Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 217095 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.

anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#69936 Jan 4, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
Just as many states had such laws (even some in their constitutions) against *interracial* marriage until the US Supreme Court's 1967 decision in the Loving v. Virginia case.
<quoted text>
I guess you missed the fact that same-sex marriage is also legal in Maryland, Washington state, and Iowa.
<quoted text>
And considering your grasp of the facts, we all know what trust we can place in your predictions.
<quoted text>
Yeah, the legal recognition of same-sex marriage can be such an obstruction to homophobia.
Denial is not how I'd prepare for hard times.

It's true that the states had laws against inter-racial marriage until that decision. That doesn't even begin to make you think about how the law really works, does it?
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#69937 Jan 4, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
While you might consider the Universe a refection of negative intelligence... I think I'll stick with the opinions of people like Edison and Einstein on such matters.
Whatever, but their poetry stinks!!:)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#69938 Jan 4, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Dude, are you in denial too or you just want to be cool? lol.
What exactly is it do you claim I am denying?
Cybele wrote:
To be honest, I don't really like to go to church or throw bible verses here to preach. But that doesn't make it cooler than the high-minded ones. It just makes me feel more connected.
Connected to what?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69939 Jan 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Whoops, my bad. I mistook you for Bo. Not too surprising based on the writings though.
However, note to all fundies - the admission of error. Something few fundies are capable of.
Actually dude, he is 100% right.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#69940 Jan 4, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
you misquoted me
I was talking more generically, as a lot of people other than kitten have brought it up.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#69941 Jan 4, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually dude, he is 100% right.
No he ain't. If he were he'd be able to provide scientific evidence. Instead he just whined about how creo's can't and in his opinion if they ever could we would reject it for philosophical/theological reasons. Well that may be true if he's talking about fundie atheists, but the fact of the matter is that science doesn't give two hoots about theism or atheism.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69942 Jan 4, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
If a Creationist were to bring solid evidence here concerning intelligent design in nature, all we would get from the Evos would be the sound of crickets.
don't ever mistake this to be a thread to an unbiased scientific endeavor...it's politically motivated through and through...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69943 Jan 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No he ain't. If he were he'd be able to provide scientific evidence. Instead he just whined about how creo's can't and in his opinion if they ever could we would reject it for philosophical/theological reasons. Well that may be true if he's talking about fundie atheists, but the fact of the matter is that science doesn't give two hoots about theism or atheism.
Dude even you admitted a while back, that there could be no amount of scientific evidences that would convince you of the existence of God. So why do you all clammer on about proof that you would not except anyway? Geez.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#69944 Jan 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Whatever, but their poetry stinks!!:)
(never really read any poetry by Einstein)

Before God

I want to know God's thoughts;
the rest are details.
God does not play dice with the universe.
God is subtle, but not malicious;
clever, but not dishonest.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties.
He integrates empirically.

Albert Einstein
TheIndependentMa jority

Mount Vernon, KY

#69945 Jan 4, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
And you brought up the subject, why don't you state your own opinion?
I already have-time and time again, and that hasn't changed an iota.

I find the type of work being done at CERN, amazing.
TheIndependentMa jority

Mount Vernon, KY

#69946 Jan 4, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually I suspect we'll never understand it because proponents of the concepts can provide nothing but bad philosophical ramblings.
Because in the end, no-one on Earth knows more about God than anyone else does period.
Well stated :-).
Mother Mary

Chicago, IL

#69947 Jan 4, 2013
Makesure100 wrote:
<quoted text>
Freak, just live knowing you are a Freak. It works.
Freak? Aint pretending fun MS100? The internet sucks!!!!!!

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#69948 Jan 4, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
(never really read any poetry by Einstein)
Before God
I want to know God's thoughts;
the rest are details.
God does not play dice with the universe.
God is subtle, but not malicious;
clever, but not dishonest.
God does not care about our mathematical difficulties.
He integrates empirically.
Albert Einstein
Aren't you going to post the ones where he basically says you're a dumbass for believing what you do?

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#69950 Jan 4, 2013
anonymous wrote:
It's true that the states had laws against inter-racial marriage until that decision. That doesn't even begin to make you think about how the law really works, does it?
On the contrary, it tells me that society is slow to realize that some of their laws are nothing more than motivated by prejudice.

So your point is?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69951 Jan 4, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Aren't you going to post the ones where he basically says you're a dumbass for believing what you do?
Are you calling Einstein a dumb ass too?

Because he said this:

http://www.buddhism-and-the-american-dream.co...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#69952 Jan 4, 2013
Robert wrote:
<quoted text>
You would not believe in God even if there was indisputable scientific evidence...it's such a mute question...you would just call it bad science...so why do you even ask?
My thoughts:

First off...the term is "a *MOOT* question"...not "mute".
Secondly, as to your contention that we would not 'believe' despite "indisputable scientific evidence", I disagree.

The reactions to such an occurrance would include, but not be limited to:

1. MOST Christians accept the Theory of Evolution (ToE). As such, a very high percentage would probably cry "Hallelujah" (or whatever) as their faith would be confirmed by science.

2. Depending upon the nature of the evidence "God" presented, persons of OTHER faiths...there ARE "OTHER FAITHS", you know....would likely incorporate the evidence provided into their OWN faith, and proceed with their own (non-Christian) beliefs.

3. Those of us who are Agnostic may have a difficult time reconciling the new evidence with the previous belief parameters, and may go either with or against the evidence....or wait for further confirmation.

4. Yes, there might be atheists who -- in the face of all evidence to the contrary (in your scenario)-- would dispute the "indisputable scientific evidence".

How would SCIENCE react to such a development?

Again, depending upon the nature of the evidence presented, there would likely be a long period of skeptical investigation for this evidence. Should this evidence pass this research with any degree of success, there would be a MASSIVE, world-wide cultural renovation, FAR surpassing anything ever witnessed before in human history.

Do you have a time-line when this evidence might happen?
You've had several thousand years now....

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Yuhuan, China

#69953 Jan 4, 2013
neutral observer wrote:
A monotheistic god would be neither male nor female. For it to be one requires that gods of the other gender also exist. Unless you are polytheistic...

Cybele wrote:
The anthropomorphic God of the Bible is obviously a male

The Christian Scientists call their god the Father-Mother God.
The founder of their church was a woman.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69954 Jan 4, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
My thoughts:
First off...the term is "a *MOOT* question"...not "mute".
Secondly, as to your contention that we would not 'believe' despite "indisputable scientific evidence", I disagree.
The reactions to such an occurrance would include, but not be limited to:
1. MOST Christians accept the Theory of Evolution (ToE). As such, a very high percentage would probably cry "Hallelujah" (or whatever) as their faith would be confirmed by science.
2. Depending upon the nature of the evidence "God" presented, persons of OTHER faiths...there ARE "OTHER FAITHS", you know....would likely incorporate the evidence provided into their OWN faith, and proceed with their own (non-Christian) beliefs.
3. Those of us who are Agnostic may have a difficult time reconciling the new evidence with the previous belief parameters, and may go either with or against the evidence....or wait for further confirmation.
4. Yes, there might be atheists who -- in the face of all evidence to the contrary (in your scenario)-- would dispute the "indisputable scientific evidence".
How would SCIENCE react to such a development?
Again, depending upon the nature of the evidence presented, there would likely be a long period of skeptical investigation for this evidence. Should this evidence pass this research with any degree of success, there would be a MASSIVE, world-wide cultural renovation, FAR surpassing anything ever witnessed before in human history.
Do you have a time-line when this evidence might happen?
You've had several thousand years now....
What kind of evidence are you looking for? Something that will appear in the sky?

Level 5

Since: Apr 12

Yuhuan, China

#69955 Jan 4, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
If a Creationist were to bring solid evidence here concerning intelligent design in nature, all we would get from the Evos would be the sound of crickets.

Here is some evidence which would cause me to stand up and take notice:

----the invention of an accurate radiometric device which can measure the oldest fossils known, and which indicates a world flood 4000 years ago and stops at 6000 years ago.

----the discovery of mammal, reptile, bird, and amphibian fossils in pre-Cambrian soil and all points in between.

----a confession from an embryologist that whale embryos don’t really go through a stage resembling ungulates, and that the whole thing was a hoax.

----an explanation of how pandas are blessed with ideal paws.

----an explanation of why flightless birds need wings, why ostriches need claws on their wings, and why male mammals need boobies.

----an explanation of why there appears to be a smooth transition from reptiles to mammals.

----an explanation of how else it could appear that we inherited a brain from the reptiles, supplemented that with a brain inherited from early mammals, and developed a third for ourselves.

----an explanation of how the nested hierarchy revealed by biochemical research matches the nested hierarchy revealed by paleontological research, or a confession that the whole thing was a hoax.

----an explanation of the geographical distribution of species. Why aren’t there any penguins in the Arctic or polar bears in the Antarctic? Why are there coyotes in the Colorado Desert but not in the Sahara Desert?

----an explanation of purported cases of speciation which have taken place in our own time.

----an explanation of body parts belonging to one species which could well belong to other species also. For example, why don’t we have squid eyes?

----an explanation of why birds carry junk DNA whereby they can have teeth recreated in the laboratory.

----If God was intelligent enough to do the job right the first time, why did he have to wipe the slate clean and do the job a second time?

If you will dispense with the name-calling, if you will dispense with the Jesus-loves-me propaganda, and if you will dispense with the quote mining, maybe you will have more time and energy left to concentrate on the real issue at hand, you might convince some of us. That might win a few converts.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#69956 Jan 4, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
neutral observer wrote:
A monotheistic god would be neither male nor female. For it to be one requires that gods of the other gender also exist. Unless you are polytheistic...
Cybele wrote:
The anthropomorphic God of the Bible is obviously a male
The Christian Scientists call their god the Father-Mother God.
The founder of their church was a woman.
interesting, I've seen women represent their church as a reverend or whatever they call them

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
News The stunning facial inkings of a little known t... 2 min beatlesinthebog 39
Gemstone Quiz 3 min Enzo49 5
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 4 min Lucy the First 10,668
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 5 min Foreign Approach 67,291
Start a sentence in alphabetical order.. 6 min ImFree2Choose 1,753
Let's play "follow the word" (Jun '08) 8 min Lelouch0 48,322
A six word game (Dec '08) 11 min ImFree2Choose 20,712
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 28 min KNIGHT DeVINE 1,538
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 34 min help 207,313
More from around the web