Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 195339 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#78788 Mar 5, 2013
Proof of Evidence wrote:
<quoted text>
You know this is a fact why?
The evidence comes from a variety of sources, from seeing remnants of the first and second generation stars (the longer lived individuals from those generations). Their composition shows the conditions of when they were formed. Also, we know a lot about the processes of the early universe, from the expansion, to nucleosynthesis, to early star formation. We also know the age of the sun and can compare it to the age of the universe in general.

So, yes, there were *at least* two previous generations of stars before the sun and earth formed. Because they overlapped to some extent, it is possible that a third generation was involved.

Now, to gather and understand this evidence, you have to know and understand some of the basic science that has been done over the last century and a half. In particular, the specifics of stellar dynamics and how those are tested against real stars. The differences of composition between Population I, II and III stars. and how those differences were caused is also quite relevant. Understanding a bit of how galaxies form and change is another good point of departure.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#78789 Mar 5, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Just what were my 'opinions' that you are replying to??

"The Bible is just mans made up stories."

Science can and has disproven much of the Bible.

I say that the Bible is just made up stories because science HAS disproven much of it.

Yes, we know the Bible speaks of real people and places of the era. So does Harry Potter's 7 books

However, just like Harry Potter,it has made-up up stories that we now KNOW for a fact are not true, and we have real scientific evidence to back that up.

The one disproven story that will do the most damage to today's Christian dogma is that the story of Adam and Eve, as written in the Bible, is a total fabrication.

A very large portion of the population of the USA and its religions believes that Adam and Eve lived about 6,000 years ago when God finished creating the universe and earth.

Well we know that the earth is Much Much older than 6,000 years, it is in fact over 4 billion years old. We have determined when life started on our planet, and we have determined when man-kind made his/her first appearance.

The life first starting on earth was 3.5 billion years ago (give or take few million years) and we have 2 lines of evidence for humans first appearance on earth....DNA and archaeology/paleoanthropology.

They coincide.....

We have the proof and it is irrefutable.

So, there is 2 of your holy books myths blown the hell up...and we do have more.
Lol Proof? I fail to see how you have disproven the existence of God using the scientific method. Did I miss something? Either the Bible is valid or it is not. You don't get to pick and choose. Furthermore, your opinion of the Bible or Harry Potter or the Quran does in no way disprove the existence of God using the scientific method. Do that and shut us theists up forever.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#78790 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Nor can "that myth" be disproven using the scientific method.
it can't be disproven in any way, just like you can't disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created all and is the ruler of the universe nad your soul.

go ahead, prove he isn't yur god...

“A stitch in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#78791 Mar 5, 2013
Babylon wrote:
<quoted text>
"International Standard Version (©2012)
God fashioned two great lights—the larger light to shine during the day and the smaller light to shine during the night—as well as stars."
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>the moon is not a light....it creates no light of its own.
again, the divinely inspired book of god's creation ALMOST gets it right...
if you read the verse...it no where states that the moon produces it's own light...but only that it shines. Quit inserting your own biases.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#78792 Mar 5, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Roughly 380,000 years after the Big Bang, matter cooled enough for atoms to form during the era of recombination, resulting in a transparent, electrically neutral gas. This set loose the *initial flash of light* created during the Big Bang, which is detectable today as cosmic microwave background radiation. However, after this point, the universe was plunged into darkness, since no stars or any other bright objects had formed yet.
http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-univers...
amazing...light first...and then the stars.
Who would have thought that light was preceded by the formation of stars?
But yet that is exactly how it unfolds in genesis.
ahem...AGAIN...no that is not correct. your bible clearly states that your god, created the Earth before the light, shich as you just pointed out is not how it happened. Hmmm...

again, you god didn't quite get his own creation story right. close, but not quite right.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#78793 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
So we are to ignore the archeological discoveries which can be linked to Biblical accounts?
Why would we do that? The Bible is a mixture of legend, philosophy, tall tales, propaganda and a bit of real history. The history aspect is much better after about 900BC and quite poor before that. This is pretty typical of ancient writings, which tend to make up legendary versions of the origin of the society, and then are reasonably reliable after a certain point (adjusted by propaganda, which is present in all early histories).
Or the modern day lineage of Isaac and Ishmael? By all means, let's just ignore anything other than what is painfully clear to us. Let's not observe things objectively or anything. That's just too logical. In the spirit of logic and of calling a spade a spade, the scientific method cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of a living God.
Why not? it can prove the existence of many other things that exist: Higg's bosons, sulfur bacteria, black holes, etc. Why would a living deity be so hard?
Greater minds than ours (many of whom i profoundly respect) have sought to do so and failed miserably. By all means, formulate your own opinions. Fight the power and stuff. Yet you have no authority to judge or condemn another human being simply because their opinions differ from your own. Especially when you cannot use the scientific method to prove said opinions.
Perhaps the problem is that the theists have given no way of actually *testing* whether God exists. of course, the reason they haven't is that they know that no test will ever show existence.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#78794 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol Proof? I fail to see how you have disproven the existence of God using the scientific method. Did I miss something? Either the Bible is valid or it is not.
That is an incredibly simple-minded stance. The Bible was written by many people with different motives over a long period of time. It doesn't stand or fall as a unit. Even the individual units have been reworked so many times that the original texts have no relation to the modern ones. Nonetheless, there will be historical references that are correct mixed in with the legends and outright fabrications.
You don't get to pick and choose.
Why not? Some parts could be perfectly reliable and other quite poor in their veracity. The same thing happens with all ancient historical texts.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#78795 Mar 5, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
Babylon wrote:
<quoted text>
"International Standard Version (©2012)
God fashioned two great lights—the larger light to shine during the day and the smaller light to shine during the night—as well as stars."
<quoted text>
if you read the verse...it no where states that the moon produces it's own light...but only that it shines. Quit inserting your own biases.
the moon doesn't shine, it reflects.

again, the 'creator' ALMOST got his own story right...

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#78796 Mar 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>it can't be disproven in any way, just like you can't disprove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created all and is the ruler of the universe nad your soul.

go ahead, prove he isn't yur god...
:) So silly. He isn't my God. I don't personally worship the flying spaghetti monster. I can prove that I don't worship him by my actions. Just watch me. Never once will you ever see me bowing before a Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#78797 Mar 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>Why would we do that? The Bible is a mixture of legend, philosophy, tall tales, propaganda and a bit of real history. The history aspect is much better after about 900BC and quite poor before that. This is pretty typical of ancient writings, which tend to make up legendary versions of the origin of the society, and then are reasonably reliable after a certain point (adjusted by propaganda, which is present in all early histories).

[QUOTE]Or the modern day lineage of Isaac and Ishmael? By all means, let's just ignore anything other than what is painfully clear to us. Let's not observe things objectively or anything. That's just too logical. In the spirit of logic and of calling a spade a spade, the scientific method cannot be used to prove or disprove the existence of a living God. "

Why not? it can prove the existence of many other things that exist: Higg's bosons, sulfur bacteria, black holes, etc. Why would a living deity be so hard?

[QUOTE]Greater minds than ours (many of whom i profoundly respect) have sought to do so and failed miserably. By all means, formulate your own opinions. Fight the power and stuff. Yet you have no authority to judge or condemn another human being simply because their opinions differ from your own. Especially when you cannot use the scientific method to prove said opinions. "

Perhaps the problem is that the theists have given no way of actually *testing* whether God exists. of course, the reason they haven't is that they know that no test will ever show existence.
Nor will any test (via scientific method) ever prove the lack thereof. Thus your point is invalid. All you're left with is your own opinion. Which you are entitled to. However, you are not entitled to call my belief as a theist a lie seeing as how you cannot use the scientific method to prove it as such.

“A stitch in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#78798 Mar 5, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>ahem...AGAIN...no that is not correct. your bible clearly states that your god, created the Earth before the light, shich as you just pointed out is not how it happened. Hmmm...
again, you god didn't quite get his own creation story right. close, but not quite right.
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form...(formless)

So if the earth was without form...The material existed, but had not yet condensed into a planet.

Which again, follows exactly what astronomy teaches.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#78799 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
:) So silly. He isn't my God. I don't personally worship the flying spaghetti monster. I can prove that I don't worship him by my actions. Just watch me. Never once will you ever see me bowing before a Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Sure he is, he is everyones' god, he created you and your world...prove it wrong.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#78800 Mar 5, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow.
Now I KNOW you're a christian.
Even though you've never had the guts to state it.
You ought to switch from tampons to kotex.
If you can't understand what you read here you should not reply.

Since: Jan 13

Location hidden

#78801 Mar 5, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>That is an incredibly simple-minded stance. The Bible was written by many people with different motives over a long period of time. It doesn't stand or fall as a unit. Even the individual units have been reworked so many times that the original texts have no relation to the modern ones. Nonetheless, there will be historical references that are correct mixed in with the legends and outright fabrications.

[QUOTE]You don't get to pick and choose."

Why not? Some parts could be perfectly reliable and other quite poor in their veracity. The same thing happens with all ancient historical texts.
So are you admitting the Bible is an ancient historical text? What about the Talmud or the Midrash? They contain historical accounts as well. Do you dispute them as being accurate? Or are you going to pick and choose with that as well?

“A stitch in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#78802 Mar 5, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Roughly 380,000 years after the Big Bang, matter cooled enough for atoms to form during the era of recombination, resulting in a transparent, electrically neutral gas. This set loose the *initial flash of light* created during the Big Bang, which is detectable today as cosmic microwave background radiation. However, after this point, the universe was plunged into darkness, since no stars or any other bright objects had formed yet.
http://www.space.com/52-the-expanding-univers...
amazing...light first...and then the stars.
Who would have thought that light was preceded by the formation of stars?
But yet that is exactly how it unfolds in genesis.
1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3: And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

1- you have the material of heaven and earth...(big bang)

2-and darkness was upon the face of the deep...darkness after the big bang(just as it is described in theory) but no light.

3-Then light(initial flash)

Then the formation of stars and planets.(everything in the exact order as propagated by the big bang theory.)

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#78803 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
So we are to ignore the archeological discoveries which can be linked to Biblical accounts?
They're not ignored but I don't think you'll find archeology to be a great friend to the bible. Yes, some names and locations have been confirmed but the major 'epics' of the bible have not. No evidence of Egyptian slavery, no Exodus, no wandering, no flood, no Babel, etc.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#78804 Mar 5, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>1: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2: And the earth was without form...(formless)

So if the earth was without form...The material existed, but had not yet condensed into a planet.

Which again, follows exactly what astronomy teaches.
Don't waste your time with these fools. No one was around the time the Big Bang occurred. The big bang is another theory and still being debated. No one observed how the universe was formed but these fools believe everything about science.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#78805 Mar 5, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol Proof? I fail to see how you have disproven the existence of God using the scientific method. Did I miss something? Either the Bible is valid or it is not. You don't get to pick and choose. Furthermore, your opinion of the Bible or Harry Potter or the Quran does in no way disprove the existence of God using the scientific method. Do that and shut us theists up forever.
I did not say I could disprove God. I said I can scientifically disprove much of your Bible. If I can disprove much of your Bible what does that say about the Godly authorship.

I say it goes a long way towards disproving your God and proving that your religion is just man made-up crap.

How does it affect your sense of a all-knowing creation creature if we can disprove the Biblical story of the creation of earth, the Adam and Eve story, the Noachian Flood, the Tower of Babel, Moses, the Exodus, Joshua, the authorship of the gospels, and maybe even Jesus?

Well we can....scientifically.
Proof of Evidence

United States

#78806 Mar 5, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Nope....just ridin' the wave of truth..:-)
Now I know you're on something mind altering.

“A stitch in time...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#78807 Mar 5, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't waste your time with these fools. No one was around the time the Big Bang occurred. The big bang is another theory and still being debated. No one observed how the universe was formed but these fools believe everything about science.
lol...it not that I'm really pushing one over the other...but if you notice, the big bang theory more or less correlates with the bible's account of creation...except without God.

And the concept of the Universe arising from 'nothing' is basically based on century year old Buddhist ideas.

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) 8 min Knowledge- 11,311
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr MADRONE 150,574
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 3 hr DanFromSmithville 14,564
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 8 hr READMORE 29,424
Science News (Sep '13) 11 hr positronium 3,576
Ribose can be produced in space Sat DanFromSmithville 3
Cheap Kitchen Units UK Fri jojoyus 1
More from around the web