Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 205090 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

#104015 Oct 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
It was this tid-bit I found interesting...(parenthesis mine)
Its theorems and axioms --...-- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.
But the mathematical model composed by Gödel proposed a proof of the idea(of the existence of God). Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.
Not all mathematical truths can be proven. That is part of what Godel was able to demonstrate. Furthermore, the basic assumptions (axioms) for any system are unproved.

“Help religion science wander”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#104016 Oct 31, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
I have no intention of leaving reality to join the evolutionary dilution. You folks get to learn a lot about that little proton motor in coming posts. Your Time God looking a little tipsy? To think of it, the whole of evolutionary biology and long ages toppled by a tiny little proton engine, little Big engine we should say. Lots of words and pictures vs an ever increasing volume of evidence for design and complexity.
Run away! Run away some more!

My stars and garters, what are we gonna do? Don't poke us with your wooden sword.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104017 Oct 31, 2013
SBT wrote:
<quoted text>
Still waiting for something of substance from you rather than mocking emotional responses.
Leave the irony meters alone, bub.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104018 Oct 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
You're disturbingly ignorant and assume wayyyyy to much. The link wasn't meant to help Biblical apologetics. So your post was pretty meaningless.
By the way, in reality the concept 'god' is by no ways or means a meaningless concept except to the ignorant as yourself. A meaningless concept doesn't rake in billions a year. A meaningless concept doesn't give birth and ruin to countries and civilizations polarized in their superstitions of a meaningless god.
Only a severely ignorant person would state 'god' is a meaningless concept.
Like I said, unless you're a politician - someone who's good at taking concepts that, even if they have no objectively demonstrable basis in reality, can still be used to manipulate the vulnerable or gullible masses.

I can't be ignorant when I already took your point into account.

Meanwhile back in the real world, "God" cannot be objectively scientifically verified or pass the scientific method. Unless you call her Sofia Vergara.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#104019 Oct 31, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Run away! Run away some more!
My stars and garters, what are we gonna do? Don't poke us with your wooden sword.
"Supper at such an hour!
My stars and garters! who would be,
To have such guests, a landlady"
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104020 Oct 31, 2013
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
It was this tid-bit I found interesting...(parenthesis mine)
Its theorems and axioms --...-- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.
But the mathematical model composed by Gödel proposed a proof of the idea(of the existence of God). Its theorems and axioms -- assumptions which cannot be proven -- can be expressed as mathematical equations. And that means they can be proven.
Yes they can. But only mathematically.

For example, a mathematical model of a two-dimensional universe may contain many mathematical proofs. You can throw all the numbers you like at it and (so long as you don't suck at math) all your calculations will be correct, will work out, be logical and internally consistent.

But we don't live in a two-dimensional universe. Math CAN be useful when applied to reality, but it doesn't always have to (klein bottle being another perfect example). From this we learn two things:

1 - Math is a language, not a science.

2 - Science doesn't deal with "proofs", as proof is only for maths and alcohol. Science deals with facts and evidence. NOTHING in science is ever "proven", as science needs to have the potential for falsification in order to make scientific predictions about real-world phenomena. Something which the God-concept cannot do.
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#104021 Oct 31, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The Bible is not "evidence".
It's a story.
Much of it myth, allegory, and parable. Much of the rest of it is just inaccurate from a science and history perspective.
If the mountain ranges had only formed within the past 4500 years as you contend, the heat generated by those incredibly massive forces would render the surface of the planet molten and sterile to this day.
In short, your contention of the recent forming of the world's mountain ranges is false.
Moreover, we would appreciate it if you would please present a bible verse that says the mountain ranges didn't form until after your (non-existent) Flood.
But the Bible is evidence. The Bible has thousands of item in it that could not have possible been known but was written long before science figured it out.

So you would rather believe things like what Stephen Hawking said. As bout how time started. Paraphrasing: there was no before the big bang because time started at point of the Big Bang when all the laws of the universe break down.

There is NO POINT where the laws of the universe break down! That would require being outside of the universe which is impossible.

Universe: ALL that is known or postulated.

There is no outside of that definition of the universe.
But you all believe that myth.

Times existence is proof of a creator.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104022 Oct 31, 2013
SBT wrote:
I have no intention of leaving reality to join the evolutionary dilution. You folks get to learn a lot about that little proton motor in coming posts.
Actually we learned nothing from you about biology. You don't have the slightest clue about the subject making it impossible for you to teach anything.(shrug)
SBT wrote:
Your Time God looking a little tipsy? To think of it, the whole of evolutionary biology and long ages toppled by a tiny little proton engine, little Big engine we should say.
When did that happen? In 2064?

You can keep making this claim all you like, but it still doesn't change the fact that we debunked your BS, evolution remains unaffected, and even the guy who you got your BS from failed to get his claims past scientific peer-review. He's now touring the church circuit fleecing money off rubes like you and giving speeches about how they were so mean to him at Dover.
SBT wrote:
Lots of words and pictures vs an ever increasing volume of evidence for design and complexity.
How is "complexity" measured? What mechanisms are responsible for design? How is design determined? How does invisible Jewmagic pass the scientific method?

Thanks in advance for again avoiding all our questions.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104023 Oct 31, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
Furthermore, the basic assumptions (axioms) for any system are unproved.
Darn. That's inconvenient.

For fundies that is.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104024 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
But the Bible is evidence. The Bible has thousands of item in it that could not have possible been known but was written long before science figured it out.
such as?

how do you know time doesn't end in a singularity?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#104025 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
But the Bible is evidence. The Bible has thousands of item in it that could not have possible been known but was written long before science figured it out.
Yeah, then science figured out the Earth WASN'T a flat square circle at the centre of a geocentric universe.

Then it figured out everything else we knew from scratch without using the Bible at all, and only AFTER all that hard work was done by science the fundies were able to tell us they knew this all along. I mean how else would we know that donkeys can't talk when the Bible tells us that donkeys can't talk.

Oh wait. It tells us they CAN talk. Uh...
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
Times existence is proof of a creator.
Even if we go with that it still doesn't mean that a creator is necessarily intelligent.

We know it can't be, otherwise it wouldn't rely on fundies to promote it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104026 Oct 31, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
HEY!!!!
>:-(
I am just assuming, Mr. Kong, that being a giant gorilla you have a giant brain too. Please take no offence.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#104027 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
But the Bible is evidence. The Bible has thousands of item in it that could not have possible been known but was written long before science figured it out.
So you would rather believe things like what Stephen Hawking said. As bout how time started. Paraphrasing: there was no before the big bang because time started at point of the Big Bang when all the laws of the universe break down.
There is NO POINT where the laws of the universe break down! That would require being outside of the universe which is impossible.
Universe: ALL that is known or postulated.
There is no outside of that definition of the universe.
But you all believe that myth.
Times existence is proof of a creator.
Yes we all know there is a passage in the Bible that discusses the Big Bang and also the fact that the earth orbits the Sun and the Solar system is part of one galaxy among many billions etc.

You could claim that David dropping a rock was evidence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, the way you play it. For how could David drop a rock, to the ancients, if they did not have God given knowledge that mass warps space time in such a way that a rock falls because it follows the path of least resistance in a warped space time field? Obviously any record of dropping a rock would be proof that the ancients understood general relativity, thanks to God.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104028 Oct 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am just assuming, Mr. Kong, that being a giant gorilla you have a giant brain too. Please take no offence.
a goriila, oh my, i just thought he was a Kardashian and didn't want to say anythng...

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#104029 Oct 31, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Going from east to west, you lose a whole day, while going east from west, a whole day is gained, this days lost or gained, will also affects the time. The time in New York can never be the same with the ones in London. It is real and not imaginary.
So if I traveled east to west at a rate of one rotation per 24 hrs, would I stay young forever?
Level 1

Since: Jun 13

Location hidden

#104030 Oct 31, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes we all know there is a passage in the Bible that discusses the Big Bang and also the fact that the earth orbits the Sun and the Solar system is part of one galaxy among many billions etc.
You could claim that David dropping a rock was evidence of Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, the way you play it. For how could David drop a rock, to the ancients, if they did not have God given knowledge that mass warps space time in such a way that a rock falls because it follows the path of least resistance in a warped space time field? Obviously any record of dropping a rock would be proof that the ancients understood general relativity, thanks to God.
You seem to confuse proof with evidence.

In fact you seem confused.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#104031 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
You seem to confuse proof with evidence.
In fact you seem confused.
In fact you confuse nonesense with evidence all the time.

you are , in fact, confused all the time.

Level 2

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#104032 Oct 31, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yet people who know the subject far better than you have no problem researching. They keep getting closer and closer to an answer.
Though not as totally brain dead idiotic as either SBT or bohart you are getting close when you make as foolish of a post as this.
You do realize that time is a problem. They don't have the time it would have taken life to form naturally in the lab to run an experiment from from only the basic ingredients to life itself. Let's be kind and say it took only a million years for life to form naturally. How are they going to reproduce those million years in the laboratory.
It is moronic in the extreme to claim that just because they have not reproduced the whole nonlife to life in the laboratory to claim that abiogenesis is a crock.
Ha,Ha,Ha, sucking bone the Apostle of the time God! just throw a few chemicals together , stir with the tides and cover with the blanket of a million years and shazzam! life! You are a comically idiotic moron. Time is not a mechanism to transform non living matter to living matter ! You are so faith driven that nothing is too imbecilic to be accepted as plausible, except of course a creator, now that's impossible !but only in the puddle goo sect.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104033 Oct 31, 2013
The Almighty Tzar wrote:
<quoted text>
But the Bible is evidence. The Bible has thousands of item in it that could not have possible been known but was written long before science figured it out.
No, it doesn't. It has thousands of items that have been reinterpreted in light of today's science. They were not known then, and in fact if you read the Bible in context it does not make any amazing discoveries.
So you would rather believe things like what Stephen Hawking said. As bout how time started. Paraphrasing: there was no before the big bang because time started at point of the Big Bang when all the laws of the universe break down.
There is NO POINT where the laws of the universe break down! That would require being outside of the universe which is impossible.
Universe: ALL that is known or postulated.
There is no outside of that definition of the universe.
But you all believe that myth.
Times existence is proof of a creator.
You misunderstood what he wrote. He never claimed that the Laws of the Universe broke down. He claims, and rightly so, that there are points where the man written theories break down.

You problems is that you don't have a clues as to what scientists say and all you can do is to make strawman arguments. Strawman arguments only convince other ignorant fools.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#104034 Oct 31, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
Ha,Ha,Ha, sucking bone the Apostle of the time God! just throw a few chemicals together , stir with the tides and cover with the blanket of a million years and shazzam! life! You are a comically idiotic moron. Time is not a mechanism to transform non living matter to living matter ! You are so faith driven that nothing is too imbecilic to be accepted as plausible, except of course a creator, now that's impossible !but only in the puddle goo sect.
Poor bohart. His brain looks like it will be permanently underdeveloped.

Still I would help him learn if he ever had a clue to the errors of his ways.

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) 2 min One way or another 43,249
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 55 min Dogen 151,489
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 3 hr Bob of Quantum-Faith 916
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr It aint necessari... 18,571
Questions about first life 10 hr Upright Scientist 15
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie 16 hr One way or another 16
evolution is correct. prove me wrong (Jul '15) Sat FallenGeologist 35
More from around the web