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
94,541 - 94,560 of 114,800 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100043
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
(BS) Brilliant Statement "thank you."
Oh, my mistake. I'll try to be more precise in the future.

"More bullshit the the arrogant turd Tzar."

Is that better?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100044
Sep 25, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry "this is where all the laws of physics break down" is science invoking magic. Science must follow the rules.
And leave out all the magic and religion.
More bullshit the the arrogant turd Tzar.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100045
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You keep accusing me of offering "magic" as an explanation of the origins of life. If you can find even a hint of that in anything I've said, I'll back down right now.
I see your memory is so poor that you totally forgot your rather silly claim that the scientific community in general was "running" from abiogenesis in favour of Godmagic. A claim which you'll ONLY hear in fundie religious circles.
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
The smugness comes from a certitude that your reasoning is correct, on a subject where we could all benefit from a little humility, and a condescending attitude toward anyone who dares disagree with you.
You wouldn't be saying the same if I was telling you that gravity works without the apparent intervention of leprechauns. But this is EXACTLY what is happening here. Only it's being applied to biology and not gravitational phyics.

In fact give it time, and it WILL be being applied to literally EVERY scientific field. After all, Cybele has already mentioned "patterns"...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100046
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Cybele wrote:
Evolution and creation proponents do not agree with 7 day creation because both sides take the literal interpretation of the bible, which is really ridiculous.
One day did not equal 24 hours during that era of creation because when the sun was created, it did not form "instantly" to give its full function of producing daylight in a 24 hour day cycle. In other words, during its inception it did not fully give a 24 hour cycle to complete one full day that we observe now. Not until later, when planets, moons, asteroids and meteors were formed to be our solar system. So if this Creator did say, "I completed one full day!" get a clue.
Good. Then we agree that the Bible is not an accurate representation of reality and can therefore be dismissed as a valid scientific text.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100047
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You, sir or madam, are an a'hole. If you had kept up with the conversation, you would have learned that I am no fan of the bible, or sons of god, or any religious explanations for the origins of life. Shoo!
You sir or madam are a religious nut. Your baseless religious opinions aren't worth their weight in poop and reality does not care what your beliefs are. You have used a reality-denying fundie nut as a "scientific source" despite the fact he believes the Flinstones is a science documentary. You have yet to make a retraction. Therefore your opinion that we are all just a bunch of "meanies" for DARING to disagree with YOU of all people, can be similarly dismissed.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100048
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Horseshit, Dude. This dance is over.
Bye then.(shrug)

It's never over though. Never will be as long as fundies exist.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100049
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Cybele wrote:
I KNOW how the theory works.
If you did you would be arguing against the fundies. You don't.
Cybele wrote:
Your philosophy in life is based on a theory and your knowledge is based on scientific evidence. You cannot possibly KNOW everything.
No, science doesn't know everything. That does not mean that science you disagree with for theological reasons is wrong, or that an absence of knowledge is justification for magic wizards. Thanks to science however, we do know SOME stuff.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100050
Sep 25, 2013
 
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
For 150 years evolution has failed to do one macro evolution the kind that Darwin talks about.
You think turning on and off light switches is magic. Who put those light switch in? No evolution. In every single instance that a species has been isolated and a new species proclaimed the fact is the isolation has caused the "new" species has lost DNA!
NEVER ONCE has it added DNA.
Mutated DNA yes never new DNA.
Evolution hard at work is seen in massive inbreeding. Look how well those mutation have created such improved humans.
O hai KJV! I notice you still have to lie in order to have an argument.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100051
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Dud, Stephen Hawkings total disagrees with you.
That may be so, but since I have no idea who this "Hawkings" guy is it doesn't matter. As for Stephen Hawking, it's not possible for him to disagree with me if I agree with him. Otherwise if you're referring to the quotemine Kong caught you out on and which I have also addressed since then, that's just you lying again.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100052
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

richardIII wrote:
<quoted text>
Think some more, evolutionists believe the 2-3 molecule theory merely because they have nothing else to believe. Me? I don't have a clue where we came from.
If you're referring to abiogenesis, scientists actually accept it because that's what the evidence recorded in the rocks indicates - the earliest forms of life started out as basic biochemistry, and from their developed prokaryotes then eukaryotes, then things like bacteria and multi-cellular life.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100053
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry "this is where all the laws of physics break down" is science invoking magic. Science must follow the rules.
And leave out all the magic and religion.
I see you have in no way attempted to counter my discussion but simply stamped your foot and spouted irrelevant lies. Tell me, you wouldn’t happen to be a funnymentalist would you?

You know, I really feel for those guys, it must be terribly difficult living by the ignorance of such faith in today’s world of knowledge.

Why be sorry? Just because the known laws of physics break down at a particular point is no excuse to guess and claim victory. Because that is all you are doing, putting your faith in the guesswork of a bunch of stoned mystics, goat herders and escaped slaves who lived in the bronze age. You are betting your faith on the guess that some how those guys living more than 4000 years ago knew more about the universe than modern science does. Note, this was a universe that was seen as pinned to the dome of the sky that revolved around the earth. You are betting your faith on a book that is at best a poor translation of the original which has then been edited at whim and compiled and recompiled, not from original material but what best suits the belief a particular scribe, monk, church or monarch of the day. The history of the babble, both OT and NT is really too colourful to have spawned so much belief. This of course makes the three abrahamic religions a lie from start to finish.

You may not have the ability to comprehend science but again that is no excuse to make up lies for your god. Science is not invoking anything, there are rules ‘that you keep harping on about’ to prevent your lying claims, they contradict your lies rather then strengthen your stance. Unlike godbots and funnymentalist, science freely admits that not all answers are unknowable. This is where your argument with science starts, because you claim by special pleading (magic) to know the answers that are unknowable. Without such a claim your belief is as worthless to you as it is to anyone else. You attempt to grab the moral high ground by lying about what you know and what you guess and what science is and what you want science to be.(P.S. look up the meaning of the word moral)

However the laws of mathematics do not break down, The work of Dr Param Singh et al allows before the event to be modelled if not in fact then in figures. OK, you can’t understand that either and it is no doubt way beyond you so perhaps it foot stomping time again. But guess what? No god involved there either.

The work of Dr Mersini-Houghton, which uses the above mentioned mathematics and the factual and evidential properties known of the universe is, I believe, the best model yet for what happened before the big bang. Not only does it make sense but it accounts for all of the anomalies measured and observed and there is no guesswork involved.

Or then again, you build a religion out of a bronze age guess, it’s your life to believe what you want, the point being that belief is not fact

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100054
Sep 25, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I'll see you a malt and raise you a army!
Now Daenerys Targaryen, what do you wish us dragons and menz to do?
:)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =sYqa3eAAYNIXX
I read the Game of Thrones books a few years ago and found them boring so I never got into the series. I am told that was a mistake because the series was far better than the books. OK, I’ll wait for the re-run

Drinking one each of the arrayed malts from the top shelf a hotel bar in Peebles (near Edinburgh) was certainly a night to forget…

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100055
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
There WAS some kind of force which developed life. No-one claims otherwise. Creationists lie and say that WE say that life came from nothing.
<quoted text>
It's specific characteristics are unknown at this time.
<quoted text>
Since ALL genetics mutates this is a meaningless question.
<quoted text>
As is this, since ALL genetics is a "pattern". DNA replicates itself. Therefore if we have some DNA which replicates itself exactly then we have a pattern of characteristics which is observable in both samples. However DNA does not replicate precisely, as there is always mutations with each generation. This ALSO produces a pattern, a pattern of change, which can be measured. For instance your particular DNA pattern is roughly 50% your father's DNA, 50% your mothers, plus around 125 to 175 mutations which neither of your parents have. The same with your kids. And their kids. And theirs. And so on and so forth. This produces a pattern of nested hierarchy. Nested hierarchies are observable in both DNA and the fossil record. There is no reason this pattern of hierarchies should match if evolution were incorrect.
If it makes you feel better to say that God is responsible for all this, then have a ball. Just don't pretend that your claim has anything to do with science.
It's your arrogance that deludes you to believe that one branch of science is superior to others. Stop dreaming. You don't hold the key to the real truth about life. You will come and go without knowing it.

You want to tell me that my claims has nothing to do with science, who the f-- are you kidding? really? I know things that science cannot explain. So I'm doing you all a damn favor.

You obviously base your arguments based on your own BIAS, calling God a Jew magic for instance, and you don't care because you're just here with an agenda so you could care less what others have to offer to the table.

Your mind is set with what you have learned and don't want to learn anything new. You don't want to question anything because it wasn't covered in the textbook or maybe because you're just an ass.

Look, I have been following science for some time now and I know what they are up to. And you, you're stuck on the evolution propaganda. Science will not make progress if it ceases to tap the unknown.

And what is this claim of yours that when something occurs "naturally" there is no need for a creator? Does that even make sense? So the first particles came to existence naturally, nothing created them. DUH. When you get a life, you will learn something.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100056
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Good. Then we agree that the Bible is not an accurate representation of reality and can therefore be dismissed as a valid scientific text.
I'm pointing out the discrepancy in the Genesis. It was written before the calendar was invented, so obviously there is some inaccuracies in the interpretation of the Word.

Who ever said it was a valid "scientific" text?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100057
Sep 25, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I read the Game of Thrones books a few years ago and found them boring so I never got into the series. I am told that was a mistake because the series was far better than the books. OK, I’ll wait for the re-run
Drinking one each of the arrayed malts from the top shelf a hotel bar in Peebles (near Edinburgh) was certainly a night to forget…
It's much better to see after seasons over and watch the whole thing
in your own time without pause , or rather not so much pause.
This is the season one finale scene (warning spoiler).

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100058
Sep 25, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
Look, I have been following science for some time now and I know what they are up to.
And what is that exactly?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100059
Sep 25, 2013
 
oops That one was in French..sorry.
Here is English...

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100060
Sep 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
"And he said a conservative (albeit blind) guess would be..."
Blind guess. Not very impressive.
What's not impressive is your ignorance of past discoveries that were once theories based on weak evidence and blind guesses of things not than yet proven.
"The ignorant prove what a open mind shall never become" Anonymous.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100061
Sep 25, 2013
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm pointing out the discrepancy in the Genesis. It was written before the calendar was invented, so obviously there is some inaccuracies in the interpretation of the Word.
Are you referring to this?
Cybele wrote:
Evolution and creation proponents do not agree with 7 day creation because both sides take the literal interpretation of the bible, which is really ridiculous.
One day did not equal 24 hours during that era of creation because when the sun was created, it did not form "instantly" to give its full function of producing daylight in a 24 hour day cycle. In other words, during its inception it did not fully give a 24 hour cycle to complete one full day that we observe now. Not until later, when planets, moons, asteroids and meteors were formed to be our solar system. So if this Creator did say, "I completed one full day!" get a clue.
What does the invention of the calendar have to do with anything? It is quite obvious that the concept of a 24 hour day and a 7 day week was not an unknown concept. That's what is referenced in Genesis. Not months or years. Nor calendars.
Cybele wrote:
Who ever said it was a valid "scientific" text?
Any number of fundamentalists have claimed that Genesis is scientifically accurate. Your minor discrepancies aside, you seem to be on board with this as well.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100062
Sep 25, 2013
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
And what is that exactly?
I follow Phys.org , Science Channel, Greenpeace, NASA Social, CERN, Curiosity Rover, Medical Xpress, on Twitter.

Also Yahoo.com , they post a lot of science news.

Periodically, I visit Scientific American and Science Daily websites.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••