Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221485 comments on the Best of New Orleans story from Jan 6, 2011, titled Evolution vs. Creation. In it, Best of New Orleans reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Best of New Orleans.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#49175 Sep 28, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
Do you have a Chromosome 2?
<quoted text>
That question is relevant to that issue.(The issue is not "humans never evolved from apes" but instead, "All apes, including humans, evolved from a common ancestral population".)
So answer the question. Do you have a Chromosome 2? Yes or no?
Humans are not apes. Chromosome 2, is never a result of evolution but creation, if it exist.

“Live Love Laugh”

Level 1

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#49176 Sep 28, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
Ah...gotcha...so what made you leave...what, who or why did you leave?
I had questions no one could answer. So I started studying. I read the Bile from cover to cover without the help of apologetics. I started learning what things meant in context and in the languages in which they were written.

I studied and prayed for answers. I got the answers. They just aren't the ones I was hoping and praying for.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#49177 Sep 28, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes.
In English it is not possible to be "more unique". What word are you translating to get "unique".
About that word you keep using,......
"...I do not think it means what you think it means."

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#49178 Sep 28, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
The Harry Potter series talks about London, a real city. Does that make the Harry Potter series non-fiction?
<quoted text>
Are the Harry Potter books fiction or non-fiction?
<quoted text>
Answer my question first, then I'll answer yours.
If you don't answer mine, how am i going to answer yours.
Harry Potter, is a comic name unlike the bible characters.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#49179 Sep 28, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The old Testament is the same for Jews and Christians.
Not if you've ever had a haircut, or worn a cotton/poly leisure suit.

Good grief, you're STILL wearing that?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#49180 Sep 28, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. It sure sounds like you're struggling to keep your topics sorted between the different people here. Get some sleep if that's all you're lacking! ;)
No amount of sleep cures focus when ongoing issues are not suitably taken care if.
I'll potter along, if you don't mind.

Even if you do...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#49181 Sep 28, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
A psychological reaction.
Other religions have similar moments with different names.
"Satori" springs to mind.

“I am evolving as fast as I can”

Since: Jan 08

Brooklyn, in Dayton OH now

#49182 Sep 28, 2012
Kenhunt wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, you lose, something you ought to be used to. Since your reference dodges the regression line of evolution back to the beginning, I again call out either chaos of something else.
By "chaos" I mean beginning with the big bang things mixed and collided absent any kind of guidance, perhaps absent the laws of physics now known to us. Over huge expanses of time things expanded, remixed, formed new elements and particles and over billions of years this chaotic sequence somehow generated the cell from which all life here on our planet descended through what some here have called an organized process until the ultimate living intellect, humans, were evolved. And, voila, we have Shakespeare, Newton, and of course, YOU.
The old joke was if one had an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite number of monkeys, sooner or later one would type, "To be or not to be, that is the gezezenflop." The gezezenflop being, of course, YOU. Or US.
I personally do not find US as statistically improbable given the number of galaxies and planets and years involved. But when I begin to look at the details of things and come upon the process by which cells divide and duplicate DNA strands, it is hard to imagine something that complex and fine just happening from, if one goes back far enough, chaos.
Does that make what I said clearer?
Aside from mis-representing the concept of evolution, you are also making a logical fallacy argument. Basically you are saying that since you cannot believe that life could have possibly come about without an intelligent being guiding it's development, then obviously it could not have happened.

That's called an argument of incredulity and it's the same sort of argument made against Copernicus, Galileo, Wilbur and Orville Wright, to name a few. Your inability to understand the concept still doesn't invalidate the concept. It does make one question your basic science education.

As for your typewriters, it is an incredubly poor analogy for evolution and is only used by people who have no real argument against evolution. Now, if you are interested in improving the analogy slightly -- please note the use of the word slightly, stand behind the monkeys and every time you see something that is part of any Shakespearian work, grab it and save it. Now you are one increment closer to it being an evolutiona nalogy because you have added in an analogy of the role of Selection. Of course, there are many other pieces missing, so this is still a poor analogy, but at least it's a tiny bit closer.

I know you won't stop using it, but then you haven't made a single viable argument against evolution, have you?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#49183 Sep 28, 2012
HTS wrote:
So, you want me to "join the modern world" and accept that man evolved from a worm? You want me to "go with the flow" and not question dogmas propagated by the "establishment" that make so scientific sense? If you can show me one scientific reason to accept the idea that man evolved from a worm, I'll renounce my beliefs and donate $10,000 to Richard Dawkins.
Ah, I see you're still relying on straw-man rhetoric to avoid addressing reality!
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>As always, every one of your posts is nothing more than atheist BS. You have never offered one shred of scientific evidence to back up your religion of evolution.
Ah, I see you're still lying to avoid addressing reality!
Creationists sure don't change do they?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#49184 Sep 28, 2012
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Subject-verb agreement is not old-fashioned, however.
But English speakers know that. You don't.
The law of concord and proximity.
" Singular subject, must go with singular verbs and plural subject, must go with plural verbs".
What is your problem?

“Live Love Laugh”

Level 1

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#49185 Sep 28, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>It's really quite simple... The theory of evolution is so baseless that liberals believe that by bashing religion they are providing scientific evidence for evolution. This is not only evident on this forum... It is pervasive among intellectuals who think that they have a grasp of science.
What type of liberals?

The words 'liberal' and 'conservative' are thrown out by fundamentalist Christians as if they only applied to theism. They are not limited to that category alone. Political liberalism is not the same as theist liberalism. Social liberalism is not the same thing as philosophical liberalism. I have never heard of a scientific liberal, but I suppose there are some. I'm supposing you think every scientist who doesn't go about his research from a Biblical point of view is a 'liberal' scientist.

Fundamentalists don't seem to know how to differentiate between which type is which or even know that there are different types of liberals. Furthermore, I don't think they care. It just feels so good to call someone a liberal as if it's a dirty word that you just can't seem to help yourselves.

I am not a Christian, but I am still a moderate conservative politically and scientifically. Since I am not a scientist, I don't pretend to know everything there is to know about any scientific theory, but I do have enough education and brain power to make a decision of evidence or lack thereof. I do not dismiss anything for but one reason...lack of evidence. I don't discount the existence of a God, though there is no proof that can be provided other than a God showing up. If your God shows up, I still have some of those unanswered questions for him.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Level 2

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#49186 Sep 28, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
Yo amigo.

One of my friends posted this on FB, and I then found the original:
http://www.google.co.za/imgres... :
//nillarjun.files.wordpress.co m/2012/09/helen.jpg%3Fw%3D640 &imgrefurl=http://nillarju n.wordpress.com/category/quote s-of-life/&usg=__ylcOB0nl- nEyQc8sPFAlub_UPv0=&h=682 &w=640&sz=45&hl=en &start=0&zoom=1&tb nid=mmkxyEjp5UoHAM:&tbnh=1 56&tbnw=146&ei=NytkUJn BFMuIhQe6tYDgAw&itbs=1 &iact=hc&vpx=198&v py=183&dur=479&hovh=15 6&hovw=146&tx=102& ty=122&sig=115775153672185 494888&page=1&ndsp=21 &ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0,i:51

In my honest opinion, this is utterly disgusting. Everything wrong with Christianity is summed up in this picture
Yikes! I agree.

It's all about self-abnegation - what they call crucifying the self. Not a bad name, really.

And as usual, the model of a human being is a toddler.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#49187 Sep 28, 2012
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>Why are you even bothering to comment? You're not contributing anything. You are nothing less than a religious bigot.
Ah! I see you are projecting!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#49188 Sep 28, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>"...I do not think it means what you think it means."
'uniqueness' was approved by the translater. A proper synomym would be 'unicity'. Though that would not be encompassing enough to denote a group-quality.

Hmm

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#49189 Sep 28, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
..and I'm supposed to respect people's faith?
Show some respect yourself and you may get a bit. The flying spaghetti monster is still an appropriate response to this drek.
You know every thing that others, don't know, but your numbers to date, are still very few.

“Live Love Laugh”

Level 1

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#49190 Sep 28, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for your links, they are very good. We are all like new born children when we first come to the knowledge of the truth of the Gospel, and as we learn more we grow until we are finally able to stand on our own and proclaim the truth to others.
That is not what Jesus said. Just so you know.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#49191 Sep 28, 2012
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
progress that is made every year...
much more advanced than believed...
starting to make serious noise...
tactics of the lie, you and dogen have it down pat.
Ah! I see you are continuing the creationist tradition of hypocrisy!

“Live Love Laugh”

Level 1

Since: Aug 07

Rings of Saturn Emporium

#49192 Sep 28, 2012
Knightmare wrote:
<quoted text>
There are only two differences...the catholic version verses the protestant version on book content.
Yet you use only books chosen by the Catholics for your belief and won't even read those they left out. Tell me it's sane to say the Catholics are wrong when you're still going by what they said were the only books you could read.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#49193 Sep 28, 2012
TedHOhio wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are re-stating an old argument and one that does not make much sense. You can look at anything you want and wonder if there is an intelligence behind it ... however you should not teach that there is an intelligence behind it UNTIL you do the legwork to support your contention. Therein lies the problem. Intelligent Design proponents CLAIM to have supported their contention, but when you examine their claims you are left with wishful thinking and conjecture with no support.
I am not the only one saying this. In the past 10 years Michael Behe, ID proponent and one of the few Biologists who support ID, has stated that no one is doing the work necessary to support ID. Philip E. Johnson, the one who started the Discovery Institute, has explained his disappointment in the lack of scientific evidecen supporting ID. The Dean of Religious Studies at SMU also expressed how foolish the entire marketing scheme being used by ID proponents is, because they have not yet done any of the work that would support their ideas.
You can wonder all you want, but without evidence that clearly supported your conjecture, ID does not belong in science class. Leave it in Theology, Comparative Religions, even Sociology classes, but it has not yet earned a place at the Science lectern.
I see you're back, Ted... peddling the same regurgitated BS as always...blindly parroting everything that you've been fed by the MSM. You pretend to be objectively waiting for evidence of intelligent design, while only admitting for consideration evidence that fits with your religion of atheism. That is not science... What, pray tell, would qualify as "evidence" according to your pre-defined criteria?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#49194 Sep 28, 2012
wolverine wrote:
Ealk Origins....Continued
Essentially then, TO is a propaganda machine for philosophical naturalism using the more acceptable and palatable cover of methodological naturalism. Evolution theory is nothing but the scientific operational model to support this metaphysical position.
Ah! I see you're still misrepresenting the opposition to avoid addressing facts!

By the way, how much to taxiderms charge for Bigfoots?

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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 3 min Nemesis 119
News Fearfully and wonderfully made 3 min David Jay Jordan 9
News 300,000 year-old "early Homo sapiens" sparks de... 4 min Subduction Zone 26
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 7 min ChromiuMan 161,966
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 8 min Subduction Zone 296
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 16 min Nemesis 74,786
How can we prove God exists, or does not? (May '15) 27 min Will 504
More from around the web