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
58,641 - 58,660 of 112,972 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago

Since: Sep 12

Fort Worth, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62730
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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?

“Licensed to Ill”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62733
Dec 3, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62746
Dec 3, 2012
 
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
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?
What BS? Ask a meaningful question and it will be debunked correctly with scientific facts. So far your questions have been "not even wrong". And that does not mean right, that means beyond being wrong.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62747
Dec 3, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
What language did they speak on the boats on the way to Great Britain?
<quoted text>
Who says that Old English was a "form of German"?
***
<quoted text>
Old English isn't akin to Modern English? Where did Modern English come from, Charles?(This should be interesting.)
Old English was their language, and that language is similar to German, remember they are known as Germanic tribes.
But middle and modern English started in England.
Old English was the root language, but that root language underwent changes and developments, that changes and developments were/ are unique to England. It started in England.

“I have upset the hand of god”

Since: Jan 11

Threats pending

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62748
Dec 3, 2012
 
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
To simplify its easier for a evo to call you stupid or ignorant than admit they don't know.
I don't agree, but I don't know everything. I will admit that certain people get called stupid, not because they don't believe, but because they report obviously false information intended to refute a subject they clearly know nothing about. Just because a person is called stupid doesn't mean they are, but that shouldn't protect those that are stupid. Having read your posts, I find I don't always agree, but I don't feel like you should be ridiculed for your belief. MazHere would be an example of someone that is stupid, or willfully ignorant. I am not sure how to classify Charles Idemi. He may be in his own category.

“what we think we become”

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#62749
Dec 3, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
No I did not lie. I was sincere about my search for truth. And it's not in the bible either. I had my doubts and searched for answers and when I found out stuff I became a skeptic. I read books on evolution but there is still something lacking. There are no sufficient evidence for the theory. When I finally got fed up I googled "debunk evolution" to see what's out there and thought maybe if anyone here just point out the things that are not true and back it up with scientific facts then I would most likely incline towards the theory being more plausible.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••