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

#100253 Sep 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Absolutely not except by extreme idealisms. If a small portion of a seafloor can be pushed up undisturbed to be exposed above surface without incinerating all local sea and nearby land life then who's to say great areas of sea/ocean floor couldn't be raised by the same method of movement? You of course would say it can't be done I understand. But it was done in a small sample and the catastrophes you attached to a large one weren't attached to the small one. So possibilities do exist.
Great areas of the seafloor have been raised up To majestic heights , what does that have to do with anything?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100254 Sep 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And these kinds of processes are known about. But what you will notice that in these kinds of events there are NOT lots of nice neat little layers with specific kinds of fossils in specific layers and layers indicating desert land, grass plains (with pollen), marine layers, etc. These are only produced over long periods of time. Trust me when I say that professional geologists know more than you do. That's why there's no such thing as 'creation geologists' finding oil deposits based on your ideas.
Ahhh no. The processes you speak of weren't known about by the scientists you claim knew of them. If they had known about them the obvious would have been discovered at a much earlier date, not a later date. The geological layer in Mediterranean areas from a supervolcano is plain to see now by scientists because they recognize what to look for now. That layer wasn't seen/recognized previously because they weren't looking for it though they saw evidence for the explosion of a supervolcano.
And stating I know more than what professional geologists know was quite childish of you. Nice one :)

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100255 Sep 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't seem to read what I have written. I never said a flood took place 4300 years ago. I have said according to certain Bible statements the 'supposed' flood took place at a different time period.
You don't seem to understand the dating of geological phenomena isn't an exact science. That it's changed and adjusted as time goes on with new information. Core samples from drilling rigs have produced fossilized specimens that are hundreds of feet deep and not in a proper age order. Understand the implication? It means there's a cluster *u*k of information laying below and on top of the surface of the earth that still needs to be explained.
What I understand is science is only correct for today because something new tomorrow will invalidate today's info as being accurate any more.
Dating has improved over the years, it really hasn't changed all that much.
And where are there layers out of order? I have seen this claim but no one has ever supported it.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100256 Sep 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I'd say that an ENTIRE PLANET full of life is quite a bit of evidence.
lol.....really? Where did you get that crap? Where did you read a global flood would cause the loss of all life? An extremist, that's where you got that crap from.
I'll give you this exception to prove your crap point. If you can show proof that if the world flooded itself every single inch would have to be superheated beyond any known measure to kill all life you have grounds for your point.
But you have no point. Volcanic action not resulting in great heat can and has pushed ocean/sea floors to sea levels without killing all existing life. Then you have to deal with the fact that mud/silt itself sustains life in seawater and freshwater in cold and super heated water environments. Just saying.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100257 Sep 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Obviously you have no clue as to how science works. It works by making predictions.
I quit reading with the above. I would say are you fricking nuts but of course you are. Science has never ever worked by predictions. Where in the *ell did you come up with that BS? If science worked by predictions it would never advance because predictions are made without doing any research, you know like 'looking' for something to substantiate a theory you have? A prediction is a thought said as a statement of something that will take place in the future. Science is based on what has already taken place in the past so to prove a theory of what is thought to have taken place or is taking place.
Science is an idea and than comes observations, questions, inspections, analyzations, testing and researching etc to prove or disprove that idea.
lol...and you claim I don't know how science works...lol...to funny dude.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100258 Sep 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol.....really? Where did you get that crap? Where did you read a global flood would cause the loss of all life? An extremist, that's where you got that crap from.
I'll give you this exception to prove your crap point. If you can show proof that if the world flooded itself every single inch would have to be superheated beyond any known measure to kill all life you have grounds for your point.
But you have no point. Volcanic action not resulting in great heat can and has pushed ocean/sea floors to sea levels without killing all existing life. Then you have to deal with the fact that mud/silt itself sustains life in seawater and freshwater in cold and super heated water environments. Just saying.
Perhaps he should have said practically all life. Bacteria would probably survive.

And you keep making idiotic claims without any evidence that backs your claims up. That means your claims are bullshit.

So, when has volcanic action ever greatly changed sea level over a very short period of time? The reason that we know Biblical flooding would have killed off everything except for bacteria is that 5 + miles of water would have to come either from outer space or from deep below the Earth. Either one would lead to all life beyond the single cellular dying off. So where did your 5 miles of water come from?

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100259 Sep 28, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Doesn't matter WHAT evidence we find, you say a global flood MIGHT have happened. It's not that you simply have a lack of evidence, actual existing evidence of reality quite literally contradicts your claims. Meaning the only way around this is magic.
Therefore a global flood MIGHT have happened.
Because magic.
No. I state the 'possible' evidence for one or more global floodings hasn't been found because were not seeing it IF, if in fact the evidence exists.
The humorous but ignorant thing is you and others believe if evidence were found for a global flood, it would mean the Noah story would be seen as correct and the writer got it correct and that is not true.
Let's go from the other end for a bit shall we? Two thousand years ago a writer in the Bible stated/insinuated in the end of time the earth would be a mass of flames. Science has stated theoretically that the earth will become that at one point in the future. How did that writer 2000 years guess correct what scientists today claim what will take place?
"...the Day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with a fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." (II Peter 3:10-)

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100260 Sep 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You're reading quite a bit into that stele. While it is very possible that it does refer to Israel (which is in some doubt) exactly what occurred after their defeat is pretty much guesswork.
No. And I based my statement on 'if'. The statement on the stella speaks of the wars and defeats others suffered by this pharaoh. And it states all he warred with and conquered who lived were bound meaning made captives. Captives were 'usually' always brought back to that conquering kings country in ancient times. That's the accepted interpretation of the quote by the professionals interpreting it regardless if the word Israel pertains to the ancestors of modern day Jews or not.

The princes are prostrate, saying: "Mercy!"
Not one raises his head among the Nine Bows.
Desolation is for Tehenu;
Hatti is pacified;
Plundered is the Canaan with every evil;
Carried off is Ashkelon;
seized upon is Gezer;
Yeno`am is made as that which does not exist;
Israel is laid waste, his seed is not;
Hurru is become a widow for Egypt!
All lands together, they are pacified;
everyone who was restless has been bound
by the king of Upper and Lower Egypt;
Be-en Re Meri-Amon; the Son of Re;
mer-ne-Ptah Hotep-hir-Maat, given life
like Re every day.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100261 Sep 28, 2013
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Seriously? Trauma after death?
I was repeating what someone else stated.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100263 Sep 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Who said anything about buildings? Tents or not they woukd have built thousands of fires. Left tons of garbage behind. They would have buried their dead. Every heard of middens. Why is there no trace?
<quoted text>
I would not be. If it's there.
Another poster suggested stationary buildings should be found.
There were millions of native American Indians in just North America for hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands of years. Why aren't we finding in the least hundreds of thousands of campsites with garbage and such evidence from the east coast to the west coast as you stated should have been found by a mass exodus of people living/moving about in a wilderness for just 40 years?
It's only been close to a century since Indians almost stopped having a nomadic life in North America moving here and there with seasons and the movement of animals like the buffalo. The topsoil should be littered with hundreds of thousands of spots where the native Indians had lived before moving on. The evidence should be so overwhelming it wouldn't even be exciting to find such a spot.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100264 Sep 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
You can ignore it if you choose but there is scientific evidence against a global flood.
No. Evidence doesn't exist to prove the nonexistence of a global flood.
I said this before. You can give personal opinions for why you think a global flood never happened, that you can do. But you will never have actual evidence to prove a global flood never took place.
Stating that puts you where scientists were when they stated there was evidence to prove nothing could exist without sunlight, that nothing could live in superheated water, that life didn't exist in ice etc. Understand?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100265 Sep 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Evidence doesn't exist to prove the nonexistence of a global flood.
I said this before. You can give personal opinions for why you think a global flood never happened, that you can do. But you will never have actual evidence to prove a global flood never took place.
Stating that puts you where scientists were when they stated there was evidence to prove nothing could exist without sunlight, that nothing could live in superheated water, that life didn't exist in ice etc. Understand?
We ahve extremely strong evidence that a flood never took place.

You clearly have no idea what is and what is not evidence.

For example the lack of worldwide genetic bottlenecks is extremely strong evidence against the flood.

“ad victoriam”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

arte et marte

#100266 Sep 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Evidence doesn't exist to prove the nonexistence of a global flood.
I said this before. You can give personal opinions for why you think a global flood never happened, that you can do. But you will never have actual evidence to prove a global flood never took place.
Stating that puts you where scientists were when they stated there was evidence to prove nothing could exist without sunlight, that nothing could live in superheated water, that life didn't exist in ice etc. Understand?
Do you have dog ship for brains?
It's no personal opinion, it is a physical reality that the flood myth is impossible.
You may as well speak of the hollow Earth theory, because you traverse a mountain of stupid to arrive at the decision there was a global flood.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#100267 Sep 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Evidence doesn't exist to prove the nonexistence of a global flood.
I said this before. You can give personal opinions for why you think a global flood never happened, that you can do. But you will never have actual evidence to prove a global flood never took place.
Stating that puts you where scientists were when they stated there was evidence to prove nothing could exist without sunlight, that nothing could live in superheated water, that life didn't exist in ice etc. Understand?
Yeah dude, but this lack of evidence has been going on for 300 years while thousands of scientists and plain fundamentalists have been looking for it. Never happened. There is absolutely NO evidence for a Noachian flood. The story has been falsified.

If somehow you can find some real evidence for a flood...come to us....until then it is a closed subject with science.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#100268 Sep 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
No. Evidence doesn't exist to prove the nonexistence of a global flood.
I said this before. You can give personal opinions for why you think a global flood never happened, that you can do. But you will never have actual evidence to prove a global flood never took place.
Stating that puts you where scientists were when they stated there was evidence to prove nothing could exist without sunlight, that nothing could live in superheated water, that life didn't exist in ice etc. Understand?
Nobody ever thought bacteria could live in extreme places until the evidence came in and more testing was done. Now we knows that bacteria can even live and thrive in JP4/JP5 jet fuel. Scary stuff.

You seem to be of the opinion that all scientific knowledge is wrong or twisted, and because it is wrong at first, but then revised, you don't believe any of it.

Typical evangelical fundamentalist YEC attitude....can't learn anything new.:-)

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#100269 Sep 28, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're a perfect example for why science is so slow in it's advancements. If something can't be beheld by any of the human senses, then there's no reason to investigate it's possible existence. And a shut mind views nothing. But an open mind is the reason theories become fact.
How about the Large Hadron Collider in Europe, and the particles they are looking for? How about black holes which were theorized,but not seen or detected for years?

As usual you are showing a complete lack of understanding of science and the scientific method.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#100270 Sep 28, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>You have nothing my friend.
Why the need to lie wordy?

I could understand you disagreeing with proof but you must except evidence.

“Good day to you!”

Level 2

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100271 Sep 28, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
One would think an all powerful god would be able to keep his word from being corrupted. Especially considering he is the one who allegedly confused the languages.
According to what's in the Bible, it's God instituted a thing called "free will" when it came to choosing to obey and or disobey. According to that interpretation, those obeying that God would thus copy previously written works in a 'more' correct fashion than a 'more' incorrect fashion.
So assuming this God would 'force' everything to come to be (as you state concerning his written words) in a specific manner, there would be no need to tell anyone to obey him.
Instead we would have stories of a God that revealed they had forced everything to be as it is and that's all we needed to know. All of this talk of right and wrong, good and evil would logically have been a waste of time.
If this God had been that controlling, life would have logically been so different. No churches, no religions, no laws, no right no wrong. We would be born and we would do as genetically predisposed without incident and free of yin and yang influences. We would have a predisposed nature to know what to do and when to do it when the time came for it to happen be it mating or building a home.
Just an opinion though :)
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#100272 Sep 28, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You really don't understand science do you. You see it in terms of your own feeble understanding of your belief system and figure that must be how it is. You are the one that is sad.
I guess I don't

When I grew up science was honorable and stayed within the laws of the universe.

Now it is more less a religion dealing with impossibilities rather then facts.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#100273 Sep 28, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>Like germ theory, gravity theory, and evolutionary theory....all facts, as well as theories.
Sorry not all facts.

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
Golden Section in our DNA again proves DESIGN 6 min Reb Bacchus 32
Bible 'Science' Verses opposing the Evolution R... 15 min Reb Bacchus 123
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 30 min Science 83,120
Post your Bible Science Verses that show Evolut... 35 min Science 116
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Science 164,685
What is the theory of natural selection and has... 2 hr Science 1
Evolution is boring as Hell 3 hr Science 6
More from around the web