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 (Page 1,799)

Showing posts 35,961 - 35,980 of105,870
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37321
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic entropy falsifies evolution. Evolution is impossible because it is a known fact that the genomes of all species are deteriorating with each generation.
Once again, you've got it ass-backwards.

Natural selection selects the fittest members of a species and weeds out the weakest. This is the key principle of evolutio.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37322
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Genetic entropy falsifies evolution. Evolution is impossible because it is a known fact that the genomes of all species are deteriorating with each generation.
Hoo boy.

"Devolution". We REALLY gotta introduce this guy to "Shoob".

Yeah, the human genome is deteriorating.

Which is why we have a longer average life span now than at any time in recorded history (no, people in Genesis did NOT live 900+ years), and why the planet has 7 BILLION people on it, and growing.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37323
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Biological altruism.
Easily explained by evolution: evolution depends upon species survival. Communities are a survival advantage. You can even test this if you like:

Go out and kick the crapp of everyone you find. Then see what happens. What do you think will happen to the chances of your survival?

Or were you seriously gonna turn around and tell us "Science can't explain X therefore GODDIDIT WITH MAGIC!" ?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37324
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
How about the "trick" of getting from amino acids to RNA? A minor detail?
Phosphodiester bonds.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37325
Aug 11, 2012
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Talk about lies? a reasonable assumption based on the history of science? you are either uninformed , lying or stupid, and I don't believe you are stupid. When it comes to life, science is rock solid, life has only been proven to come from existing life.Never in any setting has this been disproven, yet you go against the science and believe in abiogenesis. As I said,there is zero evidence so you can't claim any scientific basis for your belief.It is your world view, a predetermined bias of what you want, not what science says about the subject of life.Abiogenesis is a belief, based on assumptions ,backed by hope.
Actually life has ALWAYS been the product of naturally occurring chemical processes. Then you go against science then claim that abiogenesis is a special case and for some reason life CAN'T come from naturally occurring chemical processes.

Because Goddidit with magic cuz teh Bible iz troo cuz teh Bible sez so.

Oh, and then to ADD to your rampant hypocrisy, we can then point out that everything in your body is made of material that was NOT living during the years prior to your conception, that your "scientific alternative" (Goddidit with magic) ALSO requires a lifeform which did NOT come from pre-existing life, and ALSO allegedly made the first life on Earth NOT due to natural biological reproduction, but via ARTIFICIAL means.

Bohart thy name is big fat frakking hypocrite.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37326
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent design is the only scientifically proven force in the universe capable of creating complexity from randomness.
More baseless claims. Where's the proof? Point to it.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37327
Aug 11, 2012
 
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh! you have got to be kidding, you don't have an absolute must have conclusion? You and your ilk know life arose through natural forces, why? life is here and it couldn't have happened any other way.
Let's step outside the discussion and look at it a different way. Let's assume for a moment that life had a supernatural origin, that God was directly responsible for the creation of life. So far, all aspects of life and biology have had mechanistic and naturalistic components. For example, you might believe that humans have a soul, and that soul exists outside the scope of science. All well and good, but humans also have a body which can be measured and quantified, so exists within the scope of science. Science only cares about that part, so that is the part we look at, and leave it to Theologists and Philosophers to discuss the soul.

So now we have this mystery of the origin of life. Even if every single human being on Earth believed that God was responsible, we would STILL be investigating Abiogenesis in order to examine the mechanistic and naturalistic properties of that process. Just like we study the naturalistic properties of the human body in studies like medicine.

Saying God did it is not the end of the investigation.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37328
Aug 11, 2012
 

Judged:

1

MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
More baseless claims. Where's the proof? Point to it.
The empty tomb?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37329
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Intelligent design is the only scientifically proven force in the universe capable of creating complexity from randomness. The existence of the inconceivable complexity leads to a scientifically logical conclusion that intelligence created it. That conclusion is based on scientific observation.
You, however, choose to discard observation and imagine that worm can evolve into a man or a whale or a giraffe.
Intelligent Design in the context you speak of has never been scientifically demonstrated. Your usage of the term "inconceivable" is merely an expression of your incredulity. There are no scientific observations of ID. I know this because every time I ask you guys I never get any.

The only design work which can be demonstrated is from Earth-bound biological organisms - humans building computers, birds building nests, beavers building dams, etc etc.

But whenever I ask for a demonstration of your enigmatic designer doing a single goddamm thing I get total zip.

Why is that?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37330
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one who believes it happened.
I'm not stupid enough to believe your made up crap.
HTS wrote:
Apparently you're afraid to defend what you believe... That man evolved from a worm.
Afraid? Of the uneducated? Hardly.
HTS wrote:
If you believe that, then you must believe that in billions of years man could selectively breed another human population from worms.
I just said I don't believe that. Got anything intelligent to say or just repeating what Rev Billy Bob told you?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37331
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>What you're saying is not science... It is pure speculation. And the suggestion that we're over half way to life is absurd beyond words.
No, intelligent design is pure speculation. Prove me wrong.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37332
Aug 11, 2012
 
However for the sake of honesty I will allow HTS (or any of his other fundie compatriots for that matter) the opportunity to demonstrate me wrong and show us the "science" of ID.

(ahem)

What exactly IS the "scientific theory" of ID? Who or what is the designer and how can we tell? What mechanism did it use to do whatever it is you think it did and how can we tell? How is "design" measured? How is CSI (Complex Specified Information) quantified? When and where did it do whatever it is you think it did and how can we tell? What observations can be made in regards to ID? Why is this (potentially all-powerful universe-creating) designer apparently incapable of evolution and how were these limits determined scientifically? What useful scientific predictions does ID make? How can it be tested? How can it be falsified?

Thanks in advance for not answering any of my questions.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37333
Aug 11, 2012
 
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
.
Saying God did it is not the end of the investigation.
Yet you think that by saying "evolution did it" you've provided a scientific explanation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37334
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You go to a great deal of effort to declare that abiogenesis is a viable theory without providing any evidence to back up such a claim. You simply state there's lots of evidence... Evolutionists would have far more credibility if they were capable of acknowledging their ignorance.
No, I specifically stated that abiogenesis was a scientific **hypothesis** with evidence. And that evolution is a scientific **theory** with lots of evidence.

I have already presented evidence for evolution. And can present even more. Still waiting for you to deal with what has already been presented though. For some reason you keep moving back to abiogenesis as if that was relevant. I've already explained numerous times over why it's not, and rather than address that you merely repetitiously insist that it is. However until you start addressing stuff the arguments still stand.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37335
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'll tell you what's pure BS... Off-the-wall statements like "evolution does not rely on randomness". What's your point? You acknowledged that intelligence is the only observed force that can create complexity... Then you throw in irrelevant statements and think you're making a point?
Intelligence is not the only thing that can create complexity - storms, erosion, mutation - you can of course claim that there is really an intelligent mechanism at work in each of these cases, but then we will be asking you to back it up.

You won't.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37336
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You're the one who believes it happened. Apparently you're afraid to defend what you believe... That man evolved from a worm. If you believe that, then you must believe that in billions of years man could selectively breed another human population from worms.
Is that what we believe or is that the caricature you use so you can sleep better at night?

It's okay, everyone already knows.
HTS

Williston, ND

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37337
Aug 11, 2012
 
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Let's step outside the discussion and look at it a different way. Let's assume for a moment that life had a supernatural origin, that God was directly responsible for the creation of life. So far, all aspects of life and biology have had mechanistic and naturalistic components. For example, you might believe that humans have a soul, and that soul exists outside the scope of science. All well and good, but humans also have a body which can be measured and quantified, so exists within the scope of science. Science only cares about that part, so that is the part we look at, and leave it to Theologists and Philosophers to discuss the soul.
So now we have this mystery of the origin of life. Even if every single human being on Earth believed that God was responsible, we would STILL be investigating Abiogenesis in order to examine the mechanistic and naturalistic properties of that process. Just like we study the naturalistic properties of the human body in studies like medicine.
Saying God did it is not the end of the investigation.
Evolutionists don't defer unknowns to others... They assume that if can't be explained by naturalism, it doesn't exist.
Example: genetic determinism. Evolutionists assumed that DNA defined everything in man. Thus, they predicted that man had around 140,000 genes. They did not consider the possibility that man's behavior and intelligence might be defined by more than DNA.
The human genome project demonstrated that the conventional Darwinian wisdom was dead wrong. Genetic determinism is dead... Yet another failed prediction of Darwinism.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37338
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't know what biological altruism is.
If is a complexity of one species that benefits another but not itself.
There are many examples of this in nature.
Charles Darwin wrote repeatedly that the documentation of biological altruism between species would be fatal to evolutionary theory...
"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
Well if you keep on bringing up stuff that was written over 150 years ago you won't have heard of things like parallel evolution.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37339
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet you think that by saying "evolution did it" you've provided a scientific explanation.
Sorry, you must have missed the rest of the post, here it is in its entirety if you would like to reply to what I was actually talking about:

Let's step outside the discussion and look at it a different way. Let's assume for a moment that life had a supernatural origin, that God was directly responsible for the creation of life. So far, all aspects of life and biology have had mechanistic and naturalistic components. For example, you might believe that humans have a soul, and that soul exists outside the scope of science. All well and good, but humans also have a body which can be measured and quantified, so exists within the scope of science. Science only cares about that part, so that is the part we look at, and leave it to Theologists and Philosophers to discuss the soul.

So now we have this mystery of the origin of life. Even if every single human being on Earth believed that God was responsible, we would STILL be investigating Abiogenesis in order to examine the mechanistic and naturalistic properties of that process. Just like we study the naturalistic properties of the human body in studies like medicine.

Saying God did it is not the end of the investigation.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#37340
Aug 11, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you can't "show" anything. You can contrive stories of how you think it happened. Ou think man evolved from a worm? Show me one tiny step in the process that has been scientifically proven.
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
HTS wrote:
I'm not citing caricatures... You think man evolved from a worm. Face up to your religious beliefs rather than insult the religions of others.
Of course you're citing caricatures. I can even demonstrate that you are by showing that the biological classifications of worms and humans are quite different:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worm#Classificat...

And of course anyone who knows anything about evolution would not be asking us to demonstrate gross violations of nested hierarchies as evidence FOR evolution, as that would be a contradiction in terms.

You will also note that I did not insult your religion or any other in that post.

So again, why is it you people ALWAYS have to resort to dishonesty?

Don't worry, we'll answer it for you - it is an unavoidable consequence of being anti-reality.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 35,961 - 35,980 of105,870
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••