Creationism vs. Evolution

[Osborn F Enready]

Scribbler said:
I am going back a long time here to when I read the Communist Manifesto, so I may be wrong, but aren't public schools a Communist idea?

I say:
Good memory. I can't say it was their IDEA, but I can say for a FACT that as practiced in the U.S.A., public education is PURE socialism.

Review......
*Public schools funded by all. (socialist)
*Welfare funded by all, doled out selectively. (socialist)
*Medicare, funded by all, doled out selectively with bias. (socialist)
*Stock Market, owned by all. (socialist)


Who won WWII anyway? The Russians in the old U.S.S.R.?

The number of things in our society that resemble free trade? One. (The black market)

Biggest enemy of the government, which government itself created? (The black market)

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: dthmstr254 okay. you want to attack the scientific ability of the ID theory. I will now turn the light on one of the most important evolutionary icons of the days: the Miller experiment. here is the big problem with it: the atmosphere used is not the correct atmosphere according to todays scientists. Miller chose a hydrogen rich mixture of methane, ammonia, and water vapor, which was consistent with what most scientists of the day thought the atmosphere was like. but scientists don't believe that atmosphere existed. today's model of the ancient atmosphere is one of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. if you tweak that part of the Miller experiment, you do NOT get amino acids. many textbooks try to gloss this over by saying that we still get organic chemicals from the experiment. but these chemicals are useless for the purpose of evolution. you know what you get when you run the Miller experiment on what we now think is the ancient atmosphere? cyanide and formaldehyde!!! they may be organic molecules, but they definitely are not allowed in labs. is you were to open a bottle of formaldehyde in a protein rich environment, the fumes would literally eat all the protein in the system! again, the textbooks gloss this over by saying that if you mix them you get something useful to organics. you know what you get then??? embalming liquid!!! now assuming that amino acids were produced in an accurate environment, which is impossible, you are still an EXTREMELY LONG LONG LONG way from producing a living cell. this is the first step in a very complicated process. you would have to get the right number of amino acids in exactly the right sequence to link up to create a single protein molecule, and this is still very far from creating a cell. next you would need dozens of protein molecules to come together in exactly the right sequence to create a living cell. this is just scientifically impossible. for a visual picture, take a test tube of salt, put a single living cell in it and poke a hole in it to leak out the contents of it. this would acomplish much more than the Miller experiment did. the problem is, you could never make a living cell. there is no point in even trying. it would be like a physicist trying to make an experiment to make a rock fall up all the way to the moon. scientifically impossible. ps I would like to see gallo say I am a scientific illiterate now. I just completely turned the Miller experiment into little more than a myth. maybe a historical signifigance, but no scientific fact at all. I have much more where that came from.

You are still scientifically illiterate. I've told you already, Abiogenesis is a separate model to Evolution by natural selection which refers exclusively to the first cell and all its descendents. Miller's experiment has no affect on the Theory of Evolution as it stands today and until we incorporate abiogenesis into the ToE, may point stands.

However, just to show what an ignoramus you are, may I remind you that a couple years back, they found amino acids in space. Isn't that interesting?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: dthmstr254 these "organics" are the ones stated in my post: cyanide and formaldehyde. I have seen the experiment done myself. my mother has done it as well. lucky she didnt get burned too, because the tubes her lab had were made using protein. a big mistake on the part of the lab.

Intriguing, what exactly was this tube made of? I want to know which amino acids made up this "protein" it was made of.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Pooeypants Intriguing, what exactly was this tube made of? I want to know which amino acids made up this "protein" it was made of.

some kind of synthesized protein. I am no chemist, but I know that formaldehyde eats all protein molecules around. it was later discovered that the people who shipped to her lab removed the warning labels on the tubes that told you not to put formaldahyde and other caustic organics in them, and, as a result, the accident happened. her lab put up a suit for damages and was awarded 500,000 dollars without going to court. the loaders for the truck were summarily fired and fined for the flagrant breach of protocol. and the driver now has a red flag on his truck that the FBI follows cross-country. it didn't make much news because the feds did a superlative job of covering it from the public. all the news that was made was that there was an accident at a local lab and that it was "taken care of."

my nightly post for today will take down bastion number two of evolution: Darwin's Tree of Life. hope you enjoy.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Pooeypants You are still scientifically illiterate. I've told you already, Abiogenesis is a separate model to Evolution by natural selection which refers exclusively to the first cell and all its descendents. Miller's experiment has no affect on the Theory of Evolution as it stands today and until we incorporate abiogenesis into the ToE, may point stands. However, just to show what an ignoramus you are, may I remind you that a couple years back, they found amino acids in space. Isn't that interesting?

Miller's experiment is what explains WHERE this cell came from. if the cell was there, what exactly made it?

as for these amino acids, give me the general location of these molecules. I cant give an answer if you don't tell me where it was.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: dthmstr254 Miller's experiment is what explains WHERE this cell came from. if the cell was there, what exactly made it?

I've said many times before. Be it made by God or freak accident, as long as the first life existed, it has no bearing on Evolution. This thread is not about debating Abiogenesis so drop it. I will not tolerate your trolling any longer.

Quote by: dthmstr254 as for these amino acids, give me the general location of these molecules. I cant give an answer if you don't tell me where it was.

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for...coordinates in space? Anyho, from another source, more amino acids found in space.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Pooeypants I've said many times before. Be it made by God or freak accident, as long as the first life existed, it has no bearing on Evolution. This thread is not about debating Abiogenesis so drop it. I will not tolerate your trolling any longer. I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for...coordinates in space? Anyho, from another source, more amino acids found in space.

1.) I am not trolling, I am asking why evolution, if true, requires God to put the cell there. Miller's Experiment is still taught as part of public school evolutionary science. this makes it a valid point in evolution to ask of. also, at midnight tonight, I will attack the next bastion in evolution: Darwin's Tree of Life. this should be interesting.

2.) now that I see where you are coming from with the amino acids. you are trying to say that they came on a space rock, which again is impossible. the intense heat generated by entering the atmosphere is so high that few meteors make it through. this heat would caus an amino acid to literally bake away into its simple form. and, even if they did survive the trip, you still are an extremely long way from creating a living cell. in and of themselves, amino acids do not react and become cells, because they have already achieved the noble state, which is the highest state of stability for a molecule. to make a cell, there has to be someone or something prodding the acids into the exact sequence at the exact time that they need to be. spontaneously, this is impossible.

3.) saying that God put that first cell there automatically destroys the evolutionist scandal against God. you want to say God might have put it there, but turn around and say we can't bring His book or prayer into our schools??? sounds like a double standard

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Scribbler said: I am going back a long time here to when I read the Communist Manifesto, so I may be wrong, but aren't public schools a Communist idea? I say: Good memory. I can't say it was their IDEA, but I can say for a FACT that as practiced in the U.S.A., public education is PURE socialism. Review...... *Public schools funded by all. (socialist) *Welfare funded by all, doled out selectively. (socialist) *Medicare, funded by all, doled out selectively with bias. (socialist) *Stock Market, owned by all. (socialist)

And all considered integral parts of American society.

Who won WWII anyway? The Russians in the old U.S.S.R.? The number of things in our society that resemble free trade? One. (The black market) Biggest enemy of the government, which government itself created? (The black market)

Good points all.

[Jack]

the evolutionist scandal against God

An accurate understanding of evolution would expose that concept as the silliness that it is. There is no "anti-god" element to evolution except that created by theists.

I am asking why evolution, if true, requires God to put the cell there.

It doesn't. Evolution does not address the concept of god. It stems from science, not theology.

[Jack]

If you wanted to disprove Miller's work, why did you use a quote that says, "I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again."?

Every lab I've ever been in uses pyrex for all the lab test tubes, dishes, etc. Might I suggest you follow suit to avoid future preventable accidents.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood If you wanted to disprove Miller's work, why did you use a quote that says, "I think this study makes the experiments by Miller and others relevant again."? Every lab I've ever been in uses pyrex for all the lab test tubes, dishes, etc. Might I suggest you follow suit to avoid future preventable accidents.

hey, it aint my lab. just one my mother worked at.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood An accurate understanding of evolution would expose that concept as the silliness that it is. There is no "anti-god" element to evolution except that created by theists. It doesn't. Evolution does not address the concept of god. It stems from science, not theology.

then why take him out of schools? first you say that with evolution there is no need to teach of God in schools; now you say evolution is not a reason to not bring God out of schools. BIIIIIG double standard. "how long serve ye two masters? choose ye ths day who is your God. be it God, say it. be it man, proclaim it unto us"

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Scribbler1 And all considered integral parts of American society. Good points all.

and, sad as it seems to me, the next big step for the american government is socialism. just watch the growing trends in the government.

[Jack]

then why take him out of schools?

Because except for religious schools, he doesn't belong there, unless the class is comparitive religions or such. Theology is for the church to teach, not the public schools.

now you say evolution is not a reason to not bring God out of schools.

You are seriously misreading what I wrote. All I said was that science, in particular to our discussion evolution, does not address the concept of god. It is not pro-god, it is not anti-god.

"how long serve ye two masters?

That question is of value only to theists. Any master I may serve is natural, not supernatural. I serve no god.

[rez]

Quote by: dthmstr254 and, sad as it seems to me, the next big step for the american government is socialism. just watch the growing trends in the government.

Since your knowledge of science is so small, how can I trust your knowledge on politics?

I mean, there is no real reason for you constantly arguing for creationism unless you want to be a lawyer or something. Every creationist argument is shut down by simple explainations provided by Isherwood, gallo, Soccerfreak, pooeypants, sonart etc, yet you still continue to argue.

I only bring this up because evolution vs creationism is one of the only debates I can find a definate answer in. There is a right and there is a wrong. The weird thing is, there is only an argument due to the willfull ignorance of certain christians. I am starting to think there is a simple answer to many debates. Such debates as abortion, or capitalism vs socialism may actually have soultions to these as well, but due to a select few of ignorant people there needs to be an argument.

dont take this as an insult dthmstr254, I am assuming you want to become a really good defense lawyer. You are getting really good practice, you are defending something that has no proof behind it and are getting ganged up on. You are able to defend your religion enough to make others respond to what you say even though its totally bullshit! The point is, even though creationism is so STUPID it actually is one of the most debated topics on volconvo and in the world! Schools are actually seconding guessing whether or not to allow creationism in science class for christ sakes.

It just makes me sad to think that this kind of debating can extend to other debate topics aswell. Why can't there be a honest evaluation to the worlds problems?

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: dthmstr254 then why take him out of schools? first you say that with evolution there is no need to teach of God in schools; now you say evolution is not a reason to not bring God out of schools. BIIIIIG double standard. "how long serve ye two masters? choose ye ths day who is your God. be it God, say it. be it man, proclaim it unto us"

First of all, ye don't gain points in a debate by using bible quotes.

Second, and this hath always been a puzzlement to me, if ye believe in God, just HOW can God be "kept out" or "taken out" of school? Is this like a cross on the school door will keep vampires out? When ye come home at night, do ye need to holdeth the door open for an extra second to make sure ye don't accidentally locketh God out?

Seriously, if God is within you, no building can keep him out, right? And if YOU carry God around within, why do you people always raise such a stink when an educational institution doesn't cater to your particular beliefs? What would you say if I demanded churches commit a portion of their service time on Sunday to teaching Biology or American History? Honestly, if you think you don't get enough religion in your life, then go to church TWICE a week instead of once. Schools have a finite time in which to teach the kids. They shouldn't have to give up any of it when our kids are poorly educated as it is.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Scribbler1 First of all, ye don't gain points in a debate by using bible quotes.

well, if the shoe fits, the society can wear it. another verse that fits this society is found in Deuteronomy: "and every man did that which was right in his own eyes

Second, and this hath always been a puzzlement to me, if ye believe in God, just HOW can God be "kept out" or "taken out" of school? Is this like a cross on the school door will keep vampires out? When ye come home at night, do ye need to holdeth the door open for an extra second to make sure ye don't accidentally locketh God out?

I don't know your background, but it seems like you are mocking the way the KJV words things.
secondly: I am being metaphorical. no, God cannot be removed from anywhere, but the sin of a society can cause Him to remove His Presence from a place, and that is the state of American culture. God's presence makes precious few appearances in today's society. I am guaranteeing that 9/11 was just the tip of the iceberg. we have had relative success in our military efforts thus far, but just wait until God decides to fight for the other side as He did with Israel many times over. I do not want to be counted among those who fight against the one, true, all-powerful God. "be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by the renewing of your spirit." I will follow this verse as best as I can, and with God's help all the way.

Seriously, if God is within you, no building can keep him out, right? And if YOU carry God around within, why do you people always raise such a stink when an educational institution doesn't cater to your particular beliefs? What would you say if I demanded churches commit a portion of their service time on Sunday to teaching Biology or American History? Honestly, if you think you don't get enough religion in your life, then go to church TWICE a week instead of once. Schools have a finite time in which to teach the kids. They shouldn't have to give up any of it when our kids are poorly educated as it is.

you ever noticed how old some of the kids in public schools are. and have you noticed this little interesting statistic:
kids going to a public school graduate with an average of 33% lower GPAs than kids who attend private Christian schools, and that GPA is certified when the ACT and Sat scores are compared, the same ratio occurs with public schools consistently lower than private Christian academies. that ratio gets even larger when you compare public schooled children to home schooled children, with the difference being 45% in favor of the homeschooling children.

in light of these statistics, what does that tell you about the schooling methods. to me, it tells me that Christianity in schools is BENEFICIAL to the society because, if for no other reason, it keeps children accountable to a higher power than man alone.
I don't go to church or crack open a Bible just once or twice a week. I read as much as I can and go to church every time the doors are open. I attend Tennessee Temple University, a dynamically Christian school that is fully accreditted nationwide through TRACCS. I go to chapel twice a week and church twice a week. I am having little to no trouble on the courses my fellow students are struggling with, and am great friends with many of the teachers. I am maintaining a 3.5/4 GPA, and might be taking over a magazine in a few days, if the owner resigns.


I end this long discertation with a final, rather blatant, scientifically proven statement against evolution: the fossil record does NOT support the evolutionary theory. contrarily, it refutes it. the "Tree of Life" depicted in Darwin's Origins is not supported by things such as the Cambrian Explosion. however, these falsities are taught every day in schools as facts. the Archaeopterics is actually now considered to be a false link in the chain from reptile to bird, because of the fact that the area where it would logically fit in the evolutionary chain is in the wrong time frame. in fact, the fossils on the other side are thought to be 10-20 MILLION years younger than the Archaeopterics is thought to be. these facts blow the theory that we came about through small level mutation over a long period of time right out of the water. the fossil record has an infinitude of missing links to be found, and, at this point of time, I doubt there are enough fossils out there to fill them. even if all of them fit in somewhere.

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: rez Since your knowledge of science is so small, how can I trust your knowledge on politics? I mean, there is no real reason for you constantly arguing for creationism unless you want to be a lawyer or something. Every creationist argument is shut down by simple explainations provided by Isherwood, gallo, Soccerfreak, pooeypants, sonart etc, yet you still continue to argue. I only bring this up because evolution vs creationism is one of the only debates I can find a definate answer in. There is a right and there is a wrong. The weird thing is, there is only an argument due to the willfull ignorance of certain christians. I am starting to think there is a simple answer to many debates. Such debates as abortion, or capitalism vs socialism may actually have soultions to these as well, but due to a select few of ignorant people there needs to be an argument. dont take this as an insult dthmstr254, I am assuming you want to become a really good defense lawyer. You are getting really good practice, you are defending something that has no proof behind it and are getting ganged up on. You are able to defend your religion enough to make others respond to what you say even though its totally bullshit! The point is, even though creationism is so STUPID it actually is one of the most debated topics on volconvo and in the world! Schools are actually seconding guessing whether or not to allow creationism in science class for christ sakes. It just makes me sad to think that this kind of debating can extend to other debate topics aswell. Why can't there be a honest evaluation to the worlds problems?

well, hows about my scientifically proven discertation at the end of my last post about the fossil record. you can look the information up if you want. but to get to the true gold, don't be fooled by the pyrite that you find. I challenge each of you evolutionists to make more than a cursory evaluation of evolution. compare it to today's top fields and discoveries. take the lies such as the embryos that Haeckel drew up and sift them through an actual photograph of the actual embryo. through doing this, you find that not only were his embryos frauds, but that they werent even in the early stage of embryonic development. these embryos were nearly halfway through their development, at which point ALL embryos look similar, but not to the extent that Haeckel inferred. it was proven only 20 years after his discovery that he purposely misled people to believe his theory, but still today, these fakes are held as the bastion of homologies. people say that apes and men have 98% of the same genes. this statement may be true, but the 2% that are different are quite trivial and have nothing to do with anatomy. all of the body building genes are the same, but we look different. mice, fruit flies, and octopi have the same gene for their eyes, but we all agree that the eyes of a fruit fly are drastically different than that of a mous or octopus. they are multi-faceted while the other two have smoothe eyes. big difference there now isn't it. genes have little to do wiht the drastic differences we see today, because they are all similar. I can roll on and on about this subject, but I am pretty sure that if I go longer, no one will read it, so, have fun!

[dthmstr254]

Quote by: Isherwood That question is of value only to theists. Any master I may serve is natural, not supernatural. I serve no god.

yea, your right, you serve yourself.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: dthmstr254 1.) I am not trolling, I am asking why evolution, if true, requires God to put the cell there. Miller's Experiment is still taught as part of public school evolutionary science. this makes it a valid point in evolution to ask of. also, at midnight tonight, I will attack the next bastion in evolution: Darwin's Tree of Life. this should be interesting.

I don't know which syllabus you were taught but when I learnt about Evolution, Miller's experiment wasn't a part of it. I was still in Secondary School a couple of years ago (I'm currently an undergraduate). You are trolling, we've told you time and time again to take abiogenesis and the current theory of evolution separately but you ignore it and try to use it as an angle of attack.

Quote by: dthmstr254 2.) now that I see where you are coming from with the amino acids. you are trying to say that they came on a space rock, which again is impossible. the intense heat generated by entering the atmosphere is so high that few meteors make it through. this heat would caus an amino acid to literally bake away into its simple form. and, even if they did survive the trip, you still are an extremely long way from creating a living cell. in and of themselves, amino acids do not react and become cells, because they have already achieved the noble state, which is the highest state of stability for a molecule. to make a cell, there has to be someone or something prodding the acids into the exact sequence at the exact time that they need to be. spontaneously, this is impossible.

No, I am saying that if amino acids can form in the sparseness of space then why can't it in early earth which was teeming with chemicals? And no one suggested we go from basic organic chemicals to a living cell, that's just preposterous and not what any sane biologist think. Only in the myths of creationism is this proposed.

Quote by: dthmstr254 3.) saying that God put that first cell there automatically destroys the evolutionist scandal against God. you want to say God might have put it there, but turn around and say we can't bring His book or prayer into our schools??? sounds like a double standard

No, I said that I don't care who made the first cell, with respect the Theory of Evolution. Because Evolution happens when the first cell appears. We just don't have a clear answer now on what happened. There is no double standard, I am just being honest like you want me to be.