Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216739 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.

Mark

United States

#81103 Mar 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
If you had even paid attention to the past few pages it has already been explained that Dark Matter HAS been tested. That's WHY the theory makes successful predictions on the positions and motions of observable astronomical phenomena. When it does that it has PASSED scientific testing.
Cosmologists had another alternative called modified gravity. That one DIDN'T successfully predict the positions and motions of observable astronomical phenomena. Therefore it FAILED scientific testing.
Hence the Dark Matter theory works and is not the "pixie dust" you believe it to be. That's YOUR hypothesis - an invisible magic wizard made everything work with magic. That makes NO testable predictions on observable phenomena AT ALL.

By the way, I notice you didn't apologize for previously LYING YOUR AZZ OFF for Jesus from your introductory posts yesterday.
Dude, If you will check the recent comment by the director of FERME who, while commenting on their recent work on the Boson "God Paritcle" related that they (meaning the entire community of particle physis.) are dissapointed and frustrated in their efforts to find some sort of evidence for dark matter. In other words, the physisists of the highest order are empty handed and can only have faith to beleive dark matter exists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81104 Mar 16, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
With all due respect,there is absoulutely no observable law of physics that allow for an invisible, undetectible force of such universal magnitute! They need to have such a gravity to hold things together for the long ages hypothesis. Without it the time lines don't fit. Are you saying you "beleive" in Dark Matter? Something that can't be detected, observed nor proved? My friend, I used to beleive in the same until something greater than dark matter spoke to me and then answered my prayers. I followed that voice to Christ and then searched for truth to eventually see every strong hold opposing creation pulled down, with reasonable answers to fill my logical questions. Thank you for your kind response and objectivity. Your icon is curious, i worked underground for over 30 years around the world, some in geology. I have done college level field studies on our "subduction" here on the west coast. I feel it was an event with a finite time line, in the end so did my proffesors. another story. regards Mark
In speaking about mass and gravity, have you researched the decay of earths magnetic field? They are decaying so rapidly that the avaition charts are republished every 90 days due to movement of the isogonic lines of variation the effects compass use. Now would'nt it be reasonable and logical to run a reverse calc? If you do one will find a mag field so srong on earth that no life could survive as little as 10,000 YA.
When a properly equipped sat was sent out amoung the planets out to Pluto what was found?, all of them were running down at the same rate as here based on their mass. Dr. Humphreys of Sandia Natl Lab predicted this before the sat left the pad. Boy was that little tidbit left out of the textbooks. Our solar system, moon size and distance are a wonderful and beautiful example of creation. To "beleive" this all came about accidentally seems a wonderfull faith indeed!
Mark, you are an idiot.

And a liar.

And you make meaningless posts lacking the requisite links.

You can't remember your stories that you have picked up from creatard sites. So you retell them poorly.

On Dark Matter, yes it is observed. It is observed in several different ways. Why do you try to limit observation with what can be seen by the eye or touched by the hand. That is not the only way that objects can be observed.

The rest of your nonsense is so laughable I will not bother to debunk at this time.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#81105 Mar 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>not radiocarbon dating...sheesh! there are many types of dating, most rely on the universal conformity of the breakdown of atoms. perhaps you should research this topic so you don't sound so foolish in the future, and you might actually learn something in the process!
You are the one looking foolish by not providing the evidence. I know there are different types of dating. Now are you going to avoid answering the question as your usual response, and resort to ad homs? Why bother even asking you.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#81106 Mar 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
They certainly did not use carbon dating.
Fossils are generally not dated directly. They are usually dated by a combination of relative dating and dating and dating of volcanic events associated with particular strata.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81107 Mar 16, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, If you will check the recent comment by the director of FERME who, while commenting on their recent work on the Boson "God Paritcle" related that they (meaning the entire community of particle physis.) are dissapointed and frustrated in their efforts to find some sort of evidence for dark matter. In other words, the physisists of the highest order are empty handed and can only have faith to beleive dark matter exists.
did you mean Fermilab?

sheesh!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#81108 Mar 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Sure, just hang on a sec while I go tell the entire biological community they've been outsmarted by some random internet geek! It'll be front page news by Monday!
Just FYI, I am not just some random individual on the net. lol

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81109 Mar 16, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, If you will check the recent comment by the director of FERME who, while commenting on their recent work on the Boson "God Paritcle" related that they (meaning the entire community of particle physis.) are dissapointed and frustrated in their efforts to find some sort of evidence for dark matter. In other words, the physisists of the highest order are empty handed and can only have faith to beleive dark matter exists.
Oh, and they found the 'god particle'...
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#81110 Mar 16, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, If you will check the recent comment by the director of FERME who, while commenting on their recent work on the Boson "God Paritcle" related that they (meaning the entire community of particle physis.) are dissapointed and frustrated in their efforts to find some sort of evidence for dark matter. In other words, the physisists of the highest order are empty handed and can only have faith to beleive dark matter exists.
Considering the fact you have to ignore everything I said I maintain my stance that you're just another typical creationist liar for Jesus, consistent inline with the scientific theory of creationists.

If you understood how scientific theories work then what you require is to come up with a better theory than dark matter. It is POSSIBLE that dark matter theory is wrong. But the fact is it works.

Do you have an alternative that's capable of doing the same job but better?

Or are you still sticking to your alternative which is the complete and total anti-thesis of science while still pretending to claim that science you disagree with for theological reasons is unscientific?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#81111 Mar 16, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Fossils are generally not dated directly. They are usually dated by a combination of relative dating and dating and dating of volcanic events associated with particular strata.
Yup. And anything 520 million years old is generally not indicated by carbon dating.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#81112 Mar 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, and they found the 'god particle'...
I bet you also don't have evidence for that claim, now do you?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#81113 Mar 16, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>Oh, and they found the 'god particle'...
I think you're talking to someone who thinks that it has something to do with his religion.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#81114 Mar 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
As a matter of fact my European ancestry also has something to do with Cro-magnon with neanderthal traits. lol
The stuff scientists love to piece together but no idea what this common ancestor really is.
They think, at this time, that the common ancestor to humans and Neanderthals was Homo-heidelbergensis.

Did you notice in the ads they promote here there is a company that will find out how much Neanderthal genes/blood you have??
ThenNowWhatwillB e

San Jose, CA

#81115 Mar 16, 2013
Rose_NoHo wrote:
How can anybody over 6 believe the creation story in the Buy-bull is history? It has day and night before a sun, so we can dismiss the whole thing before the 6th verse. It also has plants growing before there is a sun.
Why don't fundies just say they believe in god, and god created us, but the obviously absurd stories in Genesis aren't history?
So because you don't have the capacity or desire to understand written word... it's the books fault, and "we" should dismiss it?
Got it!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#81116 Mar 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup. And anything 520 million years old is generally not indicated by carbon dating.
Yah and you don't have mathematical evidence.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81117 Mar 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Just FYI, I am not just some random individual on the net. lol
yes, in fact you are!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81118 Mar 16, 2013
ThenNowWhatwillBe wrote:
<quoted text>
So because you don't have the capacity or desire to understand written word... it's the books fault, and "we" should dismiss it?
Got it!
No, you should dismiss it as it is full of proven lies. any rational person would.

cult deprogramming services are in the yellow pages...
Mark

United States

#81119 Mar 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Why not? You believe in God.(shrug)
With all due respect you are completely ignorant of science as a whole, much less physics in particular.
<quoted text>
What reasonable answers? Bub, you're saying that because dark matter is unobservable then it's bogus therefore an invisible Jewish wizard didit with magic. You could not POSSIBLY say anything more hypocritical or stupid.
<quoted text>
And if you knew anything about geology at all you would know that your position is COMPLETELY at odds with scientific consensus.
<quoted text>
Considering that life has survived a minimum of 3 billion years your claim is frankly beyond ridiculous.
<quoted text>
You mean the guy who works for CMI, an organization which openly admits it lies for Jesus?
<quoted text>
How so? What scientific mechanism did God use?
<quoted text>
And to keep claiming that's what science claims is a fundie straw-man. Especially since much natural phenomena is NOT random. The thing that you can't personally get your head around is that the opposite of random is NOT "intelligence".
Math is pretty truthful. If you take 2 people and extend out the most conservative pop. growth model for 1 mill years you would have 10X26th power of inhabitants on the earth. The entire universe could not contain the bones of their ancestors. We have a difference in perspective for sure. One may beleive life has been here 3 bill years, but many other uniform chronometers based on logic and math don't. Ocean sediment accumulation on the sea floor and river delta's are another big one they don't publish or want folks to know about. I could go on but that is not the point, you have a belief system that is yours. My experiance is that evolutionists go to great efforts to be "accepted" and enjoy their "priest like" status. This is why they won't debate anymore, it can get very embarrassing in public to defend these matters when the other party knows their stuff.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81120 Mar 16, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Math is pretty truthful. If you take 2 people and extend out the most conservative pop. growth model for 1 mill years you would have 10X26th power of inhabitants on the earth. The entire universe could not contain the bones of their ancestors. We have a difference in perspective for sure. One may beleive life has been here 3 bill years, but many other uniform chronometers based on logic and math don't. Ocean sediment accumulation on the sea floor and river delta's are another big one they don't publish or want folks to know about. I could go on but that is not the point, you have a belief system that is yours. My experiance is that evolutionists go to great efforts to be "accepted" and enjoy their "priest like" status. This is why they won't debate anymore, it can get very embarrassing in public to defend these matters when the other party knows their stuff.
No0one in their right mind thinks humans have been on Earth for 3 bnillion years! you don't have the foggiest idea of what your are talking about, do you?

let me go make some popcorn before you post more silly shit!...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#81121 Mar 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Yah and you don't have mathematical evidence.
yes, in fact he does as the half life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years.
Mark

United States

#81122 Mar 16, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain how scientists determined the period when trilobites existed about 520 mya and when it went extinct with accuracy?
Yes and how they have been discovered still in soft tissue. On top of that they were able to dissect an eye and found it very complex, they (the trilobite) could even correct for underwater abbaration (shift defraction), what an accident!! Where are the transisional forms!

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) 9 min emrenil 154,706
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 57 min One way or another 48,580
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 9 hr karl44 23,504
Richard Dawkins tells the truth 18 hr Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) Mon _Susan_ 3,985
Might life have spontaneously have started mill... Sun The Northener 642
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) Dec 3 Aura Mytha 179,707
More from around the web