Evolution vs. Creation

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

Sunset, TX

#120592 Aug 21, 2014
the bible and science are both results of man. the accounts in the bible-from man. the test in science-from man. the validity of the bible-man’s word. the validity of the evidence-man’s word. bible stories and scientific tests both arise from man.
you both can argue “god said so” or the “test said so”. fact is both are and rely on “man said so”..
the one that you choose to believe is the one you will follow.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#120593 Aug 21, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
...From the very beginning, living organisms demonstrated a survival instinct. The abiogenesis molecules display no instinct for survival, and therefore cannot be used to show that "life" can arise from inorganic matter.
And you can prove your assertion that living organisms demonstrated a survival instinct form the beginning? I don't think do.

Inorganic molecules evolving to use a different source of material to continue self-replicating when the original materials were used up. Sounds like the very definition of some sort of survival instinct, although I think 'instinct' is overstating the case.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120594 Aug 21, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
The 30% is wrong. It is produced by a creationist – nothing more to add.
But if you nevertheless wish: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2013/06/18... by P.Z. Meyers, professor in biology and genetics.

Moreover, 10 years ago we didn’t have the complete DNA sequence from chimps. Previously even not from humans. DNA comparisons in these days were made by taking a sample from the DNA. But as stated above, if you took the sample from the non-functional, this would yield quite other results than taken from functional DNA. But nobody could tell exactly because little was known which parts of the genome precisely were functional or on-functional.
Creationists LOVE these differences and play around with it.
Hence, a gain from 1.23% to 4% is a matter of what parts of the DNA you examine and the complete genomes of both species known.
<quoted text>
As you yourself required: don’t just say I am wrong but explain why I’m wrong.
INDEED.
The whole thing about the “fossils cannot tell us who its ancestors or progeny are” has been addressed before by me. You didn’t respond to it WHATSOEVER. And now coming back with the same lousy arguments is EVEN WORSE than answering without explanation. It is not answering AT ALL and then proceed as if nothing has been explained.
It is VERY ANNOYING.
Fossils cannot tell who their exact ancestral species were INDEED.
But that is NOT relevant NOT required.
Subsequent fossils, in the correct chronological sequence, demonstrating a clear evolution in all traits in the pathway of evolution form one form to another, are sufficient evidence. I even gave you several examples.
Address this properly or NEVER use this argument again.
.
Firstly, you have no right or authority to tell me what to do.(oh I forgot, you have delusions of grandeur), please forgive oh great one, I didn't mean that.
.
Secondly, I guess you missed this in your link.
"The problem here is that while the creationists got the main result right,"
.
What main result was that, that there is a 30% difference?
.
Additionally I saw another report first from a Chinese source (not Spanish) which said the same thing.
.
<quoted text>
Moreover, 10 years ago we didn’t have the complete DNA sequence from chimps.
.
This didn't stop them making a 99% correlation assertion, or a 96% assertion.
(Are we seeing a pattern here?)
.
<quoted text>
As you yourself required: don’t just say I am wrong but explain why I’m wrong.
.
You have access to the data, as far as I can see from your rebuttal, the % is not disputed.
Plus, I haven't required anything, I have requested it and I am still waiting!
.
<quoted text>
The whole thing about the “fossils cannot tell us who its ancestors or progeny are” has been addressed before by me.
.
Forgive me, oh divine one, since you have spoken all should listen, your arrogance (I mean intelligence) is awe inspiring. Please forgive my Freudian slip.
.
You have not been able to prove anything regarding the ancestors or progeny of a fossilized animal. I don't know how anyone could believe it can be proven. This is obviously a unsupported (by proof) assertion. All you have is evidence of similar animals. That does not prove ancestry. When I am dead you can compare my remains to someone who died 200 years ago and say well they look alike he must be the ancestor/progeny. Oh really?
.
Your sparse list of an evolutionary path is just an opinion.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120595 Aug 21, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Because he refuses to accept 2000 yo hearsay as evidence?
.
This is done all the time, they call it history.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120596 Aug 21, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Well you write in the same ignorant and pedantic way as buck and use similar arguments... including this one, it was just a question.
Ahh the creatard copout.“I can’t see it so it’s not there”... The increase in productivity/density/SIZE of farm animals began following the industrial revolution and the relocation of the work force from agricultural to manufacturing, many years before the advent of steroids. And of course in most countries (including the UK) steroids/growth hormones etc are banded from agricultural use with the exception of controlled veterinary modification... there are even national government agencies tasked with the adherence to EU wide LAW on the quality of foodstuffs
http://www.food.gov.uk/business-industry/farm...
http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/panels/contam.ht...
http://ec.europa.eu/food/fs/sc/scv/index_en.h...
I do not really care whether you asserted or not, you may ignore facts that contradict your fiction and claim ‘you can’t see them so they don’t exist’ but both those facts blow the god dunitwiv magic claim out of the water.
As I said
<quoted text>
I would consider the evidence and unlike so many trusting creationists I have examined some of the vast amounts of complimentary evidence myself and learned that humanity evolved from earlier primates, god dunitwiv magic was not a factor. This evolution is happening today (see my avatar, the Langkawi bent-toed gecko and the Pygmy three-toed sloth for examples)
Then take a look at my avatar... human skull, yes... modern human skull... no, it is about 25000 years old and shows marked evolutional differences between cro magnon (i.e. human) and modern human (i.e. you) including size, is brain pan was around 13% larger than the skull of modern humans indicating a bigger brain ... LOL... bone density which is also thicker walled than modern humans and of course the increase thickness of brow ridges.
The very reason I use that skull as an avatar is to show creatards one single evidential fact that that proves their poorly informed contention regarding evolution to be wrong. And despite the vast physical evidence you are still going to ignore it and wander on your merry way thinking that bronze age goat farmers had it right all along.
I can also go into detail on the Langkawi bent-toed gecko and the Pygmy three-toed sloth if you want.
.
Are you retracting your inference that there are limitations?
.
Regardless of the means of increase, we still have a pig, cow, etc. When you can show some kind of significant structural change, which would have to happen if evolution is correct, then I would be impressed. But nothing like that has ever been recorded in human history.
.
By the way, are you a sock of Turkana boy? You display the same arrogance and condescending nature? Or is that just a trait of the highly evolved evolutionist?
The Dude

London, UK

#120597 Aug 21, 2014
wondering wrote:
the bible and science are both results of man. the accounts in the bible-from man. the test in science-from man. the validity of the bible-man’s word. the validity of the evidence-man’s word. bible stories and scientific tests both arise from man.
you both can argue “god said so” or the “test said so”. fact is both are and rely on “man said so”..
the one that you choose to believe is the one you will follow.
Uhuh, and while you're at it just let us know how many practical applications of science rely on invisible Jew magic.

Stupid.
The Dude

London, UK

#120598 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Firstly, you have no right or authority to tell me what to do.(oh I forgot, you have delusions of grandeur), please forgive oh great one, I didn't mean that.
.
Secondly, I guess you missed this in your link.
"The problem here is that while the creationists got the main result right,"
.
What main result was that, that there is a 30% difference?
.
Additionally I saw another report first from a Chinese source (not Spanish) which said the same thing.
.
<quoted text>
Moreover, 10 years ago we didn’t have the complete DNA sequence from chimps.
.
This didn't stop them making a 99% correlation assertion, or a 96% assertion.
(Are we seeing a pattern here?)
.
<quoted text>
As you yourself required: don’t just say I am wrong but explain why I’m wrong.
.
You have access to the data, as far as I can see from your rebuttal, the % is not disputed.
Plus, I haven't required anything, I have requested it and I am still waiting!
.
<quoted text>
The whole thing about the “fossils cannot tell us who its ancestors or progeny are” has been addressed before by me.
.
Forgive me, oh divine one, since you have spoken all should listen, your arrogance (I mean intelligence) is awe inspiring. Please forgive my Freudian slip.
.
You have not been able to prove anything regarding the ancestors or progeny of a fossilized animal. I don't know how anyone could believe it can be proven. This is obviously a unsupported (by proof) assertion. All you have is evidence of similar animals. That does not prove ancestry. When I am dead you can compare my remains to someone who died 200 years ago and say well they look alike he must be the ancestor/progeny. Oh really?
.
Your sparse list of an evolutionary path is just an opinion.
As I've said, since you admit to not listening, why should we care if you personally accept answers? What we have is successful scientific predictions based on that evidence you're incapable of refuting. That's why we're not simply offering opinions as you do.
The Dude

London, UK

#120599 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Are you retracting your inference that there are limitations?
.
Regardless of the means of increase, we still have a pig, cow, etc. When you can show some kind of significant structural change, which would have to happen if evolution is correct, then I would be impressed. But nothing like that has ever been recorded in human history.
.
By the way, are you a sock of Turkana boy? You display the same arrogance and condescending nature? Or is that just a trait of the highly evolved evolutionist?
Of course it's been recorded in human history. It's called the fossil record. If I'm wrong then go and show us a single cow or pig in the pre Cambrian. If you can't then it's quite obvious that life changes over time. Quite drastically too I might add.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120600 Aug 21, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
If you could find the appropriate scientific evidence you could.
And what/who exactly is it that will determine this "appropriateness"?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120601 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't treat them the same because you have no data that equivocates to objectively verifiable evidence.
So there is no record nor any historical data (even outside the Bible and apart from Christian sources) regarding Jesus?

Let me ask you: did Socrates exist?
The Dude wrote:
...I'm biased towards scientific evidence. If you don't have anything scientific then I can't help you.
What differentiates "scientific evidence" from any evidence at all?

Describe non-scientific evidence.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120602 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course there's lots of claims. There's this little thing called Christianity, you may have heard of it.
Is it ONLY Christian sources that claim there was a real and historical Jesus?
The Dude wrote:
Yes. When I was a kid I tried pushing my little cousin into the swimming pool to see if he could walk on water. Unfortunately my experiment failed.
And this is evidence that Jesus is not real and is a myth?
The Dude wrote:
I also came across a ripe fig tree once and tried killing it just by touching it. That failed too.
I tried talking to a donkey and a lizard, but it turns out that due to anatomical reasons they could not communicate with me using human language even if they could understand what I was saying. I had a little better luck with a parrot, but parrots aren't mentioned much in the Bible.
So it turns out at least some of what he said was either storytelling, or just BS.(shrug)
Oh.

I see.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120603 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Equality of what?
What two (or more) things are you comparing?
A wooden log could be of equal weight to a rock, but that doesn't indicate intelligence unless you happen to have evidence that either one or both of them were cut deliberately into size.
You have no business is this argument.

It is beyond you.

You have nothing of any relevance to contribute to it.

Go away.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120604 Aug 21, 2014
Ooogah Boogah wrote:
<quoted text>
Why? Because he refuses to accept 2000 yo hearsay as evidence?
No.

But because he fails to acknowledge that all history is hearsay.

And also because he fails to acknowledge that all human "knowledge" is a rationalization.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120605 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
This is done all the time, they call it history.
I agree with you on that.

But if you expect THEM to admit that fact, you delude yourself.

They have no will to think fairly, else they would have applied the same principle used in scientific investigations to the question of the existence of God.

And if they did that; they would be compelled by logic to acknowledge that He is.

They settle for whatever line of thinking is convenient for them, then they use scientific method as an excuse for their biases.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120606 Aug 21, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
As I've said, since you admit to not listening, why should we care if you personally accept answers? What we have is successful scientific predictions based on that evidence you're incapable of refuting. That's why we're not simply offering opinions as you do.
.
Why are you then responding to my posts? You even respond to posts not directed to you.
.
I don't expect you to care your an atheist!
.
When are we going to see a new "kind"? That would be a good prediction.
.
When am I going to get data on how many mutations we are documenting each year in the human genome?
.
By the way evidence can be refuted but it is not necessary to convince others evolution is a "crock"
.
It's your conclusions I have a problem with.
.
This just came to me. If civilization were to suffer a catastrophe and 10,000 years from now someone dug up a pictures explaining the evolutionary path of hominids and another book of classic cars one could imagine one of them saying, look how this creature (cars) evolved over time.
.
Sounds silly, when we know this similarity is nothing but intelligent design.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120607 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why are you then responding to my posts? You even respond to posts not directed to you.
I have no idea what he/she thinks they demonstrates by doing so.

And his responses have been absurd to say the least.

The guy forms his conclusions on the falsehood of Jesus' existence, based on the fact that he shoved one of his relatives in a pool to see if they could walk on water.

He is psychotic.

They will let anyone into the academic circle these days.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120608 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
But because he fails to acknowledge that all history is hearsay.
And also because he fails to acknowledge that all human "knowledge" is a rationalization.
.
I would not generalize all history as hearsay, although much of it is. What I have a problem with is without evidence claiming the bible is hearsay. The best evidence we have is that the gospels are written from the perspective of the witnesses of Messiah. Even the internal evidence (as well as traditional evidence) is consistent with eyewitness testimony.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120609 Aug 21, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it ONLY Christian sources that claim there was a real and historical Jesus?
<quoted text>
And this is evidence that Jesus is not real and is a myth?
<quoted text>
Oh.
I see.
.
This represents the type of science he conducts.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#120610 Aug 21, 2014
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
I would not generalize all history as hearsay, although much of it is. What I have a problem with is without evidence claiming the bible is hearsay. The best evidence we have is that the gospels are written from the perspective of the witnesses of Messiah. Even the internal evidence (as well as traditional evidence) is consistent with eyewitness testimony.
You do know that using the source of the claim (The Bible) as proof of that claim's validity is called 'circular reasoning' and is complete idiocy... right?
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#120611 Aug 21, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, it seems impossible to ME that if genes do not change, there is no frequency change.
Because, assume this (simplified) gene frequency in an animal species genome:
gene 1 - 5%
gene 2 - 15%
gene 3 - 23%
gene 4 - 16%
gene 5 - 32%
gene 6 - 9%
If the frequency changes, we will become something like this:
gene 1 - 4%
gene 2 - 16%
gene 3 - 28%
gene 4 - 12%
gene 5 - 26%
gene 6 - 8%
This implies that some animals MUST have LOST gene 1, gene 5 and gene 6 and some animals should have GAINED gene 2, gene 3 and gene 4.
Of course the % are not realistic but only to make the logical point.
.
<quoted text>
Well, it seems impossible to ME that if genes do not change, there is no frequency change.
.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt on this one and take the blame for poor communication.
.
If we have a variety of genes within a population (say eye colour) and a tyrant comes along and orders the execution of everyone who doesn't have blue eyes we will see a change in gene frequency, but not a change in the genes. An eye colour gene is still an eye colour gene. Only the frequency of non-blue eyed genes has changed. No new information has been added to the genome there is only a loss. Now if we were to see purple eyed people start to be born, I would suspect that there has been a change in the genome, but would I call it evolution? Probably not, there is no new structure. For evolution to be true, we must be able to add new structures to the organism, like specialized cells, For that microbe to be the parent of all living things some new structures had to have been formed. Am I incorrect in this statement?

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 End Times 27,617
Interesting Quotes (Jun '11) 6 min SLY WEST 13,839
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 13 min LOST IN MISSISSIPPI 39,486
And sheriff posts a taunting tweet about it 18 min Newt G s Next Wife 1
'Tough Guy' Cries in Mugshot 19 min Newt G s Next Wife 3
How's your weather today? (Mar '12) 19 min Crazy Beautiful 5,377
A real gentleman doesn't (Oct '13) 19 min Maverick 808 928
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 22 min ms_Sweeter 158,174
Name a smell you love to smell! (Jan '14) 1 hr Mega Monster 856
More from around the web