Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163674 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.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#100767 Oct 10, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
The fact is if it had been accepted as a law then it would not still be referred to as a theory by the scientific community. Which is why I think it is the most likely way life as evolved, but refuse to claim it as truth and so treat it with some scepticism.
This is where you go wrong. The terminology of science has shifted over the last 300 years. Partly because of the revolutions in physics that began about 100 years ago, there is MUCH less tendency to label scientific ideas as 'laws'. The modern terminology has 'theory' as the highest level of confidence in science.
"Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws"."
So Newtons theory on gravity never became Newtons Law on gravity? The fact is it started out as a theory and only when he had proven it beyond all doubt did it become Newton's law on gravity. Nobody as been able to do that with Darwin's theories on evolution which is why it remains a theory and not a law.
I should point out that Newton's 'laws' are now known to be wrong. They were replaced by Einstein's *theory* of general relativity. NO idea in science is 'beyond all doubt'. It is *always* possible that some new data will come around that will require a change in our understanding.

But what does NOT happen in science is regression. Once Ptolemy's ideas were shown to be wrong, they were not re-introduced when Newton's ideas were found to be wrong. And while Newton's ideas are used even today as very good *approximations*, the more correct version given by Einstein is used in those cases where more accuracy is required.

The idea of static species the common viewpoint about 250 years ago. Then people started looking into the evidence and realized that species do, in fact, change over geological time. THAT is evolution. What Darwin did is propose a *mechanism* for those changes and supplied evidence for that mechanism being relevant. It is quite possible that the details of this mechanism will be changed as we learn more. In fact, that has already happened when genetics was merge into evolutionary theory in the 'modern synthesis' of the 1950's.
"Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws"."
"Like Newton's LAW of gravity."
Or are you still suffering under the delusion that Newton's theory on gravity started out as his law of gravity. The fact is anything in science starts out as a theory and only when it is proven beyond all doubt is it confirmed as a scientific law.
First, scientific ideas start out as *hypotheses*, not theories. Second, there is *never* a proof beyond all doubt. That simply isn't possible. Third, Newton's 'laws' are now known to be only approximations. They are known to fail in many situations.

And it is partly because of the overthrow of Newton's ideas that modern scientists are reluctant to label anything as a 'law'. Except in very limited, rule-of-thumb situations, the word 'law' in science is rarely used.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#100768 Oct 10, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>
So it takes a god to make the universe??? Wow so this god must be pretty amazing....So who created this god. I mean he must be more complex then the universe so who created this god?
This is stupid and you know that. God the almighty has no creator.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#100769 Oct 10, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey, Charles.
Still beating that dead house, huh?
His comments is/ are ridiculous.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#100770 Oct 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
Do you not see the contradiction of those two statements?
In two sentences, define the term," contradictions" ?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#100771 Oct 10, 2013
SCOUSE71UK wrote:
"Nope. You have masterfully demonstrated that you quite simply do not have the slightest clue what you're talking about."
I assume dude that when typing the above comments you were talking about yourself as you obviously don't.
The fact is if it had been accepted as a law then it would not still be referred to as a theory by the scientific community. Which is why I think it is the most likely way life as evolved, but refuse to claim it as truth and so treat it with some scepticism.
"Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws"."
So Newtons theory on gravity never became Newtons Law on gravity? The fact is it started out as a theory and only when he had proven it beyond all doubt did it become Newton's law on gravity. Nobody as been able to do that with Darwin's theories on evolution which is why it remains a theory and not a law.
You can throw all the insults you want at me, but it is clear you are the one who doesn't know what you are talking about as you are contradicting yourself.
"Scientific theories contain facts. Theory is as high as it gets in science. They NEVER get "proven" to become "laws"."
"Like Newton's LAW of gravity."
Or are you still suffering under the delusion that Newton's theory on gravity started out as his law of gravity. The fact is anything in science starts out as a theory and only when it is proven beyond all doubt is it confirmed as a scientific law.
It is clear that you do not understand what a theory is. The fact is Darwin's theory of evolution as plenty of facts to support it, but not enough to prove it beyond doubt and so not enough facts to make it a law. If someone says they can drop a watch off the top of a block of flats with a parachute on, run to the bottom and catch it that is a theory. They catch it 1000 or even 1000000 times it remains a theory, because there is no way to prove that when they get to 100 or even 70 or 80 that they will still be able to catch it and so it never becomes a law.
The fact is a theory does not need to be supported by any facts, it is just that the more facts there are to support a theory the more people there are who will consider it a working theory. The less facts there are to support a theory the more chance there is people will consider it as things such as a myth or a fairy story.
I'm an atheist and so Darwin had more belief in the bible than I ever have as he referred to himself as an Agnostic.
My vote for the stupidest post of the month.

Newtons Law is a mathematical relationship. It is NOT a goddamn theory to WHY it works!

"It is clear that you do not understand what a theory is."

{head/desk}

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#100772 Oct 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Well if science knew that they would have no need to say “we don’t know - yet”
However there are theories and mathematics which allow those theories to be investigated. The last I heard there were different 27 theories some more valid than others. I personally favour the theory of Dr Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina whose ideas not only explain the string framework of the pre and existing universe and how that universe was created but also the three major anomalies that scientist observe in our universe.
And because science says “we don’t know - yet” is it no excuse for godbots to guess their personal god did it by magic
Foul! The same old excusses.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100773 Oct 10, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
if you want some examples tick of what he is talking about here are some links. These people back then did not know of or had seen elephants, flying ships or spacemen and other things but yet had carvings/relics of them. Also look at his links that he provided.
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread669...
http://forum.spore.com/jforum/posts/list/7523...
yet not one shred of evidence for any higher intelligence...

“ Knight Of Hyrule”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#100774 Oct 10, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> There is a big dichotomy between God and gods. Living and dead are not the same.
You mean like a zombie?

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#100775 Oct 10, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And yet no solid proofs to counter his existence to date.
Nor any other gods. Prove that Apollo does not exist!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100776 Oct 10, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> There is a big dichotomy between God and gods. Living and dead are not the same.
gods can die? i guess when the people that created them die off, so do the gods...

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#100777 Oct 10, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> This is stupid and you know that. God the almighty has no creator.
Point out the logical difference between

"God has no creator"

And

"The multiverse has no creator"

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#100778 Oct 10, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>yet not one shred of evidence for any higher intelligence...
Explain the carvings and statues in the links. Oh that is right you can't. You are afraid of what you can't explain huh?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100779 Oct 10, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain the carvings and statues in the links. Oh that is right you can't. You are afraid of what you can't explain huh?
it certainly isn't evidence for any higher intelligence.

you really are cult mentality personified, aren't you?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100780 Oct 10, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Explain the carvings and statues in the links. Oh that is right you can't. You are afraid of what you can't explain huh?
why are you so surprised that stories of elephants survived from those people's ancestors? they are quite amazing animals, the stories would be fantastic and long lived!

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#100781 Oct 10, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text> it certainly isn't evidence for any higher intelligence.
you really are cult mentality personified, aren't you?
I never said it was. What I said was These people back then did not know of or had seen elephants, flying ships or spacemen and other things but yet had carvings/relics of them.

You nor science nor anyone can explain it so it scares you. You would rather ignore it since it can't be explained.

“If It Is Possible”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

It Will Likely Happen

#100782 Oct 10, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>why are you so surprised that stories of elephants survived from those people's ancestors? they are quite amazing animals, the stories would be fantastic and long lived!
LOL why did you avoid the flying ship and spacemen artifacts? Surely those stories too were passed down to them from their ancestors. Those types of artifacts have been found/seen in many cultures.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100783 Oct 10, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it was. What I said was These people back then did not know of or had seen elephants, flying ships or spacemen and other things but yet had carvings/relics of them.
You nor science nor anyone can explain it so it scares you. You would rather ignore it since it can't be explained.
their ancestors came from Asia where...guess what? they have elephants there!

don't all ancient societies' gods come from the sky? the most unknown place in their world?

i think we are done here...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#100784 Oct 10, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
I never said it was. What I said was These people back then did not know of or had seen elephants, flying ships or spacemen and other things but yet had carvings/relics of them.
You nor science nor anyone can explain it so it scares you. You would rather ignore it since it can't be explained.
Most of it looks merely like confirmation bias by the authors.

For example the pieces of jewelry that were called wrist watches simply because they were round and on the wrist.

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#100785 Oct 10, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> There is a big dichotomy between God and gods. Living and dead are not the same.
Charles, neither YOU or ANYBODY else has been able to demonstrate that there is a real God such as you believe in.

Until he can be proven by independent means he remains a myth.

Great that you have faith and all, but a shame you miss out on so much knowledge.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#100786 Oct 10, 2013
actually bothered to look at the links...

man are those people effed up! what a bunch of loonies...

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
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 8 hr Paul Porter1 78
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) Thu Chimney1 141,315
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) May 19 Kathleen 19,031
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) May 18 SoE 178,597
News Darwin on the rocks (Sep '14) May 18 MADRONE 1,870
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) May 15 emrenil 1,243
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) May 15 MikeF 13,700
More from around the web