Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216865 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.

One way or another

United States

#95005 Jul 6, 2013
American moms and dads teach that only cowards work in groups.
One way or another

United States

#95006 Jul 6, 2013
I must admit that America's cowardly and fully bribed congress act like foreign cowards, just as they teach repubs and dems.

What our parents teach us lasts a lifetime. What the gov demands is tyranny or submit, because Americans will not speak up and out.
Drink The HivE

Anonymous Proxy

#95007 Jul 6, 2013
There Was A Massive Spiritual Struggle Last Summer And Its Still Ongoing And Getting Worse..



http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IUYlNU10BMY/Si4hkuW...

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#95008 Jul 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Its difficult enough for any individual to speak in the forums, much less speak against a group of people, hell bent on the name calling and childish innuendo, just for having a different opinion.
The problem is not a difference of opinion.

You and I can have a difference of opinion about whether a 4% or a 6% sales tax is appropriate.

However, we would both agree on what a sales tax is, how it works, who benefits and who pays, etc.

In the case of Creationism, these people are rejecting the basic FACTS.

We can not have a difference of opinion about facts.

Facts are what they are.

Science has them, religion doesn't. That's why science has replaced religion in so many areas and also why religion has _NEVER_ and will _NEVER_ replace science as the answer to anything.

Honestly, do you think that the Jews have some better answer for why a lightbulb works than a physicist?

Would you fly on a plane designed based on the Quran rather than the laws of aerodynamics?

Of course not.
One way or another

United States

#95009 Jul 6, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is not a difference of opinion.
You and I can have a difference of opinion about whether a 4% or a 6% sales tax is appropriate.
However, we would both agree on what a sales tax is, how it works, who benefits and who pays, etc.
In the case of Creationism, these people are rejecting the basic FACTS.
We can not have a difference of opinion about facts.
Facts are what they are.
Science has them, religion doesn't. That's why science has replaced religion in so many areas and also why religion has _NEVER_ and will _NEVER_ replace science as the answer to anything.
Honestly, do you think that the Jews have some better answer for why a lightbulb works than a physicist?
Would you fly on a plane designed based on the Quran rather than the laws of aerodynamics?
Of course not.
I don't agree with your tax, its not a fair tax. Since the rich make the laws, they don't want a fair tax, but idiots don't care.

As to science, science could lay to rest the speed of light, but science refuses, because some in science know its a lie.

Science has the ability to prove or disprove speed of light and it refuses. Some know the kind of people science uses to lie, others don't, but the fact that science does not allow individual scientists to speak, unless the controllers say so, is the same as congress taking bribes from the richest, not allowing the regular man to have a say.
One way or another

United States

#95010 Jul 6, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is not a difference of opinion.
You and I can have a difference of opinion about whether a 4% or a 6% sales tax is appropriate.
However, we would both agree on what a sales tax is, how it works, who benefits and who pays, etc.
In the case of Creationism, these people are rejecting the basic FACTS.
We can not have a difference of opinion about facts.
Facts are what they are.
Science has them, religion doesn't. That's why science has replaced religion in so many areas and also why religion has _NEVER_ and will _NEVER_ replace science as the answer to anything.
Honestly, do you think that the Jews have some better answer for why a lightbulb works than a physicist?
Would you fly on a plane designed based on the Quran rather than the laws of aerodynamics?
Of course not.
Science claims nothing is fact. If airplanes were just introduced and scientists said there is no proof that planes will keep flying, most people would not fly.

Science has proven that planes will fly, if kept in good working order. Science used to work on proof, until evolution usurped science. Now science works off of the negative, falsification.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95011 Jul 6, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Do you think the universe had a Creator who wanted it to be here?
Are you kidding?

The Universe is *everything that exists*. Apart from *everything that exists* nothing can exist by definition.

In essence "a creator" your question by default infers, can not exist by definition. The universe as *everything that exists* logically can have no beginning as the concept of time is contained within the definition.

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#95012 Jul 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
Science claims nothing is fact. If airplanes were just introduced and scientists said there is no proof that planes will keep flying, most people would not fly.
Science has proven that planes will fly, if kept in good working order. Science used to work on proof, until evolution usurped science. Now science works off of the negative, falsification.
That's a misnomer get it straight.

The scientific method has never changed.
Science cannot prove anything 100%.
A claim is proven without confidence if it cannot be falsified.
If several lines of evidence support the claim the confidence is higher that it is true.
If multiple lines of evidence support the claim, a convergence of evidence says it's true and it is accepted as proof.
But it can be overturned if new evidence falsifies part of it.

Evolution has multiple lines of evidence that all point to it being true. So it is accepted as the truth.
Unless you have evidence that falsifies it.
But take care, no one line of evidence would do it . Since multiple lines exist , you will have to falsify them all.
If you falsify one of them , then the theory will have to be adjusted. But 150 years and all that is found support it as new lines of evidence it's true.

So good luck falsifying evolution as a theory, you have much work to do. But also remember , your assertion has to hold water in a consensus across the board with international scientists reviewing it to determine your claim is valid. So far no one has been able to prove any part of it false.

So in reality while evolution is not proven 100%, you will almost have to produce the creator showing how he creates new species to falsify it. It's accepted as the truth, or as close to it we can get. In reality science proves beyond reasonable doubt.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95013 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
So good luck falsifying evolution as a theory, you have much work to do. But also remember , your assertion has to hold water in a consensus across the board with international scientists reviewing it to determine your claim is valid. So far no one has been able to prove any part of it false.
So in reality while evolution is not proven 100%, you will almost have to produce the creator showing how he creates new species to falsify it. It's accepted as the truth, or as close to it we can get. In reality science proves beyond reasonable doubt.
I find it quite funny that you guys are still at this :)

Now don't get me wrong. Logically the evolutionary progress of the universe is currently the only valid explanation that can be inferred from the available observable evidence.

I'd like to ask your view though on how much you think of this "theory" can be accepted to fit within the constraints of natural science. As natural science requires first an observable and repeatable phenomenon for which explanations are hypothesized, lab experiments with fruit flies etc. quite nicely fit within the constraints of science.

However, what is your view on fossils and their use for scientific purposes? Do you consider that you can hypothesize an explanation for a phenomenon occurring in living populations by simply observing dead individuals?

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#95014 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
I find it quite funny that you guys are still at this :)
Now don't get me wrong. Logically the evolutionary progress of the universe is currently the only valid explanation that can be inferred from the available observable evidence.
I'd like to ask your view though on how much you think of this "theory" can be accepted to fit within the constraints of natural science. As natural science requires first an observable and repeatable phenomenon for which explanations are hypothesized, lab experiments with fruit flies etc. quite nicely fit within the constraints of science.
However, what is your view on fossils and their use for scientific purposes? Do you consider that you can hypothesize an explanation for a phenomenon occurring in living populations by simply observing dead individuals?

Only certain things can be deduced from looking at bones, but we can see a pattern of change in species over long periods of time.
Such as with Australopithecus , we can see it speciated several times into 5 or 6 distinct subspecies, changes in it's brain capacity feet hips ,jaws , teeth and thumbs. Show it was becoming more human like. Whether it is a direct ancestor to human is not known , but it is at the very least a cousin.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95015 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Only certain things can be deduced from looking at bones, but we can see a pattern of change in species over long periods of time.
Such as with Australopithecus , we can see it speciated several times into 5 or 6 distinct subspecies, changes in it's brain capacity feet hips ,jaws , teeth and thumbs. Show it was becoming more human like. Whether it is a direct ancestor to human is not known , but it is at the very least a cousin.
You gave a very practical answer, however the nature of the question was philosophical. Let me be more precise.

Do you consider that the philosophy of natural science allows for hypothesizing a living populations' phenomenon simply by observing parts or traces of dead individuals?

“e pluribus unum”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

primus inter pares

#95016 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
You gave a very practical answer, however the nature of the question was philosophical. Let me be more precise.
Do you consider that the philosophy of natural science allows for hypothesizing a living populations' phenomenon simply by observing parts or traces of dead individuals?
Only in attempt to explain a physical characteristics based on physical evidence , such as we see the thumbs become more articulated and the same time tool making skills improved.
He can deduce the thumbs were the reason.
Or it's canine teeth and all teeth became smaller, we hypothesize it's diet changed, but there is limitation and high degree of error.
This however what happened to conception from the beginning, between hypothesis and then finding physical evidence , has proven it's not very accurate to do so without the physical evidence to get a full picture.

Misconception played a role and created a counter culture of rejection to evolution , for the very reason of too much speculation and not enough evidence.
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#95019 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you kidding?
The Universe is *everything that exists*. Apart from *everything that exists* nothing can exist by definition.
In essence "a creator" your question by default infers, can not exist by definition. The universe as *everything that exists* logically can have no beginning as the concept of time is contained within the definition.
Do you see any kind of beauty in anything that exist?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95020 Jul 7, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
Do you see any kind of beauty in anything that exist?
Yes. Love is what I have and Truth is my King :)

Everything that exits is beautiful.

Do you love or hate the Truth?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95021 Jul 7, 2013
That was funny :) Read exits as "exists"...
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95022 Jul 7, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Only in attempt to explain a physical characteristics based on physical evidence , such as we see the thumbs become more articulated and the same time tool making skills improved.
He can deduce the thumbs were the reason.
Or it's canine teeth and all teeth became smaller, we hypothesize it's diet changed, but there is limitation and high degree of error.
This however what happened to conception from the beginning, between hypothesis and then finding physical evidence , has proven it's not very accurate to do so without the physical evidence to get a full picture.
Misconception played a role and created a counter culture of rejection to evolution , for the very reason of too much speculation and not enough evidence.
I was referring to the natural science's requirement of linking an observation of the phenomenon to the hypothesis of the hypothesized phenomenon. I'm not quite sure how to interpret your answer. You conclude that a phenomenon, for which the natural process occurrence is explained in the hypothesis, does need to be observed as it occurs?
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#95023 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes. Love is what I have and Truth is my King :)
Everything that exits is beautiful.
Do you love or hate the Truth?
So do you see careing to see beauty and truth is paramount?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95024 Jul 7, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
So do you see careing to see beauty and truth is paramount?
Truth will escalate, it is inevitable and can not be stopped. Justice must be served.

Will you not answer my question:
Do you love or hate the Truth?
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#95025 Jul 7, 2013
humble brother wrote:
<quoted text>
Truth will escalate, it is inevitable and can not be stopped. Justice must be served.
Will you not answer my question:
Do you love or hate the Truth?
You are speaking of a careing emotion. There are many different kinds of love. I see the greatest love may be the kind of careing a father has for his children, how say you?
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#95026 Jul 7, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
You are speaking of a careing emotion. There are many different kinds of love. I see the greatest love may be the kind of careing a father has for his children, how say you?
My question to you was " do you love or hate the Truth?", are you unable to answer it?

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 min replaytime 23,558
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 9 min Into The Night 48,772
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 16 min It aint necessari... 179,735
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 20 min It aint necessari... 154,808
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 13 hr GoTrump 1,044
Evolution in action (May '16) Wed Thick cockney cha... 36
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Mon Timmee 9
More from around the web