Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223191 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.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83984 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody said evolution made things perfect.(shrug)
<quoted text>
Actually it develops for a lot longer than just a year. The hypothesis about human intelligence is that humans don't have a strong anchor-point at the top of their skulls like other apes, in fact the skull is in four pieces as the baby is born which basically helps get the head out during birth. This allowed our brains to expand more than other apes thus enabling our intelligence (which has its own advantages and drawbacks).
Yup. Basically what I was saying. I didn't want to turn it into a book.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83985 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Dude, I am sorry you think this is all manufactured, it's not, just like the fact that I lost a very good friend flying seismic gear a few mo. ago, its all real folks. God means a ton to me, because He is all about truth, but more than that, love, forgiveness and understanding. Clear conscience on the 9th. The liar lable is getting old, Bill's wife would slap you for that.
Hey bub, maybe God IS all about truth. YOU on the other hand are not. And don't give me this crapp about what your personal friends would do to me, I did not bring them into this. I don't even know who Bill or his wife are in order to personally insult them. If you continue to make more appeals to emotion that's your problem for getting emotionally involved on the internet. That's why I don't care if fundies call me all the names under the sun. All I've done is expose some of your flawed thinking and scientific inaccuracies, and pointed out when you are lying. I can't falsify your personal anecdotes. You may well be a coal miner and known a guy called Bill. But when you start lying about science bear in mind that people here WILL correct you whether you like it or not. It's your choice whether you want to continue lying or not. It makes no difference to us as fundies around these forums are a dime a dozen.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#83986 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I speak of the laws that govern the empirical evidence not the empirical evidence itself. This is when you will discover a universal law constant. This is a whole nother level of thinking because now you know you can not come to a conclusion unless it's a scientific law or self-evident truth.
No what you are doing is psychological and a type Socratic thinking, of which has little influence in modern scientific thinking. There is no law that can overturn truth.
Gillette

Packwood, IA

#83987 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
On #1, the math used was a population statistic average over known history. I would need to look up the calc. Agree with the variable's involved. Its a question, not a proof.
1.) you would seriously post a calculation without even CONSIDERING famines; plagues, the effects of wars, etc. on population? LOL!

2.) You would seriously wonder "where all the bones are"? Don't you know that bones decompose rapidly on or under the surface of the earth? Do you think bones are ETERNAL or something?
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
I knew Dr. M. Miller personally because of his work in Alaska. I once asked, "Maynard, how old is the oldest ice on the planet", his answer; "less than 6000 years", I asked, "do you have documentation on that", "yes its in one of my papers - "in the tables"! He sent me a copy. That was 30 years ago. OK, can we have a truce over this "what God thinks of me" stuff?
Let me guess: Dr. Miller was a "Bible-believing Christian"?

We have ice cores MANY TIMES older than that.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/icecores.html

Up to 800,000 years for some cores!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83988 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> That's their hypothesis. I will stick with mine for now....until something definite is discovered.
Where is the repository for all the black holes?
Repository? I thought they were generally star remnants. There is a large cluster at the center of the galaxy though.
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
Where does the "information" go when they "disappear"?
There's two possibilities. They don't disappear and all the information is trapped inside the singularity. Or the information bleeds away as Hawking radiation until there's not enough mass left inside the black hole to maintain itself, then it is destroyed. I'd suggest you ask Polymath if he shows up as he's our resident maths and physics expert.
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
Does "string" play a role in all that?
Dunno.
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
That is why I will stick with the process of cycle.
The age of our universe doesn't conflict with the cycling process. All it states is that our current universal expansion is 13.71 billion years old. But it is still possible that energy is eternal and a new universe is produced upon the death of a previous one. But at each start of a new universal expansion all information of the previous universe is destroyed, meaning we have no idea of its configuration or characteristics. It may not be ever possible to know. Or it might, if we can come up with a unified theory of quantum gravity. Again if you see Polymath ask him about all this since he's sh t-hot on the stuff.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#83989 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me correct your statement from ďWEĒ donít know if eternity exists to ďYOUĒ donít know. The dude me and your understanding goes in opposite directions and your conclusions is not the same as mine.
We determined that your conclusions are worthless.
With sound reason and understanding to express why.
You are far short of relevant information in your hypothesis as stated to make a credible explanation, in anything so far stated by yourself.

Is that clear enough for you?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#83990 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
On #1, the math used was a population statistic average over known history. I would need to look up the calc. Agree with the variable's involved. Its a question, not a proof.
On #2, he worked in a time when one could get more non-evolutionary challenges or things to think about past peer review. Never happen today. You can imagine, you could measure his job life in seconds, no 1/2 lives involved.
I knew Dr. M. Miller personally because of his work in Alaska. I once asked, "Maynard, how old is the oldest ice on the planet", his answer; "less than 6000 years", I asked, "do you have documentation on that", "yes its in one of my papers - "in the tables"! He sent me a copy. That was 30 years ago. OK, can we have a truce over this "what God thinks of me" stuff?
Oh my.

Mark has proof that the Ice caps are less than 6,000 years old. Form a noted glaciologist no less. He just forgot to publish that revolutionary claim

Maynard Miller is most famous for his work on the Juneau ice field. That is an actively flowing glacier and it is very possible that the age of the ice in it is less than 6,000 years. That does not mean the ice of the ice caps is only 6,000 years old. That has been shown by several dating methods to be much much older than that.

More made up stories by Mark. We have a very poor liar here.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83991 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we don't need to reproduce them.
Not one person today needs to build a massive stone pyramid to get to heaven.
And to do so would be economically non-viable.
We could do it though.
I'm not talking about the pyramids. I'm talking about the stone vases and bowls in the museum.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#83992 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I never heard of planets in a revolutionary orbit without a sun.
Second, what is time?
The measure of distance between temporal points.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83993 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
See that popup for CSX?, they, UP, NFS, CN, CPR and others would have a good laugh at your assertion of my lack of integrity, liars are lousy inventors..
You could have invented the space shuttle for all I care. Doesn't stop you from lying.(shrug)
Mark wrote:
I must admit a Brit is on the patent with me on part of that one, he retired to NZ. Very glad to hear you are open... but your faith in evo creating things such a gold standard of all truth... Perplexing to me but your biz.
Evolution is only responsible for evolution, not "all things". That's the caricature creationists invented. See? Liars for Jesus CAN invent things. "Truth" however is subjective, which is why all religions lay claim to it. All science deals with is facts and evidence.
Mark wrote:
Apologize for stereotyping you with atheists, I really am sorry.
I was not offended, I am more than used to creationist straw-man caricatures and unwarranted assumptions. It is not often they are well versed in the subtleties of language. I have been known to treat fundies with kid gloves if I think they are being honest at first. Then when they find reality is not what they thought it was they either skeedaddle or start lying. Or some lie straight from the get-go, like our very own fake "Prof-X" who started this thread. They tend to get it with both barrels.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83994 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
I never heard of planets in a revolutionary orbit without a sun.
Second, what is time?
A continuum of successive universal states.

“ Ah see's lanlubbers Cap'n BT!”

Level 1

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#83995 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Repository? I thought they were generally star remnants. There is a large cluster at the center of the galaxy though.
<quoted text>
There's two possibilities. They don't disappear and all the information is trapped inside the singularity. Or the information bleeds away as Hawking radiation until there's not enough mass left inside the black hole to maintain itself, then it is destroyed. I'd suggest you ask Polymath if he shows up as he's our resident maths and physics expert.
<quoted text>
Dunno.
<quoted text>
The age of our universe doesn't conflict with the cycling process. All it states is that our current universal expansion is 13.71 billion years old. But it is still possible that energy is eternal and a new universe is produced upon the death of a previous one. But at each start of a new universal expansion all information of the previous universe is destroyed, meaning we have no idea of its configuration or characteristics. It may not be ever possible to know. Or it might, if we can come up with a unified theory of quantum gravity. Again if you see Polymath ask him about all this since he's sh t-hot on the stuff.
I know poly. Haven't seen him in some time though.
Thanks for your thoughts.
All is hypothesis still.

Isn't Hawking working on a new paper about it?

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#83996 Mar 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my.
Mark has proof that the Ice caps are less than 6,000 years old. Form a noted glaciologist no less. He just forgot to publish that revolutionary claim
Maynard Miller is most famous for his work on the Juneau ice field. That is an actively flowing glacier and it is very possible that the age of the ice in it is less than 6,000 years. That does not mean the ice of the ice caps is only 6,000 years old. That has been shown by several dating methods to be much much older than that.
More made up stories by Mark. We have a very poor liar here.
Indeed , The length of the record depends on the depth of the ice core and varies from a few years up to 800 kyr (800,000 years) for the EPICA core.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83997 Mar 30, 2013
Mark wrote:
<quoted text>
On #1, the math used was a population statistic average over known history. I would need to look up the calc. Agree with the variable's involved. Its a question, not a proof.
On #2, he worked in a time when one could get more non-evolutionary challenges or things to think about past peer review. Never happen today. You can imagine, you could measure his job life in seconds, no 1/2 lives involved.
The guy accepted evolution. He did not falsify evolution. And his work was merely establishing the particulars of evolution. So you can stop misrepresenting him now, especially as you don't believe in the evidence he used to write his papers since it involves stuff that's older than planet Earth, according to you.
Mark wrote:
I knew Dr. M. Miller personally because of his work in Alaska. I once asked, "Maynard, how old is the oldest ice on the planet", his answer; "less than 6000 years", I asked, "do you have documentation on that", "yes its in one of my papers - "in the tables"! He sent me a copy. That was 30 years ago. OK, can we have a truce over this "what God thinks of me" stuff?
Again, very charming. He's wrong:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/06/...

Unless of course there really WAS a God who didit with magic only 6,000 years ago because in the end such an entity can make anything look like however it likes.

Duh.

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#83998 Mar 30, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No such thing. That is an emotional argument used by fundies and cranks. Empirical testing is always required.


YOU ARE INFINITLY WRONG!!!! I know one universal self-evident truth when it comes to human morality and itís not based on emotions or religious text books because I am not religious.

How do you decide morality using your scientific method or theory of evolution?

Iím not letting this one go so easy because this universal moral law I discovered is personal.

Please explain to me how your method of reasoning determines this one.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#83999 Mar 30, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh my.
Mark has proof that the Ice caps are less than 6,000 years old. Form a noted glaciologist no less. He just forgot to publish that revolutionary claim
Maynard Miller is most famous for his work on the Juneau ice field. That is an actively flowing glacier and it is very possible that the age of the ice in it is less than 6,000 years. That does not mean the ice of the ice caps is only 6,000 years old. That has been shown by several dating methods to be much much older than that.
More made up stories by Mark. We have a very poor liar here.
Especially if we take into consideration research published by Miller himself which shows he was not a YEC:

http://www.crevassezone.org/reports/JIRP/03-C...

... but then I suppose the mean old evolutionists forced him to go with an old Earth paradigm at gunpoint.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84000 Mar 30, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text> I know poly. Haven't seen him in some time though.
Thanks for your thoughts.
All is hypothesis still.
Isn't Hawking working on a new paper about it?
You'd have to ask him.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#84001 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU ARE INFINITLY WRONG!!!! I know one universal self-evident truth when it comes to human morality and itís not based on emotions or religious text books because I am not religious.
How do you decide morality using your scientific method or theory of evolution?
Iím not letting this one go so easy because this universal moral law I discovered is personal.
Please explain to me how your method of reasoning determines this one.
There is no such thing. Morality is decided by the consensus of the people within regions, and within indigenous populations.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#84002 Mar 30, 2013
Infinite Force wrote:
<quoted text>
YOU ARE INFINITLY WRONG!!!! I know one universal self-evident truth when it comes to human morality and itís not based on emotions or religious text books because I am not religious.
How do you decide morality using your scientific method or theory of evolution?
How do you decide morality using banana beef sandwiches?

How do we hammer a nail into an ocean?

You are confused as to how tools work.
Infinite Force wrote:
Iím not letting this one go so easy because this universal moral law I discovered is personal.
You won't let it go easily because you're daft. But there is no universal moral law.
Infinite Force wrote:
Please explain to me how your method of reasoning determines this one.
By the simple fact you are unable to demonstrate your claims.(shrug)

“Universal Conscious Conscience”

Level 3

Since: Feb 08

Planet Earth

#84003 Mar 30, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> There is no such thing. Morality is decided by the consensus of the people within regions, and within indigenous populations.
YOU ARE ETERNALLY WRONG! YOU HAVE NO EARTHLY IDEA OF WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT!

If your scientific method or theory of evolution can't figure out this one that follows the scientific method and backed with empirical data and deemed as a scientific moral law then you need to abandon your theory of evolution. Without order any rational technological civilization will collapse or destroy itself. THIS APPLIES TO ALL RATIONAL CIVILAZATIONS IN THIS PHYSICAL UNIVERESE. THE UNIVERSAL CONSTANT LAW STANDS!

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) 3 hr Frindly 83,817
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr marksman11 164,922
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 5 hr Frindly 3,222
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) 6 hr MIDutch 1,996
Time Dec 9 THANKS 2
Evolution exposed Dec 8 Dogen 6
Roy Moore doesn't represent me. Dec 7 Dogen 2
More from around the web