Evolution vs. Creation

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

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#37430 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical ranting of an atheist who has nothing intelligent to say. I've presented mountains of evidence against evolution, and you simply say, "no, that's not true" without providing any logical refutation, All you can do is paste links from atheist websites.
You have presented nothing but rhetoric. Evolution is a theory and a fact , get over it . There is nothing you can produce that will prove it is incorrect , it has 150 years of verification.
Every attempt to falsify it by scientists who test the theory every day , have all failed. The evidence in favor of it's being correct is insurmountable now. It is simply a truth you cannot deny.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37432 Aug 11, 2012
I wrote:
The panda has a hand which is very clumsy for eating bamboo shoots.

HTS wrote:
All you can do is play God and imagine that if you designed a panda you'd give him an opposable thumb.

When someone presented this argument to Duane Gish, he made a similar response.
He responded that his critic was blasphemous and presumptuous for claiming that he could improve on God.

But you're the one claiming that all of nature is intelligently designed, so the burden of proof is on your side.
So explain to us, if you will, how the panda thumb is intelligently designed.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37433 Aug 11, 2012
PROFESSOR X wrote:
Furthermore, you prove my point that most Atheists are homosexuals.

First we are told that anyone opposing corporal punishment of children is a sexual abuser,
we have been repeatedly told that all evolutionists are atheists,
and now we are told that most atheists are homosexuals.

Any more generalizations?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#37434 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude... You're provided nothing logical in any of your posts. You have a habit of never directly confronting the challenges I present to you... Then in your convoluted logic you insist that you've answered the question. I provide scientific evidence and you categorically ignore it, followed by your cheap worn out "goddidit" rhetoric. Finally, you insult my religious beliefs without even knowing what they are. Your strawman logic is evident in every one of your attempted rebuttals..
I'm going to give you another chance. I'm telling you that arguments of imperfections of nature are founded on a philosophical rejection of God. I can show you statements by prominent professors of evolution that attest to this fact. You have one more chance to answer the question without dodging.
Your comment is no more substantive that he long held and now long discarded belief that lightning was a physical manifestation of God. Scores of scores of gods have been discarded through the centuries as the supernatural was discovered to be natural after all.

I think you are genuinely fearful, and by extension weak of faith, that the great mysteries you attribute to your god are turning out to be not so great and not so mysterious.

You had better get busy figuring out if your faith can withstand the disappearance of talking snakes and magic wagons. Hebrew scholars have known for centuries that you are staking your salvation on myth and legend.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37435 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
You think man evolved from a worm?
Not at all!
I think man evolved from a crockoduck!

Or was it a flying spaghetti monster?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37436 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
"Natural selection cannot possibly produce any modification in a species exclusively for the good of another species; ...If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection"
*Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species, 6th Edition, pg. 526-527
HTS, why do you keep harping on this?
I have two specific questions:

1. When has "any part of the structure of any one species ... been formed for the exclusive good of another species"?

2. Assuming that such an event has taken place, how does that disprove evolution?
We didn't say that would disprove evolution, Darwin said that would disprove evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37437 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical ranting of an atheist who has nothing intelligent to say. I've presented mountains of evidence against evolution, and you simply say, "no, that's not true" without providing any logical refutation, All you can do is paste links from atheist websites.
Again, you have not posted one whit of evidence against evolution. You have shown that you do not understand it, but that is not evidence. And I am not sure of all of the websites linked to you but if you are talking about "Talk Origins" that is not an atheist website, that is a evolution website. Worldwide the vast majority of believers in the theory of evolution also believe in a god of some sort or other. For some strange reason you think that evolution = atheism. Perhaps evolution debunks your own personal god, it does not debunk all of the gods out there.
HTS

Williston, ND

#37438 Aug 11, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
I wrote:
The panda has a hand which is very clumsy for eating bamboo shoots.
HTS wrote:
All you can do is play God and imagine that if you designed a panda you'd give him an opposable thumb.
When someone presented this argument to Duane Gish, he made a similar response.
He responded that his critic was blasphemous and presumptuous for claiming that he could improve on God.
But you're the one claiming that all of nature is intelligently designed, so the burden of proof is on your side.
So explain to us, if you will, how the panda thumb is intelligently designed.
I'm not presenting ID as a scientific theory. I'm debunking evolution. You're attempting to defend a "scientific theory" [evolution] by making philosophical judgements regarding ID.
HTS

Williston, ND

#37439 Aug 11, 2012
Thomas Robertson wrote:
<quoted text>
HTS, why do you keep harping on this?
I have two specific questions:
1. When has "any part of the structure of any one species ... been formed for the exclusive good of another species"?
2. Assuming that such an event has taken place, how does that disprove evolution?
We didn't say that would disprove evolution, Darwin said that would disprove evolution.
There are hundreds of examples of medicinal plants that benefit humans and not the plants. For example, the foxglove plant produces digitalis which has saved the lives of thousands of heart patients.
Edible roots benefit animals and are a detriment to plant survival and reproduction. These modifications cannot be explained by an proposed mechanisms of evolution.
HTS

Williston, ND

#37440 Aug 11, 2012
15th Dalai Lama wrote:
<quoted text>
Your comment is no more substantive that he long held and now long discarded belief that lightning was a physical manifestation of God. Scores of scores of gods have been discarded through the centuries as the supernatural was discovered to be natural after all.
I think you are genuinely fearful, and by extension weak of faith, that the great mysteries you attribute to your god are turning out to be not so great and not so mysterious.
You had better get busy figuring out if your faith can withstand the disappearance of talking snakes and magic wagons. Hebrew scholars have known for centuries that you are staking your salvation on myth and legend.
Why is it that atheists are incapable of engaging in a scientific debate without constantly bringing up their contempt for God?
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#37441 Aug 11, 2012
Dr Rain wrote:
<quoted text>
Wolverine you have a poor understanding of how oil prices are set. Speculators are who set prices. It is not based on limits but on greed. I'd be happy to provide you with many primers but my guess is you arent interested in the facts.
What is sad is that we have all the necessary tech to move away from oil (e.g. electric) but because there is more to bilk of the masses through ignorance and stupidity we are where we are today.
So please stop with your tin hat consipracies and read the facts.
Yeah Right....Speculators Do Contribute To the Chaos.

But, There Is No Reasonable Replacement....Its All Smoke And Mirrors For A Price.

Solindra Ring A BEll ?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37442 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There are hundreds of examples of medicinal plants that benefit humans and not the plants. For example, the foxglove plant produces digitalis which has saved the lives of thousands of heart patients.
Edible roots benefit animals and are a detriment to plant survival and reproduction. These modifications cannot be explained by an proposed mechanisms of evolution.
Sure they can be, you just don't want to hear them. Digitalis is a poison. If you consume Foxglove carelessly it will kill you. The poison protects the plants.

And what a laugh. It is obvious that you have never farmed or gardened much. You better think again about your statement that edible roots are detrimental to a plants survival. Quite a few plants can reproduce in two ways, one is by flowering, the other is via their edible roots, tubers, and bulbs. That list includes potatoes, Dahlias, tulips, onions, garlic, the list goes on and on.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#37443 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There are hundreds of examples of medicinal plants that benefit humans and not the plants. For example, the foxglove plant produces digitalis which has saved the lives of thousands of heart patients.
Edible roots benefit animals and are a detriment to plant survival and reproduction. These modifications cannot be explained by an proposed mechanisms of evolution.
Foxglove plant is poisonous , that carries a benefit that most animals will not eat it.

Edible roots try to hide in the ground from you having no defense against you , but you ate Mr. Potato head anyway.

Your argument is weak , very very weak.

Next you will tell us spinach grows in the wild so we can eat it.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37444 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
Seeds and embryos are not "simple". They contain the entire genetic blueprint for a living thing.
I think you have Jonathan Sarfati to thank for this argument.
It seems that he was the one who started all this noise about an organism requiring the necessary "information."

In one of his books, he argued that dog breeders have been working for centuries and have come up with nothing but more dogs.
So now we know that the first dogs had the information--or "genetic blueprint" or whatever you want to call it--for Dalmations and cocker spaniels, but maybe not for lizards and turtles and eucalyptus trees.

But he still doesn't give a satisfactory definition of "information."
I realize that you can cross a Dalmation with a cocker spaniel and get fertile offspring.
But that doesn't answer my question.
A species can evolve to the point where a member of the parent species cannot mate with a member of the daughter species.
We have seen proof of this in evolution taking place in our own time.

So I ask you: Without knowing the history of the canine species, how could you look at a dog's DNA and tell exactly how it could be bred or evolved and how it can't be bred or evolved?

This is off the subject, but theists don't seem to realize the importance of defining independent and dependent variables.
In every well-written lab report, the author is very careful to define both variables in order to preclude any misunderstanding.

But theists don't seem to be so careful.
At every revival, they rejoice over every person who comes to the altar to get saved.
If that person later backslides, they have to recant by saying that the person wasn't truly saved after all.
When a couple gets married, everyone cheers, throws rice, and declares that "this marriage was made in Heaven."
Then they have to recant if the couple gets divorced.

So now I am bewildered about what constitutes salvation, celestial matchmaking, and genetic information.

“Fear is the Mind-Killer”

Level 1

Since: Jun 08

Albuquerque, NM

#37445 Aug 11, 2012
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You have presented nothing but rhetoric. Evolution is a theory and a fact , get over it . There is nothing you can produce that will prove it is incorrect , it has 150 years of verification.
Every attempt to falsify it by scientists who test the theory every day , have all failed. The evidence in favor of it's being correct is insurmountable now. It is simply a truth you cannot deny.
Not so. Not even the scientific community makes any of the claims you just did. There are in fact, still insurmountable problems with the theory. The model for mutations resulting in viable species still remains nonexistent. There is no evidence whatsoever that mutations result in anything but a dead genetic line.

Nor does it explain the origin of life, which still remains firmly out of its grasp as a theory.

The fossil records do not confirm it, after 150 years of looking very hard for a transitional species, none have been found.

And it cannot be reproduced in a lab. In fact, as we learn more about biology, we learn how truly impossible evolution could be as a viable theory.

Like many bad theories in the past from the scientific community, it will eventually fall out of favor and be replaced by something else. You can already see it happening as people like Richard Dawkins play with the idea of extraterrestrial origins of life.

So quit being a conformist. No one says you have to believe God did it. But theories come and go as we learn more and more about the universe. Darwinism is dead, get over it, and let real science make some real progress.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37446 Aug 11, 2012
I wrote:
I have two specific questions:
1. When has "any part of the structure of any one species ... been formed for the exclusive good of another species"?
2. Assuming that such an event has taken place, how does that disprove evolution?
We didn't say that would disprove evolution, Darwin said that would disprove evolution.

HTS wrote:
There are hundreds of examples of medicinal plants that benefit humans and not the plants. For example, the foxglove plant produces digitalis which has saved the lives of thousands of heart patients.
Edible roots benefit animals and are a detriment to plant survival and reproduction. These modifications cannot be explained by an proposed mechanisms of evolution.

HTS, thank you for addressing my first question.
Will you please address my second question?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37447 Aug 11, 2012
It is becoming more and more apparent that HTS is a YEC and not too bright of a YEC at that. Or else he may of course be a poe. Being a poe has always seemed to be counterproductive to me. But there are all types in this world of ours.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37448 Aug 11, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so. Not even the scientific community makes any of the claims you just did. There are in fact, still insurmountable problems with the theory. The model for mutations resulting in viable species still remains nonexistent. There is no evidence whatsoever that mutations result in anything but a dead genetic line.
Nor does it explain the origin of life, which still remains firmly out of its grasp as a theory.
The fossil records do not confirm it, after 150 years of looking very hard for a transitional species, none have been found.
And it cannot be reproduced in a lab. In fact, as we learn more about biology, we learn how truly impossible evolution could be as a viable theory.
Like many bad theories in the past from the scientific community, it will eventually fall out of favor and be replaced by something else. You can already see it happening as people like Richard Dawkins play with the idea of extraterrestrial origins of life.
So quit being a conformist. No one says you have to believe God did it. But theories come and go as we learn more and more about the universe. Darwinism is dead, get over it, and let real science make some real progress.
Why do creationists spew such obvious lies? There is plenty of evidence for positive mutations. They have even observed them in the laboratory. The evolution of E. coli to digest citrate. Like any good science experiment they were able to duplicate the results. And I see this denier must be using 150 year old paleontology texts since the number of transitional fossils are so great now that we realize all fossils show transition.

Of course the idiot probably wants a fossil that would prove evolution wrong, like Cameron's Crocoduck. What a tard.

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Beijing, China

#37449 Aug 11, 2012
HTS wrote:
Evolutionists assumed that DNA defined everything in man... They did not consider the possibility that man's behavior and intelligence might be defined by more than DNA.
So Evolutionists at one time believed human behavior was determined solely by DNA?
I've never heard that before.
Could you tell me where I could find out more about this?

Did all Evolutionists believe this, or just some Evolutionists?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#37450 Aug 11, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so. Not even the scientific community makes any of the claims you just did. There are in fact, still insurmountable problems with the theory. The model for mutations resulting in viable species still remains nonexistent. There is no evidence whatsoever that mutations result in anything but a dead genetic line.
Nor does it explain the origin of life, which still remains firmly out of its grasp as a theory.
The fossil records do not confirm it, after 150 years of looking very hard for a transitional species, none have been found.
And it cannot be reproduced in a lab. In fact, as we learn more about biology, we learn how truly impossible evolution could be as a viable theory.
Like many bad theories in the past from the scientific community, it will eventually fall out of favor and be replaced by something else. You can already see it happening as people like Richard Dawkins play with the idea of extraterrestrial origins of life.
So quit being a conformist. No one says you have to believe God did it. But theories come and go as we learn more and more about the universe. Darwinism is dead, get over it, and let real science make some real progress.


Actually most of everything you have written here is pure bunk, there are no problems with the theory, rather problems with people like you who do not understand it. ALSO.....

Your denial is duly noted, but irrelevant to the fact that evolution is still a theory and a fact, is the truth and something you will have to come to grips with.

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 3 hr Kong_ 626
How would creationists explain... 4 hr TurkanaBoy 393
Science News (Sep '13) 5 hr positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
Genetic entropy Dec 18 Discord 159
More from around the web