Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100742 Oct 9, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Is more than one Elvis, tiny are standard size, Elvi?
the real king of rock, Elvis Costello or the sad elvis that pissed away a great talent?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100743 Oct 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I'm sure with your sources your research will be most valuable!
Never asked anyone to read a source. I gave links and asked for anyone interested to view the photos, not the opinions.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100744 Oct 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I'd recommend not bothering.
That's that halfwit von Daniken - he also claimed that he had photographic evidence of a UFO landing area which turned out to be less thsn six feet across.
He's been totally debunked.
I didn't ask people to read his opinions. And I gave a few 'different' links of the various photos. The links were for people to view the photos to form their own opinion. Don't want to form an opinion, don't look at the photos :)

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100745 Oct 9, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what is this evidence for a higher intelligence?
our intelligence does mimic that of other primates...the innate fear of reptiles is a good example...
lol...and arachnoids.

I have no 'evidence' for higher intelligence. I have 'reasons and opinions' for it plausibility though.
Of billions of species that lived and live only one on this planet has evolved as we have. Why just one? Reasoning based on the evolution of other primate species says there should be at least a few species on this earth with our brain capacity.
We have an unnumbered amount of solar systems and galaxies in the universe. We are one of the younger solar systems. We have no evidence for like life on another planet anywhere we can see/view. It can't be a chance happening that after billions of years matter happened to produce life on this planet and didn't do it before several times at least. Reasoning states we should be visited by people as ourselves from other planets with the same natural resources we have that caused their evolution. That they would have been around for so long that they would be teaching us their knowledge.
But that isn't how it is. I am to understand from evolutionists in billions of years a single solitary moment occurred on this single planet and unlike any other planet life evolved to what it is now. And people claim the theory of creationists is hard to swallow? Alrighty...lol.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#100746 Oct 9, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...and arachnoids.
I have no 'evidence' for higher intelligence. I have 'reasons and opinions' for it plausibility though.
Of billions of species that lived and live only one on this planet has evolved as we have. Why just one? Reasoning based on the evolution of other primate species says there should be at least a few species on this earth with our brain capacity.
We have an unnumbered amount of solar systems and galaxies in the universe. We are one of the younger solar systems. We have no evidence for like life on another planet anywhere we can see/view. It can't be a chance happening that after billions of years matter happened to produce life on this planet and didn't do it before several times at least. Reasoning states we should be visited by people as ourselves from other planets with the same natural resources we have that caused their evolution. That they would have been around for so long that they would be teaching us their knowledge.
But that isn't how it is. I am to understand from evolutionists in billions of years a single solitary moment occurred on this single planet and unlike any other planet life evolved to what it is now. And people claim the theory of creationists is hard to swallow? Alrighty...lol.
You write:
"Reasoning based on the evolution of other primate species says there should be at least a few species on this earth with our brain capacity."

Your reasoning is flawed....one doesn't necessarily follow the other.

So far as we can tell at this point, our abilities stem from one little defect(?) in our DNA giving us humans 46 chromosomes instead of 48 like other primates. No 2 fused

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Iquique

#100747 Oct 9, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand according to existing evidence that life exists no where else as we exist, logic says we shouldn't exist but we do :)
Logic says no such thing.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#100748 Oct 9, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You write:
"Reasoning based on the evolution of other primate species says there should be at least a few species on this earth with our brain capacity."
Your reasoning is flawed....one doesn't necessarily follow the other.
So far as we can tell at this point, our abilities stem from one little defect(?) in our DNA giving us humans 46 chromosomes instead of 48 like other primates. No 2 fused

Apes are incapable of the concept of what others are thinking.
Therefore do not consider the idea of another entity.
But there are several species that do have this ability and,
These other creatures rival humans in brain capacity . Whales all the toothed whales and Elephants.
They are extremely intelligent , however do not have hands
capable of precision tool making. So are limited in that respect.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.c...

http://www.livescience.com/15647-elephant-pro...

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#100749 Oct 10, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what is this evidence for a higher intelligence?
our intelligence does mimic that of other primates...the innate fear of reptiles is a good example...
tick if you would pay attention he is talking about carving in stone of elephants and other things that those people could not have seen. They carved and drew things that did not exist to them for there is no way for them to have seen them.

“I'm Your Huckleberry ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

That's Just My Game

#100750 Oct 10, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>what is this evidence for a higher intelligence?
our intelligence does mimic that of other primates...the innate fear of reptiles is a good example...
if you want some examples tick of what he is talking about here are some links. These people back then did not know of or had seen elephants, flying ships or spacemen and other things but yet had carvings/relics of them. Also look at his links that he provided.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread669...

http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/7523...

Since: Sep 13

UK

#100751 Oct 10, 2013
"Nope. You have masterfully demonstrated that you quite simply do not have the slightest clue what you're talking about."

I assume dude that when typing the above comments you were talking about yourself as you obviously don't.

The fact is if it had been accepted as a law then it would not still be referred to as a theory by the scientific community. Which is why I think it is the most likely way life as evolved, but refuse to claim it as truth and so treat it with some scepticism.

"Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws"."

So Newtons theory on gravity never became Newtons Law on gravity? The fact is it started out as a theory and only when he had proven it beyond all doubt did it become Newton's law on gravity. Nobody as been able to do that with Darwin's theories on evolution which is why it remains a theory and not a law.

You can throw all the insults you want at me, but it is clear you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about as you are contradicting yourself.

"Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws"."

"Like Newton's LAW of gravity."

Or are you still suffering under the delusion that Newton's theory on gravity started out as his law of gravity. The fact is anything in science starts out as a theory and only when it is proven beyond all doubt is it confirmed as a scientific law.

It is clear that you do not understand what a theory is. The fact is Darwin's theory of evolution as plenty of facts to support it, but not enough to prove it beyond doubt and so not enough facts to make it a law. If someone says they can drop a watch off the top of a block of flats with a parachute on, run to the bottom and catch it that is a theory. They catch it 1000 or even 1000000 times it remains a theory, because there is no way to prove that when they get to 100 or even 70 or 80 that they will still be able to catch it and so it never becomes a law.

The fact is a theory does not need to be supported by any facts, it is just that the more facts there are to support a theory the more people there are who will consider it a working theory. The less facts there are to support a theory the more chance there is people will consider it as things such as a myth or a fairy story.

I'm an atheist and so Darwin had more belief in the bible than I ever have as he referred to himself as an Agnostic.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#100752 Oct 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Apes are incapable of the concept of what others are thinking.
Therefore do not consider the idea of another entity.
But there are several species that do have this ability and,
These other creatures rival humans in brain capacity . Whales all the toothed whales and Elephants.
They are extremely intelligent , however do not have hands
capable of precision tool making. So are limited in that respect.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.c...
http://www.livescience.com/15647-elephant-pro...
http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/10-ani...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/...
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11128062...
Teamwork shows that apes are self aware, aware of others, communicate, plan ahead and are therefore capable of understanding what other team member s are thinking.

As you say other animals rival human intelligence (in their environment). I recently watched a BBC horizon program on animal intelligence and the list of up and coming animals in the intelligence stakes is quite surprising. It is thought that pigs and members of the blackbird family will rival (current) human intelligence within the next few thousand years.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#100753 Oct 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/10-ani...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/...
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11128062...
Teamwork shows that apes are self aware, aware of others, communicate, plan ahead and are therefore capable of understanding what other team member s are thinking.
As you say other animals rival human intelligence (in their environment). I recently watched a BBC horizon program on animal intelligence and the list of up and coming animals in the intelligence stakes is quite surprising. It is thought that pigs and members of the blackbird family will rival (current) human intelligence within the next few thousand years.
I'll try to find the experiment that shows you what I mean. Yes I agree with all this but, I'm not relaying the concept well enough.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#100754 Oct 10, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
"Nope. You have masterfully demonstrated that you quite simply do not have the slightest clue what you're talking about."

***The fact is if it had been accepted as a law then it would not still be referred to as a theory by the scientific community.

"Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws"."
***So Newtons theory on gravity never became Newtons Law on gravity? The fact is it started out as a theory and only when he had proven it beyond all doubt did it become Newton's law on gravity. Nobody as been able to do that with Darwin's theories on evolution which is why it remains a theory and not a law.
You can throw all the insults you want at me, but it is clear you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about as you are contradicting yourself.
"Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws"."
"Like Newton's LAW of gravity."
Or are you still suffering under the delusion that Newton's theory on gravity started out as his law of gravity.

***The fact is anything in science starts out as a theory and only when it is proven beyond all doubt is it confirmed as a scientific law.

***It is clear that you do not understand what a theory is. The fact is Darwin's theory of evolution as plenty of facts to support it, but not enough to prove it beyond doubt and so not enough facts to make it a law.

***The fact is a theory does not need to be supported by any facts .
Nice demonstration of not knowing wth you are talking about.
A scientific theory never becomes a law.
A scientific law is a statement of observation that never changes no matter how many time the experiment is done.
It never was a theory and will never be anything other than a statement of a observation.

The law of gravity is the statement that..
Mass is attracted to mass. The exact wording is..

"Every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

F=GMm/R^2

Newton worked out the math approximating the force between different mass bodies and found the inverse square law and gravitational constant between them.

G = 6.67310^-11 N m^2 kg^-2

"So Newtons theory on gravity never became Newtons Law on gravity?"

He calculated the three laws of motion, but never made theory as to why it was so.
Newton never made theory as why these things happen, but believed them to be a natural force between mass. He merely used inductive reasoning and math to measure what he saw. That why they are laws and not theory's. They were the mathematical expressions of empirical observations by deductive reasoning.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaw...

Enter Einstein to formulate Gravity's theory , to explain why the above statements happens. He also refined the calculations Newton pioneered. In General relativity and his field equations.

http://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-rel...

Like gravity and like Newton, Darwin made a statement of observation, he called it evolution. He then explained why evolution happens , with his book
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Meaning the theory of the observation (evolution) is
Natural selection , we just call the whole thing ToE because it shorter, and way shorter than his title.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#100755 Oct 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I'll try to find the experiment that shows you what I mean. Yes I agree with all this but, I'm not relaying the concept well enough.
Watch this video from 24.26 and it shows you exactly what I meant by experimentation. Humans change this concept , chimps and apes never do.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xva1fq_throu...

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#100756 Oct 10, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>*sigh*
Yes. Only I keep forgetting. It's so hard to think irrationally.
It's nothing a little blunt force trauma to the frontal lobe can't fix

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#100757 Oct 10, 2013
Wow... just wow. You really are completely ignorant of science in general. The evidence of your ignorance is provided by you every time you make a post like one below.

Spend an hour with Google and search out "scientific theory" and "scientific laws". With any luck, you may actually learn something. Sorry if you feel like slapping yourself (for postings like the one below) afterwards... but discovering how stupid you've been would be a step in the right direction.
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
"Nope. You have masterfully demonstrated that you quite simply do not have the slightest clue what you're talking about."
I assume dude that when typing the above comments you were talking about yourself as you obviously don't.
The fact is if it had been accepted as a law then it would not still be referred to as a theory by the scientific community. Which is why I think it is the most likely way life as evolved, but refuse to claim it as truth and so treat it with some scepticism.
"Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws"."
So Newtons theory on gravity never became Newtons Law on gravity? The fact is it started out as a theory and only when he had proven it beyond all doubt did it become Newton's law on gravity. Nobody as been able to do that with Darwin's theories on evolution which is why it remains a theory and not a law.
You can throw all the insults you want at me, but it is clear you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about as you are contradicting yourself.
"Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws"."
"Like Newton's LAW of gravity."
Or are you still suffering under the delusion that Newton's theory on gravity started out as his law of gravity. The fact is anything in science starts out as a theory and only when it is proven beyond all doubt is it confirmed as a scientific law.
It is clear that you do not understand what a theory is. The fact is Darwin's theory of evolution as plenty of facts to support it, but not enough to prove it beyond doubt and so not enough facts to make it a law. If someone says they can drop a watch off the top of a block of flats with a parachute on, run to the bottom and catch it that is a theory. They catch it 1000 or even 1000000 times it remains a theory, because there is no way to prove that when they get to 100 or even 70 or 80 that they will still be able to catch it and so it never becomes a law.
The fact is a theory does not need to be supported by any facts, it is just that the more facts there are to support a theory the more people there are who will consider it a working theory. The less facts there are to support a theory the more chance there is people will consider it as things such as a myth or a fairy story.
I'm an atheist and so Darwin had more belief in the bible than I ever have as he referred to himself as an Agnostic.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#100758 Oct 10, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If God did it, YOU still have no idea how. So whether it was God or not, we are none the wiser. You just feel more secure if you believe some intelligent agent did it. But you have no evidence for that.
The correct and honest answer to your question is "nobody knows how or why the universe came to be". And if there is a God, nobody knows how he came to be either.
See what you are doing? Plugging a hole with an empty, voodoo superstition answer.
No more time as usual. Not really true.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#100759 Oct 10, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
They created god so you could quit wondering about it.
But you still do ...so what does that tell you?
There is a big dichotomy between God and gods. Living and dead are not the same.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#100760 Oct 10, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's the claim. It's not proof.
It's not even evidence.
And yet no solid proofs to counter his existence to date.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100761 Oct 10, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...I didn't weasel out of anything. I never said I agreed with the Biblical time frame for a global flood. You ASSUME I agreed with such a time frame and I haven't. You don't read what I write. You do inject things I haven't stated and you should quit, stick with what I actually stated, just saying.
Sorry, bub, but you are the are the one insisting it could have happened and that there is no evidence that it didn't. No walking away from that one.
No Surprise wrote:
I know you disagree that the earth can do whatever it will. You're a loony that has a belief that the earth is restricted in how it shapes and reshapes itself and how it's helped in it's shaping by outside forces like comets and asteroids. I will continue to believe the evidence that the earth can do what it already has done which proves it can do anything it will when it does it.
Oh, sure.*I'M* the loony. What the earth may have done in the past in no way "...proves it can do anything it will...", fruitloop.

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
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 9 min Mister_ E 20,488
What Could Be Mixed,...? 12 min Crazy Jae 32
What ?? are you thinking about NOW? 2014 13 min honeymylove 409
What's your tip for the day? 26 min Enzo49 1,071
Make a Story / 4 Words Only (Nov '08) 36 min liam cul8r 24,141
What Could Be Stressing,...? 36 min Sublime1 9
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 41 min Mechanic 1,996
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Wolftracks 146,988
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 3 hr eleanorigby 36,514
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••