Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 171901 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.

“I am Sisyphus”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#60867 Nov 25, 2012
MazHere wrote:
<quoted text>
Listen you silly person. You have no clue. The laat time you pathetically sprooked about some defence you presented you it was based on prattle a s some vague priori that I need to accept creation has not support if I were to be truthful.
Would you like me to requote that crap you posted again?
Then you took one of many examples that do NOT support TOE, in the modern bird footprints, driibled about how the term used was bird lke, was refuted on the fact that terminology was baseless said because evos can't have modern birds flying around 212mya and that was that.
You've made chalenges and then ran away when you lost ground and realized your silly theory is not the glossy picture evos like to make it out to be.
The above is your version of debating. You actually have no idea.
You cannot out debate me and you now speak to imaginary replies to save face on this forum.

Actually it is you who seems unskilled in debate. The ground of your arguments is 'evolution can't happen, therefore goddoneit.'

Of course that is hardly what one would consider to be a rational argument.

Level 1

Since: Jul 12

Everton, Australia

#60868 Nov 25, 2012
straa wrote:
<quoted text>
If you don't believe that humans evolved from apes, then where do you think we came from, the earth is four billion years old, but thete are no bones of ancient humans, so we are a relatively new species, do you think that we just suddenly sprouted out of the ground from nothing, what is your alternative
Are you serious? It is you evos that believe life sprouted out of the ground from elements, not me.

I actually believe in a God that has the power to do many things we don't understand and can't explain.

Does it surprise you that there are things science cannot explain at present?

Indeed what has progressed in relation to a deities ability to create a living organism out of the elements of the earth is that it has been demonstrated that energy, what God is, can be transformed into matter. Theist evolutionists do not believe in this power. They believe in miracles yet deny the power of God as being limited to their ability to explain it, which of course is ridiculous.

For me, who does not really care how God created, I am curious as to just how well TOE is supported. I have demonstrated that TOE is not supported as robustly as evolutionists would have the community believe.

Indeed both sides of the debate can present interpretations of data and algorithmic magic to support their view.

The best evidence evos had was 'junk' dna and vestigial organs that were functionless. These were remnants of evolution. That was great support for TOE. Although there is some algorithmic magic at play here it appeared to be a more substantive form of evidence than guessworking and speculation around deep history.

That evidence was in contrast to creationist predictions, which have remained stable, that in time non coding dna will be found to have function and that vestigial organs will also be found to have function.

This set the battle up between opposing views. This was actually testable with time.

What has happened with junk dna is that indeed there is now evidence that at least 80% of the genome is functional. Some researchers now conclude that it is very likely that 100% of the genome will be found to have function.

What has happened with vetigial organs is that more and more researchers are finding that these so called functionless organs do indeed have function but that function may be different. So much so were these finding confirmed that the definition of vestigial organ was changed by evolutionists to reflect 'different function' as opposed to no function at all. eg appendix

So in actual fact, although the whole lot of the debate for either side, is based on speculative and assumptive interpretations of data, it appears to me that creationists hold the upper hand.

Evolutionists, as far as I am concerned, have lost the very best they had to offer.

Of secondary importance to me is this fossil record. Moses wrote Genesis that already spoke to what would be found with plants first, creatures of the sea, then land animals and last mankind. Evolutionists have copied this idea and continue to confirm the biblical account, but whales and birds in TOE are out of alignment with Genesis as whales are creatures of the sea and birds were created after the creatures of the sea. Genesis gives creos a scenario to falsify or support. Evos have no scenario past 'it all evolved' and make it up as they go along.

Modern birds appear in the record at 212mya, a newly found basilosaurus 49myo predating its supposed ancestor Indohyus and a line of other almost codated fossils, unexplained whale fossils in Michagan in strata dated to 290mya that researchers cannot explain.

I do not see evos fossil evidence as being convincing and certianly no more convincing than any creo interpretation I can offer on the data available.

The above is why, although I don't really care how God created I choose to support creationism in general.

“too hard to handle”

Level 4

Since: Jun 11

butler, pa

#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

butler, pa

#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

Everton, 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

Franklin, PA

#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

Everton, 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

Franklin, PA

#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

butler, pa

#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!

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
Has anyone on here told lies about you? (Dec '11) 3 min Crazy Jae 227
last word/first word. (Apr '12) 4 min Alain Vain 6,064
Best Dancer? (Movie/TV) (Sep '13) 6 min Crazy Jae 18
3 Word Advice (Good or Bad) (Dec '14) 10 min wichita-rick 2,426
Woman appreciate a man that.........? 11 min Crazy Jae 120
Plain Language! (Oct '13) 12 min Crazy Jae 5
Word Association (Mar '10) 14 min wichita-rick 17,670
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 25 min andet1987 9,331
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 36 min grace-fallen 167,196
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 47 min Trunketeer 12,721
Dedicate a song (Jul '08) 2 hr CJ Rocker 16,050
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 hr Thigh High Bex 42,109
More from around the web