Evolution vs. Creation

anyone who can look at a blade of gass, a lief on a tree....or for that mater, a giant silent factory that creates breathible oxigen from water a TREE. and still believe it happend by chance. has got to be a fool. johns hopkins university has professers who study the human body....tons of paper liturature, whole buildings dedicated to reserch. on the human body...the human eye came by chance...a mutation by some swamp zoid millions of years ago ......forrest gump had a word for it STUPID IS WHAT STUPID DOES

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually it was. the AA still had their meeting (as AA does...:) in Washington around the same time, but it's not on the mall, and it's not a rally, it was in Bethesda at a hotel, so more of a group meeting amongst themselves, not public per se. They invited us all at the rally to attend though (it was Monday or Tuesday after the rally) The RR was put on by a coalition of a dozen or more groups including the SCA, AA, AHA, etc.
<quoted text>
Sounds the the way they 'accept' blacks too :)
But yes, it is a hopeful time, Feels like we already slogged ourselves out of the dark ages then somehow when nobody was looking we got sucked back in and have to fight out way out again. Hope we stay out this time.

Ah, thanks for the clarification on that. As I mentioned, I never knew such gatherings existed, I have become a recluse simply to avoid all the religious crap that gets spewed, it'd be nice to have a community of people who aren't going to start screaming that everyone is "going to hell" every five minutes and repeat the same old crap the rest of the time.

Well, I often point out that the Mormons have no excuse to forget what bigotry feels like, they often reminded the members of how they have been persecuted by mainstream churches at the time as well as add "that which is most true is persecuted the most." Then they go and persecute others, and now they aren't persecuted much at all, now I guess gay people are "more true" than anyone else, so by their own logic, we should worship a leather chaps clad hairless beefcake who likes men or a lumberjack clothed muscular woman who likes women, since that's the image everyone is actually attacking now. How odd, no?

john wrote:

anyone who can look at a blade of gass, a lief on a tree....or for that mater, a giant silent factory that creates breathible oxigen from water a TREE. and still believe it happend by chance. has got to be a fool. johns hopkins university has professers who study the human body....tons of paper liturature, whole buildings dedicated to reserch. on the human body...the human eye came by chance...a mutation by some swamp zoid millions of years ago ......forrest gump had a word for it STUPID IS WHAT STUPID DOES

Wow, but are you mentally handicapped? The complete lack of grammar, the fact that trees turn CO2 into O2, not water, the human eye is not only subpar compared to other animals suggesting your god thinks we aren't worth having the best vision, and it's evolutionary stages have been figured out, a long time ago. I am thinking you just might be the actual Forrest Gump based on this one post.

thewordofme wrote:

<quoted text>
Two things you may have been thinking about here. One of the Gospels has an addition at the end that is not original to the piece, and some of the work from a historian has an obviously "added at a later time" addition.
Mark was the Gospel writer, and the work of Josephus I believe was the historian whose work "Antiquities of the Jews" has a passage called the "Testimonium Flavianum" which is widely thought to be non-authentic. "Antiquities" was written somewhere around 90-95 AD and Mark was written somewhere around 35-45 AD
If you are thinking of John of the 4th. Gospel his writings were around 90-95 AD also.
However we don't know who actually wrote the Gospels. The attributed writers are not the actual authors...they are anonymous.

Josephus was right, and I was thinking 2nd century but made the classic mistake of equating the century with wrong actual time frame and posted 200 instead. I'm a bit distracted right now, political and social issue has made me want to start strangling random straight people, or at least the media stains, for not caring about brutal killings of one particular type. No one is safe or free, until even the least of us is both safe and free.

I'm more of a political buff on forums usually, and tried to pull away but some stories just yank me back in.

Attention creatards, want to see why we laugh at you? One simple short vid, though there are a few series spanning several hours worth of time which detail it better, but here, listen to the "elegance" of a creatard "scientist," note Kent Hovind is THE creatard "scientist" and he has no credentials or even schooling to make that claim, then watch the elegance and poetic way a scientist explains one tiny fraction of the science we know:

http://www.youtube.com/watch...

It's pure epicosity.

Atheist evolutionist seem to think life just happened with no purpose or reason. SCPID/SEED/WORK theory explains how all kinds of life work to fill niches in systems of life. Life just doesn't pop up with no purpose.

FREE SERVANT wrote:

Atheist evolutionist seem to think life just happened with no purpose or reason. SCPID/SEED/WORK theory explains how all kinds of life work to fill niches in systems of life. Life just doesn't pop up with no purpose.

Really inaccurate in so many ways.

First, atheism and the theory of evolution are not inclusive.

Second, it's theory of evolution, not "evolutionism." Evolution happens, we didn't make it happen or make it up like religion or creationism.

Second, the "niches" you are likely referring to were created by ... wait for it ... the life, those did not just happen they are a result of what happens when evolution meets the laws of thermodynamics. The system of life is not as delicate as evos make it sound either, it's actually quite robust and capable of surviving through, again ... wait for it ... adaptation, the most powerful driving force of evolution.

Open a science book once in a while, even one from the elementary school you are currently studying at can help you understand these pretty basic concepts. You are really making this too easy now.

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
Even if there is an after life you will not recognize anyone as the after life is not like this life at all. No men and women no relatives, there is a hierarchy based on earth life and man kind will be above Angles in that hierarchy ( only those in heaven of course the human souls in hell will be tormented by Lucifer ).

Umm... Yeah. Sure. Whatever you say there, flash.

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
Technically not accurate, there is evidence of life on one of the moons of ... erm ... forgot which planet now. Though it's weak evidence, it's there. ;) There has also been life found in asteroids. Also, we have extremophiles here on Earth that can withstand almost anything, which are a simple and base life form, though not single celled, and it's been hypothesized that these extremophiles could survive a trip through space for a very long time.
Otherwise though, your point is well made.

Europa. There's no evidence at the moment, but it is possible that life may exist in a subterranean ocean. NASA at somepoint want to send a probe with a drill there to find out. Heck, it's still possible there's small scale life on Mars underground (though perhaps unlikely). Regular traces of methane bubble up from the surface. On Earth it indicates lifeforms such as snotites or insect colonies, but on Mars it could also be due to some unknown geological processes.

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Oh I don't know , I like the hole in my theory compared to your dirt springing to life. Now thats a canyon.

We have to traverse a canyon.

You have to cross a universal boundary.

Literally.

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
You have misunderstood my posting.
I will try and slow it down for you.
God could have populated the whole planet if he chose to do it that way.
I then pointed out the total lack of knowledge of those who I was discussing the 2 people populating the whole planet argument.
I truly wonder if anyone of the anti bible people on this board have even read what they are condemning?

Yes, we have.

But thanks for openly admitting you got zip except for Goddidit with magic. You can now stop pretending you're interested in science.

KittenKoder wrote:

Mr. Nightmare, nothing is random in science, it is only perceived as random by us. Even the mutation of DNA is not truly random, we call it random because it would take a few hundred mircobiologists, chemists, and physicists just to explain the details of such. But in science, nothing is truly random.

Respectfully disagree here. Once effects take place you're mostly correct, but QM is primarily based on probabilities. For instance in radioactive decay, there is no event that triggers one atom over another to go into nuclear decay. We can calculate the percentages of how much of the compound will, but we can't apply it to specific atoms because it's purely random.

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Ah ,you've resorted to the liar,liar pants on fire defense.We both agree life came from non living matter.

Then life came from non-life. Period. Unlucky bo.

bohart wrote:

I believe that a life source had to begin the process

Your beliefs are irrelevant, and run afoul of the infinite regression fallacy.

bohart wrote:

you believe that the dirt came to life on it's own.

Incorrect. The evidence merely shows that life came from non-life, which we have both finally agreed on. Whether or not another lifeform of sorts has yet to be determined. It is possible that it may or that it may not. So far there's no evidence to support it. There is however evidence that demonstrates organic compounds can and do arise naturally without any "intelligent intervention" being necessary. The trick is for biological compounds to form that are capable of self-replication. This is currently under research in numerous places around the world such as Harvard.

bohart wrote:

You call my explanation a miracle

Incorrect. I don't call your claims an "explanation" at all. They provide a "who", not a "how". And does so without evidence. Your claims also require a complete and utter total abandonment of physics in general and science as a whole, making it forever untestable, undemonstrable, unverifiable and therefore non-scientific.

Your claims are nothing more than "magic" did it because you don't understand.

bohart wrote:

while yours hasn't even come close, anyone who's honest on here must admit, there are many theories and hypothesis on how life began without a creator and they all end at the same place , a brick wall of failure.

The fact that biological compounds with life-like elements are observed to form under natural conditions demonstrates abio has got FAR further than you ever have, or will. There are NO theories, only hypotheses, and contrary to your blatantly false claims (lies) they have not failed yet, and indeed are doing quite well by the very fact they are testable, and currently under research. Abio researchers are even open to the possibility that abio MIGHT be impossible, not that you lazy goits could ever take the credit for finding that out. You'll try though.

bohart wrote:

P.S. go ahead Dude and tell me how science has already figured it out.

Since I've never claimed that it's just yet another dishonest straw-man you set yourself up.

It's okay now bo, you can drop the pretense that you give a crud about science.(shrug)

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>In otherwords you took no position. Your claim is that there may be something somewhere out there with some attributes. I don't consider that god or divine so it is a moot argument. Your first cause could be the naturally cause big bang...

That is your problem and therefore your limitation. You may realize just now that what I was talking about by days has nothing to do with your biblical idea of god or divine being, and if you are so stuck to it, I don't see any point to go on in this discussion.

Besides I did not say that what I think god is has some attributes, but rather that it is beyond attributes and non attributes, and I wrote I inventing it since you wanted something.

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>Again then it could just as easily describe natural process, so you have no real point or a divine being, basically so vague as to be anything you want it to be.

The first weird thing I encountered talking with you and other gentlemen of this thread is that none of you made the most logical question. What you mean by the term god? That word can have a lot of meaning, depending from the background, culture and origin of a person. All of you when is about to talk about god, think just to the biblical god.

CTEd wrote:

<quoted text>Why not? In your line of reasoning something had to not have a cause yet in your mind it can not be the big bang.. interesting. What caused your first cause? Why is your first cause exempt from having a cause but the big bang is not?

See, the fact that we are the outcome of an infinite chain of cause and effect makes as sense as the self existence of an ultimate cause, caused by anything. Thus we have two possibilities. Having to possibilities we can think, but it’s only a thought, that that ultimate cause, as I call it originator of everything can be called god. I am not saying it exists, but a person cannot tell no god exists without prove it. And it goes without saying that when I say god I’m not talking about your biblical god, or any other personal one.

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Thank you!, it's officially a battle of the faiths now

Heh, you wish.

Please Stop Pretending that you're interested in science Mr. Dude, who uses magical thinking about what evolution is suppose to do without realistic evidence that it in fact does. There is more evidence of intentionality and purpose behind the framework of the universe and all living organisms than your antiquated and out-dated science-fiction story-lines of Ape-men can demonstrate.

Atheist Trolls and Bloggers are now in a state of Panic as the Talk Origins Website has recently been exposed as a FRAUD Full of Claims - Citation Bluffing - and Lies, but Short on Real Evidence.

http://www.cross.tv/78386

Gorilla Gene Sequencing Casts New Doubt on Human Origin Assumptions
http://cross.tv/81104

Thank you!

Today Darwinism Dies!
http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com

.

The Dude wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes, we have.
But thanks for openly admitting you got zip except for Goddidit with magic. You can now stop pretending you're interested in science.

bohart wrote:

<quoted text>
Yo ticky! life on earth is as much evidence of my theory as yours!Duh, the evidence of life only coming from existing life is on my side.

Um, no it isn't, remember? You just contradicted yourself and gone back to your dishonest caricatures so you can do your Nelson Muntz impressions.

Scientists at work:

http://hulllessons.wikispaces.com/file/view/s...

'Creation scientists' at work:

http://images.wikia.com/simpsons/images/4/40/...

PROFESSOR X wrote:

Please Stop Pretending that you're interested in science Mr. Dude, who uses magical thinking about what evolution is suppose to do without realistic evidence that it in fact does. There is more evidence of intentionality and purpose behind the framework of the universe and all living organisms than your antiquated and out-dated science-fiction story-lines of Ape-men can demonstrate.
Atheist Trolls and Bloggers are now in a state of Panic as the Talk Origins Website has recently been exposed as a FRAUD Full of Claims - Citation Bluffing - and Lies, but Short on Real Evidence.

Hey again fake Prof. Why are you, a known and confirmed liar accusing other people of lying?

PROFESSOR X wrote:

Atheist Trolls and Bloggers

Atheism? Sorry bub, couldn't care less about it. But thanks for demonstrating your alternative "explanation" is nothing to do with science but is actually GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!

Or did you finally come up with the thing that no other creationist on the planet could not?- A "scientific theory" of creationism.

Thought so.

PROFESSOR X wrote:

Today Darwinism Dies!

Sure it does, 150 year old joke. Never gets old for fundies.

Here's to another 150!

:-D

KittenKoder wrote:

<quoted text>
I vote this to be the most idiotic, lame, useless, and uneducated comment in this whole thread.

You haven't seen the rest of his comments yet...

Langoliers wrote:

<quoted text>
You kind of have it. It's really best summed up as the CREATION THEORY. You might have heard of it.
It's all explained in the bible. You might want to read it.

Have. There's no scientific theory in there.

So far no creationist has offered one.

Can you be the first to tell us what it is?