Evolution vs. Creation

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

“I started out with nothing”

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#121608 Wednesday Sep 3
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, "Jaguar" is Brazilian Portuguese and isn't pronounced correctly by yanks or brits.
Anecdote.. in the late 70's Maryland(?) passed a law that pickup trucks purchased for the state had to be built in the U.S. It turned out that the only small pickup made in the U.S. at that time was the Rabbit.
Yes I know jaguar cats are a south American animal however technically we were talking about cars and the German and English pronunciation of BMW, Jaguar, and to some extent Aston Martin.

We donít have the Rabbit here, and Iíve never seen one so just looked it up... chuckle

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121609 Wednesday Sep 3
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't say that I know what I should about Moses and his brother Aaron, but from what I gather, I see that Moses was away from the people he was leading for a number of days and his brother stalled the unruly ones by giving them what they demanded of him. God's man Moses didn't do anything wrong here as far as I can understand this, it was his brother that tried to stall the people until Moses returned and appears to be foolish. It could have been just an innocent ignorant act on his part.
So it's okay to read into the story what and as you choose in order to defend your statements, but I lack repentance... I see. Vanity, thy name is FREE SERVANT. Do you not recall that the Israelis had previously been given the ten commandments (specifically including 1, 2 and 6) directly by God's Own Voice? You think that Aaron was daydreaming during Exodus 20 and missed it? I hadn't mentioned Moses, but he wasn't blameless, either - he was the one who commanded his Levites to indiscriminately slaughter thousands and without orders to do so from YHWH. There is nothing "innocent ignorant" about any of it.
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121610 Wednesday Sep 3
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you're lying again. You HAVE made contentions (affirming both your pro-Biblical fundie AND anti-science views). Your questions are flawed and betray your total ignorance of the subjects in question. They are also evasive, designed to imply a degree of doubt that's not rational, and avoid addressing the flaws in your own position. Which you do constantly.
In short if you wished to inform the world that you're a willfully ignorant and transparently dishonest fundie liar for Jesus you have succeeded greatly.
.
It would seem that if you could give evidence of your assertion you would have done it, but consistent with your MO, you have just made another assertion and coupled it with invective.
.
Secondly, I am not anti-science, what I dispute is the conclusions drawn from the evidence. An example of this is the "chain of descent" offered as evidence that one creature descended from another because of similarity. One could just as well reason that one car descended from another due to similarity.
.
Lastly I hyperlinked a study which showed the genetic similarity between cow and man was closer than chimp and man. I asked is it reasonable to state that man descended from cow because the similarity was closer. You all had opportunity to look at the study yourself and make a rebuttal but none of you did. Its no wonder most of the world does not believe your position and the majority of Americans (who are not uneducated) don't either. If you want to berate anyone it is yourself for your inability to convince supposedly evolved people (the highest in the animal kingdom) of your position. I would suggest to enhance your potential to convince you take a course in manners.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121611 Wednesday Sep 3
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, shame that Pilate himself didn't verify it, huh.
Was there a need for him to?

Did he deny the fact that there was such a character; regardless of how much superstition was thought to surround him?

May I point out to you that Pilate himself was illusive as a historical figure?
The Dude wrote:
And a shame that even BOTH of those guys just thought he was just another regular rabble-rousing preacher. Not forgetting of course (as already pointed out) that name was fairly common at the time.
Oh.

Hence or otherwise, we know for sure that there was a "Jesus" of sorts.

What he is/was will ever be subject to question...
The Dude wrote:
This is why you (still) have no ***contemporary*** evidence.
Contemporary as opposed to what?

Does the passage of time itself render evidence invalid and automatically make "contemporary" evidence more valid?

Furthermore, we are dealing with events that happened long ago; in the past.

... it is what was left FROM THE PAST which will be judged as evidence. And while the events are NOT ONGOING BUT PAST, your demand for "contemporary" evidence is meaningless.
The Dude wrote:
And even if you did there's still nothing to suggest that he was anything other than a normal guy spouting off theology possibly mixed with a little Buddhist philosophy.
Without direct experience of the events, it will be impossible to prove anything with certainty.

Even if you arrive on a scene to see a man holding on to a knife which is buried in a dead man's chest; you will not be able to prove that the man holding the handle was the killer.

Your point?
The Dude wrote:
Come on, bub, where the heck is this "God" thing you're supposed to be providing evidence for? A deity's preachers and followers do not matter.
If you dont know what Truth is; quit the search for God till you do.

If you know what Truth is; you are being a hypocrite and a liar.
1 post removed

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121613 Wednesday Sep 3
Krypteia wrote:
<quoted text>I normally don't bother with a conversation when insults start,but man that response had me in stitches..
Well, what can I say?

Fools seldom differ.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121614 Wednesday Sep 3
messianic114 wrote:
<quoted text>
.
It would seem that if you could give evidence of your assertion you would have done it, but consistent with your MO, you have just made another assertion and coupled it with invective.
.
Secondly, I am not anti-science, what I dispute is the conclusions drawn from the evidence. An example of this is the "chain of descent" offered as evidence that one creature descended from another because of similarity. One could just as well reason that one car descended from another due to similarity.
And when you look at a series of years in the life span of a specific car model, you can see the progression quite easily. It's very rare when the changes from one model year to the next as so drastic that you cannot see the old in the new. In fact I can't remember one that different. So based on that criteria, you can certainly use the term evolution to describe a chain of descent for automobiles.
.
Lastly I hyperlinked a study which showed the genetic similarity between cow and man was closer than chimp and man. I asked is it reasonable to state that man descended from cow because the similarity was closer. You all had opportunity to look at the study yourself and make a rebuttal but none of you did. Its no wonder most of the world does not believe your position and the majority of Americans (who are not uneducated) don't either. If you want to berate anyone it is yourself for your inability to convince supposedly evolved people (the highest in the animal kingdom) of your position. I would suggest to enhance your potential to convince you take a course in manners.
The mistake you make is that you used only genetic similarity. There are more studies linking ape to man. In fact the relationship was clear well before genetics, genetic testing was more the cherry on top than an earth-shattering revelation ... well except for Creationists who continue to deny the relationship. Genetically, we are closely related to a number of animals, but when all evidence is taken into account, we are more closely related to modern Chimpanzees than Holsteins.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121615 Wednesday Sep 3
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
Well something is circular in form, but I think it is that ring you extrude your ideas through.
and he calls is 'his Precious'
Krypteia

Crawley, UK

#121616 Wednesday Sep 3
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, what can I say?
Fools seldom differ.
On this subject I'm at a loss and appreciate both arguements stuck in the middle really,but that post I just found witty as a response on words..

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121617 Wednesday Sep 3
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>And when you look at a series of years in the life span of a specific car model, you can see the progression quite easily. It's very rare when the changes from one model year to the next as so drastic that you cannot see the old in the new. In fact I can't remember one that different. So based on that criteria, you can certainly use the term evolution to describe a chain of descent for automobiles.<quoted text>
Now, I find that interesting.

You can describe something which was created by an intelligent being (assuming car manufacturers are intelligent) in terms of evolution.

So what is there preventing people from seeing that the fact of evolution, does not conflict with the Idea of an Intelligent Creator of the Universe?
TedHOhio wrote:
The mistake you make is that you used only genetic similarity. There are more studies linking ape to man. In fact the relationship was clear well before genetics, genetic testing was more the cherry on top than an earth-shattering revelation ... well except for Creationists who continue to deny the relationship.
So there was prior held conviction/s before the science began?
TedHOhio wrote:
Genetically, we are closely related to a number of animals, but when all evidence is taken into account, we are more closely related to modern Chimpanzees than Holsteins.
If both our houses are made with concrete; does it mean the materials for both of the houses originated from the same location?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#121618 Wednesday Sep 3
Krypteia wrote:
<quoted text>On this subject I'm at a loss and appreciate both arguements stuck in the middle really,but that post I just found witty as a response on words..
Yeah.

I guess.

You can always rely on that guy to give you a belly full of laughs...

He isnt good for much else...

“See how you are?”

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#121619 Wednesday Sep 3
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes I know jaguar cats are a south American animal however technically we were talking about cars and the German and English pronunciation of BMW, Jaguar, and to some extent Aston Martin.
We donít have the Rabbit here, and Iíve never seen one so just looked it up... chuckle
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmec...

Europe had VW Rabbits, I don't know about the pickups. That was then.
I realize we are talking about the Jaguar auto and not the jaguar animal. Pronunciation is merely a matter of dialect and accent (regardless of what Jeremy Clarkson or der wunderjunge thinks it means.)
Krypteia

Crawley, UK

#121620 Wednesday Sep 3
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cm/popularmec...
Europe had VW Rabbits, I don't know about the pickups. That was then.
I realize we are talking about the Jaguar auto and not the jaguar animal. Pronunciation is merely a matter of dialect and accent (regardless of what Jeremy Clarkson or der wunderjunge thinks it means.)
My wife has a rabbit it runs on batteries..

“If it ain't broke don't fix it”

Since: Jul 09

Arcadia, LA.

#121621 Wednesday Sep 3
Krypteia wrote:
<quoted text>My wife has a rabbit it runs on batteries..
hahahaahahhaahhaha!

Yeah, but are they energizer batteries?

:)

“There is no Truth in Faith”

Since: Dec 08

nowhere near a pound of $100's

#121622 Wednesday Sep 3
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
But my aim was never to "prove" anything except that *a circular argument is an essentially valid argument and is indispensable...*
Absolute fact/ Truth WILL take the form of a circular argument.
I am God.
This is true because I say so and God can't lie.
I am God.

The above is a circular argument. You may accept it as truth if you wish.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#121623 Wednesday Sep 3
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Now, I find that interesting.
You can describe something which was created by an intelligent being (assuming car manufacturers are intelligent) in terms of evolution.
So what is there preventing people from seeing that the fact of evolution, does not conflict with the Idea of an Intelligent Creator of the Universe?
<quoted text>
So there was prior held conviction/s before the science began?
<quoted text>
If both our houses are made with concrete; does it mean the materials for both of the houses originated from the same location?
Because there is evidence of manufactured items. You really need that explained to you? The idea of the intelligent creator/designer requires some evidence before you can make that assumption, and please remember it was never a conviction, more of an assertion in place of knowledge. You are repeating the old watchmaker argument that's been out of date for well over a century.

Actually there was doubt about a creator well before science began. Religious tracts rarely could answer real questions. Patterns in natural events were well documented without requiring the need for a deity. Ideas on non-religious origins for most phenomena predates the beginning of a methodical approach we call science. Many inventions were done, lenses come to mind, about 2700 years before science was used to fully explain how they worked. I don't recall reading about how someone prayed over a pile of sand and it turned into not only glass, but the precise shape needed for vision, or a telescope? When you want something made, you rarely turned to a deity.

Your last question is silly. Concrete is a man-made product not a natural one. It's made all over the world in a multitude of formulas and ingredients. While various natural mixes can approximate some of the characteristics of concrete, it's not concrete. I live not 5 miles from a concrete plant, yet the concrete foundation and basement for my house originated from over 50 miles away and mixed on-site. The concrete used in my neighbors house was from 5 miles away. The reasons were economic and technical when it comes to concrete availability, there are also timing issues when ordering certain quantities.

Do you bother putting gas in your car? Why? Because of science and engineering. If your deity was on the job, a quick prayer should be enough to keep your tank topped off, right?
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121624 Wednesday Sep 3
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you know what repentance is? If someone continued in wrongdoing, God did not like it.
Only because it wasn't God doing it.

Since: Jun 14

Just the facts!

#121625 Wednesday Sep 3
I see the insane little Nationalstolz escaped his keepers again...
messianic114

Calgary, Canada

#121626 Wednesday Sep 3
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>And when you look at a series of years in the life span of a specific car model, you can see the progression quite easily. It's very rare when the changes from one model year to the next as so drastic that you cannot see the old in the new. In fact I can't remember one that different. So based on that criteria, you can certainly use the term evolution to describe a chain of descent for automobiles.<quoted text>The mistake you make is that you used only genetic similarity. There are more studies linking ape to man. In fact the relationship was clear well before genetics, genetic testing was more the cherry on top than an earth-shattering revelation ... well except for Creationists who continue to deny the relationship. Genetically, we are closely related to a number of animals, but when all evidence is taken into account, we are more closely related to modern Chimpanzees than Holsteins.
.
quoted text>And when you look at a series of years in the life span of a specific car model, you can see the progression quite easily. It's very rare when the changes from one model year to the next as so drastic that you cannot see the old in the new. In fact I can't remember one that different. So based on that criteria, you can certainly use the term evolution to describe a chain of descent for automobiles.
.
Yet even a child can tell you this is a result of intelligent design.
.
<quoted text>The mistake you make is that you used only genetic similarity. There are more studies linking ape to man. In fact the relationship was clear well before genetics, genetic testing was more the cherry on top than an earth-shattering revelation ... well except for Creationists who continue to deny the relationship. Genetically, we are closely related to a number of animals, but when all evidence is taken into account, we are more closely related to modern Chimpanzees than Holsteins.
.
When dealing with evolution, what is more important than genetic similarity? As you stated in your car example similarity in appearance is not that important.
.
Lastly is seems to me that if evolution is as predicted, we wouldn't expect this similarity with the cow.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121627 Wednesday Sep 3
messianic114 wrote:
It would seem that if you could give evidence of your assertion you would have done it, but consistent with your MO, you have just made another assertion and coupled it with invective.
.
Secondly, I am not anti-science, what I dispute is the conclusions drawn from the evidence. An example of this is the "chain of descent" offered as evidence that one creature descended from another because of similarity. One could just as well reason that one car descended from another due to similarity.
First you're lying again. You've already stated your Biblical stance. Second you are anti-science because we have shown you to be numerous times. It doesn't matter if your "interpretation" of the evidence differs, what matters is which hypotheses pass the scientific method. Ours do, yours don't. Period.
messianic114 wrote:
Lastly I hyperlinked a study which showed the genetic similarity between cow and man was closer than chimp and man. I asked is it reasonable to state that man descended from cow because the similarity was closer. You all had opportunity to look at the study yourself and make a rebuttal but none of you did. Its no wonder most of the world does not believe your position and the majority of Americans (who are not uneducated) don't either. If you want to berate anyone it is yourself for your inability to convince supposedly evolved people (the highest in the animal kingdom) of your position. I would suggest to enhance your potential to convince you take a course in manners.
Actually we DID provide a rebuttal, and as usual you ignored it. This was a month ago. But as I keep pointing out this always happens because evidence does not matter in the slightest to your position.

I also find it deliciously ironic that a monumentally massive liar such as yourself is lecturing others on manners. I don't worry about convincing fundies, as by your very nature you are pretty much non-convincable. All we do is present facts you fundies can't refute. That's all that's necessary. The uneducated opinions of fundies do not matter since science is not decided upon by fundies, or even average joes like me. It's decided upon by scientists working in the field. That, coupled with your complete and total utter rejection of the scientific method is why you fundies aren't taken seriously by the scientific community in general.

As for the rest of the world you will find that survey after survey shows that the acceptance of science (that you reject) is about 50-50 in the US. While the acceptance of evolution tends to be higher in countries that tend to do better with education.
The Dude

Wallasey, UK

#121628 Wednesday Sep 3
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Was there a need for him to?
Yup. Otherwise all claims are valid even if they have no evidence. All one needs to do is just assume absolute truth as you do to avoid presenting evidence.

Therefore Superman is real.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Did he deny the fact that there was such a character; regardless of how much superstition was thought to surround him?
May I point out to you that Pilate himself was illusive as a historical figure?
This doesn't help your case.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Oh.
Hence or otherwise, we know for sure that there was a "Jesus" of sorts.
What he is/was will ever be subject to question
There were many. But preachers don't demonstrate Gods.

And if a real Jesus ever did, the evidence of this was lost 2,000 years ago. Oh well.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Contemporary as opposed to what?
Does the passage of time itself render evidence invalid and automatically make "contemporary" evidence more valid?
Furthermore, we are dealing with events that happened long ago; in the past.
... it is what was left FROM THE PAST which will be judged as evidence. And while the events are NOT ONGOING BUT PAST, your demand for "contemporary" evidence is meaningless.
False. For instance we have evidence of T-Rex BECAUSE we have contemporary evidence. While we DON'T have evidence of Jesus because we DON'T have contemporary evidence. And you're stupid enough to invoke AS evidence Romans who DISAGREED with you that he was God's sprog, and further, didn't in themselves necessarily claim that the character of Jesus even existed in the first place. And again even further, when it appeared that they did, their writings were altered by Christian apologists (such as Josephus by Eusegus). This is why your claims are not reliable in the slightest.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
Without direct experience of the events, it will be impossible to prove anything with certainty.
Even if you arrive on a scene to see a man holding on to a knife which is buried in a dead man's chest; you will not be able to prove that the man holding the handle was the killer.
Your point?
But we can at least see a man holding a knife over a dead corpse, which is at least evidence of a man holding a knife that is buried in a corpse. All you got is excuses as to why a tomb is empty.
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
If you dont know what Truth is; quit the search for God till you do.
What a contradictory method of operation.

No wonder you never get anywhere.(shrug)
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
If you know what Truth is; you are being a hypocrite and a liar.
I've never claimed "Truth". But you have no trouble with being a hypocrite and a liar whether you know what "Truth" is or not.

Not that uh, you're very convincing with your claims of Truthiness though eh.

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
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 4 min Sharrp Shooter 263,000
Anti-gay Tenn. billboard stirs religion debate 8 min Larry Craig s WC ... 135
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 14 min LRS 178,105
US stocks start lower 15 min Newland 41
Gay marriage (Mar '13) 18 min River Tam 55,983
Ukraine rebels watch Scotland vote with envy 20 min boo ya 39
Hillary Clinton Faces Skeptical Iowa Voters 24 min woodtick57 325
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 31 min Ari son of Anarchy 153,922
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 1 hr Patriangelily 1,110,245
Obama thanks Congress for vote to aid Syrian re... 1 hr barefoot2626 98
•••

US Politics People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••