Evolution vs. Creation

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

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#62725 Dec 3, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> You are just giving a wrong definition of the word, faith.
Faith does not imply test, it implies positive thinking. It does not mean putting your strength to test, it means challenging what you believe to test in a positive way, and if God sees the intent of ones heart, he will answer that person positively, whether he is a Christian or not.
In the context of inventors having needed faith, I don't quite follow where I was using it in place of the word "test". It seemed to me that I was using it "constructively". In any case you are saying that added to faith is the necessity of good intent. Luckily I only see good intent in wishing to save money at the pump, and I am sure God knows that. However I wished you had warned me before I set out to turn dirty water into fuel, just in case I might have tripped over that. So given faith and good intent, my inventing plan is full steam ahead, right? Am I massing anything else?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#62726 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
We know diamonds come from carbon. We can even produce fake ones. But living cells, we can't create them in a lab.
You are missing the point of my comment. You cannot duplicate the size of the earth or the millions if not hundreds of millions of years it took for the reactions necessary for life to arise in a 40 foot by 120 foot lab and 20 years of research time.

In other words just because something hasn't happened in a 40 foot by 120 foot lab over 20 years, doesn't mean it didn't happen on something the size of the earth over millions if not hundreds of millions of years. There is a problem with scale when it comes to these experiments.

Since: Sep 12

Hurst, TX

#62727 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>No one claims that the ToE is fact. Evolution, the observation, is fact. The ToE is our attempt to explain our observations.

That you don't know this - that you cannot be specific enough to separate evolution the observation from the theory of evolution tells us you don't understand anything about biological science.

That's why we can't take you seriously - you're not saying much of interest.
To simplify its easier for a evo to call you stupid or ignorant than admit they don't know.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62728 Dec 3, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
In the context of inventors having needed faith, I don't quite follow where I was using it in place of the word "test". It seemed to me that I was using it "constructively". In any case you are saying that added to faith is the necessity of good intent. Luckily I only see good intent in wishing to save money at the pump, and I am sure God knows that. However I wished you had warned me before I set out to turn dirty water into fuel, just in case I might have tripped over that. So given faith and good intent, my inventing plan is full steam ahead, right? Am I massing anything else?
Ofcourse. Afterall technology is the creation of something out of nothing.
Coal as product came from dead vegetative and organic remains of living and non living matter, with faith, the mineral resources known as coal came out.

Since: Sep 12

Hurst, TX

#62729 Dec 3, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
<quoted text>How about from the muslim, hindhu, sikh, buddhist, confucians and any number of relgions that do not subscribe to satan's viewpoint?
Don't know don't care won't care. I was only explaining a post put out by someone else. As far as I'm concerned my "narrow mind" is switched on and when you're standing in front of God you can convince him he doesn't exist.
Orriapa paquia

Lubbock, TX

#62730 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet. And we don't have to. Some day soon we will be able to.
And as far as the link I gave you, it seems you missed this page:
http://exploringorigins.org/protocells.html
It describes how the first protocells would have replicated themselves.
Subduction zone, saw the protocell site that you referenced, it is pure conjecture, no scientific evidence to back it up. It says so in their site!
Do you know that on average 1 cell has encoded in its DNA the codes for production of 50,000 to 120,000 proteins? That is in 1 single cell!!.
Can you memorize 10,000 codes for 1 protein only?(conjecturing). Do you see why DNA is crucial to the cell replication. RNA is a copy of DNA that goes out of the nucleus so it is still utterly complex as DNA.
If you cannot explain the origin of DNA how can you believe in evolution?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#62731 Dec 3, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
Lastly, the Saxons, Jutes, and the Angles, a Germanic tribes, can be said to be the originators of the English language. These tribes left Germany completely
No, they didn't. There was no such thing as "Germany" when they left continental Europe.

What language did they speak on the boats on the way to Great Britain?

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#62732 Dec 3, 2012
Hidingfromyou wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it's all factual and correct!
Just kidding :)
We agree on pretty much everything.
Hey, did you see the latest news piece discussing how most evolution likely takes place at recessive genes? The idea is that since all sexually reproducing species have two copies of every gene, mutation could happen at the recessive gene without damaging much. Yes, recessives aren't simple Mendelian genetics, but the idea is that slight changes to them wouldn't necessarily imperviously damage individuals - I think you can work it out from here.
Good night!
This article speaks briefly to this:

http://news.yahoo.com/cognitive-big-bang-disc...

"(Normally, if a mutation crops up in a gene that's critical to an animal's survival, evolution will weed out that animal, which usually means very little change occurs in critical genes. But if there are two copies of a gene, then the animal has a spare functioning copy, which allows those genes to rack up more mutations — both beneficial, harmful and neutral — without reducing survival fitness.)"

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#62733 Dec 3, 2012
http://survive2012.com/index.php/eclipses-and...

An excellent book on this topic is Apocalypse: Earthquakes, Archaeology and the Wrath of God (2008), by Amos Nur, a professor at Stanford University. Here are something interesting snippets:

...around 1200 BC, practically every society in the Mediterranean region appears to have met with major damage or destruction, and, for lack of a better explanation, nearly every instance has been attributed at one time or another to invasion by an unknown enemy from the sea. The key problem behind the Sea Peoples hypothesis has been the failure (at least so far) to determine the aggressors’ identity.(p17)

If, however, coordinated attacks by the Sea Peoples were not the cause of all this destruction around 1200 BC, what other explanation is there? One way around the problem has been to assume that the Sea Peoples were actually bands of local raiders and that the destruction of so many sites resulted from general lawlessness at the time. What, then, was the cause of this lawlessness? Many theories have been suggested, from sudden advances in weaponry to climate change. As a geophysicist, I have to throw in my own chip: Could earthquakes have played a part?(p18)

Drews (1993) notes,“Within a period of forty or fifty years at the end of the thirteenth and beginning of the twelfth century almost every significant city or palace in the eastern Mediterranean world was destroyed, many of them never to be occupied again.” What caused the collapse?(p226)

The most persistent argument against the earthquake hypothesis is the sheer size of the quake required to cause such damage or the unlikely coincidence of so many earthquakes occurring in such quick succession.(p226-227)

...we now understand that some earthquakes can actually increase the stress on sections of the same fault, or nearby faults, that did not slip initially (King, Stein, and Lin 1994). Thus, one earthquake can increase the chances of another earthquake nearby.(p240)

Geophysicists have not agreed on what to call this phenomenon but describe modern examples either as “earthquake sequences”(e.g., Ambraseys 1970),“earthquake migrations”(Mogi 1968; Roth 1988),“progressive failures”(Stein, Barka, and Dietrich 1997), or, in places where many intersecting faults are involved,“earthquake storms”(Nur and Cline 2000).(p240)

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62734 Dec 3, 2012
Orriapa paquia wrote:
<quoted text>
Subduction zone, saw the protocell site that you referenced, it is pure conjecture, no scientific evidence to back it up. It says so in their site!
Do you know that on average 1 cell has encoded in its DNA the codes for production of 50,000 to 120,000 proteins? That is in 1 single cell!!.
Can you memorize 10,000 codes for 1 protein only?(conjecturing). Do you see why DNA is crucial to the cell replication. RNA is a copy of DNA that goes out of the nucleus so it is still utterly complex as DNA.
If you cannot explain the origin of DNA how can you believe in evolution?
No, it is not pure conjecture. What do you base that claim on? They have reproduced most of the steps in the lab. They have not reproduced all of the steps in a row.

Your misunderstanding of DNA and RNA is not a valid argument against that site.

And for about the 5,000 time to various creatards: abiogeneis is even in your Bible. We don't care how the first DNA got there for the theory of evolution. Once life is hear it evolves.

We can easily understand and believe in evolution without understanding DNA.

Now, here is a question for you. The theory of evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. That is an indisputable fact. There is no scientific evidence for creation. That is also an indisputable fact. Why do you believe in creation and not evolution?

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#62735 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is total garbage. Even Cybele knew it was total garbage, otherwise she would have picked out some point that seemed valid from it.
Total balony. Is that what you had for lunch?

I pointed out the ones I think are valid. I posted the link, everything I've read so far sounds valid. You even accused me of stealing without giving credit when I inserted quotation marks. It's not even funny anymore. You didn't even point out one thing from the article and attempt to correct it with scientific facts.
1 post removed

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#62737 Dec 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they didn't. There was no such thing as "Germany" when they left continental Europe.
What language did they speak on the boats on the way to Great Britain?
Read through my post, i talked about this, three times. They spoke a form of German known as old English.
These tribes left that place completely, geographically in modern sense, that place is Germany and parts of Denmark. But the language called old English under went a series of changes or developments from old, middle to modern English, this development is not unique to Germany or Denmark, but to England.
Old English is akin to German and not to modern English. Do your research.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#62738 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And of course the analogy went right over your head.
No it did not. It's a false analogy, a logical fallacy.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62739 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Total balony. Is that what you had for lunch?
I pointed out the ones I think are valid. I posted the link, everything I've read so far sounds valid. You even accused me of stealing without giving credit when I inserted quotation marks. It's not even funny anymore. You didn't even point out one thing from the article and attempt to correct it with scientific facts.
I didn't accuse you of stealing. I accused that website of stealing. They also broke the Ninth Commandment. Why do Christians think it is okay to lie when you are debating against evolution?

And is that where all of your stupid questions have come from? Like I said, that site is garbage, you have been asking stupid questions prompted by that website.

There is no need to use any science to debunk the idiocy that you have been spouting.

I was patient at first, but it seems like you have no interest in learning. I do tend to get a bit nasty when I face willful ignorance and lies.

You need some very basic science education. You seem to have no clue what science is or how it is done. And yet science has contributed massively to our world. We could not be communicating right now without all of the scientific advances that make computers and the internet possible.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#62740 Dec 3, 2012
What language did they speak on the boats on the way to Great Britain?
Charles Idemi wrote:
They spoke a form of German known as old English.
Who says that Old English was a "form of German"?

***
Charles Idemi wrote:
Old English is akin to German and not to modern English.
Old English isn't akin to Modern English? Where did Modern English come from, Charles?(This should be interesting.)
Anonymous

London, UK

#62741 Dec 3, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
No, they didn't. There was no such thing as "Germany" when they left continental Europe.
What language did they speak on the boats on the way to Great Britain?
English is a complex mix of many influences, most English words were created inside Britain but it is a semi germanic language with Latin, French, Viking and others, also germanic is not the same as Germany, and existed long before Germany obviously, the germanic language group is from a huge area covering much of northern Europe of which Germany is just a small part and was named after, not the other way around

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62742 Dec 3, 2012
And Cybele, if you did not have at least a very strong clue that the site you were stealing from, as you admitted in your last post, why didn't you give them proper credit for the questions that you were asking?

You could not keep up the pretense of not being a creatard for much longer at any rate. Your refusal to learn, your continuing to use bogus sites for your questions, would have given you away soon enough.

So you started out with a lie. That you were not a creationist. You used lying sites for your questions. And yet you expect to be treated with any sort of respect. That is not the way it works.

When I first meet someone I will give them a certain reasonable amount of respect. I will not fawn over them, I will not put them down. I will treat them as just another human being. As time goes on respect is either earned or lost. Creationists go out of their way to lose respect and then get angry when we point out how foolish they are.

Here are some clues:

1) Be honest. Above all else. Even if you are losing the debate. If you lie it will only hurt you.

2) Use respectable sources. I know, that is almost impossible for creationists. Most of their sties openly proclaim that no matter what the evidence says, god did it like it says in their holy book. This is not only true for Christians, it also applies to many Muslim sites and even some Jewish ones.

If a site has its mind made up regardless of the evidence given it has admitted to being a dishonest site.

3) Be willing to learn.

4) Learn the scientific method and even more important learn what constitutes scientific evidence. Scientists arrived at their definition of evidence since they are human like anyone else. They argue and fight over various theories, hypotheses and discoveries. The concept of scientific evidence allows them to debate without fighting.

Just a few steps that will make your time here much more rewarding.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#62743 Dec 3, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
I didn't accuse you of stealing. I accused that website of stealing. They also broke the Ninth Commandment. Why do Christians think it is okay to lie when you are debating against evolution?
And is that where all of your stupid questions have come from? Like I said, that site is garbage, you have been asking stupid questions prompted by that website.
There is no need to use any science to debunk the idiocy that you have been spouting.
I was patient at first, but it seems like you have no interest in learning. I do tend to get a bit nasty when I face willful ignorance and lies.
You need some very basic science education. You seem to have no clue what science is or how it is done. And yet science has contributed massively to our world. We could not be communicating right now without all of the scientific advances that make computers and the internet possible.
So why don't we just cut the BS and point out something from the article that you think is not true and correct it with scientific facts. Just one at least?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62744 Dec 3, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
No it did not. It's a false analogy, a logical fallacy.
Nope, it went right over your head. How is it a "false analogy"? And it is definitely not a logical fallacy. You have very poor logic skills and I am sure that you could never demonstrate that.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#62745 Dec 3, 2012
I have to run for a few hours, but I am curious if anyone wants to address my claims that, one, there are mountains of scientific evidence that support the theory of evolution, and two, that there is no scientific evidence for creationism.

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Your Thoughts on the Midterm Elections 4 min Fa-Foxy 444
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 6 min Eagle the Bird Terd 293,074
Ruble crisis could shake Putin's grip on power 7 min SobieskiSavedEurope 82
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 7 min Calvin_Coolish 165,482
Bill de Blasio does the unthinkable: he keeps h... 10 min SobieskiSavedEurope 24
Ben Carson: Race Relations Have 'Gotten Worse' ... 18 min Aprilvue 699
After CIA torture report: rebuilding a culture ... 23 min woodtick57 101
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 31 min Teaman 1,154,058
Cheney again defends interrogation techniques 1 hr tha Professor 287
More from around the web