Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 216776 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.

“Denny Crain”

Level 8

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#112394 Apr 28, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, creationism can't explain anything at all. Whether it be in or out of our universe. At least science can explain things that exist. You're complaining that science can't explain stuff we don't even know exists because there's no evidence for it yet.
I guess that depends on what you mean as creationism. The universe was created and who is to explain what or how that was done. I don't believe the myth man has created to explain what he can't understand but I do believe in a creation force that created time and an expanding universe. I just don't give a human personality to this force
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112395 Apr 28, 2014
SevenTee wrote:
<quoted text>
And where did all that come from?
Doesn't matter. As long as life is here, it can evolve. Life is here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise you need to show that life is in fact NOT here.

You can't refute evolution if you need to go all the way back to abiogenesis or the big bang, because evolution doesn't care about those things. Evolution doesn't care if they happened naturally or if it really WAS your invisible magic wizard.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112396 Apr 28, 2014
Denny CranesPlace wrote:
<quoted text>I guess that depends on what you mean as creationism. The universe was created and who is to explain what or how that was done. I don't believe the myth man has created to explain what he can't understand but I do believe in a creation force that created time and an expanding universe. I just don't give a human personality to this force
Well obviously we got here somehow.

So call it "creation" instead of "Creationism", as the latter specifically tends to refer to the fundamentalist theistic creation myth, generally of Abrahamic descent.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112397 Apr 28, 2014
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
...the universe can and will create itself from nothing?
.....(nonsense spouted by scientists is still nonsense.)
John Lennox
And how does this help the hypothesis of invisible Jew wizards?

Nonsense spouted by creationists is always nonsense forever.
Dude
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#112398 Apr 28, 2014
HAPPY wrote:
<quoted text>The ark was covered by a pyramid shaped structure according to one theory. The ark itself was just a wooden container which may have been protected and transported by the covering it had over it. Noah built an altar which this theory asserts was in the shape of the covering, and his grandchildren copied the design throughout the region when pyramids were constructed for religious purposes. The natural forces which were used to lift the ark off the Earth, to protect it,were related to the advanced science God had made available to Noah over the many years he prepared for the event.
Yes Mikey, as I said, the same advancements that were available for Captain Kirk or Picard.

Anything less just wouldn't work.

So I'm guessing that pyramid was a force-field then.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#112399 Apr 28, 2014
HAPPY wrote:
<quoted text>The ark was covered by a pyramid shaped structure according to one theory. The ark itself was just a wooden container which may have been protected and transported by the covering it had over it. Noah built an altar which this theory asserts was in the shape of the covering, and his grandchildren copied the design throughout the region when pyramids were constructed for religious purposes. The natural forces which were used to lift the ark off the Earth, to protect it,were related to the advanced science God had made available to Noah over the many years he prepared for the event.
Oh. So it's just bullshit then.

Why would God give Noah "advanced science"? Couldn't God have just told Noah and the animals to hide in a big barn while he smited the planet with a death ray or something easier or more practical then global flooding?
HTS

Englewood, CO

#112400 Apr 28, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh. So it's just bullshit then.
Why would God give Noah "advanced science"? Couldn't God have just told Noah and the animals to hide in a big barn while he smited the planet with a death ray or something easier or more practical then global flooding?
One of the biggest mistakes that atheists make is to presume to know how a God should act, if He does exist. It is a manifestation of consummate arrogance coupled with profound ignorance. Unfortunately, evolutionists have been falling prey to this fallacy since the time of Charles Darwin. You presume that your childish logic can explain all of the mysteries of the universe, because you assume that no intelligence exists greater than your own.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#112401 Apr 28, 2014
HAPPY wrote:
<quoted text>The ark was covered by a pyramid shaped structure according to one theory. The ark itself was just a wooden container which may have been protected and transported by the covering it had over it. Noah built an altar which this theory asserts was in the shape of the covering, and his grandchildren copied the design throughout the region when pyramids were constructed for religious purposes. The natural forces which were used to lift the ark off the Earth, to protect it,were related to the advanced science God had made available to Noah over the many years he prepared for the event.
My you are Happy. A little too Happy.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#112402 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the biggest mistakes that atheists make is to presume to know how a God should act, if He does exist. It is a manifestation of consummate arrogance coupled with profound ignorance. Unfortunately, evolutionists have been falling prey to this fallacy since the time of Charles Darwin. You presume that your childish logic can explain all of the mysteries of the universe, because you assume that no intelligence exists greater than your own.
He was asking question moron. He didn't claim to know how God would act. He asked why he wouldn't act in some way. In your arrogance you gloss over that fact and go into another your self-authoritative rants.

Why don't you spend more time worrying about the shit between your ears and learn how to comprehend reading.
HTS

Englewood, CO

#112403 Apr 28, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>He was asking question moron. He didn't claim to know how God would act. He asked why he wouldn't act in some way. In your arrogance you gloss over that fact and go into another your self-authoritative rants.
Why don't you spend more time worrying about the shit between your ears and learn how to comprehend reading.
The atheist mindset is one of unbelievable arrogance, and that attitude is manifest in your reckless, uncalculated statements. Because there is a denial of God, the atheist plays God himself, imagining that if he were in charge, he would have designed life this way or that way. He ridicules ancient scripture because he assumes that man's puny logic and understanding are sufficient to comprehend the whole of reality. Since he assumes that man's intelligence is supreme in the universe, there is an utter refusal to consider a level of logic above his own. This attitude is unfortunately rampant throughout the halls of academia.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#112404 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The atheist mindset is one of unbelievable arrogance, and that attitude is manifest in your reckless, uncalculated statements. Because there is a denial of God, the atheist plays God himself, imagining that if he were in charge, he would have designed life this way or that way. He ridicules ancient scripture because he assumes that man's puny logic and understanding are sufficient to comprehend the whole of reality. Since he assumes that man's intelligence is supreme in the universe, there is an utter refusal to consider a level of logic above his own. This attitude is unfortunately rampant throughout the halls of academia.
And we have another How's That for Stupid classic moment. Atheists do not "deny God". In fact they are much more open minded to the existence of gods than idiots like you, HST. The problem is that there is no objective evidence for the existence of gods. Show us the objective evidence and we will change our minds.

And of course the idiocy continues. No, we do not imagine how we would design life. Our belief is based upon what the objective evidence says and using the scientific method. You know you lazy moron, the method that developed the tools you use so that you can enjoy the internet.

So do you have anything besides brain-dead statements yet? Or is the acronym that is used to you still amazingly accurate?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#112405 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the biggest mistakes that atheists make is to presume to know how a God should act, if He does exist. It is a manifestation of consummate arrogance coupled with profound ignorance. Unfortunately, evolutionists have been falling prey to this fallacy since the time of Charles Darwin. You presume that your childish logic can explain all of the mysteries of the universe, because you assume that no intelligence exists greater than your own.
Actually HTS, it was sarcasm. I wasn't actually asking a question about something I don't believe in in the first place. That would be similar to me asking what Santa feeds his reindeer. And you're calling me ignorant?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#112406 Apr 28, 2014
HTS wrote:
<quoted text>The atheist mindset is one of unbelievable arrogance, and that attitude is manifest in your reckless, uncalculated statements. Because there is a denial of God, the atheist plays God himself, imagining that if he were in charge, he would have designed life this way or that way. He ridicules ancient scripture because he assumes that man's puny logic and understanding are sufficient to comprehend the whole of reality. Since he assumes that man's intelligence is supreme in the universe, there is an utter refusal to consider a level of logic above his own. This attitude is unfortunately rampant throughout the halls of academia.
OK HTS, you've moved on from ignorant to intolerably arrogant.

Firstly, you1re assuming evreryone against your logic is an atheist. I for one am not an atheist, and have never claimed to be.

Your admitted belief is that Atheism = Arrogance. How arrogant is THAT statement?

You accuse atheists of assuming the role of God. You're wrong. They are simply referring to science and fact to question the existence of God. According to the Almighty-You, this is not acceptable.

Yes, "he" ridicules SOME ancient scripture (e.g., Bible), myself included, asking creationists to explain some rather difficult points to believe, and in gets a "Goddidit-stop being arrogant and don't ask those questions" response from the Almighty-You.

A quote directly from your response to Dan above: "...there is an utter refusal [by atheists] to consider a level of logic above his own. Wrong. There is no logic from a creationist's point of view, only speculation and faith. And I'm almost certain that every evolutionist on this thread would be very open to any form of logic or proof of biblical events, and would openly appreciate the evidence. My arrogant self included.

Quoting you once again, "This attitude is unfortunately rampant throughout the halls of academia" How the F*ck would you know?

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#112407 Apr 28, 2014
Caution: Rant follows.

HTS, my arrogant self directs this question to you, please take your time to figure it out and respond.

According to the ever-helpful Google (and I'm also getting tired of my now God-related pop-up adds), Noah's flood happened around 4500 years ago, meaning that Mankind was at (practically) 0 at around 2486 BC.
Creationists typically use the Morris equation to calculate the exponential growth rate of how population was able to reach current levels in only 4500 years (which is total bullshit by the way), but OK, lets consider Morris' methods.

According to the calculation, considering that only 2 humans "got busy" 4500 years ago (2 "white" people? Nevermind, that's a totally different argument) we've arrived at 7 Billion children of Noah today (ignoring all the creepy incest). That's all well and good, ignoring all the flaws in Morris' calculation, but OK. Lets accept this for the time being.

The Great Pyramids were built around 2600 BC. This is before the floods, so let's use the Adam and Eve timescale to compare population growth rate. If Population=2 in 4500 BC, that would make Population=750 around 2600 BC (considering r=0.0033). So dividing that by 2 to exclude the women (they're still busy makin' babies), and of course excluding the children and elderly, plus all the royals of the time, that leaves around 150 healthy souls available for building the pyramids (assuming of course that these 150 men were all residents of Cairo). Six pyramids in fact, over a 200-year period. Really creationists? This of course didn't leave much time for the cities around the world to be built, since the entire race ( all 750) were busy in Egypt with the whole Pyramids thing.

This assumed that the population began @ 4500 BC (Adam and Eve). But Morris forgot something - that little thing called Noah's flood, meaning the global population reached 2 again in 2486 BC.

Considering the same aggressive exponential growth rate, and not considering little things like plagues or other global disasters that happened throughout this period, that would put today's population at a little over 5 million people.(The city I live in has 20 million people alone).

As Adam and Jaime would say, Myth Busted.

(References taken from the National Center for Science Education)
spOko

Oakland, CA

#112408 Apr 28, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, thanks for that Spoko, I guess. But regardless of the version told over time, the question remains - how could someone narrate the unfolding of the event, when even the Captain would have been oblivious to the events during those 40 days of rain? And according to logic from the 'good book', he was the only survivor to witness such an event.
So as long as we're on the same page - Noah was not, or did not have to be qualified, as a navigator. There was no propulsion as we know it on his ship - no means of actually navigating his vessel - just a means of survival-by-floating for him and his cargo. Floating away amidst what was surly a very agitated sea, being a result of a global flood in all but 40 days worth of rain. Yet there were details on precisely how high the flood waters reached.
Really?
"The boat came to rest on a mountain". OK, but according to some hard-core creationist on this very topic, there were no mountains before the flood. Earth was a "flat sphere". Mountains came to be after the flood during a ...whatever, creationist babble.
Also, how did the 'ark' come to 'rest on a mountain', since there was no way to navigate, and no way to actually propel the vessel to a pre-determined point of high ground? There's always the possibility of "pure luck", but really - what are the chances? We could ask Polymath to try to grasp the odds, but really - would it be necessary? I think not.
Your preaching to the choir ...

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#112409 Apr 28, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
...gets a "Goddidit-stop being arrogant and don't ask those questions...
And this is the first time I used the expression "Goddidit". See what you made me do HTS? You're an ahole.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#112410 Apr 28, 2014
spOko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your preaching to the choir ...
Really? Wait till you read my next sermons then.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#112411 Apr 28, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
And we have another How's That for Stupid classic moment. Atheists do not "deny God". In fact they are much more open minded to the existence of gods than idiots like you, HST. The problem is that there is no objective evidence for the existence of gods. Show us the objective evidence and we will change our minds.
And of course the idiocy continues. No, we do not imagine how we would design life. Our belief is based upon what the objective evidence says and using the scientific method. You know you lazy moron, the method that developed the tools you use so that you can enjoy the internet.
So do you have anything besides brain-dead statements yet? Or is the acronym that is used to you still amazingly accurate?
I think his acronym is "Hard to swallow"

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112412 Apr 28, 2014
JM_Brazil wrote:
<quoted text>
OK HTS, you've moved on from ignorant to intolerably arrogant.
Firstly, you1re assuming evreryone against your logic is an atheist. I for one am not an atheist, and have never claimed to be.
Your admitted belief is that Atheism = Arrogance. How arrogant is THAT statement?
You accuse atheists of assuming the role of God. You're wrong. They are simply referring to science and fact to question the existence of God. According to the Almighty-You, this is not acceptable.
Yes, "he" ridicules SOME ancient scripture (e.g., Bible), myself included, asking creationists to explain some rather difficult points to believe, and in gets a "Goddidit-stop being arrogant and don't ask those questions" response from the Almighty-You.
A quote directly from your response to Dan above: "...there is an utter refusal [by atheists] to consider a level of logic above his own. Wrong. There is no logic from a creationist's point of view, only speculation and faith. And I'm almost certain that every evolutionist on this thread would be very open to any form of logic or proof of biblical events, and would openly appreciate the evidence. My arrogant self included.
Quoting you once again, "This attitude is unfortunately rampant throughout the halls of academia" How the F*ck would you know?
Face it. HTS is simply a dick.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#112413 Apr 28, 2014
spOko wrote:
<quoted text>
Your preaching to the choir ...
Agreed.

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 min It aint necessari... 154,726
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 30 min Chimney1 48,645
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr GoTrump 179,717
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 6 hr scientia potentia... 23,511
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 9 hr ChristineM 1,034
Richard Dawkins tells the truth Mon Timmee 9
Science News (Sep '13) Mon _Susan_ 3,985
More from around the web