Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168460 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 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

Rochelle, IL

#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 f@ckin 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 f@ckin 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.
Messenger

San Jose, CA

#80919 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>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!
Ignorance is bliss.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80920 Mar 15, 2013
Sparkle wrote:
<quoted text>
That's why we claim we are born gay and the christards tell us it isnt natural.
I do believe that many Christians "doth protest to much", pardon the paraphrase. Of course I used to believe that your practices were unnatural too, until I realized that they had no effect on me. Perhaps like some of the most vociferous Christian attackers of gay people perhaps swing a bit both ways. It won't be the first time that someone attacking gay people was gay himself and sadly it will not be the last time.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80921 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
The details of my belief are superfluous to the discussion.

Avoiding the superfluous is hardly dishonest.
Subduction Zone wrote:
...
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.
What are you talking about?

Show me where I have failed to and deliberately avoided being specific where it was necessary.

Are you pi$$ed because I dont ramble on about some personal belief I concocted based on my personal sentimentality?
Subduction Zone wrote:
So yes, science cannot "prove" anything.
I REST MY CASE!!!!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80922 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 f@ckin 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.
So you are creatard after all.

Did you not notice I specifically stated there is no "scientific evidence" for creationism?

It is the fault of your fellow creatards that there is no scientific evidence for creation since there is no scientific hypothesis or theory of creation.

Once again you strike a nerve in the creatard "intellect" and all thinking ability goes out the window.

So you are trying to claim there is scientific evidence for creation.

Fine.

Then first you must state the scientific theory or hypothesis of creation and then what this evidence is.

If you don't you lose by definition of the term "scientific evidence".

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80923 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you have never read the Bible.
you mean where your god got his creation story ALMOST correct? that bible?

Sheesh!
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80924 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.
You are entitled to your opinion.
woodtick57 wrote:
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.
He is so marvelous and awe-inspiring. I know right.
woodtick57 wrote:
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.
I might not be immediately showing evidence of anything; but the line of reasoning CAN SHOW ME WHERE/HOW TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE.

You know that. You know better.

You know that it is a valid practice to test the logical validity of an idea before you go about searching for it.

Stop wasting my time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80925 Mar 15, 2013
And again my challenge to any creatards out there.

Please try to read and understand this. A THEORY OF CREATION does not need to explain HOW god created the universe. It only needs to explain why they believe life is created from the observable evidence.

Creation scientists are not willing to write a testable hypothesis that describes what they see and why.

They have not been able to explain the fossil record using creationism.

They have not been able to explain homology verses convergent evolution via creationism.

They have not been able to explain the nested hierarchy of life with creationism.

They have not been able to explain ERV's with creationism.

I could go on and on listing the things that creationism has not been able to explain.

As I pointed out earlier if they could they would have a testable hypothesis they cold develop to see if they were correct.

Most know in their heart of hearts that they are not correct. That is why they will not develop a testable hypothesis.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80926 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
...the Dark Matter itself cannot be seen. But then we cannot see electrons, neutrons, or protons. We can observe their effects...
Yet somehow you fail to see how the existence of the Almighty may be deduced, though only Its effects can be observed.

You are the true definition of hypocrisy.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80927 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
You are entitled to your opinion.
<quoted text>
He is so marvelous and awe-inspiring. I know right.
<quoted text>
I might not be immediately showing evidence of anything; but the line of reasoning CAN SHOW ME WHERE/HOW TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE.
You know that. You know better.
You know that it is a valid practice to test the logical validity of an idea before you go about searching for it.
Stop wasting my time.
Facts are not opinion...

the god that gives slavery a big thumbs up is awesome? you must be as big of a prick as your god is...

sothen, where is this evidence of a god tha no human has ever found a shred of?

sheesh!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80928 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet somehow you fail to see how the existence of the Almighty may be deduced, though only Its effects can be observed.
You are the true definition of hypocrisy.
Hardly. Here is evidence that my god exists, can you do better:

http://www.fermentarium.com/random-news/giant...

rAmen.

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) 54 min dirtclod 19,737
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 1 hr Brian_G 6,159
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr kenedy njoroge 141,781
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 7 hr Paul Porter1 186
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Mon Chimney1 560
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Sun Chimney1 178,667
Poll Should Topix create an Philosophy forum? (Oct '09) Jun 26 NoahLovesU 6
More from around the web