Evolution vs. Creation

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008. Full Story
wolverine

Greeley, CO

#37761 Aug 13, 2012
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Is this...
" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christia... ;
...what you were thinking of?
Thats Quite An Impressive List....Too Bad It Stops At 1954

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#37762 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
"In this writing here I cannot, nor do I have the time to present detailed proof all of the claims I will make."

Pfftt.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#37763 Aug 13, 2012
wolverine wrote:
<quoted text>
Thats Quite An Impressive List....Too Bad It Stops At 1954
1954 was the year Larry Wall was born.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#37764 Aug 13, 2012
Did you that evolution shows DNA for vampires, werewolves & zombies?
RU CRS

Bellevue, WA

#37765 Aug 13, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey quick question.
Just where do you uneducated masses crawl out of?
I am just one guy who comes here to have a little interesting conversation with some interesting people, I'm not sure if the masses even ever think as I do. The topic is Evolution vs Creation and I am giving my view points.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#37766 Aug 13, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not denying any truths. There are none in this case to deny. The tens of thousands, or even tens of millions, of little bits of evidence is still subject to INTERPRETATION. The evidence does not support anyone in this case.
More primitive being? Primitive, my friend, is relative. I want to know the truth, too. But no one has it yet when to comes to the origin of life. The universe is a very mysterious place, and the more we learn, the more mysterious, and LARGER, it gets.
I think you are overstating the point. Interpretation, sort of, but you make it sound like any interpretation is some form of unsupported guesswork.

All science starts with data, facts. For example fossils. You can argue fossil interpretation, but you cannot argue the existance of fossils themselves. Now many of the fossils we have found are for creatures that no longer live among us. That starts us thinking not only where did they come from, but why did they die off? How did the fossils form, which are different than just bones dug up. Fossils gave us a bunch of questions and slowly over-time, we formed answers, not guesses, but answers that addressed the evidnece of the fossils themselves.

Part of the questions involved the formation of fossils. We now have a great deal of data on fossil formation, how long it takes to form and under what conditions. We experiment and test pieces to form that data. To call it an interpretation seriously underestimates the process.

This is a short example, but it gets the point. Theories are not formed based on unsupported guesses. It's the level and detail of support that makes or breaks a theory, or even part of a theory. There is a hell of a lot that goes into it, including the shredding of ideas by other experts in the field. You want to see a cut-throat competition, you should see what happens when a scientists puts forth an idea without having done the homework to support it. It makes olympic cometitions loook like tea-parties, the childish variety!

In all honestly what you are saying is that you don't believe in the evidence supporting scinetific theories for no other reason than you don't believe it. That's an argument called 'argument from incredulity', which means if you personally do not believe soemthing, it cannot possibly be true. It's one of the many forms of logical fallacies we humans tend to talk ourselves into.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#37767 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
Did you that evolution shows DNA for vampires, werewolves & zombies?
Do you enjoy lying for Jesus?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#37768 Aug 13, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
<quoted text>I am just one guy who comes here to have a little interesting conversation with some interesting people, I'm not sure if the masses even ever think as I do. The topic is Evolution vs Creation and I am giving my view points.
Okay.

Creationism = myth

Evolution = scientific reality

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#37769 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
The theory of evolution demands that any modification the appears in an organism over time benefit that organism's survival and reproduction. If a bird evolved the ability to fly, it was to help the bird survive, so it reproduced. Darwin another evolutionists have relied on this assumption to justify the belief that every complexity in nature evolved through natural selection. If a plant evolves an edible root, it hinders the plant's chances for survival. An edible root enhances the survival of other species (animals). Therefore, one would expect that if plants were created by evolution all plant roots would be. In edible. Medicinal plants produce very complex chemical substances that benefit humans alone. What atheistic force in nature would be driving hundreds of plants to produce beneficial drugs for man, when they don't enhance the plant's survival?
I think you are overstating the case. It's not that ANY modification, or to use the more correct term -- mutation, must benefit survival or reproductive opportunity, but that mutations that offer a survival or increases reproductive opportunity for an individual will become more widespread within a population. Very different when looked at what evolution actually says as opposed to building a silly strawman defintion and then tearing it down.

You should be able to see the difference. Remember that individuals mutate, but populations evolve.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#37770 Aug 13, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
What I meant by "intelligent design" in that context was that human intelligence (and to a lesser degree animal intelligrnce) is the only force capable of creating complexity. Therefore, it is logical to conclude that some sort of intelligence created life, which is the greatest complexity in the universe.
Blatantly false. Are snowflakes complex? Are storms? You want to do an experiment? Find a stream that has been partially blocked by some branches floating down from upstream. Watch it for a season and see how much other material gets caught and exentually dams part of the stream. Get a little dirty and dig into the dam before the weather turns too cold. You will find complexity and you will even find patterns. Of they aren't easy to see, you have to dig! We see complexity and patterns in nature all the time, and no intelligence is visible -- only the one you want to see. Conjecture and wishful thinking doesn't mean intelligence is required.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#37771 Aug 13, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you enjoy lying for Jesus?
Do you enjoy lying for evolution?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#37772 Aug 13, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
I think you are overstating the case. It's not that ANY modification, or to use the more correct term -- mutation, must benefit survival or reproductive opportunity, but that mutations that offer a survival or increases reproductive opportunity for an individual will become more widespread within a population. Very different when looked at what evolution actually says as opposed to building a silly strawman defintion and then tearing it down.
You should be able to see the difference. Remember that individuals mutate, but populations evolve.
Your concept of inheritance is false. For natural selection to act, it must act on a single mutated individual... It it doesn't the trait will become diluted in subsequent generations.

You failed to provide any evolutionary explanation of biological altruism. How do mutations resulting in hundreds of pharmacological agents in plants come incorporated into plant populations when they provide o benefit to the plants?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#37773 Aug 13, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you enjoy lying for evolution?
Where do I lie? Name one fact that I have twisted to end my own means?
HTS

Sidney, MT

#37774 Aug 13, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Blatantly false. Are snowflakes complex? Are storms? You want to do an experiment? Find a stream that has been partially blocked by some branches floating down from upstream. Watch it for a season and see how much other material gets caught and exentually dams part of the stream. Get a little dirty and dig into the dam before the weather turns too cold. You will find complexity and you will even find patterns. Of they aren't easy to see, you have to dig! We see complexity and patterns in nature all the time, and no intelligence is visible -- only the one you want to see. Conjecture and wishful thinking doesn't mean intelligence is required.
The philosophical worldview of ever present relativism of which atheists are so fond cannot be extended into principles of mathematics. A snowflake is not complex. It is a random aggreate of crystals. It is hexagonal only because of the molecular configuration of water. A snowflake is no more complex than random patterns of a kaleidoscope. If a snow flake were complex, then every snowflake in existence would have defied laws of probability. A dam forming in a river? Are you kidding? Every time I hear such examples my suspicions are confirmed... No complexity can be produced without intelligence. All you can do is re-invent concepts of complexity according to your twists logic. Do actually think that snowflake geometry is in any way analogous to a genetic code with language-type functionality?

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#37775 Aug 13, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Blatantly false. Are snowflakes complex? Are storms? You want to do an experiment? Find a stream that has been partially blocked by some branches floating down from upstream. Watch it for a season and see how much other material gets caught and exentually dams part of the stream. Get a little dirty and dig into the dam before the weather turns too cold. You will find complexity and you will even find patterns. Of they aren't easy to see, you have to dig! We see complexity and patterns in nature all the time, and no intelligence is visible -- only the one you want to see. Conjecture and wishful thinking doesn't mean intelligence is required.
With that kind of logic a garbage dump site is complex.

You're analogy is revealing in its lack of real thought...
RU CRS

Bellevue, WA

#37776 Aug 13, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Blatantly false. Are snowflakes complex? Are storms? You want to do an experiment? Find a stream that has been partially blocked by some branches floating down from upstream. Watch it for a season and see how much other material gets caught and exentually dams part of the stream. Get a little dirty and dig into the dam before the weather turns too cold. You will find complexity and you will even find patterns. Of they aren't easy to see, you have to dig! We see complexity and patterns in nature all the time, and no intelligence is visible -- only the one you want to see. Conjecture and wishful thinking doesn't mean intelligence is required.
Why do you think all things seem to follow orderly patterns?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37777 Aug 13, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you think all things seem to follow orderly patterns?
Do you mean the very orderly patterns we can see in rock crystals and snow flakes? I guess God dun it.

“I Am No One To Be Trifled With”

Since: Jun 09

Dread Pirate Roberts

#37778 Aug 13, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Where do I lie? Name one fact that I have twisted to end my own means?
Dismissing creation as false and a fairy tale...
RU CRS

Bellevue, WA

#37779 Aug 13, 2012
The Bible tells us God shows patterns and some are more perfect than others. If God was not the pattern giver then who or what is?
RU CRS

Bellevue, WA

#37780 Aug 13, 2012
Patterns are shown and we might call some of them templates or pathways. Evolutionist seem to insist that happenstance or random occurrences brought about everything as it is in our material world, and over a very very very long time things just naturally came about that way. It is interesting how much the Evolutionist rely on their idea of time and their claim that given enough time these things happen.The Bible teaches that these things are here because God has the power to cause them to be here.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Jindal defends January prayer rally at LSU campus 4 min Sir Andrew 24
Obama: Racism, bias in US will take time to tackle 4 min Cat74 249
Obama: As a black man he's been mistaken for valet 4 min lolol 14
Merry Christmas from Akron Tire & Rubber 5 min Amy and Mia 1
Obama's plan: 'Deport felons, not families' 6 min xxxrayted 584
Ben Carson: Race Relations Have 'Gotten Worse' ... 8 min Cat74 611
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 12 min John Galt 1,153,461
US and Cuba move to normalize ties, open embassy 22 min xxxrayted 74
The President has failed us (Jun '12) 27 min EAGLE EYE1 293,263
Cheney again defends interrogation techniques 41 min Foster 297
More from around the web