Evolution vs. Creation

Evolution vs. Creation

There are 223191 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

Macclesfield, UK

#80043 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>It most certainly is. However, that still doesn't mean life happened that way and wasn't created to be seen that way. It also doesn't mean that is could never be wrong and changed in the future. I agree the likelihood of that is improbable, but the possibility has to be there in order for it to remain scientific.
<quoted text>I'm not sure what your point is. Mine was just because you cannot explain where the dead body came from or who it is, does not mean it never existed until you could lay hands on. That's the problem with the entire internet evolution verses creation verses hid noodly appendage arguments. Two of those we expect unsupported claims, but science makes no such claim about something not existing unless it can be tested or evidence is found. It only makes the claim that something can't be tested, falsified, or that there is no evidence to support it. That however, does not mean it doesn't exist just as the nameless dead man certainly existed before his discovery alongside a road.
<quoted text>A fundie favorite or not, it doesn't make it any less valid when someone understands it to be true through some person experience. Entire court cases, money and freedom are won or lost based on people's eye witness accounting.
<quoted text>It's no more a logical fallacy then our understanding of history. You have to believe the eye witness accounts of dead people who you cannot question and accept that what they say is at minimum what they believed at the time. Do you apply the same dismissal of everything not directly scientifically verified as in Washington crossing the Delaware river or that the English got their asses handed to them by a few soldiers and a lot of dirt farmers in the battle of New Orleans?
<quoted text>I don't think you are listening. It does not mean they are valid, it means they are not invalid. There is a difference, all UFO claims which have no evidence to debunk are not automatically valid, they are not invalid therefor could be valid. There was absolutely no evidence until recently that we could turn lead into gold, does that mean all claims that lead could be turned into gold were valid, no. It means that the claim was not invalid which was proven relatively recently when it happened.
<quoted text>That's not really the implications I gathered from your previous interactions with me in this thread. However, I will not contest your claim as I'm fine with that interpretation. People who get religious tend to do so on a personal level and to them, their relationship with God is more valid then other religions (which is probably why there are so many religions). All to often I see people claiming religion is false because evolution or science says so which is far from what evolution or science says. I could have been reading other experiences into your posts and doing you injustice to your actual intents. If I did that, I apologize.
And I've said from the beginning that theism is irrelevant to science. Which is why I've always argued AGAINST equating evolution (or science in general) with atheism.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80045 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps, you got a c on this paper when you were 18, but it does not wash here. I find it humorous how evolutionist try to defend themselves by using biology, mutation, allele frequencies, interracial marriages and all kinds of crap science.
One of 100 flaws with your cancer theory is this, all humans have cancer cells normally in their body, they are not mutations. You do not ecven undserstand cancer cells, white cells and red cells. Here is how it works, cancer cells can not increase and grow where oxygen is abundant, Remove and decrease oxygen and they grow. It is a dead cell growth, like decaying mattes common with things that are dead. This is why, when cancer goes to far, the limb, breast etc must be severed, if it can be.
Chop off your arm, leg, pluck out your eye, cut off an ear, this is not mutation, this is bodily harm and destruciton of living organisms.
Yeah, I got a C. You got an F.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80046 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>Perhaps, you meant the evoltuion story of your mom turning from a rat, to pig, to cockroach, to worm to your mom and back, and you calling that the evolution of you.
If you know so much about biology then why do you constantly ask for us to provide examples of violations of nested hierarchies as evidence for evolution?

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80047 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless you can provide observable mechanisms of intelligence then I'd say that gravity is so far a non-intelligent process.
you might as well pointed out a rock...I'm talking the system as integrated working system as a whole. including gravity and rocks...

“the end-times is now”

Level 2

Since: Feb 13

Location hidden

#80048 Mar 9, 2013
Oh that's right .. from the gue .. to the zoo .. to you ... OOooops !!.. http://www.gty.org/MediaPlayer/Sermons/80-367 .. then there was man
bohart

White Pine, TN

#80050 Mar 9, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Repeat after me:
"I don't know" does not equate to "goddidit".
There.
That didn't hurt at all, now, didit.
Why does , I don't know, then equate to God didn't do it?

You puddle gooists are a riot!
bohart

White Pine, TN

#80052 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No need. You've been debunked in that area hundreds of times already. Just like you ran away every time you were demonstrated incorrect re your baseless opinions on abiogenesis, you ran away here and changed the subject again. Ah well, at least you are safe in knowledgeability of how to have a good time at a creationist country music festival. In that case I would certainly defer to your expertise.
You've done nothing but lie hundreds of times. Tell me again how a maternity ward is proof of abiogenesis? You puddle gooist fundie.
bohart

White Pine, TN

#80054 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really. Both have been scientifically observed to rely on chemistry.
Well then for the 572nd time tell me and all humanity how chemistry brought about the first life? Or else your lying!

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#80055 Mar 9, 2013
adif understanding wrote:
<quoted text>If that is all you can offer, you need to go sit this out in the creationist corner too. At some point in evolution, life had to be created (abiogenesis or creation, pick one or make something else up, it doesn't matter).
BTW, "observed fact" of redundant. A scientific fact is an observation, you are essentially saying an "observed observation" in some attempt (knowingly or unknowingly) to lend more credit to the term fact in reference to the scientific method.
No.

Let's try this again.

Evolution is observed and demonstrable.

The origin of life is not.

The fact that we don't know how life originated is not evidence for your deity.

Absent evidence for a deity, there's no reason to believe in one.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#80058 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, peer-review does.
And that is not part of peer review?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Already discussed ring species.
Sigh, ring species is a red hearing. It's the "well, we are almost there so it must be true". Next time you are in a car with someone else driving, try opening a phone book and picking a random address and then saying "well, we are almost there so it must be true" and see how close you get.

Of course I'm not saying observations of ring species are random picks like that, but the credibility simply isn't there yet. We have been managing the breeding and in some cases even created the ring species but we have yet to create a new species because of it. Of course this goes back to the Species problem too.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, it means breeding problems are due to genetic incompatibility, just as evolution predicts.
No, you are wrong. The salamanders and gulls I specifically mentioned are claimed as speciation events and there is absolutely no genetic incompatibilities. The only genetic problems they have is the southern salamanders choose not to mate with the northern salamanders. They are genetically identical as a species other then that trait and the gulls are one separate migration paths. After looking for a cite, I see they are backing away from the claim of speciation now and claiming a step in speciation with the salamanders.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
No, as while genetic compatibility cannot be measured in fossils, comparative anatomy can.
Exactly but that leads to the canine problem in which all breeds of dogs would be considered a separate species with some common ancestors. It presents a problem with reality when we understand and know dogs to be the same species. So how do we know those two sets of fossils that are different species with a common ancestor is not in reality the equivalent of a German Shepard and a Great Dane and the same species if they were alive and observed in real time?
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Just suggesting God's non-existence is a possibility due to the lack of scientific evidence.
Yep, it sure is. But it is hardley presented as a possibility and generally presented as fact which is not a scientific claim.

Since: Jun 12

Location hidden

#80059 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless you can provide observable mechanisms of intelligence then I'd say that gravity is so far a non-intelligent process.
"observable mechanisms of intelligence" are all around you. Just because

you fail to knowledge them...doesn't mean they don't exist.
by your own incorporation of universal design to advance science you are indirectly acknowledging superior design through mimicking.

you make an mechanical devise of a the solar system, and call this an intelligent process...then claim that the real thing, is not an intelligent process?...sounds like something a monkey would do.(pun intended)
bohart

White Pine, TN

#80061 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
<quoted text>
some people think of eternal as a really really really long time ... however I believe that eternal is actually a dimension where time does not exist ... where God exists .. time is not relevant or maybe does not exist at all ... evolutionist put that in your test tube ... ha !!
Good point!
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#80062 Mar 9, 2013
macumazahn wrote:
<quoted text>No.
Let's try this again.
Evolution is observed and demonstrable.
The origin of life is not.
The fact that we don't know how life originated is not evidence for your deity.
Absent evidence for a deity, there's no reason to believe in one.
If we are going to try it again, then lets be accurate. Parts of biological evolution theory is observed and demonstrated but it certainly is not completely observed and demonstrated in it's entirety.

Absent any evidence for or against a deity is no reason to have or not to have an opinion on the diety in the first place. It certainly is not reason to not believe in one if you do choose. The evidence most people have are not the type you can articulate easily and stem from personal experiences. Your lack of belief is no reason for them not to. There is nothing unscientific about it.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80063 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
you might as well pointed out a rock...I'm talking the system as integrated working system as a whole. including gravity and rocks...
Unless you can provide observable mechanisms of intelligence then I'd say that gravity is, so far, a non-intelligent process.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#80064 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't presume nothing. I just a observe. And what I do observe is an uncomprehensible obvious intelligence universe.
You should check out Answersingenesis, too:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/t...

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#80065 Mar 9, 2013
xxxooxxx wrote:
<quoted text>
nope sorry your wrong. This was covered before.
No.
It was ignored before.
By the massively ignorant.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80066 Mar 9, 2013
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
<quoted text>And it has been proven that evolution is not science, not illogical religious dogma. Which is why I've always argued AGAINST equating evoltuion with science, when it is a religion of a social nature with no scientific basis.
I've demonstrated otherwise.
Oscar Wilde_ wrote:
If I told you that the proof that God is God and always was, is the fact that his earth and his creation man are still here, you owuld cry foul, but that is what you do with your evolution religious dogma.
Proof is only for math, even you pointed that out. Remember? Now, if you had scientific evidence I would consider it.
adif understanding

Little Hocking, OH

#80067 Mar 9, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
And I've said from the beginning that theism is irrelevant to science. Which is why I've always argued AGAINST equating evolution (or science in general) with atheism.
I'm glad that you feel that way. However, it is not the case with many who do use Science to further their Atheism. In fact, all you have to do is read other posts in this thread to see it in action.

I guess if you don't want to be called a thug, tell the thugs to get away from you or go where they are not. But as long as you are around them saying the same or similar things, you will be viewed as one of them even if it is a mistake.

“H-o-o-o-o-o-o-ld on thar!”

Level 7

Since: Sep 08

The Borderland of Sol

#80068 Mar 9, 2013
His-truth wrote:
Oh that's right .. from the gue .. to the zoo .. to you ... OOooops !!.. http://www.gty.org/MediaPlayer/Sermons/80-367 .. then there was man
That's really not how it works, you know.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#80069 Mar 9, 2013
bohart wrote:
<quoted text>
You've done nothing but lie hundreds of times. Tell me again how a maternity ward is proof of abiogenesis? You puddle gooist fundie.
I never lied to you. You have. Like now for instance. I never claimed a maternity ward is proof of abiogenesis, I pointed out that it was evidence of natural chemical processes producing life. Abiogenesis proposes natural chemical processes producing life. You claim natural chemical processes producing life is impossible. You are unable to demonstrate it of course.

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) 9 min Ricky F 226,071
'Double Letter S' (Dec '12) 17 min quilterqueen 1,197
2 - Rhyming Words (Oct '11) 17 min quilterqueen 3,833
Post any FOUR words (Feb '16) 18 min quilterqueen 3,816
"3 words beginning with similar Letters!" (Dec '12) 20 min quilterqueen 361
3 Word Sentence (each word, one syllable only) (Jan '15) 20 min quilterqueen 1,451
~`*`~ Create a sentence using the 'letters' of ... (Oct '12) 23 min quilterqueen 4,344
Denny Crain's Place (May '10) 23 min F_R_E_D aka Ohio ... 32,450
JUST SAY SOMETHING. Whatever comes to mind!! (Aug '09) 3 hr Suezanne 34,394
Poll What are you thinking right now? (May '08) 5 hr Laura Befffy 6,731
More from around the web