Evolution vs. Creation

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

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101126 Oct 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You are plain incorrect. The flood is NOT wrong simply due to a lack of evidence. The flood is wrong due to the evidence AGAINST it. This is what you're not getting. Flying mountains is wrong NOT because nobody has seen mountains fly, but because gravity shows it's not possible. Not unless someone starts fitting them with REALLY big engines.
<quoted text>
This is wrong. A lack of evidence does not mean life on other planets does not exist. There is simply no evidence AGAINST the possibility of alien life. However there is NOTHING in physics that prevents the possibility of alien life. But there is LOTS in physics that prevents the possibility of a Biblical global flood. And we already been through it all with you.
Your inability to deal with reality is not OUR fault.
My inability to deal with reality? We have no evidence for a global flood. Therefore we don't know what this planet would leave as a trace if it had been flooded at one time globally. It's only taken research for the last century for us to know what to look for of traces of world wide glaciers as they came and went. And parts of that evidence is disputed and argued about. Guesses have been made for how things would be if the planet had been flooded and guesses change with new theories/ideas.
What's funny is you defend the probability of life on another planet and state lack of evidence isn't an actual issue yet you state the exact opposite of a global flood....too funny really.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101127 Oct 14, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Is your brain so dense you can't even pay attention to what people say? Bub he ALREADY STATED (correctly I might add) that even if Jupiter were SOLID it STILL wouldn't be enough.
Seriously, your ignorance and ability to make up BS does NOT make for good science. Better to just let people think you don't know what you're talking about than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Talking about fricking dense brains. a small tiny comet passed through the sun's corona, a part science long stated would burn up anything like a comet that were to pass through it AND IT WENT THROUGH the corona and continued on it's merry way. Are you that fricking ignorantly dense not to know if a tiny small comet survived the corona, then obviously something larger and more dense could penetrate even farther and maybe survive? And if it didn't what would be the effect? You're BS is like your ignorance when you prove you don't have a clue at all of what you speak of, good job...lol.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101128 Oct 14, 2013
replaytime wrote:
Thank you.

No Surprise should note that the corona is not the Sun. It is a plasma that surrounds the Sun and is still mostly what people would call a vacuum. You spoke of something larger striking the Sun. Striking the Sun is totally different from going through the corona. As a comparison a meteorite may survive a glancing pass through the Earth's upper atmosphere. No meteorite can "survive" by crashing into the Earth.

“HATRED EATS THE SOUL OF”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

THE HATER -- NOT THE HATED

#101129 Oct 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
No Surprise should note that the corona is not the Sun. It is a plasma that surrounds the Sun and is still mostly what people would call a vacuum. You spoke of something larger striking the Sun. Striking the Sun is totally different from going through the corona. As a comparison a meteorite may survive a glancing pass through the Earth's upper atmosphere. No meteorite can "survive" by crashing into the Earth.
Maybe you should note he said "suns corona"

His comment "The comet Lovejoy passed through the sun's corona and survived. Who's to say what would happen if something larger, much larger and solid passed into the sun. We probably wouldn't be around to wonder about it."

Which one has to now wonder about what he said. Science did not think it was possible for a comet to even pass through the corona and survive but it did. So something bigger could well easily hit the sun.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101130 Oct 14, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
We are only one of the exiting members of the genus of great apes. There were many before us and there may come others after us. But to suggest we are the only one to advance is incorrect. There were many who came before us. They either became extinct, evolved or were absorbed by other populations. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis is a good example.
What's amazing is we're the last of our branch Homo to exist. That's amazing considering all the diversities that continue to exist in the present primate families.

“HATRED EATS THE SOUL OF”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

THE HATER -- NOT THE HATED

#101131 Oct 14, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you.
No Surprise should note that the corona is not the Sun. It is a plasma that surrounds the Sun and is still mostly what people would call a vacuum. You spoke of something larger striking the Sun. Striking the Sun is totally different from going through the corona. As a comparison a meteorite may survive a glancing pass through the Earth's upper atmosphere. No meteorite can "survive" by crashing into the Earth.
The Comet Lovejoy, before perihelion, the nucleus had been estimated to be between 100 and 200 meters in diameter. Since the comet survived perihelion, it is thought that the nucleus must have been larger, perhaps up to 500 meters.

Now lets take in consideration what if a comet the size of Comet Hyakutake with a nucleus of about 4.8 km (3.0 mi)(4800 meters) across was headed straight for the sun. Comet Lovejoy is less than 1/9th of its size and passed through and survived. Then one the size of Comet Hyakutake would be very damaging if it hit the sun. Not survivable for life on earth.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101132 Oct 14, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should note he said "suns corona"
His comment "The comet Lovejoy passed through the sun's corona and survived. Who's to say what would happen if something larger, much larger and solid passed into the sun. We probably wouldn't be around to wonder about it."
Which one has to now wonder about what he said. Science did not think it was possible for a comet to even pass through the corona and survive but it did. So something bigger could well easily hit the sun.
And as your quote shows he asked about an object colliding into the Sun.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101133 Oct 14, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Obvious life? Are kidding? Do you have even the faintest notion of the scale of the universe? The time it takes for any signal to cross the vast distances involved? Radio communications have only been possible for about 120 years. An instant of time.
I suppose you expect some folks on Planet X to erect huge space billboards saying "HI!" I guess that would be obvious.
<quoted text>
I'm forwarding your name to the Nobel Committee since you have conclusively proven that we are the only life in the universe. Imagine their surprise when they hear of this.
Here's what science has taught me. We're one of the younger solar systems existing. And of all the solar systems we have searched we're the only planet that exists with the type of life that exists on it that we know of. That's what science has stated and proved over and over as they unsuccessfully try and prove life like ours might exist elsewhere. And the farther our telescopes etc allow us to see into the dark blackness of space, the more we prove we are the only planet that exists with life as it exists.
Actually using the mechanical evolution of the human mind within the last century as a base, if life had evolved elsewhere with life like ours since it's the example of what non life has supposedly became, I would think there would have been dozens of other solar systems containing life like ours with a sun aiding life. But they don't exist.
So my point stands.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#101134 Oct 14, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's what science has taught me. We're one of the younger solar systems existing. And of all the solar systems we have searched we're the only planet that exists with the type of life that exists on it that we know of. That's what science has stated and proved over and over as they unsuccessfully try and prove life like ours might exist elsewhere. And the farther our telescopes etc allow us to see into the dark blackness of space, the more we prove we are the only planet that exists with life as it exists.
Actually using the mechanical evolution of the human mind within the last century as a base, if life had evolved elsewhere with life like ours since it's the example of what non life has supposedly became, I would think there would have been dozens of other solar systems containing life like ours with a sun aiding life. But they don't exist.
So my point stands.
Hardly.

There are about 300 billion of star in our galaxy alone. And we know what stars go around an extremely small proportion of them. So there could be millions or even billions of star systems with life in our galaxy alone.

And there are over a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe. Even if you assume an extremely low percentage of stars with life there would still be trillions with life in the observable universe alone.

Why do you think we are alone in the universe?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101135 Oct 14, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Those same scientists do not think the earth is capable of anything. They leave that goofy thinking to nutcases like you.
lol...actually they think by research of what has already taken place the earth is capable of doing again what it already did do. You're a nut case and goofy to think otherwise than what scientists have stated.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101136 Oct 14, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
No wonder you don't know jack shite about logic and science.
Your "science" source states, "We believe that the authoritative and primary source of (that) truth is the Bible as illuminated by the power of the Holy Spirit." It states that "The Bible is the inerrant, inspired Word of God - a supernaturally integrated set of 66 books, written by 40 authors, over nearly 2,000 years.
God created all things - from the massive cosmos to the microscopic cell. We were created in God's image, yet we were all corrupted and estranged from God after Adam fell into sin. The sin of Adam was the entry point of all sin, as well as physical and spiritual death on Earth."
Can you say, "Allaboutconfirmationbias "?
This quote from that site is a popular opinion in circles of science minded individuals backing evolution they made a statement of.
"As with other complex biological features, scientists explain the evolution of the human brain through natural selection....
Scientists explain the apparent change and diversity of most biological systems through naturalistic evolution. The generally accepted theory is that small, random changes in an organism sometimes provide an advantage....
The response used by scientists to explain the evolution of the human brain involves a "fast evolution" scheme....."
You apparently prove you know nothing concerning such popular theory by evolutionists which means you don;t kmow jack shite of what you claim ignorantly to know. Nice job.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101137 Oct 14, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Hilarious! As I said, you're not good at logic.
Or reading comprehension for that matter.
So, explain how the evidence shows that some river beds in the Atacama Desert have been dry for more than 100,000 years is not evidence against a global flood.
In this case, I have nothing to explain. You're reading comprehension is much worse than mine apparently because you continually don't read what I wrote.
I'm not defending Noah's flood or it's time line.
I stated the earth could have or still could globally flood itself. You are the one that's chanting 'impossible' because you think you know by some magic what the earth can do and what it can't.
By the way, explain the following since you're so obsessed with this deseret and it's dry state. Most of southern South America was covered in an ice sheet including much of Peru. As it melted that would have created glacial fed stream and river beds on your desert. All those streams and rivers should have a much more younger age than 100,000 years. Explain that as best as you can since certain scientists claim much of Atacama hasn't had water for 100,000 years.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101138 Oct 14, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Funny that you try to insult me by calling me a creationist.
You're in over your head. Give it up.
Not as an insult...lol. You believe in some connection to some higher power that reassures you what you claim of what the earth can't do is a fact. No scientist worth their degree would ever make such a claim as you have. I know of no scientist past or present that has made a claim to knowing as you for fact what the earth isn't capable of. But you have continued to make this claim and claim it fact. That aligns you with creationists. Understand?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101139 Oct 14, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
"There is no indication of a worldwide flood in ancient Egyptian, Indus or Chinese writings, temples, pyramids, sculptures, etc., which existed at the time of Noah.
Yet, if the flood really did occur, then all of the world's early civilizations would have been completely destroyed. The entire population of the world would have consisted of 8 people, in the vicinity of the ark.
It would have taken millennia for humanity to become re-established in China and elsewhere. Also, they would have developed a very different culture from the pre-flood society.
The archaeological record in Egypt would show a sudden change from ancient Egyptian artifacts, to no signs of civilization, to ancient Israelite culture after the time of the flood.
The archaeological record in China would show a sudden change from ancient Chinese artifacts, to no signs of civilization, to ancient Israelite culture after the time of the flood. And so on. But the archaeological record shows that the various cultures were not interrupted; they continued to develop throughout the period when the flood is supposed to have happened.
For example, the Egyptian "Old Kingdom" covered the era from 2649 BCE to 2134 BCE, the 3rd to the 8th dynasty. In particular, the fifth dynasty covered the interval 2465 to 2323 BCE, straddling the time when religious conservatives believe that the flood happened.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_proof1.h... #
Kinda' neat how lack of evidence for...turns into evidence against. Don't you think?
I'm not defending Noah's global flood or when it took place. But for the sake of the argument, there are cultures that speak of a 'global' flood and not just a 'local' flood.
Concerning the repopulation theory you reject, consider this. It's estimated the first people to come to this continent did it in a group about 15,000 years ago. It's been estimated by science minded individuals that this continent had upwards of 25 million people prior to Columbus.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#101140 Oct 15, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe you should note he said "suns corona"
His comment "The comet Lovejoy passed through the sun's corona and survived. Who's to say what would happen if something larger, much larger and solid passed into the sun. We probably wouldn't be around to wonder about it."
Which one has to now wonder about what he said. Science did not think it was possible for a comet to even pass through the corona and survive but it did. So something bigger could well easily hit the sun.
A hot dog can pass over a campfire flame, it isn't a scientific mystery. Now you eat it, it's yummy. lol

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#101141 Oct 15, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The Comet Lovejoy, before perihelion, the nucleus had been estimated to be between 100 and 200 meters in diameter. Since the comet survived perihelion, it is thought that the nucleus must have been larger, perhaps up to 500 meters.
Now lets take in consideration what if a comet the size of Comet Hyakutake with a nucleus of about 4.8 km (3.0 mi)(4800 meters) across was headed straight for the sun. Comet Lovejoy is less than 1/9th of its size and passed through and survived. Then one the size of Comet Hyakutake would be very damaging if it hit the sun. Not survivable for life on earth.
Actually it isn't known what it would do if it struck the sun. Other than burn up I mean, because we haven't ever seen this happen before. But we do know this a 5 km comet's mass is so small compared to the sun, it's doubtful it would even notice.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#101142 Oct 15, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
What??? The origin of the BB is not held as being a singularity???
Well sure it is. Just ask Tick he will educate you on how it all was a singularity before the BBT and after it all started expanding time came in to existence, from that singularity.
There are at least 27 valid theories of what the BB was, ranging from singularity (as you know and love), colliding membranes, several different types of string events, several different types of quantum events, colliding universes, universe spawning.

The point being that science does not know (as yet) and given current knowledge cannot know. But scientists are striving to expand the limits of that knowledge.

This of course is not an excuse to say “doh, dey dun no so it must be my god wot dun it”

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#101143 Oct 15, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Pretend the comet Lovejoy and it's survival passing through the sun's corona is instead that wandering planet they found and instead of being gaseous, pretend it's a solid cold lifeless hunk of rock to it's center and science has shown it's on a course for the sun's center mass.
And pretend that pigs can fly and pretend we all had to carry pigshit proof umbrellas, would the price of bacon go up?
CrimeaRiver

London, UK

#101144 Oct 15, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not defending Noah's global flood or when it took place. But for the sake of the argument, there are cultures that speak of a 'global' flood and not just a 'local' flood.
Concerning the repopulation theory you reject, consider this. It's estimated the first people to come to this continent did it in a group about 15,000 years ago. It's been estimated by science minded individuals that this continent had upwards of 25 million people prior to Columbus.
Out of interest, what are your views on theories that Alien intervention sparked the evolutionary branch of Homo-Sapiens.

That would explain why we are the only Homo compared to the countless families of primates.

It might also explain Human's ability think and speak differently.

It would also lend credence to the idea of a celestial creator.

What do you think?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#101145 Oct 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Hardly.
There are about 300 billion of star in our galaxy alone. And we know what stars go around an extremely small proportion of them. So there could be millions or even billions of star systems with life in our galaxy alone.
And there are over a hundred billion galaxies in the observable universe. Even if you assume an extremely low percentage of stars with life there would still be trillions with life in the observable universe alone.
Why do you think we are alone in the universe?
Like a solar system, it seems that a galaxy has a goldilocks zone. Too close to the centre the star density is too high and radiation levels would be lethal to organic life. Too far away and there are not the heavier elements (iron, carbon, calcium etc) required for planet building and life, about 2/3rds of the way out seems to be just right.

Recent research suggest that just over 1% of stars are/have been capable of supporting planets with complex life.

1% of approximately 10^24 stars in the universe is still 10^22 stars capable of sustaining complex life in it’s solar system. That’s an awfully big number of potentials by anyone’s standards.

You may find these interesting.

http://astro.unl.edu/naap/habitablezones/ghz....

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/424638/a...

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 song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 22 min CJ Rocker 152,457
Is it possible to....... 26 min lol 545
The Letter J (Jan '14) 29 min Princess Hey 22
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 33 min lol 25,662
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 35 min Princess Hey 6,862
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 41 min CJ Rocker 4,324
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 48 min CJ Rocker 222
HOW LONG can you hold YOUR SEMEN ? For men only. (Mar '12) 2 hr -Lea- 47
Merry Christmas Topix, Thanks For,...? 2 hr Santa 128
More from around the web