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

#119433 Aug 3, 2014
wondering, you seem to have a rather pedestrian definition of observing. We can observe events without personally seeing them. If you take your sort of observation to an extreme then we have never seen a distant galaxy since to the naked eye they are simply points of light at best.

Now a biologist may be able to name a specific case of speciation that has been observed by man. My question is why do you having an eyewitness is so important? In courts of law eyewitness testimony is the least valuable of testimonies. Attorneys know that eyewitness accounts have all sorts of faults. DNA evidence, fossil evidence, all sorts of evidence top eyewitness evidence.

“Nothing can stop, This Pony..”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#119434 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i ask again---do you think all those changes came about in the last 200-300 years? is that like a evolution fast track? lol
so they finally have been able with modern technology to better observe and find their differences. so they re-classified them. they have always been there. what about that do you not get?
new species are found daily, many thousands yearly. they do not poof into existence and are not a species changing to a different species. they just have never been found before, or never have been classified by there differences before, or as already stated was classified with another species until now that we can examine them better and see and find more of their differences so we now are starting to re-classify them.
to claim we have seen speciation in nature is absurd. it takes many many tens if not hundred thousands of years as the theory of evolution claims so there is technically no way to see it happen in live species in nature in your fish or anything else. unless you have an evolution fast track hid somewhere.
I didn't claim it happened instantly doofus, I only claimed it happened.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119435 Aug 3, 2014
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Uniformitarianism is not a controversial assumption when compared to magic.
Jargon

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#119436 Aug 3, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, let's compare them:
For the creation we do not have any evidence, not of the creating agent (god), neither of the creation itself, its mechanisms, the course of the processes involved, at least a denotation of it. Nothing. Nada. Rien. Nichts.
For big bang we have pretty much evidence and all the predictions on its evidence (what and how do we expect to find) are fulfilled until now. Its mechanisms are pretty well known and comply (mathematically) with the framework of physics elsewhere, for which we certainly have much evidence.
Which one would you choose?
The same applies to abiogenesis.
Still in its infancy, the first serious experiments in that field date back to 1953.
But if you had taken the effort to read into the research already done in those 60 years, i think you were baffled.
But you didn't, which takes me to the next point: how on earth are you assessing these things, WITHOUT even being familiar with even the most basics of it? Explain how you manage that.
Of course you are entitled to believe what you want.
But you are not entitled to tattle about things you have no basic knowledge or understanding of.
But what butter me most here is the CONSEQUENCES of people tattling about things they have not a single knowledge and understanding of.
Let's quote astrophysicist Neil de Grasse Tyson on this:
“I just don’t mind when someone says ‘you understand that, so god did it’. That doesn’t even bother me. But what really bothers me is as if you were so content in that answer that you no longer had curiosity to learn how it happened. The day you stopped looking because you content ‘god did it’, I don’t need you in the lab. You’re useless on the frontier of understanding the nature of the world”.
Your response to Dude is typical for creationists:
- full of errors
- assessing the position of your opponent out of sheer ignorance - having not the slightest understanding or knowledge of the things you are assessing
- trying to drag science epistemologically into the realm of religion.
Science and religion are epistemologically NOT on par.
Religion is based on revelation and belief, science on evidence and reason.
Epistemologically science is INCOMPARABLY SUPERIOR to religion.
Science accomplishes in any random few decades more than your whole religion in its 4,100 years history.
If you don't believe that, look back in history or just around in the world of today when religion prevails in society and dominates. For instance the Islamic nations. Or Europe in the Middle Ages.
Please also have a look at what deGrasse Tyson has to say about THAT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =J_9MUzB8wjEXX.
Looking , looking , nope no evidence.

So you believe that the universe created itself and all life? yes or no

Since: Mar 14

Brisbane, Australia

#119437 Aug 3, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
i have said what i think it is. you and your butt buddy said i was wrong. so correct me, that is the challenge. put up or shut up. you got nothing jerk jack wagon
. Are we at odds with 6000 years and the age of the Trilobites? The infinite is still there, the age of this forum is dubious. Consciousness was and is a given. Stu

Since: Mar 14

Brisbane, Australia

#119438 Aug 3, 2014
The infinite creates itself from mOment to. Moment. It is a cascade constantly in balance, the almost dancing with the rest. And there is us, one thin reed. And a word having written moves on. Stu
THINK

Youngstown, OH

#119439 Aug 4, 2014
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Was there an old SCPID theory?
YEAH!
THINK

Youngstown, OH

#119440 Aug 4, 2014
Stuart Cudahy wrote:
The infinite creates itself from mOment to. Moment. It is a cascade constantly in balance, the almost dancing with the rest. And there is us, one thin reed. And a word having written moves on. Stu
These words move somewhere. Could it be the words being written are seen by the infinite?
Princess Diana

Hemet, CA

#119441 Aug 4, 2014
SCPID/ID SEED
The ONLY Internet reference to this is on topix.
Something someone made up?

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119443 Aug 4, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah but claiming all plant hybrids are sterile is not quite telling the truth. hybrids can also be not sterile. so then we are back to square one. it is not a species changing into a new species.
we do not know if all hybrids are sterile. to name a few sterile ones we know of for example liger, tigon, mule are. plant hybrids which are the result of sexual reproduction between plants from two different taxa or species. not all plant hybrids are sterile, but many are. sterility in plant hybrids is most often the result of polyploidy, which occurs because of abnormal cell division and results in more than two sets of chromosomes in the cells of the hybrid offspring. hybrids commonly form in nature between closely related species, but humans also produce sterile hybrid plants intentionally for commercial purposes.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5619428_plant-hybri...
In the first place species do not change into species.

Second, your post is as always irrelevant.
I did not claim all hybrids are sterile.
So OFF with your post - again.
The question whether hybrids are sterile or not is also completely irrelevant for the ongoing topic. Which was whether we did observe speciation in goatsbeard. Which did.
The only thing that matters here is whether the different subpopulations of goatsbeards are interbreeding. They didn't and can't. hence: speciation.

End of discussion, I am fed up with your constant tattles, unless you manage to address the topic and not divert into irrelevant word spaghetti.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119444 Aug 4, 2014
Princess Diana wrote:
SCPID/ID SEED
The ONLY Internet reference to this is on topix.
Something someone made up?
It stands for Systems, Cycles and Patterns Intelligent Design.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119445 Aug 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Are you a Jesus myther? That damaged? Well I will leave it at that.
translation: I have no answers and resume my ignorance.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119446 Aug 4, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
read your own link:
Noteworthy naturalists such as Richard Owen (who coined the word "Dinosaur"), Georges Cuvier, and Richard Lydekker have added to the literature on humpback dolphins over the centuries. In recent years, scientists have disagreed with one another about the number of species, with some considering all humpback dolphins the same species and others postulating as many as nine different ones.
Aside from slight differences in overall length, number of teeth and vertebrae, and geographic distribution, the Australian humpback dolphin differs in appearance from the other three humpback species. Its dorsal fin is lower and more wide-based than the dorsal fins of Sousa teuszii and S. plumbea, and its coloration is dark gray, as opposed to the distinctly white (often with a pink tinge) coloration of its closest humpback neighbor, Sousa chinensis. The Australian humpback dolphin also possesses a distinctive dark dorsal "cape."
as they have stated throughout your link when it comes to the humpback dolphins there are many disagreements on how many species there are, they finally agreed to call this one a different species. it has been there but never was classified as its own species. you get it yet.
if you still don't get it then look at all the differences overall length, number of teeth and vertebrae, dorsal fin is lower and more wide-based, its coloration is dark gray, as opposed to the distinctly white and it also possesses a distinctive dark dorsal "cape.
do you think all those changes came about in the last 200-300 years? is that like a evolution fast track? lol
like I said they have always been there but as the link says they are a taxonomically confused group of marine mammals and about the number of species, with some considering all humpback dolphins the same species and others postulating as many as nine different ones. they all finally agreed to call this a different species. it was not a species turning into a new species. end of story.
You SIMPLY DON'T GET IT.
Species DO NOT "change into" other species.
Species arise by SUB-POPULATIONS of its ancestral species diverting genetically until the boundary of genetic isolation has been crossed.
Your whole post is as irrelevant as all others.
You are constantly addressing irrelevant details or aspects that have nothing to do with the point made.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119447 Aug 4, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
It stands for Systems, Cycles and Patterns Intelligent Design.
Which IS made up.

By our old pal Mikey's sockpuppets.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#119448 Aug 4, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Creationists are baffled by science. They have the information available to understand it, but are either unskilled at reviewing and understanding it objectively or willfully misrepresent it. Overall, I think it is a mix of both.
Dan, it is as simple as this:
1) MY god is the only true one
2) ALL OTHER gods are just idols
3) EVERYTHING that says otherwise is not true and should be combated - in word but if that does not work, by force and violence
4) EVERYTHING that contradicts the doctrine has to give way - science? OFF it goes. Facts? F*ck you facts. Other beliefs? In HELL with them, if needed, we help a hand. Separation of church and state? Heretic!

If you want an insight in this world, read http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/3198-w... .
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119449 Aug 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Are you a Jesus myther? That damaged? Well I will leave it at that.
Hey, it's possible that Jesus may have been a real guy. No biggie.

But unless there's evidence that he was magic then the existence of some preacher doesn't exactly validate Christianity being anything other than just another religion.

Problem is, evidence of magic is an oxymoron.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119450 Aug 4, 2014
bohart wrote:
Jargon
Translation:
bohart wrote:
I can't refute that as usual!
When actually it PRECISELY addresses the creationist's objections to uniformitarianism. They don't like things happening in uniform predictable ways, because they claim literally ANYTHING can happen because of Jew magic. Because how do we know? Where we there?

Therefore DESPITE evidence that falsifies their claims (such as evolution or age of the Earth or whatever other silly objections they have) they claim their interpretation of the Bible is correct because evidence doesn't matter. Because they are literally arguing for Last Thursdayism.

Unfortunately for them the concepts we support pass the scientific method. Theirs don't.
bohart wrote:
Looking , looking , nope no evidence.
So you believe that the universe created itself and all life? yes or no
The theory of evolution does not rely on universe formation. Since it doesn't rely even on abiogenesis why on Earth would you think it has to rely on explaining universe formation?

If you got problems with that then go take it up on the physics forums and explain how wrong they are for not taking invisible magic Jews into account.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119451 Aug 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> According to modern interpretation which is obviously hostile to the ancients, who (it is assumed) could not distinguish between fact and fiction. Where is the dissent report? Actual written history records a deluge. Multiple sources. These are facts.
.
<quoted text> I was referencing recorded history. You really have little, if any ancient precedent for any modern assumptions. Flood a myth etc. In 1850, for example not many taught human ancestors were ape like creatures. The kings of Europe traced their ancestry to Adam. That reflected their perception. Now you guy come along and say they were all wrong.
http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry....
<quoted text> It's not what you miss, it is what you ignore. 3000 or so years of recorded history which directly refutes modern assumptions. Moderns were wrong about many things in the past as it relates to history. David kingdom comes to mind. The problem with the moderns is they do not keep track of their many screw ups. Where the ancients were right and moderns were wrong.
Actually you are conflating "modern assumptions" with the concerns of skeptics prior to undiscovered evidence, such as, for example, your Kingom of David. The assumption of "modernists" is to go with evidence. So if evidence points to the existence of the Kingdom of David then "modernists" will accept that. They will also, for example, accept the existence of King Herod, who was a real living person. On the other hand there's no evidence of his alleged baby genocide.

However what the ancients NEVER had was evidence of a worldwide flood, or the existence of Adam and Eve. The BEST they could hope for, if their historical documents happened to be accurate at the time, would be that they were related to some guy called Adam. Big whoop. LOTS of people are related to LOTS of people called Adam. However since the stories of Adam & Eve and the global flood quite simply contradict physics AS WELL as history, that is why we KNOW these accounts to be inaccurate.
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> Dating techniques which only a handful have any understanding with obvious built in materialist and old earth assumptions to accommodate common descent or macro evolution. Where is the dissent report?
The understanding of dating techniques is understood by very few creationists, none of which include you. And of those who DO understand the methods, they subsequently misrepresent them to the flock such as which you are affiliated. There are no old age or materialistic "assumptions" because these so-called assumptions are TESTED scientifically. They pass. The dissent report comes from creationists who whine all over the internet that they're not taken seriously. The reason being because they CAN'T test their religious "non-materialistic" claims. Or their claims ARE relevant to materialism and their claims are simply wrong. And it is BECAUSE of these things, evidence is irrelevant to their position.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119452 Aug 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
<quoted text> No need to shout, turkey boy. Why would you assume (your interpretation of) scientific evidence is the only evidence there is? Is not recorded history evidence? If you have multiple accounts of an ancient flood where one family makes it through on a boat, is that not evidence of the event in question from history. Multiple accounts provide weight to the event in question? Are these not the ancients understanding of a event which predated their writings?
Sure.

Except if the PHYSICAL evidence does not match their claims, then their claims are quite obviously NOT evidence. They are just claims which do not match reality. So what you have is an example of the ancients either:

1 - Offering their own incredulity to the vastness of the extremely large, but not global, floods their ancestors may or may not have experienced (such as those that occurred at the end of the last ice age)

2 - Plagiarism by the ancients of other people's myths (which is why non-Jewish versions of the flood that preceded the Noah story had different characters to the Noah story)

3 - A combination of both of the above.

But thank God that there WAS no global flood, otherwise none of us would be here to talk about it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#119453 Aug 4, 2014
lightbeamrider wrote:
Creationist have answers. All you have to do is search their sites.
Creationists have answers in the same way that George Lucas has the answers to what happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. It's all made up BS. That's what apologetics is FOR.

Once they finally have this thing called EVIDENCE, then they can be taken seriously.

There's a REASON they are not. And it probably has something to do with the fact they've NEVER been able to back up their claims for THOUSANDS of years.
lightbeamrider wrote:
That sentence does not make sense so i think you mean the moderns assume the ancients could not tell fact from fiction. I give the ancients, including the kings of Europe, the benefit of the doubt. You, on the other hand assume they are all wrong. Just like your camp assumed the David Kingdom was a credible as King Arthur and were proven wrong. Why don't you own up to your mistakes instead of lame attempts to shift blame?
Previously addressed. You are attempting to caricature your opposition. Creationists should know better, but without caricatures they don't have an argument. Unfortunately for them, all they have is arguments without evidence. That keeps people like you happy at least.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Right and you know better with your metaphysical prejudices. Nothing supernatural at all places at all times.
Maybe there's everything supernatural at all places at all times? We don't know. We don't care. But it's up to YOU to back it up. Until you can we don't have to take any supernatural claims seriously.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Do you believe in abiogenesis?
Belief is superfluous when one has evidence. Before about 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (or 6,000 if you're a reality-denying Young Earther) there was no life. After that point there was. Therefore abiogenesis occurred. Currently we don't know for sure if:

1 - it occurred naturally.

2 - was aliens.

3 - Goddidit

4 - it was by some other unknown means no-one has thought of yet.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Everything is here by accident or for no reason?
Philosophical question. Not that creationists can even answer that despite their whole BASIS is philosophy. God works in mysterious ways.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Intelligence and life are by-products of non intelligence and non life?
Evidence seems to suggest that all over the planet. No "intelligent design" is required to make life now, nor apparently has it ever been since it started. Whether an intelligent agent was needed to start it all is another matter. But since intelligence is not needed to make life now, why SHOULD it be necessary at the point of life's start? Especially when there's ZERO evidence of life prior to that.
lightbeamrider wrote:
Where is the hard science in that? Where is the logic?
Above.
lightbeamrider wrote:
It is easy enough to find. If you knew anything about investigation on a computer. I am not going to hand it to you on a silver spoon.
Then what you're saying is that you are unwilling to back up your position. If you are unwilling to back up your position then there's no reason to presume you have evidence in the first place, so there's no reason for us to waste our time doing YOUR homework.

Besides which, you seem to be under the erroneous impression that we've never BEEN to your creationist sites before.

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
I Like..... (Mar '14) 11 min Crazy Jae 755
Rest in Peace, Spock 16 min Photoshop 215
Funny!! Word association game. (Nov '13) 26 min beatlesinafog 2,659
Word Association. (Nov '10) 26 min Mega Monster 17,044
Word Association (Mar '10) 27 min Mega Monster 16,629
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 28 min beatlesinafog 9,799
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 29 min Crazy Jae 1,192
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 35 min LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 801
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 58 min Brandiiiiiiii 157,954
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 1 hr TALLYHO 8541 17,913
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 39,327
More from around the web