Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218788 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.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#73534 Feb 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Now you are reading more than what was stated. Created implies an act of will, rocks from a volcano erupting were not created by the volcano, were they? Learn to think before you try to be intelligent.
I did not imply that they where not. The subject was the creation of the life and the Universe.Not rocks coming from an erupting volcano ....pay attention.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#73535 Feb 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't believe someone on here knows less about quantum physics than I do ... and then I see your idiotic notions and feel like a genius on the subject. Sheesh. Even I can see that you're just spouting made up nonsense now.
Well address my statements and prove me wrong.Instead of just saying I'm wrong.

Should be very easy on your part, if that be the case.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73536 Feb 2, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I did not imply that they where not. The subject was the creation of the life and the Universe.Not rocks coming from an erupting volcano ....pay attention.
No, we are talking about rocks resulting from a volcanic eruption. Same thing. They are not created, they are the result of natural processes .... and so far we have no evidence that the rest of the universe is not the result of other natural processes. You assume it was "created," scientists make no assumption on that matter.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#73537 Feb 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
No, we are talking about rocks resulting from a volcanic eruption. Same thing. They are not created, they are the result of natural processes .... and so far we have no evidence that the rest of the universe is not the result of other natural processes. You assume it was "created," scientists make no assumption on that matter.
I disagree...you are assuming natural processes...and claim you make no assumptions.

“Swimming With Ignorant Snarks”

Since: Nov 10

Great White Snark

#73538 Feb 2, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
This is because man made god in his image, not in apes image and I suppose most apes (except some homo sapiens) don’t give a sh|t
The mind of god is where you think, your imagination
Actually God exists in a few cells in the right hemisphere of the brain...Temporal area....God has been recreated in the lab with electro-magnetic stimulation as well as out of body experiences.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#73539 Feb 2, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
We know the heavens and all the earth were created in six days and the Word of God is what they were created by. My only question is, what took him so long to speak it all and make everything? God must have put a lot of energy and work into seeing that everything was good.
YHVH had to wait till we could spell and construct sentences properly.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73540 Feb 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>Where is your evidence for your claim?
You already know.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73541 Feb 2, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree...you are assuming natural processes...and claim you make no assumptions.
Natural processes is not an assumption.
FREE SERVANT
#73542 Feb 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
For fun, let's pretend your mythology is correct ... based on your above statement your god is a total failure, since it also had to hit the reset button several times, according to your own mythology. It formulated a "plan" that required people making a mistake before even being capable of knowing they were making a mistake then your god had to wipe out all life later one because of that mistake, then your god had to come "down" here and live a mortal life for a short time only to sacrifice itself to itself for that mistake it planned in the first place.
That's a very inept god.
The Creator is not foolish, but man is inept.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#73543 Feb 2, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
The Dude Wrote:
"Particle/anti-particle pairs have been scientifically observed to spontaneously appear in a vacuum. There is no cause."
So your implying that any time there is a vacuum, Particles/anti-particles spontaneously appear?
How many?
If a vacuum is all that's required to produce Particles/anti-particles, then any vacuum would produce an infinite number of Particles/anti-particles.(?)
and again, if this be the case, then the vacuum itself would be the cause, and the effect would be the Particles/anti-particles.
And what would be the cause of the vacuum? The absents of Particles/anti-particles, that create the vacuum.
So the law of cause and effect would still apply even under this scenario.Would it not?
Cause frameshift.(i love that answer, says anything and nothing) But since humbee i got a bit allergic to it.
(Effin forever about the bloody rockets and Einstein popularised -which gives eactly the wrong ideas-, buttons in space on elastics a.s.o. If school was like that i would be absent every day.)
Yep the Dude is right.
M space however has it's own vacuum, non occupied. So i imagine it as compressing space-time and therefore creating it. Fringe physics. If at near absolute nill=vacuum nothing much moves you can easily imagine huge amounts of vacuum.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73544 Feb 2, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>The Creator is not foolish, but man is inept.
So now you are projecting your god's idiocy onto humanity.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73545 Feb 2, 2013
Langoliers wrote:
<quoted text>
You already know.
If I knew the evidence, I wouldn't have asked for it. Where is your evidence? When you say something is fact you are asserting that you have the evidence and can present it when requested, so are you lying or do you have evidence?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#73546 Feb 2, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Natural processes is not an assumption.
That would imply "self evident."

You said before that "nothing was self evident."

and if it's not self evident it would be and assumption, would it not?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#73547 Feb 2, 2013
You can only speak of cause and effect if there is space-time, something to act upon and that seems to be lacking, till the little blighters move in.
So they are comparable to Schrödingers cat thought-experiment.
Mind we are talking about the physical laws that govern our universe. They might be capable of maurauding in other physical law governed realms.

Spacy enough.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#73548 Feb 2, 2013
And don't forget to read up on entanglement.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#73549 Feb 2, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
That would imply "self evident."
You said before that "nothing was self evident."
and if it's not self evident it would be and assumption, would it not?
No it would be a fallacy to go for that implication.
And you are adding to it.
But the mistake is yours.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#73550 Feb 2, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
That would imply "self evident."
You said before that "nothing was self evident."
and if it's not self evident it would be and assumption, would it not?
You like reading more into everything.

It's called the simplest explanation, and thus it is the default one. Occam's Razor is the more proper name of that. It is not an assumption to begin with the simplest explanation, that's just called sanity and logic.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#73552 Feb 2, 2013
Snark Hunter wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually God exists in a few cells in the right hemisphere of the brain...Temporal area....God has been recreated in the lab with electro-magnetic stimulation as well as out of body experiences.
maybe others are better judges since i'm unfamiliar with your writing style.
but you could have added: irony :P
or expanded.

otherwise you misunderstood and really thought god is a relativ epigenomic phenomena too.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73553 Feb 2, 2013
"This candid admission is from the evolutionist journalNature: "Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."-- Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.

Gradual change versus leaps
There are two versions of evolution theory. The main version proposes that many tiny changes over millions of years made new creatures. It is called the Modern Synthesis or Neo-Darwinian evolution.

But "major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity." "The principal 'types' seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate 'grades' or intermediate forms between different types are detectable."20

Since the fossil record does not show tiny changes between one type of creature and another, a few evolutionists proposed a modification to evolution theory. It says that change occurred by occasional leaps (punctuated equilibrium), not gradually. However, each hypothetical beneficial mutation could only make a slight change. Any more than that would be so disruptive as to cause death. So punctuated equilibrium is not really about big leaps. It envisions a lot of slight changes over thousands of years, then nothing happens for millions of years. Evolutionists say with a straight face that no fossils have been found from a leap because thousands of years is too fast in the billions of years of "geologic time" to leave any. On the other hand, without fossils there is no evidence that any leaps ever happened, and of course there is no evidence that leaps or gradual changes beyond variation are happening today in any of the millions of species that still exist.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#73554 Feb 2, 2013
Fossil record
Evolution is all about constant change, whether gradual or in leaps. Consider a cloud in the sky: it is constantly changing shape due to natural forces. It might look like, say, a rabbit now, and a few minutes later appear to be, say, a horse. In between, the whole mass is shifting about. In a few more minutes it may look like a bird. The problem for evolution is that we never see the shifting between shapes in the fossil record. All fossils are of complete animals and plants, not works in progress "under construction". That is why we can give each distinct plant or animal a name. If evolution's continuous morphing were really going on, every fossil would show change underway throughout the creature, with parts in various stages of completion. For every successful change there should be many more that lead to nothing. The whole process is random trial and error, without direction. So every plant and animal, living or fossil, should be covered inside and out with useless growths and have parts under construction. It is a grotesque image, and just what the theory of evolution really predicts. Even Charles Darwin had a glimpse of the problem in his day. He wrote in his book On the Origin of Species: "The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." The more fossils that are found, the better sense we have of what lived in the past. Since Darwin's day, the number of fossils that have been collected has grown tremendously, so we now have a pretty accurate picture. The gradual morphing of one type of creature to another that evolution predicts is nowhere to be found. There should have been millions of transitional creatures if evolution were true. In the "tree of life" that evolutionists have dreamed up, gaps in the fossil record are especially huge between single-cell creatures, complex invertebrates (such as snails, jellyfish, trilobites, clams, and sponges), and what evolutionists claim were the first vertebrates, fish. In fact, there are no fossil ancestors at all for complex invertebrates or fish. That alone is fatal to the theory of evolution. The fossil record shows that evolution never happened."

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

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
True False Game (Jun '11) 1 min andet1987 13,534
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 6 min eleanorigby 68,121
Last Word is First Word (no "breast" word please) (Jul '15) 7 min Poppyann 1,914
WHAT???? A NEW word game? FOUR WORDS (Sep '08) 10 min andet1987 45,962
4 Word Game (Use Same Letter) (Dec '14) 10 min Poppyann 1,588
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 11 min Pass it forward 9,832
"Any 3 word combination" (Dec '12) 14 min andet1987 3,569
What Turns You Off? 32 min Ferrerman 136
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 1 hr Goku Black 209,846
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 2 hr liam cul8r 2,166
More from around the web