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 (Page 4,784)

Showing posts 95,661 - 95,680 of112,791
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101135
Oct 14, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101136
Oct 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101137
Oct 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101138
Oct 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101139
Oct 14, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101140
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101141
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101142
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101143
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101144
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101145
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101146
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
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...
The one thing here that always captures my attention, when people surmise about the conditions of life and it's possible niches in the universe and it's possible locations due to favorable positions temperate of it's necessities.

Is that it could be found these conditions maybe completely different for some other life drastically different from the chemistry we are composed of. Have you ever thought about that?
That there could be life so alien to our understanding that the rules we think of and impose on it in searching for similar type life forms may not even be necessary. One idea that has taken root in scientific circles is that water being a solvent and reducing agent , could in fact be replaced by some other liquid in the criteria for the formation of life.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101147
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

4

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
It doesn't matter what I believe or don't believe.
For the first time ever, you are correct.
No Surprise wrote:
I don't and never have believe
Ah yes, but as we have just established your beliefs are irrelevant. Reality is real no matter how much they don't like it.
No Surprise wrote:
life came from one or more life sources.
There are countless millions of life sources on the planet in existence today. Therefore tomorrow millions of more will be born. That's lots of life coming from lots of life sources.

As for life starting from a single lifeform, the evidence so far points to common ancestry via LUCA. So again you're in error.
No Surprise wrote:
We have absolutely not a single piece of circumstantial to factual evidence of this taking place.
Let's be honest, frankly you do not have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
No Surprise wrote:
On top of that I'm told after billions of years of trial and error it 'appears' the structuring and destruction and restructuring of matter finally got it right to produce life on this single solitary planet.
Yes, well it DID take 9 billion years and an entire universe. However since life IS here, that is pretty good evidence that it happened somehow either way.
No Surprise wrote:
I'm well and fine with the theories based on living and nonliving things we form the theory of evolution upon. But this believe it took billions of years of trial and error to finally create life as we now exist on one single solitary planet, yeah whatever I suppose.
Who said it was just this one solitary planet? It could have happened in TRILLIONS of other places, yet they'd still be so far away that we would never get to know about it. As always you presume too much.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101148
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
The one thing here that always captures my attention, when people surmise about the conditions of life and it's possible niches in the universe and it's possible locations due to favorable positions temperate of it's necessities.
Is that it could be found these conditions maybe completely different for some other life drastically different from the chemistry we are composed of. Have you ever thought about that?
That there could be life so alien to our understanding that the rules we think of and impose on it in searching for similar type life forms may not even be necessary. One idea that has taken root in scientific circles is that water being a solvent and reducing agent , could in fact be replaced by some other liquid in the criteria for the formation of life.
Oh yes, which is why I specified organic life and iron, carbon, calcium etc. The possibilities of different chemical bases and composition for life are staggering.

Consider the wide differences in life on this planet, all from a common ancestor. How life would develop on other planets under different conditions is currently beyong the ken of anyone.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101149
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
The probability of life on other planets is an extrapolation of life on this planet and the great variation in environments in which it thrives. In other words, if life arose on this planet and it is a natural occurrence, it is reasonable to conclude that it is possible to exist elsewhere under similar conditions.

And you still haven't caught on the the fact that there is evidence against a global flood. Not a lack of evidence for it but evidence against it.

You are correct that much of our understanding of the history of earth is relatively recent. And you seem to accept those conclusions. I remind you that it is the exact same science that has refuted a global flood. You can't pick and choose.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101150
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
An excellent post reaffirming my point. Thanks :)
Except for the fact that your logic was non-existent.(shrug)
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101151
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

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.
That's nice. Only astronomers will notice.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101152
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
My inability to deal with reality? We have no evidence for a global flood.
And that alone is a good reason not to take it seriously.

Couple with the fact that we have plenty of evidence AGAINST a global flood that's pretty good reason to think it is a fictional event.
No Surprise wrote:
Therefore we don't know what this planet would leave as a trace if it had been flooded at one time globally.
No, YOU don't know. The rest of us have deconstruted it in detail and provided linkys in the process. Your inability to comprehend anything said to you does NOT make the global flood possible.
No Surprise wrote:
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.
And none of these debates are over rejecting other ideas due to flagrantly violating physics.
No Surprise wrote:
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.
Wrong. A LACK of evidence of life on other planets does not mean that life cannot exist elsewhere. A global flood not only suffers from a lack of evidence but TONS of evidence AGAINST it.

So far you've not been able to address it yet with anything but whining.

Give us evidence that physics will RADICALLY alter at whim then you will have something. Until then you're talking crap as usual.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101153
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
If I remember correctly, you didn't suggest that an object would survive an encounter with the sun but that it could disturb the position of the sun sufficiently to fry the earth. Not quite the same thing, is it?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#101154
Oct 15, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
What's amazing is we're the last of our branch Homo to exist.
At the present time. If we don't cause our own extinction, there may be future splits in the line. H.G.Wells suggest this possibility over 100 years ago in "The Time Machine". The Eloi and the Morlocks.
No Surprise wrote:
That's amazing considering all the diversities that continue to exist in the present primate families.
Again, at the present time. There was more in the past and may be more in the future. We're just a snapshot.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 95,661 - 95,680 of112,791
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••