Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 210305 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 5

Since: Apr 12

Yuhuan, China

#69955 Jan 4, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
If a Creationist were to bring solid evidence here concerning intelligent design in nature, all we would get from the Evos would be the sound of crickets.

Here is some evidence which would cause me to stand up and take notice:

----the invention of an accurate radiometric device which can measure the oldest fossils known, and which indicates a world flood 4000 years ago and stops at 6000 years ago.

----the discovery of mammal, reptile, bird, and amphibian fossils in pre-Cambrian soil and all points in between.

----a confession from an embryologist that whale embryos don’t really go through a stage resembling ungulates, and that the whole thing was a hoax.

----an explanation of how pandas are blessed with ideal paws.

----an explanation of why flightless birds need wings, why ostriches need claws on their wings, and why male mammals need boobies.

----an explanation of why there appears to be a smooth transition from reptiles to mammals.

----an explanation of how else it could appear that we inherited a brain from the reptiles, supplemented that with a brain inherited from early mammals, and developed a third for ourselves.

----an explanation of how the nested hierarchy revealed by biochemical research matches the nested hierarchy revealed by paleontological research, or a confession that the whole thing was a hoax.

----an explanation of the geographical distribution of species. Why aren’t there any penguins in the Arctic or polar bears in the Antarctic? Why are there coyotes in the Colorado Desert but not in the Sahara Desert?

----an explanation of purported cases of speciation which have taken place in our own time.

----an explanation of body parts belonging to one species which could well belong to other species also. For example, why don’t we have squid eyes?

----an explanation of why birds carry junk DNA whereby they can have teeth recreated in the laboratory.

----If God was intelligent enough to do the job right the first time, why did he have to wipe the slate clean and do the job a second time?

If you will dispense with the name-calling, if you will dispense with the Jesus-loves-me propaganda, and if you will dispense with the quote mining, maybe you will have more time and energy left to concentrate on the real issue at hand, you might convince some of us. That might win a few converts.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69956 Jan 4, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
neutral observer wrote:
A monotheistic god would be neither male nor female. For it to be one requires that gods of the other gender also exist. Unless you are polytheistic...
Cybele wrote:
The anthropomorphic God of the Bible is obviously a male
The Christian Scientists call their god the Father-Mother God.
The founder of their church was a woman.
interesting, I've seen women represent their church as a reverend or whatever they call them

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69957 Jan 4, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
So you think there is something psychologically wrong with me based on my opinions I have stated here and my linguistic pattern, right? I call that creativity. I play the game of Life. But unlike you, I tend to be drawn to something larger than life. And life becomes great when you look at it that way. It opens up a whole new perspective.
Your sexuality is not the issue, it's your perspective.
You are such a projector it's rather interesting how much one person can project. It was not your opinions I based it on, it was your assertions and your linguistic patterns, as well as your particular words. When something is opinion, people readily admit it unless they are trying to be dishonest or insulting, or have actual evidence to support their assertion. You have not once said "in my opinion," you have only stated things as assertions. Now you are backtracking, attempting to weasel out of the responsibility for your assertions. It's clear that you have no intent on being honest or even learning anything. You'd rather think you know everything, than learn anything, and that's pretty easy to see. I hope for your sake I am wrong, but I highly doubt it at this point, this particular post just proves you are unwilling to learn anything, and that's just sad.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69958 Jan 4, 2013
Mother Mary wrote:
<quoted text>Freak? Aint pretending fun MS100? The internet sucks!!!!!!
Embrace the internet, it is our connection to the world, we have never had such before, and it's awesome. ;)

I recall getting less than 10% of all information, and most of that was filtered heavily by the news. This is the best era to live.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69959 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
You are such a projector it's rather interesting how much one person can project. It was not your opinions I based it on, it was your assertions and your linguistic patterns, as well as your particular words. When something is opinion, people readily admit it unless they are trying to be dishonest or insulting, or have actual evidence to support their assertion. You have not once said "in my opinion," you have only stated things as assertions. Now you are backtracking, attempting to weasel out of the responsibility for your assertions. It's clear that you have no intent on being honest or even learning anything. You'd rather think you know everything, than learn anything, and that's pretty easy to see. I hope for your sake I am wrong, but I highly doubt it at this point, this particular post just proves you are unwilling to learn anything, and that's just sad.
I've never made an assertion based on opinion alone. I based it on the fact that there was lacking in evidence. lol

There was no empirical evidence therefore I am skeptical about you. ;-)

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69960 Jan 4, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
FREE SERVANT wrote:

If you will dispense with the name-calling, if you will dispense with the Jesus-loves-me propaganda, and if you will dispense with the quote mining, maybe you will have more time and energy left to concentrate on the real issue at hand, you might convince some of us. That might win a few converts.
I think I might be a metaphorical Wildcat. lol

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69961 Jan 4, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I've never made an assertion based on opinion alone. I based it on the fact that there was lacking in evidence. lol
There was no empirical evidence therefore I am skeptical about you. ;-)
Now you are mimicking me and not in a good way. All your assertions were based on you lacking any evidence. An assertion based on another's lack of evidence is a denial of that assertion's validity, making an assertion requires evidence, denying an assertion is what does not. You are not skeptical, you are making assertions about me based on zero evidence, that makes you a liar.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69962 Jan 4, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are mimicking me and not in a good way. All your assertions were based on you lacking any evidence. An assertion based on another's lack of evidence is a denial of that assertion's validity, making an assertion requires evidence, denying an assertion is what does not. You are not skeptical, you are making assertions about me based on zero evidence, that makes you a liar.
Please tell me what I am denying? I have yet to see your evidence of how you come to make that kind of assertion.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69963 Jan 4, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
From what I understand...I believe the Quantum field might be outside natural laws.
Don't think so.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69964 Jan 4, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't agree. Someone takes a PCP to achieve a desired emotional or mental state. But because drugs can be toxic, it produces an undesirable side-effect just like any prescription drugs. Trauma doesn't trigger the same chemical response in the brain that drugs or alcohol do. Trauma actually is opposite of the effects of what drugs do to your brain. Trauma produces a negative effect such as pain or fear but because it triggers chemicals in the brain, the fight-or-flight response, it produces a good desired effect such as peace or positive sensation after reacting or responding to a crisis, it's why in NDE people actually survive death.
No.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69965 Jan 4, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
I already have-time and time again, and that hasn't changed an iota.
I find the type of work being done at CERN, amazing.
Is it because they named it the God Particle? lol

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69966 Jan 4, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>No.
Do you have an explanation?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69967 Jan 5, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text> Some mothers are more connected to their children than others.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
Shared cellular memory could be the reason.
Cellular memory isn't really a thing.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#69968 Jan 5, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you have an explanation?
There's not really anything to respond to. The person you were conversing with made a good point- that nde states can be brought on by things other than near death. Your assertion that a "natural" nde state is somehow categorically different from a drug induced one is unsupported. How are they different? Is it because the chemicals involved are different? If so, why not ascribe a natural nde to the chemicals in the brain, and not some mystical "something." If we could synthesize the exact chemicals involved in an nde and induce one in a volunteer, would it still be categorically different from a natural nde?

And your assertion that people avoid death by having a nde is... funny.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#69969 Jan 5, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Is it because they named it the God Particle? lol
Is what because (Science has named what has eluded them since time began) the God particle?

Was there something you were trying to ask?

Again, try the CERN web, certainly they can explain their life's work, should one ask them a coherent question anyway.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#69970 Jan 5, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text> If we could synthesize the exact chemicals involved in an nde and induce one in a volunteer, would it still be categorically different from a natural nde?
Theoretically, according to still in process hypothesis being studied in comparisons of say justgenetics, in it's parts of the whole of basic evolutionary tenets, Yes, it could be quite "different", due to a little, relatively new phenotype phenomenon dubbed "phenotypic plasticity".

Which is why SOME us have ascribed to the notion, for quite some time(since the first thought existed on the subject anyway) that Science itself would be limited in it's endeavors of exact complete recreation, of anything.

MMMmmmm (NOT) frog legs. lol.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#69971 Jan 5, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Please tell me what I am denying? I have yet to see your evidence of how you come to make that kind of assertion.
Are you just skimming for keywords now? Here, let me copy that line again:

An assertion based on another's lack of evidence is a denial of that assertion's validity, making an assertion requires evidence, denying an assertion is what does not.

I am denying you assertions on the grounds that you lack evidence, you are making the assertions, therefore it is me denying your assertions. Now you are just projecting again, it's like a roller-coaster with you.
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#69972 Jan 5, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
but the fact of the matter is that science doesn't give two hoots about theism or atheism.
Another "well stated".

Why would they, mere philosophy is not at all relevent when it comes to scientific studies of anything.

It' still funny however, to watch the "funDUHee type ignodolts" that just cannot seem to comprehend the very simple FACT, that MANY people can have a pocket Bible (or other categorically related type reading material) in one hand to enjoy reading from, AND(!!) a palm sized periodic table in the other to reference from, with NO PROBLEM whatsoever, in realizing the differences between the two :-).

“Keep the change...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69973 Jan 5, 2013
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
<quoted text>
Another "well stated".
Why would they, mere philosophy is not at all relevent when it comes to scientific studies of anything.
It' still funny however, to watch the "funDUHee type ignodolts" that just cannot seem to comprehend the very simple FACT, that MANY people can have a pocket Bible (or other categorically related type reading material) in one hand to enjoy reading from, AND(!!) a palm sized periodic table in the other to reference from, with NO PROBLEM whatsoever, in realizing the differences between the two :-).
Sagan didn't seem to think so...

“Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality."
TheIndependentMa jority

London, KY

#69974 Jan 5, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you going to post the ones where he basically says you're a dumbass for believing what you do?
It appears that even in accordance to some of his own quotes, that statement would prove detrimental, in thinking Einstien was "hatefilled" like that. Seems the man had better things to do in life.

"God is subtle, but not malicious;" (Einstien).

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 54 min ATHEOI 20,371
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 152,335
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner 1 hr Demon Finder 7
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Into The Night 45,575
Science News (Sep '13) 20 hr Voyeur 3,629
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
More from around the web