Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 197248 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.

The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#78988 Mar 6, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
I try to understand. Unlike you who can't wrap your head around it because you have a secret agenda.
If you know it, it ain't secret. If you don't know it, then uh, you don't know it.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#78989 Mar 6, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
the photo wasn't real. it's computer art.
Yeah, the Earth is really flat. All those pics of the Earth are paintings and photoshop. All the videos are special effects.

Can't really argue with that, eh?

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#78990 Mar 6, 2013
Cybele wrote:
<quoted text>
an eye for an eye bitch
Ooooo...

Looks like you and prickles are in sync with your PMS.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#78991 Mar 6, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Why do creatards automatically assume that people who know and understand the theory of evolution are against God?
In the U.S. most people who believe the theory of evolution are Christians. They don't believe the nonsense parts of Christianity, but they are still Christians. Heck, I bet even Justsayin does not believe anywhere near all of the Bible.
Excellent point, totally agree (except for the unnecessary, albeit humorous slur). I know many engineers and scientists who believe in God. Many of them don't necessarily believe in all aspects of the Catholic Church or the Bible, but they quietly respect those who do.

“Up with which, I will not put”

Since: Jul 08

Sao Paulo

#78992 Mar 6, 2013
soory for double post, don't know how that happened...

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#78993 Mar 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Only God knows the true nature of God.
Ironically the crux and huge, glaring, flaw of religion. They are claiming to know what the possible god is, how it behaves, and what it wants, yet all that is impossible without any evidence.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#78994 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you cannot use the scientific method to disprove the existence of God.
He didn't even mention God in that post, he said Adam and Eve. And yes, actually we can and have used the scientific method to disprove Adam and Eve. The last major human genetic bottleneck was towards the end of the last ice age at around 10,000 years ago, world population approximately 100,000 if I recall. Humanity does not go back to 2 people and 2 people only, nor 8 people on a really big boat.

Unless you say evidence doesn't matter and God fixed it all with magic. To which we say...

Who cares?(shrug)

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#78995 Mar 6, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>If you can't understand what you read here you should not reply.
Yes dear.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#78996 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Ironically the crux and huge, glaring, flaw of religion. They are claiming to know what the possible god is, how it behaves, and what it wants, yet all that is impossible without any evidence.
What's more, if we say there is a being out there that creates universes in its spare time for lulz is that it makes it impossible for any one person on the face of the entire planet to know any more about such a being than anyone else could.

After all, we all have access to the same old book that mentions talking lizards and donkeys. And none of us have access to the alleged multiverse in which it resides.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#78997 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Guy? My vagina says otherwise, pal. Okay. So you don't believe in Adam and Eve. Cool. What evidence do you have to disprove that exactly? I'm curious.
Why are you asking for evidence when evidence is superfluous to one whose position is Goddidit with magic? We CAN disprove certain claims, but we can't disprove invisible Jewish magic to fix everything. In which case we can make up any old BS and say it's valid because invisible Jewmagic.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#78998 Mar 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
What's more, if we say there is a being out there that creates universes in its spare time for lulz is that it makes it impossible for any one person on the face of the entire planet to know any more about such a being than anyone else could.
After all, we all have access to the same old book that mentions talking lizards and donkeys. And none of us have access to the alleged multiverse in which it resides.
Precisely, such a being would consider us nothing more than atoms as well, we'd be insignificant simply because of the vastness it would have to occupy, making our planet itself so miniscule to it's perception that it would likely not even concern itself with what happens here. Consider that our entire solar system is half the size of many stars out there, we're freaking tiny! If anything, the universe was created for itself, not for us.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#78999 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
So are you admitting the Bible is an ancient historical text? What about the Talmud or the Midrash? They contain historical accounts as well. Do you dispute them as being accurate? Or are you going to pick and choose with that as well?
I would approach them just as I would any other document from that time period: I'd realize that written documents were very unusual and were done for public reasons by those in power. I would compare what they say with the archaeological evidence and other sources from the same time. I would realize the level of knowledge of those doing the writing and the society in which they were writing. Then I would weigh the evidence for each particular event to evaluate its reliability.

This is the procedure for *all* historical documents. Context is crucial. Motivation is crucial. Societal biases are crucial.

As an example, the Iliad tells the story of the fall of Troy. For a long time it was considered to be pure legend, but then we actually found the ruins of Troy. We also have art and armor from both sides of the conflict. Some of the names are even known and agree with those in the Iliad. But, there are also descriptions of Zeus and Athena and Hera plotting about how the war at Troy would go. There are also enlargements in the story that help the story along and are clearly not true to the actual history.

So, yes, we evaluate each piece of the document and attempt to understand when, where, and why it was written and then evaluate it to see whether it is reliable.
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#79000 Mar 6, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
He didn't even mention God in that post, he said Adam and Eve. And yes, actually we can and have used the scientific method to disprove Adam and Eve. The last major human genetic bottleneck was towards the end of the last ice age at around 10,000 years ago, world population approximately 100,000 if I recall. Humanity does not go back to 2 people and 2 people only, nor 8 people on a really big boat.
Unless you say evidence doesn't matter and God fixed it all with magic. To which we say...
Who cares?(shrug)
Technically, that would suggest that 100,000 thousand people had offspring whose descendants live to this day. With all these nit-picky theories on allele frequency and so on, we still are dismissing the ongoing process of natural and unnatural selection. I doubt the genome is mapped quite that thoroughly either. There's a lot of room for error.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79001 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Not what I said. I said you can't use the scientific method to disprove it. Something can't not exist just because you say so. Formulate whatever opinion you want. That doesn't mean you have the right to condemn mine.
Of course we can use the scientific method to disprove things. That's what it's FOR. If one has evidence, it is subject to potential falsification. If it is not subject to potential falsification then you have no evidence.

Welcome to the world of science.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#79002 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
<quoted text>
Lol Friend to the Bible. That's kinda funny. The fact that you atheists are constantly looking for proof makes me wonder if you secretly hope that you'll find some.
As a kid, I hoped I'd find some.

I remember seeing an article about finding evidence of Noah's ark in the form of a piece of wood on top of some mountain that was possibly Mt. Ararat.

I was like, "Oh. Cool!"

But being a skeptic even at that early age, I did some more research. It wasn't as easy in those days without google, but eventually it became readily apparent that it was hogwash.

Naturally, I was disappointed, but eventually, after disappointment upon disappointment, I accepted that the bible (I just misspelled it "bibile". Kind of appropriate.) was a collection of fairy tales with practically no basis in reality.

That acceptance lead to a fascination with science, but also made me feel very isolated from the rest of the believing world.

I was forced by necessity to keep my skepticism and growing atheism strictly to myself just to keep the peace in a very religious and large extended family.

Life ain't easy living amidst world of delusion.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#79003 Mar 6, 2013
FREE SERVANT wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, theories change often and most of these people are just guessing about how stars form and how they group into systems or how they release elements as well as the rest. They really don't know much about what happened first but, they sure want us to think they know something.
You sure want us to think they don't.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#79004 Mar 6, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, that would suggest that 100,000 thousand people had offspring whose descendants live to this day. With all these nit-picky theories on allele frequency and so on, we still are dismissing the ongoing process of natural and unnatural selection. I doubt the genome is mapped quite that thoroughly either. There's a lot of room for error.
Erm ... of course there's "room for error," each new offspring will be different than the parent, unless you're a clone.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#79005 Mar 6, 2013
anonymous wrote:
<quoted text>
Technically, that would suggest that 100,000 thousand people had offspring whose descendants live to this day. With all these nit-picky theories on allele frequency and so on, we still are dismissing the ongoing process of natural and unnatural selection. I doubt the genome is mapped quite that thoroughly either. There's a lot of room for error.
You may be dismissing it.(shrug)
anonymous

Barberton, OH

#79006 Mar 6, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Erm ... of course there's "room for error," each new offspring will be different than the parent, unless you're a clone.
The prediction is based on math models for the number of alleles that would have existed once you eliminate more recent mutations and then estimate how many individuals it would have likely required to account for that gene pool. It may only be based on only one allele that represents the least diversity in gene pool.

It should, but probably doesn't include alleles that existed at that time but are no longer in the gene pool. The time is probably right, but I suspect the numbers are off.

“I see quantum effects”

Level 2

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#79007 Mar 6, 2013
01Justsayin wrote:
Seriously. You people could argue with a lamppost.
It would be more productive.

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 Barista Confuses Helen Hunt For Another Oscar W... 2 min Dr Wu 5
News Man admits to cashing dead grandmother's Social... 2 min Jack 13
***Keep a Word~Drop a Word*** (Jan '10) 2 min Old Sam 81,794
Change-one-of-six-letters (Dec '12) 3 min SweLL GirL 8,389
LOVE and OTHER BRUISES (Apr '12) 3 min KNIGHT DeVINE 1,603
Last two letters into two new words... (Jun '15) 3 min Old Sam 2,871
True False Game (Jun '11) 4 min andet1987 12,152
Crystal_Clears Kitchen (Refurbished) 13 min Just saying 6,036
Last Post Wins! (Aug '08) 16 min SweLL GirL 144,728
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 31 min wichita-rick 190,710
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 1 hr honeymylove 32,070
Answer a question with a question (Apr '15) 1 hr Princess Hey 2,320
More from around the web