Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 168858 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 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#94994 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
To make matters worse, this creature has been found preserved soft-body.
Either you are being deliberately dense or you honestly think that someone has found an INTACT trilobite.

That has never happened.

What _MAY_ have happened is a _FOSSIL_ find which such clarity that it allows people to see the IMPRESSION left by soft body parts. That does happen, rarely. It doesn't require some fluke of physics. It just requires extremely fine grained material in which the creature is fossilized.

Having not read all your posts, I'm going to make the assumption that you are trying to argue that evolution is false.

Here's the problem with your argument:

- The dating methods which confirm evolution are based in _OTHER_ sciences which are INDEPENDENT of evolution.

In other words, for evolution to be wrong the fossil record has to be wrong. For the fossil record to be wrong, the DATING methods which confirm the fossil record must be wrong.

However, since the fossil record is confirmed by the following sciences:
- Geology, Nuclear Physics, Chemistry, Volcanology, etc.

Then EACH of these sciences must LIKEWISE be wrong, not just partially but IN THEIR ENTIRETY.

And since other dates provided by these sciences have been confirmed by:

- BOTANY, METEROLOGY, ASTRONOMY, LINGUISTICS, HYDROLOGY...

Then these sciences must LIKEWISE be false _IN THEIR ENTIRETY_

So, basically this whole argument comes down to this:

Either a story made up by goat herders 4000+ years ago is ABSOLUTELY !00% TRUE and therefore ALL OF SCIENCE is wrong.(meaning nothing you own actually exists, etc).

- OR -

The goat herders 4000+ years ago were writing ALLEGORICALLY and their story is supposed to convey MEANING not FACTS, And the rest of science is right (meaning everything you own actually exists.)

Which of these seems more likely to you?

Which of these would seem more likely to a rational person?

“Just because it is possible”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Doesn't mean it will happen.

#94995 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Edited to allow for space.
So faulting, upthrust and overthrust can't occur and result in newer rocks being under older rocks? I don't think so. The basics of this have been understood for a long time. You must have missed that during your cherry picking.

The Lake Missoula floods show evidence of the erosion of steel?

Still persisting that the Grand Canyon is flood formed even though you haven't answered one question put to you so far. Where is the evidence of these alleged lakes that the bionic, young earth, geologist proposes supplied the water? Evidence for a lake that could have supplied the water shows it was too shallow to hold the volume necessary and any water from it would not have gotten past the Kaibab uplift. Again, why only the one canyon? Again, if flood-formed, why is the canyon not straighter. Again, wind formed strata in between marine-formed strata sort of eliminates the possibility of a flood formation right off. How about all the side canyons that enter the Grand Canyon at river level rather than a hanging valleys you see in the Scablands from the Missoula Lake flooding? What about the fact that Grand Canyon does not appear as a flood drainage basin? Finally, there are numerous structures within the Grand Canyon that show no evidence of water erosion from a catastrophic event. They are not oriented in the direction of flow or water-polished and scrubbed as would be expected if a single flood had formed them. The fact that they are present at all after having been hit by a massive volume of water with a huge abrasive load leaves one in doubt of this model.

This is just another example where science doesn't know the complete story of how it formed so it opens it up for all sorts of fictional accounts.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#94996 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove t from the textbooks.
I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of the Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.
I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood deposits rather than evolution.
Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, just like the Canyon.
This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and the lab work agree.
Noah recorded the events in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout in the GC, thats obvious. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel over short time periods, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.
Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.
My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.
Usually when the first line is bullshit it's all bullshit,
and with this it's pretty easy to see what has happened , and it is a textbook example of how the plates shift, bend, break, and get tossed is spots ...completely upside down. You can believe what you want but no matter how much you wish it was true, it simply isn't true. There never was a global flood.
I suggest you read this to get an idea how the forces that create mountains, is the force that jumbles up and tosses parts of the crust upside down.

http://pubs.usgs.gov/bul/1603/report.pdf

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#94997 Jul 6, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I guess the 160 mile long Lewis range was not enough for you. Jurassic on the bottom, Cambrian on the top. Evolutionists have been trying the get the Lewis turned 180 degrees for years. They finally devised a method - ignore it and remove from the textbooks
I suppose the Pleioesaur found in strata ABOVE the mammals here also were not enough. There are many other examples. The horse series is another. I could go on. Most get tossed out, if they can toss a billion tons of Lewis they can do the same with isolated finds, many exist. Anomalies they call them.
I provided you with evidence that Trilobites are at the bottom of the Cambrian, and that the Column sequence is far better understood from the perspective of ecosystem and specie mobility in flood sediments rather than evolution.
Sorry, the Supergroup shows no signs of erosion inter-layer, and are planier, showing no inter-layer erosion just like the Canyon.
This type of sorting has been proven in the lab where minerals of differing specific gravities are perfectly sorted when eroded and then moved by water current. You are out of date there. St Helens is a real-life model of this phenomenon. In almost no time at all, horizontal stratification identical to the Grand Canyon layers, taught to have been layed down over eons - were deposited in days. The contact zone's is as thin or thinner than paper all over the Canyon, again, field observations and lab work agree.
Noah recorded the events and times in days in Genesis, an eye witness account. The whole thing was laid down is a single massive event and subsequently eroded by a subsequent natural dam breakout. You should spend some time studying bubble CO2 water erosion science. Its fairly new and revolutionized thinking about how water can erode major rock features and even hardened steel, like what happened to the Glen Canyon dam and in the Missoula flood. No one got that hint.
Coe and Prevot, twisitng, no way, their work in the Steens caused a prof I know to toss uniformism and jump to catastrophism. He has 35 years on his PhD and really knows his stuff on sedimentation.
My friend, I hate to say this but all those fancy drawings and diagrams they taught you are biased, in error and now disproven.
Learn some basic geology, which is, ironically, what explained all this long before we even postulated the fact that species evolve.
humble brother

Helsinki, Finland

#94998 Jul 6, 2013
Oh... This discussion is still ongoing. I find this rather silly. Perhaps some mediation is required.

What is this creation business anyway? Creation of what? The definition of the Universe is *everything that exists". So what is the definition "the creation" if you don't mind me asking? It is not logically possible to create "everything that exists".

On a side note:
Everything that exist is by definition omnipresent.
Something to ponder:
Is not the universe also omnipotent?
Can anyone make a claim that there is something the Universe could not do without producing a logically contradictory statement?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#94999 Jul 6, 2013
SBT, there are two ways to get older beds over younger beds. They both involve wide scale compression. Something that is not all that uncommon in orogeny, or mountain building. The case you referred to is that of a thrust fault where an older bed is pushed up and over a younger bed. The boundary where the two layers slid over each other is usually fairly obvious to even neophytes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrust_fault

Another way that layers can be locally reversed is with a recumbent fold.

http://blogs.agu.org/mountainbeltway/2012/02/...

These are again fairly obvious since very often when rocks are deposited there are signs that show which way is up. Also the total reverse order of strata is a bit of a hint.

I do believe that the mountains that you referred to was due to a major thrust fault. It is not a problem for geology at all.
One way or another

United States

#95000 Jul 6, 2013
Mugwump | 46 min ago
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So you refuse to speak to the subject, because you have nothing of value. You're offensive to American care or intelligence. Go back to your foreign country. Americans aren't taught like you foreign idiots.

How does this become an issue of being anti American ?

People disagree with you for reasons unrelated to your nationality e.g.

You post your nonsense science, insist it is supported by evidence but refuse to discuss the lack of evidence.

You insist that no one can refute you - but ignore any posts that do

You blame everyone else for your shortcomings , Jews, congress, banks, foreigners, women

You act like a 5 year old child and call every morons when you don't get your way.

As I say - its not that you are an American , its because you are an uneducated, lying , racist , mysogistic loon who doesn't take responsibilty for his own failings and try to educate himself.

Unless you are saying you are a typical yank - in which case it is you who is being anti-American.

One way or another | 10 min ago
All the American moms and dads I was exposed too, said that only cowards work in groups, against individuals.

American moms and dads don't teach the Anti-American tactics that your group of Evo morons do. Hence, you are anti-American cowards, unable to stand on your own two feet.

That's just the American way!
FREE SERVANT

Ashburn, VA

#95001 Jul 6, 2013
humble brother wrote:
Oh... This discussion is still ongoing. I find this rather silly. Perhaps some mediation is required.
What is this creation business anyway? Creation of what? The definition of the Universe is *everything that exists". So what is the definition "the creation" if you don't mind me asking? It is not logically possible to create "everything that exists".
On a side note:
Everything that exist is by definition omnipresent.
Something to ponder:
Is not the universe also omnipotent?
Can anyone make a claim that there is something the Universe could not do without producing a logically contradictory statement?
Do you think the universe had a Creator who wanted it to be here?

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#95002 Jul 6, 2013
One way or another wrote:
Mugwump | 46 min ago
One way or another wrote:
<quoted text>
So you refuse to speak to the subject, because you have nothing of value. You're offensive to American care or intelligence. Go back to your foreign country. Americans aren't taught like you foreign idiots.
How does this become an issue of being anti American ?
People disagree with you for reasons unrelated to your nationality e.g.
You post your nonsense science, insist it is supported by evidence but refuse to discuss the lack of evidence.
You insist that no one can refute you - but ignore any posts that do
You blame everyone else for your shortcomings , Jews, congress, banks, foreigners, women
You act like a 5 year old child and call every morons when you don't get your way.
As I say - its not that you are an American , its because you are an uneducated, lying , racist , mysogistic loon who doesn't take responsibilty for his own failings and try to educate himself.
Unless you are saying you are a typical yank - in which case it is you who is being anti-American.
One way or another | 10 min ago
All the American moms and dads I was exposed too, said that only cowards work in groups, against individuals.
American moms and dads don't teach the Anti-American tactics that your group of Evo morons do. Hence, you are anti-American cowards, unable to stand on your own two feet.
That's just the American way!
Since I'm an American, and you do not speak for me. Indeed you weren't asked to speak for anyone. WTF makes you think you can, or even have any right to do so?

Absolutely you speak for JIM and JIM alone, and America is not JIM alone. So quit proselytizing like all America is marching to Jim's agenda.
One way or another

United States

#95004 Jul 6, 2013
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.

Any new thinking and your anti-American cowardly group, does everything it can to use name calling and worse, to stop any new thinking, instead of offering intelligent rebuttal.

By your actions and that of your group, you seek to stop anyone from talking, that doesn't agree with your cowardly clique.
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

Valley Village, 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.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#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?

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#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.

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 Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 52 min huh 6,214
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 59 min kenedy njoroge 141,817
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr dirtclod 19,774
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 6 hr Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Thu Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Thu Paul Porter1 561
three preventive measures for PID Thu qiu 1
More from around the web