Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Sep 13

UK

#100517 Oct 4, 2013
Aura Mytha:-
"You either know something by the evidence at least to being somewhat confident in it because there is tangible, empirical or physical evidence showing the fact. Or you're a clueless believer in some story you like. The Big bang has considerable physical evidence showing it happened. Creationist have a story and a clueless belief based on faith. There is this physical evidence, and we are debating it because you are clueless believer who rejects the evidence to the fact.
So there really isn't a debate , there is your denial and our
telling you the truth."

You are not telling me the truth, you are simply telling me what you believe and as there is no irrefutable evidence, you are the clueless believer acting on faith.

I don't believe in creationism, Darwinism or the big bang theory because unlike yourself I am not a clueless believer. All three are theories based on facts or whatever you want to call them gathered by others and ,unless I can substantiate them myself which I can't, so I treat them with scepticism and refuse to claim any of them are true.

Creationism, Darwinism and the big bang theory all have the same thing in common. The person who put them forward spent the time gathering and putting forward the evidence they needed to prove their theory.

Innocent people have been sent to prison based on the theories of such people. No doubt those experts were as confident as you that they were right such as the chances of more than one cot death happening in a family.

The fact is nobody can say with 100% certainty that their theory on how life began or progressed is true. They can claim there is more chance of their theory being correct and present an argument to claim it is, but someone can then present an argument to say there is more chance of their theory being true.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100518 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The load of crap is your attitude that reflects/mirrors the attitudes Darwin faced, just saying.
That was a very stupid thing to say. And it had nothing to do with my post.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100519 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
An ignorant mind uses the word 'never' with science, just saying.
And only a jackass refuses to acknowledge evidence in favor of his fundamentalist beliefs.

Just saying.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100520 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
An ignorant mind uses the word 'never' with science, just saying.
And you ignored the evidence I did provide. So you're just a phony.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100523 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a skeptic is good. So contemplate this than. Where is true sea level? We know thousands of feet deep in oceans and seas lay many, many numerous mountainous valleys and plains that have the appearance from recent undersea examinations of having been carved out by water erosion and or weather as happens on the surface. So where was true sea levels? At the bottom of the oceans and seas in these valleys or where we guage it today? Than consider the implications of where the sea level was when we had no ice and where it laid when the 'supposed' snowball earth theory took place.
And if the valleys of the oceans/seas were really carved out by water/weather erosion, what sank them and from what sea level?
Questions, questions, questions :)
Read a book and your questions will be answered.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100524 Oct 4, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> The Canadian find is oceanic rock.
It is literally the basaltic and some has other properties, but is the first crust that formed as the Earth cooled and water condensed creating the shallow seas. And greenstone
The deformed volcanic sequences that form greenstone belts in the Canadian Shield contain hyaloclastite and pillow lavas, indicating these areas were once below sea level and the lava was rapidly cooled underwater. Pillow lavas more than two billion years old indicate large submarine volcanoes existed during the early stages of the Earth's formation.[22]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcanology_of_C...
The pillow lava pushed up the older oceanic crust in this case, the part we thought was gone forever from subduction.
http://all-geo.org/highlyallochthonous/2007/0...
The oldest rocks on Earth are 4.28 billion years old - the Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt, exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay, northern Quebec, Canada. With an age of about 4.28 billion years, it is the only portion of the Earth's crust known to have formed during the Hadean eon. In this greenstone belt the oldest dates came from rocks called "faux amphibolite," which are thought to be ancient volcanic deposits. These beat the previously oldest known rocks, which are about 4.03 billion years old and come from the Acasta Gneiss formation in Canada's Northwest Territories. The only older crustal material is from isolated mineral grains called zircons, which are highly resistant to weathering and geologic processes. The Nuvvuagittuq Greenstone Belt gives researchers a fresh perspective on the early separation of Earth's mantle from the crust. It is thought that a shallow ocean had already existed 300 million years after the Earth's formation. It raises puzzling questions as to ancient bacteria, as they are thought to be needed to precipitate iron availability for the formation of this type of rock. It might very well be that this rock may also contain traces of the oldest form of life in some way.
http://www.sciencemall-usa.com/nugrbe.html
Interesting that they think life maybe found in it too.
Not quite. There are quite a few different rock strata in Canada. I was talking about 4.1 by old gneiss which is granitic or continental in origin. But your greenstone belt is older than the gneiss that I linked so you did fin an older rock and it looks like it would be oceanic crust.

Actually that makes more sense since the most common way to make continental crust is to take some older oceanic crust and partially remelt it. The lighter more easily melted minerals form granite and rhyolite the heavier remaining rock sinks into the mantle.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100525 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I never stated there was a Biblical flood or when or how. You're the looney to continue to think I have said such things when I haven't.
Yet you keep arguing that it could have happened.
No Surprise wrote:
I have stated the earth has it's own potential to do whatever it will, including flooding itself above the highest peaks or freezing nearly all water on it's surface in a nuclear glacial winter and covering nearly all land in deep, deep snow for a short period of time.
No, the earth cannot do whatever it will. It obeys the same laws of physics as everything else.
No Surprise wrote:
You on the other hand have continually stated what you believe never can happen or never would happen and that is your narrow, shallow restrictive opinion.
And also because I'm not a friggin loony who thinks that anything can happen,

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100527 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Doofus? lol...fricking to funny states the doofus who believes theories never become fact. Are you pathetically ignorant? It was a theory that disagreed with a more popular theory that proved and became a fact that the earth rotated around the sun and not viceversa. Theories were the basis of all established facts. Theories where probable/provable became/become an established fact in science.
If your logic is correct(which it isn't)that theories NEVER become fact, than it's still an unproven theory that the sun is the center of our solar system.
If your logic is correct(which it isn't)that theories NEVER become fact, than it's still an unproven theory that gravity holds us to this earth.
Should I continue with your logic? Hmm?
Wow! You really are that dumb. What I said was 100% correct. Now go back any try and finish your GED. Hopefully before you start collecting social security,

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100528 Oct 4, 2013
And here is why I did not use the the greenstone Aura mentioned:

"
Oldest rock on Earth[edit]
The Acasta Gneiss in the Canadian Shield in the Northwest Territories, Canada is composed of the Archaean igneous and gneissic cores of ancient mountain chains that have been exposed in a glacial peneplain. Analyses of zircons from a felsic orthogneiss with presumed granitic protolith returned an age of 4.031 ± 0.003 Ga.[1]
On September 25, 2008, researchers from McGill University, Carnegie Institution for Science and UQAM announced that a rock formation, the Nuvvuagittuq greenstone belt, exposed on the eastern shore of Hudson Bay in northern Quebec had a Sm-Nd age for extraction from the mantle of 4.28 billion years.[8][9][10][11] However, it is argued that the actual age of formation of this rock, as opposed to the extraction of its magma from the mantle, is likely closer to 3.8 billion years, according to Simon Wilde of the Institute for Geoscience Research in Australia.[4]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldest_dated_roc...

Of course they are going to the original time of cooling for the gneiss that I mentioned, not its later metamorphicism. So I still give it to the greenstone belt.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100529 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's your intelligent reply? Par for course for you isn't it :)
MikeF in conversations he doesn't like...lol
"Some say it's possible there was a global flood."
MikeF.."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
"There's elephant head reliefs on Mayan stone buildings."
MikeF..."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
"There's growing evidence for cocaine from South and or central America in Egyptian mummies and not just cross contamination."
MikeF.."Good. Then you can STFU about it."
You go dude :)
Massive ignorance. Amazing.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100530 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
That's nice. I can do the same for you :)
Do you know how many times Florida was covered by ancient oceans? You should have an idea as you pretend to understand all things science and you do live in Florida.
Do you know how many different ways Florida/parts of Florida was covered from sudden violent action to maybe a few inches to a foot a year by ocean water?
Do you know that most depressions on the earths surface that water resides in called 'lakes' were formed by ancient glacial flooding and from swirling currents disturbing the sea floor to earthquake activity and crustal movement to how ancient surface lava beds settled?
Floods are majorly responsible for reshaping the earth's general surface so that where there wasn't a lake there maybe one afterwards or a small lake might be reshaped to being a large lake. Glaciers have also played a large part.
By the way bub, I live/lived in two states where most lake beds were shaped by glaciers and glacier flooding where water would later fill and remain. Now what?
You were wrong. Again. Your little rant doesn't change that.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100531 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely not.
I have repeatedly disparaged your's and others remarks who claim to understand science and use words like 'never','impossible','never happened', etc. That is true.
{yawn}

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100532 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
As you state it no. Never happens. People of science do not use predictions to help formulate theories to show proof of something they wish to be recognized as fact.
Here you say they do not make prediction.
No Surprise wrote:
People in science doing estimations may predict the outcome ahead of time, that is true.
Here you say they do. Can't make up you mind? Or just confused?
No Surprise wrote:
The following I took from the web for you :)
Prediction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction
Informal prediction ...· Statistics · Prediction in science · Finance · Sports
A prediction (Latin prę-, "before," and dicere, "to say") or forecast is a statement about the way things will happen in the future, often but not always based on ...
..........
Scientific method - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
Overview · Scientific inquiry · Elements of the ...· Models of scientific ...
The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed ...
The following I took from the web for you since you are in too much of a damn hurry to even read your own links:

"The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself,[discuss] supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false."

Notice the word "PREDICTIONS", moron?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100533 Oct 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
People that rely on links are unable to present an argument and need to have someone else do the bidding for them.
Horseshit. Links to respected documentation is an excellent way to support an argument. No one is going to retype an entire paper just to satisfy some whiner.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100534 Oct 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Thing is in ten minutes, I'll have forgotten all about you, but you will be thinking about me all day...
Today when you see the color BLUE, you see an image of yourself turning BLUE,(like the girl in Wonka that turned into a blueberry) that will remind you of how I exposed you in front of all your little trolls in here and that makes you BLUE.
OK, I'm done with this one, tossing back.
Next?
Arrogant little prick, aren't you?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#100535 Oct 4, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You were wrong. Again. Your little rant doesn't change that.
As I perceive it,the logic is:
Water exists in aquifers, and a torrent of accumulated glacial melt caused the scablands, therefore you can NEVER use absolute terms in science and it is ALWAYS possible that Noah saved opossums, pandas and wallabys.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

#100536 Oct 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text> Another clueless troll...
You able to provide any evidence to support your BS claim?
Are we to just take your word on it?
Just curious if you even understand what DNA is and its function?
What definition of DNA do you agree with?
I have just spent the last month working through the mtDNA haplotype issue with KAB, a hardcore Flood loving creationist on another thread.

Under no scenario he can dream up, not even when I put on a "creationist hat" and helped, can we make the diversity and the structure of the nested hierarchy evident in human haplotypes fit into a scenario where n=3 (3 women), 4500 years ago. Not even close.

Dogen has been watching the whole thing and he will tell you. I tried everything. I bent every assumption I could in KAB's favour. Still does not work.

There was no bottleneck of n=3 (or even close) at 4500 years ago (or even close).

Therefore no WW Flood destroying everyone except the Arkies. Unless you want to apply magic to the haplotype tree too, then anything is possible of course.

But we weren't born yesterday. Or were we? With magic even that could be possible.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#100537 Oct 4, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Massive ignorance. Amazing.
By now, THAT should come as 'No Surprise' to you

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#100538 Oct 4, 2013
EXPERT wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you want more question when you won't answer any I have asked so far?
Okay, he is an easy one.
I remember your claim was at one time the entire surface was covered with water.
Since you now state billions of years, did you want to offer a specific time in history when you claim the last time the entire surface was covered with water?
I really doubt that there was ever a time when the whole earth was covered in water. I have never seen the slightest bit of evidence for it. I know pretty much beyond doubt that the Noachian flood never happened....most of the Old Testament didn't happen.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#100539 Oct 4, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
As I stated that you side stepped addressing. Iridium wasn't known to exist in a geological layer till someone found it and identified it. People can suppose they know what to look for concerning a global flood. That doesn't mean their correct. The scablands were flooded and evidence was there but no one saw it till someone understood what they were looking for. Science is based on possibilities, not impossibilities.
So nobody knows what to look for, which would by definition include you. Therefore it still could have happened even though nobody knows what to look for.

And you want people to take you seriously, yes?

Actually, NS, we have already explained what you should be looking for. A modern day Earth looking something like this:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb2008092...

Of course science is not based on impossibilities, right? Which means we should have no problem with the possibility of all mountains on Earth to suddenly start flying 15,000 feet in the air tomorrow.

And apparently ours is the extremist position.

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
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 3 min Parden Pard 7,145
Simple things that make you happy, smile, ... etc. (Feb '12) 5 min Go Blue Forever 5,023
Teen claims '3-breasted woman' held him as sex ... 7 min Parden Pard 1
Do Muslim women partake in pre-marital anal sex... (Jul '12) 10 min Kevin 63
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 16 min eleanorigby 36,623
20,000th Post Wins - 2d Edition (Jan '13) 20 min Debra27 1,287
Official: Oklahoma beheading suspect a bit 'weird' 22 min Denny CranesPlace 36
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 30 min Kevin 21,406
Ebola in America 32 min Denny CranesPlace 42
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 44 min Wolftracks 147,751
Do you have a Topix crush? (Jun '11) 5 hr Heres lookin at y... 6,419
Missing posters.. (Jan '14) 6 hr SLY WEST 33

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE