Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223289 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 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#95544 Jul 26, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>And look who he has to use for an ally.

Infinite force is the third of our present batshit crazy posters on this forum.
Part 6

The simple question that should come to mind then is: What is at the other side of the barrier?

With this basic understanding, we must conclude that anything on the other side of this "barrier", even if it's pure empty space must also be a part of the universe. Even if the other side consists of space/matter that doesn't conform to any law of physics currently known to man, it does still exist, and therefore must be included in the list of "Everything that exists anywhere" and therefore is part of the universe.

This means that any imagined barrier to the universe can not exist.

OK so just for thoroughness let's take away an assumption: Let's assume that the aforementioned "barrier" has no other side. To do this it must be a barrier of infinite thickness. Anything less would create another "side" as mentioned above.

OK so we now have a barrier of unknown composition and infinite thickness enclosing the entire universe.

What's wrong with this picture? Simple: Any barrier, no matter what it's made of, how impenetrable or how thick is still a part of this universe. Even a barrier of a thickness of 10,001,000 googolplex light-years (Trust me that's VERY thick) is still a part of this universe. The fact that we can't analyze it, penetrate it or get any information on its internal composition doesn't mean that isn't a part of the universe.

So if the barrier to the universe is infinite in thickness and since the barrier is part of the universe, the universe is also infinite in size.

If no barrier to the universe exists, then the universe is still infinite in size.

If the outermost edge of the universe is completely empty space then the universe is still infinite in size.

Ultimate conclusion: The universe is infinite in size at all times.

Since this is the case, the big bang becomes not the creation of the universe, but only a major occurrence during its existence.

The birth of a tree
How old would a tree be in the year 2002 if the seed start sprouting back in 1921? The obvious answer is 81 years old.

But how old is the seed? How long did it exist before it started sprouting? How long ago was it on the tree from which it sprouted? How old is the mother tree?

The basic information given can't give us the full picture in terms of multigenerational questions.

If a Big Bang actually occurred, the most likely scenario is that is part of a cycle of explosion, contraction, explosion and contraction ad infinitum. One explosion is simply one generation of an infinite life span. In fact, my guess is that Big Bangs happen in multiple places at different times.

The second purpose of this article is to layout other truths in conjunction with dispelling the theory.

The universe is infinite in size and time
Time had no beginning and will have no end
In other words, the universe is infinite in size, has always existed and will never end.

Why do I believe these concepts? Simply because any other explanation I've found runs into many of the same problems. Mainly: "But what happened before that?"

The funny part is that most opponents to these truths I show usually don't like the concept of an infinitely sized, never-beginning, never-ending universe. Then they try to hurt these arguments with rebuttal theories involving something equally large such as an infinite sized barrier or an infinitely powered deity.

I would like to hear if you have another plausible more logical explanation than a never-ending universe.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#95545 Jul 26, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Contradictory Trees:
Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070
One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the data as well. Evolutionists have always claimed that the different species fall into a common descent pattern forming an evolutionary tree. That is, the various traits—from the overall body plan down to the DNA molecular sequences—from the various species, consistently reveal the same evolutionary pattern. If one gene shows species A and B are closely related and species C is more distantly related, then the other genes will reveal the same pattern. Evolutionists call this consilience. In practice however, this consilience is superficial. There are profound contradictions between the different traits, and in a new attempt evolutionists just set a new record for failure: out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.
These days when evolutionists compare species they usually use molecular sequence data, such as genes. But what if a particular type of gene is found in species A but not in species B? Obviously this constitutes a big difference between these two species. It is not as though the gene merely is different to some extent. It is altogether missing from one of the species. Nonetheless, the typical strategy in such cases is simply to drop that particular gene from the data set. That big difference is, in a stroke, eliminated from the analysis. This is one type of prefiltering evolutionists use.
Prefiltering is often thought of merely as cleaning up the data. But prefiltering is more than that, for built-in to the prefiltering steps is the theory of evolution. Prefiltering massages the data to favor the theory. The data are, as philosophers explain, theory-laden.
You still have no idea what this means do you. You are just pasting your spam and acting like a child that believes it has done something wonderful.

Why don't you go the distance and show us what you know.

Are you frightened?

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#95546 Jul 26, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Part 2
But even prefiltering cannot always help the theory. For even cleansed data routinely lead to evolutionary trees that are incongruent (the opposite of consilience). As one study explained, the problem is so confusing that results “can lead to high confidence in incorrect hypotheses.” And although evolutionists thought that more data would solve their problems, the opposite has occurred. With the ever increasing volumes of data (particularly molecular data), incongruence between trees “has become pervasive.”
This problem became all the more obvious in a new study that examined 1,070 different genes found in a couple dozen yeast species (yes, the data were prefiltered). All those genes taken together produced one evolutionary tree, but each of the 1,070 different genes produced a different tree—1,070 plus 1 different trees. It was, as one evolutionistadmitted “a bit shocking.”
Or as another evolutionist put it,“We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 [types of] yeast.”
Clearly something is amiss and for evolutionists it cannot be the theory. That means it must be the data. The solution is postfiltering, to go along with the prefiltering. Whereas evolutionists once assured themselves that their problems would go away when more data became available, they now are headed in exactly the opposite direction.
What is needed now is less data. Specifically, less contradictory data. As one evolutionist explained,“if you take just the strongly supported genes, then you recover the correct tree.” And what are “strongly supported” genes? Those would be genes that cooperate with the theory. So now in addition to prefiltering we have postfiltering. We might say that the data now are theory-laden-laden. Evolutionists will be eliminating the uncooperative genes and retaining those genes with what evolutionists euphemistically refer to as “strong phylogenetic signals.”
Then they can tell us again that evolution is a fact because the evidence says so.
That’s just the stuff of good solid scientific investigation.
http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2013/06/contr...
I like how it quotes and "evolutionist" and "another evolutionist". Don't they have names?

Keep in mind that the evidence for evolution is not a single piece of evidence and certainly the theory doesn't rest on a single study. The misuse of results being perpetrtated here is not going to bring it down.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95547 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I like how it quotes and "evolutionist" and "another evolutionist". Don't they have names?
Keep in mind that the evidence for evolution is not a single piece of evidence and certainly the theory doesn't rest on a single study. The misuse of results being perpetrtated here is not going to bring it down.
That's that twerp Rubak, of whom I have heard before.

He's a Creationist blogger. And that's all.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#95548 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's that twerp Rubak, of whom I have heard before.
He's a Creationist blogger. And that's all.
One of probably many, many I have not heard of. It eplains why this looks like blog droppings.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#95549 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's that twerp Rubak, of whom I have heard before.
He's a Creationist blogger. And that's all.
I was trying to track the source of the cut and paste. These things sprout like weeds out of nowhere. You would think that the authors would be proud to be recognized for their work. I always hope that the person posting such would have the integrity and seriousness to provide a proper citation. My expectations are rarely met.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95550 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I was trying to track the source of the cut and paste. These things sprout like weeds out of nowhere. You would think that the authors would be proud to be recognized for their work. I always hope that the person posting such would have the integrity and seriousness to provide a proper citation. My expectations are rarely met.
"Integrity"?

We're both diggin' in the wrong field.

I'm a bit cranky today.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#95551 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>"Integrity"?
We're both diggin' in the wrong field.
I'm a bit cranky today.
Dogen says I am very optimistic.

I am too. Maybe I need a vacation.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95552 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Dogen says I am very optimistic.
I am too. Maybe I need a vacation.
I wanted to go kayaking in the 'Glades today. Didn't manage it.

Perhaps over the weekend.

I'd be happy to show you around.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#95553 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I wanted to go kayaking in the 'Glades today. Didn't manage it.
Perhaps over the weekend.
I'd be happy to show you around.
That would be a long drive, but I appreciate the offer. I may be fishing tomorrow or target shooting. Maybe both.

I have never seen the Everglades, but always wanted to.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95554 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That would be a long drive, but I appreciate the offer. I may be fishing tomorrow or target shooting. Maybe both.
I have never seen the Everglades, but always wanted to.
They're mostly wet.

Oh, and there are some nice outdoor ranges here, too.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#95555 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That would be a long drive, but I appreciate the offer. I may be fishing tomorrow or target shooting. Maybe both.
I have never seen the Everglades, but always wanted to.
Yup.

As would I.

But not until October.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#95556 Jul 26, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
Part 6
The simple question that should come to mind then is: What is at the other side of the barrier?
With this basic understanding, we must conclude that anything on the other side of this "barrier", even if it's pure empty space must also be a part of the universe. Even if the other side consists of space/matter that doesn't conform to any law of physics currently known to man, it does still exist, and therefore must be included in the list of "Everything that exists anywhere" and therefore is part of the universe.
This means that any imagined barrier to the universe can not exist.
OK so just for thoroughness let's take away an assumption: Let's assume that the aforementioned "barrier" has no other side. To do this it must be a barrier of infinite thickness. Anything less would create another "side" as mentioned above.
OK so we now have a barrier of unknown composition and infinite thickness enclosing the entire universe.
What's wrong with this picture? Simple: Any barrier, no matter what it's made of, how impenetrable or how thick is still a part of this universe. Even a barrier of a thickness of 10,001,000 googolplex light-years (Trust me that's VERY thick) is still a part of this universe. The fact that we can't analyze it, penetrate it or get any information on its internal composition doesn't mean that isn't a part of the universe.
So if the barrier to the universe is infinite in thickness and since the barrier is part of the universe, the universe is also infinite in size.
If no barrier to the universe exists, then the universe is still infinite in size.
If the outermost edge of the universe is completely empty space then the universe is still infinite in size.
Ultimate conclusion: The universe is infinite in size at all times.
Since this is the case, the big bang becomes not the creation of the universe, but only a major occurrence during its existence.
The birth of a tree
How old would a tree be in the year 2002 if the seed start sprouting back in 1921? The obvious answer is 81 years old.
But how old is the seed? How long did it exist before it started sprouting? How long ago was it on the tree from which it sprouted? How old is the mother tree?
The basic information given can't give us the full picture in terms of multigenerational questions.
If a Big Bang actually occurred, the most likely scenario is that is part of a cycle of explosion, contraction, explosion and contraction ad infinitum. One explosion is simply one generation of an infinite life span. In fact, my guess is that Big Bangs happen in multiple places at different times.
The second purpose of this article is to layout other truths in conjunction with dispelling the theory.
The universe is infinite in size and time
Time had no beginning and will have no end
In other words, the universe is infinite in size, has always existed and will never end.
Why do I believe these concepts? Simply because any other explanation I've found runs into many of the same problems. Mainly: "But what happened before that?"
The funny part is that most opponents to these truths I show usually don't like the concept of an infinitely sized, never-beginning, never-ending universe. Then they try to hurt these arguments with rebuttal theories involving something equally large such as an infinite sized barrier or an infinitely powered deity.
I would like to hear if you have another plausible more logical explanation than a never-ending universe.
You are such a scheming reamer, nothing you ever say or said. Could ever be trusted by anyone with more than trivial knowledge. you are the very thing that corrupts and makes the Earth a desolation.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#95557 Jul 26, 2013
In fact, I'd REALLY like to get into the hinterlands of the Everglades in late November, with a good telescope, in order to get a REAL good view of Comet ISON.

Gotta get a good telescope first!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95558 Jul 26, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup.
As would I.
But not until October.
C'mon. I'll make it work.
You'll hafta rent your own 'yak, though. Mine only seats one.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95559 Jul 26, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>That would be a long drive, but I appreciate the offer. I may be fishing tomorrow or target shooting. Maybe both.
I have never seen the Everglades, but always wanted to.
You, too.

It's still mostly wet.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#95560 Jul 26, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
In fact, I'd REALLY like to get into the hinterlands of the Everglades in late November, with a good telescope, in order to get a REAL good view of Comet ISON.
Gotta get a good telescope first!
I have a spot.
It's an abandoned parking lot, way out West.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#95561 Jul 26, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>I have a spot.
It's an abandoned parking lot, way out West.
Ya got a 'scope?

I'll bring the beer!
Simple Simon

Seth, WV

#95562 Jul 26, 2013
If evolution is true. Then why are'nt we actually seeing and observing the process going on continually right now? I mean would'nt there still be monkey -stepping- things- into- people, wandering around on our earth??
'
And if so.... What are we RIGHT NOW evolving into?
'
Or is this the last and final step of the evolution process, which would prove it wrong and should not be called evolution... You know? Just sayin..
''
Faith in YHVH is so simple even a CHILD can uh 'get it."..........He has proved himself over and over. and I hope that you may all go trough the invited open door, and just accept his most wondefull word that is forever settled in the heavens....
'
"In the beginning was THE WORD... and the WORD was with GOD, and the WORD was GOd."
'
'
'
'Peace out.. Bless all in their deep admirations and searchings of all his blessed creations.. 8)
'
'
'
IN DUH END..........>!<+>- <><@@@
'

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#95563 Jul 26, 2013
Simple Simon wrote:
If evolution is true. Then why are'nt we actually seeing and observing the process going on continually right now? I mean would'nt there still be monkey -stepping- things- into- people, wandering around on our earth??
'
And if so.... What are we RIGHT NOW evolving into?
'
Or is this the last and final step of the evolution process, which would prove it wrong and should not be called evolution... You know? Just sayin..
''
Faith in YHVH is so simple even a CHILD can uh 'get it."..........He has proved himself over and over. and I hope that you may all go trough the invited open door, and just accept his most wondefull word that is forever settled in the heavens....
'
"In the beginning was THE WORD... and the WORD was with GOD, and the WORD was GOd."
'
'
'
'Peace out.. Bless all in their deep admirations and searchings of all his blessed creations.. 8)
'
'
'
IN DUH END..........>!<+>- <><@@@
'
Your idea is simple, it doesn't require you to "know" anything.

Stand still now, this wont take long.

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 min Subduction Zone 85,706
What's your religion? 49 min Dogen 189
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr Dogen 165,440
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 6 hr dollarsbill 5,079
Humans evolved from Canadians Sat Mystic science 1
Evolution of the Tennessean species Sat Mystic science 1
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... Sat was auch immer 10
More from around the web