,028
Who do you trust on offbeat ? (Sep '12) 11 min Bree_Z 208
Topix 16 min It's Only Me 6
10,000th Post WINS 4.0 (Apr '12) 27 min Nobody 2 Special 4,977
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 1 hr ZkyClank 6,361
Woman Held in Jail for Weeks Over SpaghettiOs 2 hr PFfff 6
Cows Really Don't Like Cowbells, Study Finds 4 hr Rose of Tralee 47

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE