Evolution vs. Creation

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

Newport, TN

#37537 Aug 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do creationists think they can lie and get away with it. There have been countless experiments done that support abiogenesis. It is not an easy problem and it is not solved all of the way yet, but to claim that there is zero evidence is such a bold faced and stupid lie I don't see how he thinks he can get away with it.
It's not solved all the way? ha,ha,ha,ha,is there something wrong with your keyboard? do you see what you type?They already know the chemical ingredients, amino acids,enzymes, proteins, etc,etc,but they have one herculean problem, it won't come to life! And the Zero evidence stands as the truth, you are the one lying about how we're almost there, gawd what a liar, do you hold political office?

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#37538 Aug 12, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
I believe the sins of the fathers can be visited upon the children, but I also think prayers and blessings can carry down as well.
Can? I don't think your religion say, "can"!

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37539 Aug 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not solved all the way? ha,ha,ha,ha,is there something wrong with your keyboard? do you see what you type?They already know the chemical ingredients, amino acids,enzymes, proteins, etc,etc,but they have one herculean problem, it won't come to life! And the Zero evidence stands as the truth, you are the one lying about how we're almost there, gawd what a liar, do you hold political office?
They are much further along than that. They have gotten most of the steps in separate experiments, they have not put them all together in one experiment yet. Perhaps in five years you will be singing a different song. How the life they created in the lab does not show that it could arise naturally in nature. Even though they will mimic early Earth environments when they do so. Creatards are masters at moving the goal posts. You already lost the evolution debate which is why you moved the goal posts to abiogenesis in the first place.

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37540 Aug 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do all of you evolutionists possess the same habit of scurring back to the theory of gravity like a child clinging to the leg of it's mother and whining,... if you don't believe me about evolution then you don't believe in gravity! Then with the audacity of a burgler you claim that the origin of life and evolution aren't connected!,of course they are! it's is the starting point of your evolution religion.The origin of life is the linch pin of the theory of evolution. Poll your fellow evo gooists and see how many think life started on it's own, and see how many believe life had a creator.
Well, if you had been reading the conversation I was replying to the idea that Evolution leaves out an intelligent creator while other theories do not. I just used the Theory of Gravity as an example but if it makes you feel better I can use Atomic Theory instead. Regardless, no science explicitly admits or denies a creator so in that regards Evolution is no different from any other science. So, to say Evolution promotes or implies Atheism is to say that Grav...I mean Atomic Theory promotes or implies Atheism.

As for abiogenesis, we do not deny the link, we are saying that what we know or don't know about abiogenesis has no bearing on what we know or don't know about Evolution. Evolution is the study of how life changes, abiogenesis is the study of how life began. Connected, definitely, but knowing one is not required to study the other.

Abiogenesis is connected to all of biology that way, as all of biology needs a beginning of life in order to study life, wouldn't you say? But that doesn't mean we can't study botany, genetics, medicine, etc. until we understand abiogenesis, does it?

Since: Nov 07

St. James, NY

#37541 Aug 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow! let me guess where you are going with this , okay uh, yes! there was a time when there wasn't any life.Ergo the puddle of goo sponateously came to life?,and there's the proof for an abiogenetic origin of life.Your faith in the goo is great young padawan.Obviously the force has had a strong influence on your mind to believe in this.
OK, so there was a time when there was no life, now, obviously there is life. Scientists are trying to study how that happened. That study is called abiogenesis. Why is that a problem?

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37542 Aug 12, 2012
What drives me nuts is how crazy creatards go over the idea of life arising from an existing mix of chemicals. They don't believe it is possible for life to develop from simple, okay well not toooo simple, chemical reactions, but they have no problem believing that a magic creature gathered up a bit of mud and magicked it into life. Which story is harder to believe? And more important, which story has evidence that shows at least a possibility that they are right?
RU CRS

Bellevue, WA

#37543 Aug 12, 2012
Subduction Zone wrote:
What drives me nuts is how crazy creatards go over the idea of life arising from an existing mix of chemicals. They don't believe it is possible for life to develop from simple, okay well not toooo simple, chemical reactions, but they have no problem believing that a magic creature gathered up a bit of mud and magicked it into life. Which story is harder to believe? And more important, which story has evidence that shows at least a possibility that they are right?
We know the dust of the earth could have been something other than mud.
RU CRS

Bellevue, WA

#37544 Aug 12, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that is what you have been taught. If it sounds evil or stupid, a just god probably was not involved.
Would a grandfather beat his grandchildren for something that his son did? NO!
Would a loving intelligent parent knowingly put something harmful, in a playpen, with their child? NO!
You think you know, but no body except God knew the full weight of giving man freedom and dominion over the earth, and what would have to be done if mankind disobeyed his word.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Since: Jun 11

Patagonia

#37545 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Chemistry and physics don't contend that god does not exist. The theory of evolution clearly states that god did not create life.
The Theory of Evolution (ToE) says nothing about god not creating life. The ToE is strictly about life after it is already going.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37546 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude... You're provided nothing logical in any of your posts. You have a habit of never directly confronting the challenges I present to you... Then in your convoluted logic you insist that you've answered the question. I provide scientific evidence and you categorically ignore it, followed by your cheap worn out "goddidit" rhetoric. Finally, you insult my religious beliefs without even knowing what they are. Your strawman logic is evident in every one of your attempted rebuttals..
I'm going to give you another chance. I'm telling you that arguments of imperfections of nature are founded on a philosophical rejection of God. I can show you statements by prominent professors of evolution that attest to this fact. You have one more chance to answer the question without dodging.
Ah yes, for ultimatums from you are IMPORTANT! Really really.

Like I said, your philosophical beefs are irrelevant. Everyone else's philosophical beefs are irrelevant. Science doesn't care. Reality doesn't care. "Perfection" and "imperfection" are subjective terms, which also means that science does not care.

All you've shown is that a couple of scientists have philosophical opinions. Big whoop. It doesn't matter what Dawkins thinks of religion, it doesn't matter if Darwin recanted on his death bed or if he was the biggest major league atheist on the planet who ever lived. All I give a damm about is science.

Out of the two of us, only one has presented any.

And we know that ain't you.

So if you want me to stop saying "Goddidit with magic" then for God's sakes give us something more than "Goddidit with magic!" Otherwise stop crying like a little baby who's just dropped all his candy.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37547 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Typical ranting of an atheist who has nothing intelligent to say. I've presented mountains of evidence against evolution, and you simply say, "no, that's not true" without providing any logical refutation, All you can do is paste links from atheist websites.
Then go back to the relevant post and I'll point out to you the relevant refutation.

You will also notice that I have never claimed to be an atheist, made no atheistic claims, and never made a positive case for atheism. Why? Because it's not necessary.

But then you think that any science you disagree with for theological reasons is "atheistic" anyway, despite the fact that science makes no theological claims.

Remember that every time you falsely accuse me of beating up a straw-man.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#37548 Aug 12, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not solved all the way? ha,ha,ha,ha,is there something wrong with your keyboard? do you see what you type?They already know the chemical ingredients, amino acids,enzymes, proteins, etc,etc,but they have one herculean problem, it won't come to life! And the Zero evidence stands as the truth, you are the one lying about how we're almost there, gawd what a liar, do you hold political office?
Your lack of scientific study is astounding still.

First, we can artificially create living cells from the chemicals, guided of course but it is possible.

Next, we have discovered proto-cells will appear spontaneously, we just haven't discovered the mechanism for which these proto-cells may gained the extra traits ... yet ...

The point of the matter is that no one really "knows." But scientists admit this openly and very often, religious people do not. You pretend to know, you lie and state you know how things more complex than you seem to comprehend happen in spite of having no evidence to support this. Science has evidence, yet still says "it's the most probable explanation," religion has no evidence yet states "this is how it happened and we know it."
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37549 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not presenting ID as a scientific theory. I'm debunking evolution. You're attempting to defend a "scientific theory" [evolution] by making philosophical judgements regarding ID.
Then ID/Creationism is utterly irrelevant for consideration. Until a valid reason is given otherwise it is from here on out pseudo-science, period.

So this debunking of evolution is gonna happen now any time right?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37550 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
There are hundreds of examples of medicinal plants that benefit humans and not the plants. For example, the foxglove plant produces digitalis which has saved the lives of thousands of heart patients.
Edible roots benefit animals and are a detriment to plant survival and reproduction. These modifications cannot be explained by an proposed mechanisms of evolution.
Even if we pretend you're right for a second - this would not refute evolution, it would merely mean that evolution can't explain everything yet. What you have to keep in mind that for every plant we find of benefit there's lots more that have none, and a dozen more which can kill us. As evolution produces diversity you're not really presenting an obstacle here.

By the way, what "modifications"? ID is bunk, you just admitted it. Nothing has been deliberately modified. Your wording here was superfluous.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#37551 Aug 12, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
<quoted text>You think you know, but no body except God knew the full weight of giving man freedom and dominion over the earth, and what would have to be done if mankind disobeyed his word.
If you are going to preach, please read the bible first. Who has dominion over the earth?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37552 Aug 12, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
Why is it that atheists are incapable of engaging in a scientific debate without constantly bringing up their contempt for God?
You keep bringing it up. It wouldn't be a problem, but you keep ranting about "atheists" and calling any science you don't like "atheism".

Also for some of us it's not that we have contempt for God (presuming such a thing even exists), but we DO have contempt for injecting "God" as a placeholder for ignorance and promoting it.
RU CRS

Bellevue, WA

#37553 Aug 12, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are going to preach, please read the bible first. Who has dominion over the earth?
Adam was given dominion over it all.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37554 Aug 12, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Not so. Not even the scientific community makes any of the claims you just did. There are in fact, still insurmountable problems with the theory. The model for mutations resulting in viable species still remains nonexistent. There is no evidence whatsoever that mutations result in anything but a dead genetic line.
Every human born has around 125 to 175 mutations.

Humans have been here for hundreds of thousands of years. There is currently roughly 7 billion of them on the planet. The population is currently on the increase. People who suffer a reproductive disadvantage due to mutations are generally the exception, not the rule.

That's a WHOLE LOT of mutations there bub.

Notice how reality disagrees with you.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Nor does it explain the origin of life, which still remains firmly out of its grasp as a theory.
The origin of mass remains firmly out of the grasp of the theory of gravity. The origin of germs remains firmly out of the grasp of the theory of the germ theory of disease. Gravity, germ theory, and evolution all still work without requiring to explain their respective origins.

All evolution needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to show that life is in fact NOT here. Good luck.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
The fossil records do not confirm it, after 150 years of looking very hard for a transitional species, none have been found.
And it cannot be reproduced in a lab. In fact, as we learn more about biology, we learn how truly impossible evolution could be as a viable theory.
All debunked right here:

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Like many bad theories in the past from the scientific community, it will eventually fall out of favor and be replaced by something else. You can already see it happening as people like Richard Dawkins play with the idea of extraterrestrial origins of life.
It is possible that a better theory may come along. So far no better explanation has been put forward, so we go with the one that works.

Oh, and panspermia is irrelevant to the validity of evolution. It may be relevant to abiogenesis, except it only relocates the problem of the formation of life elsewhere rather than solves it.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
So quit being a conformist. No one says you have to believe God did it. But theories come and go as we learn more and more about the universe. Darwinism is dead, get over it, and let real science make some real progress.
Darwinism may be dead. Darwin is dead. The guy's been dead for over a century after all.(shrug)

The modern synthesis however still lives on.

There's a difference to being a "non-conformist" and a crank who simply repeats creationist fallacies.

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#37555 Aug 12, 2012
RU CRS wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you so much sir. May the love of God be with you and yours.
Amen!!!
You are welcome...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#37556 Aug 12, 2012
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
<quoted text>
Firstly, I never stated I am a Creationist. I am not. I have no idea how all this got started. And neither does the scientific community.
You just named a few positive mutations, that is not enough by a long shot. Positive mutations do not occur mathematically at a rate to create a viable model.
Baseless claim. Your buddy HTS already tried the Sanford argument and lost.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
And doing it is in lab is more evidence of design than evolution, since scientists are there making it happen in a controlled environment.
Yeah, and me planting a tree is evidence that all plants were planted by humans. Terrific logic!

By the way, "design" is another word for creationism. But then you already knew that.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Until you can go back in time and get some real, hard evidence, all you have is an interpretation of the data.
Except the creationist "interpretation" doesn't work. Evolution does. As I've just demonstrated.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
No, there are suspected transitional fossils, but that is not proven at all. The very few examples that exist, again, is not strong evidence when so much is still lacking.
Repeating your lie doesn't make it anything other than a lie. Of course when transitionals are presented to you you won't accept them anyway.

So why are you demanding evidence when you already know you don't care about evidence in the first place?
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
I don't have to prove evolution wrong.
Then it still stands.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
It has never been proven correct.
It HAS been demonstrated that it works. Another example is SIFTER (Statistical Inference of Function Through Evolutionary Relationships) which uses evolutionary algorithms to predict protein function with 96% accuracy. Since we have no better alternative at the moment I'll take 96% accurate over "Well uh I dunno maybe Goddidit with magic" any day.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Science demands more evidence, and since this has become a cultural, political, and religion issue, science has been brushed aside for expedience.
There is no scientific debate over whether or not evolution occurred. There is debate within the scientific community over how it occurred, which is normal for any valid scientific theory. As for the public side of things, the "debate" is a political one, manufactured by creationists, politicians and anti-science cranks for political reasons. You have chosen their side.
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Sorry friend, but you are doing science no favors at all. We need more knowledge, not people clamoring with their fists.
Oh, the irony.

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.

Republican Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
McCain appears ready for 2016 reelection bid 2 min Silly times 4
GOP governors don't see 'Obamacare' going away 54 min Shinichiro Takizawa 134
Hillary Clinton stumps for Udall in Colorado, c... 1 hr Shinichiro Takizawa 46
Bachmann says she may make another presidential... 1 hr Swedenforever 333
Christie 'tired' of minimum wage debate 1 hr Swedenforever 3
Obama approves reservists for Ebola fight, gove... 2 hr barefoot2626 236
'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 2 hr Limbertwig 158,977

Republican People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE