Evolution vs. Creation

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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119323 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
absolute crap!
Show me the truth that requires no evidence.
To compile and correlate real world evidence and data is like building a brick house; any brick will fit anywhere.
That you choose to place one brick there instead of here is just a reflection of your personal disposition.
And just which "religious truth" are you claiming are unfalsifiable?
If you dont even know what the truths imply; how can you know whether they are falsifiable or not?
You disputing religion (Christianity in particular) is like a 5 year old tossing away a math text book and saying; "I dont see any numbers in the natural world, so arithmetic are mere mythology and imagination."
I think he was pointing out that religious people will declare the "truth" of the Bible and refuse to demonstrate its truth.

In response to your claim that real world evidence can fit anywhere, that is clearly not true. That is why we are able to date certain rocks by its fossils. The fossil assemblage found in certain strata give an almost definite date in them because they fit together in only one way.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#119324 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
absolute crap!
Show me the truth that requires no evidence.
To compile and correlate real world evidence and data is like building a brick house; any brick will fit anywhere.
That you choose to place one brick there instead of here is just a reflection of your personal disposition.
And just which "religious truth" are you claiming are unfalsifiable?
If you dont even know what the truths imply; how can you know whether they are falsifiable or not?
You disputing religion (Christianity in particular) is like a 5 year old tossing away a math text book and saying; "I dont see any numbers in the natural world, so arithmetic are mere mythology and imagination."
Misnomer there is no such thing as religious truths, there are religious beliefs, there is religious faith but neither faith nor belief is truth unless that faith/belief is falsifiable and evidenced to be true in the strict definition of the word.

What you have is religious faith and you call it truth to make yourself feel better while incidentally distorting the meaning of the word. Faith is not falsifyable and making claims of truth when no truth is involved is a lie for you faith, a lie for you god.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#119325 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
absolute crap!
Show me the truth that requires no evidence.
To compile and correlate real world evidence and data is like building a brick house; any brick will fit anywhere.
That you choose to place one brick there instead of here is just a reflection of your personal disposition.
And just which "religious truth" are you claiming are unfalsifiable?
If you dont even know what the truths imply; how can you know whether they are falsifiable or not?
You disputing religion (Christianity in particular) is like a 5 year old tossing away a math text book and saying; "I dont see any numbers in the natural world, so arithmetic are mere mythology and imagination."
I've got to give you credit Hog, you are a master of Straw. At ChromiuMan's comment that theories are formed from real world evidence and data, you respond, and I quote "Show me the truth that requires no evidence". This is a perfect example of a strawman argument. It is the equivalent of me replying to your post "How dare you accuse me of plagiarism. Show me ONE example of me copying another poster". You should be proud.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#119326 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No. You have a habit of claiming that there are flaws in other people's posts.
<quoted text>
But what you suggest is hardly ever worth dignifying with a response.
<quoted text>
But it doesnt make a difference whether he does or not. You will argue wahtever he presents to suit your own sentiment s and philosophies.
<quoted text>
His assertion suggests that your arguments embody stupidity and lies is valid.
<quoted text>
After you.
How you doing today my little Arnold Ziffle the superhero, hand of gawd?
DVLS ADVCTE

Birmingham, AL

#119327 Aug 1, 2014
How often does a physical anomaly occur, how often does it re-curr, and what percentage of those is considered "advantageous". Almost none -
And it's not just one anomaly, it's thousands and thousands, they say, happening over and over - There is more faith needed in Darwinism, than in religion.
Look out Evolutionists - one day soon that mole on your back will turn into a wing with feathers.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#119328 Aug 1, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I think he was pointing out that religious people will declare the "truth" of the Bible and refuse to demonstrate its truth.
In response to your claim that real world evidence can fit anywhere, that is clearly not true. That is why we are able to date certain rocks by its fossils. The fossil assemblage found in certain strata give an almost definite date in them because they fit together in only one way.
So why didnt he say that if thats what he meant?

And how many other ways have you tried to fit together those fossils etc?

Have you tried to fit them together in any other way which involves anything outside of teh context of evolution etc?

You build a "mold" and find things to fill it with; thats all there is.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#119329 Aug 1, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Misnomer there is no such thing as religious truths, there are religious beliefs, there is religious faith but neither faith nor belief is truth unless that faith/belief is falsifiable and evidenced to be true in the strict definition of the word.
absolute crap.

evidence is always questionable, especially when it comes to evidence of what the truth is.

Because the truth never changes, and is hence eternal.

...and while we are not eternal, we cannot know by the examination of evidence that a thing is truth.

The only way we can know truth is by logic; for logic and truth depend on the same principle- equality.

Falsifiability is the LOGICAL possibility that a suggestion could be shown to be false.

By that definition, ANY assertion is falsifiable- even religious ones.
ChristineM wrote:
What you have is religious faith and you call it truth to make yourself feel better while incidentally distorting the meaning of the word. Faith is not falsifyable and making claims of truth when no truth is involved is a lie for you faith, a lie for you god.
No.

What I have is faith (confidence) in what the truth is, according to the truth is described to be in the Bible.

The only one distorting anything here is YOU; distorting the descriptions of what other people MIGHT believe through your prejudices and gross ignorance.

Faith is falsifiable, because belief may or may not be justifiable.

If I believe that X will Y, then there MUST be a justification for why I believe that;
And in describing the justification, the means of falsifying the belief appears naturally as a logical implication.

... no one that I know (religious nor otherwise) simply believes because they believe.

Your very idea of faith is inaccurate.

Are you sure youre not an atheist Compact Disk, or that your brain is not controlled by one?

You have a lot of info, but you seem to lack the capacity to think or process that info.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119330 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
No. You have a habit of claiming that there are flaws in other people's posts.
And they subequently go unaddressed.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
But what you suggest is hardly ever worth dignifying with a response.
Yet here you are responding, but still not actually backing up Bohart, even though you jumped to his defense. Which makes the only point to your posts being ad hom.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
But it doesnt make a difference whether he does or not. You will argue wahtever he presents to suit your own sentiment s and philosophies.
You suggest I would disagree with him no matter what, as if I have some kind of personal animosity against him. This is not the case. I disagree with Wondering exceedingly often, yet just yesterday I agreed with him about food. I have my position and Bohart has his. If he says something I agree with I will NOT argue against him just for the sake of it. It's just that our positions are, for the most part, fairly opposite (I support science and he opposes it), which is WHY we argue.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
His assertion suggests that your arguments embody stupidity and lies is valid.
And his assertion was baseless. He is, like you, a master at ad hom.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
After you.
I tend not to argue philosophy. It bores the crapp outta me. So I leave that to fundies.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119331 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
absolute crap!
Show me the truth that requires no evidence.
God.

Apparently.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119332 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So why didnt he say that if thats what he meant?
And how many other ways have you tried to fit together those fossils etc?
Have you tried to fit them together in any other way which involves anything outside of teh context of evolution etc?
You build a "mold" and find things to fill it with; thats all there is.
It was clear to everyone except for you. If you are the only one having problems understanding then the fault is yours not that of others.

And fossils are not tried to be fitted in any other way since it would not work. Go ahead and try it. See if you can show that they are wrong. Do you even know the basic laws used to determine the age of various beds?

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#119333 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet you can't demonstrate that your particular interpretation is any better than anyone else's. Because ultimately you're just yet another arrogant random pish-posh fundie fool with his head up his ass amongst a throng of random arrogant pish-posh fundie fools with their head up their ass with an opinion. Especially considering your poor posts on this forum.(shrug)
Here you are a moron claiming that your interpretation based on ZERO evidence is the one and only while ranting against others. How you are different from any other cult-fired furnace that spews its pollution on here, I don't know.

Like so many others claiming to be the ONE THAT KNOWS, you have turned a character flaw into the paradigm of your belief.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119334 Aug 1, 2014
DVLS ADVCTE wrote:
How often does a physical anomaly occur, how often does it re-curr,
Obviously in this context you refer to mutations. To answer your question, it happens literally hundreds of times in each generation.
DVLS ADVCTE wrote:
and what percentage of those is considered "advantageous". Almost none -
So you claim, but it doesn't matter. What matters is that there is change, and that these changes accumlate with each generation. Therefore evolution DOES occur. In order to prevent this then there must be enough detrimental mutations to prevent a population from continuing or increasing. But since, in humans (for example), this is not the case, that means evolution CAN occur.
DVLS ADVCTE wrote:
And it's not just one anomaly, it's thousands and thousands, they say, happening over and over - There is more faith needed in Darwinism, than in religion.
Hardly. We're all born with around 125 to 175 mutations. How many people do you think there were born today? Therefore how many mutations would that be? And how many of them will survive long enough to reproduce? It apparently is a surprise to you that the human population has steadily INCREASED over the past few thousand years or so.

If humanity is faced with extinction in the near future then you will happy to know evolution will no longer occur, at least for that species. Until then, you're talking bollox.
DVLS ADVCTE wrote:
Look out Evolutionists - one day soon that mole on your back will turn into a wing with feathers.
Actually no, that's highly unlikely, as that would be a violation of nested hierarchies. So can you tell me why you fundies think that the best way to refute evolution is to learn absolutely NOTHING at all about it? Fundie logic 101.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119335 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So why didnt he say that if thats what he meant?
And how many other ways have you tried to fit together those fossils etc?
Have you tried to fit them together in any other way which involves anything outside of teh context of evolution etc?
You build a "mold" and find things to fill it with; thats all there is.
If that was the case then evolution would be non-falsifiable. And therefore non-scientific. Because it could make no scientific predictions either way.

As it happens though, evolution IS falsifiable. It's just not been falsified yet. A subtle, but distinct difference.

Wake us up when you find that pre-Cambrian rabbit, Hogster.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119336 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
absolute crap.
evidence is always questionable, especially when it comes to evidence of what the truth is.
Yes, evidence is always questionable. Because there might be new evidence discovered later that changes our current views based on current evidence. This is what distinguishes science from religious dogma.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Because the truth never changes, and is hence eternal.
The truth is the sun shines. Therefore the sun will always shine because truth never changes and truth is eternal.

Oh, wait...
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
and while we are not eternal, we cannot know by the examination of evidence that a thing is truth.
However we can use evidence to make predictions, and therefore while we can never be 100% certain, we can determine a reasonable approximation of the truth. Gravity for example.

But according to you, the evidence for gravity is suspect.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
The only way we can know truth is by logic; for logic and truth depend on the same principle- equality.
Equality of what? What precisely are you comparing, what with, and how?
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Falsifiability is the LOGICAL possibility that a suggestion could be shown to be false.
By that definition, ANY assertion is falsifiable- even religious ones.
However according to your position, falsifiability is irrelevant. Because your assertion (you claim) is non-falsifiable. Therefore it is non-scientific. It's not that I dispute the idea of "the truth" so much, I merely dispute your claim that you have found it. In order to know "the truth" you would have to know everything. That would make you God. But since you don't know everything (in fact you haven't really demonstrated much in the way of knowledge at all) then you cannot verify with any certainty to have found any truth.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
No.
What I have is faith (confidence) in what the truth is, according to the truth is described to be in the Bible.
And yet lizards and donkeys cannot talk. Plants did not arrive before the sun. Of course that's when your subjective interpretation comes into play. Of which you are apparently reluctant to even specify on what is allegory and what is literal. Even most fundies are honest enough to at least admit they think Adam & Eve is literal.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
The only one distorting anything here is YOU; distorting the descriptions of what other people MIGHT believe through your prejudices and gross ignorance.
Faith is falsifiable, because belief may or may not be justifiable.
If I believe that X will Y, then there MUST be a justification for why I believe that;
And in describing the justification, the means of falsifying the belief appears naturally as a logical implication.
... no one that I know (religious nor otherwise) simply believes because they believe.
Your very idea of faith is inaccurate.
Are you sure youre not an atheist Compact Disk, or that your brain is not controlled by one?
You have a lot of info, but you seem to lack the capacity to think or process that info.
Yet so far you have yet to demonstrate our idea of faith (or yours at least) is inaccurate. Once you can FINALLY demonstrate "Truth" then you can show that you are The Lord.

We await your wisdom.

And our beards are getting longer waiting.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119337 Aug 1, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Here you are a moron claiming that your interpretation based on ZERO evidence is the one and only while ranting against others. How you are different from any other cult-fired furnace that spews its pollution on here, I don't know.
Like so many others claiming to be the ONE THAT KNOWS, you have turned a character flaw into the paradigm of your belief.
Religious fundamentalism in a nutshell.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#119338 Aug 1, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
...
And fossils are not tried to be fitted in any other way since it would not work. Go ahead and try it. See if you can show that they are wrong...
So how many other ways have been tried?

Thats the question I asked.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#119339 Aug 1, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Here you are a moron claiming that your interpretation based on ZERO evidence is the one and only while ranting against others. How you are different from any other cult-fired furnace that spews its pollution on here, I don't know.
Like so many others claiming to be the ONE THAT KNOWS, you have turned a character flaw into the paradigm of your belief.
Where did I make such a claim?

Did I claim that interpretation based on zero evidence "is the one"; or did I suggest that evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion?

How are you different from any other dunce who just gravitates to whatever he wants to hear?

Claiming to be the one that knows?

Clearly your expressions represent images that have meaning in your mind only.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#119340 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So how many other ways have been tried?
Thats the question I asked.
Probably countless. When fossils are first discovered errors can be made. But once an error is discovered it would be foolish to repeat it.

A child may make a mistake in sorting out the numbers of the sort 5.736, 5..74, 5.735, and 5. Numbers behind the decimal point can be a bit tricky, especially for very long numbers. Once you know how to sort them there is no reason to keep making the same mistakes. Most of the fossils have been very well indexed. Your answer may have made some sense a hundred years ago, but even then most of the fossils had been sorted out.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#119341 Aug 1, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Which, BTW, is a loan word out of French.
The habit to eat pommes frites with mayonnaise comes from Belgium, who are the real pommes frites people, especially the Flemish part. They call it "frieten" (=plural, singular "friet") or "patat". Traditionally they are served in cones: https://www.google.nl/search... .
Famous also are the "frietkotten" ("kot" = "sty, cot, slum"). They look like this:
https://www.google.nl/search...
and are to be found everywhere in Belgium, Holland and parts of Germany.
Mjam scrunch, gnap!
(but they are bad if you are on a diet - or want to prevent to go on a diet).
Correct, it is French. If German it would be something like kartoffel gebraten.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#119342 Aug 1, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
absolute crap!
Show me the truth that requires no evidence.
To compile and correlate real world evidence and data is like building a brick house; any brick will fit anywhere.
That you choose to place one brick there instead of here is just a reflection of your personal disposition.
And just which "religious truth" are you claiming are unfalsifiable?
If you dont even know what the truths imply; how can you know whether they are falsifiable or not?
You disputing religion (Christianity in particular) is like a 5 year old tossing away a math text book and saying; "I dont see any numbers in the natural world, so arithmetic are mere mythology and imagination."
Your analogies fail on many levels, as would your brick house. Scientific method is not aesthetic or subjective. Fundamentalists are the children who contest the acquired knowledge of the natural world and its laws in favor of imagination and mythology.

Can you falsify the magic of the book of Genesis? No. Is there any evidence of human souls, heaven, lake of fire, et al? No. Is there any evidence of salvation, the resurrection, divine inspiration of the writings of scripture, etc? No. Can you >honestly< point to any part of Revelation and claim, "This is fact and not interpretation."? No.
All you've got is a book and mysticism.

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
tellmealie (Dec '12) 5 min dragoon70056 329
Is it possible to....... 6 min dragoon70056 573
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 7 min jimmy krack korn 152,489
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 7 min Bill 13,584
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 10 min wichita-rick 605
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 13 min dragoon70056 2,871
What are you thinking about now? (Jun '10) 15 min Sarah 25,703
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 21 min Mega Monster 7,578
Let's Play Song Titles With One Word? 47 min D Valens 310
More from around the web