Evolution vs. Creation

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

Birkenhead, UK

#108442 Jan 29, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally, an End-It post.
Charles, this is collectively all of our opinions combined, in a well-put answer to your babble. Not a response; an answer. Period. If you continue to raise this asinine issue, it will be clear that are only trolling and you no longer have the credibility to post on this topic. Please, let the language thing go.
Thank you Kong.
Trolling though it may be, in Chuck's case it's unintentional. It's like having a dog and pretending to throw the stick, eventually the dog catches on. But Chuck never does.

Try it. No-one mention the language argument for 20 pages then just mention to Charles that Tel-Aviv owns English. I guarantee you he'll give chase.

:-)

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#108443 Jan 29, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Because the ability to reproduce is part of the definition of life.
<quoted text>
Simply false. All life we know of is formed by chemistry. Look up the field of biochemistry if you want some details. Everything that happens in a living organism boils down to chemistry. So, the fact that *you* are alive shows that chemistry does, in fact, produce life.
Here you are completely misleading, there is no known process whereby inanimate chemistry produces life, reproduction is a characteristic of already existing life! It has , as I said, nothing to do with life's origin.
Next

Already existing life is what's shown to produce life, you want to give the chemicals credit for what an already existing life does, Remember ! we are discussing how the first life arose! For your statement to be true,..." chemistry does in fact produce life" then you need to demonstrate an observable, testable , and repeatable experiment to demonstrate that inanimate chemical processes can create life. That is the scientific process, otherwise it's just a belief or guess.

Since: Mar 11

Minnesota's North Coast

#108444 Jan 29, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are completely misleading, there is no known process whereby inanimate chemistry produces life, reproduction is a characteristic of already existing life! It has , as I said, nothing to do with life's origin.
Next
Already existing life is what's shown to produce life, you want to give the chemicals credit for what an already existing life does, Remember ! we are discussing how the first life arose! For your statement to be true,..." chemistry does in fact produce life" then you need to demonstrate an observable, testable , and repeatable experiment to demonstrate that inanimate chemical processes can create life. That is the scientific process, otherwise it's just a belief or guess.
the creation myth says inanimate chemistry brought forth life...

are you really this unaware of the creation myth?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#108445 Jan 29, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Here you are completely misleading, there is no known process whereby inanimate chemistry produces life, reproduction is a characteristic of already existing life! It has , as I said, nothing to do with life's origin.
Next
Already existing life is what's shown to produce life, you want to give the chemicals credit for what an already existing life does, Remember ! we are discussing how the first life arose! For your statement to be true,..." chemistry does in fact produce life" then you need to demonstrate an observable, testable , and repeatable experiment to demonstrate that inanimate chemical processes can create life. That is the scientific process, otherwise it's just a belief or guess.
Do we agree that there was, at some point in the past, no life on Earth? Regardless of your religious beliefs or scientific knowledge everything points to a point where there was no life on Earth. Then life appeared. Now if you dispute the claim that natural chemical agents combined to eventually create life, fair enough, but something happened. And that something would be some kind of observable and measurable (had someone been there to observe and measure it) process. Do we at least agree on that?

“Move into the light.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#108446 Jan 29, 2014
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Do we agree that there was, at some point in the past, no life on Earth? Regardless of your religious beliefs or scientific knowledge everything points to a point where there was no life on Earth. Then life appeared. Now if you dispute the claim that natural chemical agents combined to eventually create life, fair enough, but something happened. And that something would be some kind of observable and measurable (had someone been there to observe and measure it) process. Do we at least agree on that?
Bohart thinks there's a skydaddy in charge of creating things.
lol

Voorhees, NJ

#108447 Jan 29, 2014
lol

Voorhees, NJ

#108448 Jan 29, 2014
As if this song coming out dude all my prayers came true.. and then this song came out..

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108449 Jan 29, 2014
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Holy crap , Chuck... are you actually
trying to become the standard by which all stupidity is
measured!??
I am right on my stand, but you are wrong. They are soley called the English.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#108450 Jan 30, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> I am right on my stand, but you are wrong. They are soley called the English.
And British.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108451 Jan 30, 2014
TerryL wrote:
<quoted text>Holy crap , Chuck... are you actually trying to become the standard by which all stupidity is measured!??
And again, the people of England are solely called the English, that has always been my stand, and that is the truth. So, who is now the stupid?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108452 Jan 30, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I never claimed to. And you don't have any evidence whatsoever to invalidate the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
<quoted text>
Evolution doesn't have anything to do with the formation of the universe. Evolution is not "random chance accident" either. Doesn't matter how many times this is explained to you fundies though. You guys always argue as if it is, because either you're all liars or all stupid. Or both.
<quoted text>
If your god exists then it only exists by chance. It just so happened to be there.
Garbage! Now, since you don't have any evidence but mere speculations in disputing the existence of God, you are only lying or guessing. Period.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108453 Jan 30, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Say what, X stands for Y so Y is created therefore X is created?
Where is the logic in that?
You have provided no evidence, not even any theory, you have simply stamped you foot and expect people to believe you
You could as easily say apples stand for bananas and bananas are pears, therefore apples are pears. It makes just as much sense using Chaz logic
Evolution occurs, it happens because of natural mutation and environmental requirement, no creator is required, only explainable scientific fact OK?
Bullshit! no creation, no evolution, period. Livingthings and non livingthings must be created first before evolution can take place. Ok?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108454 Jan 30, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Therefore the theory of evolution remains unaffected whether it began naturally or whether Goddidit. Evolution happens either way.
This of course means fundies are talking nonsense when they claim evolution is in doubt, as scientifically speaking it hasn't been for many decades. This is especially true when one considers the fact that fundies (looking at Bo here) have no valid arguments against it so they move the goalposts back to abiogenesis. Unfortunately their arguments are invalid there too, since they can't show how their claims are backed up by evidence, so it becomes a negative argument against science: "Science can't do X therefore Goddidit!"
Every one has their different opinions on that. But since evolution stands for change, it do exist, but with the effort of creation power.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108455 Jan 30, 2014
Big Time wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess these folks are just riding the Coat Tails,
Harley Davidson® Evolution®. Engines, them Darn Carpet Baggers,...
Can anything evolve on its/ his/ her own without a cause or maker?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108456 Jan 30, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
...lol
Can anything, living or non living evolve without a cause or creator?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108457 Jan 30, 2014
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>Big bang. Google it.
Not True.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108458 Jan 30, 2014
buckwheat wrote:
<quoted text>Exactly. Evolution WAS created... but not by a god, it was created by the big bang. Every thing you see began at that moment in time almost 14 billion years ago, and evolved from there.
Ofcourse, God is the creator of the universe. For the others, it is opinionated.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108459 Jan 30, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
The point of contention is ownership of the English language. Not if the people of England are referred to as English. You can't even keep your own stupidity straight. What a dumbass.
That is why your idiotic nature will never cease. Go on.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108460 Jan 30, 2014
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
No one is interested in giving any details on it. It is your silly ideas and no one is going to do your homework for you. You might as well just admit that you don't have squat and shut up about it.
Another foolish and stupid response.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#108461 Jan 30, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Finally, an End-It post.
Charles, this is collectively all of our opinions combined, in a well-put answer to your babble. Not a response; an answer. Period. If you continue to raise this asinine issue, it will be clear that are only trolling and you no longer have the credibility to post on this topic. Please, let the language thing go.
Thank you Kong.
You both are wrong. The problem with you guys are just sentiments. What i said, is true. Go on with your thanks. But you can never bend the truth.

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
Poll Can single Men be friends with Married Women? (Jun '12) 2 min Roxie Darling 159
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 3 min say it aint so 31,173
3 Word Sentence (each word, one syllable only) 3 min andet1987 315
Word Association. (Nov '10) 4 min Mega Monster 17,215
Whatcha' doing? (Apr '12) 5 min guy next door 8,113
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) 7 min andet1987 1,202
A To Z Of Movies (Sep '12) 8 min Truths 4,598
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 26 min CJ Rocker 159,811
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 31 min andet1987 28,137
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 1 hr WearingDepends1 1,006
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Krypteia 39,943
More from around the web