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
97,001 - 97,020 of 115,305 Comments Last updated 19 min ago
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102555 Oct 22, 2013
bohart wrote:
Cause and effect, is universally accepted and followed in every field of science , it relates every phenomenon as an effect to a cause. No effect is quantitatively greater nor qualitatively superior to it's cause . An effect can be lower than it's cause but never greater.
The self evident truth is simple, rational deduction that all we see is an effect which demands a very great supernatural cause. The sun the moon and stars could not have come from nothing. That's irrational to the human mind . Phenomenon's in the universe can be explained in terms of something else that caused it. But when the phenomenon is the existence of the universe and of life , there is nothing in the universe to explain it. There is no natural explanation
So nothing can be uncaused.

Except God of course.

Obviously you've never heard of quantum physics.

Of course none of this is even relevant to abiogenesis, as that is distinctly a cause and effect event.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#102556 Oct 22, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>you really don't expect Buck to know what a scientific theory is, do you? i'm surprised he can tie his shoes....
Velcro is a wonderful thing

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#102557 Oct 22, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Ignorance in the highest order. You are the one that is babbling not the bible.
Wrong

I provide the evidence and you contradicted the babble. Not my problem, but yours to live with.

You appear to be suffering from weapons grade stupidity
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Yes imaginary, but invisible, they exist, because going from west to east, you gain a whole day, while going from east to west, you lose a whole day. This is reality. NUTS!
Nope, not invisible, the do not exist so haw can visibly of any degree come into it?

So does this day/date change for say a whale swimming across the “date line”?

How about migrating birds?

These imaginary lines, along with date are arbitrary and based on mathematics and consensus.
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Yes, science has. That is why it can not completely answer man's pressing problems. God's judgements is/ are always justified.
You are confused, your weapons grade stupidity strikes again. Science has answered many of humanities pressing problems, but not all, for two reasons, one, a solution may not be viable to a manmade problem and two we may not yet have the understanding, but unlike godbots, science is working toward solutions. Both concepts are completely beyond your weapons grade stupidity of “doh, I don unnerstan so it mus be god wot did it”

So you are saying genocide, child murder, slavery and rape are justified. Fair enough, just so long as we know where we stand with you.
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I never disagreed on the bible mentioning other gods or goddesses. But the bible also specifically mentioned the ineffective nature of those gods. So, why should we worship something made with our hands?
Yes you did, you said “there is one god” and the babble tells you otherwise, it was not until this was pointed out to you that you changes you mind.

I can ask the same question, why should we worship something made in the minds of bronze age goat herders and escaped slaves?
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Tell that to yourself. Like i said, God is one. Many faiths sees him in many different lights. He should not be worshipped through any mediums, that is where many faiths are getting it wrong.
What you say is irrelevant. Only 3 faiths, three is not many unless you count – one – two - many – lots.

So you are saying the positions of priests and popes and preachers is wrong.
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Good! So you have admitted, that science has its own limitations. It can not accurately test and observed every FACTS. Period.
I have never denied otherwise. However science can observe and test facts, the thing you gets you going is the fact that it cannot test and observe myth.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#102558 Oct 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...ah not. The difference is you spend time arguing whether Noah and his flood did or didn't happen and I don't. That's our difference lol...to funny....
Uh, except for the fact you did. Which is why you got corrected in the first place.(shrug)

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#102559 Oct 22, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory boy, is that winds blowing random molecules into primordial seas stirred by tides created life! Now Aura And sucking bone have the evidence that this occurred but won't share it with the those who are not members of their cult
Okay, you've shown your contempt of this use of poetic license by Nova for several pages now. Regardless of whatever you have read in however many of your Apologist bloggers' articles, it is little more than an obscure and superficial piece of flowery narration from a single pop science episode.
The reason that you don't get any "satisfactory" replies (about abiogenesis or anything else)is probably because most have been here long enough to know you are just baiting again. You've scoffed at and dismissed the serious answers and links that have been provided and you proceed to launch unceasing personal attacks on those who have provided them. You've made it consistently and abundantly clear that you've got nothing but willful antagonism, ignorance, hostility, intolerance and prejudice and you want nothing but backlash.
Don't btch when you get what you came for and leave with no more than what you've brought.
- and to the room: Sorry, I know I just belabored the obvious.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#102560 Oct 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Okay, you've shown your contempt of this use of poetic license by Nova for several pages now. Regardless of whatever you have read in however many of your Apologist bloggers' articles, it is little more than an obscure and superficial piece of flowery narration from a single pop science episode.
The reason that you don't get any "satisfactory" replies (about abiogenesis or anything else)is probably because most have been here long enough to know you are just baiting again. You've scoffed at and dismissed the serious answers and links that have been provided and you proceed to launch unceasing personal attacks on those who have provided them. You've made it consistently and abundantly clear that you've got nothing but willful antagonism, ignorance, hostility, intolerance and prejudice and you want nothing but backlash.
Don't btch when you get what you came for and leave with no more than what you've brought.
- and to the room: Sorry, I know I just belabored the obvious.
Perhaps but spot on nonetheless.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#102561 Oct 22, 2013
Igor Trip wrote:
<quoted text>
Have you tried reading the article?
"Geologists who have studied upright fossils found in sedimentary rocks exposed in various outcrops for the last 30 years have described the upright fossil trees as being deeply rooted in place and typically rooted in recognizable paleosols. This is in sharp contrast to the claims made by creationists such as Harold Coffin and N. A. Rupke. Geologists, such as Falcon[10][11][12][13][14] and Rygel et al.,[15] have published detailed field sketches and pictures of upright tree fossils with intact root systems, which are rooted within recognizable paleosols. In case of the upright fossil trees of the Yellowstone petrified forests, geologists – again in sharp disagreement with creationists like Harold Coffin – found that the upright fossil trees, except for relatively short stumps, are rooted in place within the underlying sediments. Typically, the sediments within which trees are rooted have paleosols developed within them.[9][16][17] Either pictures or diagrams of the Yellowstone upright fossil trees having intact root systems developed within paleosols found within these strata have been published in Retallack (1981, 1997).[16][17][18]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossi...
Wiki missed that the Park Service removed the old forest story signs after Coffin's and Austin's work there. Those layered "ancient forests" had trees of all the same age and the root masses were missing, just like at St. Helen's. In coal mine's we find the same polystrate petrified logs and have to go around or blast them out, Proof positive that Steve Austin got it right,(see his video),long before St Helen's. These same depositions are found in flood deposits in Oregon - petrified upright logs. Sorry, but Wiki is the most evolution biased source there is.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#102562 Oct 22, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
I did address your last question. You chose to ignore the reply to pretend I didn't answer it. You asked...
"Isn't circumstantial evidence also known as facts? You better get back to me on that one as well."
I said yes. But not all the time is it true as circumstantial evidence is based on everything from hearsay to facts, that's why it's called 'circumstantial evidence' because it lacks 'direct substantiated facts'.
You did? I must have missed it in all the debris. Are you sure I chose to ignore it? That doesn't seem like me. Oh my stars and garters.

Hearsay is not circumstantial evidence. This is exactly what you state with no qualification.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#102563 Oct 22, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Poor bohart knows that he has lost. All he can do is to rant hysterically and purposefully get evolution and abiogenesis wrong. His only hope is to debunk one of his strawmen. He is totally outclassed by the real thing.
At least he is a somewhat entertaining idiot.
At least this isn't one of his usual drive by, straw man attacks.

He is hysterical, both in the humor he provides and his state of mind.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

#102564 Oct 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Wiki missed that the Park Service removed the old forest story signs after Coffin's and Austin's work there. Those layered "ancient forests" had trees of all the same age and the root masses were missing, just like at St. Helen's. In coal mine's we find the same polystrate petrified logs and have to go around or blast them out, Proof positive that Steve Austin got it right,(see his video),long before St Helen's. These same depositions are found in flood deposits in Oregon - petrified upright logs. Sorry, but Wiki is the most evolution biased source there is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =flrhqjN5BHoXX
Oh, that is it. The sources that provide evidence are all wrong.

Did you call these trees and have a long, poignant conversation with them where they confessed they believed in a global flood?

You suffer from jumping to the conclusion you want and ignore all the evidence that disagrees with you. You use conspiracy theory thinking to support your belief. Your bionic geologist hasn't shown anything.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#102566 Oct 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Wiki missed that the Park Service removed the old forest story signs after Coffin's and Austin's work there. Those layered "ancient forests" had trees of all the same age and the root masses were missing, just like at St. Helen's. In coal mine's we find the same polystrate petrified logs and have to go around or blast them out, Proof positive that Steve Austin got it right,(see his video),long before St Helen's. These same depositions are found in flood deposits in Oregon - petrified upright logs. Sorry, but Wiki is the most evolution biased source there is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =flrhqjN5BHoXX
You present an interview with a geologist who doesn't discern the difference between limestone and pyroclastic depositions in a video from "Origins" as a critically objective evidence? I can't tell which of you liars for Jesus is more dishonest.
And by any reference material being an "evolution biased source" it is thoroughly understood that you mean "not creation biased", of course.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#102567 Oct 22, 2013
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/...

[...]
Some scientists have proposed that ancient hydrothermal vents may have been sites where prebiotic molecules--molecules made before the origin of life, such as fatty acids and amino acids--were formed.

When fatty acids are in an aqueous environment, they spontaneously arrange so that their hydrophilic, or water-loving, "heads" interact with the surrounding water molecules and their hydrophobic, or water-fearing, "tails" are shielded from the water, resulting in the formation of tiny spheres of fatty acids called micelles.

Depending upon chemical concentrations and the pH of their environment, micelles can convert into layered membrane sheets or enclosed vesicles. Researchers commonly use vesicles to model the cellular membranes of protocells.

When the team started its work, the researchers were not sure that the building blocks required for copying the protocell's genetic material would be able to enter the cell.

"By showing that this can happen, and indeed happen quite efficiently, we have come a little closer to our goal of making a functional protocell that, in the right environment, is able to grow and divide on its own," said Szostak.

"We have found that membranes made from fatty acids and related molecules -- the most likely components of primitive cell membranes -- have properties very different from those of the modern cell membrane, which uses specialized pumps, channels or pores to control what gets in and out," says Jack Szostak, PhD, of the MGH Department of Molecular Biology and Center for Computational and Integrative Biology, the report's senior author. "Our report shows that very primitive cells may have absorbed nutrients from their environment, rather than having to manufacture needed materials internally, which supports one of two competing theories about fundamental properties of these cells."
[...]

Carpentras-soil would have the proper origin (hydrothermal vents...which by the way suggest plate-movement and water allready present be it in stone (olivijn) or as is...) and consistency.

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#102568 Oct 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
You present an interview with a geologist who doesn't discern the difference between limestone and pyroclastic depositions in a video from "Origins" as a critically objective evidence? I can't tell which of you liars for Jesus is more dishonest.
And by any reference material being an "evolution biased source" it is thoroughly understood that you mean "not creation biased", of course.
Austin's work on coal formation is included in the texts at Penn State after his PhD work there. He got his undergrad on work researching St.Helen's in the 60's before the 1980 eruption. His work in Grand Canyon limestone's is known world-wide. He knows the the difference. I have found WiKi biased to the extreme and proved so on this site. I do appreciate your looking over the video. Thanks, but I am no "liar for Jesus".

http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/10/the-first...

http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/a-questio...

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102569 Oct 22, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
You write:
"There is no evidence. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. No evidence of any kind that life can create itself, not physical evidence, testimonial, circumstantial or even anecdotal. None."
One can say exactly the same thing about your mythical god.
Bullshit.

God has spoken to me, has touched me and I've witnessed His miracles firsthand.

Millions of testimonials are out there for you to read, all with similar experiences.

It may only be anecdotal evidence, but it's still evidence.

You can't say the same for life creating itself.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#102570 Oct 22, 2013
Kong_ wrote:

The scientifically illiterate will attempt to seize upon this to denegrate science and specifically, evolution. In contrast, the rest of us will understand it is not only exceedingly HONEST of science, but it to suggest that the branching of the Neanderthal and modern human (Cro Magnon?) being pushed back further -- if you accept the findings below -- is INCREASING our knowledge of early man.
http://phys.org/news/2013-10-hominin-ancestor ...
No known hominin is ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans, research says
October 21st, 2013 in Other Sciences / Archaeology & Fossils
Study: No known hominin is ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans.>

Replaytime wrote:
Good timing just four days after they uncovered the "1.8-million-year-old skull" in the Republic of Georgia that suggests simpler human lineage.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/18/science/fos ...

woodtick57 wrote:

<quoted text>that fossil had nothing to do with neandertals, another species of hominid, did it?

Replaytime wrote:
Tick scientists have a 1.8 million years old skull that they studied for 8 years and think it suggests simpler human lineage.

Four days later, other scientists countries away, with teeth they have had for years, now suggest Neanderthals and modern humans diverged nearly 1 million years ago and not the prior thought of around 300,000 years ago.

That was my point but I figure you did not read them both.

What does it have to do with Neanderthals indeed (include Denizovans and the Flores hominids) that a bunch of hominids are bundled to belong to the same lineage...woodtick suggested rightly so.

Then we go on about having to read the neaderthals seperated earlier. Not 300.000 y.a but 1 M y.a.
Well all nice and fine but the question is who suggested the latter, since different ideas have been around for longer.
One of those papers that some here never read.
Humans have this ongoing lineage with only at the top a bit of a mix with afore mentioned hominids.
Cro magnon by the way was allready clased as H. Sapience .

p 4858

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102571 Oct 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
"but, but, but.... it SAYS!!!" You're making a spectacle. Be a man and quit quivering your lip. Once more, Genesis does not say serpent OR snake, but the word that WAS used is synonymous with snake.
English did not come into existence until thousands of years after the Pentateuch was written. If even this glaringly simple thing is over your head then no, you can't make that any "more clearer".
On top of that, if you think that a reptile is "craftier" than a raccoon, you ain't much of a redneck, either.
No shit, Sherlock.

Originally,'serpent' was 'nachash' in ancient Hebrew, which when you translate from Hebrew to English you get the word 'serpent'.

Now g'head. Pay yourself on the back for 'teaching' me something I already knew.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#102572 Oct 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Austin's work on coal formation is included in the texts at Penn State after his PhD work there. He got his undergrad on work researching St.Helen's in the 60's before the 1980 eruption. His work in Grand Canyon limestone's is known world-wide. He knows the the difference. I have found WiKi biased to the extreme and proved so on this site. I do appreciate your looking over the video. Thanks, but I am no "liar for Jesus".
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/10/the-first...
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/a-questio...
I don't really pretend to follow this discussion but are you suggesting the coalminers cut of the roots just to have a go at the evolutionists?

sad. i know.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#102573 Oct 22, 2013
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
There isn't anything to argue, plus - I've read your posts.
When someone maintains that God wrote the Torah in English because he has both a KJV and a NIV Bible, monosyllabic sentences seem to be the most appropriate response.
I speak English, so when I quote the Bible I quote it in English.

I'd quote it in Hebrew, but Topix is too stupid to recognize the language and it comes out in gibberish.

Please find the post where I stated that the Torah was written in English.

Go.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#102574 Oct 22, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Austin's work on coal formation is included in the texts at Penn State after his PhD work there. He got his undergrad on work researching St.Helen's in the 60's before the 1980 eruption. His work in Grand Canyon limestone's is known world-wide. He knows the the difference. I have found WiKi biased to the extreme and proved so on this site. I do appreciate your looking over the video. Thanks, but I am no "liar for Jesus".
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/10/the-first...
http://www.genesisalive.com/2013/09/a-questio...
the bible is known worldwide also and it is proven to be full of outright bullshit.

you fundie idiots will buy into anything if you think it supports your cult...

SBT
Level 2

Since: Jun 13

United States

#102575 Oct 22, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, that is it. The sources that provide evidence are all wrong.
Did you call these trees and have a long, poignant conversation with them where they confessed they believed in a global flood?
You suffer from jumping to the conclusion you want and ignore all the evidence that disagrees with you. You use conspiracy theory thinking to support your belief. Your bionic geologist hasn't shown anything.
No, actually i followed the main players into the field, did some self research and then went to college on the geology side. When the evo theories all fell apart there it confirmed to me who was miss leading who. My profs agreed in general to boot.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 4 min Truths 29,153
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 14 min TALLYHO 8541 36,033
Describe how you are feeling in just ONE word... (Feb '09) 14 min Nobody 2 Special 6,806
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 15 min Nobody 2 Special 29,189
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 18 min Nobody 2 Special 6,875
last word - first (Jun '12) 21 min Nobody 2 Special 6,831
30,000 post wins (May '13) 22 min Nobody 2 Special 1,334
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr the wandering girl 145,414
Women Hid Stolen Watches in Their Vaginas in Bi... 6 hr szell 19
What's your tip for the day? 7 hr SLY WEST 832
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 8 hr -Lea- 18,631
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Weird People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••