Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209907 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.

Krypteia

Brighton, UK

#83163 Mar 27, 2013
Libertarian wrote:
Oh please. It didn't appear from nothing.
atoms formed molecules, molecules formed protein chains, simple basic chemistry.
Life is not a divine spark that is started like a car, it is an ongoing chemical process that just joined up with others. Once we joined with mitochondria which infected our single celled ancestor we could then become multicellular.
Piece of proverbial evolutionary cake. Certainly makes a lot more sense then some magical being waving his hand and then nearly 14 billion years later starting to care what people eat or who they sleep with. Get a grip people and join us in the modern era.
But doe's it matter if someone wants to believe in god or not,doe's it interfere in your life if someone goe's to church..
On your post who's to say that a god didn't make all these things in the first place and his/ hers plan was for this to happen in the long run..

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#83164 Mar 27, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Palin publicly stated that she expected to (paraphrased)'see Jesus in my(her) lifetime'.
It is mind-bogglingly frightening to have someone of that mind-set that close to 'The Button'. Especially when she was running as VP to John McCain, who has had a history of health/heart problems.
I didn't like any of the candidates on either side and would prefer there had been more to choose from. Picking between "dingy" and "lying scumbag" isn't exactly an ideal situation to be in. Even dingy Reagan, in the initial stages of Alzhiemer's,(and his looking to fortuneteller's for advice) did far less harm than Obama has. Dingy is looking more appealing with every day that passes.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83165 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
I feel like I'm in a battle, but not with God....He doesn't exist.
I'm in a battle with people who will not explore something that is really important to them, and our world in general.
More of your assertions.
Let them keep coming!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83166 Mar 27, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you think we can't disprove parts of the Bible??
Your so called evidence against the bible will never invalidate the bible.
Mark

United States

#83167 Mar 27, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, how are you doing on that reasonable question I asked you yesterday?
Have you found the name of just ONE qualified, PhD'ed biologist or geologist who is NOT a Christian and NOT religious, but yet who has concluded that the earth is only about 6000 years old and that humanity spring from two first individuals 6000 years ago BASED SOLELY AND COMPLETELY ON THE EVIDENCE?
Do you agree that this is a reasonable question to ask and that you should not have any trouble finding such a person -- millions of them, actually -- if reality actually conformed to your religious beliefs?
And assuming you CANNOT find such a person -- do you find it telling and very odd that the ONLY PEOPLE who advocate your 6000 year-old scenario are Bible-beleiving American Protestant fundamentalist Christians of one stripe or another?
I mean, shouldn't it be OBVIOUS what is going on here?
I never stated that 6000 YO figure, that’s yours. For those who believe in Biblical truth, if you extrapolate the births and ages given in Genesis that figure comes up. If you don't believe what the Bible teaches, why believe in that specific age unless you believe that the Bible is true? It begs the question! As far as your reaction to Christ's warning about what little children should be taught, now you know, those are His words, not mine.

Other short age chronometers based on uniform conditions are supported in science, more so than long age dating methods I feel, such as those using isotopes of lead. A question on those; if leads origin is radioactive then deteriorates to pure lead, why isn't the earth completely radioactive?- most of Missouri and nearby states should be hot, as well as other huge portions of the earth, and no life could exist. You can't have it both ways, you hang on long age 1/2 life based on measured rates, but refuse to reverse the same number to look into the past of this old earth you embrace! Another accident needed to allow life to be self-created? or all the elements of lead that just happen to be in safe proportions when the earth was formed, more questions for your side and fewer accident-related answers.

I am not a trickster, and where is your science in cell operation to get new life forms? Where did the cell and brain come from, another sensitive spot? But Oh, we must get this all in order in the mindless self-directed world of evolution!

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#83168 Mar 27, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Ofcourse, we are in democracy.
You have no evidence against the existence of God.
More of your assertions.
There is no evidence against the existence of Superman either.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#83169 Mar 27, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Your so called evidence against the bible will never invalidate the bible.
So you don't care about reality at all.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83170 Mar 27, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I never stated that 6000 YO figure, that’s yours.
Do you agree that the following is a reasonable question to ask?

Can you give us the name of just ONE qualified, PhD'ed biologist or geologist who is NOT a Christian and NOT religious, but yet who has concluded that the earth is only about 6000 years old and that humanity spring from two first individuals 6000 years ago BASED SOLELY AND COMPLETELY ON THE EVIDENCE?

And assuming you CANNOT find such a person -- do you find it telling and very odd that the ONLY PEOPLE who advocate your 6000 year-old scenario are Bible-beleiving Protestant fundamentalist Christians of one stripe or another?
FREE SERVANT
#83171 Mar 27, 2013
Libertarian wrote:
Oh please. It didn't appear from nothing.
atoms formed molecules, molecules formed protein chains, simple basic chemistry.
Life is not a divine spark that is started like a car, it is an ongoing chemical process that just joined up with others. Once we joined with mitochondria which infected our single celled ancestor we could then become multicellular.
Piece of proverbial evolutionary cake. Certainly makes a lot more sense then some magical being waving his hand and then nearly 14 billion years later starting to care what people eat or who they sleep with. Get a grip people and join us in the modern era.
The universe is guided and it follows patterns which propagate in cycles. Who or what caused this?

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#83172 Mar 27, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Your so called evidence against the bible will never invalidate the bible.
Our evidence against the Bible is only against the LITERAL, INERRANT INTERPRETATION of the book, NOT against the allegorical, or symbolic reading of it.

If you insist on a LITERAL Bible, science can and does refute a great portion of the text, thereby rendering the whole of the book invalidated.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83173 Mar 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
... and that is another of your really lame assertions. There are many dialects of English, and several of them are in America, mostly the USA. In England there are at least two distinct dialects that I have encountered, there is likely more. Do yourself a favor and look up dialect.
Why do you keep worrying your self over nothing. Like i said, the place where a language started supposed to be treated with respect.
All the dialects of English had roots from England.
Next?
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83174 Mar 27, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I never stated that 6000 YO figure, that’s yours. For those who believe in Biblical truth, if you extrapolate the births and ages given in Genesis that figure comes up.
So while you're not OFFICIALLY denying 6000-year YEC Creationism, you are just hinting that you also believe this young earth figure.

Because obviously, YOU believe in "biblical truth," right?

Has it occurred to you that this isn't "truth" at all but a whacky literal INTERPRETATION of Genesis mainly put forward late in the 19th century as a sort of bulwark against the new Bible history research that began to be done, originally in Germany, that began to cast doubt on the literal, histoircal veracity of your Bible myths?
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't believe what the Bible teaches, why believe in that specific age unless you believe that the Bible is true?
I DON'T "believe" it, you idiot. I'm just holding YOUR beliefs up to public scrutiny and asking you how, in the 21st century, anyone with a brain and an education can believe stuff like this. So far, no real answers from you.
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
As far as your reaction to Christ's warning about what little children should be taught, now you know, those are His words, not mine.
But it's definitely YOU threatening us with your CHrist's torture, here, right?

And are you saying that your Christ will torture me endlessly, FOREVER, for the moral crime of teaching what science has concluded after 200 years of modern research into the age of the earth and the origin of species?

He'll torture me for saying the truth?
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Other short age chronometers based on uniform conditions are supported in science, more so than long age dating methods I feel, such as those using isotopes of lead. A question on those; if leads origin is radioactive then deteriorates to pure lead, why isn't the earth completely radioactive?- most of Missouri and nearby states should be hot, as well as other huge portions of the earth, and no life could exist. You can't have it both ways, you hang on long age 1/2 life based on measured rates, but refuse to reverse the same number to look into the past of this old earth you embrace!
Read this page by Christian evangelicals whoa re also working scientists in the field of radiometric dating.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Wiens.html

Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

Quote:

Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them.

It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago. Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings or glacier ice core layers.

Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent.

Many are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating.

This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another.

In the process the paper refutes a number of misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. This paper is available on the web via the American Scientific Affiliation and related sites to promote greater understanding and wisdom on this issue, particularly within the Christian community.

End quote

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83175 Mar 27, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, no, there was no first man and woman, that would defy evolution, and our population would be much smaller if there was a first man and woman any sooner than a million years ago.
Non human to human evolution is a farce.
The possibility of a first man and woman can never be ruled out.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#83176 Mar 27, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Another accident needed to allow life to be self-created? or all the elements of lead that just happen to be in safe proportions when the earth was formed, more questions for your side and fewer accident-related answers.
Look up the Sharpshooter Fallacy. You are committing it at the moment.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#83177 Mar 27, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Why do you keep worrying your self over nothing. Like i said, the place where a language started supposed to be treated with respect.
All the dialects of English had roots from England.
Next?
Respect? You realize that you are spelling a lot of words incorrect for proper English, a lot. Anytime you use contractions, that's not original English. Anytime you use words like computer to represent the machine you are using or byte in any way, that's not original English. Not to mention, English has roots in Germany, not England. It's a derivative of Latin and German, mostly. Technically, English is a bastard language.
CBOW

Dover, PA

#83178 Mar 27, 2013
Patriot wrote:
CBOW, the ones who want to deny God's word are living in darkness and thus deny his word. "In him was life and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness and the darkness comprehended it not" John 1:4-5. Those people are like bats and owls, they hate and hide from the light. Those living in darkness hate, deny and hide form the light.
Yes, indeed. It still makes my heart sad because I don't wish for anyone to be lost. God Bless you Patriot.
CBOW

Dover, PA

#83179 Mar 27, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>good! the people you call heathens are generally more moral than you religious cult members...
Now that's funny!!!!!

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#83180 Mar 27, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Charles, how old is the Universe?
How old is the Earth?
Do you believe that there was a world-wide flood approximately 4500 years ago?
No one knows how the universe came into form, so knowing the age of the universe, is impossible.
There was a flood the people thought then was global( world wide).
Can you rule out that?
CBOW

Dover, PA

#83181 Mar 27, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>which statement? you really should be able to frame a question better than that...
"yoru god clearly stated that it is OK to own another human. clearly stated it." This is your statement, now quit dancing around it and give me the book and verse from the BIBLE you got it from....You can do that, can't you wooody. No more deflecting.
FREE SERVANT
#83182 Mar 27, 2013
The real answers are in the Bible if we know where to look and what we are looking at., The God of the Bible shows patterns.

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) 4 hr Aura Mytha 20,285
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Genesis Enigma 152,231
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 10 hr ChristineM 45,559
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
News A better theory of intelligent design Sep 23 Chazofsaints 21
More from around the web