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 1,928)

Showing posts 38,541 - 38,560 of105,880
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39963
Aug 22, 2012
 
Benjamin Frankly wrote:
<quoted text>
you didn't say Same sex couples at first
You noticed that too, did you? Charles isn't very honest about his claims. He changes them without admitting to it, when he is caught in an error.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39964
Aug 22, 2012
 
Malakai wrote:
<quoted text>
These are your quotes Ted.
"you are mis-stating what I said."
"Do you offer any real support that we are not 'Apes'?"
So I offered this:
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Study_Man_d...
"Study: Man did not evolve from apes
disclaimer: image is for illustration purposes only
by Staff Writers
Kent, Ohio (UPI) Oct 1, 2009
A U.S. biological anthropologist says he's determined humans did not evolve from apes, but, rather, apes evolved from humans.
Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, who specializes in the study of human origins, said his findings came from a study of Ardipithecus ramidus, a hominid species that lived 4.4 million years ago in what now is Ethiopia.
"People often think we evolved from apes, but no, apes in many ways evolved from us," Lovejoy said. "It has been a popular idea to think humans are modified chimpanzees. From studying Ardipithecus ramidus, or 'Ardi'(a partial female skeleton) we learn that we cannot understand or model human evolution from chimps and gorillas."
Ardi is "not a chimp," paleoanthropologist Tim White of the University of California-Berkeley, told the San Jose Mercury News. "It shows us what we used to be. It bridges a gap."
Until Ardi was discovered, the earliest specimen of human evolutions was Australopithecus, a bipedal "ape man" that lived 1-4 million years ago, the newspaper said, noting the most famous member of the genus was the 3.2 million-year-old skeleton nicknamed "Lucy" that was found in 1974.
Ardi, White said, is older and more primitive than Lucy, belonging to a new type of early hominid that was neither chimpanzee nor fully human.
Lovejoy, White and other scientists present their research in a special Oct. 2 issue of the journal Science."
What you are doing is called Quote-Mining, and not doing a very good job.

Once more, with feeling. No one says we evolved from Chimpanzees anymore, we and Chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. Nothing in Lovejoy's or Whites publically available writings contradicts that. Do you bother to research source material at all?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39965
Aug 22, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong!
Homosexuals( gay and lesbians) can never reproduce, never!
There are some serious problems with your assertion. My father, yes my genetic father, is gay. They can, and often do, reproduce before coming out. Then there's the fact that genetics doesn't work just through inheritance, every offspring has hundreds of mutations in the genome, then there is also the matter of the genome changing throughout your life. So your point is pointless.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39966
Aug 22, 2012
 
Malakai wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution is a science based theory, science is suppose to deals in facts.
God deals with faith.
There for science needs to provide proof for its claims.
Where faith does not deal with provible facts. So no need to ask for facts.
Fact -- geographically diverse biodiversity
Fact -- fossils, most of which are for organisms that no longer exist
Fact -- Comparative anatomy similarities between diparate species
Fact -- population allele frequency changes
Fact -- Genetic relationships

... Need more? the Theory of Evolution, like all scientific theories, explains facts. That's the relationship.

All scientific theories explain facts. The Theory of Gravity explains why masses attract -- something we commonly refer to as a gravity. Fact explained by a Theory

The Germ Theory explains disease transference, Theory explaining a fact.

The Atomic Theory, Light Theory,... all science is composed of explanations of facts, we call these explanations Scientific Theories. It's not a tough idea, usually taught about the 5th grade. In Science, a theory is not just an idea, but a well supported explanation of facts and observable phenomena. Something occurs (fact), the question of why or how something occured is answered by the theory.
bohart

Morristown, TN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39967
Aug 22, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text> NDT does not predict homologous structures being created by no homologous genes. Sir Gavin De Beer, a highly respected British embryologist, has done extensive research in prenatal development and has documented that homologous structures are frequently produced in the developing embryo by non-homologous genes. For example, the lenses of the eyes in two closely related species of frogs are proven to arise from two separate embryologic structures. No one would argue that these two lenses are not homologous. Yet they are produced by different genes and therefore are not genetically related. Many other examples were cited through his research. He expressed his conclusions in his book Homology: An Unsolved Problem, as follows,
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find 'homologous' genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."
*de Beer, Sir Gavin, Homology, An Unsolved Problem, Oxford University Press,(1971).
In 1971 Gavin De Beer wrote "What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs ,the same patterns, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938 and is has not been answered" Today ,more than 70 years later ,it still hasn't been answered.

This has been a controversy ever since, Darwinists cannot answer yet claim it to be true,critics say it is circular reasoning.As Ronald Brady who wrote about it said:...."By making our explanation into the definition of the condition to be explained,we express not scientific hypothesis but belief.We are so convinced that our explanation is true that we no longer see any need to distinguish it from the situation we were trying to explain. Dogmatic endeavors of this kind must eventually leave the realm of science"

Nothing like a warm belief for the evolutionist, is there.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39968
Aug 22, 2012
 
Malakai wrote:
<quoted text>
There's no sharp dividing line between life and non-living?
How could there be self replicating molecules that weren't alive?
I really can't get my hands around that.
Crystals is one example, there are many others in nature. There are also others that have been developed that not only consume raw materials and replicate themselves, but there have been lab experiments where non-living molecules evolved the ability to consume different, yet available, raw materials.

Interesting stuff.

The challenge here is what exactly is the definition of 'alive'? If it is simply 'self-replication', then there are many things that would be considered 'alive' that are not considered alive today.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39969
Aug 22, 2012
 
Malakai wrote:
<quoted text>
I am posting a few paragraph of a article
from-
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Study_Man_d...
That has Kent State University Professor C. Owen Lovejoy, and Tim White of the University of California-Berkeley in it making this claim.
This was for Ted who asked for support that we are not apes.
I did not use the term 'missing link', you do understand that, right?
The article cites a couple of other studies that DO NOT contradict the point that we are apes. You really need to dig a touch deeper.
HTS

Sidney, MT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39970
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Fact -- geographically diverse biodiversity
Fact -- fossils, most of which are for organisms that no longer exist
Fact -- Comparative anatomy similarities between diparate species
Fact -- population allele frequency changes
Fact -- Genetic relationships
.
Ted, none of those "facts" are evidentiary of evolution. The "mountans of evidence" fo evolution xists only in the mind of man. Stop making ridiculous comparisons... Like comparing NDT to the theory of gravity.
HTS

Sidney, MT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39971
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Crystals is one example, there are many others in nature. There are also others that have been developed that not only consume raw materials and replicate themselves, but there have been lab experiments where non-living molecules evolved the ability to consume different, yet available, raw materials.
Interesting stuff.
The challenge here is what exactly is the definition of 'alive'? If it is simply 'self-replication', then there are many things that would be considered 'alive' that are not considered alive today.
You're really grasping at straws... Comparing crystals to autonomous single cell life. What is your point? Do you think crystals evolved into life?

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39972
Aug 22, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Humans are living organisms, just like all other living organisms.
Humans are animals, just like all other animals.
Humans are chordates, just like all other chordates.
Humans are synapsids, just like all other synapsids.
Humans are primates, just like all other primates.
Humans are hominids, just like all other hominids.
Humans are hominins, just like all other hominins.
Humans,*like all other living species*, are unique.
So you can get over yourself as a human being. Because you share all of those traits with your distant cousins.
Irony!
Humans remain the dominants to date...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39973
Aug 22, 2012
 
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong!
Homosexuals( gay and lesbians) can never reproduce, never!
Ted Haggard has five children.
HTS

Sidney, MT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39974
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

1

bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
In 1971 Gavin De Beer wrote "What mechanism can it be that results in the production of homologous organs ,the same patterns, in spite of their not being controlled by the same genes? I asked this question in 1938 and is has not been answered" Today ,more than 70 years later ,it still hasn't been answered.
This has been a controversy ever since, Darwinists cannot answer yet claim it to be true,critics say it is circular reasoning.As Ronald Brady who wrote about it said:...."By making our explanation into the definition of the condition to be explained,we express not scientific hypothesis but belief.We are so convinced that our explanation is true that we no longer see any need to distinguish it from the situation we were trying to explain. Dogmatic endeavors of this kind must eventually leave the realm of science"
Nothing like a warm belief for the evolutionist, is there.
Interesting post.
It's amazing that evolutionists continue to harp on homology, when science has proven that, at least in many cases, homology is inconsistent with common descent.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39975
Aug 22, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Abiogensis requires faith. The "science" behind it rests on faith and evolutiondidit with magic.
Liar

Abiogenesis is an area of study of how life began on Earth. Evolution came after life started reproducing. This isn't a chicken-egg argument, life had to already exist to evolve. How many times must this be pointed out to you?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39976
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

1

1

EIGHTTWENTYTWO wrote:
<quoted text>If I had a hypothesis
We still don't care Mikey.
FREE SERVANT

Bellevue, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39977
Aug 22, 2012
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
SCP concept?
If you are talking about testing the vehicle I proposed you are being rather vague. There is a much simpler way, and there is a clue in the paragraph with the question.
Was the clue I gave you concerning your vehicle with sails still too vague. Great amounts of forced air can be produced from water weight which can be supplied from a siphon.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39978
Aug 22, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution is philosophy-based. The "mountains of evidence" that you imagine exist consist solely of metaphysical evidence primarily centered around perceived disproof of intelligent design. As this thread has amply demonstrated, none of the fundamental tenets of NDT can be logically argued without references to religion.
Funny, you haven't managed to come up wiht a single piece of evidence that contradicts evolution. The best you have been able to do is point to non-evolution concepts and claim that they contradict evolution. It's like saying June is a summer month, therefore SHakespear didn't write any of his plays! Bad form!

We are also still waiting for you to offer a single piece of scientific support for your many comments.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39979
Aug 22, 2012
 
JBH wrote:
What has Obama done?
Why do you hate kittens?

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39980
Aug 22, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
You're saying that you have no chromosome 2 in your DNA? Seriously?
<quoted text>
Was that a "yes" or a "no" to my question?
You can never put words into my mouth, your positions are baseless. No cells, no evolutions...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39981
Aug 22, 2012
 
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>You're the one moving the goalposts. You brought up homology, and I debunked your argument. Homology is an interesting observation, but it is inconsistent with NDT for the obvious reasons that I've pointed out and that you have chosen in your cowardice to ignore.
In that case you should have no problem pointing to the post that refutes it. But since it doesn't exist we both know you won't. In fact there's no post you've actually "refuted" with anything else other than "OH NO IT ISN'T!"

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#39982
Aug 22, 2012
 
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Do asexually reproducing species reproduce on their own? Yes or no?
This questions have been answered before. Humans can never reproduce asexually...

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 38,541 - 38,560 of105,880
|
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.

•••
•••
•••
•••