Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 221479 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.

“what we think we become”

Level 5

Since: Aug 11

above and beyond

#79872 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>God is just as much a fact as the unknown person who you spoke with the other night. You cannot scientifically prove he/she ever existed or that you actually spoke with someone either. It doesn't change the fact that you spoke with someone. A deceased man is found alongside the road with no identification or identifying marks and his identity is completely unknown- No scientific test provides answers to his identity. He didn't magically appear once he died and was found.
The point wasn't that God existed, it was that science doesn't mean he doesn't exist and the very premise of science could be his creation to boot. There is nothing restricting a God to the bounds of science and any violation of any scientific principle means absolutely nothing in regards to any reality pertaining to a God. It only means that he isn't scientifically testable. Holding someone to the standard of proof scientifically else it isn't true is not even scientific in and of itself. For years, alchemist and metallurgist have attempted to turn lead into gold. The failed but it did not mean it was not possible, only that we didn't know how to do it as recently, we have figured it out in small amounts in a lab setting. So the lack of scientific evidence does not mean something does not exist, only that we have no scientific evidence that it does.
Exactly. They want God to pass the scientific method. How absurd is that? Why would God that created the entire universe become a science experiment? Even if science could provide evidence and can show it to be testable, it would still not have scientific explanation for its entire being. God is beyond the realm of science and human logic. Science can only get a glimpse of it but not be able to fully explain it. In fact, we can't even use the scientific method for the origin of all the universes because the laws of physics that we know are bounded in our planet. We can't even apply the same laws of physics in Pluto and yet we try to explain blackholes and the big bang with these current laws. We do know that elements are manufactured in the stars, but can it be testable? Then why would they come up with excuses that there are no intelligent life in other planets or galaxies because we can't possibly reach them and yet they have scientific theories for how stars are formed despite the fact that there is no way we can get to even the nearest star in a lifetime.

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79873 Mar 9, 2013
"Creatards" ... now you're just showing me you're not worthy of discussion ... apologize

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#79874 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
are you telling me evolution explains origin ??.. Y/N
Can the skin color of a species change?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#79875 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
"Creatards" ... now you're just showing me you're not worthy of discussion ... apologize
No. Creatards is an apt descriptive term for most creationists.

If you refuse to look at evidence. If you don't even know the meaning of evidence. If you go to lying sites for science after it is explained to you how they lie and some of them even openly admit that they will lie. Then you are a creatard.

Sadly this word applies to far too many creationists.

I have not called you a creatard yet. You have not shown that you fully deserve it, though you have been going to creatard sites for your "science".

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#79876 Mar 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Can the skin color of a species change?
I'm sure it can

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#79877 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
are you telling me evolution explains origin ??.. Y/N
Origins of different species or the origin of life itself?

The answer to the first is yes, the answer to the second is no. The origin of life itself is the study of abiogenesis, a separate but related subject. By the way, technically even creationists believe in abiogenesis.
Kipling

United States

#79878 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
"Creatards" ... now you're just showing me you're not worthy of discussion ... apologize
You ever see those parades in Mexico?
You know the ones with the big heads on average size body's?

Well when Sub zone joins he doesn't have to put on a fake head his head is big enough on its own.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#79879 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I already pointed out that the link gave no scientific reference so I never actually made a commentary on how valid it was either way. I just pointed out how you were dishonestly cherry-picking what was convenient. THEN I pointed out that YOUR error margin was greater than SIX THOUSAND percent. So I worry very little about whatever ad-homs you throw my way, all things considered.(shrug)
apparently science had been keeping that one kinda low key...I wonder why?

ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news and science breakthroughs -- updated daily

When The Earth Dried Out

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/...

Many geologists agree with this scenario, Moores said. What is controversial is how quickly the Earth changed from a planet covered in water with a few mountainous islands to one with large continental landmasses. According to Moores' theory, the continents emerged quite suddenly, over about 200 million years, at the same time that the supercontinent Rodinia was forming.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#79880 Mar 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
There is no micro or macro evolution. It is all evolution. Creationists have never been able to prove that there is a limit to evolution or where that limit is.
Evolution is still the winner. There is no evidence of "intelligence".
Actually, there is a macro and micro. It is the dividing point in which people claim a species evolves as it's own and when a species evolves into another. The bubble theory of evolution states something of the sorts that the RNA sequent were created like bubbles of foam in the wave action of the ocean. If you tested the foam, it wouldn't be the same 10 meters apart and the primordial soup that generated life was created similar to that. This means that all species are formed at one time and did not evolve from other species outside of semantics used to segregate the timeline of evolution. In other words, a species did not evolve from common ancestors but from unique ancestors and all the diversity in life we see comes from microevolution of the same species created in the same or similar events.

Of course this is just theory as well as the evidence of panspermia events that could cause the same things to happen. The macro evolution or speciation as the creationist and atheist like to call it, has not been observed directly and there is no transitional fossils without employing semantics (manipulation of language) to make findings fit. There is no one universal definition for species and all speciation events attempt to employ up to 5 different ones in order to make the claims.

There was an interesting discussion a while back which included some prominent evolutionist. It came down to the diversity of dogs in which there are so many different species that if we did not have a living specimens to go by and all we had was a fossil record, applying these same rules would have required the majority of breeds of dogs to be classified as different species yet because they are live and well among us, we treat them as breeds or types of the same species.

And as I said in another post, in science, the lack of evidence only means there is a lack of evidence, not that something did not happen, could not happen, or would not happen- only that we do not know if it did or will happen.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#79881 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
apparently science had been keeping that one kinda low key...I wonder why?
ScienceDaily: Your source for the latest research news and science breakthroughs -- updated daily
When The Earth Dried Out
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/02/...
Many geologists agree with this scenario, Moores said. What is controversial is how quickly the Earth changed from a planet covered in water with a few mountainous islands to one with large continental landmasses. According to Moores' theory, the continents emerged quite suddenly, over about 200 million years, at the same time that the supercontinent Rodinia was forming.
There is a huge difference between quite suddenly for geologists and quite suddenly for creationists. It still took 200 million years for the first continents to form.

I know you are tying to defend flood nonsense, but the fact that over a billion years ago the Earth may have been covered with water is not the route to take.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#79882 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>Actually, there is a macro and micro. It is the dividing point in which people claim a species evolves as it's own and when a species evolves into another. The bubble theory of evolution states something of the sorts that the RNA sequent were created like bubbles of foam in the wave action of the ocean. If you tested the foam, it wouldn't be the same 10 meters apart and the primordial soup that generated life was created similar to that. This means that all species are formed at one time and did not evolve from other species outside of semantics used to segregate the timeline of evolution. In other words, a species did not evolve from common ancestors but from unique ancestors and all the diversity in life we see comes from microevolution of the same species created in the same or similar events.
Of course this is just theory as well as the evidence of panspermia events that could cause the same things to happen. The macro evolution or speciation as the creationist and atheist like to call it, has not been observed directly and there is no transitional fossils without employing semantics (manipulation of language) to make findings fit. There is no one universal definition for species and all speciation events attempt to employ up to 5 different ones in order to make the claims.
There was an interesting discussion a while back which included some prominent evolutionist. It came down to the diversity of dogs in which there are so many different species that if we did not have a living specimens to go by and all we had was a fossil record, applying these same rules would have required the majority of breeds of dogs to be classified as different species yet because they are live and well among us, we treat them as breeds or types of the same species.
And as I said in another post, in science, the lack of evidence only means there is a lack of evidence, not that something did not happen, could not happen, or would not happen- only that we do not know if it did or will happen.
What are you smoking? You are not describing anything that the modern or any theory of evolution describes.

When monumental idiocy of this sort appears I demand links.

I don't think you will be able to find any.

“I Am No One Else”

Level 7

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#79883 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm sure it can
Then could the hair coverage change in the species after that?
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#79884 Mar 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What are you smoking? You are not describing anything that the modern or any theory of evolution describes.
When monumental idiocy of this sort appears I demand links.
I don't think you will be able to find any.
You better look again. And this time, stay away from those atheist it's all fact sites.

The bubble theory of evolution is not mainstream, panspermia is not mainstream, but they exist and they are part of the scientific debate on evolution. If you can't grasp that in your little head, then go sit with the creationists in the dunce cap section.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79885 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
And of course the proven winner is evolution .. only in the micro .. not the macro ...
Micro, macro, it's all the same. And all been demonstrated.
His-truth wrote:
PS: evolution does not explain origin ...
Gravity doesn't explain origin. But both theories work.
His-truth wrote:
all life is triune .. matter / energy and ...
... and?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#79886 Mar 9, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
If ice is simple cause and effect, why can't the origin of the universe be as well?
like I said before...a true void would not contain laws...unless your suggesting that there are eternal laws that stand apart from time and space...such as God?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79887 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>God is just as much a fact as the unknown person who you spoke with the other night. You cannot scientifically prove he/she ever existed or that you actually spoke with someone either. It doesn't change the fact that you spoke with someone.
Actually it can be demonstrated.
adif understanding wrote:
A deceased man is found alongside the road with no identification or identifying marks and his identity is completely unknown- No scientific test provides answers to his identity. He didn't magically appear once he died and was found.
Actually a simple blood test would be a clue to his identity. His facial appearance would be a clue to his identity. His fingerprints would be a clue to his identity. Possibly his clothes could be a clue to his identity.

Obviously you would make a LOUSY forensic investigator.
adif understanding wrote:
The point wasn't that God existed, it was that science doesn't mean he doesn't exist and the very premise of science could be his creation to boot. There is nothing restricting a God to the bounds of science and any violation of any scientific principle means absolutely nothing in regards to any reality pertaining to a God. It only means that he isn't scientifically testable.
Then if it is not testable then there is no way to distinguish it from BS.
adif understanding wrote:
Holding someone to the standard of proof scientifically else it isn't true is not even scientific in and of itself.
Indeed. The Cosmic Sheep from dimension Zog might sound like complete BS. But it COULD be true.
adif understanding wrote:
For years, alchemist and metallurgist have attempted to turn lead into gold. The failed but it did not mean it was not possible, only that we didn't know how to do it as recently, we have figured it out in small amounts in a lab setting. So the lack of scientific evidence does not mean something does not exist, only that we have no scientific evidence that it does.
Bingo. And this is what separates science from religious dogma. For it may be possible that in the future more evidence may be discovered that may require us to change existing theories, or on rare occasions throw them out entirely.

But until that time, we stick with the science that works.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#79888 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>You better look again. And this time, stay away from those atheist it's all fact sites.
The bubble theory of evolution is not mainstream, panspermia is not mainstream, but they exist and they are part of the scientific debate on evolution. If you can't grasp that in your little head, then go sit with the creationists in the dunce cap section.
What is an "atheist site". I do not use atheist sites, I use science based sites.

You made a ridiculous claim and provided no evidence to support it.

Without evidence idiocy like yours is not only ignored, it is laughed at.

So once again, provide evidence for your idiocy.

Langoliers

Since: Apr 12

Location hidden

#79889 Mar 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually we don'e have any idea what a true void would be like since it seems to be impossible in our universe.
Bush called it the Iron Ridge when he was here!

LOL
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79890 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
no .. God is not testable .. God is not bound by time and space ... He created time and space .. god sees the beginning and the end all in one glance ... Hid creation however .. bares his trademark ... intelligence .. proven
If you can't test it then it's not demonstrable. Hence not proven.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#79891 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
not at all ... micro can view changes w/in a species .. however .. species to species is not proven .. only presumed
Not presumed, observed. Take ring species for instance.

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
What song are you listening to right now? (Apr '08) 3 min rainmaker2016 218,629
Post "any three words" (Sep '12) 3 min Princess Hey 4,248
El's Kitchen (Feb '09) 10 min BRIGITTE 75,992
Word Association (Mar '10) 29 min SweLL GirL 22,248
Change 1 letter game! (Nov '11) 33 min SweLL GirL 10,761
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 48 min Finny Ferret Got ... 22,848
CHANGE One letter CHANCE (Sep '08) 52 min SweLL GirL 36,740
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 1 hr FinnyFerret Needs... 4,279
More from around the web