Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 218748 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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#74151 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Or maybe, what you read or heard were said by men trying to influence others into going certain political ways... so they made up things.
Have you really consider all thing?
Like: Jesus was not found as a name in the gospel but inserted later.

Atheism has not been the same of late.
We used to be way more knowledgable than any christian, safe the ones with a good European theology university education.
That would agree and understand concepts like MYTH, DOGMA and TENETS OF BELIEVE. And since they can't explain it all and feel better with a SOMETHING around, they would say they are believers.
And usually they pick what suits them.

Believe is per definition agnostic. Otherwise you would know and believe would not be needed.

It's extremely rare to meet such types as found here on the forum in Europe*...with thus so little knowledge about the history and theology in general.

Bar some backward eastern countries that picked up where they left of in the middle ages. Throwing stones at orpanages with HIV kids. Excorcisms on the schizophrenic till death, for it must be of the devil. And more of that sort of retarded...uhm good christian behaviour. Even the pantzerpope endorses it! Weird times.

Give'm a finger and they take your right to live away.

And frankly one cannot attack abstractions. Love, holiness, redemption, hate a.s.o.
But literalism ...anytime.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#74152 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. The term 'law' is often used incorrectly to describe a well tested theory. Newton's Law of Gravity was still a theory. Later proven not to be completely correct.
Curses upon ye of the quicksilver like keyboard.....

or...I agree totally with what you just posted seconds before me...

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#74153 Feb 6, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>We have no theories that are 100% certain, do we?
I would think that why they call them theories, and not laws.Duh.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#74154 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other."
The Happy Scientist say's different...
thehappyscientist.com
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experime...
why doesn't that law work at the sub-atomic level? how can it be a law if it isn't 100% certain?

if you are googling stuff to support claims you already made, you are bound to fail, just as if you write a college research paer by making a statement and then 'researching' the facts that support it. had to "F" a lot of those papers in my day....

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#74155 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other."
The Happy Scientist say's different...
thehappyscientist.com
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experime...
Still wrong. And you misunderstood him. The LAW describes the mathematical relationship. It is not the same as a theory.

Level 1

Since: Feb 13

Riverside , CA

#74156 Feb 6, 2013
The scientific theory is one of the beautiful things about science. You see science is OK with being wrong in fact it goes out of its way to prove its self wrong all the time. This is the only way to find truth. Many theory's including gravity and evolution can not be dis proven. So dose this mean they are not 100% fact because they carry the title of theory? No it doesn't it just means that science isn't happy with calling anything FACT because nothing is certain and we are always learning new things.

Unlike religion that explains everything with "GOD MAKE THIS" end of story ...

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#74157 Feb 6, 2013
Yankee Yahoo wrote:
Biology proves beyond that the shadow of any doubt that all life fiercely resists change, which is why DNA is the backbone of life. It is precisely the LACK of change that makes the evolutionary model impossible.
Life resists change too much to make it work.
If that were true, animal breeders would have no way of developing new breeds.
neutral observer

West Palm Beach, FL

#74158 Feb 6, 2013
MADRONE wrote:
<quoted text>
Overwhelming evidence is not "proof". There exists a remote possibility that there could be an explanation which defies all evidence and rational understanding. Biblical Delusionists will provide you with that explanation.
What is the point in denial? If you wish to say a creator was behind the big bang and guided the evolutionary process...

It is silly to pretend they are not real.

Anyone too dumb to know the Bible was not written to be taken literally... a bunch of parables strung together to form a morality tale... even the ancient Hebrews understood that much.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#74159 Feb 6, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
Like: Jesus was not found as a name in the gospel but inserted later.
Atheism has not been the same of late.
We used to be way more knowledgable than any christian, safe the ones with a good European theology university education.
That would agree and understand concepts like MYTH, DOGMA and TENETS OF BELIEVE. And since they can't explain it all and feel better with a SOMETHING around, they would say they are believers.
And usually they pick what suits them.
Believe is per definition agnostic. Otherwise you would know and believe would not be needed.
It's extremely rare to meet such types as found here on the forum in Europe*...with thus so little knowledge about the history and theology in general.
Bar some backward eastern countries that picked up where they left of in the middle ages. Throwing stones at orpanages with HIV kids. Excorcisms on the schizophrenic till death, for it must be of the devil. And more of that sort of retarded...uhm good christian behaviour. Even the pantzerpope endorses it! Weird times.
Give'm a finger and they take your right to live away.
And frankly one cannot attack abstractions. Love, holiness, redemption, hate a.s.o.
But literalism ...anytime.
One of the biggest fallacy ever propagated by atheists, is that to be a Christian one must know the letter of biblical law, which was directly addressed by the Christ.(Faith)

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#74160 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
"So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other."
The Happy Scientist say's different...
thehappyscientist.com
http://thehappyscientist.com/science-experime...
yeah, see the happy scientist is trying to eplain complex ideas to people that are dumber than a bos of rocks. his statement that we can use newtons formulae for the attraction of bodies holds true for crude calculations. as stated previously, if we used those formulae, or laws as you would call them, to launch missiles or orbiters or moon rockets, they would not work. If yout Tom Tom or Google maps Gps system used them, they would not work.

is that really a law if it doesn't work in all situations? this is why real scientists don't really use that term any more.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#74161 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Still wrong. And you misunderstood him. The LAW describes the mathematical relationship. It is not the same as a theory.
nope.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#74162 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I would think that why they call them theories, and not laws.Duh.
But...but...but...you said we had scientific laws?

why do you fools keep contradicting yourselves when trying to debunk things you don't even have the slightest clue about? oh yeah..you don't have the slightest clue as to what you are talking about....that's why.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#74163 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I would think that why they call them theories, and not laws.Duh.
Is this the same old rehashing you spoke of earlier, where you say incorrect stuff and everyone corrects you?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#74164 Feb 6, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Still wrong. And you misunderstood him. The LAW describes the mathematical relationship. It is not the same as a theory.
Wait a minute...your science buddy just told me they were the very same thing...which is it?

You guys really need to share your index cards more.lol

Level 1

Since: Feb 13

Riverside , CA

#74165 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Your the one who needs to read a science book.
Oh i have read many, OK, try this, pick an object Hold it out in front of you and release it. What happens? It falls, of course. The gravitational attraction between the Earth and the object pulls it towards the ground. But, when we do this experiment, should we be talking about the Law of Gravity or the Theory of Gravity?

Actually, we should be talking about both. To understand why, we need to understand the scientific meaning of the words "law" and "theory."

In the language of science, the word "law" describes an analytic statement. It gives us a formula that tells us what things will do. For example, Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation tells us that "Every point mass attracts every single point mass by a force pointing along the line intersecting both points. The force is directly proportional to the product of the two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the point masses." That formula will let us calculate the gravitational pull between the Earth and the object you dropped, between the Sun and Mars, or between me and a bowl of ice cream.

We can use Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to calculate how strong the gravitational pull is between the Earth and the object you dropped, which would let us calculate its acceleration as it falls, how long it will take to hit the ground, how fast it would be going at impact, how much energy it will take to pick it up again, etc.

While the law lets us calculate quite a bit about what happens, notice that it does not tell us anything about why it happens. That is what theories are for. In the language of science, the word "theory" is used to describe an explanation of why and how things happen. For gravity, we use Einstein's Theory of General Relativity to explain why things fall.

A theory starts as one or more hypotheses, untested ideas about why something happens. For example, I might propose a hypothesis that the object that you released fell because it was pulled by the Earth's magnetic field. Once we started testing, it would not take long to find out that my hypothesis was not supported by the evidence. Non-magnetic objects fall at the same rate as magnetic objects. Because it was not supported by the evidence, my hypothesis does not gain the status of being a theory. To become a scientific theory, an idea must be thoroughly tested, and must be an accurate and predictive description of the natural world.

While laws rarely change, theories change frequently as new evidence is discovered. Instead of being discarded due to new evidence, theories are often revised to include the new evidence in their explanation. The Theory of General Relativity has adapted as new technologies and new evidence have expanded our view of the universe.

So when we are scientifically discussing gravity, we can talk about the law that describes the attraction between two objects, and we can also talk about the theory that describes why the objects attract each other.
neutral observer

West Palm Beach, FL

#74166 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the biggest fallacy ever propagated by atheists, is that to be a Christian one must know the letter of biblical law, which was directly addressed by the Christ.(Faith)
Athiests somehow care about Christian theological discussions? That one is funny.

“That's just MY opinion...”

Since: Jan 07

Location hidden

#74167 Feb 6, 2013
neutral observer wrote:
What is the point in denial? If you wish to say a creator was behind the big bang and guided the evolutionary process...
It is silly to pretend they are not real.
Anyone too dumb to know the Bible was not written to be taken literally... a bunch of parables strung together to form a morality tale... even the ancient Hebrews understood that much.
You seem to have developed some sort of theory about my beliefs based on your inability to understand my posts. My theory is that you are a f*cking moron.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#74168 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
One of the biggest fallacy ever propagated by atheists, is that to be a Christian one must know the letter of biblical law, which was directly addressed by the Christ.(Faith)
Anyone can be part of the christian cult. i hear people who say they are christians who don't follow the words of christ all the time...

when dealing with myths rehashed from previous myths, it really doesn't matter what you call yourself, does it?

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#74169 Feb 6, 2013
neutral observer wrote:
<quoted text>
Athiests somehow care about Christian theological discussions? That one is funny.
Well, I've never considered myself an athiest i just have no religious beliefs...but i love theology and its discussion. watching people try to rationalize what has been proven to be a lie is funny as shit...like mice in a maze. but not quite as quick...

we really should run studies on them...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#74170 Feb 6, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
Then show me a statement that theory is defined as 100% certainty.
If not, then you are foolish looking.
I'll be waiting.
Theory as the highest accolade in science. It can be further worked out to ever more details.

Are we just arguing for argument sake...silly business.

It's just that you can find the perfect definition of scientific theory with a bit of googling.
It's not so vague that it merits even a discussion.
Since part and package is that it stands untill falsified, and then it would still be theory and the scientific method properly applied. Self-correcting and that's the beuaty of it.

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 BUSTER: Michigan Man, 54, Arrested For 14th Tim... 7 min Gov Corbutt of th... 3
News 35% of British workers admit to having got away... 14 min Gov Corbutt of th... 3
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 58 min Goku Black 209,806
A to Z songs by title or group! 1 hr wichita-rick 596
News 7 Weird But Real Jobs 1 hr wichita-rick 9
Keep a Word.....Drop a Word Game (Sep '13) 1 hr Mila Beaujolais 13,004
tell me one word to describe yourself (Jun '09) 1 hr Mila Beaujolais 16,742
What turns you on ? (Aug '11) 3 hr streetglidehoney 2,142
News Mums sick of kids' illnesses - 18 times a year 3 hr Enzo49 30
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 4 hr Enzo49 68,063
True False Game (Jun '11) 4 hr Enzo49 13,477
More from around the web