Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 209819 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

#71483 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
And who determines what is "order"? You? If there are people who are unhappy with the order, doesn't that mean that it wasn't order in the first place?
<quoted text>
The topic of this thread is evolution vs. creation. I don't see you spending much of your time trying to discuss that.
<quoted text>
And which view of what is "natural" did you present?
How is the use of statistics not "logical"?
<quoted text>
Except that you can't seem to demonstrate how. You just rail against statistics as if evidence for claims wasn't important.
<quoted text>
Says the guy who referred to gays as "deviants".
Parse! Ni!
Parse! Ni!
Parse! Ni!

Parse! Parse! Parse!

Talk when you have something to say.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71484 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
It matters for the purposes of communication between human beings.
<quoted text>
Why shouldn't I be skeptical, given that no evidence has yet been provided to support it?
<quoted text>
That's what the evidence demonstrates.
<quoted text>
First of all, you're now switching gears in the use of the word "evolution". The processes that result in the creation of matter, galaxies, stars, and planets are not the processes that result in the creation of the first living things, nor are they the processes that result in the creation of all modern species from earlier species.
Second, the initial settings of the Universe have resulted in what we observe. If they had been different, we wouldn't be here to observe whatever existed. For all we know, there are an infinite number of Universes, each with its own set of initial settings. If so, then some are going to like our own Universe.
In order for anything to be able to observe reality, it needs consciousness. So did matter evolve to create consciousness?

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71485 Jan 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
You're playing with the facts. Scientific method, when applied to Evolution rejects deity. Evolution does imply abiogenesis at some level. Accept it and reject the theist arguments anyway.
What's wrong with rejecting the "immortal soul"? Evolution certainly wouldn't see value in it, and physics doesn't have anything to suggest one. If you're arguing for natural order, accept it as the way of things.
If you believe in order, then your existence would have to have a purpose. Do you know what your purpose is?
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#71486 Jan 21, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
If you believe in order, then your existence would have to have a purpose. Do you know what your purpose is?
My purpose is what I choose to be my purpose. No waving my hand and defying physics, no control by one person over billions of others, but my choice anyway. What kind of person would give away their choice on one of the few things they do have control over?

...and no, I don't share my purpose with others. That would just invite parsing idiots who think everyone's purpose is to serve their own. Don't need some cliche Riddler in my life. I get enough annoyances from Catwoman and Two-Face! 8o)

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71487 Jan 21, 2013
And who determines what is "order"? You? If there are people who are unhappy with the order, doesn't that mean that it wasn't order in the first place?
<quoted text>
The topic of this thread is evolution vs. creation. I don't see you spending much of your time trying to discuss that.
<quoted text>
And which view of what is "natural" did you present?
How is the use of statistics not "logical"?
<quoted text>
Except that you can't seem to demonstrate how. You just rail against statistics as if evidence for claims wasn't important.
<quoted text>
Says the guy who referred to gays as "deviants".
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Parse! Ni!
Parse! Ni!
Parse! Ni!
Parse! Parse! Parse!
Talk when you have something to say.
I'm the one who had something to say.

You just had nonsense as your response.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71488 Jan 21, 2013
Cybele wrote:
In order for anything to be able to observe reality, it needs consciousness.
That depends on the definitions of "observe" and "consciousness", but for the sake of argument, let's take that as true.
Cybele wrote:
So did matter evolve to create consciousness?
Matter didn't "evolve" in the biological sense of the term, but certainly at least *some* of the matter in the Universe changed over time so that it would be considered by us to be alive (whatever definition of "life" you have) and so that it achieved consciousness (whatever definition of "consciousness" you have).
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#71489 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
And who determines what is "order"? You? If there are people who are unhappy with the order, doesn't that mean that it wasn't order in the first place?
<quoted text>
The topic of this thread is evolution vs. creation. I don't see you spending much of your time trying to discuss that.
<quoted text>
And which view of what is "natural" did you present?
How is the use of statistics not "logical"?
<quoted text>
Except that you can't seem to demonstrate how. You just rail against statistics as if evidence for claims wasn't important.
<quoted text>
Says the guy who referred to gays as "deviants".
<quoted text>
I'm the one who had something to say.
You just had nonsense as your response.
You seem to have something to say to yourself, but I expect my comments to be addressed in context.

Now, apologize! You've offended me. That's the context. That's how you're going to eat it.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71490 Jan 21, 2013
I'm the one who had something to say. You just had nonsense as your response.
anonymous wrote:
You seem to have something to say to yourself, but I expect my comments to be addressed in context.
I've addressed your comments in context. You just didn't like what I said as I addressed them.
anonymous wrote:
Now, apologize! You've offended me.
If you were offended, that is your problem, not mine. No apology on my part is required.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#71491 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
I'm the one who had something to say. You just had nonsense as your response.
<quoted text>
I've addressed your comments in context. You just didn't like what I said as I addressed them.
<quoted text>
If you were offended, that is your problem, not mine. No apology on my part is required.
See, now we're going to play a little game called "projecting". You're going to demonstrate how you parse out of context and how you always try to claim your bad behavior is actually the bad behavior of others.

This game starts with a word called "deviant". Now, we can say all sorts of things about that word to make it a negative thing, but we don't have to. But we WILL anyway, because some of us feel that our behavior is being inhibited because of that word, and that word alone.

Now, there's a second word in this game. We'll call it science. I'm going to let YOU start by telling us about science. Tell us what you think about the word, and listen to complete rebuttals, without parsing.

I'm sure you can restrain your obsessive-compulsive behavior just long enough for this game, can't you?

OK! Start your engines!!! Rooommmm! Roooommm!!!! GO!

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71492 Jan 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
See, now we're going to play a little game called "projecting".
The only one here playing that game is you.
anonymous wrote:
You're going to demonstrate how you parse out of context
I don't parse out of context. I provide sufficient context for each of the statements I'm responding to.(And if the reader is concerned that a statement has been taken out of context, they can always go back and re-read the original posting that I'm responding to.)

Of course, I notice that you never seem to explain how any of your statements has been taken out of context. You just claim that, without any evidence.
anonymous wrote:
I'm going to let YOU start by telling us about science. Tell us what you think about the word
I think that the word "science" describes an existing body of knowledge (facts and theories) and a process to determine new facts and theories.

You have a problem with that? Then you probably don't want to be in an Evolution Debate Forum or a thread that discusses evolution.

Yet here you are.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#71493 Jan 21, 2013
Drew Smith wrote:
<quoted text>
The only one here playing that game is you.
<quoted text>
I don't parse out of context. I provide sufficient context for each of the statements I'm responding to.(And if the reader is concerned that a statement has been taken out of context, they can always go back and re-read the original posting that I'm responding to.)
Of course, I notice that you never seem to explain how any of your statements has been taken out of context. You just claim that, without any evidence.
<quoted text>
I think that the word "science" describes an existing body of knowledge (facts and theories) and a process to determine new facts and theories.
You have a problem with that? Then you probably don't want to be in an Evolution Debate Forum or a thread that discusses evolution.
Yet here you are.
You're parsing. Just say "No!". If you can't demonstrate that your censoring of context does or doesn't matter to you, then you're not playing the game.

I didn't ask you to define science. I asked you what you think of the word. Try again. Pay attention to context.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#71494 Jan 21, 2013
Oh, yes. Feel free to elaborate on the word "deviant" at any time. Try using the word "science" if you think it will help!

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71495 Jan 21, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
My purpose is what I choose to be my purpose. No waving my hand and defying physics, no control by one person over billions of others, but my choice anyway. What kind of person would give away their choice on one of the few things they do have control over?
...and no, I don't share my purpose with others. That would just invite parsing idiots who think everyone's purpose is to serve their own. Don't need some cliche Riddler in my life. I get enough annoyances from Catwoman and Two-Face! 8o)
What defies physics? We are all made up of energy.

It sounds like you rule by way of a closed system or in total denial.
anonymous

Chagrin Falls, OH

#71496 Jan 21, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What defies physics? We are all made up of energy.
It sounds like you rule by way of a closed system or in total denial.
What particular type of energy do you think is within our capacity to control and make part of our purpose? For my part, I stick with the mechanical energy of muscles created by synaptic triggers. Otherwise, we are able to sense energy and our bodies generate heat on a largely automatic level. Anything else is fringe theory that has no scientifically observable precedent and I don't include such things into my calculations as to how to follow my purpose.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71497 Jan 21, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>I don't give a sh!t about your macro evolution. Get it through your head...evolution is proven.

Nitpick all you want, you cannot bring down what is truth.

People better than you ever will be have tried for 150+ years now and they have all failed.

Fundamentalist creatards are the only ones disputing evolution.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...

"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team

Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of the gene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaur lineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.

Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:"

FYI No one is better the me.
I sure hope Berkeley does not upset you too much. Ah, not really I do hope it raises you blood pressure.

There is no proof of macro evolution.
Never happened never will.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#71498 Jan 21, 2013
jkjkhardcore wrote:
<quoted text>Well what can I say to that? Because it's written down in several different books on the same subject that it has to be true? The fact that the bible is based off of the Torah, and the Koran is printed/created much later doesn't this alone explain the similarities? But even if they all tell the same story what evidence suggests that this is the true story, this is how creation came to be? After all it is a story and it could have been a major belief way back in the day, but then why don't all humans like tribes in Africa or Asians, or Native Americans or the greeks, or the Vikings (thor loki believers) believe the same creation story? How can you say your story's legit and theirs is not?
I do not claim that Christianity is the one and only true faith.

So you find that the very first people to invent the written language put so much effort to carve in stone the story of Genesis no big deal?

I don't know why Atheist keep screaming for proof of our faith. Why it makes no sense at all. Look up the word faith this might help you out.

“Keep the change...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#71499 Jan 21, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
It's incomprehensible to you because you refuse to look past the surface.
you know the subject is the "incomprehensible underlying intelligence" of the Universe....as implied by Edison and Einstein...(?)

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71500 Jan 21, 2013
I don't parse out of context. I provide sufficient context for each of the statements I'm responding to.(And if the reader is concerned that a statement has been taken out of context, they can always go back and re-read the original posting that I'm responding to.)
Of course, I notice that you never seem to explain how any of your statements has been taken out of context. You just claim that, without any evidence.
anonymous wrote:
You're parsing.
No, I'm responding to each of your claims.
anonymous wrote:
If you can't demonstrate that your censoring of context...
I'm not "censoring" any context, so your statement already begins with a false premise.

***

I think that the word "science" describes an existing body of knowledge (facts and theories) and a process to determine new facts and theories.
You have a problem with that? Then you probably don't want to be in an Evolution Debate Forum or a thread that discusses evolution.
Yet here you are.
anonymous wrote:
I didn't ask you to define science. I asked you what you think of the word.
And I told you what I think of the word "science", by explaining what I think it means.

Since: Feb 08

Tampa, FL

#71502 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
I don't know why Atheist keep screaming for proof of our faith.
I'm an atheist, but I'm not "screaming" for anything. I'm *asking* for theists to provide some *evidence* that supports their beliefs.

So far, they are coming up empty.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#71503 Jan 21, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/arti...
"Evolution at different scales: micro to macro
by the Understanding Evolution team
Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales — from something as insignificant as an increase in the frequency of the gene for dark wings in beetles from one generation to the next, to something as grand as the evolution and radiation of the dinosaur lineage. These two extremes represent classic examples of micro- and macroevolution.
Microevolution happens on a small scale (within a single population), while macroevolution happens on a scale that transcends the boundaries of a single species. Despite their differences, evolution at both of these levels relies on the same, established mechanisms of evolutionary change:"
FYI No one is better the me.
I sure hope Berkeley does not upset you too much. Ah, not really I do hope it raises you blood pressure.
There is no proof of macro evolution.
Never happened never will.
The definition of micro and macro-evolution from that link is incorrect or misused. 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
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 2 min Poppyann 3,500
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 6 min Princess Hey 147,224
2words into 2new words (May '12) 17 min Poppyann 5,116
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 18 min Poppyann 45,252
A six word game (Dec '08) 20 min Poppyann 20,161
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 28 min seriously the ori... 200,968
hoosier hillbilly (Sep '12) 36 min Hoosier Hillbilly 2,287
What Turns You Off (Jun '11) 1 hr Poppyann 9,114
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 1 hr eleanorigby 61,536
Philly grey poster hangout 6 hr Spotted Girl 58
News Clinton's name spelled wrong on Hofstra Univers... 7 hr Mitts Gold Plated... 67
More from around the web