Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
67,301 - 67,320 of 114,619 Comments Last updated 1 hr ago

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71589
Jan 21, 2013
 
Islamic Scientist wrote:
<quoted text>
of course.. universe is intelligent design perfectly with balance system in it
If it was balanced then nothing would change, there would be no black holes, there would be no stars ... and there would be no planets or us.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71590
Jan 21, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>I did say in essence...lol
LOL

Funny.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71591
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Venus?...lol
Island in the Sun

“Al Qur'an is Revolution ”

Since: Oct 12

Islam is Future

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71592
Jan 21, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If it was balanced then nothing would change, there would be no black holes, there would be no stars ... and there would be no planets or us.
i mean 'the system' too.. like day n night, man n woman, strong n weak, material n anti-material, gravity n anti-gravity, n many more

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71593
Jan 21, 2013
 
Islamic Scientist wrote:
<quoted text>
i mean 'the system' too.. like day n night, man n woman, strong n weak, material n anti-material, gravity n anti-gravity, n many more
Erm, life evolved on the planet to become accustomed to "day and night."

Binary gender reproduction is the worst of all the reproductive systems.

The rest is meh. That's not a "system," it's just the way things are, and there is no balance at all, again, if there was balance nothing would ever change. Without change nothing would be here.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71594
Jan 21, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds improbable to me. I doubt the word was coined to refute scripture. Personally, I don't see the idea as being very essential to evolutionary theory. Mutation occurs and is passed on at the individual level, period!

The idea of a "macro" evolutionary strategy is flawed. It's like saying that the predecessors of birds decided to take several steps to become birds. That doesn't happen. What does happen is that environmental conditions occur that allow a species to bridge a gap between their old niche and a new one. Without those conditions, no birds would happen.

I don't know if it's your interpretation or the logic that is flawed, but I won't defend it.
Posted earlier by derek4

Challenging Darwin's Myths

The essence of Darwin's theory is that all living creatures descended from a single anscestor. All the plants, animals, and other organisms that exist today are products of random mutation and natural selection—or survival of the fittest.

According to Darwin, nature acts like a breeder, carefully scrutinizing every organism. As useful new traits appear, they are preserved and passed on to the next generation. Harmful traits are eliminated. Although each individual change is relatively small, these changes eventually accumulate until organisms develop new limbs, organs, or other parts. Given enough time, organisms may change so radically that they bear almost no resemblance to their original ancsestor.

Most importantly, all this happens without any purposeful input— no Creator, no Intelligent Designer. In Darwin's view, chance and nature are all you need.

This all sounds very elegant and plausible. Problem is, it's never been supported by any convincing data.

For example, consider the fossil evidence. If Darwinism were true, the fossil evidence should show lots of gradual change, with one species slowly grading into the next. In fact, it should be hard to tell where one species ends and another begins. But that's not what we find.

As Darwin himself pointed out in his book, The Origin of Species:

...The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed on the earth,[must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Darwin, of course, attributed this problem to the imperfection of the fossil evidence, and the youthful state of paleontology. As the discipline matured, and as scientists found more fossils, the gaps would slowly start to fill.

continued:

“... Darwinism is ultimately based as much on philosophical assumptions as on scientific evidence.

This admission, which took place at a national meeting of country's largest science society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, scandalized the Darwinist community, which likes to portray evolution as an indisputable fact. It was all the more scandalous because the speaker had specifically been invited to the meeting to denounce Johnson.

So things are slowly beginning to change. Creationists are still far from winning, but things are getting better. As Johnson points out, creationist arguments are getting more sophisticated, while most Darwinists are still responding with cliches. Thus, it's now the creationists who come across as asking the hard questions, and demanding fair debate.

But ultimately, says Johnson, it's not the debates or the arguments that will win the day.

"It's reality that's doing it. It's just the way the world is. And sooner or later, scientists will have to acknowledge that fact."

http://www.arn.org/docs/dardoc1.htm

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71595
Jan 21, 2013
 
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Erm, life evolved on the planet to become accustomed to "day and night."
Binary gender reproduction is the worst of all the reproductive systems.
The rest is meh. That's not a "system," it's just the way things are, and there is no balance at all, again, if there was balance nothing would ever change. Without change nothing would be here.
What planet are you from?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71596
Jan 21, 2013
 
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>Sounds improbable to me. I doubt the word was coined to refute scripture. Personally, I don't see the idea as being very essential to evolutionary theory. Mutation occurs and is passed on at the individual level, period!

The idea of a "macro" evolutionary strategy is flawed. It's like saying that the predecessors of birds decided to take several steps to become birds. That doesn't happen. What does happen is that environmental conditions occur that allow a species to bridge a gap between their old niche and a new one. Without those conditions, no birds would happen.

I don't know if it's your interpretation or the logic that is flawed, but I won't defend it.
Evolution: when you think of it you would have start at the very beginning with the primordial soup. Let's go back to the making of the soup. Rain falling on rocks for millions and millions of years washing the correct minerals and elements into a puddle to combine with the correct gases over millions of years. Then to make the fairy tale really good something some how created the spark of life and a speck of life came forth. Now this very primitive ( the most primitive life form ever ) lived long enough to mutate and mutate billions of times creating all forms of life ever to exist. Plants and animals adding more and more DNA along the way. Perfecting host and symbiont relationships. Fish and mammals swimming in the oceans some with gills others with blow holes then the birds in the sky and of course the birds that can't fly. Insects and ticks and worms.
Grass and trees and flowers. All from the speck of life that sprang to life with who knows how long of a life span.
Creating some as in algae to create oxygen that would be needed for the life forms that were to follow as it just kept mutating and adding DNA until the arrival of the great ape who figured it all out with no room for error and stood on his soap box and proclaimed this is how it happened no other explanation is possible.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71597
Jan 21, 2013
 
Personal experience/observation/observa tion doesn't count as evidence toward the existence of anything, if it can't be made objective.
Or did you not realize that you've identified no way to distinguish between wishful thinking and reality?
xxxooxxx wrote:
so speaking from your own Personal experience and observations, you have determine that Personal experience/observation has to objective
From *merely* my personal experience and observations? No.

From a logical evaluation of what should qualify as reliable evidence. Yes.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71598
Jan 21, 2013
 
Are you an unbiased observer? I don't think so.
xxxooxxx wrote:
do you think of yourself, as a unbiased observer?
I don't think of *anyone*, myself included, as an unbiased observer.

That's why evidence needs to be objective and unambiguous in order to rationally justify a belief.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71599
Jan 21, 2013
 
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>You write:
"The thing is you have zero proof of Macro evolution. As far a micro evolution no big deal"

That's OK, you have absolutely zero proof that your god exists.

You write:
"Not one fossil proves Macro evolution
Not once has it been observed."

So what? You guys took 300 years to produce your Bible and decide on your dogma. Some things take time.

You write:
"Never in the history of the planet has macro evolution left behind a bit of proof that it ever happened."

Maybe we haven't found it yet...see the point above.

Not having an example of macro evolution to toss around yet, means absolutely nothing at this point in time.

We have PLENTY of proofs for evolution....where is your proof of your god?? I don't think you have any.
Why do Atheist have such a hard time with definition of such easy words.

Here let me help you out.

athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity

ag·nos·tic\ag-ˈnäs-tik,əg -\
noun
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Religion
noun
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Faith
noun
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof

There that should help you out.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71600
Jan 21, 2013
 
nemesis wrote:
Experience.....We had a close encounter @10ft.....not lights in the sky, not light refraction, not swamp gas.........It was 10 ft away. We both saw it. So don't tell us that we were dreaming and in the same dream.
Or you both imagined it.

Or you are lying.

Either explanation is far more plausible than what you expect others to believe happened.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71601
Jan 21, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution: when you think of it you would have start at the very beginning with the primordial soup. Let's go back to the making of the soup. Rain falling on rocks for millions and millions of years washing the correct minerals and elements into a puddle to combine with the correct gases over millions of years. Then to make the fairy tale really good something some how created the spark of life and a speck of life came forth. Now this very primitive ( the most primitive life form ever ) lived long enough to mutate and mutate billions of times creating all forms of life ever to exist. Plants and animals adding more and more DNA along the way. Perfecting host and symbiont relationships. Fish and mammals swimming in the oceans some with gills others with blow holes then the birds in the sky and of course the birds that can't fly. Insects and ticks and worms.
Grass and trees and flowers. All from the speck of life that sprang to life with who knows how long of a life span.
Creating some as in algae to create oxygen that would be needed for the life forms that were to follow as it just kept mutating and adding DNA until the arrival of the great ape who figured it all out with no room for error and stood on his soap box and proclaimed this is how it happened no other explanation is possible.
Then please explain how according to the bible, we were made from dust?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71602
Jan 21, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
And ALL of the months of the year, if I'm not mistaken.
Well, some of the months of the year are just named after numbers (September, October, November, December; named after 7, 8, 9, and 10), a few are named after Roman rulers (July and August). February was named after a Roman purification ritual.

But January is named for the Roman god Janus, March for the Roman god Mars, April *may* have been named for Aphrodite, May for the Greek goddess Maia, and June *may* be named for the Roman goddess Juno.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71603
Jan 21, 2013
 

Judged:

1

xxxooxxx wrote:
if you were by yourself and saw a tree fall in the forest,...you would have doubts that it happened, because there was no objective witnesses?
I would never have 100% certainty (which means that I would not eliminate *all* doubt), and if I then brought others to the forest and no evidence of such a tree could be found, I would give very serious consideration to the idea that I had simply imagined it.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71604
Jan 21, 2013
 
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do Atheist have such a hard time with definition of such easy words.
Here let me help you out.
athe·ist\ˈā-thē-ist\
noun
: one who believes that there is no deity
I'm an atheist, but I'm not someone who believes that there is no deity.

I simply lack theistic belief.

An atheist is someone who lacks theistic belief.

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71605
Jan 21, 2013
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>Link please?
There is this also.

A fossilized human skull was found in coal that was sold in Germany (mid-1800s). A jawbone of a child was found in coal in Tuscany (1958). Two giant human molars were found in Montana (1926). A human leg was found by a West Virginia coal miner. It had changed into coal.�pp. 34-35.

A woman, in Illinois, reportedly found a gold chain in a chunk of coal which broke open (1891). A small steel cube was found in a block of coal in Austria (1885). An iron pot was found in coal in Oklahoma (1912). A woman found a child's spoon in coal (1937).�p. 35.

In 1944 Newton Anderson claimed to have found this bell inside a lump of coal that was mined near his house in West Virginia. When Newton dropped the lump it broke, revealing a bell encased inside.

What is a brass bell with an iron clapper doing in coal that is supposed to be hundreds of

millions of years old? According to Norm Scharbough's book Ammunition (which includes a compilation of many such "coal anecdotes") the bell was extensively analyzed at the University of Oklahoma and it was found to contain an unusual mixture of metals, different from any modern usage. Photo and text from Genesis Park.

Man-made objects in rock.

An iron nail was found in a Cretaceous block from the Mesozoic era (mid-1800s). A gold thread was found in stone in England (1844). An iron nail was found in quartz in California (1851). A silver vessel was found in solid rock in Massachusetts (1851).

The mold of a metal screw was found in a chunk of feldspar (1851). An intricately carved and inlaid metal bowl was found in solid rock (1852). An iron nail was found in rock in a Peruvian mine by Spanish conquistadores (1572).�pp. 35-36.

http://s8int.com/page8.html

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71606
Jan 21, 2013
 
Psalm 103:14

New International Version (1984)
for he knows how we are formed, he remembers that we are dust.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71607
Jan 21, 2013
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm an atheist, but I'm not someone who believes that there is no deity.
I simply lack theistic belief.
An atheist is someone who lacks theistic belief.
So you're an agnostic atheist?

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#71608
Jan 21, 2013
 
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>So are you implying that if science didn't tell you that you existed, you would be in doubt?

I must say...you are dedicated.
LOL.:-()

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••