Evolution vs. Creation

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

Red Deer, Canada

#110719 Apr 5, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>There is no 100% backed up evidence that fossilization occurs rapidly. That bear and all the other items that have been intentionally encased in stone are the result of a process called concretion. It is not fossilization. Concretion is a common process and cultural artifacts associated with water are often coated with a layer of accumulated minerals. Minerals leached from the stony substrate of still or moving water precipitate out of solution and coat objects that are placed in the water.
Again fossils support evolution, but they are more evidence by themselves than anything that supports fundamentalist views of a young earth.
Obviously you are new to this and have little or no understanding what "theory" means in science. A theory is an explanation of why things are the way they are and is supported by evidence. Evolution has the support of nearly 200 years worth of evidence that has continually supported the theory. It has been accept by science for nearly 150 years.
It is laughable that some people will believe any bullshit they are told by someone claiming it is backed by the Bible, but a real scientific explanation backed by evidence, they consider mumbo jumbo.
As an example we have a very good series of fossils leading from the ancestral horse genus, Eohippus to the modern horse genus Equus with intermediates in between the two. We have a similar series for whale evolution and for reptile to mammal evolution. Not that these examples will be accepted by you. You would rather believe that the Noah road around on a dinosaur despite the fact that dinosaurs aren't mentioned in the Bible and there is no evidence they coexisted with humans.
I hate when people say i dont know what a scientific theory is it is something that has been tested enough that it can be used to describe a certain phenomenon correctly but however it does not say that the theory is 100% true as science isnt perfect and it does has some minor flaws such as theories that have been made but then disproven and as i a christian do not believe in evolution and will not ever until i can see with my own eyes that something turns into something else or let me re phrase that, that something gains new benificial data/info through theire different mutations and a long process of natural selection
But as i have not been given any of this supposed "proof" that you all say there is you will not easily persuade me in any way (and yes i know that last part sounded pretty stuborn, but i am intitled to my own opinion).
And lets face it science has been miss"analaysed" in the past and things have been changed for example we used to think the atom could not be diveded then we got the atom bomb and another example we used to think the earth was flat and i strongly assume that evolution will be something like those examples in the perhaps near or even distant future

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#110720 Apr 5, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
But how is that 100% backed up fossilization doesn't have to take millions of years it just needs the right conditions we have fossilized teddy bears for example that were fossilized less than 10 years ago and if the fossils "prove" evolution then why is there so many missing links and remember its called the "theory" of evolution for a reason
You are conflating concretions with fossils.

You should not pay attention to creatard sites.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#110721 Apr 5, 2014
Nick wrote:
Answers in Genesis?

Now I know you are a fool.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#110722 Apr 5, 2014
Nick wrote:
Nice try but appearances are deceiving here.

"If an object is placed into such a well and left there for a period of months or years the object acquires a stony exterior. At one time this property was believed to be a result of magic or witchcraft, but it is an entirely natural phenomenon and due to a process of evaporation and deposition in waters with an unusually high mineral content.
This process of petrifying is not to be confused with petrification wherein the constituent molecules of the original object are replaced (and not merely overlaid) with molecules of stone or mineral."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrifying_well

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#110723 Apr 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
If this were so there would not be so many different dialects and
interpretations of the English language.
Or perhaps you can explain why there is US English, Australian English,
New Zealand English, Caribbean English, Irish English etc… etc… etc,
that all reside alongside British English actually exist at all?
The command of the English language rest’s in no ones hands. There is no
body to oversee the command of the English language.
<quoted text>
The English language “ORIGINATED” as a mishmash of the language you
state, and others. The command of the English language rest’s in no ones
hands, see above. I have never claimed “originated”, you claimed
originated and that was the basis of the whole argument that has now
gone on for over a year. So do not try shrugging your shoulders and
shifting your goalposts to my side of the field, what you have written
is evidence of your stance. Be a man and abide by your original
position.
<quoted text>
Say what?
OYG (oh your god)
Wonders will never cease
Did I see you say “despite the fact that they originated the Language”,
here let me check… Yes those are your exact words. You now admit that
the English language originated of Greek, French, Latin (and Germanic
and other) languages.
Thank you at last, my point is made, this discussion is over
That is why you will remain an idiot. Those places you mentioned were all influenced by England. So, England and the local population has something to do with the dialects.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#110724 Apr 6, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
You have listened to my view for over a year so it seems that your
advice is particularly hypocritical.
And now, when you have eventually conceded my point (see above) you have
to rant in ignorance.
Variants of the English exist throughout the world, it is NOT unique to
England.
It could be that as you did not know the meaning of the word
“originated” you may also be unaware of the meaning of the word “unique”
You can educate yourself on Google by searching for the term “define
unique”
If you don't know all languages are a mishmash of one another. Your beloved French, German, Latin and Greek, are not an exception.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#110725 Apr 6, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
How did I lie, goad about or mock the French language? The Academie
Francaise IS inventing French words to replace English technical terms,
English DID evolve in England and you ARE a francophile. As for being an
irrational and irascible feminist, if you want to excuse your attitude
on hormones, fine.
English was first spoken as a language in England. That is the reason why its inhabitants are solely called the English. English to date, is the international language of commerce, etc, not French.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#110726 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
So What? Cornell probably has a partnership with a Divinity School in the market area. Most likely Divinity Students spend their undergrad and masters at Cornell then are accepted into a Divinity School in a partnership program with Cornell. The divinity program may be on the same campus with Cornell. That is the setup at many major universities.
My original post was many prestigious universities Harvard, Princeton, Yale were established as Divinity Schools for the expressed purpose of training Ministers.
You Evolution idiots are pathetic
Trying to move the goalposts and hoping nobody notices is pathetic.
Your Cornell link has nothing to do with "the expressed purpose of training ministers" and what happened to "no second rate university offers a doctorate in "evolution""?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#110729 Apr 6, 2014
Shazam wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha well maybe both sudes are just missinformed
It is more one sided. And that particular side favors misinformation over information. Perhaps you have heard of them. They are referred to as religious fundamentalists.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#110730 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I really do not care if you accept evolution, but it is more religion than science because there is absolutely zero proof
To a closed and ignorant mind.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#110731 Apr 6, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate when people say i dont know what a scientific theory is it is something that has been tested enough that it can be used to describe a certain phenomenon correctly but however it does not say that the theory is 100% true as science isnt perfect and it does has some minor flaws such as theories that have been made but then disproven and as i a christian do not believe in evolution and will not ever until i can see with my own eyes that something turns into something else or let me re phrase that, that something gains new benificial data/info through theire different mutations and a long process of natural selection
But as i have not been given any of this supposed "proof" that you all say there is you will not easily persuade me in any way (and yes i know that last part sounded pretty stuborn, but i am intitled to my own opinion).
And lets face it science has been miss"analaysed" in the past and things have been changed for example we used to think the atom could not be diveded then we got the atom bomb and another example we used to think the earth was flat and i strongly assume that evolution will be something like those examples in the perhaps near or even distant future
Hate it all you like, but if you continue to use it in the context you have, then one is left to conclude you don't understand what a theory is. You really haven't shown that you fully understand it by your post. Sorry.

The day you see one animal change into another, document it thoroughly, then head to Stockholm to pick up your prize. That event wouldn't support evolution, it would refute it.

That the earth is not flat is a finding of science and refutes a belief supported in the Bible. Atoms were theorized before we discovered their nature and that evidence supported the theory. Splitting the atom was not directly a prediction of the theory. It was that at the time atoms were considered the smallest form of matter. As technology and understanding developed we know that is not correct. The theory on that point was not refuted as much as expanded. All done by science.

If you don't want to believe the facts, that is your problem. But don't tell others something isn't true without bringing evidence to support your assertions. Otherwise all you have is a selective belief that can't hold up to the facts.

Why don't you try doing some research on your own. This forum is for discussion and debate and not for the education of the uninitiated. If you want a fast food education in science and biology take your own action. Decide for yourself based on knowledge. My beliefs have been altered but not destroyed by my understanding of science. Nothing in science tells me there is evidence against the existence of God. That is a myth established by the ignorant and afraid.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#110732 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
I really do not care if you accept evolution, but it is more religion than science because there is absolutely zero proof
You have to take off your bible glasses and pull the jebus plugs out your ears before you can see and hear the truth , while knowing that this is science and no religion taken on faith.
It is truth based on real evidence and there's no fooling yourself here.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#110733 Apr 6, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
Chrom
I appreciate your obsession and trolling
You follow me around like a little puppy which is cute.
Now go find your homosexual friend and violate yourself
Have a Good day LOSER\\\\
Sounds like a "Mom's Basement Dwelling" full on projection.

Chromium will no doubt be amused to see that his arguments have left you to take the last refuge of the ignorant and defeated.
Kyle Broadneck

Cincinnati, OH

#110734 Apr 6, 2014
Professor wrote:
Even if evolution is true (and there is plenty of evidence to support it), scientists cannot explain how the very first cell came into existence.
After the Big Bang, the universe was sterile. SOMETHING happened to cause life to appear out of nothing.
We are Christians so we no God created life. Our minister said maybe he even did it with some kind of big bong. But that pretty much says where his one cell creatures came from. Theirs nothing unscientific about seeing that.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#110735 Apr 6, 2014
Kyle Broadneck wrote:
<quoted text>
We are Christians so we no God created life. Our minister said maybe he even did it with some kind of big bong. But that pretty much says where his one cell creatures came from. Theirs nothing unscientific about seeing that.
Yeah a blast from the big bong created god.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#110736 Apr 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah a blast from the big bong created god.
I believe the key words here are "big bong".

(Far out, man!)
Nick

Red Deer, Canada

#110737 Apr 6, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Answers in Genesis?
Now I know you are a fool.
Why because i used. Creationist website look i honestly do t care if you call me bad names im sticking by my religion because it gives hope and a sense of belonging along with many other things, ok maybe that fossilized teddy bear thing was actually formed by concretation or however its spelt but i still have a rigt to my own opinion and i hate when you guys think you can call me a fool or stupid because i dont believe the same as you
Nick

Red Deer, Canada

#110739 Apr 6, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Hate it all you like, but if you continue to use it in the context you have, then one is left to conclude you don't understand what a theory is. You really haven't shown that you fully understand it by your post. Sorry.
The day you see one animal change into another, document it thoroughly, then head to Stockholm to pick up your prize. That event wouldn't support evolution, it would refute it.
That the earth is not flat is a finding of science and refutes a belief supported in the Bible. Atoms were theorized before we discovered their nature and that evidence supported the theory. Splitting the atom was not directly a prediction of the theory. It was that at the time atoms were considered the smallest form of matter. As technology and understanding developed we know that is not correct. The theory on that point was not refuted as much as expanded. All done by science.
If you don't want to believe the facts, that is your problem. But don't tell others something isn't true without bringing evidence to support your assertions. Otherwise all you have is a selective belief that can't hold up to the facts.
Why don't you try doing some research on your own. This forum is for discussion and debate and not for the education of the uninitiated. If you want a fast food education in science and biology take your own action. Decide for yourself based on knowledge. My beliefs have been altered but not destroyed by my understanding of science. Nothing in science tells me there is evidence against the existence of God. That is a myth established by the ignorant and afraid.
Ok but think of this despite your well put little argument no one on here has given me a suitable piece of proof the only thing ive gotten was oh the fossils but with the amount of missing links and some miscalculations in some carbon dating or etc i cant chose to believe it so give me proof of evolution and i may believe you
Shazam

Red Deer, Canada

#110740 Apr 6, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>It is more one sided. And that particular side favors misinformation over information. Perhaps you have heard of them. They are referred to as religious fundamentalists.
No offence but that sounds pretty ignorant and you do know that no ones been able to disprove any specific part of the bible and yet evolution has had some flaws that have been revised and it has many holes so maybe the tables are the other way around

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#110741 Apr 6, 2014
Nick wrote:
<quoted text>
Ok but think of this despite your well put little argument no one on here has given me a suitable piece of proof the only thing ive gotten was oh the fossils but with the amount of missing links and some miscalculations in some carbon dating or etc i cant chose to believe it so give me proof of evolution and i may believe you
You demand proof, but offer none of your own. The evidence you do offer is a concrete teddy bear. A phenomenon that was understood by science long before some wanker put a child's toy in a waterfall. You want proof go to a liquor store. If you want science, examine the evidence that is globally well known and documented. It is explained by no other theory than the theory of evolution.

Think of the difference between belief and science as such. Imagine an apple orchard in Minnesota. Trees laden with beautiful, sweet fruit. Science has named, the genus, species and variety. Modern agriculture based on science has result in a yield to ensure a bountiful harvest. You can exam its biology at the population, generic, individual or molecular level and show these to be apple trees. You are the horticulturalist that askews science in favor of belief. Because Eve ate the apple, you can't bear that your job is to work with such trees. You believe that they are oranges, despite the facts. You treat them as such and the harvest is lost. You die for want of the fruit of these trees and your disregard of knowledge.

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) 7 min wichita-rick 152,546
The BIZARRE reasons why men rape in India 19 min Spotted Girl 1,104
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 31 min Mega Monster 7,616
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 49 min J ValJean 338
Change "1" letter =ONLY= (Oct '12) 50 min andet1987 4,245
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 56 min Grace Nerissa 37,727
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 58 min Crazy Jae 6,878
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 1 hr UnderstandPeople 25,749
For Dear FlowerChild (Dec '07) 1 hr Will Dockery 24,120
More from around the web