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
43,961 - 43,980 of 114,619 Comments Last updated 2 hrs ago
HTS

Englewood, CO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45796
Sep 14, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, because they were busted on the face of them. And it not only don't evolutionists believe in "absolute complexity" neither do creationists. They cannot come up with a working definition of complexity, absolute or not. And DNA works more like a recipe than a code. It tells RNA polymerase what chemical to add to a protein and when. That sounds more like a recipe than a code to me. And your claim of randomness is wrong and has shown to be wrong. Random events that are under the control of physical laws do not provide random results. That is a mistake that only the simple minded make.
You have a willingness not to learn from your mistakes. As a result you will keep making the same ones time after time.
Try to learn the theory of evolution one element at a time. Ask when you think you have a part of it right before going on.
If you will acknowledge that complexity exists and give me your definition of complexity, I will proceed to demonstrate how evolution fails every probability challenge. So far all you have done is create smokescreens.
Elohim

Branford, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45797
Sep 14, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you will acknowledge that complexity exists and give me your definition of complexity, I will proceed to demonstrate how evolution fails every probability challenge. So far all you have done is create smokescreens.
More projection and nonsense from a radical anti-science, anti-intellectual fundie creationismist.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45798
Sep 14, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you will acknowledge that complexity exists and give me your definition of complexity, I will proceed to demonstrate how evolution fails every probability challenge. So far all you have done is create smokescreens.
Creation fails every challenge....Evolution has tons of proof./.....SORRY RELIGION FAILS AND HAS LOST MANY MANY TIMES......Bye you can leave now.
Monkey's Paw

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45801
Sep 14, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Nothing to offer!!!
We tend to call that "Babble"
Monkey's Paw

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45802
Sep 14, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>You gave nothing...
Prof. Albright was an atheist, before his findings convinced him . Period
Charles

Subpar is a liar and can't be trusted.
Nothing he types can no longer (not that they could before) be trusted.

Use a lot of SALT when reading his junk.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45803
Sep 14, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you will acknowledge that complexity exists and give me your definition of complexity, I will proceed to demonstrate how evolution fails every probability challenge. So far all you have done is create smokescreens.
Sure, of course I will define "complexity",but then you have to define "muggins" first. And remember that properly defined "muggins" proves evolution.

That by the way is "Creationist Logic".

I already told you if you want to use a term, especially an undefined term it is up to you to define the term and then defend that definition. We aren't about to do your homework for you any more than you would do our homework for us.

In reality I don't expect you to define the word "muggins" so that it proves the theory of evolution. Why would I give you a faulty definition of "complexity" so that you could supposedly debunk evolution?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Seattle, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45804
Sep 14, 2012
 
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
Charles
Subpar is a liar and can't be trusted.
Nothing he types can no longer (not that they could before) be trusted.
Use a lot of SALT when reading his junk.[/QUOTE]

Monkey's Ass, I am calling you out. I doubt if you can find anywhere that I lied in this forum. I will give you a reasonable amount of time to back up this claim of lies with quotes and page numbers. If you can't I will be bookmarking this page and bring it up every time that you post as a lie on your part.
Monkey's Paw

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45805
Sep 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

MAAT wrote:
pg 2213
Thomas Robertson

The next issue is whether jesus was god.
Or just a prophet or rabbi.
.
"Divine Messiah predicted in the Old Testament
Isaiah 7:14:“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”1

“Immanuel” literally means:“God with us.” See also Matthew 1:23; Jesus was “God with us.”

This Messiah would be born a human son, but have a higher nature
Isaiah 9:6:“For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.”

This was a radical statement coming from a monotheistic Jewish prophet -- especially calling a human being “Mighty God”; but one that God fulfilled centuries later in Christ.

A couple hundred years later, but still more than half a millennium before Jesus walked the earth, more was predicted about the Messiah’s divine nature
Daniel 7:13-14:“There before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven ... He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

“Son of Man” was the primary title Jesus used for Himself -- and this passage shows that this was a clear and strong claim of deity. And in Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, He also included the unmistakable phrase,“coming on the clouds of heaven” and applied it to Himself (Mark 14:62). His listeners got the point, refused to believe it, and added it to their reasons to try to kill Him."

http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-is-g...
Monkey's Paw

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45806
Sep 14, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Dang it. That should have read "And not only evolutionists don't believe..

I gots a little bit excited:^p
You'll please note Christians let these slid because we do it and there is nothing to gain by it. Atheist would never let that slid.
Monkey's Paw

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45807
Sep 14, 2012
 
ToManyLaws wrote:
Creationist say evolution cant work because something cant come out of nothing. Yet they think some god has always been and was able to poof everything into being out of nothing.....

JUST INSANE.
You a missing one Key point.

Evolutionist traced back to the first life form believe that fist life form started life on it own from non living matter. How could it know how to do it or if it really wanted to try.

Christians believe in a God outside of our universe that he created for us. Thus he is not bound by the laws of physics (that he created).

Your question points to the assumption that you can't grasp what that means.
No time where God is.
No gravity
No mass

So did God alway exist?
In time as we know it yes bit outside of our little universes who knows.

“Waytogo”

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45808
Sep 14, 2012
 
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
You a missing one Key point.
Evolutionist traced back to the first life form believe that fist life form started life on it own from non living matter. How could it know how to do it or if it really wanted to try.
Christians believe in a God outside of our universe that he created for us. Thus he is not bound by the laws of physics (that he created).
Your question points to the assumption that you can't grasp what that means.
No time where God is.
No gravity
No mass
So did God alway exist?
In time as we know it yes bit outside of our little universes who knows.[/QUOTE]

Insane.......... Get help fast....LOL....There is no god...if there was people would see him...Funny how only for a short time did a group of insane desert dwellers see him...OUT IN SUN MUCH??? LOL
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45809
Sep 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You fail to see the magnitude of failure the junk DNA hypothesis was. The entire edicife of evolution was propped up for two decades by the perceived worthlessness of 98% of the genome. It was also used in the attempt to diffuse probability challenges to evolution. This is not a minor detail...This totally derails the evolutionary hypothesis.
Oh, please. You "fundamentalshit christian creotards" have been saying this for the past 150 years. Every time some new information, data, research, empirical evidence comes to light that YOU don't think fits, and which you "funadamentalshit christian creotards" HAVE NEVER BEEN A PART OF DISCOVERING, you claim that the ToE is falsified.

The Theory of evolution is still going strong and your "creation science" is the laughing stock of the entire world.

BTW the probability that evolution can form all of the species we see on planet Earth today is exactly 1:1.

Evolution is a FACT. Evolution HAPPENS. The Theory of Evolution is the scientific framework we humans use to understand the FACT and PROCESS of evolution. There is NO other explanation for the diversity of life we see on planet Earth, past and present.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45810
Sep 14, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
"Divine Messiah predicted in the Old Testament
Isaiah 7:14:&#8364;&#339;The refore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.&#8364;&#655 33;1
&#8364;&#339;Immanuel &#8364;&#65533; literally means:&#8364;&#339;Go d with us.&#8364;&#65533; See also Matthew 1:23; Jesus was &#8364;&#339;God with us.&#8364;&#65533;
This Messiah would be born a human son, but have a higher nature
Isaiah 9:6:&#8364;&#339;For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And He will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.&#8364;&#65533;
This was a radical statement coming from a monotheistic Jewish prophet -- especially calling a human being &#8364;&#339;Mighty God&#8364;&#65533;; but one that God fulfilled centuries later in Christ.
A couple hundred years later, but still more than half a millennium before Jesus walked the earth, more was predicted about the Messiah&#8364;&#8482; s divine nature
Daniel 7:13-14:&#8364;&#339; There before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven ... He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.&#8364;&#65 533;
&#8364;&#339;Son of Man&#8364;&#65533; was the primary title Jesus used for Himself -- and this passage shows that this was a clear and strong claim of deity. And in Mark, the earliest of the four Gospels, He also included the unmistakable phrase,&#8364;&#339;c oming on the clouds of heaven&#8364;&#65533; and applied it to Himself (Mark 14:62). His listeners got the point, refused to believe it, and added it to their reasons to try to kill Him."
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/jesus-is-g... [/QUOTE] May God bless you for your truthfulness.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45811
Sep 14, 2012
 
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
You a missing one Key point.
Evolutionist traced back to the first life form believe that fist life form started life on it own from non living matter. How could it know how to do it or if it really wanted to try.[/QUOTE]

REALLY stupid argument.

How does a meteor "know" to fall to the Earth to the EXACT spot where it hits?

How does the Sun "know" how to burn hydrogen into helium so that we get sunlight here on Earth?

How does one oxygen atom "know" to combine with two hydrogen atoms to form a water molecule?

How does a spiral galaxy "know" to spin in a particular way so that it has those cool galactic arms?

How does a self replicating prion protein "know" to reproduce so that it kills you?

Just because YOU don't understand physics and chemistry does NOT mean that "goddidit with magic".
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45812
Sep 14, 2012
 
[QUOTE who="Monkey's Paw"]<quoted text>
Charles
Subpar is a liar and can't be trusted.[/QUOTE]

Anyone who has ever dealt with "fundamentalshit christian creotards" KNOWS who the liars are.

Heck, you can't help yourselves.

You HAVE to LIE. Mostly to yourselves.

When you tie your entire world view and the fate of your "eternal soul" to the "literal and inerrant" veracity of a collection of bronze age, goat herder myths, fables and fairy tales, as you "fundamentalshit christian creotards" do, then you HAVE to lie about REALITY in order to maintain that belief.

If your collection of bronze age myths, fables and fairy tales implies that the universe is only 6000 years old, but ALL the empirical evidence from cosmology, astronomy, physics and geology indicate that the Cosmos is ~14 billion years old and that the Earth is ~4.5 billion years old ... then you HAVE to lie about the speed of light, and radiometric decay rates, and polystrate fossils, and cosmology, and physics, and geology, and chemistry, etc..

If your collection of bronze age myths, fables and fairy tales says that the first man was conjured up out of a pile of dirt and the first woman magically formed from a rib taken out of the first man, but ALL of the logic, reason, research, empirical evidence and sound science leads to the conclusion that humans evolved from primate ancestors ... then you HAVE to lie about the fossil evidence, and the genetic evidence, and the anthropological evidence, etc..

If lying about Tiktaalik roseae and Archaeopteryx and Australopithecus afarensis and other transitional fossils means that you get to continue believing that you are special, that you are chosen, that your life has Cosmic meaning, that there is a loving "father" ready to take care of you for eternity "on the other side", then so be it. Lie your fool "creationshit" head off.

And that commandment about lying that was so dramatically written on some stone tablets ... well, forget about that because that's mostly for the non-"fundamentalist christians" who are going to Hell anyways.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45813
Sep 14, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
I've already posted probability challenges and they are always ignored. Evolutionists don't believe in any absolute complexity. TEd incessantly challenges me to define complexity, while he refuses to do so. They think that DNA is a recipe, not a code. They think a random deck of cards is equally as complex as DNA. They think a biochemistry textbook is fundamentally no different than a random selection of letters. I can't argue with people who embrace such perverted logic.

Since you are arguing against science a rational person my question their OWN "logic". But I see that you don't

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45814
Sep 14, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>If you will acknowledge that complexity exists and give me your definition of complexity, I will proceed to demonstrate how evolution fails every probability challenge. So far all you have done is create smokescreens.

"complexity" is a human concept and thus is something projected outward. It is a relative conceptualization. It is not a data and is not supported by anything but a human opinion as to what is "complex".

Complex is to non-complex as more is to less.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45815
Sep 14, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>evolution is not "science". Science has proven evolution false. evolutiondidit with magic is not a valid argument.
Admit it you messed up when you clicked on the "post comment " button.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45816
Sep 14, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>evolution is not "science". Science has proven evolution false. evolutiondidit with magic is not a valid argument.

This is just delusional. Evolution is, as I have informed you, the most materially supported theory in the entire history of science.

It is supported by uncounted lines of evidence.
It is supported by nearly every biological scientist in the world.
It is supported by countless fields of science, each with different lines of evidence.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45817
Sep 14, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You fail to see the magnitude of failure the junk DNA hypothesis was. The entire edicife of evolution was propped up for two decades by the perceived worthlessness of 98% of the genome. It was also used in the attempt to diffuse probability challenges to evolution. This is not a minor detail...This totally derails the evolutionary hypothesis.

As I pointed out to you, this is simply a lie. It indicates you have had no formal exposure to science nor the scientific method.

Probability is not applicable to what has already happened. The probability that a past event happened is always 100%

This is two semesters of graduate level prob & stats talking.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••