Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 172070 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.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120706 Aug 22, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
1. have you read Darwin?
No you didn't.
Since WHEN are we entitled to tattle about things we even didn't took the effort to get acquainted to?
2. why don't you ask about 21st century biology?
How fruitful do you think it would be to deny the advancing of modern medicine by asking about the ability of Louis Pasteur to address cancer?
3. do you know what exactly evolution theory is about?
No you don't.
What are you doing here then on this thread?
Are you addressing evolution theory or your own devises?
Are you aware of the fact that addressing your own devises is the same as me addressing the Qu'ran while saying I was addressing the Bible?
You're an arrogant little putz, aren't you? If you think insulting me masks the fact that you came from the shallow end of the gene pool, run with that.

The point , Your Vacancy, is that since Darwin confessed he didn't know where the first life came from, no one has solved that mystery. Unlike your silly Louis Pasteur example, Darwin's puzzlement was not a precursor to greater knowledge. Any attempts to solve the mystery of the original life, including abiogenesis, are only fools gold.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#120707 Aug 22, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>The basic argument here is that conscious life can be created without a "creator". All that's needed is the right combination of inorganic matter. Is that any more reasonable than the biblical explanation?
Of course the ultimate question is one that is not answered by the theory of evolution. It is the question of how something can emerge from absolute nothing. If there was a Big Bang, what lit the match?
Some questions just cannot be answered, but as yet we have found no reason to believe there was any reason why the universe and life exist. We can only arrive at two possible conclusions that natural origin by chance is the reason, by using evidence alone
or we can believe that if there is/were a creator,
If you choose to believe creation .......the creator hid itself so very cleverly and it did not want to be discovered. In quantum mechanics and in physics the conclusion for unanswerable questions are decided that " anything that can happen, will happen, if it does not break physical laws and is given enough time, it will happen"
This also includes "murphys law" , in that if anything can go wrong it will go wrong.
So with that said, if anything can go right, it will also go right.
This is what we observe, that by chance is true. Things are just a fortuitous as they are cursed.

Just know if you choose to believe there maybe a creator, it's only a belief that you have choosen and by choosing to believe , one way or the other, you have 50% odds of being right at best. Because there is nothing you can use to support the contention one way or the other.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120708 Aug 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Some questions just cannot be answered, but as yet we have found no reason to believe there was any reason why the universe and life exist. We can only arrive at two possible conclusions that natural origin by chance is the reason, by using evidence alone
or we can believe that if there is/were a creator,
If you choose to believe creation .......the creator hid itself so very cleverly and it did not want to be discovered. In quantum mechanics and in physics the conclusion for unanswerable questions are decided that " anything that can happen, will happen, if it does not break physical laws and is given enough time, it will happen"
This also includes "murphys law" , in that if anything can go wrong it will go wrong.
So with that said, if anything can go right, it will also go right.
This is what we observe, that by chance is true. Things are just a fortuitous as they are cursed.
Just know if you choose to believe there maybe a creator, it's only a belief that you have choosen and by choosing to believe , one way or the other, you have 50% odds of being right at best. Because there is nothing you can use to support the contention one way or the other.
I neither support nor reject the notion of a creator.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#120709 Aug 22, 2014
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>You're an arrogant little putz, aren't you? If you think insulting me masks the fact that you came from the shallow end of the gene pool, run with that.
The point , Your Vacancy, is that since Darwin confessed he didn't know where the first life came from, no one has solved that mystery. Unlike your silly Louis Pasteur example, Darwin's puzzlement was not a precursor to greater knowledge. Any attempts to solve the mystery of the original life, including abiogenesis, are only fools gold.
Darwin didn't know about genetics either or molecular biology. That doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution. As to abiogenesis, we have some hypotheses and are accumulating data.

Science has solved many mysteries despite the "true believers" claims to the contrary.

Abiogenesis, evolution and the Big Bang are three separate concepts that do not require each other to achieve an explanation for that which they have been formulated to describe and explain. Why is it that so many seem viscously intent on mixing these together?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120710 Aug 22, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
You asked for a non-Christian source for the existence of Jesus. I know of a number of sources for the existence of Christians, but none other then Josephus for the existence of the person.
Oh.

So what about Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, the Babylonian Talmud, Lucian and the rest; even the ones yet to be discovered?
polymath257 wrote:
...
Since the qualities of a 'son of God' have not been determined, proving *anyone* is not such is impossible.
Oh. I see.
So what is it that will determine when anyone can/will determine the qualities of a 'son of God'?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120711 Aug 22, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
A circular argument does nothing. An axiom is simply the start of the inquiry. If evidence shows the assumption (axiom) to be wrong, it can be dispensed with.
So how do you dispense with a circular argument?

Contemplate this form:

Brooklyn is in the USA: therefore Brooklyn is in the USA.

How do you dispute that or dispense with it; apart from passing it off as a forgone conclusion?

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120712 Aug 22, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
An axiom is simply a starting assumption.
I am saying to you that a circular argument is both a starting point and an ending point.
polymath257 wrote:
A circular argument attempts to prove a point by using the point itself.
It MUST necessarily be so for any point that is REAL.

The reason is that whatever is real must be what it is by itself... the influences which produce the sound of a falling tree, are still effective even when you do not see nor hear the tree fall.

The first starting assumption regarding anything MUST be that the this IS what is it because it is what it is...

For if it is not what it is; what else can it be?
polymath257 wrote:
Axioms are necessary to begin a discussion.
It may be argued so.
polymath257 wrote:
Circular arguments are useless since even a false proposition proves itself. p=>p
There is no such thing as a factual nor false proposition.

Either a thing is a) fact b) falsehood c) a proposition.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120713 Aug 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Does calling it "daytime" when the sun is shining brightly outside require proof?
It depends on if you decide to label the shining of the sun brightly outside "daytime".

It also or then depends on whether you are outside or inside (a cave for example).

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120714 Aug 22, 2014
The Dude wrote:
Either it exists or it doesn't. BUT nobody knows yet. Therefore be open to the possibility until we have conclusive evidence.
Either heads or tails, but nobody knows yet. Therefore be open to the possibility (of head) until the coin is tossed and lands...
The Dude wrote:
...an agnostic position is ... in fact THE most rational position to take.
Tail is the most rational position to take?

Why?

How?
The Dude wrote:
You can't provide that.
If I provided it would you indeed accept it?

Tell me what you are looking for as evidence; for while you reject what I offer as evidence, you must have knowledge of the subject so that you can justify you rejection.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#120715 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends on if you decide to label the shining of the sun brightly outside "daytime".
It also or then depends on whether you are outside or inside (a cave for example).
Or, as you, lost in the inner recesses of your own delusions.

Come to HOG the thread again, you swine.

Yes, I can see how you are confused by the many other conditions that a labeled daytime, such as winter, night, halftime, dinner time and so forth.

“Rising”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Milky Way

#120716 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
It depends on if you decide to label the shining of the sun brightly outside "daytime".
It also or then depends on whether you are outside or inside (a cave for example).
Doesn't matter, it's still daytime when the sun is shining.
Whether it is daytime right now or not, maybe in question.
Which can be easily found out by checking if the sun is shining , the axiom of "daytime".
If you need proof it is daytime when you see the sun is shining , then you don't belong outside without a babysitter watching you.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#120717 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
So how do you dispense with a circular argument?
Contemplate this form:
Brooklyn is in the USA: therefore Brooklyn is in the USA.
How do you dispute that or dispense with it; apart from passing it off as a forgone conclusion?
I conclude that the Rear End of God is in Kingston, Jamaica. It is a forgone conclusion.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#120718 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Either heads or tails, but nobody knows yet. Therefore be open to the possibility (of head) until the coin is tossed and lands...
<quoted text>
Tail is the most rational position to take?
Why?
How?
<quoted text>
If I provided it would you indeed accept it?
Tell me what you are looking for as evidence; for while you reject what I offer as evidence, you must have knowledge of the subject so that you can justify you rejection.
Seriously? You aren't going to provide anything. You never do. Well your comedy isn't intentional, but you do provide that.

Threatened to kill anyone lately or assault women?

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#120719 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
Either heads or tails, but nobody knows yet. Therefore be open to the possibility (of head) until the coin is tossed and lands...
<quoted text>
Tail is the most rational position to take?
Why?
How?
<quoted text>
If I provided it would you indeed accept it?
Tell me what you are looking for as evidence; for while you reject what I offer as evidence, you must have knowledge of the subject so that you can justify you rejection.
You offer claims and round and round, fencing with words. Easy enough to reject when it doesn't come with anything to support it except your unwarranted ego.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120720 Aug 22, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Vague. Plus I dispute your claim because we know there are blatant inaccuracies in the Bible, such as flat geocentric square circular Earth, talking lizards, talking donkeys, and global flood which never happened in reality.
That is irrelevant to the discussion; we are discussing the implications of the words of JESUS; or so attributed to him.
The Dude wrote:
Actually YES we DO need him to have magical powers.
You do.

I dont.
The Dude wrote:
..If God meant in any way at all to use the Bible to communicate with humanity then that was obviously a big mistake...
You are entitled to your opinion.
The Dude wrote:
I already TOLD you, that sentence is a contradiction in terms. Stop asking other people to do your own homework.
So if the idea of evidence that cannot be verified by scientific method has no meaning; can all evidence be verified by scientific method?

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#120721 Aug 22, 2014
HOG_ the Hand of God wrote:
<quoted text>
I am saying to you that a circular argument is both a starting point and an ending point.
<quoted text>
It MUST necessarily be so for any point that is REAL.
The reason is that whatever is real must be what it is by itself... the influences which produce the sound of a falling tree, are still effective even when you do not see nor hear the tree fall.
The first starting assumption regarding anything MUST be that the this IS what is it because it is what it is...
For if it is not what it is; what else can it be?
<quoted text>
It may be argued so.
<quoted text>
There is no such thing as a factual nor false proposition.
Either a thing is a) fact b) falsehood c) a proposition.
I saw that spider friend of yours had written "Fanatical" in her web this time. For an invertebrate, she is damned intelligent.

Sorry to hear your house was blown over.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#120722 Aug 22, 2014
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Doesn't matter, it's still daytime when the sun is shining.
Whether it is daytime right now or not, maybe in question.
Which can be easily found out by checking if the sun is shining , the axiom of "daytime".
If you need proof it is daytime when you see the sun is shining , then you don't belong outside without a babysitter watching you.
It's the tapeworms. They have gotten into the HOG's brain. He encysts they aren't a problem, but he can't tell day from night.

“I can never convince the ”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

stupid that they are stupid.

#120723 Aug 22, 2014
Little pig, little pig come on back. Can't wait to see you ham it up.

Sooey! Sooey!

Don't be afraid of the big bad wolf.

Since: Jun 14

Location hidden

#120724 Aug 22, 2014
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I don't believe in invisible magical Jew wizards because there's no evidence. So it's up to you to present it.
I have no conceptions of any magical wizards of any race in my mind.

You do.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Level 7

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#120725 Aug 22, 2014
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Darwin didn't know about genetics either or molecular biology. That doesn't invalidate the theory of evolution. As to abiogenesis, we have some hypotheses and are accumulating data.
Science has solved many mysteries despite the "true believers" claims to the contrary.
Abiogenesis, evolution and the Big Bang are three separate concepts that do not require each other to achieve an explanation for that which they have been formulated to describe and explain. Why is it that so many seem viscously intent on mixing these together?
If you are addressing me, I make it a point to distinguish among the three concepts.

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) 4 min Dogen 142,836
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Paul Porter1 20,748
Evolutionists are monkeys 6 hr Zog Has-fallen 11
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 12 hr Paul Porter1 306
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? Mon Zog Has-fallen 1
Simulated Evolution in a Computer Program Mon Zog Has-fallen 2
Cartier brand luxury bangle cartier watch on il... Mon Dopy 1
More from around the web