- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Bill Nye Debates Ken Ham
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:16 am to Korkstand
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:16 am to Korkstand
quote:
Here is the difference between intelligent design and evolution:
Intelligent design has one book as supporting evidence, and mountains of evidence that shows a lack of intelligence in the way living organisms are "designed" that conflicts with ID.
Evolution has tons of evidence to support it, and one book as evidence that conflicts with it.
First, intelligent design isn't about one book, it's about the view that there was a creator, a force which was involved in all of creation.
Seondly, all I've seen as proof tonight from Darwinists is a cartoon like posting of the guesses and suppositions of Darwinists. That's hardly scientific evidence.
0
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:17 am to RTOTA
quote:
You suck. Really, really bad. Im at a loss for words
Ah yes, the personal attacks. But...no evidence.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:19 am to beejon
You are just flat out ignoring mountains of evidence. What about the original example, the fused chimp chromosomes?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:20 am to RTOTA
He makes a valid point. What evidence is there of a split way back when?
How silly is it to assume life sparked from nothing? That's an unprovable theory.
Have scientists figured that one out yet?
How silly is it to assume life sparked from nothing? That's an unprovable theory.
Have scientists figured that one out yet?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:21 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
no the mutations may be random, their ultimate success or failure is guided by selected environmental pressures where the mutations now give an advantage and propagate thru a specie over many generations or fail to give an advantage and die out.
this really is simple stuff
Right, the variety and infinitely complex life we observe today is the result of random events according to Darwinism. Creation by randomness.
I disagree, that's not so simple. And there's no evidence for such a theory, guess, supposition.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:21 am to beejon
quote:
Darwinian evolution theory isn't backed up by rigorously tested evidence and backed up by mountains of evidence. There isn't a single bit of evidence, of proof, for Darwinian evolution. It's based on guesses and suppositions. Theory means guess.
This won't be true no matter how many times you say it.
quote:
This is creation by accident really. Accident after accident creating more and more complex life forms. This life is so varied and complex we still don't understand it.
Yeah, pretty much.
quote:
There is no proof for such a view.
You mean aside from the millions of fossils we have found, of which each and every one fits in the timeline as expected? The fossils that lay out very clear paths and branches that evolution happened to take? The fossils that show how life on earth has morphed and transitioned from species to species, step by step, through hundreds of millions of years?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:22 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
What about the original example, the fused chimp chromosomes?
or we can go with the ole creationist arguement against probability of life starting by chance...but then wait
what about Erv's, where apes and humans share viral insertion points at exactly the same base pair in their respective DNA where the chance for one loci being shared would be a billion billion to one.
yet we share over 60k with chimps and apes alone.
oops
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:23 am to BigEdLSU
quote:
Have scientists figured that one out yet?
There's plenty of questions that science hasn't answered yet and a lot that science has answered. But don't let that stand in the way of your rigorous perception that's led you to ignore all of that and, rather, find all of the answers in a handful of ancient texts.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:24 am to BigEdLSU
quote:
What evidence is there of a split way back when?
Genetic homology
Proceeding from bacteria all the way up to man (or any current multicellular life form) the sequence homology becomes greater and greater as we go up the evolutionary tree. This is not some astronomically unlikely coincidence.
For instance, our DNA sequences match chimps more closely than mice, which match moreso than reptiles, which match moreso than amphibians, etc. all the way back to the base of tree.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:25 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
You are just flat out ignoring mountains of evidence. What about the original example, the fused chimp chromosomes?
There are no mountains of evidence that complex life, and it is tremendously complex, is the result of random events. None. Zero. Nada.
How does fused chimp chromosomes offer evidence that life becomes more and more complex by random events over millions of years? And into what are those chimps evolving where they will no longer be chimps?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:26 am to Roger Klarvin
quote:
Genetic homology
Proceeding from bacteria all the way up to man (or any current multicellular life form) the sequence homology becomes greater and greater as we go up the evolutionary tree. This is not some astronomically unlikely coincidence.
For instance, our DNA sequences match chimps more closely than mice, which match moreso than reptiles, which match moreso than amphibians, etc. all the way back to the base of tree.
Because our DNA sequences match chimps more than mice offers no evidence for millions of years of random events which produced complex life we see today. Life uses the same building blocks, nothing more than than.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:26 am to Come2Conquer
I don't fight science. Science is our understanding of Gods creation.
Science doesn't have to fight God. Does it not fit just as well in your belief that God created diverse and evolving life?
The texts themselves lay out the big bang theory in genesis.
You see evolution as proof of no God when it is proof of creation.
Science doesn't have to fight God. Does it not fit just as well in your belief that God created diverse and evolving life?
The texts themselves lay out the big bang theory in genesis.
You see evolution as proof of no God when it is proof of creation.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:27 am to beejon
quote:
But...no evidence.
Novel influenza subtypes.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Allopatric speciation in ferns.
Sympatric speciation in ants.
Parapatric speciation in gymnosperms.
The list goes on.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:28 am to Roger Klarvin
So where is the rule that God could not create similar DNA chains?
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:28 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
or we can go with the ole creationist arguement against probability of life starting by chance...but then wait
what about Erv's, where apes and humans share viral insertion points at exactly the same base pair in their respective DNA where the chance for one loci being shared would be a billion billion to one.
yet we share over 60k with chimps and apes alone.
oops
Do you really want to go down the road of chance? When we start comparing odds, Darwinism is blown out of the water.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:29 am to beejon
what can i tell you, you are wrong, just flat out wrong.
the entire fossil lineage of deer like animals to horses of today is known
the entire fossil lineage of shallow water dwelling mammal to land dwelling mammal to the whales of today is known
the entire fossil lineage of the manatee is known, right down to the fingernails at the end of their flippers
the cranial nerves of the giraffe grew in length with the neck in versions of the giraffes ancestors, why and how would that be possible without an extended lineage.
descent with modification is the only explanation that best fits all the evidence you so blindly refute.
the entire fossil lineage of deer like animals to horses of today is known
the entire fossil lineage of shallow water dwelling mammal to land dwelling mammal to the whales of today is known
the entire fossil lineage of the manatee is known, right down to the fingernails at the end of their flippers
the cranial nerves of the giraffe grew in length with the neck in versions of the giraffes ancestors, why and how would that be possible without an extended lineage.
descent with modification is the only explanation that best fits all the evidence you so blindly refute.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:29 am to beejon
quote:
Right, the variety and infinitely complex life we observe today is the result of random events according to Darwinism. Creation by randomness.
I disagree, that's not so simple. And there's no evidence for such a theory, guess, supposition.
We have witnessed speciation in simple organisms. We know that random mutations occur, and we know that mutations can impact survivability. We know that genes are passed down through generations. That is evolution in a nutshell, and it thoroughly explains the process that you continue to deny that there is any evidence for.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:30 am to Cs
quote:
Novel influenza subtypes.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria.
Allopatric speciation in ferns.
Sympatric speciation in ants.
Parapatric speciation in gymnosperms.
The list goes on.
Influenza is still influenza, bacteria are still bacteria, ferns are still ferns, ants are still ants, gymnosperms are still gymnosperms.
And you're right, the list goes on and on.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:31 am to Cruiserhog
quote:
descent with modification is the only explanation that best fits all the evidence you so blindly refute.
Darwinian creation by accident.
Posted on 2/5/14 at 1:32 am to BigEdLSU
quote:
I don't fight science. Science is our understanding of Gods creation.
Science doesn't have to fight God. Does it not fit just as well in your belief that God created diverse and evolving life?
The texts themselves lay out the big bang theory in genesis.
You see evolution as proof of no God when it is proof of creation.
Are you a Jesuit? Please tell me you are, then I'll understand. I don't mind Christians or other folks who believe in intelligent design seeing science's framework as something that fits in with their theology. I really think it's a plausible & palatable approach.
The issue is that Mr. Ham isn't one of those folks. He's like so many other theists who think that simply because science isn't 100% complete or 100% fool-proof, that's ALL THE EVIDENCE THEY NEED as proof that God (or some other higher power) exists.
Seriously, this is the guy who claimed that the T-Rex was a herbivore prior to Original Sin. Also, bears are supposed to be vegetarian because, hey, look at the panda.
I would think that any theist who isn't so fervent about their religion that they let it cloud their judgement would actually be embarrassed by Ham's performance & debating tonight.
quote:
So where is the rule that God could not create similar DNA chains?
There isn't, but you could argue a million other reasons too. That God created these things is a FAITH-BASED viewpoint.
This post was edited on 2/5/14 at 1:34 am
Page 23 of 31
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News