Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#117167 Jul 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
science is not about whether there is a god or not. that is a misunderstanding people have of science. science is about what we have to study trying to explain the past and in some cases the future. we accomplish that by finding things, seeing them, touching them, testing them, interacting with them on different levels. we do all that to try to tell and learn more about our past than we know or have been told by your religion. the bible is clearly false in several places.
i support evolution for science supports and backs its evidence through thorough tested theories, rigorous study, testing its own theories repeatedly, never stopping the move forward which means more testing of new evidence, old evidence and its theories again and through molecular biology coupled with the fossil record which supports what evolution partially, but mostly predicts. The similarities are there to be seen. now do i think there may be a god, that is simply we don't know. but again science is not about looking for god or trying to disprove god.
And again, science did not give us the brain to date, it is just a God given gift to us. Without the brain, we can not think creatively and scientifically.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#117168 Jul 6, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
All you need is a damn dictionary, wonderful...
Clade
A clade or monophylum is a group consisting of an ancestor and all its descendants, a single "branch" on the "tree of life". The ancestor may be an individual, a population or even a species.
i see why you don't speak up much now. you can't even comprehend what is in one post.

pay attention. we all know what clade is. the question at hand was and is "i asked you for peer reviewed science that backs your claim of "clade" being -synonymous- with "kind". they would have to agree on that.

go back to doing your nails

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117169 Jul 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i see why you don't speak up much now. you can't even comprehend what is in one post.
pay attention. we all know what clade is. the question at hand was and is "i asked you for peer reviewed science that backs your claim of "clade" being -synonymous- with "kind". they would have to agree on that.
go back to doing your nails
No, you changed the question. The original demand by you was for a working definition of "kind". Obviously we were talking about "kind" as used in the Bible. Making that sort of "kind" synonymous to the already defined word "clade" produced a working definition of kind.

“God of War”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#117170 Jul 6, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i see why you don't speak up much now. you can't even comprehend what is in one post.
pay attention. we all know what clade is. the question at hand was and is "i asked you for peer reviewed science that backs your claim of "clade" being -synonymous- with "kind". they would have to agree on that.
go back to doing your nails
Why would there be any peer review study papers to link a definition to another definition?
But since you insist on playing word games, I'll give you another definition.

clade -- A monophyletic taxon; a group of organisms which includes the most recent common ancestor of all of its members and all of the descendants of that most recent common ancestor. From the Greek word "klados", meaning branch or twig.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss1p...

That surely sounds like "kind" or more specifically "all animals of the same kind"

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117171 Jul 7, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
The "heavens" were "created" several billion years before the Earth. What is the Hebrew word for "billion" again?
Thats the type of stuff that makes people like me wonder.

Not about the answer to questions like that; but about what people like you are really expecting.

If God created our time; he/it would necessarily exist outside of our time.

Therefore, GODS PERCEPTION AND CONCEPT OF TIME WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF A HUMAN'S.

If you actually know anything about the bible, you would have read where it said that "a day with God is like 1000 years with man".

FURTHERMORE, the number 1000 represent INFINITY in the Hebrew culture.

Therefore what it could be suggesting is that each aspect of creation is a continually developing process; not different from what is suggested by evolution.

The Bible is significantly influenced by culture (even science is), therefore an understanding of the culture from which it originated is key to understanding it.

How much exactly do you know about Jewish thought and culture??????????
wondering

Sunset, TX

#117172 Jul 7, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And again, science did not give us the brain to date, it is just a God given gift to us. Without the brain, we can not think creatively and scientifically.
I never saw where anyone said science gave us the brain. Our brain along with our knowledge has evolved and given us science.

Now to humor you on god gave us the brain. Lets look at that; According to your bible god did not want man to be have knowledge that is why he forbid man to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Once man did, god punished him by giving him death as his fate for eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Which comes back full circle to the brain and knowledge,, manís brain and knowledge has evolved not because of your god but because of manís own actions. Knowledge and all that has came with that knowledge is all done by man.

And to humor you again manís brain and knowledge have evolved for both good and evil.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117173 Jul 7, 2014
if x, y and z are in the same exact place ant the same exact time; x=y=z.
Aura Mytha wrote:
...Since time does not exist for a particle, it exists as several things at the same time.
Exactly: the x exists ALSO as y and z.

So you have agreed with me.

I am glad to see that you are able to appreciate the fact.

You have been one of the most reasonable ones so far.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#117174 Jul 7, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Why would there be any peer review study papers to link a definition to another definition?
But since you insist on playing word games, I'll give you another definition.
clade -- A monophyletic taxon; a group of organisms which includes the most recent common ancestor of all of its members and all of the descendants of that most recent common ancestor. From the Greek word "klados", meaning branch or twig.
http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/glossary/gloss1p...
That surely sounds like "kind" or more specifically "all animals of the same kind"
well if you want to be ignorant about it,,, let look at "kind" in the bible. the bible speaks of two "kinds of animals". 1) clean, 2) unclean. so technically there is a working definition for "kind" in the bible. they did not have clade. They did not have domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species. What they spoke of, being they were not as knowledgeable as we are today, were two --"kinds"-- of animals as follows; animals of the same kind---"clean" and animals of the same kind---"unclean".

now i can help you support evolution or i can hinder your bs petty arguments you throw at the creationists. They are people just like you and i. if you talk to them as people, show them a little respect which they do deserve, you will get further in talking to them and trying to explain things to them that they don't understand. look at Charles Idemi on my first post to him when he asked me what i believe. i explained to him what, why and what it was about. his reply was "you have some good points but not everything in the bible is false". he is correct that not everything in the bible is false and now maybe he will think about those good points i presented to him and when he is ready he might even want to discuss them more. we don't know. but it is better than treating them as idiots and bashing them down.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117175 Jul 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't You are being a moron again. At best that is called "begging the question".
Try again.
<quoted text>
LOL!

Since language and meaning differs from culture, you cannot tell me what I know to be "God"; that it is not different from what another culture identifies as God.

So immediately, I know that you are mad at an image of "God" that you have in your head; not at the fact of God.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Again being a moron by "begging the question".
Try again...
NO! THAT IS NOT BEGGIN THE QUESTION!

" If the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue." [wikipedia.com]

I am describing an idea using terms which are associated with REAL AND NATURAL phenomena (isources, power etc) and you are telling me what?

LOL

Furthermore, the Bible state "And God said, Let us make MAN in our image, after our likeness..." [Gen 1]

If you payed nay attention in English language class, you would know that the subject "MAN" is plural and suggests the general, whereas "A MAN" would suggest the singular.

The Garden of Eden account was an isolated event as suggested by the narrative.

AND IF THE BIBLE CAN BE INTERPRETED TO MATCH ANY KNOWN FACTS; THEN IT IS INDISPENSABLE, FOR WE CAN USE IT TO LEARN THE NATURE OF ALL FACTS.
FREE SERVANT

Duluth, GA

#117176 Jul 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
How complex is a fertilized egg cell?
I meant that life itself as it unfolds into its kinds, will become what it is instructed to be from the first of these kinds which were brought forth. It is not going from simple to more complex as a kind. It is unfolding to become what it needs to be to be fruitful and to multiply after its own kind. The process of development and making changes or adjustments is what we are seeing in living things, and when they are fully grown they go about passing complex information as how to best do this down to their offspring.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117177 Jul 7, 2014
By the definition of God that I know, God exists.
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you don't You are being a moron again. At best that is called "begging the question".
Try again..
NO!

Thats not beggin the question either.

To my knowledge, "God" means "Power"; "God" is defined to be "power"; not the powerful, but the power/potential itself is "God".

Now, I know that God exists, because God is power (the god I identify as "God"); and I know that power exists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117178 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL!
Since language and meaning differs from culture, you cannot tell me what I know to be "God"; that it is not different from what another culture identifies as God.
So immediately, I know that you are mad at an image of "God" that you have in your head; not at the fact of God.
<quoted text>
NO! THAT IS NOT BEGGIN THE QUESTION!
" If the relation of B to C is such that they are identical, or that they are clearly convertible, or that one applies to the other, then he is begging the point at issue." [wikipedia.com]
I am describing an idea using terms which are associated with REAL AND NATURAL phenomena (isources, power etc) and you are telling me what?
LOL
Furthermore, the Bible state "And God said, Let us make MAN in our image, after our likeness..." [Gen 1]
If you payed nay attention in English language class, you would know that the subject "MAN" is plural and suggests the general, whereas "A MAN" would suggest the singular.
The Garden of Eden account was an isolated event as suggested by the narrative.
AND IF THE BIBLE CAN BE INTERPRETED TO MATCH ANY KNOWN FACTS; THEN IT IS INDISPENSABLE, FOR WE CAN USE IT TO LEARN THE NATURE OF ALL FACTS.
You forgot to link the original claim.

Until you do it was begging the question and you missed the point. If the Bible can be reinterpreted to fit the truth no matter what the truth is it is absolutely useless.

Try again, but so far you have only shown that your Bible is worthless.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117179 Jul 7, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
By the definition of God that I know, God exists.
<quoted text>
NO!
Thats not beggin the question either.
To my knowledge, "God" means "Power"; "God" is defined to be "power"; not the powerful, but the power/potential itself is "God".
Now, I know that God exists, because God is power (the god I identify as "God"); and I know that power exists.
Nope, you clearly have no clue.

Try again tomorrow.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117180 Jul 7, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
well if you want to be ignorant about it,,, let look at "kind" in the bible. the bible speaks of two "kinds of animals". 1) clean, 2) unclean. so technically there is a working definition for "kind" in the bible. they did not have clade. They did not have domain, kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus or species. What they spoke of, being they were not as knowledgeable as we are today, were two --"kinds"-- of animals as follows; animals of the same kind---"clean" and animals of the same kind---"unclean".
now i can help you support evolution or i can hinder your bs petty arguments you throw at the creationists. They are people just like you and i. if you talk to them as people, show them a little respect which they do deserve, you will get further in talking to them and trying to explain things to them that they don't understand. look at Charles Idemi on my first post to him when he asked me what i believe. i explained to him what, why and what it was about. his reply was "you have some good points but not everything in the bible is false". he is correct that not everything in the bible is false and now maybe he will think about those good points i presented to him and when he is ready he might even want to discuss them more. we don't know. but it is better than treating them as idiots and bashing them down.
That is clearly not the kind of "knid" under discussion.

Sine evolution was the topic the subject was not clean and unclean kinds, The topic was use of the word as seen in verses that said "after its kind".

But thanks for trying to change the subject, again. Your attempt to do so is again a sign that you know that you were wrong.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#117181 Jul 7, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
That is clearly not the kind of "knid" under discussion.
Sine evolution was the topic the subject was not clean and unclean kinds, The topic was use of the word as seen in verses that said "after its kind".
But thanks for trying to change the subject, again. Your attempt to do so is again a sign that you know that you were wrong.
i quote you again. you said "we(you and the other person) were talking about "kind" in the bible. you did not specify any passage or verse. again if you don't know how to say or ask something right, then keep your mouth shut or be called an idiot as you say. idiot jack wagon

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#117182 Jul 7, 2014
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>I meant that life itself as it unfolds into its kinds, will become what it is instructed to be from the first of these kinds which were brought forth. It is not going from simple to more complex as a kind. It is unfolding to become what it needs to be to be fruitful and to multiply after its own kind. The process of development and making changes or adjustments is what we are seeing in living things, and when they are fully grown they go about passing complex information as how to best do this down to their offspring.
You have not defined "kinds" as the long debate with wondering has shown.

Please try to use defined terms. If you use nonsense terms your statement does not make any sense.

Also you have not defined what "complexity" is. It is easy to show that life can get more "complex" through evolution for practically any definition of "complexity".

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#117183 Jul 7, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Just admit your errors. The soul is not the same as the flesh or body.
It you can provide a soul to compare then I will compare

Until then it will remain in the same category as your god... a myth.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117184 Jul 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
And all of this is of this is irrelevant to the discussion.
You had claimed there can only be one 'first thing'.
The claim that if y, x, and z occur at the same exact time in the same exact place; x=y=z; is certainly of importance to the claim that there could only have been one first thing.

It became important when you suggested or asked whether there could have been more than one first thing/s.

I used the equation to show that even if there were more than one first things, they would be indistinguishable from each other.
polymath257 wrote:
I countered that it is possible for there to be two 'first things' that happen at the same time, but in different locations.
Then you have not disagreed with me nor disproved my claim.
polymath257 wrote:
You countered that under relativity, the notion of simultaneity is problematic: there is no universal notion of such; thereby claiming that you cannot have two 'first things' at different locations.
Did I state that, or is that what YOU INTERPRET ACCORDING TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE from what stated?

Nevertheless my claim holds universally, because the concept holds true at every point in the universe.

Are you able to show me a case where the contrary is true?
polymath257 wrote:
My counter is that under special relativity, the notion of 'first thing' is problematic because different observers will consider different events to be 'first' in time.
So where will you get the empirical evidence to refute my claim?

Even if experiments were conducted with a single clock (concept of proper time was introduced by Hermann Minkowski ), other issues will arise to irreconcilably obscure measurements.
polymath257 wrote:
So, either you allow for more than one thing to happen at the same time, or you have to give up the idea of a 'first thing' entirely. Either way, your argument fails.
You have not shown that it fails by any empirical means in any case; but I have shown using reference to experiments to assist, that logic is able to describe reality, by itself.

CAn you give a scenario or example or concept which actually falsifies my claim?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#117185 Jul 7, 2014
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> The society does not recognise that.
So you donít have refuse disposal in your society?

Funny how you can vomit the word with what you believe to be impunity yet deny it when others use it against you Ė you must be christian Ė right?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#117186 Jul 7, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
...My counter is that under special relativity, the notion of 'first thing' is problematic because different observers will consider different events to be 'first' in time...
I found something interesting about speacial relativity:

"It is based on two POSTUALTES:(1) that the laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (non-accelerating frames of reference); and (2) that the speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.[wikipedia.com]

What is a "postulate" by the way?

What does it mean to postulate:

"suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief."

[https://www.google.com.jm/sea rch?q=postulate&ie=utf-8 &oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozi lla:en-US:official&client= firefox-beta&channel=sb &gws_rd=cr&ei=22C6U7Lh K6aqsATihIHwAw]

So even if you did "prove" me wrong, you would be using an ASSUMPTION; whereas "time dilation" is a scientific FACT.

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
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 3 min DILF 27,565
Buffalo Rams Car In Yellowstone National Park 4 min Parden Pard 5
nascar.... (Feb '14) 8 min Hoosier Hillbilly 745
Do you believe in Cod? 12 min TALLYHO 8541 11
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 15 min Princess Hey 158,055
DEA Agent Warns Utah of Pot-Crazed Rabbits 16 min DILF 9
IS the worls ready for ufo diclosure? 21 min DILF 12
Rest in Peace, Spock 28 min Grace nerissa 313
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 33 min Grace Nerissa 39,409
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr Selecia Jones- JA... 17,936
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 8 hr livelivedrh 825
More from around the web