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
38,821 - 38,840 of 114,619 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40296
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
So you're afraid to answer the question about Chromosome 2?
<quoted text>
When did anyone here claim that they could?
If you are not talking of humans, which are made in the image and likeness of God, then what is your position on chromosome 2?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40297
Aug 23, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>No you are perverting probability laws. According to your twisted logic, anything is probable. I've heard that worn out, twisted logic before, and it's fallacy can be easily recognized by a ten year old.
Not subverting any kind of "laws". Your "laws" are made up anyway.(shrug) But the simple fact is you don't get to make up any old sh t like that and get away with it, primarily due to the fact that you are also clueless at math.

For the sake of argument let's say point A happened, after which there are a million possible outcomes. Each outcome is just as likely to happen as each other, a million to one against. But since event A occurred, the probability of ONE of those outcomes occurring is 100%.

The outcome of today is 100%. I offer you today as evidence. To even assign valid values to all the variables involved over 13.71 billion years is not possible, therefore making calculations based on those variables also impossible. But suffice to say that the odds of today being EXACTLY the way it is now is EXCEEDINGLY small. Nevertheless, here it is.

The outcome of humans being here is 100%. So from there we go looking for the evidence of HOW it occurred. The evidence so far indicates evolution.

Sure, MAYBE there was some "intelligent force" guiding it somehow or something. But the evidence so far does nothing at all whatsoever (not even a ickle tiny widdle bit) to demonstrate that.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40298
Aug 23, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>One particular bridge hand is random and meaningless. For evolution to occur, a mutation has to impart information. Therefore you analogy is IDIOTIC.
A mutation will ALWAYS impart information, unless it was a base deletion. Otherwise, a simple base change is a change of information. A base insertion (and yes, I just showed you 10 minutes ago they are scientifically verifiable) is an addition of information.

Your objection is idiotic.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40299
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
When did anyone here claim that humans or other mammals reproduced asexually? Please point to the posting where anyone claimed that.
So, what is your headache on chromosome 2, my interest is that, humans never evolved from apes...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40300
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The God of the Bible lives in the beauty of holiness and he doesn't lie. Our interpretation can be wrong, and we can be in the dark about certain things, but God knows what he is doing.
Oh, no doubt. But you fundies always lie and get things wrong. Whenever reality conflicts with the Bible, the Bible is wrong, for the Bible was written by ancient superstitious men with limited knowledge of much out of their local area, and as such their interpretation of the reality God made is wrong.

If God exists, it used evolution.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40301
Aug 23, 2012
 
HTS did not like the way I answered his question at all The Dude. Of course he could not admit that the flaw was in his way of posing the question in the first place.

And yes, he is definitely afraid to come out directly with what he believes in. It seems he knows that it would be far easier for us to show how his beliefs are incorrect than it has been for him to find anything wrong with the theory of evolution. At first it seemed he may have been a believer in ID, but as he continued to attack more and more of the existing sciences it became clear that he is a YEC.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40302
Aug 23, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Other mammals aren't on the list of asexually reproducing species, either.
So now you're saying that other mammals are in God's likeness and more unique than others?
There is something we call, order...
Humans, comes first, followed by animals, before plants...
My position is that, humans never evolved from apes...
Apes are not scientist, pilots and the likes, like humans...
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40303
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>So, what is your headache on chromosome 2, my interest is that, humans never evolved from apes...
Good to see you are still around and holding on to your faith in God, may he richly bless you for your good work.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40304
Aug 23, 2012
 
Malakai wrote:
The Ardi fossil discovery undermines the previously prevailing idea in terms of human origins that we evolved from chimpanzees, our closest living genetic relative, and that our earliest ancestors would therefore resemble a chimp.
Sorry, but this is still wrong. We did not evolve from chimpanzees, chimpanzees did not evolve from us. We both evolved from a common ancestor which was as different to chimps as it is to us.
Malakai wrote:
The research team now says that our evolutionary paths branched from a yet more distant - last common ancestor - dating from more than 6 million years ago.
This part is correct, something we've known for many years.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40305
Aug 23, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
HTS did not like the way I answered his question at all The Dude. Of course he could not admit that the flaw was in his way of posing the question in the first place.
Yeah, his questions and criticisms themselves often show how little biology he understands.
Subduction Zone wrote:
And yes, he is definitely afraid to come out directly with what he believes in. It seems he knows that it would be far easier for us to show how his beliefs are incorrect than it has been for him to find anything wrong with the theory of evolution. At first it seemed he may have been a believer in ID, but as he continued to attack more and more of the existing sciences it became clear that he is a YEC.
He's used YEC arguments from the beginning, but he knows it's scientifically untenable so is kinda cagey about coming out. He could be an OEC who's happy to lie and use any old argument, but since he's a liar I don't see what diff it makes. Either way he's a fundie creationist which puts him at odds with reality no matter what.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40306
Aug 23, 2012
 
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Evolution teaches that ALL mankind descended from cavemen like apes. Creation according to the Bible does not claim that man was created like an ape, it claims that Adam was created in the image and likeness of God who is the Creator of Heaven and Earth. Any person who adheres to the Evolution claims can not believe the Bible also. It is either or. Noah was said to have lived a greater number of years than men of today, and the Creator spoke with him, and he was not a caveman in my book.
In my humble opinion, you seem to know less about theology than you do about science.

What you are calling cavemen lived how long ago? You do realize that we -- homo sapiens -- lived in caves, right? Our ancestors, yours too, are the cavemen you are whining about.

It's not evolution that makes that claim, but paleontology, history, archeology, and antropology. You really need to learn a few things.

There is also nothing mentions in the Theory of Evolution that discusses the Bible.

If you are going to post, at least make sense.
ARGUING with IDIOTS

Corning, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40307
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, no doubt. But you fundies always lie and get things wrong. Whenever reality conflicts with the Bible, the Bible is wrong, for the Bible was written by ancient superstitious men
What men? How many? Names?

Or you just talking smack?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40308
Aug 23, 2012
 
Malakai wrote:
<quoted text>
The study doesn't say it, no kidding!
Lovejoy said it. As something to be looked at after the study dated this new skeleton was older then Lucy and was more human then Lucy which points to Lucy being a relitive of apes and not man. Lucy would be after the split.
Suggesting that a more human then ape common ancestor.
Try reading all the papers, it really makes a differance.
What a Buffoon.
More human than ape is the same as more ape than ape. Even Drew Smith pointed out that Lovejoy agreed. I think the problem is that we as human beings have a habit of being quite species-centric, instinctively placing humans as the most important in the hierarchy of everything. So occasionally even when writing about science some scientists will segregate humans from apes, either to help with explaining the relationships or a slip of human-centric bias. And technically speaking all species category definitions are arbitrary anyway; as such some scientist may prefer to place humans as separate from apes.

But what is not disputed (except by reality denying creationists and the (very) occasional crank) is common ancestry.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40309
Aug 23, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>There is something we call, order...
Humans, comes first, followed by animals, before plants...
My position is that, humans never evolved from apes...
Apes are not scientist, pilots and the likes, like humans...
Humans did not come first. Not by a long shot.

You want the OTHER book of Genesis, the one which gets the order SLIGHTLY better.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40310
Aug 23, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
So you're saying that all of your cousins have exactly the same set of skills and abilities that you do? Athletic individuals can't have non-athletic cousins? Intelligent individuals can't have non-intelligent cousins?
<quoted text>
And your even more distant cousins among the chimps are all great apes.
So what is your point?
Wrong!!!
Humans are not apes, the eyes are there for all to see, apes can't fly aircraft, read, lecture and the likes...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40311
Aug 23, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I am interested in science. You can say that there are "millions of accurately dated fossils", but what you say is not science. No one on this forum can actually defend the basic premises of radiometric dating. All I ever hear are broad statements and that I'm stupid for not accepting what thousands of scientists have said is valid. Has radiometric dating ever been proven to be a valid methodology? No. Is it reproducible? Not even close. What I'm stating is factual. Answer this... If radiometric dating is reproducible, what is the purpose of biostratigraphy? Have you looked at the data obtained from blind sampling of lava flows of known dates? Do you know how worthless the results are?
You should be more interested in looking at the flaws of NDT than fixating on what you think is a "massive amount of data on the evolution of the horse.". You need to take a good hard look at genetics and probability. What you imagine to be true is biologically impossible.
When we take a good hard look at genetics the probability that evolution is correct becomes very high. It was after all the discovery of DNA which put evolution beyond all reasonable doubt. Of course you fundies aren't reasonable.(shrug)

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40312
Aug 23, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Drew Smith wrote:
The word "homosexualism" doesn't appear in either the Merriam-Webster Dictionary nor the Oxford English Dictionary. Any chance that you could stick to using *real* words? And not just ones that you make up on the fly?
<quoted text>
First, I was referring explicitly to your made-up word "homosexualism", not to the word "homosexual".
Second, homosexuals don't have to partner with anyone in order to be a homosexual. If I'm gay and my best friend is gay, that makes us both homosexuals, but that doesn't make us "same-sex partners".
True, nothing like homosexualism, but there is lesbianism...
Homosexuals do marry as couples...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40313
Aug 23, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Have you looked at the data? Radiometric dating is not even close to being reproducible. It works beautifully if you hand pick all the results that agree with NDT and chuck the rest...but that's not science. You are apparently only interested in data that conforms to your worldview, and arbitrarily dismiss everything else. Biostratigraphy is used because radiometric dating is not reproducible.
Even if radiometric dating was reproducible, no one has ever proven the validity of assigning a date to a fossil by dating a rock next to it. Therefore, the entire system is a worthless scientific tool. If a skeleton was fossilized one hundred years ago, what would radiometric dating show? You have no proof that any fossil is millions of years old. The entire premise of radiometric dating is based on evolutionary assumptions.
Incorrect. Your Young Earth Creationist BS was considered BS even before Darwin wrote his book. So not only evolution is a big scientific conspiracy it's also a big scientific TIME-TRAVELLING conspiracy.

We do appreciate you making yourself look stupid. Are you a Poe?

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40314
Aug 23, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>We were talking about abiogenesis. How did the first stand of DNA self-organize? And as far as alleles getting naturally selected... That is not how evolution operates. Does a microbe contain the alleles to compose symphonies or perform calculus? If man evolved from a microbe as you think he did, then new alleles had to be created. You're the liar. You peddle evolution as selection of alleles, when you know perfectly well that evolution requires the creation of new genes. In short, you believe that complexity can spontaneously arise from disorder.
Allele transfer, that doesn't address the source of new alleles. For that you might do a bit more homework. What is the source of new genes and gene grousp, not just alleles? You've been given links on that as well.

Ah, you know for someone claiming not to be a Creationist, why do you insist on using tired and worm out Creationist arguments, like Complexity. Define Complexity? Come on, many Creationists keep using the term , but it's just a smokescreen. There are many examples of complexity in nature, you just think that it's some artificial dividing line between what nature can do and what it requires intelligence to do. Yet you cannot support your contention!

William Dembski keeps maiking such a silly claim, yet when pressed he cannot produce anything supporting his conteintion. I doubt you will do any better. You'll whine and bleat, but you won't support your claims.

Is a storm complex? Is a snowflake? Is a tree? Is a human? Some huamsn like to think we are some incredibly complex creation, but the truth is ... we aren't, we are no more complicated than many multi-cellular organisms. But to make your claim, first you have to quantify the idea of 'complexity'. What makes you more complex than a cow? You want to believe that you are special, be my guest -- but you can't teach that nonsense in science class.

There are things different about human than other animals, but nothing that hasn't been or one day will be explained without requiring to invoke a deity either directly with creationism, or indirectly with intelligent design.

What's next on your Creationist/ID Proponent agenda? Lady Hope? Darwin being a racist, or tornadoes in the junkyard? They have all been debunked, and yet you can't seem to learn even the basics of evolution, so you keep repeating them over and over again.

Go learn something new, you might surprise us .. I know you will shock the hell out of yourself!

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#40315
Aug 23, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, I've read Origin of Species. Darwin repeatedly invokes preconceptions about intelligent design in defending evolution. That is religion.
No one believes you have actually read it! Unless it was the 'version' put out by Ray Comfort, another one of your philosophical compatriots. He's the 'expert' on the shape of the banana being perfect for the human mouth ... Were't you the one using a similar argument about root vegetables. or was that another one of your philosophical brethern? You guys all start sounding alike after a while.

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.

•••