Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 222984 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.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#99808 Sep 20, 2013
spOko wrote:
<quoted text>
Einstein disagrees (space-time curves)!
Perpetual motion breaks the laws of physics, nothing exists w/o time nothing!
Photons and Kerr space and singularities, do not experience time. So they exist independent of the passage of time.
This is in agreement with GR.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99809 Sep 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Do you know the meaning of highly exaggerated bullshit?
Yeah, sure do. I hear it all the time when I'm told my existence comes from non-organic matter that achieved an organic state to become biological self producing organisms and in trillions of years of never taking place it happened a single time on this planet. Yeah, I'm well aware of highly exaggerated bull*hit theories of how we came to be. Why?
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99810 Sep 20, 2013
Huh wrote:
How can anyone believe the words of a 2000 year old myth book of hate and bigotry over facts that can be proven.
When it comes to faith logic no longer applies, therein lies the rub!The many different flavors of faith around the world is all about indoctrination from the very day one is born!

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99811 Sep 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"What the writer is actually describing" can easily be merely a large scale version of what ancients already observed. Even in the desert there are springs where water emerges from a hole in the ground. And there have been geysers around too, though I am not sure if there were any in the Middle East at the time.
To an ancient, the existence of well and springs was more than enough evidence that the lower layers of Earth were watery. They did not need to know a anything about mid ocean vents to write what they did.
But YOU know about them, so you see mid-ocean vents when you read the Bible prose.
No. The writer did in fact describe something taking place in the 'great deep'(an oddly correct guess)and described that thing as a 'fountain'. And man made fountains did exist 2000 years ago.
So the question remains why the writer didn't state the flooding happened on land from springs gushing like tall fountains of water which would have been more reasonable to state then it taking place in the great deep of the seas/oceans.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#99812 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam and Eve are a story. You cannot prove an unverified story happened or didn't happen. There is no evidence to show a person named Moses didn't exist. There is no evidence to show a person named Jesus didn't exist. There is no evidence to prove an exodus of Israelites from Egypt didn't happen.
The fact is that for more than 2000 years people did write about a person named Moses. And that's more circumstantial evidence for his existence than you'll ever have for his non-existence.
There is no such thing as having 'solid evidence' to prove the 'nonexistence' of something/someone as you claim it.
The fact that you believe there was no Adam or Eve as the Bible writer describes them is your opinion. The fact is that several ancient cultures predating 2000 years ago all had similar stories of the first two parents of the human family. That doesn't make the story true any more then it makes it a lie. It's an unproved story.
You are attempting to use the can't prove a negative principle as an argument. While this may be true, what it also means is that you have no evidence. Also in the case of Adam and Eve, the story is quite simply NOT genetically viable, unless there were already plenty of other humans around for them to reproduce with. Therefore the argument would have to change from "You can't prove Adam and Eve didn't happen." to "You can't prove Adam and Eve weren't made by magic!"

You're right. We can't. Meanwhile back in the real world, Adam and Eve is just that - a story.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#99813 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, sure do. I hear it all the time when I'm told my existence comes from non-organic matter that achieved an organic state to become biological self producing organisms
That's not BS, that's biological reality. It happens every single day on planet Earth.

Non-living chemicals are absorbed and converted into living biological components that go on to produce new life forms. This very basic fact of biology is called reproduction.

In short, chemistry quite literally creates life. You are after all essentially just a walking talking bag of chemicals.
No Surprise wrote:
and in trillions of years of never taking place it happened a single time on this planet.
Trillions of years? Sorry, but the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. And around 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago, life developed.

It may or may not have been due to the actions of an invisible magic Jew wizard. Either way, the Earth once had no life and now it does. And from there, life has evolved ever since.
No Surprise wrote:
Yeah, I'm well aware of highly exaggerated bull*hit theories of how we came to be. Why?
Apparently you aren't.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#99814 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No. The writer did in fact describe something taking place in the 'great deep'(an oddly correct guess)and described that thing as a 'fountain'. And man made fountains did exist 2000 years ago.
So the question remains why the writer didn't state the flooding happened on land from springs gushing like tall fountains of water which would have been more reasonable to state then it taking place in the great deep of the seas/oceans.
You can invoke all the springs, geysers and fountains you like. There never was a global flood.

Unless it was done by magic.

In which case you can stop pretending to have evidence, because evidence doesn't matter when your position involves magic.
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99815 Sep 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You can invoke all the springs, geysers and fountains you like. There never was a global flood.
Unless it was done by magic.
In which case you can stop pretending to have evidence, because evidence doesn't matter when your position involves magic.
One could say, however, that there has always been a global flood -- over 70% of the earth's surface is water :-)
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99816 Sep 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
That's not BS, that's biological reality. It happens every single day on planet Earth.
Non-living chemicals are absorbed and converted into living biological components that go on to produce new life forms. This very basic fact of biology is called reproduction.
In short, chemistry quite literally creates life. You are after all essentially just a walking talking bag of chemicals.
<quoted text>
Trillions of years? Sorry, but the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old. And around 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago, life developed.
It may or may not have been due to the actions of an invisible magic Jew wizard. Either way, the Earth once had no life and now it does. And from there, life has evolved ever since.
<quoted text>
Apparently you aren't.
You are, of course, correct ...!
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#99817 Sep 20, 2013
spOko wrote:
One could say, however, that there has always been a global flood -- over 70% of the earth's surface is water :-)
In fact it's hypothesized that water coverage was over 99% at one stage, billions of years ago with only a few tiny islands. But as this predates life, and still doesn't reach 100%, it doesn't support religious 'Flood' claims.
spOko wrote:
You are, of course, correct ...!
Indeed. That's because reality is right, no matter how much the fundies think they can argue against it.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99818 Sep 20, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
This is some severe reaching. We have known about ice ages for a long time and we also know that they were accompanied by significant falls in the sea level. Thus the accumulated ice balanced by a fall in ocean volume.
And as pointed out earlier, Pangea was not the original supercontinent, if there even was one. Pangaea was one in a series of supercontinents that have come together and split apart repeatedly over the whole of earth's history. It formed 300 million years ago...so is recent by the standards of earth time.
By the view of science and it's advancements, not a tough reach at all. People of science are showing more and more evidence that there's more water in the earth than there is upon it. New discoveries of where drop stones lay push ice sheets out to longer and wider areas of coverage than thought possible before. Science minded persons have long maintained there is more water on the surface than that in the earth. So once again, we have old science and new science battling it out as to which theory should be maintained/changed.
And my point of a Genesis description of Pangea wasn't about the time period of when the supercontinent Pangea happened. It was about the writer guessing/insinuating/describin g a supercontinent. The writer of Genesis never once used a plural form to describe the earth's landmasses. And the fact the writer would have known bodies of water partially or totally separated land masses making large and small islands of land makes no sense that they wouldn't have used plural tones to describe the earth in it's beginning stage.
Thus it's my opinion the writer purposefully described a supercontinent.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#99819 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the view of science and it's advancements, not a tough reach at all. People of science are showing more and more evidence that there's more water in the earth than there is upon it. New discoveries of where drop stones lay push ice sheets out to longer and wider areas of coverage than thought possible before. Science minded persons have long maintained there is more water on the surface than that in the earth. So once again, we have old science and new science battling it out as to which theory should be maintained/changed.
And my point of a Genesis description of Pangea wasn't about the time period of when the supercontinent Pangea happened. It was about the writer guessing/insinuating/describin g a supercontinent. The writer of Genesis never once used a plural form to describe the earth's landmasses. And the fact the writer would have known bodies of water partially or totally separated land masses making large and small islands of land makes no sense that they wouldn't have used plural tones to describe the earth in it's beginning stage.
Thus it's my opinion the writer purposefully described a supercontinent.
There has been no supercontinent during man's existence. Homo sapiens is only 200,000 years old as a species. Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago. Yes, there is some water in the mantle. The amount is debated. The claim of two oceans worth is not well supported at all yet.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#99820 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
By the view of science and it's advancements, not a tough reach at all. People of science are showing more and more evidence that there's more water in the earth than there is upon it. New discoveries of where drop stones lay push ice sheets out to longer and wider areas of coverage than thought possible before. Science minded persons have long maintained there is more water on the surface than that in the earth. So once again, we have old science and new science battling it out as to which theory should be maintained/changed.
Ah, now I see you're back to exaggerated BS. You're forgetting those EXCEEDINGLY serious flaws in your claims:

1 - As global water height increases the volume of water increases in proportion. You are claiming underwater reservoirs are enough to account for this, but that would make a highly significant portion of the crust would be floating upon water. In reality it's floating on magma. This is especially problematic due to the pressures of keeping this water contained, plus the fact that temperatures increase the further down you go. Your water is now steam and ready to explode at near nuclear levels. Not surprisingly, science does not support this.

2 - There is no mechanism for a sudden convenient flood to occur at this time.

3 - Again, the heat created from moving literally billions of tons of water in mass (and possibly landmasses too) will turn the Earth into another sun.

4 - Noah's boat is only made of wood. What you need is the USS Enterprise.

5 - Noah's family is not genetically viable to repopulate the entire Earth. If the crew numbered 50 or more then you'd probably be okay, however no-one would be okay if they're all crispy-critters.

6 - You are still attempting to justify Goddidit with magic. You don't NEED evidence. Evidence is irrelevant to your position.
No Surprise wrote:
And my point of a Genesis description of Pangea wasn't about the time period of when the supercontinent Pangea happened. It was about the writer guessing/insinuating/describin g a supercontinent. The writer of Genesis never once used a plural form to describe the earth's landmasses. And the fact the writer would have known bodies of water partially or totally separated land masses making large and small islands of land makes no sense that they wouldn't have used plural tones to describe the earth in it's beginning stage.
Thus it's my opinion the writer purposefully described a supercontinent.
It's my opinion that the writer purposefully described a flat Earth. But that's when I'm told we're not meant to take the Bible THAT literally. At this point all we have are our opinions on how it is "meant" to be interpreted. This pretty much invalidates it from being useful as either a historical or scientific document.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#99821 Sep 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There has been no supercontinent during man's existence. Homo sapiens is only 200,000 years old as a species. Pangaea broke up 200 million years ago. Yes, there is some water in the mantle. The amount is debated. The claim of two oceans worth is not well supported at all yet.
Wee nitpick, a tad more than two oceans, due to the circumference getting larger as the ocean swells:

http://www.mathatube.com/images/ttar_concentr...

The volume of the outer ring is greater than the next one in.

:-)
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99822 Sep 20, 2013

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99823 Sep 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Because they didn't.
Underwater vents are cooled by the huge mass of surrounding water, but volcanos on land throw out lava and magma. If you claim that there's so much water being spewed out at such tremendous forces and quantities as to flood the entire world the water would evaporate as steam. What's more if you're claiming the entire world's geographical landscape changed along with it, then you are essentially frying the entire Earth.
Noah's boat is only made of wood.
If humanity was to have sprung only from his family (SERIOUS genetic issues aside) then quite literally there is no-one left alive on planet Eatrh today to talk about it.
Now we can get back to the issue of your invisible magic being. None of this is a problem for invisible magic wizardry. For when faced with an absence of, or contradicting evidence, simply invoke the magic wizard who waves his wand and fixes everything how your favourite religious book says it is.
Evidence does not matter.
You and others keep referring to magic wizardry, not I. I stated the writer described a process that we now know takes place in the ocean/sea 'deep'.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#99824 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Consider this. In thought we use at most 10% of our brain's capacity. Consider if a single individual on this earth was able to use 100% of their brain in thought.
The Ten-Percent Myth
http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percent...

Do we only use 10% of our brains?
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20121112-do-w...

Ten percent of brain myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_b...
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#99825 Sep 20, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Adam and Eve are a story. You cannot prove an unverified story happened or didn't happen.
No, one cannot prove a negative. But science has shown that there were never, nor COULD there have been, two distinct "first humans."

Such an idea is contradicted by 1.) all the genetic evidence, and 2.) the fossil evidence which shows that homo sapiens evolved gradually out of earlier, proto-human species.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence to show a person named Moses didn't exist.
No, but there is plenty of evidence that someone named Moses did NOT write the first five books of the Bible. It's called the Documentary Hypothesis, and it is what is taught in all the mainstream Christian seminaries, divinity schools and university religion departments in the world.
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no evidence to prove an exodus of Israelites from Egypt didn't happen.
Unfortunately, there is no evidence that it DID happen, which is what counts in archeology. 400,000 people "wandering for 40 years" in a fairly confined space like the Saudi desert would have left plenty of traces, none of which are found.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#99826 Sep 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
You are attempting to use the can't prove a negative principle as an argument. While this may be true, what it also means is that you have no evidence. Also in the case of Adam and Eve, the story is quite simply NOT genetically viable, unless there were already plenty of other humans around for them to reproduce with. Therefore the argument would have to change from "You can't prove Adam and Eve didn't happen." to "You can't prove Adam and Eve weren't made by magic!"
You're right. We can't. Meanwhile back in the real world, Adam and Eve is just that - a story.
I didn't say I had evidence. Others here claim they have evidence to prove what's an unprovable story didn't happen.
The story actually fits the theory of evolution. That an 'unknown' source created a single biological source being asexual that reproduced itself till a variant evolved so that being asexual was not a necessity anymore.
In the story we have an 'unknown' source that created a single biological source from whence a variant came forth so opposites were needed to reproduce life.
spOko

Oakland, CA

#99827 Sep 20, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> Photons and Kerr space and singularities, do not experience time. So they exist independent of the passage of time.
This is in agreement with GR.
Aren't you forgetting something? If it was not for time you would not be here to observe your singularity :-)

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
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 7 min THE LONE WORKER 130
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 14 min Dogen 83,136
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 52 min Regolith Based Li... 35
What is the theory of natural selection and has... 1 hr Science 3
The worst enemies of Creationism are "religioni... 1 hr 15th Dalai Lama 25
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 3 hr Reb Bacchus 123
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr Science 164,685
More from around the web