Evolution vs. Creation

There are 163946 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.

Level 3

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#63720 Dec 7, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
Would human DNA evolve slower due to our technology and our ability to change our environment since the day man made fire we have changed the world to suite us?
Some people think that we have effectively slowed down our evolution. With modern medicine being as effective and widespread as it is, people who would otherwise have died now survive long enough to pass on their genes.

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Poole, UK

#63721 Dec 7, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you believe in the constitution offering freedom to believe as you wish or not to what would you say to this quote.
"What must the United States do to rid ourselves of this blight (creationism) on humanity?"
Which is the post that I replied to begin with.
It is one thing for an individual, or individuals to have a personal faith about the beginning of the world. I don't happen to agree with it for it flies in the face of scientific methodolgy to try to prove its message. I see no problem for christianity in parts of the bible being wrong/inaccurate, given its origins. As an historian, I certainly do not see it as a history book, it is a book of faith.

It is a totally different matter to take creationism into schools as if it was an established scientific fact. Creationists suggest it is a perfectly viable alternative to evolution and should be taught in science classrooms. It is not. It is a religious-based interpretation, not one based on correct scientific methodology. At the heart of it is the conclusion to which facts are ignored or manipulated to prove God did it. You cannot prove faith, you either believe it or you do not. No one can prove the existence of a deity, nor the lack of one. The only possible place it might have in the classroom would be in a religious education lesson, not in a science one.

“Ignore the trolls”

Level 6

Since: Oct 08

Poole, UK

#63722 Dec 7, 2012
Whoops, sorry, double post - no doubt topix will sort it in due course.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#63723 Dec 7, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Faraday, amazing fellow. Very pious too. I don't see where his religious faith had anything particular to do with his scientific work. Lots of excellent scientific work is done with great doubts all along the way. Doesn't need faith to keep experimenting, if only to show that, nope, it can't be done that way at all. Whereas according to the bible, I understand you are not supposed to "test" God.
So everyday faith and religious Faith are two different animals. What's the point of saying "Faith" is necessary, and then pretending that there is an analogy to everyday (lower-case) "faith" which is merely a statistical measure of confidence.
You are not getting me. Faith is/ are not solely centred on religion, it embraces all areas of life. It was faith that led Faraday to discover electricity.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63724 Dec 7, 2012
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
All people who are faith zealots really have one thing in common..... the sign of something that's outlived its purpose.
I attended a two day seminar with Malidoma Some, from Upper Volta (Burkina Faso) who grew up with dual traditions, Jesuit and witch doctor. He convinced us of how we have an innate attraction to ritual, and it does have a good side, in that it facilitates community building, and can bring a sense of piece if done gently.

Sure, ritual can be a potent force for evil, but for good as well if kept in balance. I would not be too hasty to deprecate it's value.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63725 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I did say reply with "assexually" as a joke but of course you missed that on purpose.
Which, in itself, is about as funny as a bag of pigs
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you got not sense of humor. Watch comedy central.
I watch John Stewart and Colbert on there.

Otherwise, it's Brit comedy - they are the masters

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63726 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I've watched MANY documentaries including extinct animals in NGC and HIST channels.
Then why the ignorance of giraffes?

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63727 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
First of all, if you're going to give me crap about social status then FU.
Okay, so can we assume that you are a loser?

Sorry.
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't believe in social constructs in this sorry ass society. You are the most ignorant person in this forum. And I hope you find someone who will wipe your ass when you start going senile.
How about you answer some questions, girlie?

How old is the earth?

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#63728 Dec 7, 2012
tony1003 wrote:
Whoops, sorry, double post - no doubt topix will sort it in due course.
Did.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#63729 Dec 7, 2012
Double Fine wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why the ignorance of giraffes?
Hehehe.

Wonder whether she knows they have the same number of cervical vertebrae as we do...

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63731 Dec 7, 2012
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>Hehehe.
Wonder whether she knows they have the same number of cervical vertebrae as we do...
That is a question I'd like creationists, fundies and IDiots to answer for me: Why do humans, giraffes, bats and whales have the same number of cervical vertebrae?

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63732 Dec 7, 2012
Bat Foy wrote:
<quoted text>
I wasn't until recently. I'm sick of asking a question and the goo clucks clan here calls me stupid because I don't know but if they're so smart why not just give the answer.
I second the motion. When a simple question is asked, and when it's not a loaded question, and when it is purely a request for information, the insults are really choking up the discussion.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63733 Dec 7, 2012
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
The sheer power of such a machine, but yeah, the noise issue is one that has slowed it down considerably as well. Mostly it's that people who code, like me, have become comfortable with binary, it's easy and static so we don't have to worry about precision. Most people don't know enough about computers so they just shrug at the notion not even considering how much computing power such a thing would conceivably possess. If I had a lab for development I'd work on it myself, but alas, you need a bit more funding for hardware tech development than other sciences. I think that analogue computers are the next step, we've reached a ceiling in our digital tech and now we're just adding more processors to the machines instead of actually improving the processors. Oh, and we are improving the PCB layouts, using evolutionary algorithms, that's fun to watch in real time, the computers working out the best PCB layouts is a thing of poetry.
Digital computers have reached their peak, the chips cannot be etched smaller than the wavelength of light and they reached that stage years ago, hence the search for more power with multiple cpus on a chip.

My business (3D animation and graphics) is very computer intensive, the requirement and expectation is now far outstripping the ability of digital processing.

People like Pixar build there own mainframes from hundreds of the most powerful rack PCs simply because there is nothing to do the job otherwise. Itís rather reminiscent of a server room using a custom OS dedicated to one single task.

Perhaps analogue machines will bring about a solution, I hope so because these old SGIís we use are literally getting worn out and there is nothing economically viable to replace them.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63734 Dec 7, 2012
Sublime1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice she didn't respond to what I said about her faulty interpretation. Funny how that works.
Quite sad really, but no more than can be expected from a lying creatard

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63735 Dec 7, 2012
TheIndependentMajority wrote:
Because--
But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
The aspiration toward truth and understanding only happens when one escapes religion. You, on the other hand, have got it quite backward. In fact, religion is endlessly and falsely claiming to the the source of all good emotions. It's amazing how effective that indoctrination is. Look at yourself spouting it. You know when you have been indoctrinated when it actually feeds so good to say it -- despite not having taken a critical look at what you are saying.

"faith in the possibility" -- Now there's a hopeful phrasing. A bit self contradictory, don't you think?

Most religion includes the faith in miracles. Miracles, if true, are the total disabuse of that "faith in the possibility" that the real world operates with rational rules, ones that would be comprehensible to reason.

Lots of good science is done with out any religion or religious inspiration about it. Lots is done by the very pious too. Humans are so good at compartmentalization that religion hardly interferes except in a few specific categories where it feels threatened.

Sorry for coming down so hard on you. I really do appreciate the feeling of what you are saying. The more gentle part of religion, the kind that just gives one a sense of peace without getting too much into theology, may afford some happiness that allows one to concentrate better on difficult science. Probably depends on cultural upbringing. It is rather frantic to have to question everything all at once. There are times to just accept some things and concentrate on the others.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#63736 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
You asked for answer I googled it for you, k?
binary code = series of numbers 1 and 0
the computer converts letters into numbers
BTW, this is red herring. Why are we talking about computers?
And what was your last question again?
Ahh a series of 0ís and 1ís yes, can you explain for example why the digital device identified as 74LS373 is described as a TRI STATE binary D type latch? Is the third state a binary Ĺ or a binary 2 or a binary Ė1, or what?

You see digital electronics and binary code are not just a matter of 0ís and 1ís

We are discussing computere/binary code because DF asked you a question which you fobbed off with a duhÖ
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

I was simply querying your post to see if you actually knew what you were talking about. It seems you didnít and so had to look it up.

My last question was does an analogue computer use binary codes?

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63737 Dec 7, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
I am pleased to see that you incorporate evolution as a theory. It will always be a theory because we don't have the fossil evidence to prove otherwise. Creation is the only adaption as to why we are even here. However, it takes humility to accept a creator.
Gravity is only a theory too. It will always be a theory. Jump off a cliff, and see what the theory of evolution, survival of the fittest, has to say about your role in it.

All it takes is is a bit more humility to accept that the creator was Darwin himself. Humility good. More humility better. So long as you don't mind getting humiliated.

Aside from mountains of fossil evidence supporting evolutionary theory, there is also a pile of living organizations that seem to show a pattern that indicates the operation of evolution over the ages. More than that, there is all the DNA evidence.

Blithely saying something doesn't accomplish much to make it true. For instance I would say there is no such thing as red lights. Try believing me just for a day in city traffic. Given enough faith you won't see them. Evolution has some simple measurements of the value of blind credulity. Hey little bunny rabbit, that fox over their must want to be friends with you.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63738 Dec 7, 2012
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Then why do giraffes bend over to eat grass? The shorter ones will survive just as well. And where did giraffes evolve from?


Long legs and a long neck reach the ground just as well as short legs and a short neck. In that they are the same. When all the grass is eaten the long neck can much on the trees, but the shorter ones do not have that fall back upon.

Since: Nov 12

Milk River, Canada

#63739 Dec 7, 2012
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get your conscience? The ability to choose? You give credit to an unknown theory or purpose. Try to fathom a rolex watch emerging from stone dust to exactness of time. You are a fool. It's inexcusable to deny creation.
We got our conscience and the ability to choose from evolution, which, by the way is a known theory, not an unknown one.

Miracle believers are the ones who might believe a rolex watch emerging from stone dust. All you would have to do is say the it was a miracle, and all common sense goes out the window. Scientific theory creators are the least likely to fall for such am illusion. Why to you think they would be more gullible than you are?

If there were an argument to make me doubt the effectiveness of evolution, you might be it.

“There's a feeling I get...”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

...when I look to the West

#63740 Dec 7, 2012
AustinHook wrote:
<quoted text>
Long legs and a long neck reach the ground just as well as short legs and a short neck. In that they are the same. When all the grass is eaten the long neck can much on the trees, but the shorter ones do not have that fall back upon.
Giraffes like Acacia and Combretums - They have very specialised tongues to navigate the thorns. Their long neck allow them to reach the succulent leaves at the top.

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
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 2 min Denny CranesPlace 40,721
BAN(N) the P0STER Above you !!! (Feb '14) 6 min its me daisy 4,522
2015: "Make a Story/ 6 Words Only: 11 min Mechanic 576
Create "short sentences using the last word" (Aug '12) 15 min Truths 8,647
Make A Sentance out of a 5 letter word. (Nov '09) 21 min Cyan in CA 32,019
News NY teacher's prom role: Sewing-kit ace who fixe... 22 min Xstain Mullah Fra... 3
News Cremains wash up on Scotland shoreline and you ... 46 min Xstain Mullah Fra... 7
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 2 hr Jennifer Renee 11,405
REAL motorcycle traveling stories. 2 hr andet1987 17
60's Pics 2 hr Spirit67_ 14
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 hr Wolftracks 162,884
More from around the web