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
39,341 - 39,360 of 115,251 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40832 Aug 24, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>By your absurd logic, any improbability can be dismissed, because you believe in the false idea that probability cannot be applied ex-post-facto. Therefore evolution is non-falsifiable. A rabbit skeleton could appear in Precambrian rocks just as easily as any leaf falling to the ground.
Actually a pre-Cambrian rabbit would falsify evolution. It is BECAUSE of the evidence for evolution that the probability of that rabbit existing is pretty low.

You are assigning low probabilities to today despite the fact that the probability of today is 100%. You cannot assign specific values however because you have no evidence that the probability of today was any more or less probable than any other outcome. Since we know that we don't know all the (trillions of) variables involved, we know that a calculation of the probabilities is not possible. And since I don't believe you have a magic calculator (or that you could even understand it even if you did) we then just have to go with the evidence. And so far the evidence points to evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40833 Aug 24, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Ex-post-facto statistics is not a logical fallacy. You are the one engaging in fallacious logic. If you accept that premise, then evolution could never be falsified, because any observation would be deemed probable. Therefore, evolution, according to your logic, cannot qualify as science.
Actually it can. Since we know you can't do the calculation your criticism is invalid.
Malakal

United States

#40834 Aug 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, right. So why didn't you just come out as a reality-denying YEC in the first place and be done with it?(shrug)
They were talking about rocks so I thought I would throw that out there.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40835 Aug 24, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Why can't it happen by chance?Once the improbabilities become to vast chance is eliminated and intelligence is implicated.Where the probablistic cutoff is can be debated, but that there is a probablistic cutoff beyond which chance becomes an unacceptable explanation is clear.The universe will suffer heat death before random typing at a keyboard produces a Shakespearean sonnet. The French mathematician Emile Borel proposed 10-50 power as a universal probability bound below which chance could definately be precluded.
Do any puddle goo believers think like this? Well one of your high priests Richard Dawkins does.:Here's Richard ...." We can accept a certain amount of luck in our explanations,but not too much...Suppose that life began when both DNA and it's protein -based replication machinery spontaneously chanced to come into existence. We can allow ourselves the LUXURY of such an extravagant theory ,provided that the odds against this coincidence occurring on a planet do not exceed 100 billion billion to one"
Or 10-150 power.
But what do you expect from a guy who said,"Evidence is unnecessary to prove the truth of Darwinism"
1 - You can't demonstrate your calculations.

2 - You have made "intelligence" a default position without having to provide evidence.

3 - "random chance" is still the straw-man of creationist liars.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#40836 Aug 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Show me where on earth, do we have a monkey pilot?
Just a question...
And how is that relevant?

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#40838 Aug 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>That reminds me of the sayings, "i have eyes and yet i can not see".
Well are going to do it or not?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#40839 Aug 24, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I find it bizarre that evolutionists think that they alone are objective while everyone else is influenced by religion. Their beliefs are founded on an A PRIORI denial of God.
Not at all. Scientists have simply not found magic to be a solution to any scientific problem. You, on the other hand, find magic to be the solution to everything.

Magic, myth, voodoo, superstition, god, hokus pokus; call it whatever you please.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#40840 Aug 24, 2012
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
And how is that relevant?
Don't look for relevance. Charlie and KAB are just background noise.
Malakal

United States

#40841 Aug 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Humans are apes because we decided they were apes.

In fact it was a creationist who did.

He laid down the groundwork for evolution even before Darwin got there.

Must suck to be you.
Kind of sucks to be an arrogant atheist
Who post in accurate or out dated crap.

"Did Apes Evolve from Humans? Did Darwin have it backwards?
Hi, I’m Dr. Aaron Filler. I’m a spinal neurosurgeon at Cedars Sinai in LA and I’m also a Harvard trained evolutionary biologist. I’ve been interviewed previously on Peter Jennings ABC News and CNN and have recently become a frequent expert commentator on various issues for CNN Radio. In two books earlier this year and in a major scientific article published this month, I’ve reported a solution one of the great mysteries in human evolution. The result is the amazing finding that the human body form – with its upright bipedal walking - goes back 15 million years earlier than most experts have thought. Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis) is just 3.5 million years old and her species now pales into relative insignificance. One remarkable implication is that many of the apes are actually descended from human or human-like ancestors who walked on two feet – appearing to meet our current criteria for being called humans rather than apes."

http://www.uprightape.net/New_Evolution_ReWri...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40842 Aug 24, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What you are telling are bedtime stories, not science. You cannot take a chimp and selectively breed it into anything other than possibly a mutated chimp.
Which is precisely what evolution predicts. Just as chimps are mutated hominids. Which in turn are mutated primates. Which in turn are mutated mammals. Which in turn are mutated chordates.
HTS wrote:
Science is founded on experimentation, not just making hypotheses. Your belief that homology indicates common descent is a hypothesis only.
A hypothesis validated by testing in numerous different ways:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
HTS wrote:
Regardless of how logical you think your intuition is, it is FALSE because it is biologically impossible to accumulate that many specific beneficial mutations by chance.
Since that has never been our claim and always been your straw-man that's not our problem - it's yours.
HTS wrote:
I'm sure you've never bothered to actually calculate the probability of ape-human transmutation.
We KNOW that YOU haven't. But in the linky above you'll see the math indicating the probability of common ancestry is pretty darn strong.

By the way transmutation is still the incorrect terminology.
HTS wrote:
In your percertedmlogic, you've convinced yourself that probability doesn't apply to evolution, despite the fact that all ther sciences are founded on probability. This is because evolution is a religion to you. You want to be related to apes.
Ad-hom. Desire has nothing to do with it. I would not be offended to find out I'm an ape or find out I'm not an ape. Reality is what reality is.

However based on the evidence, I would be VERY surprised indeed if I were to find out that I was not a hominid primate biped.
HTS wrote:
You don't want to be accountable to a supreme being for whom you harbor contempt.
Since you are a habitual liar you don't want to be accountable to a supreme being for whom you harbor contempt.

How ironic, considering the fact that you are the believer.
HTS wrote:
You hope that naturalism can explain your beliefs, so you hide your head in th sand and imagine that any conceivable improbability should be accepted over a belief in God.
You're lying again:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

You're also playing the Goddidit with magic card again. But that's okay, because you said there was "masses and masses of evidence!"

You're gonna post it any time now, right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40843 Aug 24, 2012
Wake Up wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually time is just an illusion dear. That is why if you are at work time goes slow but if you are with loved ones time seems to go fast. You are using your puny 5 human senses to make sense of something that is beyond your comprehension. Time is not linear like that of a timeline with a start and a finish. You should not try to make sense of God with your American taught scientific education. Even the ancient Mayans knew that time is cycles not linear wih a start and finish.
Surprising as it may be to most non-scientists and even to some scientists, Albert Einstein concluded in his later years that the past, present, and future all exist simultaneously. In 1952, in his book Relativity, in discussing Minkowski's Space World interpretation of his theory of relativity, Einstein writes:
Since there exists in this four dimensional structure [space-time] no longer any sections which represent "now" objectively, the concepts of happening and becoming are indeed not completely suspended, but yet complicated. It appears therefore more natural to think of physical reality as a four dimensional existence, instead of, as hitherto, the evolution of a three dimensional existence.
Einstein's belief in an undivided solid reality was clear to him, so much so that he completely rejected the separation we experience as the moment of now. He believed there is no true division between past and future, there is rather a single existence. His most descriptive testimony to this faith came when his lifelong friend Besso died. Einstein wrote a letter to Besso's family, saying that although Besso had preceded him in death it was of no consequence, "...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."
God is, was and always will be...the Alpha ad the Omega!
Of course, you have that special "6th sense" which allows you to perceive what other humans cannot.

Shall I fetch a kitten now?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40844 Aug 24, 2012
Wake Up wrote:
It is funny that men have tried to manipulate the calendar and change the number of days of the year and the number of months for centuries...but there remained one contant that man has not been able to manipulate and that is seven days in a week in which God, the creator, created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them.
A thousand years to us is like a day to God.

- The Bible.

So uh, how long did He take exactly?

And actually, didn't you just say something about Einstein proving that time was an illusion anyway?

Do let us know when you start being coherent, yes?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40846 Aug 24, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Then how do you refute the evidence that I presented to you?
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>No evidence presented...
But only guesses, projections and exaggerations, which only proves that an intelligent designer did the job..
Oh well I guess that settles that then.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40847 Aug 24, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Lastly, you finally concluded that apes and humans are from a common ancestors, and i challenged your defence, which you can not validly explain...
You didn't challenge, you just said "OH NO IT ISN'T!"

Kinda like HTS too really, except he's just much more long-winded about it. He likes to get the emotional pain off his chest.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40848 Aug 24, 2012
Wake Up wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is that so hard to believe...if you lived centuries ago, you'd be just like all those who thought Darwin was crazy, or that the Earth was flat. You think your tiny human brain and your puny 5 senses can comprehend God the Creator and that God must answer to your inquiries in order to exist. You are very arrogant. That's like asking an octopus deep in the ocean to explain what its like to skydive in the dessert....if not one octopus could explain it..it doesn't exist....your funny!!!!!!
The Bible categorically states that the Earth is a flat square circle at the center of a geocentric universe which revolves around it.

Yeah I know, I know... there's no such thing as a Biblical literalist...
Malakal

United States

#40849 Aug 24, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>Incorrect. Humans weren't around 4M years ago. Our ancestors MAY have been more human-LIKE, but then that's not really that surprising.
The common ancestor was more human like. To the point that science is now suggesting that the trees branch that's labeled ape should be in fact be labeled Human. Apes then branched off of that branch making the statement we are apes incorrect. We are related to the ape we have a common ancestor but the blood line is human not ape.

“you must not give faith”

Since: Jul 12

UK

#40850 Aug 24, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't look for relevance. Charlie and KAB are just background noise.
I may be an atheist but Im not above hoping against hope.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40851 Aug 24, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You've capitulated to classic Darwinian fallacies.
1. Argument from incredulity: Whenever you can't provide scientific explanations ou accuse a skeptic of a lack of faith in your religion.
2. You broadly list mechanisms of evolution (mutation, genetic drift) and then without any evidence simply state that evolution is probable. There is no scientific evidence that mutations can appear at the right times as required by evolution. You simple state that anything is probable given millions of years.
3. Finally, you dismiss all probability challenges by the smokescreen of ignorance of all the factors involved. It is mathematically impossible for even one out of the millions of mutations that supposedly resulted in humans to occur by chance and become fixed in the population. the only reason evolutionists never pro-actively look at probability challenges is because they believe that probability doesn't apply to their sacred religion. They have unalterable FAITH in evolution. When confronts with the ridiculous probability of any step of evolution, they throw hissy fits and accuse skeptics of being religious fundamentalists.
1 - No, that's simply pointing out you're using logical fallacies to back yourself up. That's not addressing evolution, it's addressing your argument. So no, it's not accusing you of lacking faith in evolution.

2 - The "right" times is subjective. We KNOW they appeared at the "right" times because it's the DNA itself which is a measure of how closely related organisms are.

3 - Your probability challenges are dismissed because it is not currently possible to know all the variables, much less assign values to them in order to make an accurate calculation. Not that you bother with calculations anyway. Nor do you demonstrate that any other probabilities are more or less likely.

4 - You're accused of being religious fundamentalists because you act like religious fundamentalists. You ignore posts and evidence without addressing them, you share their beliefs, you lie. If it walks like a duck...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#40852 Aug 24, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Dude, your atheistic ranting is embarrassing and is not making any sense whatsoever. Your challenge to me to provide a definition of complexity indicates that you, in your twisted relativistic worldview, don't think that an iPad is any more complex than a rock. Tis is how evolutionists try to answer to probability challenges... By flat out denial that order and complexity are definable concepts.
I made no mention of atheism. Keep lying.

And I'm sure that complexity IS definable. You've just not been able to define it, hence no objective comparison between ipads and rocks can be made until then.

iRock.
Wake Up

Covington, KY

#40853 Aug 24, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks. I really don't think it's about Satan at all. He's just in there to help set up the story and doesn't appear after chapter two. It's clearly about why bad things happen to good people, or dogs, and God's explanation is hardly satisfying.
The entire story of Job was based on the claim that Satan made. Your missing the point. The point is that Satan does bad things to people...not God. Second point...Satan was proved wrong. Third point...bad things may happen to good people but it is not God that does it..it is Satan because he is the ruler of this earth since he was cast down upon it with a third of the angels of heaven. Fourth...God did not create robots, humans and even the angels have a free will to follow Satan if they choose. Fifth point...when Jesus returns, Satan will be defated and God will prove to all man and the fallen angels that Satan is the father of lies and he has deceived them in hopes that they will curse God and follow him into the pits of hell. God did not make your dog die, just like he did not make my dad die..God has blessed you with a free will to follow Satan into hell if you like. It was not his will to form immortal robots that are programmed like computers to do as he says. He has formed you to do what you like...and you can trust in him and follow him to eternity or you can folow Satan straigh to hell. There are only two options. Your purpose in life is to choose before you die...then it will be too late.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 7 min NTRPRNR1 256,462
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 10 min Yeah 1,100,607
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 12 min LRS 177,412
Jenkins hits back strong on Rahall3:41 am 12 min Not a Repub nor Demo 66
Kerry: ISIS is a 'disease,' stamp it out 16 min ima-Ilis Myka Ash... 5
Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 19 min The_Box 305,466
Obama cautions against using force to solve crises 31 min Shinichiro Takizawa 25
Who do you side with in Ferguson? 32 min woodtick57 1,849
Teen's Shooting Highlights Racial Tension 1 hr Truth 1,491
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 3 hr Cornelius Scudmister 151,291
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

US News People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••