Evolution vs. Creation

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

Birkenhead, UK

#105046 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Precise definitions!,..scientific terminology!,..multiple options! ha,ha,ha,ha,. I need a laugh
What exactly is the Dud theory for how life began,..
thrill us all with your insight!
There is no theory. There is a hypothesis which you are unable to present a valid criticism.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105047 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you sucking bones illegitimate brother?, descended from a homo stupidicus line mother.
Your ad-homs aren't adequate enough to address my posts.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105048 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope dud following would be what you do. I follow no one. I make my own path.
You have followed the fundies into reality-denial and stupidity.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105049 Nov 6, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Well.... primarily because when a new life is formed, it is given genetics with telomeres of a predetermined length, consistent with the overall life expectancy of a naturally occurring organism and optimized for the time needed for that species to reach maturity and produce a strategically diverse selection of offspring. As cells replicate, the telomeres become shorter until the body's cells simply stop replacing themselves.
As the species intellectually progresses, more time is needed for reaching maturity. As the chemistry of the body becomes fine tuned, life expectancy can also be expected to be extended as the species is not expected to "experiment" as much with a diversity of environments.
Since humanity is now far less dependent on the natural vitality of the body and far more dependent on the intellectual abilities of the species to control medical science and the environment, it's natural to assume that life expectancy will dramatically increase in the near future.
The only real biological question is whether or not the species will find its niche in social stability or in constant conflict with itself. The simplest of truths is that death is fast becoming something that we actually do have a choice about, but the weight of the question is more about just how many years does one really want to have to explore one's own limited physical identity. At what point would altering one's physiology take away one's sense of "eternal soul" and reason for living?
Perhaps part of the cycle of life is accepting a death with dignity and to allow the one thing that makes life worth living, the unpredictability of the future.
Anyway, you're still a tired old bigot! English is not owned by England. Your literal views of the Bible are childish! Just saying!
Yes. English belongs to England.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105050 Nov 6, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Well.... primarily because when a new life is formed, it is given genetics with telomeres of a predetermined length, consistent with the overall life expectancy of a naturally occurring organism and optimized for the time needed for that species to reach maturity and produce a strategically diverse selection of offspring. As cells replicate, the telomeres become shorter until the body's cells simply stop replacing themselves.
As the species intellectually progresses, more time is needed for reaching maturity. As the chemistry of the body becomes fine tuned, life expectancy can also be expected to be extended as the species is not expected to "experiment" as much with a diversity of environments.
Since humanity is now far less dependent on the natural vitality of the body and far more dependent on the intellectual abilities of the species to control medical science and the environment, it's natural to assume that life expectancy will dramatically increase in the near future.
The only real biological question is whether or not the species will find its niche in social stability or in constant conflict with itself. The simplest of truths is that death is fast becoming something that we actually do have a choice about, but the weight of the question is more about just how many years does one really want to have to explore one's own limited physical identity. At what point would altering one's physiology take away one's sense of "eternal soul" and reason for living?
Perhaps part of the cycle of life is accepting a death with dignity and to allow the one thing that makes life worth living, the unpredictability of the future.
Anyway, you're still a tired old bigot! English is not owned by England. Your literal views of the Bible are childish! Just saying!
You have not answered the questions either.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#105051 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are, being so stupid that you remind me of subby. If God starts the universe and begins life it's called...wait for it .creation!
As opposed to creationism that postulates that such a process happened 10,000 years ago or so.

The universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The earth is about 4.5 billion years old, or about a third the age of the universe. A *lot* happened between the formation of the universe and the formation of the earth. Life appears to be a phenomenon that started on the earth (although there is some dispute here).

So the question of how the universe formed and the question of how life formed in that universe are two very different questions. They are approached by different methods, have different ways of testing, and are not directly related to each other (except that the formation of life requires the chemicals that were formed after the universe got started).
If the universe came into existence on it's own , and a primordial soup coalesced on it's own and came to life , that's abiogenesis.
Wrong.

Abiogenesis does not address how the universe came about. It deals with the natural processes that formed the first life. Those processes were clearly much later than the formation of the universe since the very early universe was inhospitable to life (way too hot).

So, it is quite possible that some deity formed the universe and that *later* life began through the natural processes that the deity started at the beginning. That would still be abiogenesis: the formation of life through natural processes. So creation and abiogenesis are quite compatible.

Now, there is no evidence that this, in fact, happened. It is *possible* that the universe was created by a multi-dimensional teenager as a high-school art project. That would still be 'creation', but it certainly wouldn't correspond to your ideas of 'God'.

It is *possible* that some race of intelligent beings in the multi-verse learned how to create universes and that ours is one of the universes they created. It is even *possible* that this creation was a mistake by a scientists that was investigating something else.
You are just so hostile to the very concept of God, you will believe any and all things , no matter how stupid.
I am not 'hostile' to the idea of a God. I simply find the evidence for such a being to be sorely lacking. The actual range of natural possibilities has not been thoroughly investigated, so it is quite premature to proclaim an intelligent designer or even a creator (different concepts--see the scientists above).

You claim the universe was designed and created, for which we have no evidence. You then claim that there was a further intervention when life formed, without any evidence. You then claim that there were yet other interventions to a very specific small planet during a very short period of time and that the designer of the universe *also* has given moral laws to the inhabitants of this one planet.

And you say *I* am being stupid?

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#105052 Nov 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No, dumbass. It is a natural process. If a god set it in motion is an open question.
To you have to very hard work at being stupid or does it come naturally to you?
"A" god could have written the laws of physics. "The God" hasn't even displayed an aptitude for arithmetic.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#105053 Nov 6, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the degree of abstract thinking has evolved in us. No reason why it should evolve in everyrhing. So true, but still not evidence that God is a necessary hypothesis to explain it.
Still beating around the bush.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#105054 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible is not evidence. That has been made clear many many times. Oh wait!! You all mean the creationists can't use it as evidence but you all can. I see. Carry od idiot.
The Bible can be used to show that it is internally inconsistent or inconsistent with what we see in the real world. THAT shows that it is unreliable and so cannot be used for further knowledge.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105055 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are, being so stupid that you remind me of subby. If God starts the universe and begins life it's called...wait for it .creation!
No shit.
bohart wrote:
If the universe came into existence on it's own , and a primordial soup coalesced on it's own and came to life , that's abiogenesis.
The universe coming into existence on its own is a separate issue from abiogenesis. In any event, the possibilities of an initial cause remains an open question.
bohart wrote:
Webster has a fine dictionary, check it out.
I do quite often. Though I tend not to misread the entries as you do.
bohart wrote:
You are just so hostile to the very concept of God, you will believe any and all things , no matter how stupid.
On the contrary, I am not at all hostile to the concept of a god. I *am* hostile to smug jackasses who make a lot of stupid and pointless comments on Topix. AKA BlowHard.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105056 Nov 6, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not say you bitched about God. I said the creationist see you as bitching about God. Try reading the post again before you jump to a conclusion and put words in my mouth that I did not say.
Talk about splitting hairs! GEEZ!
anonymous

Absecon, NJ

#105057 Nov 6, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You have not answered the questions either.
Says who?

If you don't like the answers, don't ask the questions.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#105059 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep! here it is Abiogenesis could have been caused by God? That's not the definition of abiogenesis,...it's natural processes,..so you didn't know the meaning of the word?
Since the whole UNIVERSE is natural then according to you couldn't be caused by God then.(shrug)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105061 Nov 6, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>This is why you always fail. You come up with these ridiculous stories instead of presenting evidence. The 5th graders would probably think either of those stories were boring and run off to recess.
You live in a fantasy world. I can't imagine you are much older than a 5th grader. Don't you have any self respect?
Now how about some evidence to support your wild ass claim instead of some poor and pointless what if story about you and your classmates.
He apparently suffers from engineerinosis.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105062 Nov 6, 2013
fossils wrote:
I love the fact there is no real fossil record of man from the apes to man. Well unless you take into account the ones made up of ape bones and a lot of plaster. Leakey proved that game true.
Leakey reference please.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#105063 Nov 6, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Well.... primarily because when a new life is formed, it is given genetics with telomeres of a predetermined length, consistent with the overall life expectancy of a naturally occurring organism and optimized for the time needed for that species to reach maturity and produce a strategically diverse selection of offspring. As cells replicate, the telomeres become shorter until the body's cells simply stop replacing themselves.
As the species intellectually progresses, more time is needed for reaching maturity. As the chemistry of the body becomes fine tuned, life expectancy can also be expected to be extended as the species is not expected to "experiment" as much with a diversity of environments.
Since humanity is now far less dependent on the natural vitality of the body and far more dependent on the intellectual abilities of the species to control medical science and the environment, it's natural to assume that life expectancy will dramatically increase in the near future.
The only real biological question is whether or not the species will find its niche in social stability or in constant conflict with itself. The simplest of truths is that death is fast becoming something that we actually do have a choice about, but the weight of the question is more about just how many years does one really want to have to explore one's own limited physical identity. At what point would altering one's physiology take away one's sense of "eternal soul" and reason for living?
Perhaps part of the cycle of life is accepting a death with dignity and to allow the one thing that makes life worth living, the unpredictability of the future.
Anyway, you're still a tired old bigot! English is not owned by England. Your literal views of the Bible are childish! Just saying!
You just caused Charles' head to explode. Well done.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105064 Nov 6, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
No one takes you seriously, you are sad. Lying, dodging ducking, accusing ,and even distorting the meaning of words.
Get help cultist
It's you who is not taken seriously Bohart. Many intellegent posts have been aimed specifically at you, yet this "lying, dodging ducking, accusing, and even distorting the meaning of words" are the typical responses from you. Time and time again, just like this post of yours I'm quoting. Frankly I'm suprised Subduction Zone even takes the time to reply to you, knowing full well your response will be simply uneducated sarcasm, typical of a troll.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#105065 Nov 6, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
I am losing the ability to suspend disbelief. I started watching a show tonight called "Walking Dead". Some mystery contagion has swept the world turning most of the population into flesh-eating zombies. It is a pretty good story, with decent acting and effects. I began watching shortly after the program had started and there was a scene with one of the main characters, a sheriff, confronting what he thought was a scared little girl. She turns around and you can see she doesn't have the lower half of her face. Now the first thing I think is how can this thing composed of necrotic tissue function. All the biochemical pathways have broken down, cell membranes have degraded. If the organs are dead, none of the necessary functions are being carried out. Not to mention the host of microbial flora that are starting to take over the body from within and without. I mentioned that they are flesh-eating, but I can't imagine what good that would do them or why they would need to eat.
I really don't think I have lost the ability to suspend disbelief for the pleasure of entertainment. I just don't have the same ignorance I did as a child. I don't attribute supernatural origins to every phenomenon I encounter, but don't fully understand. It doesn't frighten me when there are real, concrete answers to questions that cross into my belief system.
How could she eat anyway if she's missing the lower half of her face? Wouldn't she starve to death? Oh, Wait...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#105066 Nov 6, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Still beating around the bush.
You have presented exactly zero evidence for the existence of God.

You have this strange idea that if you can ask a question that science cannot answer, then somehow that is evidence of God or it should make us believe in God. That is false, empty reasoning.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#105067 Nov 6, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Likewise. You can not provide answers to the posted questions. Bingo!
Yes I can and have, several times, as has several other people. Not my problem if those answers donít fit in with your delusions

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
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 7 min Dr Wu 30,901
Bizarre courtroom error in fatal drunk-driving ... 7 min Parden Pard 1
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 9 min GodSmacked 28,837
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 11 min Good-Evil 155,427
Lets Discuss Men (Dec '13) 12 min CrunchyBacon 567
Boy injured after tongue sticks to frozen schoo... 22 min Dr Wu 7
Pharmacy Robbed of Pills 24 min Dr Wu 2
Why do YOU get on Topix? 26 min Dr Wu 32
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 38,535
More from around the web