Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209614 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.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#60869 Nov 25, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Show us then! I'm not too worried about the actual existence of Socrates. He's remembered for his ideas, not his mythology. Some people claim that Shakespeare is a pen name given to several authors too. It doesn't change the artistic value of his work any more than the philosophical value of Socrates' works are changes by his actual existence.
The story of Jesus is laden with miracles. People claim that science is invalidated by the "proof" of his miracles, so I want to see that proof under the same rigors that are used in science. Not just proof of his existence, but physical evidence of those miracles as well.
It won't happen but if faith is what matters to you, I'm not going to kill you over it.
Your original post stated emphatically that there is NO empirical evidence that Jesus ever existed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...

Here you will find a fair, though incomplete, exposition of the historicity of Jesus.

There is more evidence than there is for the existence of socrates.

As for your comment regarding socrates "He's remembered for his ideas....", we have no first hand record of anything he wrote or said, just apocryphal stories.

Same level of proof as, for example, gospels.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60870 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Come on you evos you have failed miserably. I just want to see how this forum does no this ch2 thing.
A common evo strategy is to get lost in one liners and asides.
You lot cannot defend any topic I have canvassed so far.
That does not mean TOE is not true. It does mean thatyou do not have substantive and credible evidence for it.
How about one of you bright sparks use your own algorithmic magic to overturn the above algorithmic magic.
I actually don't like any of it but there is only so much we can observe so I guess this type of magic is kind of required for the sake of knowledge of some sort.
No more asides and evo pollywoffling......
Do please demonstrate why your magic that suggests a fusion did occur is more valid than the above research that suggets it did not happen.

The fusion exists, ergo it can happen.

Next!

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60871 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
There are many falsifications of TOE that we know of.

Lovely, you are invited to present these falsifications of ToE.

But I bet you can't. It does not matter if creotards do not accept the data. Who would expect them to? Well done to the hundreds of thousands of researchers for their work.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60872 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Give me one more chance to do what? Reply to this woffle. Here take a gander at this.
You say "It can be demonstrated that all of the scientific evidence to date supports the theory of evolution and none supports creation. This is an indisputable fact. If you are honest you will admit it to be so, if not you will deny it."
What the hell are you on about? You come across as so pathetically righteous and you actually start your argument with crap.
How does modern bird footprints dated to 212mya and stuck onto some mythical and undiscovered theropod support evolution better than creation?
How does sucking eggs of junk dna support evolution over creation when no junk fullfills a long lasting creationist prediction, where evos have none.
How do Michagan whales found in strata dated to 290mya that has been carbon dated and found to result in inconsistent dates leaving researchers to date puzzled as to how they got there, support evolution better than creation.
How does your evo researchers copying an already laid outline of what to expect in the fossil evidence according to Genesis support your being the first to even think of it.
By what stretch of the imagination do you propose that your changing the definition for vestigial organs into organs with a different function in response to the validation of creationist prediction, suport TOE over creationism.
How does the human/chimp Y comparison support evolution over creation when the difference is equivalent to 310 million years of separation akin to a chicken at a whopping 30% difference. This leading to more fabrications of acelerated genomic regions. How's that for fanciful thinking to explain a huge anomoly.
How does creationist algorithmic magic that supports no fusion of ape genes support evolution over creation?
How does flood geology support evolution?
I don't care if dna is a book keeper or not. It was evos that shoved junk dna as being evidence of the left overs from evolution with no function, that has slowly been falsified over time and confirmed creationist predictions, which TOE was unable to make.
Hence TOE has the predictive ability akin to a crystal ball.
So if this is your big, one more chance for me and your great arguement, you should not have bothered wasting my time. You have said nothing of substance and if I ignored such a post previously that would be why.
You again have offered your opinion based on an egotistical line of indisputeable facts that is nonsense.

Gish gallop!*

* Gish gallop, the idea that if you say enough stupid things fast enough no one will notice they are all stupid things.

"The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education. Sam Harris describes the technique as "starting 10 fires in 10 minutes."

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop


“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#60873 Nov 25, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Show us then! I'm not too worried about the actual existence of Socrates. He's remembered for his ideas, not his mythology. Some people claim that Shakespeare is a pen name given to several authors too. It doesn't change the artistic value of his work any more than the philosophical value of Socrates' works are changes by his actual existence.
The story of Jesus is laden with miracles. People claim that science is invalidated by the "proof" of his miracles, so I want to see that proof under the same rigors that are used in science. Not just proof of his existence, but physical evidence of those miracles as well.
It won't happen but if faith is what matters to you, I'm not going to kill you over it.
Wikipedia regarding Socrates;

"An accurate picture of the historical Socrates and his philosophical viewpoints is problematic: an issue known as the Socratic problem.

As Socrates did not write philosophical texts, the knowledge of the man, his life, and his philosophy is entirely based on writings by his students and contemporaries. Foremost among them is Plato; however, works by Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes also provide important insights.[3] The difficulty of finding the “real” Socrates arises because these works are often philosophical or dramatic texts rather than straightforward histories. Aside from Thucydides (who makes no mention of Socrates or philosophers in general) and Xenophon, there are in fact no straightforward histories contemporary with Socrates that dealt with his own time and place. A corollary of this is that sources that do mention Socrates do not necessarily claim to be historically accurate, and are often partisan (those who prosecuted and convicted Socrates have left no testament). Historians therefore face the challenge of reconciling the various texts that come from these men to create an accurate and consistent account of Socrates' life and work. The result of such an effort is not necessarily realistic, merely consistent.

Plato is frequently viewed as the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy.[4] At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said; and that Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. It is a matter of much debate which Socrates Plato is describing at any given point—the historical figure, or Plato's fictionalization. As Martin Cohen has put it, Plato, the idealist, offers "an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of the 'Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic."[5]

It is also clear from other writings and historical artifacts, however, that Socrates was not simply a character, or an invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), is useful in fleshing out a perception of Socrates beyond Plato's
work."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates .

We know of him only through the works of others. Just like knowing about Jesus through reading the gospels. It is the same level of authenticity.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60874 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
No indeed it is you evos that say such thing as the fusion site is 'the same'. Some. maybe you, conceded not the same by almost the same, whatever that means.
This is your terminology so you stick with it.
So if the terminology is not meant to say the same or nearly the same, what terminology would you like to substitute instead.
The other thing is with all your rantings you have not addressed the research I post from creos. How can we tell that you actually know what you are supporting if you cannot refute that work with your own algorithmic magic.
You clearly do not understand the issue. Sameness does not matter. God you are stupid. You consistently fail to understand what we are talking about, find some spam to post that you don't understand, and then claim "victory."

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60875 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Take this for instance.. Earth at the centre of the universe and no need for the mystery of dark energy that is meant to account for 96% of the matter of the universe and you know nothing about.
To say that such an idea unnerves many modern cosmologists would be an understatement. Modern cosmology takes as an article of faith that the Earth is nothing special. It’s called the Copernican Principle, named after Copernicus who concluded that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of our solar system. In modern science, Earth and the area around it is not allowed to be special or “favored” in any way compared to the rest of space — and it is certainly not allowed to be the center of the universe.
But Temple & Smoller’s theory suggests just such a thought.
Their shockwave has some things in its favor and some not so much so. For the former, the Earth-centered shockwave theory would also explain another phenomenon: the fact that Earth seems to be sitting in an odd “bubble of underdensity”— a region of the universe that doesn’t have much in it.
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...
How many times are you gonna post this? Do you just spam stuff, and then ignore all the replies to it, then spam it again?

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60876 Nov 25, 2012
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Creation cannot be falsified because it is not testable. It claims that an undemonstrated entity caused everything to exist by indeterminate means (basically, "an invisible man did it by Magic").
If it can be claimed that anything which is observed can be the result of a creator, there is no way to demonstrate the existence of that creator.
<quoted text>
ENCODE's use of the term "functional" merely meant that genetic material could interact with things. It looks like 11% has been shown to contribute to the development our development and that number could grow to, perhaps, 20% with further research. The remaining 80% is junk.
Oh your just another do drop in wag tail it seems. Am I supposed to represent every article again just to educate another outdated evolutionist. I have been over this for days. If you want to call this evolutionary scientist an idiot, go right ahead. Many creos think they are all idiots when it come to evolutionary science.

Evo scientists are in one of the few fields around where they can be consistently wrong and not get fired. I'd recommend such a career to anyone.

ENCODE has published research suggesting 80% of the genome is functional and some suggest that it is very likely that 100% of the genome will be found to have function.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketsc...

Actually creationism can make predictions and is testable because Genesis gives me a story to falsify or support whilst TOE is virtually unfalsifiable. eg junk dna, vestigial organs, the revolving door of human ancesotrs, the death of single celled LUCA.

In fact the best that idiot Dawkins could come up with when challenged was a precambrian rabbit. What an idiot but a good demo that even this bright spark has to dig deep to find even one way TOR can be falsified.

You see you have found modern bird footprints dated to 212mya.

This should automatically falsify your entire paradigm on bird evolution, but it hasn't.

Why is current bird evolution not falsified. I'll tell you why.

Evo researchers can invent an undiscovered mythical theropod out of thin air and evoke convergent evolution. In other words they can wave their hand and viola, the falsification is hand waved away. This is an example of why I use the term, TOE is supported by hand waving. Now do you get it?

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60877 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Take this for instance.. Earth at the centre of the universe and no need for the mystery of dark energy that is meant to account for 96% of the matter of the universe and you know nothing about.
To say that such an idea unnerves many modern cosmologists would be an understatement. Modern cosmology takes as an article of faith that the Earth is nothing special. It’s called the Copernican Principle, named after Copernicus who concluded that the Sun and not the Earth was the center of our solar system. In modern science, Earth and the area around it is not allowed to be special or “favored” in any way compared to the rest of space — and it is certainly not allowed to be the center of the universe.
But Temple & Smoller’s theory suggests just such a thought.
Their shockwave has some things in its favor and some not so much so. For the former, the Earth-centered shockwave theory would also explain another phenomenon: the fact that Earth seems to be sitting in an odd “bubble of underdensity”— a region of the universe that doesn’t have much in it.
http://wallacegsmith.wordpress.com/2010/10/22...

Temple & Smoller has has been refuted and dark energy reaffirmed earlier this year with the SMC data.

Not that this matters. Nothing in Temple & Smoller's research indicated creationism is supportable.


“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60878 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh will you get back to defending your stupid chromosome 2 fusion?
Now that you have provided your big post we have all been waiting for you had best stick to ch2. You were doing better then.
If you can't deal with the science on the table now, we have no hope of getting anywhere around flood geology.

Flood geology? According to geology no global flood ever happened.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#60879 Nov 25, 2012
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Your original post stated emphatically that there is NO empirical evidence that Jesus ever existed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J...
Here you will find a fair, though incomplete, exposition of the historicity of Jesus.
There is more evidence than there is for the existence of socrates.
As for your comment regarding socrates "He's remembered for his ideas....", we have no first hand record of anything he wrote or said, just apocryphal stories.
Same level of proof as, for example, gospels.
There is no documented evidence until a century after his birth, and what you've presented is the collective OPINION of HISTORIANS. There is no documentation at all for any physics defying events.

This has no bearing on the scientific validity of Evolution.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60880 Nov 25, 2012
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>How many times are you gonna post this? Do you just spam stuff, and then ignore all the replies to it, then spam it again?
I have not gnored any replies of substance.

Your problem is you think your opinion has some value and you can never repost these great deluionary posts you constantly speak to. Perhaps you were dreaming.

Please repost this great refute you goose. Bet you can't. Or maybe you will be like that other idiot that made the mistake of reposting some woffle he thought marvelous that turned out to be a great opinionated waste of time and BS backed by nothing.

The big news is that you have never even offered an intelligent reply to me let alone any that is backed by research.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60881 Nov 25, 2012
TheBlackSheep wrote:
<quoted text>
The German's created the English language and the English stole it.
Again, did the English stopped the Germans from speaking the language?
Today every one knows that, German and English language are two different language from a common source( Germanic).
English is unique to England. No stealing there.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#60882 Nov 25, 2012
superwilly wrote:
<quoted text>
Wikipedia regarding Socrates;
"An accurate picture of the historical Socrates and his philosophical viewpoints is problematic: an issue known as the Socratic problem.
As Socrates did not write philosophical texts, the knowledge of the man, his life, and his philosophy is entirely based on writings by his students and contemporaries. Foremost among them is Plato; however, works by Xenophon, Aristotle, and Aristophanes also provide important insights.[3] The difficulty of finding the “real” Socrates arises because these works are often philosophical or dramatic texts rather than straightforward histories. Aside from Thucydides (who makes no mention of Socrates or philosophers in general) and Xenophon, there are in fact no straightforward histories contemporary with Socrates that dealt with his own time and place. A corollary of this is that sources that do mention Socrates do not necessarily claim to be historically accurate, and are often partisan (those who prosecuted and convicted Socrates have left no testament). Historians therefore face the challenge of reconciling the various texts that come from these men to create an accurate and consistent account of Socrates' life and work. The result of such an effort is not necessarily realistic, merely consistent.
Plato is frequently viewed as the most informative source about Socrates' life and philosophy.[4] At the same time, however, many scholars believe that in some works Plato, being a literary artist, pushed his avowedly brightened-up version of "Socrates" far beyond anything the historical Socrates was likely to have done or said; and that Xenophon, being an historian, is a more reliable witness to the historical Socrates. It is a matter of much debate which Socrates Plato is describing at any given point—the historical figure, or Plato's fictionalization. As Martin Cohen has put it, Plato, the idealist, offers "an idol, a master figure, for philosophy. A Saint, a prophet of the 'Sun-God', a teacher condemned for his teachings as a heretic."[5]
It is also clear from other writings and historical artifacts, however, that Socrates was not simply a character, or an invention, of Plato. The testimony of Xenophon and Aristotle, alongside some of Aristophanes' work (especially The Clouds), is useful in fleshing out a perception of Socrates beyond Plato's
work."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates .
We know of him only through the works of others. Just like knowing about Jesus through reading the gospels. It is the same level of authenticity.
And I'm not demanding that you pursue Socratic method based on whether or not Socrates was real. Whether he or his students compiled his thoughts doesn't matter. If you don't like Socratic method, you probably wouldn't be here on Topix, would you?

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#60883 Nov 25, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope! Not a bit!
...and you're a liar.
Are you calling Albert Einstein a liar?

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#60884 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
I have not gnored any replies of substance.
Your problem is you think your opinion has some value and you can never repost these great deluionary posts you constantly speak to. Perhaps you were dreaming.
Please repost this great refute you goose. Bet you can't. Or maybe you will be like that other idiot that made the mistake of reposting some woffle he thought marvelous that turned out to be a great opinionated waste of time and BS backed by nothing.
The big news is that you have never even offered an intelligent reply to me let alone any that is backed by research.
I don't need to post a great "refute" (please stop using that word as a noun, you idiot). All I need to do to refute that study is to tell you one simple thing - dark energy exists, and has been confirmed. Their study was an attempt to explain away dark energy, and now that we have confirmed it's existence, their study is bunk.

And I'm pretty sure that you literally cannot see replies that contradict you. Usually, I would be a little taken aback if someone was to keep spamming the same stuff and pretend like it hadn't already been replied to, but with you, I am used to it.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#60885 Nov 25, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no documented evidence until a century after his birth, and what you've presented is the collective OPINION of HISTORIANS. There is no documentation at all for any physics defying events.
This has no bearing on the scientific validity of Evolution.
I was refuting your comment that there is NO evidence that Jesus ever existed. That is clearly not true.

I said nothing about "physics defying events".

You are the one that mentioned that.

Anyone can question the miracles, be my guest.

There is evidence that Jesus existed, you are wrong about that.

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#60886 Nov 25, 2012
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Jesus never said that he himself knew the day of his returning.
Yeah, I remember that! The three in one god said that only he knows what he does not know! LOL!

“cdesign proponentsists”

Level 1

Since: Jul 09

Pittsburgh, PA

#60887 Nov 25, 2012
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> Again, did the English stopped the Germans from speaking the language?
Today every one knows that, German and English language are two different language from a common source( Germanic).
English is unique to England. No stealing there.
Naw, the Germans own it.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Australia

#60888 Nov 25, 2012
Dogen wrote:
<quoted text>
Flood geology? According to geology no global flood ever happened.
What's up Dogen? Is the creation/evolution debate getting to hot for you to handle.

Now you want to head staight for a philosophical topic to chase out tails around all day about. I can pick the crap out of your geology and you can pick the crap out of any flood geoplogy. Well that sounds like fun..Not.

I tell you what why don't you get off that lazy behind of yours and refute my claims around junk dna, vestigial organs, ervs, chromosome 2 fusion, the fossil evidence, the myth of 1%, birds being out in the fossil record or any of my previous claims.

Oh no! Thats all too hard for some of you. You'd rather talk about languages it seems!

Here is another claim presented for you again...Nothing I can present in support of creation could be worse than the 150 years of instability and falsifications you have to offer.

Your theoretical base is no better than mine and TOE should be sent packing to the philosophies camp and be deleted from science streams.

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.

Weird Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Add a word and drop a word (Jan '14) 2 min Mila Beaujolais 6,394
News Police Respond To St. Cloud Mall On Reports Of ... 3 min Trump s Birtherex... 163
2words into 2new words (May '12) 8 min Sharlene45 5,065
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 20 min wichita-rick 200,795
News Naked man does bizarre pole dance complete with... 25 min A_Visitor 7
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 31 min whatimeisit 20,551
News The bad habits of the UK's drivers 36 min A_Visitor 12
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 41 min Laura B S 61,453
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 2 hr Hypocrite Hunter 9,095
More from around the web