Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221214 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

#83930 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
"Although the concepts of a law or principle in nature is borderline to philosophy, and presents the depth to which mathematics can describe nature, scientific laws are considered from a scientific perspective and follow the scientific method; they "serve their purpose" rather than "questioning reality" (philosophical) or "statements of logical absolution" (mathematical). For example, whether a law "refers to reality" is a philosophical issue, rather than scientific.
Fundamentally, all scientific laws follow from physics, laws which occur in other sciences ultimately follow from physical laws. Often, from mathematically fundamental viewpoints, universal constants emerge from scientific laws."
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_science
The "law of non-contradiction" is a concept of a law or principle in nature.
Do you see the universal constant principle found in scientific laws. This means non-changing and if it changes with an opposing idea this would be a "contradictory" of the universal constant principle found in a scientific law that is backed with empirical evidence. It is this principle extracted from a scientific law that is backed with the empirical data that followed the scientific method I use to validate “The law of non-contradiction”, which is the foundation to my scientific reasoning I use to interpret all things found in the laws of nature.
The "Law of noncomtradiction" is not a law of science. At best it is a law of logic and you have not shown how it applies to your cause.

You are trying to use it in a circular argument. And as I showed you already the existence of ring species debunks your claim of the invariance of species.
HOG_Hand of God

Kingston, Jamaica

#83931 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we do. The Adam and Eve scenario is not genetically viable. That is why mitochondrial Adam and Eve are separated by thousands of years, but that also acknowledges the fact that they both had plenty of contemporaries.
Actually you dont.

The Bible NEVER stated that Adam and Eve were the only humans in the "Garden": IT DID NOT SAY THAT THEY WERE THE ONLY TWO HUMANS that existed.

As a matter of fact, there could have been human populations 5 meters away from the Garden.

So the existence of Adam and Eve does not contradict nor violate the concept of "genetic viability".
The Dude wrote:
Goddidit with magic is not science.
No, but it can help us to discover God's science.:P
The Dude wrote:
You don't have any science. You couldn't care less about science.
According to the definition of science, you are a liar.

Science is a general method or approach; not something you can colonize and act like nobody can attain to it unless they think like you, you baboon.
The Dude wrote:
All you have are philosophical arguments which have been around for thousands of years.
Thats a good place to start as any other; science is about investigating, not assuming.
The Dude wrote:
They are no longer relevant to science. Perhaps back in the day they were, as part of the necessary development of the critical thinking process which eventually led to technological development.
Your method of thinking is seriously [email protected] skewed.

The strength of the building continually depends on the strength of the foundation; so whatever was crucial in the beginning will continue to be crucial to the end.

The modern is a development of the primitive; not a retiring nor abandonment of the primitive.

You d!ck head!
The Dude wrote:
However today though those same arguments are now being used not for the purpose of advancing knowledge but rather advancing apologetics.
Pffft.

Youre lucky I have to go to church now.

Wait till I catch up with you when church is over...

“ROCK ON ROCKERS!!”

Level 8

Since: Mar 11

Rockin' USA ;)

#83933 Mar 30, 2013
STOP IT!!!...I feel a headache coming on..MIDOL PLEASE!!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83934 Mar 30, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Which is exactly why there is no need to refer to the scientific.
If objectivity is achieved so simply, why complicate stuff further systematic junk?
People thought like you do thousands of years ago. They thought heavier objects fell faster than lighter ones. It was quite obvious and logical. Empiricism has since shown otherwise.

People want things to be simple. Especially creationists, as Goddidit with magic is about as simple as you can get. Science is hard. That is why further "systematic junk" as you call it is necessary. It's easier to just use calculations based on classical Newtonian physics if we want to send a probe into space. But if we want to send it to Mercury we NEED to use more complicated calculations based on relativity. This is for practical reasons and practical reasons only.

Otherwise you've just spend millions on putting a new probe into space only to have it miss its target because you were too lazy to deal with any further "systematic junk".
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
You poor misguided fool.
Science is validated by philosophy:
Science:
"In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself." [wikipedia.com]
Philosophy:
"Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument" [wikipedia.com]
It is philosophy that determines the efficiency and goalsof science you nut.
The problem with philosophy is that it does is not empirical. One guy makes a philosophical argument. Another guy makes another philosophical argument refuting that. The first guy then makes a counter philosophical argument refuting that. And so on. But neither of them have produced anything useful. It's all nothing but mental mastrubation. That is why science ignores all that bollox and goes with what works for practical reasons. That is why science ends up with practical results. That's why you're typing on a computer. Philosophy ends at practicality.

Or it can carry on talking more bollox while practical people using practical methods can improve your computer instead of just sitting around making "philosophical arguments" what might improve it instead.(shrug)
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
And I see you are like a dog returning to its vomit; because you have both tried to separates philosophy from science and used that corny analogy before... to no [email protected] avail.
Actually it's quite easy to separate science from philosophy. If I say this bar of chocolate will melt in the microwave you can whine all you like that I'm still making a philosophical argument. I then demonstrate you wrong by throwing it in and turning the thing on.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83935 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
If you are a truth seeker as I am, why do you quantify your GOD when it is a contradictory to do so in the laws of nature?
We both know eternity exists and this term is known in mathematics as infinity. With this said, how can you quantify your GOD if he is infinite because you cannot quantify or put an absolute value on infinity.
This is my first question for you.
Infinity IS a value in mathematics. We don't know if eternity exists or not because the universe we exist in is apparently finite from what we can tell.

If Polymath's around I'll let him elaborate further since he's the math expert.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83936 Mar 30, 2013
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Actually you dont.
The Bible NEVER stated that Adam and Eve were the only humans in the "Garden": IT DID NOT SAY THAT THEY WERE THE ONLY TWO HUMANS that existed. As a matter of fact, there could have been human populations 5 meters away from the Garden.
So the existence of Adam and Eve does not contradict nor violate the concept of "genetic viability".
Uh, that's what I just said.(shrug) Read more carefully. It DOES violate it if they WERE the only two, just as the fundies claim.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
No, but it can help us to discover God's science.
Actually Goddidit with magic is a science stopper. It doesn't help at all. It is also possible that this "God" of yours may not even exist.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
According to the definition of science, you are a liar.
Science is a general method or approach; not something you can colonize and act like nobody can attain to it unless they think like you, you baboon.
I'm not claiming any scientific authority. Anyone can perform a scientific experiment as long as what they do is empirical and passes the scientific method. The claims of fundies avoid that.
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Thats a good place to start as any other; science is about investigating, not assuming.
Yes, investigating. Philosophy doesn't do that. You can sit on your azz on the couch all day and tell everyone you're engaged in philosophy.(shrug)
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Your method of thinking is seriously [email protected] skewed.
The strength of the building continually depends on the strength of the foundation; so whatever was crucial in the beginning will continue to be crucial to the end.
The modern is a development of the primitive; not a retiring nor abandonment of the primitive.
Actually it CAN be a retirement and abandonment of the primitive. How many astronomers have YOU seen using astrology?
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
You d!ck head!
ARRGHHH!!! Ya got me, pardnuh!
HOG_Hand of God wrote:
Pffft.
Youre lucky I have to go to church now.
Wait till I catch up with you when church is over...
Uh, yes. I feel very lucky because of this.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83937 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Don't tell me you have no clue about supernova explosions and their effects on this planet.
Or solar flare and the effects of the cyclic activity of the sun on our planet.
Or the effects of meteor and cometary impact.
There is more, but that is enough for now.
Have you ever taken into account the timelines and effects these things have had on the planet in general and our civilization?
It appears you haven't as it might not fit that neat little paradigm which has been built by academia.
Yes, I'm aware of the effects. Relatively negligible, so far at least. Though I'm aware that any nearby supernovas or gamma ray bursts pointing in our direction could be a problem.

Luckily though space is HUGE, and we don't appear to be in any danger so far. Giant Earth destroying meteorites on the other hand, now that's a valid concern.(not an excuse for Nibiru Planet X stories though).
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83938 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> It could have been a viral infection introduced to them like was the case in the Americas.
Possible perhaps, but unlikely, since many contemporary humans would also have been susceptible to the same virus.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83939 Mar 30, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Good job subduct, you used all your defense mechanisms
1. lie
2. called him a creatard.
3. accused him of ignorance
4. spoke of your superiority.
Again, you forgot number 5: Make sure he was right.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83940 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
It appears that is because the normal progression of evolution can not account for an abrupt change in that status of human development, therefore, it just couldn't happen.
12,000 years ago is not a problem for evolution. It's more about the history of the development of culture, which is a query for archaeology. It has zero relevance to common ancestry since humans were biologically well established by then.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83941 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> And that only goes back to 4.4 mil yrs ago.
That's just the fossils that were mentioned. As I pointed out scientists hypothesized common ancestry with chimps based on the fossil record at a point roughly around 7MY ago. That was backed up by genetics.
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
in Ethiopia like I said...and they are still arguing whether that is even part of the hominid line.
Again, perfectly normal. There is no way to definitively determine ancestry without DNA, so we may never know for sure whether that fossil is a direct descendent or from a nearby line that branched off. But what is evident is the general pattern of change that was successfully predicted by evolution.
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
Like I said before...how about some accountability rather than speculation before making statements as though they are facts.
The fact is that we have ape-like fossils going back millions of years. The general trend observed in geological strata indicates a gradual modification of characteristics the further up the strata we go, getting closer and closer in appearance to todays great apes. Using comparative anatomy we find that chimp skeletons are most similar to ours, followed by gorillas, then orangutans. This same pattern of similarity is coincidentally observed in genetics. Calculations based on mutation rates indicate common ancestry around 6-7MY ago. These are the facts.

The alternatives to evolution proposed thus far are:

1 - Goddidit with magic to make everything LOOK just like this.

2 - Infinite Force's idea is that alien UFO's keep dropping off new animals every 1 million years. He can show you a youtube vid of sun shining off dust and other airborne particles while close to a wall which he claims are vast swarms of alien spacecraft which have been otherwise undetected by billions of dollars worth of orbital satellites.

Ergo evolution is the only theory making successful scientific predictions here.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83942 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Right.
See my post about Baalbek.
All they need is lots of people, rope, tools, and time. There's no great miracle about it. None of these rocks are so ridiculously tough that they require space-age laser-cutters. Cut they cut stone? Yes. Could they file them smooth? Yes. Could they move heavy objects with rope and roll them on logs? Yes. If something was too heavy could they just get more people? Yes.

They did NOT have cranes. They did NOT have modern motorized cutting tools. They did NOT have spaceships. And since humans had already been around for HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS at this point, this is NOT something evolution needs to explain. It's something for archaeologists to figure out as they debate over the development of cooperative cultures.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83943 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> Yes. God forbid if someone points to an obvious flaw in any research or hypothesis though.
And God forbid that anyone try to submit these "obvious flaws" for peer-review. Fortunately that's where our big massive science conspiracy protects us.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83944 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> What's yer point?
DNA then demonstrates evolution.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83945 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
I am just doing what you do to me.
How ya like it bud?
I'm cool with it.(shrug)
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> That was your statement...so?
So either the science we present is correct or there really is a great big science conspiracy. That IS what most anti-science promoters think, so all you need to do is say you wanna be as daft as a creationist. However if you don't wanna be as daft as a creationist then I don't blame you. Neither do I.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#83946 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to understand that I came from same persuasion and worldview as you in my youth. I was immersed in all the same origins information X10 coming from the home of a noted and nationally recognized senior biologist. I even tagged onto his field, did research, field trips and wrote papers before I was 18, and notably made predictions that came to pass, I was on my way.
The moon deal is big to me. Living in Alaska and operating boats and vessels in 20-30 ft tides is serious business. We all had the tide tables in our heads. It was a continuous battle, memorable after you bust your back for hours dragging boats over huge flats or getting locked up on a reef for hours. I thought as you that the world was an accidental given, and life was a battle of will, physics and fate. I was as tough as they come to win over it. Then I had an event, I had dodged fate one too many times and my number was up. At that moment I was given another chance by something bigger than I knew existed. For some reason I was passed over, not by my chance but by as I discovered later, by Gods Grace. Then I got it - I had been fooled, tricked and kept in the dark about the biggest truth in life; the existence of Almighty God!
My perspective radically changed, I realized that this beautiful planet and universe was made for us, and was not an accidental lab for some chance existence at some far off date. That’s the lie, to fool us into thinking we have no value, we all do. The Creator had set the moon in just the right place, made just the correct size and at just the right distance for our benefit, in the very beginning, not by chance. The soils are in wonderful quantity, the weather patterns, although extreme at times, work wonderfully, and the sun and moons position work perfectly to pull it all together. We only see a broken image of a wonderful "Very Good" earth and the life that was originally placed here. It fit, I got it and the evidence is all there. Believe in accidents all you want, the hand of God is everywhere. Another "Black Box" was opened, the final one.
No one here is interested in your trite, tiresome preaching, Jesus Boy.

We all have our own individual way of looking at the world that makes sense to us and we all have our own spiritual lives.

Again, not interested in yours.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83947 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
You can "snicker" all you want...it doesn't change the facts.
Can you find anyone{{{anyone}}} who can produce the stone vases and bowls in the Egyptian museum?
The ancient Egyptians.

But I guess technically we can't since now they're all dead.

:-/
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83948 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
No.
No.
Perpetual cyclic motion...so ageless.
Uh oh. Here comes Mikey!

:-/
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83949 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> It may be part of a cycle "maybe"? Who really knows. Every 6-12 months a new hypothesis comes out. It's almost comical. I would like to see something concrete.
Actually the age of the universe has been considered to be around 13.71 billion years (give or take a few hundred thousand) for longer than I've been alive. See, new scientific hypotheses which replace older ones in general tend to get more accurate as we go along.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83950 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet we had a law of gravity. Worked out by some guy called Newton (you may have heard of him). Mercury violates that law.
If you want to believe mercury is not governed by gravity that’s your choice.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Then since Mercury violates that law then the law must be wrong.
Gravity keeps this planet in its orbit. Universal constant stands!
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
After all, "laws" are merely abstract concepts invented by humans as a guideline for expected actions either in culture or in practical/scientific principles.
The empirical data observed in the laws of nature is not “invented” by humans and behaves a certain way.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet evolution doesn't violate it. Mercury does. Ergo the "law" of gravity is simply wrong, which is why it got replaced by the THEORY of relativity. Which is in turn being replaced by the theory of quantum mechanics. Whereas evolution on the other hand MAY contradict YOUR so-called "law" re: species, however reality shows that it contradicts your "law". Ergo your claims about species are simply incorrect and life can and does change over time, which does NOT violate any laws of non-contradiction. It merely contradicts your assumption that evolution did not and cannot happen. However your baseless opinions aren't relevant.(shrug)
Mercury told me to tell you to stop saying it’s not attracted (gravity) to our star.

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 Defending the Faith: Intelligent design vs. 'Go... 2 min No Surprise 307
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 15 min Subduction Zone 28,602
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 39 min Aura Mytha 67,106
Stacking the Deck and Intellectual Integrity 46 min pshun2404 29
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 2 hr Regolith Based Li... 3,523
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 3 hr Subduction Zone 924
Are Asians/whites more evolved? (Sep '07) 4 hr Gorogro1 1,765
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Subduction Zone 160,942
More from around the web