Evolution vs. Creation

Full story: Best of New Orleans

High school senior Zack Kopplin is leading the fight to repeal the Louisiana Science Education Act of 2008.
Comments
95,261 - 95,280 of 112,945 Comments Last updated 3 hrs ago

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100753
Oct 10, 2013
 
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
http://www.world-of-lucid-dreaming.com/10-ani...
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/...
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/11128062...
Teamwork shows that apes are self aware, aware of others, communicate, plan ahead and are therefore capable of understanding what other team member s are thinking.
As you say other animals rival human intelligence (in their environment). I recently watched a BBC horizon program on animal intelligence and the list of up and coming animals in the intelligence stakes is quite surprising. It is thought that pigs and members of the blackbird family will rival (current) human intelligence within the next few thousand years.
I'll try to find the experiment that shows you what I mean. Yes I agree with all this but, I'm not relaying the concept well enough.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100754
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

SCOUSE71UK wrote:
"Nope. You have masterfully demonstrated that you quite simply do not have the slightest clue what you're talking about."

***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.

"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.

***The fact is a theory does not need to be supported by any facts .
Nice demonstration of not knowing wth you are talking about.
A scientific theory never becomes a law.
A scientific law is a statement of observation that never changes no matter how many time the experiment is done.
It never was a theory and will never be anything other than a statement of a observation.

The law of gravity is the statement that..
Mass is attracted to mass. The exact wording is..

"Every point mass in the universe attracts every other point mass with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."

F=GMm/R^2

Newton worked out the math approximating the force between different mass bodies and found the inverse square law and gravitational constant between them.

G = 6.673×10^-11 N m^2 kg^-2

"So Newtons theory on gravity never became Newtons Law on gravity?"

He calculated the three laws of motion, but never made theory as to why it was so.
Newton never made theory as why these things happen, but believed them to be a natural force between mass. He merely used inductive reasoning and math to measure what he saw. That why they are laws and not theory's. They were the mathematical expressions of empirical observations by deductive reasoning.

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/Class/newtlaw...

Enter Einstein to formulate Gravity's theory , to explain why the above statements happens. He also refined the calculations Newton pioneered. In General relativity and his field equations.

http://www.space.com/17661-theory-general-rel...

Like gravity and like Newton, Darwin made a statement of observation, he called it evolution. He then explained why evolution happens , with his book
On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

Meaning the theory of the observation (evolution) is
Natural selection , we just call the whole thing ToE because it shorter, and way shorter than his title.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100755
Oct 10, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> I'll try to find the experiment that shows you what I mean. Yes I agree with all this but, I'm not relaying the concept well enough.
Watch this video from 24.26 and it shows you exactly what I meant by experimentation. Humans change this concept , chimps and apes never do.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xva1fq_throu...

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100756
Oct 10, 2013
 
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>*sigh*
Yes. Only I keep forgetting. It's so hard to think irrationally.
It's nothing a little blunt force trauma to the frontal lobe can't fix

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100757
Oct 10, 2013
 
Wow... just wow. You really are completely ignorant of science in general. The evidence of your ignorance is provided by you every time you make a post like one below.

Spend an hour with Google and search out "scientific theory" and "scientific laws". With any luck, you may actually learn something. Sorry if you feel like slapping yourself (for postings like the one below) afterwards... but discovering how stupid you've been would be a step in the right direction.
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.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100758
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
If God did it, YOU still have no idea how. So whether it was God or not, we are none the wiser. You just feel more secure if you believe some intelligent agent did it. But you have no evidence for that.
The correct and honest answer to your question is "nobody knows how or why the universe came to be". And if there is a God, nobody knows how he came to be either.
See what you are doing? Plugging a hole with an empty, voodoo superstition answer.
No more time as usual. Not really true.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100759
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
They created god so you could quit wondering about it.
But you still do ...so what does that tell you?
There is a big dichotomy between God and gods. Living and dead are not the same.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100760
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's the claim. It's not proof.
It's not even evidence.
And yet no solid proofs to counter his existence to date.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100761
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol...I didn't weasel out of anything. I never said I agreed with the Biblical time frame for a global flood. You ASSUME I agreed with such a time frame and I haven't. You don't read what I write. You do inject things I haven't stated and you should quit, stick with what I actually stated, just saying.
Sorry, bub, but you are the are the one insisting it could have happened and that there is no evidence that it didn't. No walking away from that one.
No Surprise wrote:
I know you disagree that the earth can do whatever it will. You're a loony that has a belief that the earth is restricted in how it shapes and reshapes itself and how it's helped in it's shaping by outside forces like comets and asteroids. I will continue to believe the evidence that the earth can do what it already has done which proves it can do anything it will when it does it.
Oh, sure.*I'M* the loony. What the earth may have done in the past in no way "...proves it can do anything it will...", fruitloop.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100762
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Logically no.
I though you claimed that the earth can do anything it will.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100763
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand according to existing evidence that life exists no where else as we exist...
You know that how?
No Surprise wrote:
...logic says we shouldn't exist but we do :)
You need to forget about using 'logic'. You're not very good at it. Just saying.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100764
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Don't like the mirror image eh?
Of what?
No Surprise wrote:
First prove that I believe a global flood took place when then the story in the Bible states it did.
When you prove that about me, than state something for me to counter as a creationist would....waiting....
No, jackass. I made a statement. You ignored it. I'm not going to jump through an hoops for someone who refuses to give an honest response.

STILL waiting...

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100765
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>That's the claim. It's not proof.
It's not even evidence.
And yet to date, the same old stories, " projections", subjected to un supported guesses.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100766
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
lol....I have no credibility?
Correct, you have none.
No Surprise wrote:
You're the one that states THEY KNOW what the earth can do and what it can't do geologically...
But *YOU* know it can do anything at all.
No Surprise wrote:
...and you claim I have no credibility'
You've just proven it again.
No Surprise wrote:
Too fricking funny dude really! lol.....
That's OK. We're used to idiots laughing uncontrollably when confronted with things way over their heads.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100767
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100768
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100769
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100770
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Tampa, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100771
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#100772
Oct 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••