Creation versus evolution debate

May 14, 2012 Full story: Examiner.com 270

On Saturday May 12, the Museum of Creation and Earth History in Santee, Calif. held a debate featuring Creation vs.

Full Story

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#166 May 25, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen, Junior.
I know you think you are being cute with this whole "it's over your head" crap, but the fact of the matter is this. Any one of us on this board could give you a 5 year head start of any of these topics and still whoop your ass.
Junior?
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You simply aren't equipped to participate in a discussion about science because you believe in a world view that revolves around make believe concepts and not reality.
That's why you haven't presented any evidence. There can be no evidence for your imagination.
Believe that if you want to, but like I stated earlier, The NERD is not giving any free handouts here, you have yet to refute that dent The NERD has put in your belief.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
All you have is your misunderstanding of articles from the popular press (not even the actual scientific papers),
The initial URL I gave you was the link to the scientific document from a very reputable science and medicine publishing site ( NATURE.COM ). You stated it was the homepage as if you couldn't search the site and find the document yourself. Keywords like "Gorilla", "Genomics","Gen etics", "Evolution" "March 8" could take you far if you wasn't so lazy. You could easily just reference the URL I gave you and take the article number from the URL [n7388] and put it in the search field on the website and viola!

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So, let's look at your premise for your argument.
You think that you know more than we do about genetics.
Therefore you are asking us why the researchers are doing the study they way they are doing it.
I know why they are doing it, I'm asking if you know why.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Me, I don't know why the researchers are choosing one method over another.
Then I would suggest you try and figure it out.
TedHOhio-DERP QUOTE OF THE CENTURY wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, there is no evidence that our solar system is a good fit to host any form of life.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#167 May 25, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
I know why they are doing it, I'm asking if you know why.

Then I would suggest you try and figure it out.
How very vacuous of you.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#168 May 25, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
Junior?
Yes, Junior. You refer to yourself as "the NERD" and you have a cartoon for an avatar.

You clearly have the maturity level at or below 20.
you have yet to refute that dent The NERD has put in your belief.
You keep referring to this "dent", but as far as any of us can tell, you have yet to make anything like a STATEMENT, let along actually dent anything.

So far, this is what we've gleaned from you:
1) Your position is that you believe in something without evidence therefore it's real.
2) You think that our having evidence to support our clearly demonstrable position somehow makes us dumb
3) You apparently don't understand why some article says that some research was doing some kind of research one way instead of another way -- as if one researcher doing one bit of research says anything about the VAST MOUNTAIN of evidence which supports evolution.

So, what EXACTLY do you think you've dented? Our "belief" that there exists a researcher doing research? Our "belief" that you're telling the truth when you say that you believe in a Jewish Wizard because your mommy told you that's what you should believe?
You stated it was the homepage as if you couldn't search the site and find the document yourself. Keywords like "Gorilla", "Genomics","Gen etics", "Evolution" "March 8" could take you far if you wasn't so lazy.
Having dealt with Creationists such as yourself many many times in the past, I've come to a position where I do not search out the papers they claim exist.

Frequently the papers don't exist, or don't say what the Creationist thinks they say. When that's brought up, the Creationist runs away or pretends that no one mentioned it.

If you want us to discuss something from a scientific paper, go find it, read it, then post EXACTLY what it says IN THREAD for ALL to see.
I know why they are doing it, I'm asking if you know why.
That's not a debate. You aren't taking a position.

You are claiming to know why a researcher which may or may not exist is doing research that they may or may not actually be doing, then questioning me as if I knew the researcher personally.

No matter what answer I give, no matter what answer you give - none of it will be backed up by the only person who can answer the question: The researcher himself.

So, go find HIM and ask HIM if he knows why he's doing his research.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#169 May 25, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
Junior?
<quoted text>
Believe that if you want to, but like I stated earlier, The NERD is not giving any free handouts here, you have yet to refute that dent The NERD has put in your belief.
You've made no dent, you're only pretending you did.

That's why you're still dodging.

And speaking of dodges, fingers or toes, Nerd?

Since: Jan 10

Las Vegas, NV

#170 May 25, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, it is a no brainer. In the scientific method it is up to the person making the positive claim to supply the evidence for their claim. So back to you, where is your evidence for your statement? If you have none then the scientific method tells us to ignore you.
Come on. That's a cop out. Use your brain little one. Let's see the proof.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#171 May 25, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on. That's a cop out. Use your brain little one. Let's see the proof.
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/evolution/TSL...

Your entire premise is a cop-out.

Don't blame US because you don't understand science.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#172 May 25, 2012
Here in Vegas wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on. That's a cop out. Use your brain little one. Let's see the proof.
You need to start using more complete sentences out of respect for the rest of the thread.

Proof of what?

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#173 May 28, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep referring to this "dent", but as far as any of us can tell, you have yet to make anything like a STATEMENT, let along actually dent anything.
This is a result of you not being well educated in what you put your beliefs and faith into.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
So far, this is what we've gleaned from you:
1) Your position is that you believe in something without evidence therefore it's real.
As do you.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
2) You think that our having evidence to support our clearly demonstrable position somehow makes us dumb
You didn't have any evidence to refute my point. Either that or you 're just simply not educated in what you believe.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
3) You apparently don't understand why some article says that some research was doing some kind of research one way instead of another way -- as if one researcher doing one bit of research says anything about the VAST MOUNTAIN of evidence which supports evolution.
You have a bad habit of twisting words around. Nowhere in this conversation have I ever said I was confused as to why researchers performed a particular analysis the way that they did. You on the other hand are the one who can't seem to understand this point; which is due to a lack of understanding the field in which you put your faith and belief in.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Having dealt with Creationists such as yourself many many times in the past, I've come to a position where I do not search out the papers they claim exist.

Frequently the papers don't exist, or don't say what the Creationist thinks they say.
Then why contradict your position if this was true? If you REALLY felt like every creationists presents you with erroneous materials referencing a document or an article, then why ask a creationist to present you with one?
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not a debate. You aren't taking a position.
You are claiming to know why a researcher which may or may not exist is doing research that they may or may not actually be doing, then questioning me as if I knew the researcher personally.
Researchers that may or may not exist? I gave you the scientific document and for some odd reason you refuse to even look at it. Which then again, based off the fact that you don't really understand the mechanics of your belief, its not all that surprising.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
No matter what answer I give, no matter what answer you give - none of it will be backed up by the only person who can answer the question: The researcher himself.
So, go find HIM and ask HIM if he knows why he's doing his research.
I'm curious how do you verify the validity of the evolutionary paradigm without talking directly to any scientists working in the field?
TedHOhio-DERP QUOTE OF THE CENTURY wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, there is no evidence that our solar system is a good fit to host any form of life.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#174 May 28, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
You didn't have any evidence to refute my point.
Once again, YOU NEVER MADE A POINT!

NEVER. You've failed to make ANY STATEMENTS whatsoever.

You asked A QUESTION to the tune of "Why is someone studying this?"
To which we responded: "Go ask the person doing the study."

That's not a statement on your part. That's a question.

Claiming that we haven't refuted your question makes NO SENSE.

You are correct, we DON'T know why you DON"T know the answer the question you are asking. We can't prove that you ACTUALLY know the answer. We take you at your word that you don't know.
Nowhere in this conversation have I ever said I was confused as to why researchers performed a particular analysis the way that they did.
You asked why they were studying what they were studying. Are you now claiming that you know the answer to that question? Were you lying before or are you lying now?
If you REALLY felt like every creationists presents you with erroneous materials referencing a document or an article, then why ask a creationist to present you with one?
Ideally to demonstrate to the creationist that both sides of the debate know that the Creationists are dishonest.

It's one thing for us to argue with someone who is ignorant. It's another to deal with someone who is dishonest.

When a creationist such as yourself deliberately lies, then you reveal not only that you are wrong, but that you KNOW that you are wrong.
Researchers that may or may not exist?
Yes. Or, they may have existed and no longer exist.
I gave you the scientific document and for some odd reason you refuse to even look at it.
No, you gave me a link to a website which did not display the document.

I could easily say:
Here's proof you are wrong - www.google.com

Do some searching to find the correct document.
I'm curious how do you verify the validity of the evolutionary paradigm without talking directly to any scientists working in the field?
Because, as an observer of the natural world, I can verify first hand various parts of evolution.

If you would like to attempt to disprove these observations, I'd love to see you try.

Here's number 1:
If an organism dies, it no longer produces any offspring.

Go on. Prove me wrong.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#175 May 28, 2012
I have a Ferrari for sale, but you have to buy it before you can have a chance to see it. Also, you have to have faith in it's existence in order to see it, if you don't see it you just don't have faith.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#176 May 28, 2012
I have a nice harbour bridge you can buy to drive your new Ferrari over...

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#177 May 28, 2012
Bluenose wrote:
I have a nice harbour bridge you can buy to drive your new Ferrari over...
I'm not a creatard, I need solid and verifiable evidence to believe you.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#178 May 28, 2012
#133 Here in Vegas made the positive hitherto unproved by him claim:
Scientific discoveries made in evolution just show how God actually did it.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#179 May 29, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a creatard, I need solid and verifiable evidence to believe you.
Oh. I don't suppose you'd be interested in an Opera House, would you?

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#180 May 29, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, YOU NEVER MADE A POINT!
NEVER. You've failed to make ANY STATEMENTS whatsoever.
What's with all the uppercase? Are you yelling?
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked A QUESTION to the tune of "Why is someone studying this?"
To which we responded: "Go ask the person doing the study."
That's not a statement on your part. That's a question.
I'm not asking for myself as to why are they doing anything. I'm asking if you know why? There is a difference.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked why they were studying what they were studying. Are you now claiming that you know the answer to that question? Were you lying before or are you lying now?
I've already stated at post #166 that I know why they did this particular analysis. I think you missed it.
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Because, as an observer of the natural world, I can verify first hand various parts of evolution.
If you would like to attempt to disprove these observations, I'd love to see you try.
Sure, can you give me one definitive example of evolution occurring?
TedHOhio-DERP QUOTE OF THE CENTURY wrote:
<quoted text>
Once again, there is no evidence that our solar system is a good fit to host any form of life.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#181 May 29, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
I'm not asking for myself as to why are they doing anything. I'm asking if you know why? There is a difference.
You are claiming that you made a point.

Now you are claiming that you didn't try to make a point, but rather were trying to quiz us on whether or not we know what you think you know about what a 3rd party may or may not actually be doing and the methodology they may or may not be using to accomplish their alleged goal.

Guess what? We don't care what you think you know about what someone else might be doing and why they are doing it.
I've already stated at post #166 that I know why they did this particular analysis. I think you missed it.
Yes, you've STATED that you think you know why they did it. Did they confirm it with you? Do you have a post from them telling us why they did what they did?

Or, are you assuming you know what they were doing and why they were doing it based on nothing more than your opinion of your opinion?
Sure, can you give me one definitive example of evolution occurring?
I can give you lots.

The nylon eating bacteria is a good example since it could not have existed prior to the invention of nylon. It is a new species which evolved to exploit a new resource. Evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#182 May 29, 2012
The Nerd wrote:
<quoted text>
What's with all the uppercase? Are you yelling?
<quoted text>
I'm not asking for myself as to why are they doing anything. I'm asking if you know why? There is a difference.
<quoted text>
I've already stated at post #166 that I know why they did this particular analysis. I think you missed it.
So did you. That's why you haven't been able to back up your claim that you even KNOW something, much less know that something they discovered falsified evolution.

On the other hand I DID demonstrate that not only does the article you brought up NOT support you in any way whatsoever, but completely the opposite. Like so many things though, it's something you uh "missed".
The Nerd wrote:
Sure, can you give me one definitive example of evolution occurring?
Yep - Humans. Again, you "missed" it. Meaning you're not honest enough to engage anyone here directly, just pretend to act all high and mighty and smart while actually looking dumb.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#183 May 29, 2012
By the way, fingers or toes Nerd?

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#184 May 29, 2012
Nerdy creature does not play the role of devil's advocate well.
I know we asked for someone that was and freakin religious and knowledgable about f.i. creationist cosmology, but sofar we've gotten nowhere.
We drop the requirement of being knowlegable on evolution...that's just not going to happen! Mixing answers and attributing them to wrong statements does not constitute knowledge.

Since: May 12

Smyrna, GA

#185 May 29, 2012
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The nylon eating bacteria is a good example since it could not have existed prior to the invention of nylon. It is a new species which evolved to exploit a new resource. Evolution.
Let's see, we start out with bacteria and end up with bacteria. That's evolution huh? Any other examples?

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.

Cornell University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Persistent Drought a Threat to Civilizations - ... Sep 21 Jim the Hoax Denier 7
Guest Viewpoint: What to do about the deer?Gues... Sep 21 conklincolt 1
Pro-Palestinian Students Accused of Exploiting ... Aug '14 lavon affair 25
Wastewater disposal wells cause destructive ear... Jul '14 Go Blue Forever 1
Quakes, Fracking, Hysteria, and Energy Independ... Jul '14 Turk 1
Ace Your "Where We Met" Story May '14 N8 the Grrr8 1
Should Obama use the power of his pen on immigr... Apr '14 maria 20

Cornell University People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE