Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163772 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.

HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80929 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!
Good post!

At this point, you unlike the rest, seem to be willing and able to think with fairness.

I appreciate you for that.

Its very important that we are WILLING to think fairly, no matter how much we think we know.

By now you should be able to understand why no "creationist" has yet attempted to say/show exactly what God is (or provide evidence as such): WE ONLY KNOW HIS/ITS EFFECTS.

Indeed, logic is fun.

LOL!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80930 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.
And if your god did create the universe a scientist should be able to come up with a hypothesis that explains what we observe via that paradigm.

We are still waiting.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80931 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Really?!? our understanding of Alzheimers comes from ancient civilizations? how so? they did lay the foundations of medicine but most of it was incorrect...
Is that what you heard?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80932 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post!
At this point, you unlike the rest, seem to be willing and able to think with fairness.
I appreciate you for that.
Its very important that we are WILLING to think fairly, no matter how much we think we know.
By now you should be able to understand why no "creationist" has yet attempted to say/show exactly what God is (or provide evidence as such): WE ONLY KNOW HIS/ITS EFFECTS.
Indeed, logic is fun.
LOL!
there is nothing tha suggests any god or gods or goddesses had anything to do with creation.

if you are not trying to suggest any god, why all the bible quotes?

you seem to disprove your own posts....

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80933 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Good post!
At this point, you unlike the rest, seem to be willing and able to think with fairness.
I appreciate you for that.
Its very important that we are WILLING to think fairly, no matter how much we think we know.
By now you should be able to understand why no "creationist" has yet attempted to say/show exactly what God is (or provide evidence as such): WE ONLY KNOW HIS/ITS EFFECTS.
Indeed, logic is fun.
LOL!
Fine, then what are his effects and how does that show that he created the world. It is easy to make baseless claims. Backing them up is that hard part.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80934 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
...Did you not notice I specifically stated there is no "scientific evidence" for creationism?
I intentionally disregard terminologies like "scientific evidence" and "scientific observation".

No evidence is any more or less scientific than any other; EITHER THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR A THING OR THERE IS NONE. Period. Hence it become unnecessary to distinguished between scientific and non-scientific evidence.

You only add those terminologies to make yourself feel special.
Subduction Zone wrote:
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.
So its not that there is no "scientific" evidence; just that they havent found it yet? I tend to agree.
Subduction Zone wrote:
...
So you are trying to claim there is scientific evidence for creation.
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh, I would say the fact that something is present suggests that it was created at sometime by something, somewhere. Wouldnt you?

LOL!!!
Subduction Zone wrote:
... If you don't you lose by definition of the term "scientific evidence".
Thats the only way I can lose; by the way you choose to define the terms at that point in time.

You aint more knowledgeable nor reasonable than the average creationist; you just shift things up a whole lot more and invent stuff to convince yourselves.

What is the function of forming separate terminologies as if to form a separate language?

Are you not the same people studying the same phenomena in the same universe?

If the normal terms used by the natural person cannot describe what is happening; then are you describing something supernatural and abnormal?
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80935 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
... 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...
Seems to me that EVOLUTION THEORY is an attempt to replace the current THEORY OF CREATION with something a bit more... scientific.

Arent they attempting to explain why they believe life emerged from 'the inanimate'(which includes non-existence, interestingly enough)?
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80936 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
...
sothen, where is this evidence of a god tha no human has ever found a shred of?
I am.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#80937 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Seems to me that EVOLUTION THEORY is an attempt to replace the current THEORY OF CREATION with something a bit more... scientific.
Arent they attempting to explain why they believe life emerged from 'the inanimate'(which includes non-existence, interestingly enough)?
evolution theory does not attmpt to discuss how first life came to be.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80938 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And if your god did create the universe a scientist should be able to come up with a hypothesis that explains what we observe via that paradigm.
We are still waiting.
Its interesting that you know what to look for, yet you dont proceed to look for it.

Now that communicates something about your attitude or natural disposition towards "God".

You are hardly arguing without your personal biases.

Your argument is motivated by prejudice.

It is the ones who argue for a thing that bear the burden of proof; so the ones that argue AGAINST it have the "burden of disproof".

It is you that bear the burden of disproof regarding the existence of God. We are still waiting.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80939 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>there is nothing tha suggests any god or gods or goddesses had anything to do with creation...
There is nothing that suggest that no god or gods or goddesses had anything to do with creation either.

God or gods or goddesses could have influence creation; there is no way to prove that they didnt.

All you have is that "agent is superfluous to the study of the created" garbage. Pffft.

So either stop hating on God or continue to prove how lunatic you are.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80940 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I intentionally disregard terminologies like "scientific evidence" and "scientific observation".
No evidence is any more or less scientific than any other; EITHER THERE IS EVIDENCE FOR A THING OR THERE IS NONE. Period. Hence it become unnecessary to distinguished between scientific and non-scientific evidence.
You only add those terminologies to make yourself feel special.
No, I use those terminologies because they are useful. Scientists are very contentious too and used to say the same sort of idiotic things that you do. They would deny evidence that exists and claim evidence when they did not have any. As a result they developed a working definition of "evidence". You don't like it because you have no evidence.

You have yet to post any evidence for creation, scientific or not.

And by ignoring those terms you openly admit that you are ignoring science. That is a very good way to lose a scientific debate.
<quoted text>
So its not that there is no "scientific" evidence; just that they havent found it yet? I tend to agree.
<quoted text>
Uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh, I would say the fact that something is present suggests that it was created at sometime by something, somewhere. Wouldnt you?
LOL!!!
No, that would be a circular argument on your part. You did not even define the term "created". There is no evidence that the universe was "created". All of your claims about how the universe had to be created can be applied to your god too. Who created your god? If you claim he was always here we can claim that the universe was always here.
<quoted text>
Thats the only way I can lose; by the way you choose to define the terms at that point in time.
You aint more knowledgeable nor reasonable than the average creationist; you just shift things up a whole lot more and invent stuff to convince yourselves.
What is the function of forming separate terminologies as if to form a separate language?
Are you not the same people studying the same phenomena in the same universe?
If the normal terms used by the natural person cannot describe what is happening; then are you describing something supernatural and abnormal?
No, you can lose by not supporting your claims. Which you have not done in the least little bit.

Once again the definition for scientific evidence came about so that scientists could not deny someone else's evidence with a wave of his hands.

Science uses that definition because it WORKS. It helps to keep debates honest and reality based. You do not like the term because you do not like reality.
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80941 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Fine, then what are his effects and how does that show that he created the world...
Are you serious?

If I came to you and said there was a green light around the back of your house; how would you verify my claim?

Have you not heard of the "effects" (attributes) of God, and how His efficiency is demonstrated in the workings of nature and the universe at large?

Are you serious?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80942 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Its interesting that you know what to look for, yet you dont proceed to look for it.
Now that communicates something about your attitude or natural disposition towards "God".
You are hardly arguing without your personal biases.
Your argument is motivated by prejudice.
It is the ones who argue for a thing that bear the burden of proof; so the ones that argue AGAINST it have the "burden of disproof".
It is you that bear the burden of disproof regarding the existence of God. We are still waiting.
Since I do not believe your nonsense in the first place it is ridiculous to expect me to look for your evidence. Talk about being hypocritical. I don't expect creationists to look for the evidence for evolution. Why do you idiots expect us to look for your evidence?

And where do you think that I am arguing against the existence of god? Arguing for evolution is not arguing against god in the least. There are many Christians who believe the theory of evolution. They know that Genesis is myth and nothing more.

You seem to have the same attitude that Pope Urban had when Galileo showed that the Earth was not the center of the universe. He felt that his god was under attack by Galileo since the Bible clearly states that the Earth does not move and that it is circled by the heavenly bodies.

Strange how most creatards accept the fact that the universe is not geocentric, yet they still doubt the science of evolution.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80943 Mar 15, 2013
HOG_ Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you serious?
If I came to you and said there was a green light around the back of your house; how would you verify my claim?
Have you not heard of the "effects" (attributes) of God, and how His efficiency is demonstrated in the workings of nature and the universe at large?
Are you serious?
I have heard nonsensical arguments like that before.

They are just noise. When we can show that the universe would work just as well without god that argument becomes meaningless.

We no longer need angels to push the planets around in their orbits. That has been explained by Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, and now Einstein. Each improving upon the work of the others. Where did the angels go?
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80944 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
... Scientists are very contentious too...
We sorta figured that out ourselves.
Subduction Zone wrote:
You have yet to post any evidence for creation, scientific or not.
If you cant see evidence for creation, you are not only blind, but brain-dead.

Science would speculate that the world EMERGED from the point of the Big-Bang; so the universe was brought into existence at a specific point.

YET YOU SEE NO EVIDENCE OF CREATION?

Interesting. How very interesting.
Subduction Zone wrote:
And by ignoring those terms you openly admit that you are ignoring science. That is a very good way to lose a scientific debate.
Well I dont have to give a good f@ck.

The validity of my thoughts and conceptions is not based on their scientific-ness; but rather on the consistency between them and the world in which I live.

As such: I dont have to be scientific to be factual, accurate and right. All I need is to be equal in my thinking or be able to think with equity.

It is equity which validates all knowledge, because if there is no equivalence between what you have in mind and the reality; your knowledge is a lie, scientific or not.

Accuracy, fact, reality and truth dont revolve around science dude. Science depends on these things, these things dont depend on science.
Subduction Zone wrote:
No, that would be a circular argument on your part. You did not even define the term "created".
Awwwwww f@ck!!!

You mean to tell me that a simple word does not mean what it means?

You twist and turn things so much, that a simple word such as "create" might not even mean "create" anymore!

OMFG!!!
Subduction Zone wrote:
There is no evidence that the universe was "created".
WTF?

Are you sane?

THE UNIVERSE THAT WAS NOT CREATED DOES NOT EXIST; FOR THE SIMPLE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT GENERATED.
Subduction Zone wrote:
Who created your god? If you claim he was always here we can claim that the universe was always here.
That has nothing to do with whether God created the universe or not.

The idea of God's origin is a separate one from God's creation of the universe.

But if you accept evolution which speculates at life from the in-animate; why cant you accept that God created Himself (life from the non-living, existence from the non-existent)?
Subduction Zone wrote:
Once again the definition for scientific evidence came about so that scientists could not deny someone else's evidence with a wave of his hands.
Thats obviously not working...
Subduction Zone wrote:
Science uses that definition because it WORKS. It helps to keep debates honest and reality based.
Thats not working out too well for you either.
Subduction Zone wrote:
You do not like the term because you do not like reality.
No.

I actually disregard the term because it is deceptive.

The term separates one type of experience from another when "Experience" in one thing.

I hate the term because it makes things appear as if no one can make a valid point or assertion unless they think the way you do.

And youre boring; so just imagine if we all thought like you. F@ck nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooo!!!
HOG_ Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#80945 Mar 15, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>evolution theory does not attmpt to discuss how first life came to be.
So it cannot be used to dispute nor refute the claim or speculation that God created first life.*shrug*

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#80946 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did the angels go?
Anaheim?
bohart

Newport, TN

#80947 Mar 15, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
HOG, first I would like to know what you believe and why. I believe that the theory of evolution is very accurate.
Yes, evidence can cut both ways. The problem for creationists is that it is very hard if not impossible to argue that the evidence supports creationism in any way at all.
My speciality is geology. Creationists have no explanation for the fossil record. Or perhaps I should say that any explanation they try to make has been easily debunked to date.
So once again, what do you believe and why? How old do you think the Earth is? Are you a YEC or an OEC?
"When men cease to believe in God, they do not then believe in nothing, they will believe in anything"

G.K Chesterton.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#80948 Mar 15, 2013
I see that HOG has left behind all pretense at reason and is now just sputtering and making noise.

Too bad. I had such hopes.

Sadly he is just another creatard who cannot back up his beliefs when challenged.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr dirtclod 141,328
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) 9 hr Chimney1 1,871
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Sat Kong_ 80
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) Sat Swedenforever 159
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 18 SoE 178,597
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) May 15 emrenil 1,243
More from around the web