Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 220518 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.

“Trippin' the Riff...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#72245 Jan 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I correct myself from my earlier posts, in that animals may be capable of abstract communication, but they are unable to communicate *complex* abstract ideas. There is an gorilla for example who has learned sign language, whether or not it's learned enough to grasp the concept of theism I don't know. But unfortunately it can't communicate it to other apes. But like I said, the concept of religion is explained in evolutionary terms as an extension of altruism, and it developed further from there.
It may be that in the future other species may develop the concept also. Only time will tell. Of course we don't know that dolphins and whales have not done so already. We're just not smart enough to understand their language.
It's not there is it...it's a soul attribute of humans. In other words,your only attempting to connect imaginary dots to support evolution without proof.

And by your standard's,without proof, it's a invalid argument.

“Trippin' the Riff...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#72246 Jan 26, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
What if religiosity is really a symptom? lol
Mainstream scientific ideology seems to think so.It's seems to be diagnosed as a delusional disorder.( as Apparent by the posts on this thread...lol)

Seemingly,the recognition of an intelligent process behind the Universe, is also some sort of delusional disorder.(per mainstream scientific ideology)

“Trippin' the Riff...”

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#72247 Jan 26, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
They ARE more predominant in the great ape species.
Specifically, humans.
Subjective classification of similarities made up by science, does not make humans ape, no more than it makes him a fish, if you believed that humans evolved from fish.

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#72248 Jan 26, 2013
Jesus is the same yesterday, today and forever...
bohart

White Pine, TN

#72249 Jan 26, 2013
Thomas Robertson wrote:
bohart wrote:
I don't believe people want to be evil, it’s just that humans are primarily evil in their nature, its what we are.
Before reading past the dotted line, I would like for anyone reading this post to answer four questions:
1. What is attractive to children and good for children?
2. What is unattractive to children and harmful to children?
3. What is attractive to children but harmful to children?
4. What is unattractive to children but good for children?
…………………………
For question number 1, you probably list milk, outdoor play, friends, and healthy affection.
For question number 2, you probably list wild animals, sharp objects, and high places.
For question number 3, you probably list junk food, excessive TV and video, and illegal drugs.
For question number 4, you probably list school work and penicillin shots.
If children were conceived in Original Sin, we wouldn’t have any answers to questions 1 and 2.
If children were conceived in the image and likeness of God, we wouldn’t have any answers to questions 3 and 4.
If children were conceived as blank slates, we wouldn’t have any answers to any of the questions.
What, then, is the nature of children?
If you take a close look at the answers, you will see that the first two tend to be items which have been present since time immemorial. The last two tend to be modern inventions.
My stand, then, is that children are created for life in the primeval past. It would be nice if children were created for life in modern civilization, but modern civilization came into being at a fast pace and evolution has not had a chance to catch up.
Is your conclusion that children would be better off living in a teepee on the plains eating raw buffalo liver until the god of evolution catches them up to todays pace?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#72250 Jan 26, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
Cons-piracy is a double negative word. Can you think of a positive opposite for it? For ex. con-science vs. pro-science
Oh here we have a place named after ppl like you. Santa Fe-male
People "like me?" What are you implying? Also, you fail at English, you really fail at it. You should learn what words mean before using them.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#72251 Jan 26, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
So if that be the case, why did I see a program on the history channel that's was tracing the lineage of Jesus?
Wow, you believe everything you see on TV? So that means vampires are real too, as well as unicorns, hobbits, and leprechauns.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#72252 Jan 26, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
your trippin' dude...all concepts are the result of thinking. Just because the chemicals are there that support brain activity, doesn't imply the concepts.
We know most of which concepts are produced by which chemical reactions. Not the word "produced" used. It is not implied, it is understanding of how neurons work, and we know quite a bit about that. We have even mapped out laws of logic that are relatively simple to reconstruct even on computers. Most living organisms on the planet are not intelligent by our standards, though they do "think," we know exactly how those ones "think."

Level 2

Since: Apr 11

Location hidden

#72253 Jan 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow, you believe everything you see on TV? So that means vampires are real too, as well as unicorns, hobbits, and leprechauns.
And that has nothing to do with the existence of Christ.
Don't be a sceptic( skeptic)...
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#72255 Jan 26, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I like the part when the guy said there's no sex in heaven. Do you believe in that BULLSH!T? lol
Youre thinking too small.

You are in the presence of infinite power and infinite knowledge and all you can think about is facking?

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#72256 Jan 26, 2013
Charles Idemi wrote:
<quoted text> And that has nothing to do with the existence of Christ.
Don't be a sceptic( skeptic)...
Just because there's a television show saying that this myth is real, doesn't make it true, your Jesus is still a myth.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#72257 Jan 26, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not there is it...it's a soul attribute of humans.
You mean "sole". And it maybe. But then you have no idea that dolphins and whales don't have complex languages capable of communicating ideas like religion.
xxxooxxx wrote:
In other words,your only attempting to connect imaginary dots to support evolution without proof. And by your standard's,without proof, it's a invalid argument.
Um, no. Evolution is certainly not dependent on the development of the ability to conceive abstract concepts. Evolution is dependent upon biological factors, and those have already long been demonstrated. You may think "religiosity" is all important but it simply is not the case. Keep in mind that religion could easily be equated with fictional stories (since no religion can be demonstrated valid) and your argument would be exactly the same as saying evolution can't explain Hollywood movies therefore evolution is invalid. It's a dumb argument.(shrug)

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#72258 Jan 26, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Youre thinking too small.
You are in the presence of infinite power and infinite knowledge and all you can think about is facking?
Did you not describe what 'reproduction' is? What gave birth to the universe?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#72259 Jan 26, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Subjective classification of similarities made up by science, does not make humans ape, no more than it makes him a fish, if you believed that humans evolved from fish.
Actually it does, because they are NOT subjective. They ARE arbitrary, but that's not quite the same thing. Humans like to pigeon-hole ideas, and that is done by coming up with a single or group of agreed upon definitions. If something then matches those definitions it is therefore considered to belong to that pigeon hole.

The modern biological classification system is based upon the work of Carl Linnaeus, who could be considered something of a creationist. And it was him who pointed out that humans are apes. He got a letter of a bunch of religious nuts who weren't happy about humans being placed in the great ape category. He responded by saying he was no more happy about it than they were, but asked them to give a valid scientific (not religious) reason to not include them in the same group.

He got no response.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#72260 Jan 26, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Youre thinking too small.
You are in the presence of infinite power and infinite knowledge and all you can think about is facking?
why do Islamic people believe in 72 virgins in paradise?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#72261 Jan 26, 2013
Adam and Steve wrote:
<quoted text>2 questions: 1) Are humans alone in the universe or is there an advanced race out there. 2) Is the God/Jesus story true or a fable?
1 - Currently unknown.

2 - Currently unknown, although there are certain claims which are fables. Such as global floods, talking lizards and donkeys, and flat Earth.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#72262 Jan 26, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
You suffering from foot-in-mouth disease.
If "ALL concepts are the result of brain chemistry", then scientific conceptions are no more valid than mythology as such.
Sure.

Like gravity.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#72263 Jan 26, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
People "like me?" What are you implying? Also, you fail at English, you really fail at it. You should learn what words mean before using them.
You are incorrigible.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#72264 Jan 26, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
What I have seen does not identify a cause of evolution.
I have seen an "If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution by natural selection as an outcome. It is as simple as that.".
But thats horsesh!t.
To say "If you have variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, you will have evolution...", is not different from saying "if you have reproduction you will have evolution".
It is not different because production in itself involves "variation, differential reproduction, and heredity".
All they have accomplished is a redefinition of natural processes to suit their view of the natural world.
It's only horseshit because you find it theologically inconvenient. All of those mechanisms are observed. All of them will naturally produce slightly different offspring in subsequent generations. If life gradually changes over time (as is scientifically observed) we will end up with evolution. It's not simply saying "reproduction therefore evolution", it's pointing out that "reproduction provides variation, differential reproduction, and heredity, BECAUSE these are observed. Ergo we will end up with evolution".

You can of course PREVENT evolution from happening by placing a barrier, such as the Earth being say, oh, about 6,000 years old? But then that would simply be arguing against reality. Which is why so many creationists find Young Earth dogma appealing.

So you claim we can have:

1+1
1+1+1
1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1+1
1+1+1+1+1+1

But we CAN'T have:

1+1+1+1+1+1+1

Which is absurd. The fact is is changes accumulate over time (and they do) we will eventually get something that is very different than was there a long time ago. The mechanisms are not in dispute, not even by other creationists (hence the love of YECism). But not only are the mechanisms not in dispute, but neither is the evidence I provided you with yesterday, which unequivocally demonstrates evolution via common descent.

Correction: it IS in dispute, but ONLY by those who promote invisible Jewish magic, and the occasional crank. But the ONLY disputes in the scientific community is NOT whether or not evolution actually occurred, but HOW it occurred. And such debate is normal for any valid scientific theory. There has been no genuine dispute over the validity of evolution since the discovery of DNA back in the 1950's at the very latest.

The fact there are incredulous people with no science education object to science has no bearing on the scientific validity of scientific theories.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#72265 Jan 26, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, just like in all the other universe you created right?
You clown.
Whatever happened once life begins is a continuation of what was happening before life began.
Evolution is a continuation of chemistry. You are a walking talking bag of chemicals. Chemistry is a continuation of physics, which has been around since the earliest stages of the universe. However while you may like running headlong into the infinite regression fallacy, it has no bearing on the validity of evolution. All it needs is for life to be here. Life IS here. Life evolves. Facts. In order to demonstrate otherwise, you need to demonstrate that life is in fact NOT here.

And evolution doesn't care whether it's an extension of natural processes of the universe or if it was suddenly magically poofed into being by an invisible magical Jewish wizard. We got the mechanisms, we got the processes, we got the evidence, we got life.
God Himself wrote:
So until you can say that evolution was a real phenomena before the beginning of time, I wont have you tell me it began any time after time.
Furthermore, you have no knowledge of what happened when life began.
The theory of evolution does not rely on abiogenesis. For the EXACT same reason the theory of gravity does not rely on the origin of mass, nor the germ theory of disease rely on the origin of germs.

All three scientific theories work and are based on observable evidence.
God Himself wrote:
All you they is mere speculation which hangs on THE LOGIC in their arguments, which we are gradually beginning to discover is absent.
Furthermore, didnt you hear that all concepts are influenced by brain chemistry?
Ask "The Dude".
All you have evidence of is the chemical process in your brain. Period.
All abstract concepts are stored in the brain as brain states, made possible by chemistry. Do you accept this? If not then what's your alternative? If you do happen to accept reality in this instance, how does this necessarily invalidate those concepts?

Just because the theory of gravity is an abstract concept within someone's mind does NOT necessarily mean it's incorrect.

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
6 letter word ...change one letter game (Oct '08) 2 min andet1987 32,691
News Brothers high on mushrooms fight naked 4 min Geno 6
2words into 2new words (May '12) 10 min andet1987 7,820
Word Association 2 (Sep '13) 14 min Jennifer Renee 23,349
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 17 min andet1987 10,321
5 Letter Word, Change 1 Letter (Oct '15) 22 min andet1987 7,160
News Grieving father: 'I don't play Trump songs anym... 26 min andet1987 21
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 48 min Denny CranesPlace 73,302
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 51 min Denny CranesPlace 21,411
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 2 hr Princess Hey 213,021
Icon Discussion 12 hr Crystal_Clear722 104
More from around the web