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 1,765)

Showing posts 35,281 - 35,300 of105,982
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36624
Aug 6, 2012
 
Discord wrote:
<quoted text>
Neither the Theory of Evolution nor the Big Bang suggests, asserts or even implies that there is no God.
It flat out does too! It doesn't give glory to the murdering bigot, so therefore, it clearly states that there is no god!

“Licensed to Ill”

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36625
Aug 6, 2012
 
Atlas12a wrote:
This is a reply to everyone
I know evolution is has been proven through nature however it has not been proven that human beings have have evolved from anything yet therefore it is a theory a god of any form has not been proven yet so again a theory maybe not by science but it is still a just a guess I'm not trying to have a bigger dick contest or anything like that I'm just saying what I know or at least think I know if u have anything that says I'm wrong please tell me or post a link
Evolution has been proven:

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

If you understand how DNA and meiosis works, it makes perfect sense as well that it would occur.

The only people who deny it are members of the flat earth society.

Since: Aug 12

Tucson, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36626
Aug 6, 2012
 
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>Evolution has been proven:

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

If you understand how DNA and meiosis works, it makes perfect sense as well that it would occur.

The only people who deny it are members of the flat earth society.
Haha ur flat earth joke made me laugh.

I'm not denying that evolution has been proven through nature that is proven and I have zero argument about it however it hasn't been proven that man has evolved from anything yet. I think it is the most plausible explanation of where human beings came from all I'm saying is that it is still a theory because it hasnt been proven for human beings I'm not trying to get in a heated argument with anybody if I am wrong you can tell me without saying rude comments or poking fun lol I will accept that I'm wrong and tell u that u were correct

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36627
Aug 6, 2012
 
Atlas12a wrote:
<quoted text>
Haha ur flat earth joke made me laugh.
I'm not denying that evolution has been proven through nature that is proven and I have zero argument about it however it hasn't been proven that man has evolved from anything yet. I think it is the most plausible explanation of where human beings came from all I'm saying is that it is still a theory because it hasnt been proven for human beings I'm not trying to get in a heated argument with anybody if I am wrong you can tell me without saying rude comments or poking fun lol I will accept that I'm wrong and tell u that u were correct
On one hand, you say you accepted evolution but, for some reason, think that humans were not a part of it. Please explain why you think human evolution is any different from the rest of evolution.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36628
Aug 6, 2012
 
Atlas12a wrote:
This is a reply to everyone
I know evolution is has been proven
First of all, forget that word "proven". You NEVER get "100% proof" in science. But you CAN demonstrate things beyond all reasonable doubt.
Atlas12a wrote:
through nature however it has not been proven that human beings have have evolved from anything yet
If you accept gravity works then yes, human evolution has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt, scientifically speaking.

The only people who doubt this do so because they think reality isn't real because Goddidit with magic.
Atlas12a wrote:
therefore it is a theory
And that's not a problem. In science, "theory" does NOT mean "wild guess".
Atlas12a wrote:
a god of any form has not been proven yet so again a theory
No, it's not a theory. Calling it a hypothesis would be generous.
Atlas12a wrote:
maybe not by science but it is still a just a guess
And in science a guess is a guess, not a theory. Evolution is a theory, not a guess. A scientific theory is an explanatory model based on facts and evidence which makes testable predictions on real world phenomena. And evolution works, scientifically.

When that happens, it means the likelihood of that concept being true is quite high.
Atlas12a wrote:
I'm not trying to have a bigger dick contest or anything like that I'm just saying what I know or at least think I know if u have anything that says I'm wrong please tell me or post a link
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Evolution works.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36629
Aug 6, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, forget that word "proven". You NEVER get "100% proof" in science. But you CAN demonstrate things beyond all reasonable doubt.
<quoted text>
If you accept gravity works then yes, human evolution has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt, scientifically speaking.
The only people who doubt this do so because they think reality isn't real because Goddidit with magic.
<quoted text>
And that's not a problem. In science, "theory" does NOT mean "wild guess".
<quoted text>
No, it's not a theory. Calling it a hypothesis would be generous.
<quoted text>
And in science a guess is a guess, not a theory. Evolution is a theory, not a guess. A scientific theory is an explanatory model based on facts and evidence which makes testable predictions on real world phenomena. And evolution works, scientifically.
When that happens, it means the likelihood of that concept being true is quite high.
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Evolution works.
Indeed it does look at the vampires, werewolves and zombies.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36630
Aug 6, 2012
 
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>Indeed it does look at the vampires, werewolves and zombies.
Gotchya.

Whenever you have no rational response, you instead reply with your trademark "vampires, werewolves and zombies" bullshit.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36631
Aug 6, 2012
 
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Gotchya.
Whenever you have no rational response, you instead reply with your trademark "vampires, werewolves and zombies" bullshit.
Yeah? Never tried to hide it surprise you're just catching on now. How long have I been doing that running gag?
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36632
Aug 6, 2012
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
I see KJV is still spreading his lies.

Evolution has been observed in many ways, in the laboratory, in the fossil record, in genetics in more way than one. He seems to think that only observations seen with your eyes count for some strange reason, even though seeing with your eyes is only one more way of interpreting data that your body receives.
"One of the classic examples that is often used in biology textbooks to illustrate comparative anatomy is the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, humans, birds, bats, and quadrupeds. In the illustration, it can be seen that all the forelimbs of these six different types of creatures have an upper arm bone (the humerus) and two lower arm bones (the radius and the ulna), although in the case of the bat there is only one bone, called the radio-ulna.

Evolutionists teach that these structures are said to be homologous when they are similar in structure and origin, but not necessarily in function. But notice how subtly the notion of origins is introduced into the definition. The bat’s wing is considered to be homologous to the forelimb of a salamander because it is similar in structure and believed to have the same origin. However, it is not considered to be homologous to the wing of an insect because, even though it has the same function, it is not considered to have the same origin. However, the fact that the two structures are similar does not necessarily mean that they are derived from a common ancestor.

We have to realize that the entire line of reasoning by evolutionists is based upon a single assumption: that the degree of similarity between organisms indicates the degree of supposed relationship of the said organisms. In other words, it is argued that if animals look alike, then they must be closely related (from an evolutionary point of view), and if they do not look very much alike, then they are more distantly related. But this is just an assumption."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/...

Since: Aug 12

Tucson, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36633
Aug 6, 2012
 
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, forget that word "proven". You NEVER get "100% proof" in science. But you CAN demonstrate things beyond all reasonable doubt.
<quoted text>
If you accept gravity works then yes, human evolution has been demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt, scientifically speaking.
The only people who doubt this do so because they think reality isn't real because Goddidit with magic.
<quoted text>
And that's not a problem. In science, "theory" does NOT mean "wild guess".
<quoted text>
No, it's not a theory. Calling it a hypothesis would be generous.
<quoted text>
And in science a guess is a guess, not a theory. Evolution is a theory, not a guess. A scientific theory is an explanatory model based on facts and evidence which makes testable predictions on real world phenomena. And evolution works, scientifically.
When that happens, it means the likelihood of that concept being true is quite high.
<quoted text>
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Evolution works.
thank you for the link it was helpful.
that is true there is never 100% proof. i do agree that evoltion is how human beings came about and i think religion is the soul reason it is not completely accepted.(sorry if i jumparound a lot or dont make sense it is hard for me to put my words into text lol) it is rediculous to believe that some supernatural being created the the earth 6000 yrs ago and put things here that are proven to be hundreds of million yrs old to "test our faith" i think religion (and ignnorance) is the one thing holding back the progression of mankind at its full potental. i also think to say that there is no god is or supernatural being is also kind of ignorant because there is no proof that there is or isnt. i dont mean like a christian god or anything like that, that is the most bogus thing i have ever read and if u do enough research u can see that it is just a belife that branched off of many others and in the years to come it will change even more. i dont believe in any god of any religion or any god for that matter because i have seen zero proof and i refuse to blmae the stuff that hasnt been proven on "god works in mysterious ways" i believe there is always an explaination and one day it will be found, but i cannot bring my self to say that there is no god or some higher being because i have no idea. and thx for not being a complete dick man i am here just to learn not to say who is right and wrong so i respect u for giving me knowledge and not critisism p.s. i was just a grunt in the marine corps man im not a genious lol but i try to learn as much as possible so if i sound like an idiot its the robotism from the corps lol

Since: Aug 12

Tucson, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36634
Aug 6, 2012
 
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
On one hand, you say you accepted evolution but, for some reason, think that humans were not a part of it. Please explain why you think human evolution is any different from the rest of evolution.
i do accept evolution and i do think humans are a part of all i was saying is that the "theoy of human evoltuion" is just that a theory. however the only reason it is just that is because of religion and the believe that a god all of a sudden said something and the universe was there all of a sudden 6000 yrs ago please read my post before this i dont wanna type it all again lol

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36635
Aug 6, 2012
 
Atlas12a wrote:
it hasn't been proven that man has evolved from anything yet. I think it is the most plausible explanation of where human beings came from all I'm saying is that it is still a theory because it hasnt been proven for human beings
What is it that you think a "scientific theory" is?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36636
Aug 6, 2012
 
Atlas12a wrote:
all i was saying is that the "theoy of human evoltuion" is just that a theory.
"just that a theory". As opposed to what?
davy

Albuquerque, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36637
Aug 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

Religion kills brains dead.
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"One of the classic examples that is often used in biology textbooks to illustrate comparative anatomy is the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, humans, birds, bats, and quadrupeds. In the illustration, it can be seen that all the forelimbs of these six different types of creatures have an upper arm bone (the humerus) and two lower arm bones (the radius and the ulna), although in the case of the bat there is only one bone, called the radio-ulna.
Evolutionists teach that these structures are said to be homologous when they are similar in structure and origin, but not necessarily in function. But notice how subtly the notion of origins is introduced into the definition. The bat’s wing is considered to be homologous to the forelimb of a salamander because it is similar in structure and believed to have the same origin. However, it is not considered to be homologous to the wing of an insect because, even though it has the same function, it is not considered to have the same origin. However, the fact that the two structures are similar does not necessarily mean that they are derived from a common ancestor.
We have to realize that the entire line of reasoning by evolutionists is based upon a single assumption: that the degree of similarity between organisms indicates the degree of supposed relationship of the said organisms. In other words, it is argued that if animals look alike, then they must be closely related (from an evolutionary point of view), and if they do not look very much alike, then they are more distantly related. But this is just an assumption."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/...

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36638
Aug 6, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
"One of the classic examples that is often used in biology textbooks to illustrate comparative anatomy is the forelimbs of amphibians, reptiles, humans, birds, bats, and quadrupeds. In the illustration, it can be seen that all the forelimbs of these six different types of creatures have an upper arm bone (the humerus) and two lower arm bones (the radius and the ulna), although in the case of the bat there is only one bone, called the radio-ulna.
Evolutionists teach that these structures are said to be homologous when they are similar in structure and origin, but not necessarily in function. But notice how subtly the notion of origins is introduced into the definition. The bat’s wing is considered to be homologous to the forelimb of a salamander because it is similar in structure and believed to have the same origin. However, it is not considered to be homologous to the wing of an insect because, even though it has the same function, it is not considered to have the same origin. However, the fact that the two structures are similar does not necessarily mean that they are derived from a common ancestor.
We have to realize that the entire line of reasoning by evolutionists is based upon a single assumption: that the degree of similarity between organisms indicates the degree of supposed relationship of the said organisms. In other words, it is argued that if animals look alike, then they must be closely related (from an evolutionary point of view), and if they do not look very much alike, then they are more distantly related. But this is just an assumption."
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/...
You can fool yourself reading that garbage , but it's not fooling us.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36639
Aug 6, 2012
 
Full Civic Literacy Exam (from our 2008 survey)
Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams.

http://www.isi.org/quiz.aspx ...

I don't buy the college educators scored 55%. At least I hope our college level educators are not that bad off.

Since: Aug 12

Tucson, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36640
Aug 6, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
What is it that you think a "scientific theory" is?
fogive me if i sound stupid lol and if i am wrong correct me but a theory is an idea or explanation of something that is still not completely accurate or proven if it was then people would stop trying to prove it again i believe in evolution in my opinion that is how humans came to be as we are now i am just stating what i think i know. again if i am wrong please correct me i am not so stubborn to admit i am wrong.
KJV

Sioux City, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36641
Aug 6, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
Also if KJV demanded the same standards from his bible as he does from science he would be the world's most rabid atheist. All that atheists ask for is some evidence that a god exists. So far there is bupkis.
No! You claim we are nuts for believing in the bible. When you have your science with it's facts.

I'm just pointing out your science as you claim backed with facts is nuts. You're sciences comes up with one screwball idea after another. While there are many good things that do coming out of science one needs to hold some of it's screwball ideas at arms lengths and embrace everything that has a science stamp on it.

Your sciences has to try and come up with anything to try and explain away anything that looks like Gods handy work.

" All that atheists ask for is some evidence that a god exists"

And this kind of statement just shows how dense you really are!

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36642
Aug 6, 2012
 
Atlas12a wrote:
<quoted text>fogive me if i sound stupid lol and if i am wrong correct me but a theory is an idea or explanation of something that is still not completely accurate or proven if it was then people would stop trying to prove it again i believe in evolution in my opinion that is how humans came to be as we are now i am just stating what i think i know. again if i am wrong please correct me i am not so stubborn to admit i am wrong.
Incorrect , in layman's terms the word is used such . But as a scientific determination it is the highest level of explanation citing the truth supported by evidence by a consensus of supporting scientists. It is also openly testable to be falsified but standing unchallenged in this respect. Such is a scientific theory.

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

Since: Aug 12

Tucson, AZ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#36644
Aug 6, 2012
 
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
No! You claim we are nuts for believing in the bible. When you have your science with it's facts.
I'm just pointing out your science as you claim backed with facts is nuts. You're sciences comes up with one screwball idea after another. While there are many good things that do coming out of science one needs to hold some of it's screwball ideas at arms lengths and embrace everything that has a science stamp on it.
Your sciences has to try and come up with anything to try and explain away anything that looks like Gods handy work.
" All that atheists ask for is some evidence that a god exists"
And this kind of statement just shows how dense you really are!
im not saying ur nuts for believing in a god i will never put u down for ur faith u have that it is ur right to practice whatever religion u want and i have scars to prove that i have protected that right and all others that we have but to say that science comes up with "one scewball idea after another" however true it may be all religion is, is one belief that branched from another and another and another and so on

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 35,281 - 35,300 of105,982
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••