Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221197 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.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80899 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not familiar with that god myth of which you speak.
I know that man came to speculate that The Almighty exists, AFTER EXPERIENCING REALITY.
It is the experience of natural processes that leads man to think that there is a God;
Therefore, the nature of the natural world is evidence in and of itself that The Almighty exists.
You need to be specific about those mythological gods you speak of...
pretty much most of them. the christian god of the bible ( the abrahamic one) is hte one i am most read up on.

no, the fact that nature exists is proof only that nature exists. nothing more. In no way does it suggest any god, gids or goddesses

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80900 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I have heard you redefine the terms in science so many times that I wonder how you nerds actually know what you are talking about.
Is evolution evolution; or is evolution adaptation?
If evolution is adaptation; then we could have done just fine without the mentioning of evolution.
this statement makes no sense...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80901 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I could say that the Dark Matter proposed by science is pure hokum too; because its existence can only be logically inferred.
But how is it that ones like you are ready to accept a thing that you can only logically infer; yet you cant see how the reality of The Almighty's existence can be inferred?
Is it that your capacity to infer just shuts the [email protected] down when its time to think of The Almighty?
No, in fact, its gravitational effects can be seen.

do not tryt o debunk things you don't really understand. you look foolish when you try.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80902 Mar 15, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
The Dude, of course, speaks the truth....it has been proven...keep up.
What have you been proving, except that you are a [email protected] clown?

What is more logically sound to conclude after you observe two (2)different structures that have common parts:

A. That both structures were made under similar in similar processes

OR

B. That both are from the same object..?

Finding a million commonalities and relationships between men and apes will never prove that men are apes or that men evolved from apes.

You can prove that men and apes were created under the same condition or created by the same processes; but you can never prove that men are apes as such, nor anything of the sort.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#80903 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Well I could say that the Dark Matter proposed by science is pure hokum too; because its existence can only be logically inferred.
But how is it that ones like you are ready to accept a thing that you can only logically infer; yet you cant see how the reality of The Almighty's existence can be inferred?
Is it that your capacity to infer just shuts the [email protected] down when its time to think of The Almighty?
Wrong, Dark matter is no longer a proposition, its existence has been observed in several ways, measured and those measurements bare out 5/6th of universal mass predicted for it. Its effects on light can be seen simply by looking into the night sky, if you know what you are looking for. That was the trick, descoving what you were looking for

You see you can’t just say,“I don’t understand so therefore goddidt” and so any scientific evidence can safely be ignored (or worse, denied from the point of incredulity) because it screws up your belief. Adopt attitudes like that and you are stuck in the bronze age. Then how would you have been able to post on topix?

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#80904 Mar 15, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep conflating "proof" with "evidence".
That is patently dishonest.
I didn't think your god liked dishonesty.
In fact it is claimed that he disliked dishonesty so much he carved it in rock

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80905 Mar 15, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact it is claimed that he disliked dishonesty so much he carved it in rock
it came right after the commandemnts covering his own jealousy and insecurity...they topped the list.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80906 Mar 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And this is where you fail. If this were correct EVERY imagined concept would be equally valid. This is not the case. The reason being the scientific method.
No.

I dont see that every imagined concept would be equally valid if that were correct.

Explain yourself.

Nevertheless, the scientific method does not prove anything nor validate anything.

The scientific method is an attempt to REDUCE BIAS; but the reduction of bias and the human ability to experience absolute reality are two different things.

Or is it that whatever has been approached with the scientific method is automatically valid and accurate?
I swear you keep jabbering about that scientific method crap as if it makes a difference.

There are only two objective unambiguous answers in all of existence: YES and NO.

Either a this IS or that thing NOT.

No amount of procedure and 'methodologizing' can get around that simple IS or NOT, YES or NO.
The Dude wrote:
Yes, just like we only have a working knowledge of gravity, but even today it is not completely understood. Despite this our knowledge has enabled us to send spacecraft to other worlds.
<quoted text>
Totally superfluous to the discussion. I could give a rat's @ss where you send your space craft...
The Dude wrote:
Ah, the "How do YOU know? Where you THERE?!?" argument. There's a reason why they roll their eyes in court every time they hear this one.
Meaningless.

Let them roll their eyes till they fall from the sockets.
But if YOU were not there; you cannot know beyond the shadow of a doubt what occurred,so we have all authority to ask "Where YOU THERE!?"

If you were not there, all your conclusions and descriptions will be dependent on evidence the way YOU choose interpret it...
The Dude wrote:
You misunderstanding of terminology is why you fail.
You have resorted to the confusing of terminologies (that only you seem to be able to understand)to attempt to make us fail.
The Dude wrote:
A two-dimensional universe is logical. We can have mathematical models of it and you can throw all the numbers you like at it and it will still be logical and internally consistent. But a two-dimensional universe is inconsistent with reality. Logic, like math, is dependent upon axioms. Axioms are arbitrary. So while logic can work it doesn't mean it's describing reality. Reality has to be tested by practical means. And if reality coflicts with your logic then your logic is simply wrong. Like heavier objects falling faster than lighter ones was thought to be logical until it was scientifically tested.
Anything can be logical.

The validity of a logical argument is based on what the premises are.

As long as the conclusion is consistent with the premises of an argument, the argument is logical and sound.

LOGIC DOES NOT DEPEND ON AXIOMS; BUT AXIOMS DEPEND ON LOGIC.

You are thinking backwards and being utterly nonsensical.

You say that reality must be tested by practical means; but show me the practical thing that is not logical.

Logic is the fundamental means of testing reality; because at no point in time are we able to perceive the entirety of reality.

The side of reality that is undetectable by human senses can only be related to and measured through logic.
The Dude wrote:
As it is, there is a logical reason why you believe in God.
I REST MY CASE.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80907 Mar 15, 2013
HOG, perhaps I was too nice earlier.

There is massive evidence for evolution. There is no scientific evidence for creation.

Of course I am cheating a little bit there since I used the specific term "scientific evidence". Scientific evidence is a well defined term. It means evidence that supports or attacks a scientific theory or hypothesis. No creation "scientist" is willing to make a testable "hypothesis of creation". A "hypothesis of creation" would not need to show how God created the universe. It would only need to describe some of the features that we see of the universe through the paradigm of creation.

Again, no creation scientist is willing to make such a testable hypothesis. And you cannot even think of developing a theory with going through the hypothesis stage first. That shows that the scientists on your side know they are advocating for a falsehood.

Evolution can explain the fossil record.

Creation can't.

Evolution can explain our DNA, especially the nested hierarchy that is found.

Creation can't.

Evolution can explain ERV's.

Creation can't.

When it comes to science you will find that the chorus is "creation can't".
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80908 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>pretty much most of them. the christian god of the bible ( the abrahamic one) is hte one i am most read up on.
I doubt that you are most read upon Him; you dont even seem to have any literacy skills.

Furthermore, to say that you are "most read up on" Him says nothing; you could have read only one sentence about other gods and read only one paragraph on Him then make that claim.

If you were sufficiently literate and had actually read to any length; you would not call Him a myth.
woodtick57 wrote:
...no, the fact that nature exists is proof only that nature exists. nothing more.
But if The Almighty Created nature, then It is a part of nature; hence Its Potentials will be demonstrated in nature. And you cannot dispute the existence of power.

Hence:

"1The heavens declare the glory (success/efficiency) of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. 2Day to day utters speech, and night to night shows knowledge." [Psalm 19:2]

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80909 Mar 15, 2013
And though HOG may be more intelligent than our average creatard here, he is still dishonest.

He obviously believes in creation by a god of some sort but he will not go into any details of his belief.

Trying to play coy is not being honest. We cannot have a civilized debate if one side is not fully honest from the start.

Also, science can refute a claim if it is well enough defined. He is playing the I won't be specific so you can't debunk my claims game. Another dishonest ploy.

So yes, science cannot "prove" anything. It cannot prove that the universe was made last Thursday complete with false memories and fake evidence. But to believe that is a fruitless belief.

What science can do is tho show how ideas "work". As an idea evolution "works" creationism doesn't. It is a very useful too that is guiding present day medicine, is used in oil exploration, is used even in modern day engineering. Creation as a science is not used in anything.

Creationism does not "work".

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80910 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I doubt that you are most read upon Him; you dont even seem to have any literacy skills.
Furthermore, to say that you are "most read up on" Him says nothing; you could have read only one sentence about other gods and read only one paragraph on Him then make that claim.
If you were sufficiently literate and had actually read to any length; you would not call Him a myth.
<quoted text>
But if The Almighty Created nature, then It is a part of nature; hence Its Potentials will be demonstrated in nature. And you cannot dispute the existence of power.
Hence:
"1The heavens declare the glory (success/efficiency) of God; and the firmament shows his handiwork. 2Day to day utters speech, and night to night shows knowledge." [Psalm 19:2]
in fact i know quite a bit about many religious cults. this is why i can say with certainty that the god of the bible is a myth. note that I am not saying it disproves any god ever,t hat is impossible, but the god of the bible cannot be as described.

when you start with the supposittion "If the allmighty created nature.." you are not showing evidence of anything. you are making a suppostion not based on any facts.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80911 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>No, in fact, its gravitational effects can be seen.
No you do not know the source of the gravitational disturbances; thats why you associate them with a "Dark" matter.

The term "Dark" is used to represent the ignorance of its true nature.

So you dont know whether the thing which you have identified is the actual thing that exists.

And until you can whip up a pound in a scoop and drop it "PLOP!" on the laboratory table; you cant talk to me as if you know what it is.
woodtick57 wrote:
...do not tryt o debunk things you don't really understand. you look foolish when you try.
Do not try to prove the reality of things that you dont know. You ARE foolish when you try.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80912 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No you do not know the source of the gravitational disturbances; thats why you associate them with a "Dark" matter.
The term "Dark" is used to represent the ignorance of its true nature.
So you dont know whether the thing which you have identified is the actual thing that exists.
And until you can whip up a pound in a scoop and drop it "PLOP!" on the laboratory table; you cant talk to me as if you know what it is.
<quoted text>
Do not try to prove the reality of things that you dont know. You ARE foolish when you try.
woodtick's post was correct. The gravitational effect of Dark Matter can be seen. There are photographs of stars that show this. I could post links if you like.

You are correct that the Dark Matter itself cannot be seen. But then we cannot see electrons, neutrons, or protons. We can observe their effects. And we can observe their effects much easier than we can observe the effects of dark matter.

You still cannot scoop up a handful of electrons and put them in a beaker, at least not by themselves.
Sparkle

United States

#80913 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>in fact i know quite a bit about many religious cults. this is why i can say with certainty that the god of the bible is a myth. note that I am not saying it disproves any god ever,t hat is impossible, but the god of the bible cannot be as described.
when you start with the supposittion "If the allmighty created nature.." you are not showing evidence of anything. you are making a suppostion not based on any facts.
That's why we claim we are born gay and the christards tell us it isnt natural.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80914 Mar 15, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong, Dark matter is no longer a proposition, its existence has been observed in several ways, measured and those measurements bare out 5/6th of universal mass predicted for it. Its effects on light can be seen simply by looking into the night sky, if you know what you are looking for. That was the trick, descoving what you were looking for
Do you realize that you are still inferring the existence of the phenomena by describing its assumed effects in the readily observable plane?

You have identified that something is happening; BUT you have not proven whether its "dark matter" or "Holy angels".
ChristineM wrote:
You see you can’t just say,“I don’t understand so therefore goddidt” and so any scientific evidence can safely be ignored (or worse, denied from the point of incredulity) because it screws up your belief.
So who is saying that?

I am certainly not saying that.

Why should I say scientific evidence can safely be ignored, when science itself can help me to understand HOW GODDIDIT?

Are you new here?

Furthermore, even if I was saying Goddidit, it would be justifiable according to my definition/understanding of The Nature of God.
ChristineM wrote:
Adopt attitudes like that and you are stuck in the bronze age. Then how would you have been able to post on topix?
Clown, modern society is built on the bronze ages etc.

The modern is a development of the primitive. Notice that the only significant difference between the tools of modern man and those of ancient man is the level of efficiency. THE SAME THINGS THAT WERE VALID THEN ARE THE SAME THINGS THAT ARE VALID NOW.

Where do you think even your medical knowledge comes from?

Your most sophisticated sciences are steeped in the occult principles of nations long ago. Idiot.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80915 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
No you do not know the source of the gravitational disturbances; thats why you associate them with a "Dark" matter.
The term "Dark" is used to represent the ignorance of its true nature.
So you dont know whether the thing which you have identified is the actual thing that exists.
And until you can whip up a pound in a scoop and drop it "PLOP!" on the laboratory table; you cant talk to me as if you know what it is.
<quoted text>
Do not try to prove the reality of things that you dont know. You ARE foolish when you try.
this is why no-one has yet attempted to say exactly what this 'dark matter' is. we lnly know its effects.

now...wouldn't that same thing go for this 'god' you profess exists? when you can plop a scoop of your god an a lab table, we can start the discussion of its existence...

logic is fun!
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80916 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
... There is no scientific evidence for creation.
OMG!!!!!!

I thought you were dumb the moment you took an atheistic stance; but that statement just slaps the [email protected] icing on the cake.

The only place where no evidence for creation exists, is in a place where absolutely nothing exists; YOU IDIOT!

It is lunacy to say that there is no evidence for creation; the only thing you can question as such, regarding the presence of structure, is what actually created it.

IF "There is no scientific evidence for creation."; then you cant prove that man has created anything?

The means by which you seek to deny the existence of God will be the very means used to deny your existence. Keep it up.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Of course I am cheating a little bit there since I used the specific term "scientific evidence". Scientific evidence is a well defined term. It means evidence that supports or attacks a scientific theory or hypothesis. No creation "scientist" is willing to make a testable "hypothesis of creation".
Thats because the education system is in favor of the secular. Hence it is too difficult and maybe even impossible to refute secular concepts using secular knowledge.

So its not that creation scientists are not willing to make a testable hypothesis of that nature; but rather that the system of knowledge does not allow them to do so.

So the nature of academics is to be blamed for that shortcoming, not creation scientists.
Subduction Zone wrote:
A "hypothesis of creation" would not need to show how God created the universe. It would only need to describe some of the features that we see of the universe through the paradigm of creation.
Obviously you have never read the Bible.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80917 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you realize that you are still inferring the existence of the phenomena by describing its assumed effects in the readily observable plane?
You have identified that something is happening; BUT you have not proven whether its "dark matter" or "Holy angels".
<quoted text>
So who is saying that?
I am certainly not saying that.
Why should I say scientific evidence can safely be ignored, when science itself can help me to understand HOW GODDIDIT?
Are you new here?
Furthermore, even if I was saying Goddidit, it would be justifiable according to my definition/understanding of The Nature of God.
<quoted text>
Clown, modern society is built on the bronze ages etc.
The modern is a development of the primitive. Notice that the only significant difference between the tools of modern man and those of ancient man is the level of efficiency. THE SAME THINGS THAT WERE VALID THEN ARE THE SAME THINGS THAT ARE VALID NOW.
Where do you think even your medical knowledge comes from?
Your most sophisticated sciences are steeped in the occult principles of nations long ago. Idiot.
Really?!? our understanding of Alzheimers comes from ancient civilizations? how so? they did lay the foundations of medicine but most of it was incorrect...

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#80918 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
OMG!!!!!!
I thought you were dumb the moment you took an atheistic stance; but that statement just slaps the [email protected] icing on the cake.
The only place where no evidence for creation exists, is in a place where absolutely nothing exists; YOU IDIOT!
It is lunacy to say that there is no evidence for creation; the only thing you can question as such, regarding the presence of structure, is what actually created it.
IF "There is no scientific evidence for creation."; then you cant prove that man has created anything?
The means by which you seek to deny the existence of God will be the very means used to deny your existence. Keep it up.
<quoted text>
Thats because the education system is in favor of the secular. Hence it is too difficult and maybe even impossible to refute secular concepts using secular knowledge.
So its not that creation scientists are not willing to make a testable hypothesis of that nature; but rather that the system of knowledge does not allow them to do so.
So the nature of academics is to be blamed for that shortcoming, not creation scientists.
<quoted text>
Obviously you have never read the Bible.
Obviously he has.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Science 66,718
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 min Subduction Zone 160,870
Why isn't intelligent design really science? 1 hr pshun2404 37
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 2 hr Subduction Zone 86
What does the theory of evolution state? 2 hr Subduction Zone 122
News Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 2 hr Subduction Zone 149
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 3 hr Aura Mytha 28,500
More from around the web